An terrarium-like upper level would actually make a lot of sense across the entire downtown and SOMA. The elites can live, work and play on the upper strat, while the plebeians and working class are left to roll burning tires down Market Street.
Is there still a "bad section" of SF proper? I generally hang in East Bay when I am down there these days, but the last few times I was in the city, places like 18th and Mission looked a lot different than they did in years past.
I moved out four years ago and the same neighborhoods are the bad ones. I walked through the TL with my a wife a few weeks ago in day light on our way to a show at Bill Graham and didn’t feel in any kind of danger. The Mission felt mostly the same last weekend other than my old dive bar turning into a fancy whiskey mixologist bar.
What has changed - even in the last four years is the homeless encampments are everywhere now - in SOMA and the Mission and seem to be permanent. It just keep getting worse and you have to wonder what the breaking point is going to be, all while the city drips in wealth right out of the gilded age. At this point in my life I feel like Herb Caen bitching about how great The City used to be, it just feels like it can’t keep going down this path, and yet it does.
there are not really any areas of SF i feel unsafe in save for maybe a few random allies in the loin, but i carry myself and dress like someone who probably doesnt have much money and/or uses drugs so im generally left alone in almost any bad area, but if i were walking around like i know some of you are, looking all middle aged professional and shit, id stay out of a good 50% of the loin. the streets with bars and the street with all the tranny hookers are very safe.
When my father's father brought him to San Francisco in 1930 he told him that the city had changed and wasn't nearly as good a town as it used to be.
When my father's business moved to San Jose in 1967 I was 7 and can clearly remember him often saying that the city had been great in the '40s & '50s but had started changing when the beatniks had taken over North Beach, and that he was happy we were moving south because the damned dirty hippies & younger generation in general had ruined San Francisco forever.
Now I'm almost 59 and have lived in & around San Francisco my entire life. I'm not happy about certain changes over the years but there are other things about that city that are WAY better than they used to be.
San Francisco is still a great city and it always will be, it's just different than it used to be, and then it will be different again, and again, and again.
"It's not just minimum wage workers for whom the rents are out of reach; the average renter in San Francisco earns around $40 per hour, far below the needed Housing Wage of $60 per hour," she tells SFGATE. "This will be a challenge for the foreseeable future — seven out of the 10 occupations projected to add the greatest number of new jobs by 2026 provide a median wage lower than the two-bedroom Housing Wage and even the one-bedroom Housing Wage."
As a result, necessary members of the labor force, like teachers, janitors, and those in the service industry, are moving further and further out of the city, increasing their driving commutes and, as David notes, their greenhouse gas emissions as well.
San Francisco is still a great city and it always will be, it's just different than it used to be, and then it will be different again, and again, and again.
In a way that is this city's greatest asset, it's ability to change and always be current
Watch the scene in Vertigo where Jimmy Stewart's friend is hiring him to watch his wife. This is 1958 and he's telling Jimmy how the city just isn't the same anymore.
"In a way that is this city's greatest asset, it's ability to change and always be current"
If always being current is defined as homeless everywhere, used needles everywhere, and human feces everywhere, then they're doing a bang up job.
By the way, what party has been running SF (and CA for that matter) for decades?
America’s First Third-World State
By many criteria, 21st-century California is both the poorest and the richest state in the union. Almost a quarter of the population lives below the poverty line. Another fifth is categorized as near the poverty level — facts not true during the latter 20th century. A third of the nation’s welfare recipients now live in California. The state has the highest homeless population in the nation (135,000). About 22 percent of the nation’s total homeless population reside in the state — whose economy is the largest in the U.S., fueling the greatest numbers of American billionaires and high-income zip codes.
You know Thom I actually agree with you that liberal CA needs to do a better job at housing the people that live here, but then you go an cite those stupid statistics that all Republicans cite when talking about CA. The most this and the most that without also saying that yes the state with the biggest population is also going to have the most this and the most that.
My wife used to run the largest shelter in SF and would get weekly calls from social workers around the country trying to make a reservation for the person they were sending to SF from whatever shithole Republican state they happened to be in. So let’s not pretend this isn’t a national problem being dumped on SF
Republicans are all happy to tell us we are all part of America when it comes to the electoral college or gun ownership for crazy people but when it comes to homelessness well that’s a problem for SF to handle all while cutting federal funds for mentally ill people for the last 30 years.
It would be nice to hear an actual solution from a Republican to any of the problems facing this country that didn’t involve blaming other people or Hillary.
