461–470 of 488 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The towns and cities on the Peninsula are probably laughing at SF. All the homeless are drawn to SF and have disappeared from their sidewalks. Haha absolutely wrong. While not as bad as SF, homeless issues everywhere else in the Bay have also gotten much worse. Mountain View, San Jose, Fremont, Oakland, everywhere.
Oakland doesn’t count. It has the same policies as SF and has gotten worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope. It seems better in Belmont, San Carlos, Burlingame, San Mateo, and Millbrae. Don’t notice the homeless hanging around CalTrain stops anymore. There used to be a few tents pitched along the tracks upper Peninsula. I don’t see those anymore. There is zero discussion of tents in social media mid Peninsula. Discussion is only focused on providing food and isolated cases of people losing jobs.
It may be worse in Mountain View or San Jose, I don’t know. It doesn’t seem worse in Fremont, at least the parts that I go to. Also, my relatives and friends who live there aren’t complaining. My friends who lived in SF were complaining loudly before they moved out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was born in and grew up in SF. I still go once in awhile. SF got a lot worse. I didn’t grow up with tents surrounding City Hall nor tents lining the sidewalk in the Tenderloin. Go look at Polk Street in Nob Hill. Go look at Van Ness. Go look at the Castro. Those aren’t SOMA or the Tenderloin. I saw a smashed bus shelter right off Van Ness. I saw graffiti and garbage on the sidewalk in Nob Hill. There are multiple t…
> The towns and cities on the Peninsula are probably laughing at SF. All the homeless are drawn to SF and have disappeared from their sidewalks. Haha absolutely wrong. While not as bad as SF, homeless issues everywhere else in the Bay have also gotten much worse. Mountain View, San Jose, Fremont, Oakland, everywhere.
https://youtu.be/1tv0FjfGbUs https://youtu.be/HmOIQv0yu-U
Now search for other cities in the Bay. Go see what you find.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve seen it in Vietnam, India, and heard about seeing it in Brazil from friends. I’m sure it’s more common than you think, we just have a very embolden and large homeless population with not enough public toilets and way too many substance abuse / mental health issues.
I was born and raised in Brazil where I lived until 25 in a major city with no shortage of poverty and inequality. I have never seen or heard reports of people defecating on the street. Though at least in the northeast it’s common for men to urinate.
For whatever it’s worth, I’m from San Francisco and I’ve never seen anyone do this either. But clearly it happens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not have Congress pass an amendment striking down Prop 13 or the Supreme Court rule against it?
If I read it correctly, California state constitution amendments are from popular vote in the state - the California legislature can only put them on the ballot to be voted on (and then, its a 2/3 vote there - easier to get 8% of the previous total vote to petition). The Supreme Court can't rule against it because it is constitutional because it is the constitution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Detroit's problem was not that the companies there were direct competitors, it was that all of them were producing automobiles. When American automobile production moved elsewhere and took a large number of well-paying jobs with it, the bottom fell out of the city's economy. What do you expect to happen to San Francisco if it loses its "tech mecca" status? Will the financial sector or the tourism sector supply enough…
I can see I have been unclear. Detroit's problem was that automotive production was and is a single sector. This is not true of "tech", as shown by a random sampling of companies being in wildly different economic sectors. I hope this is better! Thank you for the chance to improve my communications skills. Have a nice day.
If, hypothetically, all the issues with having development teams cheap parts of the world went away, that would impact almost all of tech. It hasn't happened yet, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility.
I'm leaving San Francisco next month also. I just see no reason to continue living here. The weather is nice in California, but the city is so mismanaged it's a joke. The homelessness has been an issue for decades now and local politicians always talk about it, but what do they actually do to help? I genuinely have no clue where the high taxes go. I just find it so ironic that San Francisco is a bastion of liberalism…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Come on dude. People aren't talking about the "weird" or quirky aspects of SF. We're talking about fucking needles, and human feces in the street. Stop protecting this shit by labeling it as something other than human suffering and a public health disaster.
My friend lived in SF for 3 years, then left for a year. He called me to say, “dude what happened to SF? Apparently it’s all shit and needles now.” I had to explain to him that nothing has changed. He was just reading sensationalized media. I live in SF, I would like the city cleaned up, more accountability for taxes, more focus on tax payers over homeless. But at the same time, SF represents liberalism in the US so…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
??? Life expectancy, birth rates, net migration are the factors of an overall nation, not not of any city. Nobody has been able to put forth a single reasonable argument for why SF must tear down their homes and put up apartment buildings other that 'because it should'. And FYI there is no housing shortage in the US overall, there never has been, housing has expanded commensurate with population. Not only that - hous…
I guess we’re just going to disagree there. In my view it is completely immoral to give birth to people but not build them a place to live. It is as immoral as suggesting that people should leave their city upon retirement, and for the same reason.
If you mean to say 'people have a moral right to live in the city they were born in' - fair enough - but this notion falls apart instantly unless you want to somehow give 'born and raised SF' kids some kind of literal non-market advantage.
If you live in an 'expensive place' then your kids can live there, as long as they are wealthy enough, that's the cost of living in a wealthy place and there's no way around it.
By 'building more to facilitate affordability' - well that certainly would enable more people to live there, but the demand will come from all over not just 'the kids of'.
SF is a small city and it's expensive, if parents want their kids to live there they can literally give them their homes. Otherwise, their kids can get good jobs or live in Santa Rosa.
There is plenty of space in North Cal.
Finally, SF residents can make up their own minds about how they want to do it. More building, less building, it's entirely up to them and nobody else's business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can see I have been unclear. Detroit's problem was that automotive production was and is a single sector. This is not true of "tech", as shown by a random sampling of companies being in wildly different economic sectors. I hope this is better! Thank you for the chance to improve my communications skills. Have a nice day.
Tech is not a single sector, but it is a single method of doing things. In the same sense that factories exist in more than a single sector, but it largely disappeared at the same time with offshoring. If, hypothetically, all the issues with having development teams cheap parts of the world went away, that would impact almost all of tech. It hasn't happened yet, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility.