Thousands of New Millionaires Are About to Eat San Francisco Alive

[jd3189]

^^^ If the current conditions get worse, a tech version of Rio de Janienro.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by jd3189

^^^ If the current conditions get worse, a tech version of Rio de Janienro.

Actually no. SF is becoming a city for the rich while the poor are being pushed out-fast.

According to the Census Bureau, the number of poor persons and poor families is decreasing rather rapidly in SF while the number of wealthy families has doubled in the same time frame. In 2017 only 5.1% of SF families were poor while nearly 45% of SF families earned $150,000 or more.

People often say that cities with disparity have lots of rich and lots of poor with a small middle class. That doesnt really apply to SF.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Actually no. SF is becoming a city for the rich while the poor are being pushed out-fast.

According to the Census Bureau, the number of poor persons and poor families is decreasing rather rapidly in SF while the number of wealthy families has doubled in the same time frame. In 2017 only 5.1% of SF families were poor while nearly 45% of SF families earned $150,000 or more.

People often say that cities with disparity have lots of rich and lots of poor with a small middle class. That doesnt really apply to SF.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this only includes the actual city limits of San Francisco? Obviously the poor are being pushed out but they may be moving across the bay, not across the country.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Actually no. SF is becoming a city for the rich while the poor are being pushed out-fast . . . .

People often say that cities with disparity have lots of rich and lots of poor with a small middle class. That doesnt really apply to SF.

Does that mean that soon there'll be no need to keep funding this disaster because nobody will need it:

San Francisco must take over troubled Housing Authority
By Adam Brinklow Mar 8, 2019, 2:26pm PST

The San Francisco Housing Authority (SFHA) got word this week that San Francisco city government will take over most of its duties, as the federal government is fed up with what it calls mismanagement and financial irresponsibility at the agency that manages housing vouchers in SF . . . .

HUD alleges that the Housing Authority has not been keeping up with necessary financial reports and has neglected oversight of its budgets.

The HUD move comes after a nearly $30 million budget deficit in 2018 required a bailout for SFHA from both the city and the feds . . . .

The city of San Francisco must now “assume responsibility for the essential functions currently being performed by SFHA,” according to the HUD mandate. This will now make the city the key to rental assistance for an estimated 14,000 SF households.

Despite the words “San Francisco” in the Housing Authority’s name, SFHA doesn’t have much to do with city government, and answers primarily to federal authorities. SFHA manages the payment of Section 8 housing vouchers to qualifying SF renters . . . .

https://sf.curbed.com/2019/3/8/18256...ral-government

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this only includes the actual city limits of San Francisco? Obviously the poor are being pushed out but they may be moving across the bay, not across the country.

An awful lot of the people moving out are not actually poor (the very poor aren't moving because SF offers some of the best benefits around) and would be considered solidly middle class most places which means they can afford SF's exurbs in the Central Valley in places like Manteca and Stockton and they are moving there, not so much just "across the Bay", which isn't so cheap itself. Farther south, in places like Hayward and San Leandro you will find some relatively affordable garden style apartment buildings and some may be moving there. But west of the coastal hills you aren't going to find much market rate housing affordable to "the poor" and even the lower middle class.

Ironically, because it's shrouded in fog all summer and residents rarely see the sun, one little-known spot used to be relatively affordable: Pacifica and even the western edge of San Francisco near the Pacific Ocean beaches. But no more.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Dude, homeless people aren't choosing to be homeless as part of some hippie spirit quest BS, they're doing it because they're seriously fucked in the head. Most homeless people are either addicted to drugs, mentally ill or both. They are not capable of making rational decisions about their own welfare and you're not doing them any favor by letting them live out in the elements.

"Dude", have you ever personally met a homeless person? I used to meet about 10 or 15 a day in the opiate treatment program where I worked (SF provides walk-in treatment on demand). I didn't say they were chosing to be homeless. I said they were chosing to live "rough" (i.e outside--in the tents that annoy so many) as opposed to living in city shelters.

The substance abusing and mentally ill sorts you refer to are actually most resistant to shelters because shelters have rules. A tent on the sidewalk, in San Francisco, doesn't.

Whether or not you think they are capable of making rational decisions, with a very few exceptions San Franciscans mostly do and therein lies much of the problem.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

The substance abusing and mentally ill sorts you refer to are actually most resistant to shelters because shelters have rules. A tent on the sidewalk, in San Francisco, doesn't.

One shouldn't be able to escape the law simply by living in a tent. Despite what liberal politicians want you to believe opiates and other drugs aren't illegal due to some sort of government conspiracy, they're illegal because they kill more people in a year than we lost in the entire Vietnam War. And even those that don't die create a massive burden on society and increase crime. These people need to be removed from the streets for both their own welfare and the welfare of others.

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Whether or not you think they are capable of making rational decisions, with a very few exceptions San Franciscans mostly do and therein lies much of the problem.

