I was wrong about the 1k net -- that's the article's quote from Aaron Peskin, which I read as their summary. But your original comment ("64,000 in 2014") is sti

I was wrong about the 1k net -- that's the article's quote from Aaron Peskin, which I read as their summary. But your original comment ("64,000 in 2014") is still way off: “This official census data [the American Community Survey] shows a one-year in-migration of 63,991 people, with an out-migration of 62,757 residents — a net population increase of 1,234.” That's the article's quote from Peskin. The article contends he's wrong, and that the net migration, per year since 2010, is ~10k. The actual census website [1] says that SF had a population of 805k in 2010, and estimates that it will be 865k by 2015. So ~12k per year, net. Peskin's numbers look low, but your original claim ("64,000 in 2014") is wrong by a factor of >500%. "Certainly not insurmountable problems; Manhattan went from 942,292 people in 1870 to 1,164,673 in 1880." If you think that Manhattan was a magical wonderland between 1870 and 1880, I suggest you pick up a history book. It was a brutal time for poor people in that city. [2] [1] http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045214/06075 http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045214/06075 [2] http://www.livingcityarchive.org/htm/decades/1870.htm http://www.livingcityarchive.org/htm/decades/1870.htm