Can a Free Business Rent Program Revive San Francisco's Downtown? (yahoo.com) 95
The New York Times visits the downtown of one of America's biggest tech cities to explore San Francisco's "Vacant to Vibrant" initiative, where "city and business leaders provide free rent for up to six months" to "entrepreneurs who want to set up shop in empty spaces, many of which are on the ground floor of office buildings."
The program also offers funding for business expenses (plus technical and business permit assistance) — and it seems to be working. One cafe went on to sign a five-year lease for a space in the financial district's iconic One Embarcadero Center building — and the building's landlord says the program also resulted in another three long leases. Can the progress continue? The hope is that these pop-up operations will pay rent and sign longer leases after the free-rent period is over, and that their presence will regenerate foot traffic in the area. Some 850 entrepreneurs initially applied for a slot, and 17 businesses were chosen to occupy nine storefront spaces in the fall. Out of those businesses, seven extended their leases and now pay rent. Eleven businesses were selected in May for the program's second cohort, which started operating their storefronts this summer...
The city's office vacancy rate hit 33.7%, a record high, in the second quarter this year, according to JLL, a commercial real estate brokerage. That's one of the bleakest office markets in the nation, which has an average vacancy rate of about 22%. For the moment, however, San Francisco has a silver lining in Vacant to Vibrant. Rod Diehl, the BXP executive vice president who oversees its West Coast properties, said the pop-up strategy was good not just for local business owners to test their concepts and explore growth opportunities, but also for office leasing efforts... Beyond free rent, which is typically given for three months with a possibility for another three months, Vacant to Vibrant provides up to $12,000 to the businesses to help cover insurance and other expenses. The program also offers grants up to $5,000 for building owners to cover costs for tenant improvements in the spaces as well as for other expenses like utilities...
In addition to the Vacant to Vibrant program — which received $1 million from the city initially and is set to receive another $1 million for the current fiscal year, which began July 1 — the city is directing nearly $2 million toward a similar pop-up program. This new program would help businesses occupy larger empty spaces along Powell Street, as crime and other retail pressures have driven out several retailers, including Anthropologie, Banana Republic and Crate & Barrel, in the Union Square area.
One business owner who joined "Vacant to Vibrant" in May says they haven't decided yet whether to sign a lease. "It's not as crowded as before the pandemic." But according to the article, "she was hopeful that more businesses opening nearby would attract more people."
"In addition to filling empty storefronts, the program has the opportunity to bring in a fresher and more localized downtown shopping vibe, said Laurel Arvanitidis, director for business development at San Francisco's Office of Economic and Workplace Development." Victor Gonzalez, an entrepreneur who founded GCS Agency to stage showings for artists, is embracing the opportunity to get a foothold downtown despite the city's challenges. When he opened a storefront as part of the first Vacant to Vibrant cohort in the Financial District last year, he immediately knew that he wanted to stay there as long as possible. He has since signed a three-year lease. "San Francisco is no stranger to big booms and busts," he said. "So if we're in the midst of a bust, what's next? It's a boom. And I want to be positioned to be part of it."
The program also offers funding for business expenses (plus technical and business permit assistance) — and it seems to be working. One cafe went on to sign a five-year lease for a space in the financial district's iconic One Embarcadero Center building — and the building's landlord says the program also resulted in another three long leases. Can the progress continue? The hope is that these pop-up operations will pay rent and sign longer leases after the free-rent period is over, and that their presence will regenerate foot traffic in the area. Some 850 entrepreneurs initially applied for a slot, and 17 businesses were chosen to occupy nine storefront spaces in the fall. Out of those businesses, seven extended their leases and now pay rent. Eleven businesses were selected in May for the program's second cohort, which started operating their storefronts this summer...
The city's office vacancy rate hit 33.7%, a record high, in the second quarter this year, according to JLL, a commercial real estate brokerage. That's one of the bleakest office markets in the nation, which has an average vacancy rate of about 22%. For the moment, however, San Francisco has a silver lining in Vacant to Vibrant. Rod Diehl, the BXP executive vice president who oversees its West Coast properties, said the pop-up strategy was good not just for local business owners to test their concepts and explore growth opportunities, but also for office leasing efforts... Beyond free rent, which is typically given for three months with a possibility for another three months, Vacant to Vibrant provides up to $12,000 to the businesses to help cover insurance and other expenses. The program also offers grants up to $5,000 for building owners to cover costs for tenant improvements in the spaces as well as for other expenses like utilities...
