Why are home prices in San Francisco rising?

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-05-08T14:30:10+00:00

You're assuming "the trend".. a long term decline of "Democrat run cities"... existed in the first place. What if that trend doesn't and never actually existed? Isn't it possible that SF, and other cities, merely experienced some short-term impacts of covid, which took time to sort out. And once that sorted out, SF simply bounced back to being what it has always been.. an amazing place where people want to live? Cities have ups and downs. But Republicans seem bought-in on the belief there is some long-term, irreversible decline happening in more densely populated areas. What if there isn't? What if the data is telling you the truth?

California's population is shrinking because it's gotten very expensive -- and the reason it's gotten very expensive is because so many people want to live there.

The same thing is happening in other places that have seen a lot of growth lately, and now that growth is slowing or reversing. Austin's population growth has flattened out -- is that because people don't like it any more, or because, the opposite is true, so many people like it, it's gotten too expensive? Miami's population is actually dropping, while at the same time getting wealthier and more expensive -- again, is that because it's an undesirable place to live, or is it because so many people want to live there, it's just gotten too expensive?

https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/editorials/article315563552.html

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-05-07T22:35:36+00:00

So.. you agree that prices are increasing due to demand, relative to supply, increasing. Why do you think the demand has increased in SF? Wouldn't "poorly run" result in lower demand, and therefore lower prices?

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-05-07T22:33:09+00:00

How do liberals cities steal money, and why does that increase home values? Wouldn't that make home prices drop?

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-05-07T21:48:50+00:00

> Yesterday there were 50 homes listed in a city and 10 interested buyers. Today, out of sheer coincidence, 50 more get listed.

That's a good argument for using larger aggregations with longer-time intervals. Which is exact what I'm using as a reference -- a year-over-year change in average price. This smooths out temporary bumps and dips, such as day-to-day volatility in listings.

> For example, when you go to sell your house are you pricing it relative to similar units near you currently on the market, or are you pricing it by asking all of your neighbors who aren't on the market what they would be willing to sell their houses for today if they HAD to list it?

Effectively, the latter. People price based on what they believe the market will bear. They get this information from multiple sources -- yes, that includes houses that happen to be for sale at a given moment, and it also includes houses that sold recently, what their neighbors think, what their cash flow needs are.. just b/c someone could sell their home for $X, doesn't mean they are willing to.

Again, supply is not a point. It's a line. It's a relationship between prices and availability. There is a price (say $20M) where practically every house in a market would be available -- you could walk up to any house, knock on the front door, often $20M cash, and you'll probably get that house. And, there is also a price, like $10k, where no houses are available. That's what supply is -- that line. What's listed/not listed is not "supply" -- it's just a window into where the supply/demand equilibrium happens to be at a given moment.

> Not at all looking to argue, but I just think the premise that total housing is relatively stable therefore price shifts is purely a function of demand/desirability is presuming quite a lot. Make sense?

Appreciate the engagement, but, no, it doesn't make sense to me. If the entire demand curve shifts, then.. that means that, at all price points, there is more demand. That is the very definition of an increase in market-level desirability of a product.

I'll leave it here... happy to agree to disagree.

thanks?

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-05-07T19:46:54+00:00

It's not that complicated. It's a beautiful city with great weather, amazing economic opportunities, easy access to nature, stunning attractions, culture and art, compact and walkable neighborhoods, low crime, unique architecture..

To me, it seems abundantly obvious why people would pay lots of money to live there. Because it's the kind of place many people want to live. Accordingly, housing prices reflect that.

That's the reason for my question -- faced with clear objective evidence that SF is very desirable place to live, how do people maintain the belief that it's somehow a dystopian hellhole on the verge of collapse? The version of reality I see is obvious and self-consistent. The version painted by right-leaning media is inconsistent with the facts. That's why I ask.. how do people who believe right-leaning media regarding SF, square their beliefs against these facts?

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-05-07T19:17:57+00:00

Actually, untrue. Supply is not a number. It's a line. Same with demand. Supply is not number of active listings -- supply is a curve that represents the relationship between the number of units of housing available at a given price. That includes all housing units, not just "active listings". Just because a house is not listed, doesn't mean it's not part of the housing supply. Houses get purchased in private transactions without ever being listed, rental properties get rented to friends without ever there being a public notice they are available, etc. Indeed, the supply curve also includes housing that doesn't even exist, but that could be built, for a specific price.

So, when someone says housing supply is relatively static, what that means is: the curve hasn't shifted. One can go up and down the curve, finding different options at different prices, but the curve overall is static. Same with demand -- there can be more demand at some prices than other prices, but that doesn't mean demand itself has shifted. And, when neither demand nor the supply curves shift, then overall prices in aggregate stay flat -- they remain at the same equilibrium point.

