San Francisco could collapse – what should California do about it?(sfchronicle.com)
sfchronicle.com
San Francisco could collapse – what should California do about it?
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/downtown-san-francisco-17852552.php
160 comments
The author follows up with measures the mayor is taking to fight this.
Which is worthless unless the measures go though, there are no "points for trying at this scale"
Right now San Francisco is not "too big to fail", but rather "too bloated to save".
Right now San Francisco is not "too big to fail", but rather "too bloated to save".
It's the city's own policy. How could the mayor 'fight' it?
New York of the 1970s [1] is a better analogy than 9/11.
San Francisco is going broke. Not because of terrorism, but due to its own devices. It will need to be bailed out. When that happens, the state will take over and face the realities its voters choose to ignore.
[1] https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-night-new-york-...
San Francisco is going broke. Not because of terrorism, but due to its own devices. It will need to be bailed out. When that happens, the state will take over and face the realities its voters choose to ignore.
[1] https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-night-new-york-...
And the 1970s financial woes aside, NYC also had a lot of petty and not so petty street crime mostly into the 80s. A lot of the area around Times Square was pretty bad, for example. [ADDED: It was really the 90s that saw the ~75% declines from peak.]
I imagine a lot of the direct comparisons break down in various ways. But, at a high level, you see similarities.
I imagine a lot of the direct comparisons break down in various ways. But, at a high level, you see similarities.
Not just “into the 80s”. A friend of mine was murdered there in 94.
I can’t even imagine what it feels like to get downvoted for telling people about your friend’s murder. Mgarfias, I have given you my upvote as a counter. To Hacker news, you need to sort yourself the fuck out and get some empathy.
I didn't downvote (I try to never do that). But responding to a statistical observation about crime levels in NYC that were particularly bad in the 70s and 80s with a single personal ancedote about their friend's murder in 1994 just seems ... totally not relevant. People were murdered in NYC in every decade since it was founded, and will continue to be so, as they will in every other significantly sized city. Noting that a friend was killed after some specific period is content-free with respect to crime rates, even if we can all understand that it must have personally traumatic and horrifying.
Right well imagine you’ve just walked into a bar in real life and everyone is having a conversation about crime in the city and a stranger sat in the corner says that their friend was murdered in the 90s. Would you really respond with:
> Wow. They were almost the last person murdered in NYC! Stats say murder in NYC ended later that year.
Probably not unless you wanted everyone in the bar to look at you with disgust. In fact, the entire tone and topic of the conversation would probably change to accommodate this new information. If you wanted to say something, you’d probably say something along the lines of:
“Jesus, I’m sorry to hear that. Do you want to talk about it? What happened?”
If someone is sharing something sensitive like this and you don’t think it’s relevant, just don’t say anything. Add something constructive on another comment. What have you gained from that comment other than potentially upsetting another person? I don’t think anyone is thinking “oh I’m really glad he stepped in there otherwise that one thread on the online debate would have got really off track”. And I don’t think mgarfias is going away from this thinking, “well he really opened my eyes to the fact that my anecdotal experience is not the totality of existence, my entire stance on New York City is changed now.”
Honestly dude, there are unlimited threads on every post. Every thread does not have to be a direct argument or counter argument of whatever is stated in the original content. We can just all talk and be humans going through life together.
> Wow. They were almost the last person murdered in NYC! Stats say murder in NYC ended later that year.
Probably not unless you wanted everyone in the bar to look at you with disgust. In fact, the entire tone and topic of the conversation would probably change to accommodate this new information. If you wanted to say something, you’d probably say something along the lines of:
“Jesus, I’m sorry to hear that. Do you want to talk about it? What happened?”
If someone is sharing something sensitive like this and you don’t think it’s relevant, just don’t say anything. Add something constructive on another comment. What have you gained from that comment other than potentially upsetting another person? I don’t think anyone is thinking “oh I’m really glad he stepped in there otherwise that one thread on the online debate would have got really off track”. And I don’t think mgarfias is going away from this thinking, “well he really opened my eyes to the fact that my anecdotal experience is not the totality of existence, my entire stance on New York City is changed now.”
Honestly dude, there are unlimited threads on every post. Every thread does not have to be a direct argument or counter argument of whatever is stated in the original content. We can just all talk and be humans going through life together.
Except you’re not walking into a bar where you’re a highly visible patron among maybe 10-15 others.
You’re reading a comment thread where no one even knows you exist and/or are reading the particular comment thread.
This is the equivalent of writing a letter to a newspaper’s editor in the old days (with less friction).
You’re reading a comment thread where no one even knows you exist and/or are reading the particular comment thread.
This is the equivalent of writing a letter to a newspaper’s editor in the old days (with less friction).
If we speak to each other on the internet the same way we speak to each other face to face, it will become a more pleasant place.
New York of the 70s was one of the most culturally fertile moments in history. Imagine artists being able to afford rent.
Detroit's decline seems like a closer analogy to me.
Weird part is that the state has big surpluses...
https://www.google.com/search?q=california+budget+surplus+20...
I wonder if it'll end like NYC where the state takes permanent control of various municipal services, e.g. NYC subway it's controlled by the state.
https://www.google.com/search?q=california+budget+surplus+20...
I wonder if it'll end like NYC where the state takes permanent control of various municipal services, e.g. NYC subway it's controlled by the state.
Probably the more important story:
https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/02/budget-deficit-may...
https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/02/budget-deficit-may...
