> Literally any real estate market is going to have vacancies, because otherwise how would people move between spaces?

Take the building at 2100 Market, which was formerly run by Sonder. They took out a 5 year lease, the pandemic hit, they tried to sue to get out of it, and the whole thing has been empty for more than a year. I don't know how many units it is, but a lot of people could have been housed for that period. I have walked by that building, and homeless people in close proximity for _so long_. Yes, I find it about as offensive as feces.

I'm not claiming no unit should ever be vacant for a week. I'm claiming the scope of wasted livable space is comparable to the size of the problem, and that even at market rates could often be cheaper than the ridiculous things we're doing. Again, $60k/year per _tent site_ in a parking lot.

> The question is 'what percentage of vacancies is too high?'

No, I think the question is "What do we value?", or perhaps "what's our indifference curve between people living on the street and owners choosing to keep their units empty?"

If we weren't in a homeless crisis, the vacancies wouldn't be a problem.

> Given the EXTREME carrying cost of owning an unoccupied home in SF, I think it's highly unlikely that SF is 'too high'. You neighbor may have had the wealth to pay that cost, but few others do.

No, in some cases, people can't afford to fill homes. In late 2019, there were a bunch of condo buildings that were "struggling" to sell, but prices didn't come down -- because bringing down the price on one unit would set the comps for the whole project. My (former) landlord's building is rent-controlled. I think part of the calculus was to hope that rents increased and long term getting a tenant in at the higher rate would be much more valuable. When the pandemic cause prices to drop, she doubled down; taking a discount tenant is worse than having no tenant.

Even before the pandemic we saw this all over the city with retail spaces too; places can be left empty for years because the hypothetical future revenue from a vacant space is valued more highly than actual revenue from a tenant today.

We seem to feel that property owners speculating is more important than anything that actually happens inside the property.

> 'Luxury' housing in SF does two things: house yuppies that would otherwise move to historic neighborhoods 2) turn into shitty non-luxury housing in 30 years. This idea that the fucking NEMA or whatever won't be a relatively low-rent building (a la Fox Plaza) in 20 years is not grounded in thoughtfulness.

If you have a homelessness crisis, and you believe that crisis requires building more housing, then I suggest building housing for the homeless is a much more direct solution than building luxury housing for the rich and waiting a generation. Why do people who wouldn't believe in trickle-down economics for income tax policy believe that trickle-down housing makes sense?

The other thing luxury housing does in SF is make money for the developers, and for their friends at DBI.

> The real 'villains' are property owners who want the value of their house to go up (as an investment). And what do those people hate more than anything? New construction that is more desirable than their home.

The real villains are the developers who have so successfully sold the idea that the only way to house the poor is to build and sell more houses to the rich.

Similarly, eating at Lazy Bear doesn't somehow make prices go down at Grocery Outlet.