https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...s-STOPS-making-payments-725-million-loan.html Exposure is such a thoughtful word. Literally it’s cheaper to get out than to have to deal with how San Francisco is being run right now. Removing yourself from a toxic situation always works out in the long run. That is an astonishing level of decline in revenue and as the article notes, at a certain stage they were subsidizing these buildings rather than earning money from them. Revenues and income are collapsing and that means lost taxes will be following. That means San Francisco and California will have even fewer resources to double down on failed solutions with a the next go around. Don’t worry. I’m sure the empty store fronts, crime and buildings given back to banks due to lack of market viability won’t alter any poll or election results. Nothing will change on that front.
Sad to say, the hotels will probably be converted into condos. I've noticed a trend in all these overcrowded Democrat areas where there keeps being more and more people (and more and more tiny housing squeezed together), yet at the same time it seems like businesses are closing and there are fewer stores, commercial spaces, or retail establishments, which are going out of business or can't afford the rent. (And this is mostly NOT because of online retail, despite what the population thinks and has been told. data show that online retail is still less than 15% of total overall retail sales) I think there are more people, but those people have less money to spend. (People are getting poorer as the population increases) So we see the paradox of more people, yet businesses like hotels are closing down. But I think you are right. Another phenomena is that tourism is down in San Francisco and people with money from other parts of the country don't want to go there as much as they used to. It's not so much the crime but the sight of all the homelessness. People don't want to see that, and that really keeps the tourism away. It's uncomfortable and psychologically difficult to see.
Two new follow up articles show it's really getting desperate for San Francisco. [URL unfurl="true"]https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-year-cost-San-Francisco-business-exodus.html[/URL] So in short the hotels mentioned in the initial OP are just the tip of the iceberg for this sinking Titanic. The revenue projections from the chief accountant for the city show it could be much much worse. Classic double down, you've got to love these folks. Then we get this additional news from WSJ. [URL unfurl="true"]https://www.wsj.com/articles/hotel-...-san-francisco-as-business-nosedives-e84c64ef[/URL] Repeating some of the information above but for those that can't digest information unless it is pre-chewed, this second source will help. This is the part of the other shoe that hasn't dropped yet. When these buildings sell for much less or even are deemed to be worth much less, it will radically alter the property taxes collected. Then you have rising interest rates, deferred maintenance and when sitting in the middle of a homeless, crime ridden **** hole it isn't hard to see why it's easier to just go make that money somewhere else. San Francisco is really in trouble understand that hubs like San Francisco are part of why California ONLY has a $30 billion dollar deficit this year. Many blue states and cities are in similar or worse financial circumstances with regard to bonds, taxes, pensions and so on. It's getting ready to get much worse for them. Perhaps they'll declare themselves to be part of the Ukraine and catch a few free billion dollars that way.