Yes, the problem is people so encumbered by political rhetoric that they can't see the issues right in front of their face.

[mt_climber13]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

The press is like a dog with a bone and they are enjoying this one to the max. What sells it is the contrast between the city's extreme wealth and natural beauty, at least one or the other and often both enjoyed by so many, and the isolated areas of poverty which are part of its "image". They exist because we allow them to since we pride ourselves on "tolerance" and "permissiveness" to an extreme few other places do. We could crack down like other cities might--and personally I wish we would--but it wouldn't be "San Franciscan. So the press will keep sending reporters to our fair city to enjoy themselves--I bet they line up to report this story--and film a sidewalk t*rd.

Almost all of the press links are from San Francisco and Bay Area news. Some people in the Bay Area actually want to clean up the place. But those people seem to getting fed up and are moving out to cleaner, nicer, more naturally beautiful places (the SF climate isn't that nice especially compared to everything south of Monterey) while the enablers who live in gated condo communities and take Uber everywhere pretend that the problem isn't serious and shouldn't be the #1 priority. It is a public health hazard that affects the well being (mentally and physically) of the entire community.

Instead, the ones accused of ruining the city are techies and uber. These kinds of liberals are a parody of themselves, and have much in common with the Trump cult base (denial of facts and emotion above all)

SF libraries as sanctuaries for the homeless

"Librarians began noticing about 15 years ago that homeless people were coming in in increasing numbers to use the internet, wash up, take naps — and, as much as anything, simply read and have some quiet time.”

And I love San Francisco. I lived there for 11 years. Just last night I attended a concert at the Masonic Auditorium, which my great grandfather helped build. I get so depressed when I visit and see the "urban hillbilly-ification" of the city. A weird term but what I mean by it is that the city doesn't come off as world class- it comes off as sloppy.

[dimondpark]

I don't know where poor families are moving to because the data suggests that it's not really Oakland-where in the last 5 years, the total percentage of families earning $150,000 surged past the percentage of poor families.

Families Living In Poverty:
Place---------------------2012------2017
Oakland-----------------19.5%-----11.6%
San Francisco----------9.0%------5.1%
SF-Oak Urban Area---8.8%------5.7%

Families Earning $150,000+:
Place-----------------------2012-------2017
Oakland-------------------16.6%------24.6%
San Francisco----------28.8%-----43.8%
SF-Oak Urban Area---25.6%-----38.1%

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Actually no. SF is becoming a city for the rich while the poor are being pushed out-fast.

According to the Census Bureau, the number of poor persons and poor families is decreasing rather rapidly in SF while the number of wealthy families has doubled in the same time frame. In 2017 only 5.1% of SF families were poor while nearly 45% of SF families earned $150,000 or more.

People often say that cities with disparity have lots of rich and lots of poor with a small middle class. That doesnt really apply to SF.

So, an open gated community.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by jd3189

So, an open gated community.

And if the Board of Supervisors have their way, soon to have an entrance fee and maybe a gate.

Congestion pricing: SF considering a fee to drive downtown
Rachel Swan
Feb. 13, 2019 Updated: Feb. 13, 2019 4:09 p.m.

San Francisco officials are contemplating tolls to drive along busy arteries downtown, where traffic crawls so slowly that cars spend much of the journey sitting.

The county Transportation Authority board — also known as the Board of Supervisors — set aside $500,000 this week to study the idea and gather data on who drives downtown during rush hour and why . . . .

Officials haven’t quite nailed down their definition of “downtown,” which would probably include the SoMa and Financial District neighborhoods that link to the Bay Bridge. This eastern swath is among four areas in the city that could become testing grounds for pricing interventions.

The supervisors are also hemming and hawing over a proposal to charge $3.50 to enter and exit Treasure Island — which infuriates residents, even though transit officials say it’s necessary to prevent gridlock on the Bay Bridge . . . . And then there’s the possibility of tolled express lanes along Interstate 280 and Highway 101, connecting San Francisco to San Mateo county . . . .

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/...e-13614717.php

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by mt_climber13

"Librarians began noticing about 15 years ago that homeless people were coming in in increasing numbers to use the internet, wash up, take naps — and, as much as anything, simply read and have some quiet time.”

And I love San Francisco. I lived there for 11 years. Just last night I attended a concert at the Masonic Auditorium, which my great grandfather helped build. I get so depressed when I visit and see the "urban hillbilly-ification" of the city. A weird term but what I mean by it is that the city doesn't come off as world class- it comes off as sloppy.

The New Main Library is in one of the more troubled parts of town but no question it has been taken over to a regrettable extent by the homeless. The bathroom on the ground floor is scary. This is yet one more aspect of the "tolerance" on which a majority of locals pride themselves that I wish all the newcomers would overrule--but not so far.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

I don't know where poor families are moving to because the data suggests that it's not really Oakland-where in the last 5 years, the total percentage of families earning $150,000 surged past the percentage of poor families.