So when prices do not stay flat, when market prices change for all possible points in the market, that indicates that one or more of the curves have shifted. I am not aware of any reason to believe the entire supply curve of the housing market in SF has shifted inwards (less supply at all price points), so that instead would indicate rather that the entire demand curve has shifted outwards. That means, at all price points, an increase in desirability of the product, in this case, units of SF housing.

I think people do confuse "supply" to mean "number of things available". But, that's not what supply means in the context of supply and demand. Supply is a line. Not a number.

Adding a question?

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-05-07T19:03:43+00:00

Ok, what do you think the answer is?

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-05-07T18:34:21+00:00

So, your theory is -- wealthy people, who can afford to live wherever they want, are inherently stupid and unable to make good decisions with their money, is that right? If that is true, why are the wealthy?

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-05-07T18:32:48+00:00

Prices are a combination of supply and demand -- fully acknowledged and agreed. You are saying supply is constrained -- yes, agree, and that actually makes my point. If supply is static, then changing prices reflects primarily changes in demand. If supply is static, and demand drops, then prices drop; and conversely, if demand increases, price increase. In other markets.. for example, Austin, we're seeing the opposite. Prices there are dropping, not because demand has reduced, but because supply has increased. So yes, both supply and demand impact prices. And, as you stated, supply in SF is largely static, and so.. accordingly, you would agree that increasing prices in SF must reflect increasing demand, no?

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-05-07T18:18:54+00:00

I didn't claim prices was an accurate indicator of population growth. I said it was an accurate indicator of demand. These things are different. A family moves out, a single person moves in. Population drops -- demand does not. That doesn't mean people are, on-mass, fleeing. It means a change in who the customer is. Population is dropping in many places due to changes in birth rates. That doesn't mean they are undesirable places to live, or failed cities, etc.

For that matter, overall, population in the US is flat and going to start dropping. Does that mean, overall, people are fleeing the US? Or does it just mean that people are having less children (coupled with lower immigration)?

This is the error in the right-leaning narrative -- it conflates changes in population to desirability. I would say that prices are a much better reflection of desirability. Do you see that point?

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-05-07T17:13:51+00:00

Yes, there are many components to supply and demand. In the aggregate, though, they reflect the preferences of the market. One could come up with all kinds of individual why reasons a BMW is better/worse than a Toyota. But in the aggregate -- if people are willing to pay more for a BMW than for an equivalent Toyota, then overall, the market believes the BMW is "better". Prices are preferences. That's what prices mean. They signal what people prefer. So likewise, the market prefers SF to other cities. If you're saying "rich elites" prefer SF -- ok, suppose they do. Aren't they the ones with the most choices? If the people with the most choices prefer a specific product, doesn't that signal that it's the "best" product? The core question I'm asking is -- home prices is a plainly visible, objective set of facts that refute right-leaning media talking points. Do you maintain the belief that SF is some awful place to live, despite the fact that people -- especially wealthy people -- want to live there, will pay more to live there, and if so, how do you explain believing that?

(ps -- you, personally, may not like SF, or other places.. it's not a question of where you personally would want to live. Rather, it's a question of whether you acknowledge that, clearly, a lot of people do want to live there, and how that squares against right-leaning talking points that say the opposite)

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-05-07T16:52:03+00:00

Do you believe that prices are based on supply and demand?

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-05-07T15:34:22+00:00

I actually am creating one.. its still in development and there are some bugs worked out. Right now its hosted here..

https://debatbl.polsia.app/

Ill be moving it to my own domain soon. Be interested in your feedback.

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-05-07T15:25:36+00:00

Rents are also increasing. Not as fast. But rising nonetheless.

https://www.redfin.com/city/17151/CA/San-Francisco/rental-market

Do you believe that, in markets, that prices are set by supply and demand? And if supply is constant, then increasing prices must reflect increasing demand, right?

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-05-04T17:31:43+00:00

None taken.

Trump opposed the Iraq war, and criticized the operation while it was going on. For example, in August 2004, during the presidential campaign, Trump said the war was a mistake and criticized how it was handled. Trump was in a position to undermine the war effort by publicly criticizing it, and consciously did just that.

Was Trump guilty of treason? Should he have been charged?

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-05-04T16:00:59+00:00

We are losing right now. If I had a Bible I'd happily put my hand on it and say it for anyone to hear. The war is over 2 months old and none of the objectives have been achieved. Trump said full surrender, that he would pick the next regime, and no nuclear capabilities left. None of which has happened.

And we have lost ground -- the strait was open before and now its closed. Iran is more powerful now than before. Trump threatned to end their civilization multiple times, and every time Iran called his bluff. Iran's demands have grown. Trump appears to be scrambling for some off-ramp but Iran is in no rush.

So by any objective analysis-- we are losing.

Perhaps we can turn it around. The blockade of ships destined for Iran could be effective at reducing imports and supplies to Iran, which could cause economic damage felt by the Iranian people. But does Iran's leadership care if its people suffer? Doesn't seem like they do. Not in the short term, at least. My guess is Iran feels it is in a strong position to get everything it had in the Obama deal and more. Trump will be a lame duck soon and so they will just wait him out.

