71–77 of 77 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow... > Last week I saw a similar report of a man filling up syringes with blood and throwing them at people walking by https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/8hj7j7/man_ju...
One unconfirmed anecdote does not a trend make.
I often wonder about how sustainable SF’s growth is. Between the issues with housing, rent control, NIMBYism, and poor infrastructure, there has to be a price tag at which this can’t continue. I live in the city, and the quality of living here is terrible compared to other cities. The only thing SF has going for it is the people, but sooner or later the right social pressures could cause a mass exodus, and I wonder w…
Your question gets asked often: How long can this continue? And the answer is: It will continue as long as people are willing to pay the rent. I understand from your post that you are fed up with the high rent and the low quality of living. But the most important part of what you said is the fact that you are still willing to pay, and you are still willing to stay, despite all of the disadvantages. In other words, yo…
I don't see what is so wrong with gentrification. As the economy expands and people become more prosperous, it restores blighted parts of the city to their full potential. I also think that rent control is disrespectful to the rights of the property owner. Other than making sure that there is no discrimination, and that properties aren't fire traps, government should get out of the way.
The wealth-ification of a neighborhood isn't per se bad. It would be fantastic if people living in a neighborhood became wealthier through some set of circumstances (economic recovery etc). What you typically see is long-time neighborhood residents being displaced by wealthier newcomers. In a poor neighborhood, this means that people who are already vulnerable, especially those that are renting also have to cope with…
I don't see what is so wrong with gentrification. As the economy expands and people become more prosperous, it restores blighted parts of the city to their full potential. I also think that rent control is disrespectful to the rights of the property owner. Other than making sure that there is no discrimination, and that properties aren't fire traps, government should get out of the way.
> rent control is disrespectful to the rights of the property owner. Is there an inherent right of way for property owners over renters on the residential moral crossroads? If you’ve grown up in a neighbourhood, raised your own kids in that neighbourhood, spent time in and on the neighbourhood, don’t you deserve some respect? People without the fiscal wherewithal (nor social impetus) to buy, but who spent effort safe…
Absolutely! You completely deserve respect! Of course, every human being deserves some effing respect.
What "respect" means in terms of public policy is sometimes a complex question. I think the person you're responding to is using it in a legalistic sense, where "disrespect" could probably be replaced with "abrogating" or "breaching". Your usage seems a tad bit different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The wealth-ification of a neighborhood isn't per se bad. It would be fantastic if people living in a neighborhood became wealthier through some set of circumstances (economic recovery etc). What you typically see is long-time neighborhood residents being displaced by wealthier newcomers. In a poor neighborhood, this means that people who are already vulnerable, especially those that are renting also have to cope with…
Ebb-and-flow, man. Especially in NYC and SF "poor neighborhoods" were once middle-class before a downturn.
West Oakland, for example, wasn't wealthy, but was nevertheless a thriving black neighborhood. People, money, music, culture from all over the country flowed in via the rail system and the Port of Oakland. It was vital in America's Jazz scene, dubbed "Harlem of the West."
The postwar period saw West Oakland fragmented and paved over by the Cypress freeway and the 980, construction of the behemoth USPS facility, construction of the BART straight through 7th street. Pretty clear cut case of environmental racism. American city officials in the 40s and 50s had no problem stating their motives out loud -- they saw construction of these projects in thriving black neighborhoods as a win-win: build up infrastructure and get rid of the "local niggertown.[1]"
We can't simply chalk these changes up to inevitable economic downturn. West Oakland is an extreme example, but these changes are guided by policy decisions as much as economic change.
I often wonder about how sustainable SF’s growth is. Between the issues with housing, rent control, NIMBYism, and poor infrastructure, there has to be a price tag at which this can’t continue. I live in the city, and the quality of living here is terrible compared to other cities. The only thing SF has going for it is the people, but sooner or later the right social pressures could cause a mass exodus, and I wonder w…
You don't have to wonder, you're looking at it. https://www.sfgate.com/expensive-san-francisco/article/Bay-A... "The Bay Area exodus is real and ongoing. The region leads the nation for outward migration, a new study has found."
I often wonder about how sustainable SF’s growth is. Between the issues with housing, rent control, NIMBYism, and poor infrastructure, there has to be a price tag at which this can’t continue. I live in the city, and the quality of living here is terrible compared to other cities. The only thing SF has going for it is the people, but sooner or later the right social pressures could cause a mass exodus, and I wonder w…
Your question gets asked often: How long can this continue? And the answer is: It will continue as long as people are willing to pay the rent. I understand from your post that you are fed up with the high rent and the low quality of living. But the most important part of what you said is the fact that you are still willing to pay, and you are still willing to stay, despite all of the disadvantages. In other words, yo…