I'll repeat myself: I don't think the poorest of the poor are going anywhere because they won't find better benefits anywhere else. The people leaving are more like "working class" (aka "lower middle class"--our store clerks etc) people who are employed and are going all over, from Hayward to Atlanta. Lots are apparently going to Texas.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I'll repeat myself: I don't think the poorest of the poor are going anywhere because they won't find better benefits anywhere else. The people leaving are more like "working class" (aka "lower middle class"--our store clerks etc) people who are employed and are going all over, from Hayward to Atlanta. Lots are apparently going to Texas.

I agree that the poor will stay because why leave a place that gives you free stuff? However, I think those that are leaving are the lower middle class to the solid middle class. A family of four is leaving California for places like Texas, Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, Utah because of limited housing options due to extreme costs and commute times to get from a safe affordable home in CA to their area of employment.

A 90 minute commute each way in addition to working 8-10 hours a day, only to barely scrape by and miss important family milestones gets old for middle aged people raising a family. I know people that love CA, but just decided to uproot themselves and go because it wasn't worth it.

[edale]

Originally Posted by mthd

this narrative is really tiresome. and untrue.

maybe you've lived here a while and your apartment is rent-controlled. maybe you have a roommate. maybe you live in a charming little in-law unit in a quiet part of town. hundreds of thousands people live comfortably here on 70k or 80k.

san francisco is a beautiful city. there are still places to get an incredible burrito for 7 or 8 bucks or a beer and a shot for 5. a cross-town train ride for $2 (bart) or $2.50 (muni.) incredible parks, for free. beaches, for free. museums on some days, for free. public events, for free. you don't need a car. mild weather, incredible views, one of north america's most walkable cities. there are not camps of homeless people "everywhere." yes, it's a problem. yes, it's getting better. no, they're not an impediment to daily life. i walk 6 or 7 miles in the city every single day, to work and meetings and restaurants and bars and parks and with my two little girls and we have never once felt unsafe. sad for people's situation, yes. do we have to constantly step over twitching addicts and feces and needles and whatever else fox news would like you to believe? no. never, in fact.

i work in an office of a couple hundred people were the median salary below the executive level is around 70k. these people aren't miserable. they love it here, or they'd leave. they could, in a heartbeat. no, they don't live in a 150k mcmansion or a brand-new townhouse all by themselves.

your "very much the reality" is bullshit.

Oh, you mean your hometown isn't a total shithole, and the bad stereotypes about it are untrue and annoying/hurtful? Now you know how millions of people in 'flyover country' feel

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by edale

Oh, you mean your hometown isn't a total shithole, and the bad stereotypes about it are untrue and annoying/hurtful? Now you know how millions of people in 'flyover country' feel

When you have the kind of housing shortages and housing price inflation in flyover country that we have because so many people want and can afford to live there, we'll commisserate.

[edale]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

When you have the kind of housing shortages and housing price inflation in flyover country that we have because so many people want and can afford to live there, we'll commisserate.

WTF does that even mean? I was merely pointing out how it's not fun to see the place you're from needlessly derided over things that are either not true or grossly exaggerated. People in California love to talk dismissively about the Rust Belt and flyover country, but when the media talks about SF's issues with homelessness and dirty street, San Franciscans get all worked up and say it's not a fair representation of their city. My comment had nothing to do with the desirability of the city.

For what it's worth, I've experienced way more issues with the homeless in Los Angeles than I ever have in SF, and I visit there about 4 times a year to visit family. Skid Row in LA makes the Tenderloin look like a gated community in OC. Plus, there are large concentrations of homeless people all over LA- from Venice and Santa Monica, to Van Nuys and Valley neighborhoods, to Koreatown and Westlake. I recently had to to to the Chinese consulate in Koreatown to get a visa, and was shocked to see a tent city for blocks(!) in the residential area that houses the consulate. Not just one or two tents, but dozens! I know the Mid-Market/Civic Center area and the Tenderloin are bad, but it seems more contained there than in LA. I almost never see the tents and homeless problems visiting my family in Presidio Heights or any of the neighborhoods around there, and really don't see large concentrations of homeless outside of the aforementioned areas.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

When you have the kind of housing shortages and housing price inflation in flyover country that we have because so many people want and can afford to live there, we'll commisserate.

San Francisco has housing shortages because they WANT to have housing shortages. It's a de facto gated community where they limit high density in order to drive low income people out. The suburb I live in has a median income similar to San Francisco. There's nothing all that uncommon about high income neighborhoods in the rest of the country. San Francisco is just the only place where you have virtually a whole city set up that way.

[tdawg]

I'm no expert but it just feels like there's another tech/.com crash on the horizon.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by tdawg

I'm no expert but it just feels like there's another tech/.com crash on the horizon.

Are you referring to the chatter about breaking up Google, or FaceBook's woes, or Amazon's Jeff Bezos divorce, HQ2 - LIC - fiasco, political pushback etc...?