San Francisco is largely owned and controlled by about a half dozen extremely wealthy families, who don't just control SF...they're also "kingmakers" for the governor's office, and have been using their influence for personal gain for decades:
https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-pol-ca-gavin-newsom-san-...
Not a dime of public money should go to bailing out the Guggenhimes, Buells, Swigs, Marcuses, Fishers, Gettys, and Pritzkers.
As Biden said: oh boo hoo, capitalism working as intended.
Not a dime of public money should go to bailing out the Guggenhimes, Buells, Swigs, Marcuses, Fishers, Gettys, and Pritzkers.
As Biden said: oh boo hoo, capitalism working as intended.
'verge of collapse' & 'brink of collapse' are some of the most frequently-slung clickbait phrases in the editor's grab-bag. Already collapsed? Not going to collapse? Neither newsworthy.
'about to collapse'? That's your stress response being triggered, to be satisfied by clicking on the headline to ascertain how to either head off the stress source or be infotained by it.
Any thoughts on the content of the article itself?
It might as well have been written 20 years ago.
The vacancy rate is pretty similar to 20 years ago after the dot com bust. But there is a layer of crime and lawlessness this time that makes it a lot worse, and harder to recover from.
I'll tell you what - tell me what metric is in question, and what percent decrease of it over what period of time would constitute 'collapse', following which I will read the article and provide my response.
Bonus to incentivize: I'll even be providing the weird mix of native-San-Franciscan-cum-tech-person take, being born & raised in the Sunset. Therefore I promise to infuse it with a sense of entitlement & disaffection, as if it was possible to have any scope on in-migration/emigration policy across city limits.
Bonus to incentivize: I'll even be providing the weird mix of native-San-Franciscan-cum-tech-person take, being born & raised in the Sunset. Therefore I promise to infuse it with a sense of entitlement & disaffection, as if it was possible to have any scope on in-migration/emigration policy across city limits.
I don’t live there, but as a general rule, people overestimate the probability of “collapse“. Things can be declining for a long time without the dramatic acceleration that merits that term.
I've found that anything written to compete for clicks tries to over-exaggerate in a thousand major and minor ways to grab attention.
Agreed. Just look at Twitter. It's running with a skeleton crew but that's only because a system of that size does not collapse in a day. It takes years for the cracks to show and grow.
I think the specific situation with Twitter is that it takes a lot more people to create and update a system of this size than it does to merely maintain it. They simply no longer have the capacity to make a large new product at this point, but even a skeleton staff is enough to keep the existing product running.
That's why the cracks are small at first. Patches, new API connections to customers, and ambition will still cause some change, albeit small as you point out. Entropy in a living system always increases.
Well, this is off-topic now. Twitter had hundreds of developers, Mastodon has ... four. Recently they had just one. It seems Twitter was simply overstaffed.
> Twitter had hundreds of developers, Mastodon has ... four. Recently they had just one.
This can't be posted enough. Twitter currently employs 100x more developers than Mastodon. It's comically incoherent to claim that people should move from Twitter to Mastodon because Twitter obviously can't be run by half or a third of the developers that it used to have, because scale or something.
This can't be posted enough. Twitter currently employs 100x more developers than Mastodon. It's comically incoherent to claim that people should move from Twitter to Mastodon because Twitter obviously can't be run by half or a third of the developers that it used to have, because scale or something.
Just accept you were fooled...
> people overestimate the probability of “collapse“
Collapse, in this article’s context, means insolvency. That doesn’t mean San Francisco disappears. But public transit may halt for a while, and the city may have control and assets forcibly removed from itself.
In reality, San Francisco is solidly investment grade [1][2]. It can borrow its way out of this hole.
[1] https://www.fitchratings.com/entity/san-francisco-city-count...
[2] https://sf.gov/reports/march-2023/city-credit-ratings
Collapse, in this article’s context, means insolvency. That doesn’t mean San Francisco disappears. But public transit may halt for a while, and the city may have control and assets forcibly removed from itself.
In reality, San Francisco is solidly investment grade [1][2]. It can borrow its way out of this hole.
[1] https://www.fitchratings.com/entity/san-francisco-city-count...
[2] https://sf.gov/reports/march-2023/city-credit-ratings
"Investment grade" this things usually follow cartoon physics, they are fine and dandy until they look and see they're floating mid-air
[deleted]
Good. As someone who grew up here, it'll be nice to get back to our original role in American life: open-air asylum for the rest of the country. Literally that's an old joke here: "If you're too crazy for the rest of the country you move to California, and if you're too crazy for California you move to San Francisco." And then under our breathe we add, "And if you're too crazy for SF you move to Berkeley."
This Dot-Com Boom period (roughly 2001 to now) kinda fucked up the city. I can't wait to clear out the folks who were only here for money and hype, and start getting the weirdos and hippies back in.
This Dot-Com Boom period (roughly 2001 to now) kinda fucked up the city. I can't wait to clear out the folks who were only here for money and hype, and start getting the weirdos and hippies back in.
Let it burn. The only way out is to let competition thrive and thereby create pressure to revert the cost of living insanity.
Someone went and collected data going back to 1948.
> Today's outrageous prices are exactly in line with the 6.6% trend that began 60 years ago.
https://experimental-geography.blogspot.com/2016/05/employme...
> Today's outrageous prices are exactly in line with the 6.6% trend that began 60 years ago.
https://experimental-geography.blogspot.com/2016/05/employme...