We also can't pretend that part of this problem isn't the cost of housing, hell of living, in SF and other cities. If it were simply a matter of people being dumped from elsewhere, then you wouldn't be seeing an INCREASE in SF, you'd see something close to the same percentages, because dumping has always been done. But, you know, you don't have to do anything abbout the problem if you just claim "Oh, it's the weather and people traveling to be homeless here." I work smack in the middle of a homeless encampment and at least 85% of the folks grew up here in NorCal, many local and many fleeing from the Bay. I have watched this encampment grow exponentially over the decade plus that I have been here. You can't tell me this is just the same old same old. I knew some of these people back when they had homes, but even this far away Bay Area people are driving up rents and causing my folks to be homeless. I am pretty frustrated at the lack of real action, both locally and by Jerry Brown and Newsom. The new budget has some money for "emergency homeless" funding, but no real plan. There's a task force, big fucking deal. In my town, we have homeless camps everywhere, to the point that at some point the last two summers the rivers became unusable due to the waste, and we still don't have anywhere close to enough beds--much less permanent housing--but we have millions to revamp our tourist waterfront. We are going through one of the greatest building booms we have ever seen, but none of it is affordable to a regular working person, much less someone trying to get out of homelessness. I'm way to the left but CA has its priorities out of wack. SF is the worst example, just because it is sooooo rich. One in every 11,000 persons is a BILLIONAIRE. Fuck, that's crazy, yet y'all still don't mind people living wretched in the street all around you while you drink coffee made of insanely expensive bat droppings? But it isn't just SF. I am proud of this state and many of the things that it stands for, but I am shocked that more people don't think that this is one of the number one priorities that every community, and the state, should be addressing. Because we can do better. Other states can do better to, but this is CA and we should be leaders in this. It is shameful.
I am so sick of people acting like good weather and people wanting to come to SF is a new thing that just caused homelessness to explode all over the state. That is such a fucking cop out.
Didn’t mean to say this was only because of people being dumped in CA. My point was San Francisco is part of America and they sure love our tax dollars flowing into the rest of the country but when SF needs help then it’s all SF caused this and SF can fix it. You can’t put the financial burden of fixing this all on SF residents. It has to be a regional and national effort.
That said SF and CA in general have made the problem much worse completely agree with that. My short list of things that have to change that no one will like.
Housing needs to be cheaper which means you have to build more housing, and in SF that means going up, and yes that also means your view is going to go away.
If you are homeless you aren’t allowed to be homeless where ever you want. My wife would find people housing in Tracy and they would say they would rather live in the street in SF.
We have to have federally funded help to get the mentally ill off the streets and into institutions. It is not compassionate to leave mentally ill people to fend for themselves and leave the decision up to them as to whether they should be institutionalized.
If you are shooting up and living in the street - well then rock bottom didn’t work for you. Mandatory in patient drug treatment for those people. That ain’t going to be cheap.
Huge investment in public transportation. NYC is better off because you can live in cheap places and still get into where the work is. In SF and LA unless you want to spend all your time commuting you can’t live and get to work where the work is.
No vacant investment properties or vacation rental properties in the Bay Area. If it’s residential that means someone either owns it and lives in it or it is rented out.
Change planning commission rules so that new housing can go up fast. Google just pledged $1B to build housing on the land they own, but it’s going to take 10 years to build it.
Nefarious and rampant investing banking has seeped it's sweating little pores into just about everything in this country. Real estate, government, health care, unchecked foreign money, technology, food processing, education, transportation, entertainment...Et al.
The manifestations are varied but the end result is always the same....an unfettered quest of quarterly earnings and C-level buyouts. It's pushing this country down fast and furious.
More than that, it's been going on for so long that there are millions of like-minded sociopaths that think this is the way, that it's OK, that is the AMERICAN WAY.
Interesting post El Niño I read today that Google said they are going to put $1 billion into building more housing in the SF area so maybe that will help a bit
>>>NYC is better off because you can live in cheap places and still get into where the work is.
You have to make some of that housing dedicated for low income. This idea that if we just build MORE housing, all the homeless people will magically afford homes is bullshit. I can't afford the new housing being built, and that type of housing is increasing the rents around it. Agree with the no vacation rentals rule.
There's a constitutional issue with locking people up when they are not committing crimes, unless they are an imminent threat to themselves or others. Inconvenient though it may be, that's the law. That said, if there WERE places for people to go, a lot of people would choose to go, and then you are dealing with something more manageable. I know a lot of homeless mentally ill people and there are literally no beds unless they go cray cray enough to go into the locked ward for 3 days. These are people who WANT a board and care, or similar facility. Same with residential treatment, more people want it than there are beds for. Or, if they go to it, there's no housing when they get out so they end up back on the street and using again. Need to have transitional housing, or at least decent cheap apartments, for people who are coming out of rehab. I can't blame anyone who graduates from rehab right back to the street for relapsing.
