In October 2022, San Francisco raised eyebrows when the city budgeted $1.7 million for a single-stall public restroom in the city’s Noe Valley neighborhood. The high price tag, according to city officials, was due to the steep price of construction in San Francisco, as well as remaining supply chain issues.

But the state stepped in shortly after, scrapping the planned bathroom after outrage spread over its high cost to taxpayers. Fifteen months later, the public plaza where the restroom was originally planned still doesn’t have a place to pee—and it doesn’t look like it will get one any time soon.

“Why isn’t there a toilet here? I just don’t get it. Nobody does,” one resident told The New York Times last week. “It’s yet another example of the city that can’t.”

San Francisco has the most expensive construction costs in the world—and it’s hardly surprising. In order to build a public bathroom in Noe Valley, at a location that already had the necessary plumbing to add a restroom, builders would have to pass a dizzying number of regulatory stops. These include seeking approval from the Arts Commission’s Civic Design Review committee, passing review under the California Environmental Quality Act, and getting the go-ahead from the city’s Rec and Park Commission and San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors. If that isn’t enough, the project would also be subject to a period of “community feedback.”

Even after gaining approval, the city wouldn’t be free to simply find the cheapest acceptable bathroom—likely a pre-fabricated option—and connect it to city plumbing. According to a 2022 San Francisco Chronicle article, pre-fabricated bathrooms violate the city’s Public Labor Agreement. Adding to costs, the city would also be required to use union labor to construct the bathroom.

While the $1.7 million price tag was rightfully criticized, should the project have been allowed to go forward, the budget might not have been an overestimate. San Francisco’s regulatory burden on new construction—even something as simple as a single-stall bathroom—is just that high. 

Even San Francisco’s own government has conceded that the Noe Valley bathroom fiasco was a sign that the city has too much regulation. “It’s worth changing the laws that are in place around construction projects like the restroom that slow things down,” a spokesperson for Mayor London Breed told the Times. 

But this is far from the first time that local governments have earmarked absurdly large sums of money to pay for public bathrooms. In 2017, New York City spent $2 million on a public park bathroom. And last year, Philadelphia caused controversy when it announced that it would spend $1.8 million on six modular Portland Loo bathrooms over the next five years—a model that cities across the country have spent millions on in recent years.

The post California Stopped San Francisco’s $1.7 Million Rest room. The Metropolis Cannot Construct One thing Cheaper. appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

Choreograph / Getty Images

The pandemic triggered a migration out of big, expensive cities as people sought financial relief in lower-cost towns and suburbs. But according to the Washington Post, the movement was short-lived. Many of those migrants have since returned after discovering that the grass wasn’t as green as they had hoped on the less expensive side of the hill.

See: 5 Reasons the Housing Market is Reversing
Know: 3 Things You Must Do When Your Savings Reach $50,000

“Relocating to a cheaper city to find a lower cost of living may seem like a financially savvy decision at first glance,” said real estate investor Andrzej Lipski of Next Door Properties in Connecticut. “The dream of reduced expenses, lower taxes and a more affordable lifestyle can be appealing, especially for those looking to stretch their budgets. However, it’s essential to look beyond the surface benefits and consider the potential downsides of such a move.”

Here’s what you need to think about if the allure of low-cost living tempts you to move.

You Might Trade Economic Opportunity for Cheap Living

Most people expect to earn higher incomes in expensive cities or lower incomes where life costs less, but the economic tradeoff is more complex than that.

“Moving into a cheaper city invariably means transitioning to a place with less economic diversity, which, unfortunately, translates to limited opportunities for financial advancement,” said Pete Evering, business development manager at Utopia Property. “While the allure of reduced living expenses may be appealing, it’s crucial to recognize that economic diversity often fosters a range of industries, creating a thriving job market with numerous possibilities for career growth.”

He continued, “Unless your work can be done entirely remotely and requires no physical presence in a specific location, you’ll inevitably find yourself immersed in and dependent upon the economic ecosystem of the city you choose to call home. This reliance may impact your career choices and prospects, making it essential to carefully consider how the economic landscape of your new city aligns with your long-term goals.”

Story continues

I’m a Real Estate Agent: Buy Real Estate in These 5 Countries To Be Rich in 10 Years

If It’s an Emerging City, Prices Could Rise

Some low-cost cities break the mold and offer strong economies, attractive amenities and a high quality of life. But they’re rare, coveted and tend to fill up fast. And when the crowd increases, so does the cost.