In addition to the Vacant to Vibrant program — which received $1 million from the city initially and is set to receive another $1 million for the current fiscal year, which began July 1 — the city is directing nearly $2 million toward a similar pop-up program. This new program would help businesses occupy larger empty spaces along Powell Street, as crime and other retail pressures have driven out several retailers, including Anthropologie, Banana Republic and Crate & Barrel, in the Union Square area.
One business owner who joined "Vacant to Vibrant" in May says they haven't decided yet whether to sign a lease. "It's not as crowded as before the pandemic." But according to the article, "she was hopeful that more businesses opening nearby would attract more people."
"In addition to filling empty storefronts, the program has the opportunity to bring in a fresher and more localized downtown shopping vibe, said Laurel Arvanitidis, director for business development at San Francisco's Office of Economic and Workplace Development." Victor Gonzalez, an entrepreneur who founded GCS Agency to stage showings for artists, is embracing the opportunity to get a foothold downtown despite the city's challenges. When he opened a storefront as part of the first Vacant to Vibrant cohort in the Financial District last year, he immediately knew that he wanted to stay there as long as possible. He has since signed a three-year lease. "San Francisco is no stranger to big booms and busts," he said. "So if we're in the midst of a bust, what's next? It's a boom. And I want to be positioned to be part of it."
How about... (Score:5, Insightful)
...preventing vagrants from shitting in the streets and sidewalks? Ever think of that?
Re: (Score:2)
No. They have not.
Re:How about... [not feeding the sock puppet] (Score:2)
It was just trolling for your comment. Possibly with a bonus payment for human contact?
Re:How about... (Score:5, Insightful)
Even better, how about criminalising all theft.
A lot of stores have closed because there's no punishment for petty theft. Doesn't take much theft to make a retail store unprofitable.
but no... soft headed lefties seem to encourage criminality for reasons I'll never understand.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
He stole something from me alright. He stole my heart, love what the man did for our country.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Even better, how about criminalising all theft.
It's not cost-effective. It would make the city completely broke instead of mostly broke.
California cannot fight homelessness and unemployment by itself. Some other states are going to have to do some hard work if this is going to stop. But they are unwilling to do that work, so we have to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not cost-effective. It would make the city completely broke instead of mostly broke.
California cannot fight homelessness and unemployment by itself. Some other states are going to have to do some hard work if this is going to stop. But they are unwilling to do that work, so we have to do it.
In what alternate reality is it some other State's responsibility to fix California's problems?
Re: How about... (Score:4, Informative)
"In what alternate reality is it some other State's responsibility to fix California's problems?"
In the only reality we live in, where California shoulders a huge percentage of other states' homeless problems. A lot of states don't offer even federally funded aid to their residents, so they come here for it. Around 20% of our homeless come from other states. We have the largest population and most of the states these people come here from are from small states, so either we are getting MOST of their homeless, or they have MASSIVE percentages of homeless residents. And the percentage of our homeless who came from other states is certainly much higher than this because this is a statistic which first depends on self reporting and second doesn't count people who came here for a job.
Re: (Score:2)
You have heard of Broken Windows Theory.
Worked wonders in NY in the 80's
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is just incompatibility between modern stable society and anti-social behavior.
Sure, let's not criminalize homelessness and provide them with options. However those options should not be allowing them to rot on the streets and free needles for the cheap drugs they acquire. If people cannot function on their own, even though I am really for freedom, they need intervention, until the time they can take care of themselves.
