4 ms·

Has SF ever been considered or even wanted to be considered a kid/family-friendly place? Watching from the sidelines, it's never seemed like a priority.

Kalium 12y ago
Being friendly to incumbents has always seemed to be the highest priority.
- bronson 12y ago
  Which incumbents do you mean? The millionaires or the people being displaced?
  - Kalium 12y ago
    Neither, because policy has largely been written to favor those who already live on or own a given patch of dirt. Most of SF is neither millionaires nor being displaced.
    - toomuchtodo 12y ago
      "Peninsula Lords"
swang 12y ago
The only place that seems relatively sane (and relatively affordable) for families in SF is Noe Valley. If you have _tons_ of money, probably further north like Pac Heights. And maybe, _maybe_ the area between Haight/Duboce Triangle near Duboce Park where there is a playground for kids seems to attract families. But even still, you can't go out at night around there as there have been lots of violent crimes in that area. SF is really weird.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
tsotha 12y ago
People move away when their kids reach school age. Not so much because it isn't kid friendly, but because it's too expensive to raise a family here. Not too many young families can shell out three quarters of a million bucks for a house, and the schools are just so-so.
kansface 12y ago
This is basically impossible for two reasons: 1. The city is too expensive for a family. Practically no one can afford a 3 bedroom house or apartment (or one that will allow pets). Even if you can afford a house in the school district you want, it won't matter because ... 2. Living in a school district is not a guarantee for enrollment in that district. Your kids may be shipped on an hour long bus ride one way to a comparatively bad school across town. Your kids may be sent in opposite directions to different schools. Some changes recently may have improved the situation, if only slightly. All in the name of equality.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

Kalium 12y ago

Being friendly to incumbents has always seemed to be the highest priority.

bronson 12y ago
Which incumbents do you mean? The millionaires or the people being displaced?
- Kalium 12y ago
  Neither, because policy has largely been written to favor those who already live on or own a given patch of dirt. Most of SF is neither millionaires nor being displaced.
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    "Peninsula Lords"

swang 12y ago

The only place that seems relatively sane (and relatively affordable) for families in SF is Noe Valley. If you have _tons_ of money, probably further north like Pac Heights. And maybe, _maybe_ the area between Haight/Duboce Triangle near Duboce Park where there is a playground for kids seems to attract families. But even still, you can't go out at night around there as there have been lots of violent crimes in that area. SF is really weird.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

tsotha 12y ago

People move away when their kids reach school age. Not so much because it isn't kid friendly, but because it's too expensive to raise a family here. Not too many young families can shell out three quarters of a million bucks for a house, and the schools are just so-so.

kansface 12y ago

This is basically impossible for two reasons: 1. The city is too expensive for a family. Practically no one can afford a 3 bedroom house or apartment (or one that will allow pets). Even if you can afford a house in the school district you want, it won't matter because ... 2. Living in a school district is not a guarantee for enrollment in that district. Your kids may be shipped on an hour long bus ride one way to a comparatively bad school across town. Your kids may be sent in opposite directions to different schools. Some changes recently may have improved the situation, if only slightly. All in the name of equality.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]