Ridiculous rent for houses/apartments in a very bad shape, rising crime and eroding faith in the justice system (you could argue that the data doesn’t support this, but the reality is that the data doesn’t support this because a lot of crimes these days go unreported), school district going to shit, bad city governance (which trickles into bad transportation, more homelessness, filth in the streets, businesses closin…
S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010
71–80 of 465 posts
Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010
#72I went to SF over last weekend and thought of stopping by Walgreens (Pharmacy) to pick up eye drops. I had to call the associate to unlock the cabinet doors to pick them up. Took 5-10 mins to just get hold of someone with a key ring the size of a coconut. Every cabinet was locked from toothpaste to tampons. This is at the Walgreens near Union Square which is still better than other areas. People are leaving because o…
Same, but note that this was only the primary... it's entirely possible we'll end up with Newsom and some other random Democrat on the actual ballot.
Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010
#73SF is probably hit the hardest by WFH. If you lived and worked in the city you probably had a pretty good commute, so you're not getting the biggest benefit. And while I know it's a less common preference on HN, a lot of people enjoy going in to a lively office and occasionally grabbing drinks with your coworkers after work. It's a great way to make new friends. But with WFH there's a prisoners dilemma where no-one g…
Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010
#74Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010
#75Quoted post unavailable.
Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
20-30 years ago San Francisco was considered... a nightmarish hellscape. Until the first dotcom boom the city was in decline, or at least that's how the story goes. My understanding is that at that time it also had a booming art scene and was going through an awesome counter culture phase that birthed Burning Man. Maybe that's what's ahead now that everyone is leaving? Videos showing the drug problem are terrifying t…
I wonder how many of the homeless residents tech people complain about were part of that art scene and counterculture but got gentrified out of their homes with nowhere else to go.
[1] If you understand how statistic work, and how to read critically. The censuses seem to be written by someone who thinks "How to Lie With Statistics" was an instruction manual, not a warning.
Edit:
Here's the latest pre-pandemic census: https://hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/2019HIRDRep...
On page 18, we learn that fully 30% of SF's homeless became homeless before moving to SF.
Of the remaining 70%, only 55% (so 38% of all homeless in SF) are long-time (>10 years) residents of SF. 27% of SF's homeless lived in SF between 1 and 10 years.
On page 19, we learn that only 30% of SF's homeless had a home they owned or rented immediately prior to becoming homeless. The rest were couch surfing, institutionalized, in SROs or subsidized housing.
We probably shouldn't assume zero correlation (but we don't have a better prior, because the crosstabs are not available, so...). But if we do, this suggests only around 11% of SF's homeless population were long-term renters who were kicked out.
On page 22, we learn that only 13% of SF's homeless cited "eviction" as the primary reason for currently experiencing homelessness. In contrast, "lost job" is the the most common reason, at 26%. Substance abuse is #2 at 18%.
On page 21, we learn that 65% of homeless people in SF have been homeless for more than a year.
That's an interesting statistic because that's the same percent homeless who became homeless while in SF and whose total residency in SF was more than a year. Again, the crosstabs are not made available to us, but it is suggestive that many of the people from page 18 who reported being long-term SF residents were not long-term SF residents at the time they experienced housing loss.
Not to sound conspiratorial, but my points above could be easily refuted with crosstabs from the census. The silence is deafening.
Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010
#77I think remote work is often understated in reasons people move away. When you go into the office every day, it's pretty obvious that you have to live in whatever city you live in. But with remote work, the question becomes "if I don't have to live here, do I want to keep living here". For many (including myself), the answer was a definitive NO. Sure many headlines and news segments make it seem that it's the crime,…
Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010
#78SF is probably hit the hardest by WFH. If you lived and worked in the city you probably had a pretty good commute, so you're not getting the biggest benefit. And while I know it's a less common preference on HN, a lot of people enjoy going in to a lively office and occasionally grabbing drinks with your coworkers after work. It's a great way to make new friends. But with WFH there's a prisoners dilemma where no-one g…
Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010
#79I think in the two scenarios you can focus on either the positives or the negatives. When population goes up: positive - the area is vibrant economically; negative - rent is spiraling upwards out of control When population goes down: positive - rent is finally affordable; negative - the area is falling apart existentially I think the media in general has found the negative spin sells better.
As a non-US citizen, sometimes I ask myself how did California end up like the country where I am from, which is located in the so called third world.
Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010
#80I think in the two scenarios you can focus on either the positives or the negatives. When population goes up: positive - the area is vibrant economically; negative - rent is spiraling upwards out of control When population goes down: positive - rent is finally affordable; negative - the area is falling apart existentially I think the media in general has found the negative spin sells better.
As a non-US citizen, sometimes I ask myself how did California end up like the country where I am from, which is located in the so called third world.
Definitely has its problems, but the availability heuristic makes things seem worse than they are.