People think they are compassionate against these folks, but by perpetuating homele
Re:How about... (Score:5, Insightful)
Beat me to it. I'm from Chicago and spent some time in San Francisco, and I'd never seen anything like it. I have LITERALLY seen: homeless shitting between parked cars in the middle of the day, while parking our car a man threatened us to pay $20 or else we'll find our car fucked up when we returned, buskers on the BART train demanding money from the passengers and getting physically violent if they refuse... Whenever I talked to the SFPD, they day that they are NOT ALLOWED TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. They are NOT ALLOWED to arrest the homeless or even force them to move their blanket/cart/tents, whatever. I am not exaggerating. After 6 months every one of these business will be moved to San Jose or one of the neighboring suburbs.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Arrest them? Where will they go?
The problem isn't that is is hip and fun to be homeless. It is they can't afford a $5000 a month studio and I bet most are employed. How can a Starbucks Barista afford a $5000 a month apartment?
Too many freaken asian investors and airbnb folks are ruining people's lives. There needs to be laws agaisn't this so these people can afford a place to stay and ban realpage.com which has created a cartel automating rents to the highest price possible.
Re: How about... (Score:2)
Does a Starbucks barista really earn enough to afford their own apartment? Did they ever earn enough to afford their own apartment?
Re: How about... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
I've been hearing these kinds of claims for over a decade on Slashdot. I checked some of them, like the one about theft of anything under $1000 being legal now, and they turned out not to be true. Just GOP talking points (lies) really.
All businesses were imminently about to leave California a decade ago too. For some reason they didn't, and California's economy continues to be the biggest in the US.
Anyone care to give an accurate picture, preferably with citations to some reliable sources?
Re: How about... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Regarding crime, I only have anecdotes.
Regarding business leaving the state, https://www.hoover.org/sites/d... [hoover.org]
The state has had a more people moving to other states than moving from other states for many years.
This was accelerated by remote work during the Covid-19 pandemic.
https://www.ppic.org/blog/whos... [ppic.org]
This has been offset, until recently, by immigration from other countries. That has reversed as well, and the State's population is now falling for the last three years.
https://www.macrotrends.net [macrotrends.net]
Re: (Score:3)
I'd have thought that people moving out was more to do with the high price of property there than anything else.
Re: (Score:3)
The Hoover Institute is a think tank specifically set up to promote personal and economic liberty, free enterprise, and limited government (i.e. the same libertarian bullshit that has failed time and time again throughout the history of this country). Unsurprisingly, their conclusion is that cutting taxes and regulation is the solution.
Treating anything the Hoover Institute puts out as anything more than propaganda is a good sign that you're suffering from confirmation bias.
Your other two links, however, b
Re: (Score:2)
It is a lie. They are talking about the threshold between misdemeanor and felony, which is $950. It was raised from $450 about 8 years ago, and has risen at a rate far far less than inflation. Also the equivalent threshold in red-Texas is $2500. As you state this is entirely a false GOP talking point, they also know it is pointless but it works on people with low ability to check facts. You can complain about parts of the CA justice system which are actually different, but this is not one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Beat me to it. I'm from Chicago and spent some time in San Francisco, and I'd never seen anything like it. I have LITERALLY seen: homeless shitting between parked cars in the middle of the day, while parking our car a man threatened us to pay $20 or else we'll find our car fucked up when we returned, buskers on the BART train demanding money from the passengers and getting physically violent if they refuse... Whenever I talked to the SFPD, they day that they are NOT ALLOWED TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. They are NOT ALLOWED to arrest the homeless or even force them to move their blanket/cart/tents, whatever. I am not exaggerating. After 6 months every one of these business will be moved to San Jose or one of the neighboring suburbs.
Umm... rather than violently move them on... how about you find out why so many are homeless in such a rich country and address the problem at it's source.
Sorry... was that too sensible... how careless of me.
Forcing them to move on is not a solution because they'll be back, probably not the same ones you moved on earlier if the problem is as bad as you make out. No other developed nation has a homeless problem like you describe, in fact a lot of developing nations aren't nearly as bad.