People being people, every community is going to have to build infrastructure for this. See above for how you can't lock people up. Tracy is expensive now too, thanks to the Bay Area people fleeing. It isn't just the housing, it taxes the treatment community, the medical community, the mental health community, A lot of people have legit reasons for staying where they are (family, the only community they know, medical care), or, being damaged, they are afraid of new things. You can't just say that you are too rich and special to give up some of your precious land and dollars to take care of your own in situ. You already exported high rents and homeless people to the towns around you, you don't get to export ALL your problems to us. That said, if this were handled on the state level and there was coordination, you could convince a lot of people to go to better situations when beds open, etc.
There is no one answer, but lack of affordable housing is really the base problem. And the lack of housing that is actually accessible to fuck ups. We've gotten rid of all the casual places people used to use to get off the streets-- the cheap rentals and rooming houses, the SRO hotels, the trailer parks. So now, to get into anything you have to have decent credit, or be enrolled in some program with a lot of rules. By definition, a lot of these people suck at rules. This prevents a lot of people from making a quick turnaround off the street. Hell, there are shelters where you can't stay until you test clean for weed. Utter bullshit. Waiting lists two-four months long for shelter beds and you have to call every week. Applications, qualifications. We need housing, ar at least DECENT beds, that people can get into quickly and with as few barriers as possible. As well as more established places that people have to qualify for.
SF is an illustration of what they call Peak Capitalism. Even bigger than that, we as a nation have gotten to a point with respect to inequality, even when it isn't so dramatic and visible as SF, that there is something sick and wrong with us if it lasts. Capitalism needs to reign itself in, sort of like back in robber baron and triangle shirtwaist factory times. This idea that if a business is required to pay a living wage it will just move to a place to desperate for jobs it's OK with it not being a living wage job--no, how about the CEO does not get to make 10 million a year if his employees don't earn a true living wage?
Something gotta give. Not sure it will happen in my lifetime.
There’s gotta be some Stanford grad and some VC “people” who can team up, disrupt homelessness, subsidize the shit out of it for a few years before having an IPO and cashing out.
Or maybe take all of the places people are using for air bnb’s and make them use those spaces to house the homeless. All of the tech-bro companies can pick up the tab.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Tuesday unanimously voted to approve first-of-its-kind legislation to suspend the sale of e-cigarettes in the city, amid concerns over underage use of the addictive nicotine products. The measure is already being challenged by the nation’s largest e-cigarette company, Juul, which is laying the groundwork to take the issue to voters in November.
The bill still requires final approval, but the board voted 11-0 to pass the ordinance on the first reading, telegraphing its intent to make it official as early as next week.
The measure, if passed, would go into effect seven months after it is signed by the mayor. It would halt the sale of e-cigarettes in San Francisco’s brick-and-mortar stores and bar the delivery of e-cigarettes bought online to San Francisco addresses until the U.S. Food and Drug Administration reviews the safety of the products, which it has not yet done.
“We spent the ’90s battling Big Tobacco and now we see the new form in e-cigarettes,” said Supervisor Shamann Walton, who co-authored the bill with City Attorney Dennis Herrera. “I’m not going to put the profits of Big Tobacco over the health of young people.” Juul, the largest seller of e-cigarettes, agreed to sell a 35% stake in itself to tobacco company Altria in December.
Juul is collecting signatures for a ballot measure for the November election that would override the board’s e-cigarette ban and allow the sale of vaping products to continue in the city.
The board on Tuesday also signaled its intent to pass a separate measure prohibiting the sale, manufacture and distribution of e-cigarettes on city property — a move aimed at Juul, whose San Francisco headquarters on city-owned property at Pier 70 has generated much public outcry.
This legislation would not be retroactive, so it would not kick Juul out of the pier property, where the company is leasing space, but it would prevent e-cigarette companies in the future from leasing on city land. Juul said it does not sell, manufacture or distribute e-cigarettes at the pier offices, and that its activities there consist of research, product development and design. The company on Tuesday announced it has bought a 28-story office tower in San Francisco to accommodate its growing workforce — it employs 1,200 people in San Francisco alone — but said it will maintain its space at the pier.
“This legislation (halting the sale of e-cigarettes) would not entirely prevent youth vaping, but we hope it is a start,” said board President Norman Yee. “We’ve created public discourse about the potential danger of this product (that) is moving us in a better direction.”
