Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

sfchronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 465 posts

Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

#91

Post by floren »

systemvoltage wrote: post #88
floren wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I voted for Shellenberger for Governor of CA. Felt right. 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.

Unfortunately, yes. People have stopped voting based on rationale and policy, but instead based on team colors. For those who don't know Shellenberger, he is your classic liberal running as an independent. Pro nuclear alone gets a vote from me. But there are so many things he talks about that are just common sense in majority of large cities around the world. If you're fed up with CA, please look him up.

But surely if we just vote in the same people for another 30 years or so, they'll get around to solving these problems!

Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

#92

Post by etempleton »

librish wrote: post #60

SF 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…

I have visited almost every major US cities including a lot of experience living in and near some of the “worst crime” cities. Cities where there really are streets you do not dare go. In San Francisco I never felt unsafe anywhere, even in the “worst” parts of town. That said, the concentration of homeless people when I last visited was unlike anything I had ever seen in a US city.

Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

#93

Post by olivermarks »

nineplay wrote: post #40
somethoughts wrote: post #10

I 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.

I love SF and I'm happy the population is going down. These articles are posted once a week and trumpeted as some sort of victory and I can't imagine who they think is shedding tears over this. Sometime people wave their hands towards sad homeowners who are ( maybe ) seeing their home prices go down but I own a pricy home in a pricy neighborhood and as far as I'm concerned it's funny money. Whatever profit I'd make f…

People who own properties in SF are in a v different situation to those who are renting, couch surfing, flying in and out to HQ etc etc.

I love SF too. We moved north over the bridge 8 years ago (working from home) but are in the city all the time. It was spectacularly deteriorating pre pandemic (when we left the Castro area the local library had just employed an armed guard to keep the transients out for example) and is now arguably in crisis due to the collapse of foot traffic retail, rampant crime and due to the city being a welcoming destination for transients who often have serious mental illness (SMI) and substance abuse issues. The city - and California generally - does not have the resources to triage their needs but it does have a huge 'non profit' homeless industry and more worryingly some areas are crowded with cartel drug sellers.

Driving European visitor friends around a few weeks ago was the first time I'd really been to all the neighborhoods in a leisurely way since the pandemic abated. The wealthier areas (Noe Valley etc) are relatively unchanged apart from a lot of empty storefronts, but a lot of the city looks very beaten up despite the gorgeous vistas, light and climate (perfect weather during out tour).

We are at a typical west coast boom/bust cross roads for California cities...

Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

#94

Post by TameAntelope »

compiler-guy wrote: post #80
mr90210 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The short version is that it isn't. You just hear about the worst parts. There are still plenty of fully functional cities and towns and the crime rate is still quite low by historical standards. Definitely has its problems, but the availability heuristic makes things seem worse than they are.

Yeah, this is definitely a real problem.

I live in semi-rural America, and I have literally never in my life even seen a gun fire before. I used to live in DC, for six years, and I was never robbed, accosted, or even made to feel unsafe, and I had on multiple occasions walked miles home from a bar after closing. It was a downright pleasant way to get home if I didn’t need to be up the next morning.

America the country is basically nothing like America shown on TV. It’s just too big and complex to explain in a soundbyte.

Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

#95

Post by vikingerik »

gamblor956 wrote: post #3

In the first year of COVID. I can't comment about how SF is faring these days, but LA also cleared out that first year. But this year, people came roaring back. The average rent increase in my neighborhood was over 20%. The competition for rental units in some buildings is intense enough that potential tenants either sign a rental agreement on the spot or lose the unit to someone else willing to sign, and at least on…

> The average rent increase in my neighborhood was over 20%.

Is that compared to the pre-pandemic value, or to an artificially low value during a pandemic year?

Also consider inflation: if everything is up 8% in a year, the real increase is only 12% in real terms.

Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

#96

Post by akavi »

somethoughts wrote: post #10

I 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.

> When population goes up: positive - the area is vibrant economically; negative - rent is spiraling upwards out of control

What's endlessly infuriating is population going up in a city should be an almost unmitigated positive. It's just our unwillingness to allow building new housing turning it into a zero sum game that makes it a mixed bag.

Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

#97

Post by vikingerik »

_fat_santa wrote: post #5

I 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,…

> "if I don't have to live here, do I want to keep living here"

I answered the exact same no to that question, moving out of NYC when my job went permanently remote since the pandemic. I moved to semi-rural Virginia where my family is, and bought a house with far more space and a pool than I could have dreamed of within commuting distance of NYC.

Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

#98

Post by deltaonefour »

scelerat wrote: post #77
_fat_santa wrote: post #5

I 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,…

It's funny, I moved to SF and landed a tech job, in that order. I moved to the Bay Area for certain things above a job. I know there are others like me, perhaps not a majority of the HN crowd, but I quite like it here and it would take a lot for me to change my mind about the place.

Lots of reasons why people hate SF. The homeless problems, the petty crime. The smell, the dirtiness, the shitty weather, the actual danger of stepping on human feces, the drug use.

To each their own, but I think it's important for people to get out of their headspace and see things from a more general perspective as well. There are very good reasons why people don't like SF and unless people who love the city acknowledge those things, change is likely impossible.

Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

#100

Post by gsibble »

lovehashbrowns wrote: post #22
ramesh31 wrote: post #4

Quoted post unavailable.

SF is the closest thing to a dystopia for me. Unabashed wealth juxtaposed with poverty, insane cost of living, shit and used needles everywhere, the nation's mental health failure on full display, etc. Nothing has made me as depressed as living in SF.

Leave. It's so much better elsewhere. I'm so happy in Boston.
Post reply on HN