I passed on a tech job in the Bay Area in the 90s in part because of cost of living. This was also a time when tech salaries in general were much lower than today. It would have been generally a quality of life downgrade to have moved west.
I think one reasonable solution is literally this. Would allow rebuilding whole thing from fresh, with much higher density and maybe in general as high rise buildings.
To do what NYC did and bring more residents into downtown (rather than just offices), SF needs to be an appealing place to live.
NYC tries to make itself an appealing place to live. SF does not. I'm not sure quite what SF is optimizing for, but "pleasant" is not it.
Even if crime is "just" theft and broken windows, it's still an unpleasant day (or week) when it happens. Enough of that and people just don't want to live there.
NYC tries to make itself an appealing place to live. SF does not. I'm not sure quite what SF is optimizing for, but "pleasant" is not it.
Even if crime is "just" theft and broken windows, it's still an unpleasant day (or week) when it happens. Enough of that and people just don't want to live there.
Having lived in both cities, NYC seems to strive everyday to continue to make it a livable city for families and people of all income levels. SF just seems to be coasting into disaster. Nothing seems to change or improve. Things just seem to get worse. My taxes in NYC seem to actually do something. My CA/SF taxes felt like throwing money into a fire pit.
I skimmed until I found the part where the author was seriously suggesting dumping money on the problem, then I closed the article. The problem is not money.
> skimmed until I found the part where the author was seriously suggesting dumping money on the problem, then I closed the article
“…if you were the state of California, and you were staring down a projected $22 billion budget deficit, would you invest your scarce resources in San Francisco, which has repeatedly proven itself unfit for such investments by building a vast, inefficient bureaucracy at the expense of taxpayers and vulnerable residents?
No.”
“…if you were the state of California, and you were staring down a projected $22 billion budget deficit, would you invest your scarce resources in San Francisco, which has repeatedly proven itself unfit for such investments by building a vast, inefficient bureaucracy at the expense of taxpayers and vulnerable residents?
No.”
I'm not convinced. There's a reason people came back faster to almost every other major city. This makes me think a lot of people were just there for the money, and once they could get the same money without the hassle of the city, they did just that.
The problem is adding more housing downtown doesn't really help the problem beyond making a shorter commute (to WFH jobs?). Especially for the people who moved out, SF's pandemic policies weren't attractive, and it's even worse in a dense neighborhood. There's still the homeless problem. There's still a lot of property crime. This week, there was a post about how hard it is for 8th graders to take Algebra.
Like the article said, I don't really want to give more money to a city that's been so mismanaged.
The problem is adding more housing downtown doesn't really help the problem beyond making a shorter commute (to WFH jobs?). Especially for the people who moved out, SF's pandemic policies weren't attractive, and it's even worse in a dense neighborhood. There's still the homeless problem. There's still a lot of property crime. This week, there was a post about how hard it is for 8th graders to take Algebra.
Like the article said, I don't really want to give more money to a city that's been so mismanaged.
There are certainly reasons other than jobs why some people choose to live in a major city. But eliminate the job/commute reason and the calculus changes for a lot of people given that "live near work" is at least one of the main reasons they would choose urban living.
> There are certainly reasons other than jobs why some people choose to live in a major city
I agree, but without jobs, as a major city, SF looks pretty unattractive. It was better a decade ago, but since then, all its problems got worse.
I agree, but without jobs, as a major city, SF looks pretty unattractive. It was better a decade ago, but since then, all its problems got worse.
I've spent a lot of time traveling to SF and the broader Bay Area over the years. What I tell people is that a lot of the pros are still there but the CON list especially for living in the city proper has definitely gotten longer and redder.
Just spent a few days there and man, talk about living off past beauty. It sure is one of the most beautiful urban environments in the world: the geography, the variety of the architecture, but fuck me, so expensive and just weirdly hostile rules. And I live in London so no stranger to shit costing a lot.
Was there with my wife and child and tried to go to a cool wine bar at like 5pm, told we weren’t allowed in due to licensing laws as the baby was a minor. Nowhere in Europe would even raise an eyebrow at 5pm in a half full bar, it’s not like I was trying to take him to Berghain. Saw barely any parents with kids out, but I guess that makes sense when you look at the rents.
It could be so much more, I hope there can be some sort of will to change.
Was there with my wife and child and tried to go to a cool wine bar at like 5pm, told we weren’t allowed in due to licensing laws as the baby was a minor. Nowhere in Europe would even raise an eyebrow at 5pm in a half full bar, it’s not like I was trying to take him to Berghain. Saw barely any parents with kids out, but I guess that makes sense when you look at the rents.
It could be so much more, I hope there can be some sort of will to change.
>Was there with my wife and child and tried to go to a cool wine bar at like 5pm
It's everywhere in California: minors (under 21 y.o.) are not allowed into bars except on legitimate business (e.g. making a delivery) at any time.
It's everywhere in California: minors (under 21 y.o.) are not allowed into bars except on legitimate business (e.g. making a delivery) at any time.
The US is stupid about things like this. When I was a kid, my family used to go to bars and the VFW club in rural Minnesota, so we could meet up with our relatives. These were equivalent to community social centers. No harm was done to our little minds.
It's not a US law, it's a California law.
"downtown"
This sounds like the "downtown" real estate interests whining. By "downtown" they mean the area around Embarcadero Center. The working center of SF has been moving south into SOMA and Dogpatch for two decades. There have been desperate efforts to stop this, including the "transit center" and an unnecessary push for tunnels to terminate Caltrain in classic "downtown".