Re: (Score:2)
>spent some time in San Francisco,
You and Buck Owens & Dwight Yokum :)
>Spent somentime in San Francisco
>I spent a night there in the can
>They threw this drunk man in my jail cell
>I took fifteen dollars from that man
>Left him my watch and my old house key
>Don't want folks thinkin' that I'd steal
>Then I thanked him as I was leaving
>And I headed out for Bakersfield
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, but nobody wants to pay to actually solve the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
That is not even the problem. The real problem is real humans can not afford to live anywhere near these areas, so any shops would have no customers except the same homeless people. The shop market for the billionaires is a limited market, and is better served elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Blocking the revival yet again (Score:5, Interesting)
Each government/private subsidy like this just prevents the San Francisco economy from going through the bottom of the economic cycle so that it can start improving.
Giving handouts and free rent to businesses will only slow down the decay and greatly extend it resulting in an even worse situation.
They need to let San Francisco's economy hit the low point, let that reset the rents and valuation for the metro area so that businesses and persons find the city a place worth locating in.
Conjecture: Is this just another of the last stage of the old economy 1950s-1990s and that 2 generation's demographics reducing their influence? Or more generically, is the downtown fad of 1880s to 2000 passing?
Detroit will be pointed out - They have a way to proceed, de-annex the depopulated areas, let the empty buildings be razed and revert to open fields. And expect that some cities will become 1/4th the size they were.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no reason that economic conditions need to "bottom out" before they can improve. That's nonsense.
Re:Blocking the revival yet again (Score:4, Insightful)
will4 is technically correct, SF's decision to offer subsidized rent distorts market forces, delaying necessary adjustments in a rental market that is no longer aligned with demand. The prevalence of vacant store fronts is a clear indication of a mismatch between rent supply and demand. As I see it, SF has 3 high level problems; rents are higher than what the market demands, crime is discouraging business formation, and business taxes are punitively high.
Regrettably, San Francisco has opted for a temporary subsidy while keeping a planned 7% business tax increase over the next four years on the books. This approach may lead to new businesses destined to move / fail when subsides expire, taxes increase, and crime remains unchanged. There is a significant downside to this is if the city earns a reputation as a business "graveyard." Tough challenges demand tough solutions, but San Francisco's taking the coward's strategy of pitching that the current issues are transient with past prosperity just waiting in the wings to return rather than embracing meaningful reforms to fix structural problems. Ultimately, the city will need to reassess and reverse anti-business policies to recover from its downward trajectory.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No it needs to CRASH BAD. It is outrageous for hte homeless in SF to have asian investors, air bnb investors, and realpage.com autoamte rents to the highest possible price when 1/2 are empty for Chinese to park their cash since they appreciate more than inflation whether someone is living there or not.
Converting them to rentals will make the situation worse.
People need to lose money and start panick selling and laws preenting investors overseas need to change or taxed heavily over inflation so they must sel
Re: (Score:2)
Each government/private subsidy like this just prevents the San Francisco economy from going through the bottom of the economic cycle so that it can start improving.
Giving handouts and free rent to businesses will only slow down the decay and greatly extend it resulting in an even worse situation.
They need to let San Francisco's economy hit the low point, let that reset the rents and valuation for the metro area so that businesses and persons find the city a place worth locating in.
Conjecture: Is this just another of the last stage of the old economy 1950s-1990s and that 2 generation's demographics reducing their influence? Or more generically, is the downtown fad of 1880s to 2000 passing?
Detroit will be pointed out - They have a way to proceed, de-annex the depopulated areas, let the empty buildings be razed and revert to open fields. And expect that some cities will become 1/4th the size they were.
Welcome to modern capitalism amigo.
Businesses cannot afford to fail, so we must socialise those losses, give handouts and make sure no exec goes without his bonus this quarter. To do otherwise would be columnunism or something.
Re: (Score:2)
I realise it's a very different place, but Brixton (in London) used to have a nearly empty covered market (ie. it once had stalls selling fruit and veg, fish, household items, whatever - all covered over with a nice roof to keep the London rain out). However, with various changes to shopping habits and the generally bad reputation Brixton had, the market was now close to empty (literally one or two stalls left, where once there were a hundred).
The old market owners sold it - probably thinking "better off wi
Re: Blocking the revival yet again (Score:2)
Instead, how about taxing the unoccupied spaces to incentivize the landlords to lower the rent while giving the city income. This is similar to a proposed solution to vacant housing.