“A cheaper city may not stay cheap for long,” said Evering. “While it may seem like a financial win at the outset, there is no guarantee that the city’s cost of living will remain consistently low.”

According to Fortune, the people who fled big, expensive cities like New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco during the pandemic got the cheaper housing they sought — but only for a while. At the start of the migration, the average relocated renter saved 12.4%. That gap has since dwindled to 5.8%.

“Factors such as inflation and economic expansions can lead to an increase in prices across various goods and services,” said Evering. “As neighborhoods evolve and develop, gentrification may set in, causing a surge in property values and overall living costs. The very characteristics that make a city attractive for its affordability today could change in the future, catching many residents off guard.”

If It’s a Declining City, Home Values Could Fall

Gentrification and the potential for future cost-of-living increases is one risk — but the alternative is worse.

“While housing might be cheaper, property values in cheaper cities may not appreciate as much over time compared to more expensive urban centers, potentially impacting long-term investments,” said Mike Qiu, a licensed real estate agent and owner of Good as Sold Home Buyers in Seattle.

Many inexpensive places suffer from population decline, and if you’re moving in as the town is emptying out, then slow appreciation isn’t your biggest risk. Your property could lose value and become difficult to sell in the future, even at a loss.

Low Taxes Mean Fewer Services

Low taxes contribute to low living costs, but tax dollars pay for programs and facilities that you might have gotten used to in a more expensive city that your new town is lacking.

“Lots of people move to cheaper cities for the cheaper taxes they will have to pay but don’t realize that the lower taxes typically come with fewer services,” said Lipski. “Consider the long-term impact of property taxes and the quality of services that you will get before making a decision, especially if you are relocating a family. Relocating to an area with poor schools or limited educational resources can hurt your children’s academic development and future prospects.”

You Could Face Limited Access to Quality Healthcare

According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, people in sparsely populated, lower-income regions with lower living costs tend to have worse health than those in higher-cost cities, but less access to the doctors, hospitals and treatments they need.

“Cheaper cities often have limited health care options, longer waiting times, or lower-quality medical facilities,” said Lipski. “It’s critical to evaluate the accessibility and quality of healthcare services in the new location to ensure your family’s well-being, especially if you or a loved one have major healthcare needs.”

Culture and Amenities: Living Costs vs. Quality of Life

If you’ve gotten used to the nightlife, arts, entertainment and diversity that are common to pricier cities, you might be in for a difficult dose of culture shock in your new town.

“Moving to a cheaper city may mean sacrificing access to events, entertainment options and fun activities that you enjoy where you currently are,” said Lipski. “A lack of diverse cultural amenities may impact your overall lifestyle satisfaction and make building new social networks harder.”

The last point might be the most important consideration of all.

“Social connections are important to people,” said Lipski. “Moving to a cheaper city often means leaving behind family, friends and relationships you’ve spent years cultivating. Moving potentially leads to feelings of isolation and loneliness. A strong social network contributes significantly to overall well-being, and rebuilding these connections can be challenging in a new location.”

More From GOBankingRates

This article originally appeared on GOBankingRates.com: Real Estate Agents: Here Are the Downsides of Moving to a Cheaper City

The post Right here Are the Downsides of Transferring to a Cheaper Metropolis appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

The world of fine dining is an enticing place, typically employing intricate cooking techniques and luxurious ingredients as chefs create beautifully presented dishes worth savoring. The Bay Area is fortunate to be home to a number of Michelin-starred and James Beard Award-winning restaurants and chefs, but dining at one of these acclaimed restaurants usually comes with a hefty entrance fee that sends diners around $200 or more each Person can cost person – a price that the average, price-conscious guest regularly cannot afford. Plus, these luxury experiences typically last for hours, stretching a meal into a full-length, multi-course marathon event in even the busiest restaurants.

But a sea change seems to be underway in the Bay Area: A number of upscale restaurants are offering shorter, more affordable tasting menus that could open the door to the world of fine dining for new customers. Restaurants including two Michelin-starred Commis, two Michelin-starred Birdsong, one Michelin-starred Bar Crenn, one Michelin-starred Sorrel and one Michelin-starred Mister Jius all recently released tasting menus at lower prices moving towards more affordable territory and cutting those long meals down to more manageable lengths. At Bar Crenn, for example, the Le Comptoir experience includes a six-course selection of “impromptu dishes” that cost $300 per person. Bar Crenn’s newly added snack menu, meanwhile, offers “five luxurious and playful little bites, both savory and sweet” at a much lower price of $125 — perhaps perfect for someone who’s tiptoeing into sampling celebrity chef Dominique’s dishes Crenn wants to hatch.