Those parts of SF seem to be doing OK. It's the tall office building sector that's in trouble.
This sounds like the "downtown" real estate interests whining. By "downtown" they mean the area around Embarcadero Center. The working center of SF has been moving south into SOMA and Dogpatch for two decades. There have been desperate efforts to stop this, including the "transit center" and an unnecessary push for tunnels to terminate Caltrain in classic "downtown".
Those parts of SF seem to be doing OK. It's the tall office building sector that's in trouble.
If you read the downtown plans from SF planning or the mayor's office that the article refers to, it is not just the financial district or union square. Their definition includes areas from Chinatown to Mission Bay, and from Embacadero to Castro along Market. So all of SOMA, but not Dogpatch.
Those parts of SF seem to be doing OK.
SOMA is about 32% vacant. The goal is "Clean, safe and inviting", so I'd say not doing OK right now.
Those parts of SF seem to be doing OK.
SOMA is about 32% vacant. The goal is "Clean, safe and inviting", so I'd say not doing OK right now.
SOMA is deserted. I stopped going because it's not much different from my suburban desert anymore, so why go there. Empty offices, shuttered restaurants, very few people.
In the near term, it's more about tax revenue than real estate interests.
One question that’s always top of mind when I hear about the insanity of SF: why on Earth are people with radical, proven ineffective policies voted in time and time again? Whenever I hear from tech people, they think it’s crazy. So if tech has overrun SF, why haven’t the politics become more moderate? At least one of my assumptions must be wrong.
Check out who tech companies and employee PACs almost exclusively donate their money to.
Read the many articles about steps tech companies and employees have taken to promote their own political causes and candidates while stifling opposition. How they had practically had to bring in grief counselors to soothe their tearful employees after their chosen candidate lost in 2016.
There's nothing moderate about it. They are getting exactly what they voted for, schemed for, and paid great amounts of money for.
Read the many articles about steps tech companies and employees have taken to promote their own political causes and candidates while stifling opposition. How they had practically had to bring in grief counselors to soothe their tearful employees after their chosen candidate lost in 2016.
There's nothing moderate about it. They are getting exactly what they voted for, schemed for, and paid great amounts of money for.
Most people don’t understand economics and confuse cause and effect. Plus, emotional pleas have always had greater pull than rational ones.
They are also so polarized by the media they can’t even entertain practical solutions that existed for decades to centuries.
They are also so polarized by the media they can’t even entertain practical solutions that existed for decades to centuries.
What is there in SF politics that you consider "radical"?
I mean, I can't disagree that the evidence supports the idea that recent policies there have been ineffective in addressing many of that city's most pressing issues. But "radical" ?
I mean, I can't disagree that the evidence supports the idea that recent policies there have been ineffective in addressing many of that city's most pressing issues. But "radical" ?
Are you being serious? SF is as much, or more, known for radical left wing politics than it is tech. They basically give homeless people free money, make it legally hard to clear camps, and don’t enforce laws of open, hard drug use and petty theft, leading to the obvious consequences. Basically they make it easy to be a drug addict on the street, and hard to be a police officer, and then wonder why crime and homelessness flourish.
I am being serious.
You're describing a highly proscribed area of city governance.
Radical left politics generally involves much larger issues, chiefly relating to economic and power relationships between different groups with a society. At least. What's going on in SF has essentially nothing to do with that at all.
You're describing a highly proscribed area of city governance.
Radical left politics generally involves much larger issues, chiefly relating to economic and power relationships between different groups with a society. At least. What's going on in SF has essentially nothing to do with that at all.
They are one and the same. Chesa Boudine was largely responsible, and ran on the platform, of essentially not enforcing laws on drugs and theft. His parents spent decades in prison for murder as a result of their radical leftists activism with the Weather Underground. SF is basically the poster child for putting radical leftists in charge.
Can I assume that you're comfortable being equated with whatever your parents did during their younger years?
Look, radical leftist politics in SF (or anywhere else) would be about:
Look, radical leftist politics in SF (or anywhere else) would be about:
1. corporate taxation
2. minimum wage at $21/hr or above
3. limiting investment in residential real estate
4. major investment in public transit
5. limiting the use of private motor vehicle transportation
6. reducing the role of national/international brands in city-wide retail
7. progressive (i.e. marginal) property taxation
8. pushing CA on a number of issues, such as non-local tax base for education
I’m confused—you’re claiming the above are radical leftist policies? They seem like (mostly bad) moderate left policies to me.
Here are things I think are radical, and my gauge for that is asking if it could reasonably appear on a BLM demands list. Pushes to defund police, stop enforcing laws (or as Chesa did, enforce weakened versions for fear it would result in “dangerous” deportations) or direct repeat criminals to programs that allow them to avoid jail/records, giving homeless cash and a place to do drugs “safely”. Not to mention the new ask for $5M per black resident for reparations, with some claiming it doesn’t go near far enough.
The idea that these problems are a result of high cost of living and NIMBYism are absurd. When progressive policies fail, the left still find ways to blame it on “the rich”. Marxism 101.
Here are things I think are radical, and my gauge for that is asking if it could reasonably appear on a BLM demands list. Pushes to defund police, stop enforcing laws (or as Chesa did, enforce weakened versions for fear it would result in “dangerous” deportations) or direct repeat criminals to programs that allow them to avoid jail/records, giving homeless cash and a place to do drugs “safely”. Not to mention the new ask for $5M per black resident for reparations, with some claiming it doesn’t go near far enough.
