3 ms·

Having made an attempt to live there, and having then left, here is my summary: San Francisco is a city populated entirely by 2 kinds of people: adult children,

by mml 17y ago

Having made an attempt to live there, and having then left, here is my summary: San Francisco is a city populated entirely by 2 kinds of people: adult children, and public servants/long-term welfare cases. that's about it. people who are, or become grownups move away in disgust that such a wildly beautiful and rich place is such a sewer at the same time. sad really.

geebee 17y ago
I'd agree if you didn't use the word "entirely." I grew up in the south/west half of San Francisco, which is still, remarkably enough, populated largely by families who struggle, with eyes wide open, in the same way that most middle-class families do (their incomes would appear to be high, but the cost of living means that they're not all that different from someone making a third of that salary in a less expensive city). I have two young children here, and I've started to watch the beginning of the exodus (there are many families with small children in SF, even the trendy parts... they generally start to leave when the first, and especially the second, hit school age. Space, schools, all that stuff). Many of the people who stay in SF have extended family here. There are also the people who love it, but my wife and I have a new theory - the people who express unqualified love for SF will probably leave. Its the ones who mix it a grim recognition that, for whatever reason, they'll never get to check out of this place - those are the ones who will still be here in 30 years. Hell, my parents have been complaining about it since I was born. You know, welcome to the hotel san francisco, if not hotel california.
- yters 17y ago
  Ah, I see why SF attracts so many homosexuals, cost of living is much lower when you don't have to provide for children. So, homosexuals both get a nice living area, and all the heterosexuals who form families and might look down on their choices are filtered out. Best of both worlds for them.
  - neilk 17y ago
    That's a weird way of looking at it. 1) The cost of living is still outrageous even for couples without children, and the gayest areas are among the most expensive. SF attracts homosexuals due to the culture and history. 2) What does raising a family have to do with "looking down" on anyone? All the parents I know in SF raise their kids to be as gay-friendly as they are. Also: you are aware that some kids are gay, right? Most of them figure it out very early, it's only homophobia that makes them suppress it until university. You're right that there is a political side effect of de-prioritizing children, since most gay or lesbian couples are childless. But that's also fueled by the high concentration of childless professionals in SF. It is a snowball effect that will accelerate until the city's unlivable for people with children. I just don't think it's a conspiracy. One might argue that the real conspiracy is gentrification, where family-friendly neighborhoods are swept away to provide yuppie housing.
    - yters 17y ago
      I don't think it's a conspiracy, just the result of a couple variables. At any rate, #1 supports my point. Since they are the most expensive areas, they'll be even less likely to host families. On the other hand, if gay people tended to live in low income areas, that would invalidate my hypothesis. #2 doesn't really cause problems for my argument either. I suspect that if anyone is going to be gay-unfriendly, it is going to be heterosexual couples who have children. Especially if they have a large family they likely belong to a religious tradition that considers homosexual sex to be immoral. So, if most people, invariant over whether they have families or not, make an effort to be gay-friendly, I still suspect a random sample of families vs singles will turn up more gay-unfriendlies. Finally, childlessness may also cause people to choose homosexuality. Most people want sexual intimacy, but they don't want the risk of having children. They can use a bunch of unreliable methods to avoid producing children in a heterosexual relationship, or they can take the easy way out and choose a homosexual relationship.
geebee 17y ago
one more point - at times, the people who become grownups and move away in disgust were, at one point, part of the political group that created the things that now disgust them. People have started to call this the "Chris Daly" phenomenon. This is in response to the recent actions of sup Daly, who has been a very lefish and fierce advocate for the homeless, rent control and tenants rights, etc... Well, recently he purchased two houses in Vallejo, one which was a forclosure. He moved his family, including his Children, to vallejo. He maintains a residence in SF, and does indeed live in it (with roomates). But evidently, he doesn't want to be a landlord in the city where he fights for tenants, preferring to purchase property elsewhere in places that are more landlord-friendly. Nor does he want his kids living around the people whose interests he defends so aggressively. This is a pattern - people move to SF when they are young and idealistic, and then leave when they are older and have children. They don't even have to be all that idealistic. I have a buddy who lived in SF while he was a young and well off budding lawyer. He's definitely a moderate/liberal by US standards, but you have to understand that this puts you to the moderate right in SF. Anyway, when he lived here, he was livid about regulations on where he was allowed to run his dog off leash. He cared in theory about schools, playgrounds, kids, and so forth, but these issues didn't affect him personally. He cared about kids, but he became an activist about his dog. Now he lives in Marin with his two kids and dog, where kid issues impact him personally. I'm sure he'll still love his dog, but no doubt his priorities will change.

