SF is a problem is we'd consider any non-San Franciscans as immigrants. And, given size of US, it would be correct. I'm really sorry for the old San Franciscans of the old era. It sucks when your city becomes a magnet of big money.
It's bizarre considering that with limited exceptions (mostly descendants of the Ohlone), everyone in San Francisco is an immigrant going back several generations. San Francisco appears to be a city that thrives on immigration and new arrivals, so perhaps the people getting upset about it now are just a tiny but noisy minority?
I grew up in SF and still have family sticking it out there. I don't completely disagree with the sentiment here but last I heard I thought SF had a pretty serious diversity problem. Is that no longer the case?
SF is pretty culturally hostile to outsiders. Maybe if more residents felt like it was "their" city, rather than just the place they live, they would feel a greater sense of responsibility to improve it.
This problem probably affects most cities with a large transplant population.
I think this is a really good point about people moving to San Francisco to get rich for a long time now. And not just SF; my grandparents immigrated to New York with nothing, worked hard to establish themselves, and eventually moved out to raise a family. They had a "transactional" relationship with the city, but I like to think that New York was also enriched by their presence. And I think when we look back at all the people who have come through San Francisco on their journey to a better life, we'll realize that the city has been serving a very important function.
That's not to say that San Francisco doesn't have problems - it most certainly does. But I think that this "us vs. them" mentality is counter productive when it comes to actually solving the city's problems.
I have lived in San Francisco since 2005. Over the time I've lived here, we've had the opposite problem: lots of highly paid tech firms moving into SF. This has changed the nature of San Francisco in a way that many dislike, including me. I was initially attracted to San Francisco because, it was chill, it was beautiful, and it had a lot of eccentric, really interesting people. Many of our good friends had to leave over the years as SF has becoming more unlivable because rents have gone up so much, and also it's just not as fun, it's crowded and stressed.
I am aware that I am a part of the problem: my wife and I are white, yuppie, dink tech workers. :)
These issues are complex.
I voted yes on Proposition L: the tax is quite small and I think the tech firms are unlikely to leave, meanwhile SF can get more taxes from them (many of them were historically given tax breaks, like Twitter, to move into the mid-market area). If they do leave, I don't see that as a bad thing.
Meanwhile socioeconomic disparity is an oozing sore in San Francisco, we have billionaires rubbing elbows with homeless people every day. Nationally, we've had round after round of tax cuts for the wealthiest, if SF wants to tax excessive income disparity, I say, fair enough.
I've visited San Francisco a few times. It's reasonably nice but it's also one of the smallest cities, population wise, out of cities with similar impact. It's also chock full of building with 1-2-3 floors.
It's absolutely ridiculous, a city of its magnitude should have 2-3 times its current population and 0 housing issues due to higher density housing.
The newcomers aren't to blame, as an outsider I'd blame the locals...
The kind of people who move to San Francisco from new york or connecticut, or wherever, to get rich then immediately start complaining that San Francisco isn't like wherever it is they immigrated from.
Contrariwise, I see San Francisco as a city that is struggling with some of the worst demographic issues in the nation, mostly stemming from having an absolutely absurd amount of wealth inequality for various structural and temporal reasons, and doing an admirable job of it. The "homegrown tech industry" was intentionally fostered in response to the valley turning the city into its bedroom community, so the idea that the city is somehow corrupting your vision of what SF could be is disingenuous. I suspect the SF in your recollection is the SF you yourself had a hand in changing into what it is today.
That's all well and good, but you missed the fact that what made SFO the melting pot that it's known for today was a liberal immigration stance and an egalitarian mindset. What you're describing is conservative immigration and a preservation mindset, which is fine, but the opposite of what made San Francisco, San Francisco.
Exactly. The reality is that San Francisco has lost a lot of people over the last decade, even though our population has grown. We've displaced people through a crisis of (lack of) affordability as wealthier folks have flocked to the city. If we view SF's success purely through population growth, that looks like success, but in practice, it has been a truly devastating decade for so many who loved this city. The demand to live in the city may be just as high today, but the demographics may look less rich. As housing prices slowly come back down to something vaguely closer to earth, some of those people come back -- and new residents eager to take advantage of the quality of life SF offers at a lower price point move in. It's a cycle that's a microcosm of American boom/bust mentality, but SF always comes through with being a beautiful/unique/storied/creative/walkable/dense city.
reply