It is not OpenAI's or Anthropic's responsibility to build housing in SF. It is the city's. Putting the heat on the mayor and supervisors is the correct move.
I've been "entertaining" myself recently with a report on how various Bay Area cities are tracking against their housing elements. Remember, these housing elements were their state-mandated plans for additional housing units between 2022 and 2030, and extra emphasis was put on this cycle to make sure the plans were realistic, accountable, addressed the magnitude of the need, and included (relatively) affordable housing.
We are close to halfway through this time period. San Francisco has built, according to this report, less than 10% of their commitment. They have a little over four years now to come up with 76K units. See: https://cities.fairhousingelements.org/cities/san-francisco
Last year SF built 1.75K units. This year, by June, they had built 400 units.
The federal government should step in. Give San Francisco four years to build the 76,000+ homes it needs. If the city fails, impose a substantial penalty for every unit missed and authorize the federal government to take over suitable public land and build the housing itself. At some point, housing shortages require consequences.
I don't think the local political mess in San Francisco warrants breaking two hundred years of federalism. Nothing does, really.
Also worth keep in mind the US tried mass public housing projects in the 60s. And then they stopped because they all ended up being crime ridden shitholes.
SF is the quintessential boom town. Yet every batch of newcomers eventually thinks they have the right to be the last batch of newcomers and get to declare that the city should remain the same forever more, in its current state, perfected by their presence.
Their crime is compensating their employees too well, which this author thinks makes them responsible for higher rental prices?
The other complaint is that the author doesn’t think they see any benefit from all the taxes the companies are paying. Shouldn’t they be taking this up with the city? Companies don’t decide how their taxes are spent.
As the article says, companies this wealthy and successful are generally understood to have a civic responsibility to make contributions to their local community, above and beyond their tax obligations. It's a good equilibrium for everyone: the city doesn't have to hike taxes when companies get too successful, the companies get to appear generous, the public gets more stuff. I haven't fact checked the article, but if it's true that OpenAI has made "less than a million dollars" in SF civic contributions, that would be shockingly low for a company with their level of impact.
IIRC other tech companies like Meta and Google attempted to build housing in SF but were shot down by NIMBYs and city regulations the same as any other construction. Most of the US can barely build a lego house without years of permitting and consultations now, then it gets cancelled or overruns the budget and time by 20x. Any actual plan to rezone or build anywhere in the west, a 1000 boomers descens like a zombie army at the city meetings and stop it. Dumping money into the city can’t solve this particular problem.
I think the tech companies would be supporters of new rules that would let builders create more housing all throughout San Francisco. We need a big tent, with all pro-housing groups coming together, to change the rules, and start allowing new housing again.
If you own a lot in San Francisco you should be able to build an apartment building on it.
I said as much on the subreddit, but I’ll repeat it here for emphasis: the idea that OpenAI and Anthropic are to blame for a housing crisis in a city of hundreds of thousands because of their hundreds of researchers is absurd, even for an opinion piece.
Do they pay back enough? No, they should of course be nationalized alongside YC and the rest of the giants. But this feels like performative anti-AI pot-banging than an honest concern (and I don’t think the author is prepared for the Molotov-laden Reign of Terror that is rapidly building towards…)
Isn't it more a matter of "ruining this version of SF, which was the result of the previous version(s) of SF being ruined by the previous silicon overlords"?
There once was a time when tech companies mostly stayed out of SF. People who worked in the valley but hated it lived in SF amongst mostly people who had nothing to do with the tech industry. Then someone had the bright idea to put branch offices or even whole companies in SF. Convenient for the commute (and you could move to the East or North Bay), but then SF got overrun by the tech monoculture + NIMBYs trying to “keep it the same” by preventing construction, effectively kicking out so many of the people who were the reason why valleyphobic tech workers sought out the City of Saffron in the first place.
"And that AI companies undoubtedly accelerated this economic turnaround. OpenAI has contributed $236 million in gross receipt taxes over the past several years, which is great for the city coffers, but the success has come with a damning cost."
.. that's generally how it works.
If the city wants more money from the companies, tax em.
It is not OpenAI's or Anthropic's responsibility to build housing in SF. It is the city's. Putting the heat on the mayor and supervisors is the correct move.