In a statement, Juul said it shares the board’s goal of keeping vaping products away from under-21 customers and pointed to steps the company recently took to restrict youth access, such as pulling flavored nicotine pods off of store shelves and shutting down its social media accounts.
“The prohibition of vapor products for all adults in San Francisco will not effectively address underage use and will leave cigarettes on shelves as the only choice for adult smokers,” Juul spokesman Ted Kwong said in a statement. “We will continue to work with local policymakers, small businesses, community leaders and adult smokers who have switched to vapor products to enact stronger regulation and enforcement rather than complete prohibition.”
The move to ban the sale of e-cigarettes is also being hotly contested by the owners of vape shops, corner stores and other small businesses who say they rely on the sale of e-cigarettes to keep their stores open. It has also riled many adult vapers who say they should be able to buy e-cigarettes if they so choose, as long as they’re over 21.
Walton and Supervisor Sandra Lee Fewer said they are forming a working group to help mitigate the impact on small businesses by identifying alternative sources of revenue.
“I’m outraged,” said Carlos Solorzano, CEO of the Hispanic Chambers of Commerce of San Francisco, which represents hundreds of businesses in the city. “They have no idea how this is going to impact small businesses and our employees. We’re going to oppose it as strongly as we can. They can’t take away a right to choose for adults who want to buy legally.”
Interesting article in today's New York Times about a movement afoot to eliminate zoning for single family homes in many cities and inner suburbs in order to increase the housing stock while keeping prices down. It appears that has some merit.
HA that’s funny! No really, where is it affordable to live near NYC?
Not a joke. My kid pays the same for one room/common areas in Oakland as we pay for six rooms in NJ. Fortunately, our landlord is less interested in market rate/profit than covering his taxes.
And I have an easier commute (don't get me wrong; it still sucks) to Midtown than a lot of folks from the outer boroughs.
>>>>>a movement afoot to eliminate zoning for single family homes in many cities and inner suburbs
Fine if you don't mind living near a lot of other people. What about folks who spent a lot of time and effort to find an area with buffers between neighbors? Guess they're just SOL.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: JP (J Bomb)
An terrarium-like upper level
An terrarium-like upper level would actually make a lot of sense across the entire downtown and SOMA. The elites can live, work and play on the upper strat, while the plebeians and working class are left to roll burning tires down Market Street.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Ken D.
Is there still a "bad section
Is there still a "bad section" of SF proper? I generally hang in East Bay when I am down there these days, but the last few times I was in the city, places like 18th and Mission looked a lot different than they did in years past.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Localcountyline
Junkies are still shooting up
Junkies are still shooting up out in the open in the Tenderloin.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: El Nino
I moved out four years ago
I moved out four years ago and the same neighborhoods are the bad ones. I walked through the TL with my a wife a few weeks ago in day light on our way to a show at Bill Graham and didn’t feel in any kind of danger. The Mission felt mostly the same last weekend other than my old dive bar turning into a fancy whiskey mixologist bar.
What has changed - even in the last four years is the homeless encampments are everywhere now - in SOMA and the Mission and seem to be permanent. It just keep getting worse and you have to wonder what the breaking point is going to be, all while the city drips in wealth right out of the gilded age. At this point in my life I feel like Herb Caen bitching about how great The City used to be, it just feels like it can’t keep going down this path, and yet it does.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Highnote
"America hates its crazies,
"America hates its crazies, but you gotta let go, you know" Paul Kantner
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Dr. Benway
there are not really any
there are not really any areas of SF i feel unsafe in save for maybe a few random allies in the loin, but i carry myself and dress like someone who probably doesnt have much money and/or uses drugs so im generally left alone in almost any bad area, but if i were walking around like i know some of you are, looking all middle aged professional and shit, id stay out of a good 50% of the loin. the streets with bars and the street with all the tranny hookers are very safe.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Rasputin O'Leary
Mr Natural's 719th Meditation
Mr Natural's 719th Meditation
https://youtu.be/zJBV4pBUmuk
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Lance minimum goad Newberry
When my father's father moved
When my father's father brought him to San Francisco in 1930 he told him that the city had changed and wasn't nearly as good a town as it used to be.
When my father's business moved to San Jose in 1967 I was 7 and can clearly remember him often saying that the city had been great in the '40s & '50s but had started changing when the beatniks had taken over North Beach, and that he was happy we were moving south because the damned dirty hippies & younger generation in general had ruined San Francisco forever.