Re: (Score:1)
Every ask yourself (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, when was the last time you shopped somewhere that wasn't leasing it's building? Sure, maybe once in a blue moon for some funny boutique store, but sooner or later the owner retires or dies, his kids move on and he sells it to some private equity firm.
And who pays for all that? You do. Hell, sometimes you pay for it in more than higher prices. Guitar Center is shutting down otherwise profitable high earning stores because the rent's so high they can't make money...
And if that can happen to a chain like Guitar Center what chance does the little guy have? Wanna open your own little computer shop or run a small software business that's a little too big to run out of your bedroom? Good luck, you'll need to make tens of thousands of dollars extra every month for rent.
Re: (Score:2)
Great now look at what you probably pay in taxes vs the value you get back.
Rent isnt the problem, government is the problem.
The cool party has moved on (Score:2)
Now all the "cool" startups have switched to "work from home." Why work from SF when you can work from Tahoe, or Kyoto, or SF when you want to?
Re: (Score:2)
Now all the "cool" startups have switched to "work from home." Why work from SF when you can work from Tahoe, or Kyoto, or SF when you want to?
Yep. Talked with some people that do industriel process automation with AI (not LLMs....) recently, and they have an office, but only a small one for some things like some customer meetings. Besides that, they are fully virtual as they never saw the point of getting office space and limiting their access to the talent pool. They are also a bit older than the pandemic.
My take is that "work at the office" is now a sure sign you are firmly stuck in the past, employees and employers alike. And that is not a goo
Re: The cool party has moved on (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You would think that is a pretty central skill, yes. A good manager may want to see you occasionally (online or in person), depending on them and you. But a good manager will always be happy with you when you hand in good results and they will always have a good idea what you hand in and how good it is and that gets easier in work-from-home. There are tons of bad managers out there though. My personal estimate is no more than 20% good ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That's a very narrow view that only a software person would think of. Some of the hardware I work with needs special electrical service (think particle beams). The WFH mindset really only covers SW nerds, and not even the embedded ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Welp, just a single data point but I know someone who is a HR director for a major ad agency and is WFH. I guess "software nerds and HR execs" is a bit broader. Internal managers need to be able to do their work with only Zoom and email, but I'd say those who can are likely the most efficient.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. And it is a pretty fanatical stance too, characterized by excessive virtue signaling. (IMO, virtue signaling is one of the most stupid acts a human being can engage in.) There are probably a few self-worth issues involved. Well, you cannot really communicate with people like that until they finally decide to solve their issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, you are one of _those_. Well, you should have realized by now that using your own, non-standard pet definitions is not conductive to communication with others. But maybe you are not actually interested in that.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I have thousands of data points.
I work at a major enterprise software company and, like, everyone is WFH. My data science team hasn't met in person ever, most of our sales & marketing that we work with seem to be dialing in from homes, etc. Execs will sometimes show for an in-person all-hands or something as will teams that are physically in the same place. But it's definitely across all lines of businesses (with some obvious exceptions like field sales, facility or server janitors etc).
Re: (Score:2)
I am not a "software person". It is just some skill I also have. And, obviously, "work at the lab", "work at the workshop", etc. is not "work at the office".
Also, as to "narrow perspective", I am definitely not only thinking about tech people. In fact, tech people are a minority of people that do office work.
Convert offices to residential (Score:2)
Maybe all those businesses closed up shop because there were no customers without the office spaces being occupied, and nobody was willing to travel half way across the city to visit them.
So if the offices have a 22% average vacancy rate, sounds to me like you can convert at least 10% of then to apartments. This gives people someplace to live, which happily is also near offices AND retail space so those residents become both employees and customers...
=Smidge=
Re:Convert offices to residential (Score:4, Informative)
Converting office space to living space sounds like a win all-around, I thought so too. Until I read an article on just how difficult and prohibitively expensive that would be. Those office buildings would need to be completely gutted and entirely refitted to make them safe living areas. It would be cheaper to raze the current structures and start from scratch.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be cheaper to raze the current structures and start from scratch.
