5 ms·

More people live in the suburbs than city centers. That's where the real problem is. I don't have any problem walking around the streets of SF.

• noodlesUK 2y ago
  If people live their lives in the suburbs and that's what appeals to them, I am not going to say they shouldn't (so long as their suburban town is economically viable), but as a city dweller, I think they should have to pay (not just parking) for coming into the city with their cars.
  • alexawarrior3 2y ago
    You're essentially just raising taxes on the poor. Why? Let's take SF above as an example. The median salary in SF according to Gusto is $104,000 annually, which at the 30% maximum federal recommended housing payment would be $2,600 monthly all-inclusive. Using Zillow to see what I could afford with zero down at this monthly payment (VA loan), I find nothing in SF, and virtually nothing in the Bay Area, except some shacks which are essentially land in Richmond: https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1964-Van-Ness-Ave-San-Pablo-CA-94806/18508272_zpid/ https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1964-Van-Ness-Ave-San-Pab... Perhaps I could erect a tent and live homeless on my own land, but with Newsom's new alt-right homeless policy, probably not. The closest I could find which was (barely) habitable in Concord, a true fixer-upper but something anyone can do with enough time and effort and watching home repair tutorials: https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/168-Norman-Ave-Concord-CA-94520/18338819_zpid/ https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/168-Norman-Ave-Concord-CA... This is about one to one and a half hours each way, depending on traffic, to my old office in downtown SF (before I was offshored). Currently, the house above is what I could afford and what I would most likely buy if I received a job again and had to go into the office a few days a week (or six days a week as some startups want now). Driving, although long, is the only viable option. Even when mass transit routes can be found, they add 1-2 hours to the already long commute (each way). People in this thread within the technobubble generally miss what driving is for most Americans: a necessity. It's not an option because we prefer SUVs and huge houses, that's true for some people, but most people don't have many options of where to live or how to live, they are wage and price takers, and we go where we can afford. And that's somewhere we need to drive, nice walkable areas served well by mass transit are luxury items in the USA only for the rich. The rest of us must drive, and hindering that only makes those of us already struggling on the edge of middle class even poorer.
    • adrianN 2y ago
      The usual counter argument is that you can take the money raised by making cars expensive and give it to the poor. That’s fairer than subsidizing cars, since rich people tend to have more cars and use them more than poor people.
    • Daishiman 2y ago
      The only reason everything you mention is a problem is because SF's zoning policy is a disaster that doesn't actually reflect true demand for housing. A properly zoned SF would look like New York, with 5x more transit options than it currently has.
  • eweise 2y ago
    Not sure what this has to to with the article. Kind of wondering why there are so many off-topic comments attached to mine. Maybe the word suburbia sets people off?
• novok 2y ago
  There are parts of SF that have another "dignity" problem unfortunately. I know too many who refuse to walk in many areas there due to feeling unsafe and the smell issues. I know another one who refuses public transit now due to similar issues. They tend to be small women and it's super sad and it really limits a lot of their transport options in life.
  • j-wags 2y ago
    I agree this is the current situation, but I think the concentration of homelessness in urban areas is largely a consequence of policies that favor suburbia: - Requiring a car for daily life drives up cost of living, pricing the bottom tier of earners into the streets - Restricting housing unit supply by mandating single family zoning makes whole regions unaffordable - Blocking effective public transit into the suburbs effectively geofences homelessness into urban centers - Concentrating the overwhelming majority of homeless services downtown is a policy choice, not a natural outcome I think a lot of people look at urban areas in the US and think "that looks awful, my area should make the opposite of those policy choices", and it leads us to subconsciously hold some weird beliefs. Tall buildings and public transit don't make people homeless. They do the opposite. But something about the American lifestyle (my own upbringing included) plants these negative associations with urban centers, and it wasn't until I saw other cities around the world that I realized it didn't make any sense at all.
  • eweise 2y ago
    Yes, that's a different problem than the article is referring to.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• Moldoteck 2y ago
  A lot of times it isn't by choice, but as a consequence of zoning and parking minimums that are affecting housing stock and it's prices (both in the city and in suburbs). You may not have problems walking in sf(debatable but doesn't matter), but could you say the same about detroit/huston?
• tocs3 2y ago
  When I am driving through suburbs in central Texas I think it is interesting to note that there are rarely people outside the houses. Mostly the the people I see are mowing.
  • eweise 2y ago
    I think the article points out one of the reasons.
• eweise 2y ago
  Weird. Many downvotes to my comment and then a bunch of random complaints having nothing to do with the article.