Now I'm almost 59 and have lived in & around San Francisco my entire life. I'm not happy about certain changes over the years but there are other things about that city that are WAY better than they used to be.
San Francisco is still a great city and it always will be, it's just different than it used to be, and then it will be different again, and again, and again.
Same as it ever was.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: JP (J Bomb)
I'm not happy about certain
I'm not happy about certain changes over the years but there are other things about that city that are WAY better than they used to be. <<<
Oh yea, like what? The number of coffee shops that offer a special array of single-origin beans? Oooooh.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Johnny D
I can't say that I miss the
I can't say that I miss the Embarcadero Freeway
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Hitchhiker awaiting "true call"
I
"It's not just minimum wage workers for whom the rents are out of reach; the average renter in San Francisco earns around $40 per hour, far below the needed Housing Wage of $60 per hour," she tells SFGATE. "This will be a challenge for the foreseeable future — seven out of the 10 occupations projected to add the greatest number of new jobs by 2026 provide a median wage lower than the two-bedroom Housing Wage and even the one-bedroom Housing Wage."
As a result, necessary members of the labor force, like teachers, janitors, and those in the service industry, are moving further and further out of the city, increasing their driving commutes and, as David notes, their greenhouse gas emissions as well.
https://www.sfgate.com/expensive-san-francisco/article/San-Francisco-ren...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Hitchhiker awaiting "true call"
Take it to the bank.
Take it to the bank.
https://youtu.be/piFKx8vRlT4
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: El Nino
Pro sports venues are better
Pro sports venues are better
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: I rang a silent bell
>Mr Natural's 719th
>Mr Natural's 719th Meditation
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: JP (J Bomb)
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 2 Room Shack
what about us?
what about us?
https://www.scpr.org/blogs/economy/2015/01/15/17806/la-residents-need-to...
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Over-30-Dollars-a-Hour-is-Neede...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Woz
San Francisco is still a
San Francisco is still a great city and it always will be, it's just different than it used to be, and then it will be different again, and again, and again.
In a way that is this city's greatest asset, it's ability to change and always be current
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Bucky Badger
>>>what about us?
>>>what about us?
Kawhi might be going to the clippers
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Ausonius
Watch the scene in Vertigo
Watch the scene in Vertigo where Jimmy Stewart's friend is hiring him to watch his wife. This is 1958 and he's telling Jimmy how the city just isn't the same anymore.
"In a way that is this city's greatest asset, it's ability to change and always be current"
If always being current is defined as homeless everywhere, used needles everywhere, and human feces everywhere, then they're doing a bang up job.
By the way, what party has been running SF (and CA for that matter) for decades?
America’s First Third-World State
By many criteria, 21st-century California is both the poorest and the richest state in the union. Almost a quarter of the population lives below the poverty line. Another fifth is categorized as near the poverty level — facts not true during the latter 20th century. A third of the nation’s welfare recipients now live in California. The state has the highest homeless population in the nation (135,000). About 22 percent of the nation’s total homeless population reside in the state — whose economy is the largest in the U.S., fueling the greatest numbers of American billionaires and high-income zip codes.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/06/california-third-world-state-corr...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 2 Room Shack
>Kawhi might be going to the
>Kawhi might be going to the clippers <
why is there a fake team in my building?
is the clipper curse still a thing?
he better hope not...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: JP (J Bomb)
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 2 Room Shack
lol
lol
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: El Nino
You know Thom I actually
You know Thom I actually agree with you that liberal CA needs to do a better job at housing the people that live here, but then you go an cite those stupid statistics that all Republicans cite when talking about CA. The most this and the most that without also saying that yes the state with the biggest population is also going to have the most this and the most that.
My wife used to run the largest shelter in SF and would get weekly calls from social workers around the country trying to make a reservation for the person they were sending to SF from whatever shithole Republican state they happened to be in. So let’s not pretend this isn’t a national problem being dumped on SF
Republicans are all happy to tell us we are all part of America when it comes to the electoral college or gun ownership for crazy people but when it comes to homelessness well that’s a problem for SF to handle all while cutting federal funds for mentally ill people for the last 30 years.
It would be nice to hear an actual solution from a Republican to any of the problems facing this country that didn’t involve blaming other people or Hillary.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Ken D.
