[abakker]

Yeah…and while prices are still so high and the state of downtown is still so poor, it’s a tough sell for residential, too. SF isn’t worth what it thinks it is, and that’s the trouble.

(Bias: I moved out in 2020, even though I was rent controlled at 2012 prices. The city was great at 2012 prices, but we knew leaving meant never coming back. Even so, QOL has improved a lot since leaving.)

[kelnos]

> SF isn’t worth what it thinks it is, and that’s the trouble.

Isn't that by definition false? If living here was worth less, rents and home prices would drop. Sure, rents dipped quite a bit during the pandemic, but they've recovered somewhat, possibly completely. Home prices didn't change much. And yes, I know that these costs are propped up by things like zoning, the city planning process, NIMBYism, etc., but that doesn't really matter: there's still -- somehow -- enough demand to keep prices as high as they are.

(Bias: I bought a condo in the Dogpatch in 2020, right before the pandemic hit. I've been really happy with our QOL since moving, even during the pandemic. The neighborhood has mostly recovered, with only a few businesses closing permanently.)

[abakker]

I mean, I'm not shorting SF real estate, but no, valuation can be wrong and also not tautological. There are lots of reasons in SF that prices don't adjust - e.g. rent control and the tax advantage of unoccupied buildings vs accepting a permanently lower rent. There's lots of reasons that value doesn't adjust quickly.