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

201–210 of 465 posts

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

#201

Post by plasticchris »

rc_mob wrote: post #176
systemvoltage wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The only voting choices you have in America are Republican and not Republican. The non Republican party is a disorganized mess. Its the world we live in.

Not so in Cali - there it is (almost always) a choice between democrat and democrat due to the way primaries are structured.

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

#202

Post by raverbashing »

lemonlime wrote: post #148
givemeethekeys wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If SF was attractive, then people would want to remotely work from SF. But it isn't. So, they're leaving. On the other hand San Diego seems to be blowing up.

If SF was unattractive, it wouldn't cost $2,500-$3,000 to live in mediocre housing with 6 housemates. Even people that don't have high paying tech jobs are lining up to pay these kinds of insane prices. They don't want to pay the prices, but it's worth it to live in an area like SF. One of the only places on the planet in human history that people put this much energy and money into just living somewhere.

I guess living in SF is like buying a boat. You're happy when moving there but much happier when moving out

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

#203

Post by [deleted] »

deltaonefour wrote: post #98
scelerat wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 acknow…

[deleted]

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

#206

Post by j_walter »

gamblor956 wrote: post #27
j_walter wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't seen any data to support "roaring back". 6-ish months ago they were still saying SF rents were down 20% from March 2020. Any idea how many rentals aren't rentals anymore because of the moratorium impact? I know up here in Portland there was a huge net reduction of rentals and prices spiked pretty hard. For example: https://www.rentcafe.com/average-rent-market-trends/us/ca/sa... https://therealdeal.com/sanfr…

Like I said, I can't comment on how SF is doing because I don't live there. But I do live in LA, and the apartments in my neighborhood have never been this full before. For point of comparison: at two of the apartment buildings on my block, a 1 BR 540 sq ft studio will rent for about $2800. This is up 16% from pre-COVID rates of approximately $2400 for those same units ($2200 during COVID, which is where the >20% inc…

Rents are up across the country and you are right it's 20% in LA according to rent.com. However equating rental prices going up 12% in the past 12 months with "people coming roaring back" isn't really correct. I mean inflation is up >7% in the last 12 months. I wouldn't say NYC has had a huge roaring back of people...but rent is up 39% in the last year...triple what SF saw.

You can have rental prices increase and that doesn't necessarily mean an increase in demand...there are many external factors (supply shrinking, adjustments to account for lost rent in the pandemic, inflation, etc).

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

#207

Post by StanislavPetrov »

themitigating wrote: post #59
ramesh31 wrote: post #4

Quoted post unavailable.

What evidence do you have that the city was better 20 to 30 years ago?

There is no lack of evidence. There are thousands of video records taken in San Fran 25-30 years ago. You won't see a city filled with vagrants and human feces. You won't see trash filled-streets or sidewalks lined with makeshift shelters. It certainly wasn't perfect (no city is) but it wasn't the open sewer it is today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0t9ogfCI3E

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

#208

Post by mdasen »

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.

I think the point is that many people feel forced to live in SF because of their job. At the same time, there are so many people that love SF that are forced out due to economics.

It would be better if people were able to choose where they want to live rather than being pushed into certain living situations that aren't what they'd choose. There are plenty of techies that feel pushed to living in SF for their job. There are plenty of LGBT people that feel pushed out (or kept out) of SF due to economics even though they want to be there. It's not that any group is right or wrong. I just think that people get resentful when they're kept away from the things they want in life. Place is one of the biggest parts of our lives. "I want to live in X, but I can't really because..." is just a recipe for unhappiness.

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

#209

Post by goodpoint »

gotoeleven wrote: post #61
jeromegv wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the conservative solution to this issue?

The solution is to not tolerate drug use, petty crime, vagrancy etc etc Homeless people aren't stupid. They find a way to get to where it is most comfortable to be homeless. In SF you can do drugs all day and night and get free needles and poop on the streets and no one will bother you. In other places you will not be able to do this. Why are people surprised that places that go to great expense to subsidize homeless…

> Homeless people aren't stupid. They find a way to get to where it is most comfortable to be homeless

By this logic if you make it even less "comfortable" everywhere they'll disappear into thin air? Go to mars?

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

#210

Post by dahdum »

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…

It’s pretty easy for the highly paid and wealthy to insulate themselves from the problems of any city and live in a bubble of comfort. SF is becoming more challenging to do so in, but far from impossible.

It’s the lower and middle classes that suffer most from SF’s problems, they can’t afford the rose colored glasses. Until the wealthy are truly inconvenienced they’ll continue with the feel-good ineffective measures.

That’s not specific to SF of course, it’s just becoming more prevalent. I definitely enjoy spending time there, but I’m lucky enough to afford to.

Post reply on HN