Aside from New Mexico, the
Aside from New Mexico, the poorest 10 states in the Union are all traditional GOP bastions (well at least since the South flipped in the late 1960's):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_income
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 2 Room Shack
mic drop, el nino.
mic drop, el nino.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Alias
We also can't pretend that
We also can't pretend that part of this problem isn't the cost of housing, hell of living, in SF and other cities. If it were simply a matter of people being dumped from elsewhere, then you wouldn't be seeing an INCREASE in SF, you'd see something close to the same percentages, because dumping has always been done. But, you know, you don't have to do anything abbout the problem if you just claim "Oh, it's the weather and people traveling to be homeless here." I work smack in the middle of a homeless encampment and at least 85% of the folks grew up here in NorCal, many local and many fleeing from the Bay. I have watched this encampment grow exponentially over the decade plus that I have been here. You can't tell me this is just the same old same old. I knew some of these people back when they had homes, but even this far away Bay Area people are driving up rents and causing my folks to be homeless. I am pretty frustrated at the lack of real action, both locally and by Jerry Brown and Newsom. The new budget has some money for "emergency homeless" funding, but no real plan. There's a task force, big fucking deal. In my town, we have homeless camps everywhere, to the point that at some point the last two summers the rivers became unusable due to the waste, and we still don't have anywhere close to enough beds--much less permanent housing--but we have millions to revamp our tourist waterfront. We are going through one of the greatest building booms we have ever seen, but none of it is affordable to a regular working person, much less someone trying to get out of homelessness. I'm way to the left but CA has its priorities out of wack. SF is the worst example, just because it is sooooo rich. One in every 11,000 persons is a BILLIONAIRE. Fuck, that's crazy, yet y'all still don't mind people living wretched in the street all around you while you drink coffee made of insanely expensive bat droppings? But it isn't just SF. I am proud of this state and many of the things that it stands for, but I am shocked that more people don't think that this is one of the number one priorities that every community, and the state, should be addressing. Because we can do better. Other states can do better to, but this is CA and we should be leaders in this. It is shameful.
I am so sick of people acting like good weather and people wanting to come to SF is a new thing that just caused homelessness to explode all over the state. That is such a fucking cop out.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: El Nino
Didn’t mean to say this was
Didn’t mean to say this was only because of people being dumped in CA. My point was San Francisco is part of America and they sure love our tax dollars flowing into the rest of the country but when SF needs help then it’s all SF caused this and SF can fix it. You can’t put the financial burden of fixing this all on SF residents. It has to be a regional and national effort.
That said SF and CA in general have made the problem much worse completely agree with that. My short list of things that have to change that no one will like.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: JP (J Bomb)
Nefarious and rampant
Nefarious and rampant investing banking has seeped it's sweating little pores into just about everything in this country. Real estate, government, health care, unchecked foreign money, technology, food processing, education, transportation, entertainment...Et al.
The manifestations are varied but the end result is always the same....an unfettered quest of quarterly earnings and C-level buyouts. It's pushing this country down fast and furious.
More than that, it's been going on for so long that there are millions of like-minded sociopaths that think this is the way, that it's OK, that is the AMERICAN WAY.
Hold on tight.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Bucky Badger
Interesting post El Niño I
Interesting post El Niño I read today that Google said they are going to put $1 billion into building more housing in the SF area so maybe that will help a bit
>>>NYC is better off because you can live in cheap places and still get into where the work is.
im curious as to where that is
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Alias
You have to make some of that
You have to make some of that housing dedicated for low income. This idea that if we just build MORE housing, all the homeless people will magically afford homes is bullshit. I can't afford the new housing being built, and that type of housing is increasing the rents around it. Agree with the no vacation rentals rule.
There's a constitutional issue with locking people up when they are not committing crimes, unless they are an imminent threat to themselves or others. Inconvenient though it may be, that's the law. That said, if there WERE places for people to go, a lot of people would choose to go, and then you are dealing with something more manageable. I know a lot of homeless mentally ill people and there are literally no beds unless they go cray cray enough to go into the locked ward for 3 days. These are people who WANT a board and care, or similar facility. Same with residential treatment, more people want it than there are beds for. Or, if they go to it, there's no housing when they get out so they end up back on the street and using again. Need to have transitional housing, or at least decent cheap apartments, for people who are coming out of rehab. I can't blame anyone who graduates from rehab right back to the street for relapsing.
People being people, every community is going to have to build infrastructure for this. See above for how you can't lock people up. Tracy is expensive now too, thanks to the Bay Area people fleeing. It isn't just the housing, it taxes the treatment community, the medical community, the mental health community, A lot of people have legit reasons for staying where they are (family, the only community they know, medical care), or, being damaged, they are afraid of new things. You can't just say that you are too rich and special to give up some of your precious land and dollars to take care of your own in situ. You already exported high rents and homeless people to the towns around you, you don't get to export ALL your problems to us. That said, if this were handled on the state level and there was coordination, you could convince a lot of people to go to better situations when beds open, etc.