And perhaps that is what will happen once the banks foreclose on the mortgages, and the city forecloses on the banks for back taxes. We can hope, anyway.
More likely, though, is they just leave the buildings empty, and the homeless move in and trash the place even more. Which, I guess, is a form of "convert to residential."
Re: (Score:3)
> Those office buildings would need to be completely gutted and entirely refitted to make them safe living areas
Would they, though? I mean, office space is routinely gutted and remodeled to suit the needs of a new tenant so it's not like that's a huge deal in and of itself. Few if any of the interior walls are load bearing in modern city construction so you'd only have to work around the columns and permanent features like elevators/stairwells and utility shafts... all of which are typically clustered in
Re: (Score:2)
In the SF Bay Area and (and many other places) spent the 90's and 00's repurposing industrial properties and warehouses into "lofts" and other residential stuff. The challenges w/ converting offices seem less.
And on the egress stuff: offices have a higher density of people than residential, don't they ? So presumably stairwells and elevators already should have adequate capacity.
and city work is always a fucking nightmare,
and SF likes to go for the gold on this stuff.
Overall i'm very confused about what would actually be nice to live. Lived in sub
Re: (Score:2)
Would need a full rewire to give every tenant a separate supply and meter.
Re: (Score:2)
Sub-metering is super easy though. Tenant meters do not need to be the same type as utility-owned meters, so a set of CTs and a transponder are really all you need and that can be baked right into the service gear or local panel.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Those office buildings would need to be completely gutted and entirely refitted to make them safe living areas
Would they, though? I mean, office space is routinely gutted and remodeled to suit the needs of a new tenant so it's not like that's a huge deal in and of itself.
Even if you could easily turn all those offices into lofts, no one is going to want to pay exorbitant prices to live there if the streets of San Francisco resemble New Delhi more than California. You still have to leave your building from time to time, and right now that means walking into an environment of needles, shit, and violent crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey uh... you know what would really help SF's homeless problem?
More housing.
Don't make the mistake so many asshole conservative do and assume homelessness is a moral failing; That's just victim blaming. Truth is the homelessness usually comes first, then all the other problems. We know this is the case because most of the industrialized world has already figured this out...
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
I think you read a BS article. Sure moving inner walls isnt cheap, but office space buildings ARE DESIGNED for doing exactly that.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll see if I can find the article again. The main points were routing water and sewage, power metering and wiring, and all of the residential building and safety codes that would need to be addressed. Their main point being that office space is communal space that didn't need to consider all these factors when being built. High rise structures that are designed with residential in mind do.
downtown (Score:2, Insightful)
Gee I wonder why they are in this position (Score:2)
With policies which negatively impact long term business for short term political gains (that don't even accomplish the goals), I can't imagine why they're here.
it makes me ask what they think this accomplish.
There are no customers.
You're going to need more than six free months (Score:2)
Considering that it takes at least 3 months to remodel an office to make it usable, an offer of six free months of rent isn't going to bring any smart tenants back to San Francisco. Especially unappealing when you consider that most tech startups are offering work from home days and San Francisco is still some of the most expensive commercial real estate in the country.
Re: (Score:2)
It's fairly normal for the landlord to do the initial remodel - before the lease starts. And that's when landlords aren't desperate with such high vacancy rates. The tenant only pays for the finish work.
The landlords' alternative these days is . . . foreclosure and bankruptcy. And the banks are going to be inclined in refinancing for that remodel.
This is still a completely meaningless political stunt, since no one with enough brains to actually run a sustainable business would try to do so in the SF area.
Homeless businesses (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank god they're finally doing something to help struggling busineses that have been operating from cardboard boxes in the underpass for so long.
You forgot to mention the tent cities and pallet shacks that some of those companies operate out of....
Strange ideas (Score:2)
"... provide free rent for up to six months ..."
People have strange ideas around renting buildings, but its no different to lending someone a Ferrari. You don't want a teenager jumping-in and hitting the only fire hydrant in the street. You don't want a hoon doing 'doughnuts' and shredding the tyres. Even with a careful driver, little scratches need to be painted-over and windscreen cracks must be filled.
