San Francisco Residents Are Leaving at an Unprecedented Rate(movebuddha.com) |
San Francisco Residents Are Leaving at an Unprecedented Rate(movebuddha.com) |
The issue here is whether we can draw a reasonable inference from that sample to the target population (all people in San Francisco). My guess is it does not. The title is not justified by the data presented.
The claims we're able to make are narrow:
A combination of annual secular growth, advertising spend, and COVID that we cannot disentangle suggests 30% increase in move requests to this moving site in the area; Separately, the sample of people using this website are more interested than outbound moves than last year.
If we want to combine these, we have "Website Shows 90% growth in raw outbound move searches among SF visitors"
This is microscopic data to make any sort of claim about migration patterns. I live in Denver, and read a similar article a few years ago (more people were moving out than moving in). Didn't seem to have much of an impact on housing prices or the job market, because it wasn't a sustained, significant trend.
This year it's 1200 * 90% or 1080...that's nearly double.
This is just a sample size though because, I for one have never heard of the site, so I doubt a ton of people use them for moving needs. A lot probably will just use U-haul and other resources for their move.
I could see a lot of people wanting to move from SF esp, if they've been laid off, how could you possibly afford rent in a recession in SF?
My younger sibling, like many, is very annoyed that their early years of marriage without kids/california adventure is mostly being stuck in a 800 sqft apt and occasionally walking the dog. They love the bay, but having the small apartments combined with quarantine has got them reevaluating where they are and how their lives might look for the next $time while we figure out covid-19 as a country/species.
edit: my bad of the soft/sqft typo. seems my brain was trying to split the different between small and sqft and flubbed the landing.
* include/not include walls
* include/not include balconies
etc.
It is an unprecedented time and we're having trouble coming up with reasons to go back. We moved out there for a big n salary for me. That wasn't the work I wanted to do so I'm part time now doing what I enjoy. That really throws off the rent justification though.
And yet the author is missing the elephant in the room: the incredibly deteriorating living conditions in a city crammed with drug addicts, human feces and casual violent aggressions at all hours of the day. A city that enables the "homeless lifestyle" without any accountability. Homelessness is - for the most part in San Francisco - a choice and/or a result of mental illness and drug addiction.
There is of course a certain amount of people that do become homeless because of lack of housing, but for the most part the city administration has been gaslighting us on the real causes: drug addiction and homeless lifestyle.
Most of them are not even native from San Francisco, but they come from elsewhere. I suggest everybody reads this article to learn more about the long history of criminality in San Francisco, enabled by the city officials: https://www.city-journal.org/san-francisco-homelessness
Edit: Everybody in San Francisco talks about the rights of the homeless, but where are my rights as a lawful tax payer who cannot bring his son to the park without risking his life by stepping on a needle?
Eventually even with tech salaries that doesn’t make sense. He went to Seattle.
SF is crazy.
edit: found the article that first brought this up to me (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/in-seattl...)
In a few years when vaccines have been found, 85% of people inoculated and no more proven Covid-19 cases have been found for 30 days?
or...?
But if we could halve the death-rate or more, it'd be pretty good steps towards getting back to normal. Also, if we could actually get people to wear masks and take it seriously. That'd go a long way towards quelling it.
We'll obviously need to accept some level of risk to do that, unless we're willing to wait for vaccines or herd immunity, as you pointed out. But it may well be a year.
I wouldn't be surprised if COVID pushes a lot of people to be nearer family.
> But what we’re currently seeing is an incredible 90% of move searches involving the Bay Area are current residents looking to leave and only 10% are people looking to move into the region. That’s a very different picture from just last year.
I think it's still a major test market because it has the perfect demographics for that kind of thing.
Honestly one of the under rated large cities in the US is Cleveland. I have had to travel a lot for work over the years and was impressed by the dining options available and the general togetherness of the community there. Again winters...bad...
Yes, I can totally understand a strong outflow. (But in a little while it might be time to buy in. I believe someday SF will again be a desirable place to live.)