There is no one answer, but lack of affordable housing is really the base problem. And the lack of housing that is actually accessible to fuck ups. We've gotten rid of all the casual places people used to use to get off the streets-- the cheap rentals and rooming houses, the SRO hotels, the trailer parks. So now, to get into anything you have to have decent credit, or be enrolled in some program with a lot of rules. By definition, a lot of these people suck at rules. This prevents a lot of people from making a quick turnaround off the street. Hell, there are shelters where you can't stay until you test clean for weed. Utter bullshit. Waiting lists two-four months long for shelter beds and you have to call every week. Applications, qualifications. We need housing, ar at least DECENT beds, that people can get into quickly and with as few barriers as possible. As well as more established places that people have to qualify for.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Alias
SF is an illustration of what
SF is an illustration of what they call Peak Capitalism. Even bigger than that, we as a nation have gotten to a point with respect to inequality, even when it isn't so dramatic and visible as SF, that there is something sick and wrong with us if it lasts. Capitalism needs to reign itself in, sort of like back in robber baron and triangle shirtwaist factory times. This idea that if a business is required to pay a living wage it will just move to a place to desperate for jobs it's OK with it not being a living wage job--no, how about the CEO does not get to make 10 million a year if his employees don't earn a true living wage?
Something gotta give. Not sure it will happen in my lifetime.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Bucky Badger
There’s gotta be some
There’s gotta be some Stanford grad and some VC “people” who can team up, disrupt homelessness, subsidize the shit out of it for a few years before having an IPO and cashing out.
Or maybe take all of the places people are using for air bnb’s and make them use those spaces to house the homeless. All of the tech-bro companies can pick up the tab.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: ltk173
San Francisco has moved to
San Francisco has moved to ban e-cigarettes. Juul has a backup plan
Updated: June 18, 2019 8:06 p.m.
Biz & Tech // Business
https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/San-Francisco-has-moved-to-...
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Tuesday unanimously voted to approve first-of-its-kind legislation to suspend the sale of e-cigarettes in the city, amid concerns over underage use of the addictive nicotine products. The measure is already being challenged by the nation’s largest e-cigarette company, Juul, which is laying the groundwork to take the issue to voters in November.
The bill still requires final approval, but the board voted 11-0 to pass the ordinance on the first reading, telegraphing its intent to make it official as early as next week.
The measure, if passed, would go into effect seven months after it is signed by the mayor. It would halt the sale of e-cigarettes in San Francisco’s brick-and-mortar stores and bar the delivery of e-cigarettes bought online to San Francisco addresses until the U.S. Food and Drug Administration reviews the safety of the products, which it has not yet done.
“We spent the ’90s battling Big Tobacco and now we see the new form in e-cigarettes,” said Supervisor Shamann Walton, who co-authored the bill with City Attorney Dennis Herrera. “I’m not going to put the profits of Big Tobacco over the health of young people.” Juul, the largest seller of e-cigarettes, agreed to sell a 35% stake in itself to tobacco company Altria in December.
Juul is collecting signatures for a ballot measure for the November election that would override the board’s e-cigarette ban and allow the sale of vaping products to continue in the city.
The board on Tuesday also signaled its intent to pass a separate measure prohibiting the sale, manufacture and distribution of e-cigarettes on city property — a move aimed at Juul, whose San Francisco headquarters on city-owned property at Pier 70 has generated much public outcry.
This legislation would not be retroactive, so it would not kick Juul out of the pier property, where the company is leasing space, but it would prevent e-cigarette companies in the future from leasing on city land. Juul said it does not sell, manufacture or distribute e-cigarettes at the pier offices, and that its activities there consist of research, product development and design. The company on Tuesday announced it has bought a 28-story office tower in San Francisco to accommodate its growing workforce — it employs 1,200 people in San Francisco alone — but said it will maintain its space at the pier.
“This legislation (halting the sale of e-cigarettes) would not entirely prevent youth vaping, but we hope it is a start,” said board President Norman Yee. “We’ve created public discourse about the potential danger of this product (that) is moving us in a better direction.”
In a statement, Juul said it shares the board’s goal of keeping vaping products away from under-21 customers and pointed to steps the company recently took to restrict youth access, such as pulling flavored nicotine pods off of store shelves and shutting down its social media accounts.
