The last time I was there, I realized why most of the protests for economic reform and "the 1%" are so strong in the Bay Area: because it is so blatantly thrown in people's faces! The streets are filled with Porsches and Teslas driving by the many homeless people in SF everyday. Rent is absolutely absurd. Most big cities have this problem, but its especially pronounced in SF (probably moreso than everywhere but NYC).
I think the thing that probably makes it worse in SF is, as mentioned in the article, many people don't work in SF. I don't know of many companies in Chicago, NYC, or Dallas providing free transportation to their headquarters in the suburbs, people that live in those places usually work in there too.
I'm not sure what can be done about this; Google isn't moving their headquarters to SF (nor should they). At some point this issue is going to boil over and something will have to change.
I keep posting variations on this, but this link is relevant here: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/05/face... . "Rent is absolutely absurd" because of basic economics at work: SF is a desirable place to live in many respects, but it's virtually impossible to build new housing there for reasons discussed at the link. In the face of exploding demand and constant supply, prices rise. For more on this, see The Rent is Too Damn High: http://www.amazon.com/The-Rent-Damn-High-ebook/dp/B0078XGJXO. Most big cities have this problem, as you note, and yet most commentators don't discuss the obvious connection between supply limits and prices, per my essay here: https://jseliger.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/connecting-the-dot... .
Regular people move from SF and places like it to the sunbelt, where development is easy and real estate prices more reasonable, and the people who have the money and/or need to be in SF stay/move there.
One might argue that the homeless people wouldn't be there if the fabulous wealth weren't also there. That they can even be there should be a testament to the city's tolerance. In many places, local government does everything they can to remove them. SF has much more social conscience than a lot of people give it credit for.
That said, many of the homeless we dealt with were also dealing with challenges in mental illness, whether it was depression, schizophrenia, or addiction. That was much more instrumental in keeping them homeless than any sort of structured neglect.
If the tech giants endowed a single mental health facility that would serve the homeless population of San Francisco and one in the South Bay it would do more good for more people than any other single act. Suggestions on how we could pull that off are welcome.
A significant amount of homeless people are homeless, sadly, because of mental conditions. I'm not saying that most homeless people are going to attack you in the street, but things like schizophrenia and bi-polar disorder can be extremely dangerous if they go untreated.
The homeless are not who we should focus on when talking about wealth inequality. Even though it makes a good visual, there are too many other factors at play such as mental illness.
It's the working poor and the rich that are the true divide.
Hmm, I see it more as SF, or society in general, being irresponsible for the homeless rather than being tolerant of them being there. In fact, this brings up another point I was talking about with someone else. That when people say "the homeless problem in SF", they don't actually care about the homeless' well-being. They only care about how the homeless disturbs their daily routine.
* single and DINKY hipsters
* super rich with kids
* very poor with kids (no option to leave - basically stuck)
The problem with structure like this is that, when the next recession hits (and it will hit), the first two groups will leave the city immediately.
I have feeling that solution for SF is to make it more "kids friendly" because people with kids tend to be more involved in community and they are less mobile.
I don't believe this. There are tons of Software Engineer jobs paying around 80-100k in SF. That salary, in that city, puts you firmly in the middle class.
However, I agree with this piece. The tech companies and the people of San Francisco as a whole need to really change things. A big part of that change probably needs to happen at the local government level where there is so much incompetence and a decent amount of corruption: http://www.sfweekly.com/2009-12-16/news/the-worst-run-big-ci...
SF wants to be a big city, but many of the residents are actively refusing policies that will allow for better services, denser urban areas and other benefits of being a large city. Otherwise, San Francisco will continue to be the largest small town in America, with problems like homelessness and income inequality worse than a city ten times it's size (say, New York City).
There are tons of Finance jobs paying around 80-100k in NY. That salary, in that city, puts you firmly in the middle class.
Is this now (perceived as) middle class?
Umm, yes? It's the upper middle class, or the professional class if you prefer a different way of categorizing members of the middle class.
Now, there are many alternative models of the US class system, some of which would say that a finance job is in the working class - a well-paid worker, but still working class. However, it seems your complaint was based on the salary, not the type of job.
I need a little help to understand your statement. Do you consider a "finance job paying around 80-100k in NY" to be working class? Blue collar? Upper class? Capitalist class? Blue bloods?
Yes, its a great hardship to have to take the train. But thousands of people do it and have quite a comfortable life at 80 to 100K.
However, it's important to keep in mind that the cost of living in San Francisco or New York is much higher than average. Median rent for a one-bedroom apartment is $2,795 [2] in San Francisco, that alone is over $33k a year. The SF cost of living index is 161.3 and the Manhattan cost of living index is 223.9. In other words, $100k in Manhattan is equivalent to about $45k in an average place in the US, firmly in the middle quintile. The Living Wage Project suggests it takes at least $100k to be effectively middle class in New York [3].
It's really not a perception thing, it's reality.
1: US Census 2011 Household Income Table HINC-05
2: http://priceonomics.com/the-san-francisco-rent-explosion/
3: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/cities-high-cost-of...
This is a pretty sad indication of how bad urban development policies have gotten.
They all know in the back of their minds that the current boom is just as transient as any other, meaning they could be unemployed and forced to leave at any time. It is difficult to build a strong community on such shaky ground.