“This is an access point for those nights when you might want to spend some cash and be confident.”

At Sorrel in San Francisco, in addition to a two-and-a-half hour eight-course experience priced at $185 per person, the team recently added a four-course tasting menu at $98 per person for a 90-minute meal. The trigger for creating the shorter tasting menu, according to operations manager Joel Wilkerson, was the debut of Sorrel’s bar program last fall. Unlike the restaurant, the eight-seat bar requires no reservations and prides itself on first-come, first-served service with an a la carte menu and low-alcohol cocktails. Response to the bar program has been overwhelmingly positive, and Wilkerson says the team has been looking for more ways to “make people happy.” “The whole point was just creating accessibility to experience what we’re doing here,” says Wilkerson, “without the commitment of having to be here for three or more hours on a Wednesday night.”

Discussing the new four-course meal, Wilkerson pointed to the pandemic as a learning opportunity for the sorrel group; Having been through a lot with COVID, the team needed to take a closer look at their product and their customer. “I think restaurants are fundamentally evolving and changing things,” says Wilkerson. “And to run a restaurant, you have to be agile and be able to pivot and change.” Part of that is recognizing that the restaurant scene can be restrictive. Another reason for the new menu, he says, is to get the city moving again and get residents active — including by giving them reasons to get out and maybe try a new restaurant. “It’s really about getting people out on the sidewalks,” he says, “out in the restaurants and making San Francisco feel alive again.”

Patricia Chang

Mister Jiu’s in Chinatown offered an a la carte menu when it debuted seven years ago, but the restaurant has recently switched to a five-course tasting menu that costs $115 per person (with the option of larger and pricier dishes like Liberty Farms’ popular whole roast duck). For Executive Chef Brandon Jew, the new tasting menu presented a new opportunity. In practice, it offered his team the ability to prepare and execute more detailed dishes, such as B. a finely folded giant dumpling that has been added to the new seasonal menu. The change also yielded more practical results: less food waste, for example, because guests pre-select all dishes when making reservations. To Jew, the updates just make sense. “I feel like this is a way for me to potentially make this restaurant last longer,” he says. “For me that was more important.”

Whatever the reasons for these new, more affordable, and typically short menus, it seems Bay Area diners are responding positively to the changes. According to Wilkerson, regular customers have contacted Sorrel to express their excitement for a shorter, less expensive tasting menu with the high quality they have come to expect from the restaurant. “It’s a stepping stone, right? It’s there for people to get their feet wet,” says Wilkerson. “Sometimes it’s your anniversary, do you want to spend all the money you have in your savings account to go out to dinner? Sometimes you want to experience something different or something new and maybe you’ve never been to a Michelin star restaurant – this is an access point for those nights when you might want to indulge and rely on it.”

Sign up for the newsletter

Eater SF

Sign up for our newsletter.

The post Right here’s Why A few of San Francisco’s Michelin-Starred Eating places Are Rolling Out Cheaper, Shorter Tasting Menus appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

The good people of Noe Valley won’t have to endure much longer.

City officials vowed Friday that they will accept a donated modular toilet for the neighborhood’s lovely town square — and that they’ve eliminated much of the bloat in their initial, stomach-churning budget estimate for the installation.

Now the long-awaited toilet won’t cost as much as a house in San Francisco — just as much as a substantial remodel. And it will be operational by the end of this summer, much sooner than the original projections.

The bathroom brouhaha is happily coming to an end, but let’s hope this is just the beginning of a much deeper investigation into why San Francisco’s $14 billion annual budget seems to be buying us so little. And finding ways to cut costs, especially as the city faces looming budget deficits.

“It’s not easy navigating the city’s procurement and construction processes, which of course is of small consolation when your 2-year-old needs a diaper change,” said Phil Ginsburg, general manager of the city’s Recreation and Parks Department, in an explanation.

Crucially, he pledged to support efforts to prevent future projects from throwing such a stench at the city government. Originally slated to cost $1.7 million, the 150-square-foot, single-toilet bathroom wouldn’t open until 2025, an incredible waste of time and money that drew ridicule across the country.

“We will fully support the efforts of our city leaders to make small public works projects like this — which are not always saved by philanthropy — less costly and more efficient,” Ginsburg said in the statement, referring to $200 million private philanthropy the department has received over the past 12 years to help realize park projects. He did not respond to a request for further comment.