“The prohibition of vapor products for all adults in San Francisco will not effectively address underage use and will leave cigarettes on shelves as the only choice for adult smokers,” Juul spokesman Ted Kwong said in a statement. “We will continue to work with local policymakers, small businesses, community leaders and adult smokers who have switched to vapor products to enact stronger regulation and enforcement rather than complete prohibition.”
The move to ban the sale of e-cigarettes is also being hotly contested by the owners of vape shops, corner stores and other small businesses who say they rely on the sale of e-cigarettes to keep their stores open. It has also riled many adult vapers who say they should be able to buy e-cigarettes if they so choose, as long as they’re over 21.
Walton and Supervisor Sandra Lee Fewer said they are forming a working group to help mitigate the impact on small businesses by identifying alternative sources of revenue.
“I’m outraged,” said Carlos Solorzano, CEO of the Hispanic Chambers of Commerce of San Francisco, which represents hundreds of businesses in the city. “They have no idea how this is going to impact small businesses and our employees. We’re going to oppose it as strongly as we can. They can’t take away a right to choose for adults who want to buy legally.”
Lock Thread.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: JP (J Bomb)
Sup.
Sup biznatch.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: skifurthur
Interesting article in today
Interesting article in today's New York Times about a movement afoot to eliminate zoning for single family homes in many cities and inner suburbs in order to increase the housing stock while keeping prices down. It appears that has some merit.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/18/upshot/cities-across-america-question-single-family-zoning.html
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Hitchhiker awaiting "true call"
Unskilled laborers don't
Unskilled laborers don't deserve any breaks. Fuck them.
Go back to college and get a better job.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: nebulous nelly
>NYC is better off because
>NYC is better off because you can live in cheap places and still get into where the work is.<
>>im curious as to where that is<<
Jersey
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Vann Kliburn
(No subject)
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 2 Room Shack
hunger games
hunger games
step up from bum fights...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: (~)};)StealYourFace
It's all true
It's all true
Stay away
move to Boise...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Bucky Badger
>>>>>im curious as to where
>>>>>im curious as to where that is<<
>>>Jersey
HA that’s funny! No really, where is it affordable to live near NYC?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Hitchhiker awaiting "true call"
https://www.zillow.com/orange
https://www.zillow.com/orange-county-ny/?utm_content=447486923|21621528083|aud-352785740844:kwd-3116779670|218094508501|&semQue=null&k_clickid=_kenshoo_clickid_&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIieGeq9L24gIVCttkCh2WyQSgEAAYASAAEgKyHvD_BwE
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Thumbkinetic
>>>>>im curious as to where
>>>>>im curious as to where that is<<
>>>Jersey
HA that’s funny! No really, where is it affordable to live near NYC?
Not a joke. My kid pays the same for one room/common areas in Oakland as we pay for six rooms in NJ. Fortunately, our landlord is less interested in market rate/profit than covering his taxes.
And I have an easier commute (don't get me wrong; it still sucks) to Midtown than a lot of folks from the outer boroughs.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: El Nino
Home prices in the same zip
Home prices in the same zip code as the Jersey City PATH station
https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Jersey-City-NJ-07306/pmf,pf_pt/606...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Thumbkinetic
It's considerably less
It's considerably less "affordable" if you can actually see NYC
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: nebulous nelly
You can find reasonably
You can find reasonably priced rentals and homes/condos in Union County and Morris county, Bucky.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: nebulous nelly
And if you're looking in Hudson county, there's Bayonne.
Then there is Newark in Essex county
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Thumbkinetic
And if you're looking in
And if you're looking in Hudson county, there's Bayonne.<<
Head south from the Holland Tunnel and make a left at 1983.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Bucky Badger
>>>>You can find reasonably
>>>>You can find reasonably priced rentals and homes/condos in Union County and Morris county, Bucky.
goot to know TY! I figured the NYC suburbs were out of reach for most people
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Def. High
>>>>>a movement afoot to
>>>>>a movement afoot to eliminate zoning for single family homes in many cities and inner suburbs
Fine if you don't mind living near a lot of other people. What about folks who spent a lot of time and effort to find an area with buffers between neighbors? Guess they're just SOL.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Hitchhiker awaiting "true call"
Some people don't think
Some people don't think things will change for the better.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: nebulous nelly
Some people other than me?
Some people other than me?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Johnny D
At Mare Island, Vallejo,
At Mare Island, Vallejo, there are dozens of mobile-home sized units that have been sitting on pallets for over a year.
I've been told that they are meant for housing the homeless, but I'm not sure what's causing the holdup.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Hitchhiker awaiting "true call"
https://www.ktvu.com/news
https://www.ktvu.com/news/334135184-video