That's very different than actually leaving.
look beyond the surface and understand the intent. Are they intending malice? yes thats offensive, if not then carry on and stop signaling :)
That's why actual buddhist countries absolutely ban this sort of thing. (Try to name something after Buddha in Thailand or Sri Lanka.)
They are using religious and holy words for their benefit.
I personally do not care that much, since I am not a buddhist.
San Francisco is a paradise!
https://www.businessinsider.com/san-francisco-is-proposing-r...
https://www.ebar.com/news/crime//291784
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/video-man-defecates-...
When housing costs are as exorbitant as they are, everyone is much closer to homelessness than they were before. If someone is laid off in the bay, they have significantly less time to find a new job before they cannot afford housing compared to more affordable areas.
Once you are actually homeless, mental problems and drug issues can become a self fulfilling prophecy, especially if you moved to the bay from out of state and have no local support network.
> Homelessness is - for the most part in San Francisco - a choice and/or a result of mental illness and drug addiction.
This is.. a very harsh take. Mental illness and drug abuse I can see, but a choice ? That is a serious claim that requires serious evidence.
This claim is stronger in San Francisco specifically than it is nationwide. The city has been a Mecca for drug culture for a long time, and its current public policy barely recognizes the drug abuse of its homeless persons as a problem, except when it’s time to mitigate the spread of HIV with needle exchanges.
“Used needles on the playground equipment” is a very-specifically San Francisco complaint.
* Enact consequences for those that do refuse housing when available (ie, banning homeless lifestyle).
* Arrest illegal aliens that are making the lack of housing even worse.
* Stop open-air drug dealing and abuse so that people can get back on their feet.
And if not, why not?
None of them want to admit that housing shouldn't be tied to employment.
You want to solve homelessness? Make homes a guaranteed right. And actual homes. Not some shitty shelters.
Beatin' the hot old dusty way to the California line.
'Cross the desert sands they roll, gettin' out of that old dust bowl,
They think they're goin' to a sugar bowl, but here's what they find
Now, the police at the port of entry say,
"You're number fourteen thousand for today."
Oh, if you ain't got the do re mi, folks, you ain't got the do re mi,
Why, you better go back to beautiful Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Georgia, Tennessee.
California is a garden of Eden, a paradise to live in or see;
But believe it or not, you won't find it so hot
If you ain't got the do re mi.
You want to buy you a home or a farm, that can't deal nobody harm,
Or take your vacation by the mountains or sea.
Don't swap your old cow for a car, you better stay right where you are,
Better take this little tip from me.
'Cause I look through the want ads every day
But the headlines on the papers always say:
If you ain't got the do re mi, boys, you ain't got the do re mi,
Why, you better go back to beautiful Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Georgia, Tennessee.
California is a garden of Eden, a paradise to live in or see;
But believe it or not, you won't find it so hot
If you ain't got the do re mi.
Words and Music by Woody Guthrie
There is incredible, timeless insight into the human condition in his work.
Thank you for posting this.
This degenerate logic against shelter construction ignores the fact that the only alternative to not building shelters and mental health facilities is to allow the homeless population to grow and fester and continue to trash the streets, since thankfully we are not a society that just removes undesirables from existence.
You mean by not having public housing?
> Homelessness is - for the most part in San Francisco - a choice and/or a result of mental illness and drug addiction.
It's obviously not a choice. It's also not the result of mental illness nor of drug addiction, at least for the most part, as people suffering from mental illness or addicted to some drug also don't want to be homeless and stuck on the streets. And while they are somewhat more likely to lose their house due to mis-managing their life - it is much much more likely to happen when they have no social support: Medical care-givers (no such thing by default in the US), neighborhood/community associations (not much of that in most cities), families etc.
> where are my rights as a lawful tax payer who cannot bring his son to the park without risking his life by stepping on a needle?
Your right is not catered to by social institutions, and municipal ones in particular, who are acting as though homelessness should be addressed by suppressing/harassing the homeless rather than ensuring people have homes.
Do you agree that if they do refuse housing we need to do something about it? Do you also agree that we should start taking action in making more housing available by at least deporting illegal aliens?