The Noe Valley toilet saga began in October when Assembly Member Matt Haney announced he had secured $1.7 million in government funding to build the toilet and was planning a press conference to celebrate. The town square was built in 2016 on a converted church car park – complete with plumbing but no toilet – and neighbors had been asking for a bathroom for years.

But when that column raised questions about the crappy cost and schedule, Haney canceled his potty party and Gov. Gavin Newsom put toilet funds on hold until the city could install the dresser without flushing so much money down the drain.

Chad Kaufman, president of the Public Restroom Co., offered to give the city a free modular bathroom. And his buddy Vaughan Buckley, CEO of Volumetric Building Cos., promised he would provide free architectural and engineering assistance to get the site ready. They also agreed to fund the installation and hire local union workers.

But three months later, the city still hadn’t accepted his potty gift on a silver platter. And as I told you last week, Rec and Park Supervisor Rafael Mandelman, representing Noe Valley, said that even with the donated toilet, the cost to the city could still be close to $1 million.

It was all enough to send San Francisco taxpayers, who yearn for a responsive, productive, and cost-conscious city government, to their tums.

But sweet relief has finally arrived. Last week’s column bemoaning the still-exorbitant costs may have prompted Rec and Park to take action. Because on Friday she announced movement.

It will take over Kaufman’s toilet and associated plumbing, which together is worth $425,000. Rec and Park also appears to have saved $491,000 from its own estimated costs, eliminating construction line items, project management fees, architectural and engineering fees, regulatory costs and other items, according to a department press release.

The department said it still has $300,000 to come up in costs, including hiring a landscaping firm to create construction illustrations depicting building details, site improvements, and mechanical, electrical, and plumbing work. Rec and Park said it would in-house permit and contract management and coordinate environmental reviews and permits itself. Usually she pays other city authorities for these services.

The goal, the department said, is to convince the state to release the $1.7 million to cover the $300,000 cost of the Noe Valley toilet and the rest to buy one modular bathroom for Precita Park.

That shows it’s possible to install toilets for $725,000 — a million less than originally estimated. It’s still an insanely high number, but not as outrageously as initially projected. And it also shows that the timeline can be significantly shortened.

Because the donated restroom and installation are gifts, the city can accept them, although the Public Restroom Co. is headquartered in Nevada, a no-go along with 29 other states for city contracts due to their stance on abortion rights, voting rights, or LGBTQ rights.

Mandelman has asked the city attorney general to draft legislation that would remove the contract ban in 30 states, saying it hurts San Francisco financially and fails to convince officials in those other states to be more tolerant. He would keep the ban on city-sponsored travel to those states.

He has also asked city manager Carmen Chu to draft a recommendation streamlining the process for signing small contracts in hopes of making projects like the toilet cheaper and faster. He expects to use the recommendation for bills he will present this spring.

“That’s a better result,” Mandelman told me of the $725,000 toilet, which will arrive 18 months earlier than expected. “But the whole exercise has shown that there are ways that the city could drastically reduce costs if we were to be more cost conscious.”

Supervisor Myrna Melgar said she believes part of the problem stems from Mohammed Nuru’s corrupt leadership of San Francisco’s public works and that he regularly surcharged the cost of his department’s services to other departments, rates now considered normal, although they are excessive. (Nuru was sentenced to seven years in prison last year after pleading guilty to federal fraud charges.)

Melgar expects to soon receive the full accounting of the projects she has requested from Public Works, which she will use as the basis for a hearing on the Noe Valley toilet and other overpriced projects.

“After you published that toilet story, I heard from a number of departments who said, ‘Keep it up!'” she said, meaning they believe the contracting process is also broken and need help fixing the issue .

She said it’s critical that a city that wants to build 82,000 housing units by 2031 — and that also needs to improve its public transit system — figure out how to build much cheaper and faster.

“How are we supposed to manage all this if we can’t do a toilet?” she said.

Haney said he also takes lessons in toilet troubles.

“When the city asks me to bring funds home for important projects, I ask a lot more questions,” he told me. “But hopefully the city will also ask more questions of itself.”

He said he will be at Noe Valley Town Square this summer to see the first day of the toilet in action. Call it Party Party #2. I asked who he thought should have the honor of the first flush.

“Definitely a kid who grew up near Town Square and should have had a bathroom five years ago,” he said.

Sounds like a plan to me.

Heather Knight is a columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle. Email: hknight@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @hknightsf

The post Noe Valley will get its cheaper toilet and Metropolis Corridor will get classes in finance appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.