The idea that these problems are a result of high cost of living and NIMBYism are absurd. When progressive policies fail, the left still find ways to blame it on “the rich”. Marxism 101.
Those were all hallmark left wing policies up to maybe the early 2000s but nowadays the policy programme is different. When was the last time you heard leftists talk about tax? It's like something from another time, these days it's all about other policies like racial/sexual divisions, control over media and education, "reparations" and so on.
> When was the last time you heard leftists talk about tax?
I don't live in SF, or the Bay Area or CA, so maybe the leftists you're referring to are people I don't hear much at all. But the leftists I do hear (e.g. Jacobin magazine) talk about taxes all the time. I heard Sanders talk about taxes while Schultz was in front of Congress last week.
I don't live in SF, or the Bay Area or CA, so maybe the leftists you're referring to are people I don't hear much at all. But the leftists I do hear (e.g. Jacobin magazine) talk about taxes all the time. I heard Sanders talk about taxes while Schultz was in front of Congress last week.
Getting rid of cash bail, trying children as children instead of adults, creating a unit to investigate wrongful conviction… these aren’t radical policies.
Boudin did enforce laws on drugs. Multiple drug dealers were prosecuted during his short watch. And overall violent crime fell during that period as well.
Boudin was recalled, despite no real evidence that his policies had significant impact on crime rates.
Our elections are driven by nonsense “left” “right” media hysteria and propaganda, not any sort of fact.
Boudin did enforce laws on drugs. Multiple drug dealers were prosecuted during his short watch. And overall violent crime fell during that period as well.
Boudin was recalled, despite no real evidence that his policies had significant impact on crime rates.
Our elections are driven by nonsense “left” “right” media hysteria and propaganda, not any sort of fact.
Really? So there isn’t open and pervasive drug use? All these videos of herds of people robbing stores, and homeless people straight up saying they can use/sell drugs and commit petty theft without consequence are just lying?
Well, Walgreens have certainly admitted they were almost certainly over-reacting last year to store robbery, and that the statistics are nowhere near as bad as they were claiming.
[deleted]
Take away the “radical leftist” policy of not building housing for the past several decades and San Francisco’s problems are all solved.
I don't know about "verge of collapse", but the city needs to take a long hard look at itself and ask "why do people live in cities", and one reason, other than work, which, no two ways about it, is moving out of the city in various fashions for various reasons (I'm looking at you, prop-C and stripe); one reason people want to live in a city is for the nightlife, where it's a city's density and not the suburbs that's necessary to support it in any meaningful fashion. Why does San Jose not have the same vibrant nightlife? Why does San Francisco make this giant sucking sound for all culture in the bay area? (That's no longer as true as it once was; so much has been pushed into Easy Bay simply due to housing prices in the city.) It's a large collection of suburbia and not actually a city.
This past week, San Francisco took steps to utterly destroy the nightlife scene, by sending subpoenas to all the after-hours venues to cease and desist. Like the Prohibition, this only serves to drive the scene (further) underground, causing it to be more dangerous because the parties aren't going to stop happening, they're going to happen further out from the heart of the city, into being less regulated, and further away from the hospitals which will result in deaths from that whole fentanyl thing.
Without the party scene (which rivals major cities of the world under the metric "can I party from Thursday til Tuesday"), both above and below ground, there's little reason for young adults who enjoy that sort of thing to live in this tiny city now that work remote is viable in many industries.
The industry forced to be in-person is healthcare, and UCSF is a major medical institution in the US and the world, with a major infectious disease center that played an important role in the recent pandemic, so the city has that going for it, but it's only the frontlines of that industry that need to be in the city. Much of that industry is administrators and patient navigators and all that kind of stuff, which happens on the phone, but with VOIP and the Internet, can go fully remote. Genentech (and co), the other major part of that industry, are in South San Francisco, which is technically a different city, despite its name, and far away enough from San Francisco proper that you need a car to get there (or work at Genentech and take their buses).
This past week, San Francisco took steps to utterly destroy the nightlife scene, by sending subpoenas to all the after-hours venues to cease and desist. Like the Prohibition, this only serves to drive the scene (further) underground, causing it to be more dangerous because the parties aren't going to stop happening, they're going to happen further out from the heart of the city, into being less regulated, and further away from the hospitals which will result in deaths from that whole fentanyl thing.
Without the party scene (which rivals major cities of the world under the metric "can I party from Thursday til Tuesday"), both above and below ground, there's little reason for young adults who enjoy that sort of thing to live in this tiny city now that work remote is viable in many industries.
The industry forced to be in-person is healthcare, and UCSF is a major medical institution in the US and the world, with a major infectious disease center that played an important role in the recent pandemic, so the city has that going for it, but it's only the frontlines of that industry that need to be in the city. Much of that industry is administrators and patient navigators and all that kind of stuff, which happens on the phone, but with VOIP and the Internet, can go fully remote. Genentech (and co), the other major part of that industry, are in South San Francisco, which is technically a different city, despite its name, and far away enough from San Francisco proper that you need a car to get there (or work at Genentech and take their buses).
Let it. The city is governed by incompetent leaders and the voters need to stop re-electing the same awful supervisors. Until that happens, I see no reason to bail them out.
Every city has its glory days and eventual decline. It happened to Detroit; it's happening to SF, and eventually it'll happen to other cities (I see it happening to Houston if the US truly uncouples itself from oil)
Cities can come back after the decline, too. Look at NYC.