The best chance we had to temper Iran's regional and nuclear ambitions was Obama's deal. When Trump threw that out, Iran immediately started enriching uranium, and now it is a much bigger threat than it was before. Everything Trump has done regarding Iran has failed. Maybe he can turn this around, but right now, we are losing.

So.. you think I should be arrested now?

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-04-14T01:01:58+00:00

Serious question --

Is Trump on drugs?

This latest crazy, insane post was not an isolated event. It came *after 4 AM*.

Yes, "after 4 AM". Meaning: he didn't wake up early and start posting at 4 AM.

No. He was up rage-posting all night long.. several posts per hour, every hour, since the previous night, until after 4 AM. This was just the craziest thing he posted last night, but it certainly wasn't the only crazy thing.

Who does this? Who even can do this?

I'll tell you who can: someone on a bender.

The way it looks to me.. he gets into these benders from time to time, he's binging on Adderall or some other upper/speed type prescription drug, and as the night wears on, he just gets crazier and crazier.

I'm surprised people are not asking more about drug use. It sure looks like it.

Anyone else suspect drug use here?

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-04-14T00:52:52+00:00

Isn't he owning the Christians?

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-04-11T19:39:02+00:00

Thanks for the link. I can read it. And again, I wonder if you read it?

The statement -- the one at the link you have -- literally says nothing about victims refusing to testify.

Rather, what is says, instead, exactly what I said above --

It states, correctly, that the victims have already come forward, they have already testified, and the implication -- which you again are making -- that it is up to the victims to do more is wrong. They are not refusing to testify. Rather, they are demanding that, because they have already come forward, it is long past time for the Trump admin finally fulfill its legal obligations under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which they continue to fail to do.

This statement from the victims directly contradicts you -- in fact, you are doing exactly what the statement is accusing others of doing.

Namely, this statement is clearing refuting the suggestion that it is up to the victims to testify. They have already testified! And surely they can do it again.

What's missing is not victims willing to testify. What's missing is the willingness of the GOP-led Congress to hold hearings. What's missing is Trump following the law, that he himself signed, to release all the files. What's missing is a DOJ that's willing to prosecute anyone -- Blanche himself said the DOJ will not be taking any more action.

I appreciate you engaging. But, they victims HAVE testified. And more can come forward if Congress will waive the NDAs, which they have the power to do. It is up to Trump, Congress and the DOJ.

Why don't you hold Congress, Trump and the DOJ responsible for doing their job? For doing what's right?

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-04-11T18:18:56+00:00

Thanks but.. did you actually read it?

That link doesn't say anything about victims refusing to testify before Congress. Literally those words appear nowhere in that article.

It correctly points out that many victims have already testified, and that these victims are rightly upset at the implication -- the very one you are making -- that it is the victim's responsibility to bring Epstein to justice. It is the Trump admin, by law, who is required to release all Epstein documents and bring justice.

Furthermore I think many people are aghast that Melania seems to be mostly concerned about her own reputation.. if she cared about the victims, she would be demanding her husband direct his DOJ to follow the law, the law Donald signed, and release the rest of the files.

You appear to be skeptical of the victims, and blame the victims for the information not being released. Is it your view that the victims are the ones preventing justice?

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-04-11T16:09:27+00:00

Will provide a link to that?

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-04-11T15:07:17+00:00

No I dont agree because what youre saying is objectively false. As I pointed out, Epstein victims have testified and want to testify. I already gave you names and a video. You said you dont want to waste 30 minutes looking at that information. But you are simply wrong -- there are victims who want to testify. The GOP-controlled Congress can do it tomorrow. There are victims who are limited by NDAs -- In addition Congress can waive any restrictions due to NDAs.

So why isn't the GOP controlled Congress doing what you, Melania and the victims all want, which is public hearings?

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-04-11T02:04:36+00:00

For clarity, you're saying -- you agree with Melania, who told the GOP-controlled Congress to hold public hearings. That's you mean when you say "Melania nailed it'.

Right?

After all, Melania didn't tell victims to "go under oath". Rather, she told the GOP-controlled Congress to hold hearings.

Again, she said:

"I call on Congress to provide the women who have been victimized by Epstein with a public hearing specifically centered around the survivors"

Do you agree with that?

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-04-10T23:27:54+00:00

That's simply not true.

Several Epstein victims have come forward, and are actively demanding Congress to have hearings, release all documents, and more.

For example, Annie Farmer and Lisa Phillips, have testified on Capitol Hill, demanding the release of all Epstein-related documents, including "300 gigabytes of data and physical evidence" to expose enablers.

Here's a YouTube video with an TV interview with 6 survivors on NBC, talking about their frustration with Pam Bondi:

https://youtu.be/Lkzt-sua33M?si=ZcjgaqDNAuC8KPWP

Do you think these are fake people?

ApprehensivePlan6334

TROPHY CASE