3 ms·
A quick google search about Spokane turned up this[1] and this[2]. Maybe the only difference between SF and Spokane is that the real estate prices means it is e
by qqqwerty 6y ago
A quick google search about Spokane turned up this[1] and this[2]. Maybe the only difference between SF and Spokane is that the real estate prices means it is easier to hide the problems from public view.
Pretty much every city and state, liberal or conservative, has a fair share of population that is struggling with drug addiction, mental health issues, and poverty. The difference between SF and other areas, is we have higher real estate prices and better weather, so these issues are much more visible than else where.
[1] https://www.safewise.com/blog/most-dangerous-cities/ https://www.safewise.com/blog/most-dangerous-cities/
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/Spokane/comments/bchlna/how_ghetto_really_is_spokane/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Spokane/comments/bchlna/how_ghetto_...
- sershe 6y agoI guess Spokane went downhill, I've last been there several years ago and the comments also seem to say the last couple of years homeless population exploded. Still, they seem to be describing abandoned parts of a shrinking city, not the entire place. In SF it's all over (I've lived in SOMA and Inner Richmond, and worked near Union Square). I'd expect the fact that SF is swimming in money (compared to Spokane) would have an opposite effect. So I don't think it's that "every city has problems". Even the cities on the same train line as SF don't have the same problems, nor do better run cities with less money with good weather (Texas, Utah, Florida). Same deal with Seattle, quickly going downhill with increasingly progressive City Council and major, while less-progressive cities across the bridge are doing just fine; and even stereo-typically poorer cities to the North and South don't look nearly as bad.