True, given the local industry. NYC has finance, marketing, fashion, etc. What would San Francisco's be? As an outsider, it feels to me like the days magical tech synergy has left, and that work in our industry is unlikely to recentralize.
Was SF ever really a tech city? I mean it can't avoid Silicon Valley's penumbra, tech events and conferences, and a few large presences like Salesforce. But SF isn't really a tech city like Manhattan is a finance city. (Indeed, SF is probably at least as much of a West Coast financial and law center as it is tech.
Outside of tech, there's UCSF, a prominent medical institution, a large part of which can only be done in person and not remotely, as well as Genentech and similar, which is in south sf and not sf proper, but where do their employees want to live? some want suburbia but some also want city living
How is that glory-days-then-decline theory working out for the cities of the old world?
it's not a given if they get their head out of their ass. SF has so many good things going for it.
It can certainly be a world class city, but often times the call to arms is in the response to a decline to the prosperity of the last 20 years. Odds are that the world has moved on from the conditions that brought that about, and SF has to reinvent itself (or revert to its previous identity)
> …it was assumed, would never again want to work in office towers over fears of terrorism.
This feels like a ridiculous assumption. Maybe in the emotional moment, but sensible minds wouldn’t for long think that that’s it for the concept of working downtown.
This feels like a ridiculous assumption. Maybe in the emotional moment, but sensible minds wouldn’t for long think that that’s it for the concept of working downtown.
It all comes down to housing. If you make it affordable to build housing, you make housing affordable. If you make housing affordable, then you make services affordable.
The fact that San Francisco does not have the population density of Manhattan is a testament to the impact of NIMBYISM.
SF is roughly three hundred years younger than NYC.
Is that relevant for the amount of houses they can build?
I feel like if you were truly motivated they could have had over New York's population by now if they were to build homes and skyscrapers. It doesn't take 100 or 200 years to build a skyscraper, they could simultaneously start like 20 of them every year.
I feel like if you were truly motivated they could have had over New York's population by now if they were to build homes and skyscrapers. It doesn't take 100 or 200 years to build a skyscraper, they could simultaneously start like 20 of them every year.
I wonder whether homeowners talking about more affordable housing realize that includes their own house likely declining in value….
Dunno about in SF, but I certainly realize it. And I don't care. I bought the place to live in. I don't plan to sell it for decades. I will have gotten my money's worth out of it no matter what.
Which is why I absolutely advocate locally for more housing.
Which is why I absolutely advocate locally for more housing.
House value means nothing. For home owners, it's a guarantee to be able to stay in place. Californian home owners are all millionaires, but will never see that wealth materialize if they or their children want to stay in the same area.
This isn't how homes are sold to people. They're sold as "investments" and "stores of wealth."
Home value does not (generally) matter to you day to day if you plan to actually live there. Hell, if the value of your home goes down that could lower your property taxes!
Of course in the US, homes are first and foremost an investment, so losing resale value is one of the worst things that could happen to a homeowner, or something.
Of course in the US, homes are first and foremost an investment, so losing resale value is one of the worst things that could happen to a homeowner, or something.
> Home value does not (generally) matter to you day to day if you plan to actually live there.
Until you retire or for other reasons find yourself living on a fixed (and possibly diminished) income, while property taxes based on home value continue to rise.
Until you retire or for other reasons find yourself living on a fixed (and possibly diminished) income, while property taxes based on home value continue to rise.
That would make your home value going down a good thing, wouldn't it?
It would, indeed. Hard to get that timing right, though.
Only issues I can think of would be going underwater on a mortgage which might cause financial problems or having the price or liquidity drop when you need to sell short term.
Does it have to though? Think about startup fundraising rounds. At the very beginning, the founders own 100% of a $0 company. let's say they give up 15% for $150k at a $1mm valuation. 85% of $1mm is worth more than 100% of $0. So then a series B, for another 15% but this time at $10mm valuation. They're diluted down to 70%, but it's of $10mm, which equals $7mm. What does this have to do with housing? Well as a city grows, existing housing can become more valuable, along with more housing also becoming available. So similar to cases where dilution doesn't agree over existing shareholders because they now own a smaller piece of a much larger pie, so too then owners of existing housing also appreciate, rather than depreciate in value.
If you own a single family home, your home value is going to skyrocket like NY. Remove restrictions around height and multi family zoning.
That's why so many people oppose multi-family housing, even so-called progressives.
[deleted]
Hey, congratulations SF. You spent over a decade whining about tech-bros and Google buses. Guess those problems are solved now!
after the huggingface event last night a group of us wasn't let into a bar/club because "y'all are nerds, we don't want your patronage" I don't think it's solved enough yet for their taste, what a beautifully schizoid city, never change, we should just throw money at the problem forever as a monument to hubris XD
I really wish that we could all just settle on using "whether or not someone is acting like an asshole" as our single tribal dividing line. Every other grouping scheme will lump lots of great people with lots of assholes all mixed together and then we cherry pick and make assumptions about the wider group that are generally unfair.
cptskippy(1)
I'm super interested in this story. Can you elaborate more on the context please?
I will simply leave you with this image by way of explanation: https://thiic.cc/heavy/huggingface_bar.jpg
The resentment happening from society towards us is spiraling out of control, and I say this as someone who was also at that meetup event yesterday. Pretty sad but we should expect it given how fast AI is going to hurt a lot of these people.