It is obvious by now - after 40 years - that the current strategy does not work, don't you agree with this statement?
Also, in the US, a great amount of social resources are expended - albeit often indirectly or inadvertantly - to _encourage_ drug addiction. Aim for the social institutions that make the US the highest developed country in terms of, say, opiate use:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_prevalenc...
(second highest if we consider Russia developed rather than developing)
Software engineers who move in and give zero shits about their fellow humans are truly the disease of SF, not the homeless.
But on the flipside, their street maintenance was amazing. It was snowing almost all the time during the winter, but the road were always clear.
> Enact consequences for those that do refuse housing when available (ie, banning homeless lifestyle).
You're saying that if someone homeless turns down free housing you want to arrest them? The obvious question is - where's the free housing you're talking about? Homeless shelters don't even have free beds, I'm pretty sure that the homeless would take a better indoor place to sleep if there was one available.
> Arrest illegal aliens that are making the lack of housing even worse.
I'm sorry, you think that migrant farm workers being paid less than minimum wage are the reason Google engineers have to get roommates, or why single family homes start at $1M and up? I really don't get it. Migrant workers aren't buying real estate.
This sounds rather incredible... can you back this claim up?
> they do refuse housing we need to do something about it?
Perhaps, but to be honest I'm quite baffled by this. I'm even surprised that San Francisco is offering 0-rent apartments to the homeless, when generally from what I know the rental market there is rather out of control.
> by at least deporting illegal aliens?
the problem you decried is people who are homeless and harass others on the streets. So, why use someone's legal immigration status as the criterion for action? I'd imagine most homeless are actually US citizens, and that illegal immigrants tend to find someplace to work and some decent sleeping arrangement.
How about, and this is a wild idea, we just require housing to be a natural right and we give people that?
Who is "we" in this context?
What if they don't want to be on medication?
> if they are on drugs, get them into a program like NA and give them the medication to combat the withdrawl.
What if they have no interest in doing that?
it's a fellowship, nothing more, nothing less. you have someone that you can talk that understands first hand what you are going through when you have cravings. that's all it is... support when you want it.
everything is optional.
As a species it seems we enjoy jailing the "undesirables" rather than tolerating them and understanding them.
We know it does make an impact because the police department regularly arrests them (since they cause negativities in the community) and regularly the courts release them so that they can go back to the same street corner to keep selling death.
San Francisco truly is a law-less place.
Why on earth do you give a shit who lives where in the world? I've immigrated to the US, legally, gone through all the paperwork and expenses. I don't give a fuck if "illegal" immigrants exist.
I will continue to advocate for them and vote for policies that keep them safe.
Encouraging illegal immigration - like you are suggesting by enabling them to come to San Francisco - not only is dangerous for the community but it is first and foremost dangerous for those people who come here thinking it's paradise on earth and end up being taken advantage of.
You are irresponsible. There are reasons why there are lawful ways to immigrate, it is not a game.
None of the existing policies are helping moving the needle on crime, while arresting drug dealers and deporting illegal aliens that perform criminal activities will help with the goal of having less criminals and less drugs in the streets.
My son - native San Franciscan - dodges needles every day at the park. What happens if he gets hurt or catches a disease? Do you think this is the future he deserves? Criminals belong to prison.
[1] - https://sf.curbed.com/2019/12/19/21027974/san-francisco-home...
No thank you. Depending on cost + externalities, I'm okay with some number of criminals not being in prison.
And this right here is what’s wrong with San Francisco. You literally support death and crime on what - over the years - costed (and still costs) the city billions of dollars and countless of dead bodies with no tangible results and yet living in a lawful society - like the rest of the world does - is somehow too expensive for you?
The FBI even arrested the guy in charge of the homeless budget for corruption a few months ago (Nuru Mohammed, our dear mayor London Breed's ex-boyfriend, who also used the city funds to pay for Breed’s personal car repairs), and yet all is fine. I guess we don’t put criminals in prison, we elect them: the San Francisco way.
In the meantime people die, but it is an acceptable externality. Cruelty at its finest.