3 ms·

You are incorrect on 66-100% of your statement. I feel like you're just regurgitating a bias here. And it's not even about cost of living if you really get dow

You are incorrect on 66-100% of your statement. I feel like you're just regurgitating a bias here. And it's not even about cost of living if you really get down to it, it's about inability to adapt to the pace of having so many options, that you choose to have fewer, or preferring a slower pace and less options, which is fine. But the homeless situation has been dramatically affected by positive changes, so no. There are plenty of families, many types of household, so no. And people generally move away from San Diego entirely, not just downtown, if they leave. It's an overall lifestyle change usually. San Diego as a whole is speeding up, and the cost comes with benefits of being here. But like I said, if it isn't bias, it's preference, and preference is fine! The bias though, is flawed. ( Major edits since downvote since apparently I needed to spell out exactly why this is biased thinking, not just question the bias. This is really unfair to San Diego which is not perfect, but extremely progressive. We've dealt with the majority of the charges rapidly. Check your assumptions and refactor your thinking please )

housingpost 8y ago
It’s just that your statements are incorrect about families. The real numbers are: “In the county, children (ages 0 – 17) are 23 percent of the total population, in downtown, they are only 10 percent of the population.”
- decentrality 8y ago
  The thing is, the statistics have a long-tail, and the truth is that when the paradigm shifts, like it did and is doing, it's important to hear from first-hand accounts and not rely on statistics based on overall trends historically. They track an old dynamic, and the new dynamic is tending toward people living anywhere they want, especially into dense areas more comfortably, and the age-old bias toward moving outward at the point of having kids or retiring is reversing. I've seen it first hand, spoken to numerous people who are early adopters to this trend, and in all brackets of social standing and model of domestic life. It is evidence of an overall shift in how we live as people. The benefits of being in the denser areas versus the believed drawbacks are changing, so much so it makes me genuinely hopeful about one day having 10 billion people versus 8 on the planet, which for someone who wanted less people not more, is notable at least and hinges on this shift. So I would recheck the numbers often and along new metrics, and favor first-hand information in times of change.

housingpost 8y ago

It’s just that your statements are incorrect about families. The real numbers are: “In the county, children (ages 0 – 17) are 23 percent of the total population, in downtown, they are only 10 percent of the population.”

decentrality 8y ago
The thing is, the statistics have a long-tail, and the truth is that when the paradigm shifts, like it did and is doing, it's important to hear from first-hand accounts and not rely on statistics based on overall trends historically. They track an old dynamic, and the new dynamic is tending toward people living anywhere they want, especially into dense areas more comfortably, and the age-old bias toward moving outward at the point of having kids or retiring is reversing. I've seen it first hand, spoken to numerous people who are early adopters to this trend, and in all brackets of social standing and model of domestic life. It is evidence of an overall shift in how we live as people. The benefits of being in the denser areas versus the believed drawbacks are changing, so much so it makes me genuinely hopeful about one day having 10 billion people versus 8 on the planet, which for someone who wanted less people not more, is notable at least and hinges on this shift. So I would recheck the numbers often and along new metrics, and favor first-hand information in times of change.