There's no point leasing a building when the tenant willfully damages it, or when the revenue doesn't cover the cost of daily dents and scratches.
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like there is a deposit required.
It's not "free" rent (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"you'd have to be CRAZY to open a business in downtown SF without first removing what caused the problem in the first place! The "homeless""
How about we get rid of what created those homeless first? That'd be... really insane fucking rents, high prices for basic goddamned goods, federal-distributed drugs, unlawful civil forfeiture, and more?
Chicken and egg problem (Score:2)
There must be a market before business can stand up a use case.
San Francisco remains a boom to bust city beginning from the days of gold rush up to present Silicon Valley startup v.c. that have moved to cheaper ways to get started in flyover states, TX and online WFH. Its bust phase is here. When Novato ranks among top 10 most expensive cities it’s going too be quite some time for San Francisco to balance out.
My greatest fear is that the v.c. startup City inland will steal San Francisco’s next O
Corporate welfare? (Score:2)
Thought that was bad.
Save the "entrepreneur" and "small business" talk. When you start giving stuff away the clever corporate grifters will take advantage. They're the ones employing all the useless sons and daughters of municipal shot callers with no-show non-profit jobs, so they'll get their piece, regardless of whatever doe-eyed intentions are bandied about.
It DID work (Score:2)
What is interesting is all the doubters here saying it won't work. In fact the story says that it DID work. Businesses took the offer, moved in and have signed long term leases. I doubt that providing free rent is scalable, but it is pretty clear some people were able to take advantage of it.
What that seems to indicate is that lower rental costs will overcome some of the other barriers to revitalizing downtowns. Of course there are a lot of real estate developers who don't want to hear that. Because they
Re: It DID work (Score:2)
Signing a lease doesn't mean the community is revitalized. So a business signs a long-term, zero cost lease, so what? Tgat doesn't guarantee the business will be profitable, it doesn't guarantee customers will come and spend money.
You what will likely happen? Struggling businesses will relocate, vacating one property to occupy another - it just shifts the vacancies to new neighborhoods, spreading the pain, not solving anything.
Long-term Lease! So what? (Score:2)
The program also offers funding for business expenses (plus technical and business permit assistance) â" and it seems to be working. One cafe went on to sign a five-year lease for a space in the financial district's iconic One Embarcadero Center building â" and the building's landlord says the program also resulted in another three long leases. Can the progress continue?
Until very recently, every empty storefront in SF likely already had a long-term lease holder, they went bankrupt/broke their lease, what's changed since then? A few thousand dollars in assistance and up to 6 months free rent? It will take these stores YEARS to become profitable, and that's assuming SF can turn itself around and become the marvelous city it once was...
This stunt won't bring back a big box pharmacy to struggling neighborhoods, it doesn't fix the shoplifting issue or the insanely high minimum
Short answwr: No. (Score:1)
Nope (Score:2)
Things have to get so bad in that city that the morons who live there start voting differently.
That's basic Democracy.
If the government you elect keeps screwing things up, and you keep doubling-down and re-electing them, or electing more just like them, then one of two things is true: [1] You're an idiot who does not understand cause and effect, or [2] you have some OTHER priority that is so important to you that you keep electing the bad leaders for THAT other special reason and you accept that you are gi
"Vibrancy" is the problem ... (Score:2)
... not the solution.
There's so much "vibrance" that nobody with money wants to work there or have a business there.
No, San Francisco is in a doom loop (Score:1)
Has anyone applied? Do you have advice? (Score:1)
Am the founder of a company that makes mathematical software and am located in San Francisco. Was about to start the process of looking for office space. Has anyone applied to this program? I read the article. It seems that the city is only interested in filling vacant retail space. Can anyone confirm this? I'd like to apply to the program but, before I do so, I'd like to know what type of businesses the city is looking for and what office spaces are available for this program. Would appreciate any insight
Not a joke? (Score:2)
Such a Funny-rich story, but...
No welfare for individuals (Score:1)
No welfare for individuals, but Welfare for businesses, because businesses that have no viable income streams should be propped thats how free market works.