$400 / month rent in San Fran - but there's a catch!!

P.B.R. wrote:

It actually is primarily to physical limitations with the current Wifi (802.11ad) standard, and the havoc it could wreak on the city in having so many signals beaming out and down from the taller buildings, into the "cloud", etc. They're understandably very cautious about those type of issues there.

So why isn't that an issue in Midtown or Hong Kong - cities that have a far greater concentration of skyscrapers than SF will ever have?

Random dude bro wrote:

[quote]askingaquestion wrote:

A decent quality 1BR in SF (decent means no rat or mice) is roundabout $4000 a month ($48k per year).

i live in a beautiful, rat/mice/bug/etc free 1BR apartment in the northeast quadrant of the city (ie not in bmblfck) and pay $2100. you are full of it.

skeptic3 wrote:

P.B.R. wrote:

It actually is primarily to physical limitations with the current Wifi (802.11ad) standard, and the havoc it could wreak on the city in having so many signals beaming out and down from the taller buildings, into the "cloud", etc. They're understandably very cautious about those type of issues there.

So why isn't that an issue in Midtown or Hong Kong - cities that have a far greater concentration of skyscrapers than SF will ever have?

Because it's just an excuse made up by NIMBYs who keep their property values high by restricting supply and slackers working at coffee shops for 20 hours a week and paying 1/6th the rent of the productive members of society because they voted themselves all kinds of special protections such as rent control and anti-eviction laws.

random dude girl wrote:

Random dude bro wrote:

[quote]askingaquestion wrote:

A decent quality 1BR in SF (decent means no rat or mice) is roundabout $4000 a month ($48k per year).

i live in a beautiful, rat/mice/bug/etc free 1BR apartment in the northeast quadrant of the city (ie not in bmblfck) and pay $2100. you are full of it.

Congrats on your rent control, leech.

Rent a storage unit that is climate controlled. Shower at your local gym. Even eating out every meal, you are going to spend a ton less than $4k per month.

Random dude bro wrote:

askingaquestion wrote:

and yeah, someone making 130k can definitely afford to live by his/herself. the googler was just making a statement.

Single living in SF those $130k are $111k after maxing out your 401(k). After federal, state and city taxes that would be around $60k in SF.

A decent quality 1BR in SF (decent means no rat or mice) is roundabout $4000 a month ($48k per year).

That will leave you $12k for everything else. It is doable but you're spending more than 75% of your disposable income on rent.

Even imagining that it's reasonable to max out one's 401(k) before securing housing that isn't living in a car, this argument is total fiction.

Starting with the 111K left after maxing out 401(k):

Federal income taxes: $29,500

State income taxes: $9,500

City income taxes (taxed on employer in SF, but for the sake of argument let's do the highest bordering municipal tax of 2%): $2,600

Total Taxes: $41,600

$69,000 remaining.

You can easily find a "decent" apartment in nearly any neighborhood you want for $3,500/mo. Padmapper, Hotpads, and Zillow all show this with 5 seconds of work. $42,000 total, no roommates (including rats).

$27,000 remaining after rent, income taxes and maxed out 401(k). $2,250 a month for food, utilities, commute and directional spending. It looks like I won't have to be homeless after all if I'm ever forced to settle for a Google starting salary.

u jealous bro?

SF and actually has a job wrote:

^

forgot to quote

random dude girl wrote:

i live in a beautiful, rat/mice/bug/etc free 1BR apartment in the northeast quadrant of the city (ie not in bmblfck) and pay $2100. you are full of it.

Congrats on your rent control, leech.

random dude girl wrote:

u jealous bro?

As a matter of fact, it does piss me off when well-off people vote themselves other people's money.

Californians are a desert people and should get a clue from the Arabs and others who live in dry climes, and not build permanent dwellings at all.

What San Francisco should do is set aside a huge chunk of land as a tent city for the state's many wandering nomads. Nobody needs to be spending thousands of dollars a month to live in an expensive apartment building in a place that never gets cold or has bad weather.

SF and actually has a job wrote:

random dude girl wrote:

u jealous bro?

As a matter of fact, it does piss me off when well-off people vote themselves other people's money.

a) you don't know how well- or poorly- off i am

and b) "vote themselves other people's money"? idk what that means

random dude girl wrote:

SF and actually has a job wrote:

As a matter of fact, it does piss me off when well-off people vote themselves other people's money.

a) you don't know how well- or poorly- off i am

and b) "vote themselves other people's money"? idk what that means

You can afford 2k a month in rent which means you aren't some destitute person who deserves subsidies or welfare from the rest of us. You're not going to be on the street if you lose your rent control, you will just have to move to Oakland or Indiana (or pay higher rent if you can afford it).

Your rent control is a subsidy from the rest of us to you. It enriches you by allowing you to live in a very desirable location for below market price. It makes your landlord poorer by keeping him from realizing the full value of his investment and it makes newcomers and those living in uncontrolled buildings poorer by increasing the market rate for uncontrolled buildings.

I short, you are a leech who gets a very fat undeserved subsidy and the expense of others. You be absolutely ashamed.

Frisco is expensive yes. Silicon Valley is $3000/mo for a 1 bedroom. No wonder. Silicon Valley should be renamed Genetics Valley or Biomedical Valley.

A whole different new race of homonids live in SF, LA, OC, SB, and SD.

Or you can pay half of San Francisco rents in the east bay (Alameda, Oakland, etc) and get downtown by bus, Bart, or ferry quicker than people living in the outer parts of San Francisco (Outer Sunset, Outer Richmond). Plus its a bit warmer in the east bay, you get out door space and parking, and still close enough to hang out in SF on the weekends

gregmacd wrote:

Or you can pay half of San Francisco rents in the east bay (Alameda, Oakland, etc) and get downtown by bus, Bart, or ferry quicker than people living in the outer parts of San Francisco (Outer Sunset, Outer Richmond). Plus its a bit warmer in the east bay, you get out door space and parking, and still close enough to hang out in SF on the weekends

That's like working in NYC and living in Newark, NJ.

Sure, it's possible, but here is a reason it is much cheaper out there.

Plus, you'll spent 20h commuting per week.

The bottom line is that you can't be a serious runner and live in a big city. So why are we even talking about this?

The other guy! wrote:

That's like working in NYC and living in Newark, NJ.

Sure, it's possible, but here is a reason it is much cheaper out there.

Plus, you'll spent 20h commuting per week.

It takes 20 minutes to get from anywhere in Oakland to downtown SF on the train. Depends where you live/work.

It's more like living in the Bronx than Newark, but yeah.

The Cuban Horse wrote:

The bottom line is that you can't be a serious runner and live in a big city. So why are we even talking about this?

Some of us actually grew out of our adolescent fantasies after college and participate in the modern economy.