The world is finding that they want to always treat us nerds how they treated us in our formative years...
The world is finding that they want to always treat us nerds how they treated us in our formative years...
It turns out the arrogant shitting on the rest of the planet by authoritarian techies in the Bay Area has some mild consequences about a dozen orders of magnitude less than the shit it has sprayed on everyone else. If "Flyover Country" has ever been in your vocabulary for a nanosecond, you deserve all that's being heaped on you and 1,000,000x more. You can't abuse humanity, tell them it's for their own good, and then whine when there's a slight bit of blowback against your arrogance and attempt to control and micromanage everybody's lives through technology.
Can you please keep this sort of flamewar fodder off this site? We don't want tribes bashing each other and calling each other names here—none of it has anything to do with intellectual curiosity, which is what HN is supposed to be for.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. Note that they ask you not to call names or fulminate.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. Note that they ask you not to call names or fulminate.
1. I was born in "flyover country", I know what the great plains looks like and understand their economic struggles.
2. Again, huggingface open source meetup was the OPPOSITE of authoritarian tech bros. It's literally the people trying to democratize and keep this stuff available to the masses.
This post here is the resentment I'm talking about. The reality is that the average HF event attendee has done far more to help "flyover states" than most SF tech workers. They should be treated as such, not scorned like they're part of a "techno authoritarian future". The techno authoritarians are OpenAI and their cronies.
If nuance isn't possible from non tech bros who resent tech bros, maybe there is a reason why the world is leaving them behind.
2. Again, huggingface open source meetup was the OPPOSITE of authoritarian tech bros. It's literally the people trying to democratize and keep this stuff available to the masses.
This post here is the resentment I'm talking about. The reality is that the average HF event attendee has done far more to help "flyover states" than most SF tech workers. They should be treated as such, not scorned like they're part of a "techno authoritarian future". The techno authoritarians are OpenAI and their cronies.
If nuance isn't possible from non tech bros who resent tech bros, maybe there is a reason why the world is leaving them behind.
Between pandemics, inflation, food scarcity.. I'm not sure the world is leaving non tech bros behind.
And I am a tech bro who moved to rural and bought the farm in 2020.
I support you HF guys though. Also if you want to get into clubs in SF, at least when I use to party there extensively in the 00's you either:
A) Go to a rave style club that lets anyone in
or
B) You wear nice "preppy" clothes. With a fresh haircut.
I've been turned away from clubs for not having a button down shirt on. Dress code is a real thing.
And I am a tech bro who moved to rural and bought the farm in 2020.
I support you HF guys though. Also if you want to get into clubs in SF, at least when I use to party there extensively in the 00's you either:
A) Go to a rave style club that lets anyone in
or
B) You wear nice "preppy" clothes. With a fresh haircut.
I've been turned away from clubs for not having a button down shirt on. Dress code is a real thing.
> we should expect it given how fast AI is going to hurt a lot of these people
It has nothing to do with tangible harm and a lot with the attitude of techno public figures, as well as, in San Francisco, the civic detachment of its tech workers.
It has nothing to do with tangible harm and a lot with the attitude of techno public figures, as well as, in San Francisco, the civic detachment of its tech workers.
Why should we expect "civic attachment" when nerds are literally hardcore bullied from the beginning in our media, in our schools, and now, they're starting getting bullied for being cerebral nerds by the bars of the one city that's supposed to be theirs.
I don't blame them tbh. Frankly, society should be very happy uniquely for the "nerds at the HF event" since those nerds are working very hard on open source and democratic AI, which is basically the only protection that the non nerds of SF have against the coming AI job apocalypse.
I don't blame them tbh. Frankly, society should be very happy uniquely for the "nerds at the HF event" since those nerds are working very hard on open source and democratic AI, which is basically the only protection that the non nerds of SF have against the coming AI job apocalypse.
> Why should we expect "civic attachment" when nerds are literally hardcore bullied from the beginning in our media, in our schools
You’re describing rich and powerful people. If someone with those resources can’t grow up, yes, it’s reasonable for others to dissociate from them.
What I’m describing is also uniquely San Franciscan. Tech workers in Berkeley, Oakland, Sunnyvale, Seattle, New York and overseas are civically engaged. They volunteer; join organisations, protests and campaigns; they run for office.
> the coming AI job apocalypse
It’s odd seeing AI embrace crypto’s language. Past revolutionaries for computers or nuclear power were motivated by the good they could do. They didn’t pat themselves on the back for riding a supposed pale horse. NLP has no more ability to bring an apocalypse than personal computers did, but it’s a call for regulation if this becomes mainstream.
You’re describing rich and powerful people. If someone with those resources can’t grow up, yes, it’s reasonable for others to dissociate from them.
What I’m describing is also uniquely San Franciscan. Tech workers in Berkeley, Oakland, Sunnyvale, Seattle, New York and overseas are civically engaged. They volunteer; join organisations, protests and campaigns; they run for office.
> the coming AI job apocalypse
It’s odd seeing AI embrace crypto’s language. Past revolutionaries for computers or nuclear power were motivated by the good they could do. They didn’t pat themselves on the back for riding a supposed pale horse. NLP has no more ability to bring an apocalypse than personal computers did, but it’s a call for regulation if this becomes mainstream.
Please don't do regional flamewar on HN. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
unlike sf, tech workers in pretty much every city you listed tend to actually live in those cities. hell, half the tech workers in sf live in berkeley, oakland, sunnyvale, or other bay area communities. when i was a tech worker in sf, i wasn't civically engaged in sf because i spent that budget in berkeley, where i actually lived.
