4 ms·
Most families in SF either have been there for decades or do in fact make 150k/yr. It's not being rich - it's just the local standard. This is the mark of a suc
by optforfon 10y ago
Most families in SF either have been there for decades or do in fact make 150k/yr. It's not being rich - it's just the local standard. This is the mark of a successful city (even though in the process culturally a lot was lost unfortunately) There is a small section of the city that has crime. That pretty much goes for any large city - and it's tied very closely to the city's efforts to help disadvantaged people.
If SF really wanted to get rid of the homeless and crime they definitely could with some NIMBYism. They'd shut down all the low income housing and stop helping the disadvantaged and increase arrests.
Context: grew up in SF. don't live there anymore.. but i don't recent the changes to the city. Life moves on
- hueving 10y agoEliminating low income housing doesn't eliminate homelessness. >Most families in SF either have been there for decades or do in fact make 150k/yr. It's not being rich - it's just the local standard Nope, most families have just been pushed out because it's hard to find a job that pays that much. If your policies are generally "screw the middle class", of course high income is the standard for the people that have managed to remain. Also, claiming the massive income required relative to the rest of the country doesn't mean rich is ridiculous. That's like saying people who stay at the Four Seasons aren't rich because they all have to pay a lot per night.