4 ms·

I'm a city native living in SF, but grew up all over the SFBAY including much, much rougher neighborhoods than anything I've experienced in SF. Several of my f

I'm a city native living in SF, but grew up all over the SFBAY including much, much rougher neighborhoods than anything I've experienced in SF. Several of my family members and myself have been assaulted/robbed in broad daylight, had cars stolen, and some have been shot by stray bullets due to a local gang fight. When I was in grade school someone brought a gun to class and showed it off by pointing it at me (!!) — all outside of SF. SF feels incredibly safe compared to my lived experience in the rest of the Bay. I'm not saying there aren't any issues here, but SF is nowhere near as bad as some of the roughest parts of the Bay. Not by a longshot.

dahdum 4y ago
> SF is nowhere near as bad as some of the roughest parts of the Bay. Not by a longshot. You’re absolutely right, but compared to other global cities SF often looks comically bad, and certainly has the appearance of decline. No fundamental reason it can’t rise again though.
- diogenescynic 4y ago
  And especially given its income and tax levels... there's no excuse for SF to be so chaotic and disheveled. It's like having the income and taxes of Switzerland but living conditions of a third world country.
  - ProfessorLayton 4y ago
    1: Cities don’t have the authority to levy income taxes. 2: SF has a lower sales tax rate than surrounding counties. 3: Crime data shows SF is no more chaotic than its much larger and more populated neighbor across the bay (Alameda County)
reducesuffering 4y ago
Generally, I feel like the Mercury News homicide map is a good representation of the roughness of the area, and it doesn't look like SF is as different from those areas as you propose. From the looks of it, it's one step up from dead last, Oakland. https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/01/04/bay-area-homicides-2022-map-and-details/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/01/04/bay-area-homicides-20...
- urthor 4y ago
  Wait what. So the street you want to avoid in SF is... Market Street? That just reads like "don't go to Oakland."
- ProfessorLayton 4y ago
  This map is proving my point. Even if SF is one step up from dead last, if we look at a complete year (2021) there's a HUGE difference between SF and Oakland. By comparison SF looks relatively safe, and having lived in both cities I can attest to that. The rough parts of SF are a cakewalk compared to Oakland's. Not only that, but at least in SF the roughest parts tend to be pretty concentrated to a small area. I didn't want to point out Oakland by name because I still think it's a pretty awesome city and visit it often. Seeing SF being singled out by the (social)media as a hellscape makes it pretty clear they're really unfamiliar with much of the SFBAY. The truth is that most culturally significant cities have both good and bad parts to them.
  - reducesuffering 4y ago
    Ya it pales in comparison to Oakland (low bar). But it's still #37 of 100 in violent crime, and is #4 highest property crime.[0] And with Oakland, it's all happening in the West and East Oakland hoods, separate from the places most people here and visitors would frequent. But with SF, it's all over the main areas of the city (obviously still somewhat concentrated in a radius around Tenderloin) where people are going about their day to work and tourists are passing by. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...
    - ProfessorLayton 4y ago
      Population: 16/100 Murder: 66/100 Rape: 67/100 Assault: 66/100 Robbery: 55/100 Theft: 2/100 (!!) Car theft: 34/100 Outside of theft [1], SF ranks in the lower half per capita in most categories in this chart, including burglary. Of course it would be better if it was even lower, but what I see and experience, is a relatively safe city considering its population. [1]Yes I care about theft, but my personal safety and those I care about rank much much higher than my property, and what I'd consider being "safe" in a city.

dahdum 4y ago

> SF is nowhere near as bad as some of the roughest parts of the Bay. Not by a longshot. You’re absolutely right, but compared to other global cities SF often looks comically bad, and certainly has the appearance of decline. No fundamental reason it can’t rise again though.

diogenescynic 4y ago
And especially given its income and tax levels... there's no excuse for SF to be so chaotic and disheveled. It's like having the income and taxes of Switzerland but living conditions of a third world country.
- ProfessorLayton 4y ago
  1: Cities don’t have the authority to levy income taxes. 2: SF has a lower sales tax rate than surrounding counties. 3: Crime data shows SF is no more chaotic than its much larger and more populated neighbor across the bay (Alameda County)

reducesuffering 4y ago

Generally, I feel like the Mercury News homicide map is a good representation of the roughness of the area, and it doesn't look like SF is as different from those areas as you propose. From the looks of it, it's one step up from dead last, Oakland. https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/01/04/bay-area-homicides-2022-map-and-details/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/01/04/bay-area-homicides-20...

urthor 4y ago
Wait what. So the street you want to avoid in SF is... Market Street? That just reads like "don't go to Oakland."
ProfessorLayton 4y ago
This map is proving my point. Even if SF is one step up from dead last, if we look at a complete year (2021) there's a HUGE difference between SF and Oakland. By comparison SF looks relatively safe, and having lived in both cities I can attest to that. The rough parts of SF are a cakewalk compared to Oakland's. Not only that, but at least in SF the roughest parts tend to be pretty concentrated to a small area. I didn't want to point out Oakland by name because I still think it's a pretty awesome city and visit it often. Seeing SF being singled out by the (social)media as a hellscape makes it pretty clear they're really unfamiliar with much of the SFBAY. The truth is that most culturally significant cities have both good and bad parts to them.
- reducesuffering 4y ago
  Ya it pales in comparison to Oakland (low bar). But it's still #37 of 100 in violent crime, and is #4 highest property crime.[0] And with Oakland, it's all happening in the West and East Oakland hoods, separate from the places most people here and visitors would frequent. But with SF, it's all over the main areas of the city (obviously still somewhat concentrated in a radius around Tenderloin) where people are going about their day to work and tourists are passing by. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...
  - ProfessorLayton 4y ago
    Population: 16/100 Murder: 66/100 Rape: 67/100 Assault: 66/100 Robbery: 55/100 Theft: 2/100 (!!) Car theft: 34/100 Outside of theft [1], SF ranks in the lower half per capita in most categories in this chart, including burglary. Of course it would be better if it was even lower, but what I see and experience, is a relatively safe city considering its population. [1]Yes I care about theft, but my personal safety and those I care about rank much much higher than my property, and what I'd consider being "safe" in a city.