[deleted]
I'm a hard core computer nerd and I'm from SF, grew up here. This is not the nerd city (although we have many fine nerds here!) It's the hippie city.
Anyway, we nerds help the normals despite their bullying and lack of respect because we are human beings and humane. It's not their fault they're stupid and ignorant, after all? And do we not enjoy pleasures and rewards beyond their understanding? It's not so bad, being a nerd.
- - - -
Did you watch "Avenue 5"? That scene where the folks are trying to leave the ship and the captain and chief engineer are trying to stop them... Wooo boy that was a horrifying scene, eh? But you can't just let them leave. You still have to help them as best you can, if only so you can live with yourself, eh?
Anyway, we nerds help the normals despite their bullying and lack of respect because we are human beings and humane. It's not their fault they're stupid and ignorant, after all? And do we not enjoy pleasures and rewards beyond their understanding? It's not so bad, being a nerd.
- - - -
Did you watch "Avenue 5"? That scene where the folks are trying to leave the ship and the captain and chief engineer are trying to stop them... Wooo boy that was a horrifying scene, eh? But you can't just let them leave. You still have to help them as best you can, if only so you can live with yourself, eh?
Portland, Eugene or are hippy cities. SF isn't a hippy city anymore. The greatful dead went to Eugene OR ever year to "get away from it all" in SF.
> SF isn't a hippy city anymore.
Right, and that's my point: the old timers resent the new wave. The hippies didn't give us the city, we took it from them.
The argument that sways me (as an oldtimer who misses the way it was) is that this is the way of it here: The Ohlone were savagely fucked over by the Spanish, who in turn were run out by the Americans, then the Gold Rush folk gave way eventually to the Beatniks, who then yielded to the Hippies, who have now been displaced by tech bros. Seen from that perspective, we're actually making fantastic progress, in the sense that each wave is less violent than the last, eh?
Right, and that's my point: the old timers resent the new wave. The hippies didn't give us the city, we took it from them.
The argument that sways me (as an oldtimer who misses the way it was) is that this is the way of it here: The Ohlone were savagely fucked over by the Spanish, who in turn were run out by the Americans, then the Gold Rush folk gave way eventually to the Beatniks, who then yielded to the Hippies, who have now been displaced by tech bros. Seen from that perspective, we're actually making fantastic progress, in the sense that each wave is less violent than the last, eh?
It's not a society vs nerds thing. This is specific to SF and the SF tech scene and that scene's relationship to the rest of the community of SF.
> the one city that's supposed to be theirs
LOL. Since when?
SF existed in the 1850's. There was no such thing as a tech bro then.
LOL. Since when?
SF existed in the 1850's. There was no such thing as a tech bro then.
I think the fact that Prop J cruised to victory and Prop I went down in flames shows that the influence of the old guard is waning. There is a proliferation of groups trying to flex tech money in SF politics: Grow SF, Abundant SF, Together SF. And they are aligned with state politicians who get the goods like Weiner, Newsom, and Haney. Supervisor Peskin is termed out, again, in 2024 and Preston and his band of fake-ass socialists are going to get a serious challenger
I'd put Haney in the same bucket as Preston.
https://twitter.com/garrytan/status/1410107988505890817
https://twitter.com/garrytan/status/1410107988505890817
Yes, Haney was originally very NIMBY in his politics but has become more moderate.
Tech money should be flexed in politics more. We’re paying taxes too, right?
Way more than fucking Dede Wilsey is paying.
There has literally never been a time in the history of capitalistm when capitalist wealth from any industry wasn’t being flexed in politics for the interests of the particular capitalists (and, as a natural collateral effect, the industry) involved.
Because of SF's structure with its board of supervisors, I don't think tech had much influence in SF outside FiDi/SoMa/Mission Bay.
After this (SFUSD's delay of algebra 1 has created a nightmare of workarounds)
https://www.sfexaminer.com/forum/put-algebra-1-back-in-eight...
It's pretty clear tech isn't making the rules.
After this (SFUSD's delay of algebra 1 has created a nightmare of workarounds)
https://www.sfexaminer.com/forum/put-algebra-1-back-in-eight...
It's pretty clear tech isn't making the rules.
These parties are labor parties.
lkjwelkjlk3t(1)
[deleted]
[deleted]
No mention of law and order.
[deleted]
California government: if you think the problems we create are bad, wait until you see our solutions.
Please. Tell me this is an April Fool's joke (even if done in poor taste).
Point and laugh. And maybe learn, but let's not get too crazy.
After reading the title I thought it will be about earthquakes.
Maybe vote differently?
SF and NY are getting exactly what they deserve by electing idiots.
Good luck attracting tourists with crime rates as they are. We don't need no water…
Maybe a new Giuliani will come along.
Nah, they'd reject him. They voted themselves into this.
Nah, they'd reject him. They voted themselves into this.
It's such a beautiful piece of property too. If not for all the people. Maybe this is "success through failure" approaching. Maybe it will be quite nice in 100 years.
Starting 1-2 months ago, many people, myself included, have started saying "SF is back" after observing the excitement surrounding, attendance at, and quantity of Generative AI events. It's too early to know how permanent this effect will be, but an article discussing SF collapse should at least mention the possibility that decline has ended and attempt to explain why event attendance won't be the first step towards recovery.
"1,000 days of meetings" sounds like the ultimate office horror movie.