by mml 17y ago

geebee 17y ago

I'd agree if you didn't use the word "entirely." I grew up in the south/west half of San Francisco, which is still, remarkably enough, populated largely by families who struggle, with eyes wide open, in the same way that most middle-class families do (their incomes would appear to be high, but the cost of living means that they're not all that different from someone making a third of that salary in a less expensive city). I have two young children here, and I've started to watch the beginning of the exodus (there are many families with small children in SF, even the trendy parts... they generally start to leave when the first, and especially the second, hit school age. Space, schools, all that stuff). Many of the people who stay in SF have extended family here. There are also the people who love it, but my wife and I have a new theory - the people who express unqualified love for SF will probably leave. Its the ones who mix it a grim recognition that, for whatever reason, they'll never get to check out of this place - those are the ones who will still be here in 30 years. Hell, my parents have been complaining about it since I was born. You know, welcome to the hotel san francisco, if not hotel california.

yters 17y ago
Ah, I see why SF attracts so many homosexuals, cost of living is much lower when you don't have to provide for children. So, homosexuals both get a nice living area, and all the heterosexuals who form families and might look down on their choices are filtered out. Best of both worlds for them.
- neilk 17y ago
  That's a weird way of looking at it. 1) The cost of living is still outrageous even for couples without children, and the gayest areas are among the most expensive. SF attracts homosexuals due to the culture and history. 2) What does raising a family have to do with "looking down" on anyone? All the parents I know in SF raise their kids to be as gay-friendly as they are. Also: you are aware that some kids are gay, right? Most of them figure it out very early, it's only homophobia that makes them suppress it until university. You're right that there is a political side effect of de-prioritizing children, since most gay or lesbian couples are childless. But that's also fueled by the high concentration of childless professionals in SF. It is a snowball effect that will accelerate until the city's unlivable for people with children. I just don't think it's a conspiracy. One might argue that the real conspiracy is gentrification, where family-friendly neighborhoods are swept away to provide yuppie housing.
  - yters 17y ago
    I don't think it's a conspiracy, just the result of a couple variables. At any rate, #1 supports my point. Since they are the most expensive areas, they'll be even less likely to host families. On the other hand, if gay people tended to live in low income areas, that would invalidate my hypothesis. #2 doesn't really cause problems for my argument either. I suspect that if anyone is going to be gay-unfriendly, it is going to be heterosexual couples who have children. Especially if they have a large family they likely belong to a religious tradition that considers homosexual sex to be immoral. So, if most people, invariant over whether they have families or not, make an effort to be gay-friendly, I still suspect a random sample of families vs singles will turn up more gay-unfriendlies. Finally, childlessness may also cause people to choose homosexuality. Most people want sexual intimacy, but they don't want the risk of having children. They can use a bunch of unreliable methods to avoid producing children in a heterosexual relationship, or they can take the easy way out and choose a homosexual relationship.

geebee 17y ago

one more point - at times, the people who become grownups and move away in disgust were, at one point, part of the political group that created the things that now disgust them. People have started to call this the "Chris Daly" phenomenon. This is in response to the recent actions of sup Daly, who has been a very lefish and fierce advocate for the homeless, rent control and tenants rights, etc... Well, recently he purchased two houses in Vallejo, one which was a forclosure. He moved his family, including his Children, to vallejo. He maintains a residence in SF, and does indeed live in it (with roomates). But evidently, he doesn't want to be a landlord in the city where he fights for tenants, preferring to purchase property elsewhere in places that are more landlord-friendly. Nor does he want his kids living around the people whose interests he defends so aggressively. This is a pattern - people move to SF when they are young and idealistic, and then leave when they are older and have children. They don't even have to be all that idealistic. I have a buddy who lived in SF while he was a young and well off budding lawyer. He's definitely a moderate/liberal by US standards, but you have to understand that this puts you to the moderate right in SF. Anyway, when he lived here, he was livid about regulations on where he was allowed to run his dog off leash. He cared in theory about schools, playgrounds, kids, and so forth, but these issues didn't affect him personally. He cared about kids, but he became an activist about his dog. Now he lives in Marin with his two kids and dog, where kid issues impact him personally. I'm sure he'll still love his dog, but no doubt his priorities will change.