Articles like this one also ignore the simple, obvious solution: remove height restrictions and mandatory parking minimums. Developers will build up, supply will increase, and housing costs will fall.
The problem is that many of the same people complaining about high prices don't seem to like the only real means of alleviating the issue; I wrote more about this here: https://jseliger.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/connecting-the-dot... .
I really don't think people understand that if the demand increases, the way to keep the cost form increasing as much is to increase the supply.
It is interesting to observe how people in the finance industry in New York view taxation. They'll complain about it, but by and large they're pretty supportive of the whole system. Which is important, because they're responsible for some large fraction of the tax base, as well as a lot of corporate investment in the community. I think Wall Street is happy to invest in New York because the city isn't totally dysfunctional. The people who pay the taxes see benefits from public services, whether its the police or the transit infrastructure. It's a place where people making a million dollars a year will ride the bus or subway to work and so feel invested in the public services they pay for.
In San Francisco, the crazies and the hippies are firmly in charge. And as long as that's the case, why would you want to give them your money?
I've never noticed anything very disfunctional about SF: the police seem to work out, the public transportation seems to work out, there is a homeless problem but not an entirely huge one, tourists seem to be safe, the city has great parks.
Maybe you just don't like Californian liberals?
Is part of the problem that the suburbs (that I would imagine benefit tax-wise) are not doing a good job at being an attractive place to live? Is it an industrial park situation? It seems like some land developer has a custom audience for a development.
I have read jwz's blog for the DNA Lounge for a long time and get the vibe SF doesn't want those type of venues. It would seem a more entertainment friendly community would prosper in attracting young SF residents.
I agree with parent, SV is missing a trick here: it doesn't need to be as soulless as it is.
That's not all of SV, but quite a bit of it.
(This is an honest question - not trying to be sarcastic. I havn't lived in the Bay area.)
[1] http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57599011/violence-in-o...
With the techie desire to remove politics and marketing and the overweening wish to be logical instead of emotional comes the abdication of dealing with the messy, compromising, and non-technical parts of the world and thus, the disengagement.
My one experience in SF was generally negative: homeless people were sleeping all over the sidewalks, and the beggars were aggressive. There was a great deal of wealth in evidence, but I didn't see the wealth translated into meaningful assistance.
I guess I would expect to see some sort of mission building in the area I was in where people could sleep & use restrooms and not be on the sidewalk.
Anyway, I think it's time the tech community grokked that the Internet is and is not a separate space and really got serious about engaging with the world (again).
If the latter, I'm terribly sorry for your bad experience. I've been living here for nearly three years now and hope that you find some comfort in the knowledge that your experience was a radical outlier. Every hobo, pusher, and prostitute that I've run into gracefully accepts "No, I'm sorry/thank you." for an answer. If the former, I suspect that "persistent but non-violent and/or polite" is a much clearer label for these sorts of folks. When you describe someone as "aggressive", it also carries connotations of "violent".
Also, the city's nested web of ineffectual homeless outreach/support programs is an entirely separate issue. (As is the city's "Make $60->$80k per year? Get a condo for 1/6th to 1/8th market price!" program. [This is their "low income housing ownership" program, BTW, which is entirely separate from their low-income housing rental program. (The rental program actually serves a pretty appropriate segment of the population.)])
EDIT: It's widely reported that free-of-cost meals are available to anyone who wants them in SF. I've seen documentation that indicates that -as long as one can get moving by 0700- one can roam the city and never be without three squares a day. I know that I live within four blocks of two active food banks that serve the homeless, and within eight of a very large church-run organization that does the same. See also, this guy's comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5297419
I've never seen anyone actually starving in the city, and I've walked through almost all parts of it, at all hours of the day and night. Folks get clothed and folks get fed. Folks often don't get psych medications or hospitalization that they need, but that's a whole other story. :/
I'm glad to hear that the meals organizations are effective. There were so many homeless. :-/
Aggressive panhandling to me is having little kids grab onto my legs and try to drag me. That only happens to me in non-developed countries.
I can't really think of any that aren't highly political (and thus, not practical). Anyone know of any?
* SF Bicycle Coalition: Definitely recommend if you're a fellow biker https://co.clickandpledge.com/advanced/default.aspx?wid=6334...
* Planned Parenthood: They are very happy to receive donations to keep providing medical services. To donate to local chapter, select "Shasta Pacific" here: https://secure.ppaction.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=pp_ppo...
* Village Harvest: they harvest community orchards and gardens (which you can also volunteer at on weekends). http://www.villageharvest.org/donate
The city is trying to address a bunch of societal issues, while failing at the basics. There is a reason it's considered the worst run big city in the US [1]. Why should people that are already paying very high taxes pay even more, or address other peoples problems directly? I don't really see how this problem somehow belongs to the tech industry.
1: http://www.sfweekly.com/2009-12-16/news/the-worst-run-big-ci...
CA state income tax rates are up to 7.3% higher than AL's, BUT AL's maximum tax bracket is 5% of any taxable income over $3k. CA's maximum tax bracket is 12.3% of any income over $500k. If you're making $38k (or maybe $48k) or less, you're better off, tax-wise to be in CA. The 6% CA bracket starts at $27,897. [0][1]
[0] http://revenue.alabama.gov/incometax/itfaq01.cfm (Search for "income tax rates")
[1] https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/2012_california_tax_rates_and_e... (Search for "tax rate schedules")