I've been "entertaining" myself recently with a report on how various Bay Area cities are tracking against their housing elements. Remember, these housing elements were their state-mandated plans for additional housing units between 2022 and 2030, and extra emphasis was put on this cycle to make sure the plans were realistic, accountable, addressed the magnitude of the need, and included (relatively) affordable housing.
We are close to halfway through this time period. San Francisco has built, according to this report, less than 10% of their commitment. They have a little over four years now to come up with 76K units. See: https://cities.fairhousingelements.org/cities/san-francisco
Last year SF built 1.75K units. This year, by June, they had built 400 units.
This isn't an OpenAI problem.
The federal government should step in. Give San Francisco four years to build the 76,000+ homes it needs. If the city fails, impose a substantial penalty for every unit missed and authorize the federal government to take over suitable public land and build the housing itself. At some point, housing shortages require consequences.
I don't think the local political mess in San Francisco warrants breaking two hundred years of federalism. Nothing does, really.
Also worth keep in mind the US tried mass public housing projects in the 60s. And then they stopped because they all ended up being crime ridden shitholes.
You're not wrong, but from load-balancing perspective, if one of these companies moved to another city then probably both cities would be better off?
SF is the quintessential boom town. Yet every batch of newcomers eventually thinks they have the right to be the last batch of newcomers and get to declare that the city should remain the same forever more, in its current state, perfected by their presence.
Their crime is compensating their employees too well, which this author thinks makes them responsible for higher rental prices?
The other complaint is that the author doesn’t think they see any benefit from all the taxes the companies are paying. Shouldn’t they be taking this up with the city? Companies don’t decide how their taxes are spent.
As the article says, companies this wealthy and successful are generally understood to have a civic responsibility to make contributions to their local community, above and beyond their tax obligations. It's a good equilibrium for everyone: the city doesn't have to hike taxes when companies get too successful, the companies get to appear generous, the public gets more stuff. I haven't fact checked the article, but if it's true that OpenAI has made "less than a million dollars" in SF civic contributions, that would be shockingly low for a company with their level of impact.
IIRC other tech companies like Meta and Google attempted to build housing in SF but were shot down by NIMBYs and city regulations the same as any other construction. Most of the US can barely build a lego house without years of permitting and consultations now, then it gets cancelled or overruns the budget and time by 20x. Any actual plan to rezone or build anywhere in the west, a 1000 boomers descens like a zombie army at the city meetings and stop it. Dumping money into the city can’t solve this particular problem.
City that refuses to build housing and is stacked to the brim with NIMBYs has skyrocketing rents.
I think the tech companies would be supporters of new rules that would let builders create more housing all throughout San Francisco. We need a big tent, with all pro-housing groups coming together, to change the rules, and start allowing new housing again.
If you own a lot in San Francisco you should be able to build an apartment building on it.
As much as I love to dunk on OpenAI and Anthropic, it's NIMBYs who "ruined" SF.
Abolish zoning, legalize housing.
I said as much on the subreddit, but I’ll repeat it here for emphasis: the idea that OpenAI and Anthropic are to blame for a housing crisis in a city of hundreds of thousands because of their hundreds of researchers is absurd, even for an opinion piece.
Do they pay back enough? No, they should of course be nationalized alongside YC and the rest of the giants. But this feels like performative anti-AI pot-banging than an honest concern (and I don’t think the author is prepared for the Molotov-laden Reign of Terror that is rapidly building towards…)
Isn't it more a matter of "ruining this version of SF, which was the result of the previous version(s) of SF being ruined by the previous silicon overlords"?
There once was a time when tech companies mostly stayed out of SF. People who worked in the valley but hated it lived in SF amongst mostly people who had nothing to do with the tech industry. Then someone had the bright idea to put branch offices or even whole companies in SF. Convenient for the commute (and you could move to the East or North Bay), but then SF got overrun by the tech monoculture + NIMBYs trying to “keep it the same” by preventing construction, effectively kicking out so many of the people who were the reason why valleyphobic tech workers sought out the City of Saffron in the first place.
"And that AI companies undoubtedly accelerated this economic turnaround. OpenAI has contributed $236 million in gross receipt taxes over the past several years, which is great for the city coffers, but the success has come with a damning cost."
.. that's generally how it works.
If the city wants more money from the companies, tax em.
Cleaned up url: https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/open-ai-anthropic-ruini...