You look at numbers like this and you go: Whoa. The rent really, really is too damn high. Median rent in San Francisco is now over $3,000 a month. WHo can pay that? Seriously.
The federal government says your rent payment shouldn't be more than a third of your income. That means to qualify for the median -- not the highest, but the median -- rent in this town, you need to be earning $9,000 a month, or $108,000 a year. That is NOT, by any standard, the median income in town.
So let's say you spend half your income on rent. You still have to make $72,000 to afford the median apartment. Crazy stuff. And when local politicians say they support "rent control," that's nice but it's not the point. Controlling rent at $3,000 a month doesn't make the city affordable.
If rent controls applied to vacant apartments, then rents overall, across the city, would rise at the level of inflation -- and people on fixed incomes (social security, disability, SSI) would be able to keep pace. You want to know why there are so many homeless people in this city? One reason: Two decades ago, SSI paid enough every month to cover the cost of an apartment and leave enough to buy clothes and eat. Now, it doesn't pay enough for an SRO hotel, even if you don't buy anything else.
So people wind up on the street.
Most Commented On
- I interpreted those to be editorial endorsements - June 19, 2013
- If your case is any good, a lawyer will take it on contingency. - June 19, 2013
- Ann, I know a few people who use the SFBG endorsements as a - June 19, 2013
- Yes, Steven, but the buck still stops with the owner. - June 19, 2013
- That is not what I said. - June 19, 2013
- End of an era indeed - June 19, 2013
- "Joint and several liability" - June 19, 2013
- Steven, can you quantify this alleged influence of SFBG - June 19, 2013
- Nice post - June 19, 2013
- "At will employment" means you can fire at will - June 19, 2013