Comments 1 - 16 of 16 Search these comments
"I don't know where I'm going to go if I have to leave here," Hutchinson told local ABC News affiliate KGO-TV. "So, I honestly don't know what I'm going to do. I'm struggling here."
Seriously? A grown man in his 40s "doesn't know where to go" if the exact apartment he's currently renting is not available for him for exact price he's paying now? Take BART across the bay and rent similar digs for cheaper. 30 minutes on BART won't kill you. Nobody owes you anything.
30 minutes on BART won't kill you. Nobody owes you anything.
Too many idiots in SF think it is a right to live there for $1800/months.
30 minutes on BART won't kill you. Nobody owes you anything.
Too many idiots in SF think it is a right to live there for $1800/months.
Some idiots think that it's reasonable to pay $8000 per month in rent to live in San Francisco.
Some idiots think that it's reasonable to pay $8000 per month in rent to live in San Francisco.
People pay a lot more for a single night in a hotel. Why not $8,000 a month for rent.
It's a free country. The landlord can charge anything he wants, no one has to accept it.
I don't understand why the fuck anyone would actually want to live there in the first place. And yes I know where I live (Baltimore City) sucks, but at least I'm paying very little to live there.
Some idiots think that it's reasonable to pay $8000 per month in rent to live in San Francisco.
Yes, but it IS a right to pay as much as you want. Reasonable or not.
e to pay $8000 per month in rent to live in San Francisco.
It's their money, why should we care how they spend it?
A San Francisco man faces eviction after his rent suddenly skyrocketed from $1,800 to $8,000 a month
How can this be? Doesnt the all knowing - all being - patnet rent vs buy calculator take this into account?
What a pussy.
He can get a nice apartment in the peninsula area, near Bart, for around $1800 or so.
He can get a nice apartment in the peninsula area, near Bart, for around $1800 or so.
I don't know. This video implies that rents in San Francisco are much higher than that:
www.youtube.com/embed/53GcLx1JLXY
"All I wanted is to be near my new Taqueria, "Hola Hitler"."
LOL
Some idiots think that it's reasonable to pay $8000 per month in rent to live in San Francisco.
Yes, but it IS a right to pay as much as you want. Reasonable or not.
Yes, it is everyone's inalienable right to be an idiot.
I don't understand why the fuck anyone would actually want to live there in the first place. And yes I know where I live (Baltimore City) sucks, but at least I'm paying very little to live there.
Its all relative isn't it? Right now, in some public library, some homeless dude is seeing a story on some guy paying $1,500 a month for Baltimore and writing:
"I don't understand why the fuck anyone would actually want to live there in the first place. And yes I know where I live (a cardboard box under an overpass in Dry Heeves, Indiana) sucks, but at least i'm paying very very VERY little to live here."
Its like this up and down the food chain of life as everyone points and laughs at what they think are foolish choices which the richer people make. A guy living in Somalia is pointing and laughing at the Dry Heeves Indiana "idiot", who is pointing and laughing at the Baltimore City "idiot" who is pointing and laughing at the SF "idiot". The SF idiot who has the means to pay (and stash his 401K and do all the rest of the things us responsible folk do) doesn't give a shit what any of us think of him. He is at the top of the food chain - such is life.
The SF idiot who has the means to pay (and stash his 401K and do all the rest of the things us responsible folk do) doesn't give a shit what any of us think of him. He is at the top of the food chain - such is life.
This interpretation implies that life and lifestyle in S.F. is objectively better and superior to the ones "lower on the food chain", but I have seen the places that are "owned" in san francisco and I know how much people paid for them. From my vantage point, they paid a higher price for a lower quality of life in a worse environment compared to many Bay Area suburbs and therefore it is fully reasonable to question the choice to "live in the city."
This interpretation implies that life and lifestyle in S.F. is objectively better and superior to the ones "lower on the food chain", but I have seen the places that are "owned" in san francisco and I know how much people paid for them. From my vantage point, they paid a higher price for a lower quality of life in a worse environment compared to many Bay Area suburbs and therefore it is fully reasonable to question the choice to "live in the city."
No - its entirely subjective. Swap out a postage stamp in the heart of SF for the guy who lives on 4,000 acres in Jackson Hole if you prefer - but the analysis is the same. The guy with 40,000 acres in Conjunctivits, Texas laughs and sneers at the "idiot" in Jackson Hole who pays 3X as much for 1/10th the space "what an idiot"! A guy in SF may laugh and sneer derisively at both of those idiots who "consume resources/aren't green" or don't live in the "thriving city near EVERYTHING". Its all different strokes for different folks.
The only factor that equivocates all those apples vs oranges choices that the various individuals make is price - the great equalizer. Note, if we KNOW that some guy is truly stretching to get his 4K acres or SF shack you can laugh at the idiot for being foolish with his money, but my own experience is that the people who truly can afford the very expensive stuff only got to be where they are by having a very large nest egg (either worked for or inherited) to go for those more expensive things. We like to think that they are hanging on by a thread, and that's why that "idiot" can have that thing that you or I cannot, but its in most cases just lies we tell ourselves to feel better about our lot in life.
https://gma.yahoo.com/san-francisco-resident-fights-sudden-rent-hike-more-213634312--abc-news-house-and-home.html#