40% Of San Francisco Residents Planning To Leave Deteriorating City

The big problems with Frisco are that cable cars are an antiquated means of transportation and it gets old eating so much Rice-a-Roni.

"San Francisco has a lot of homeless people because it is a good place to be homeless, so homeless people from all over go there. Make SF a bad place to be homeless and they'll go somewhere else."

Which is why most homeless people go to BLUE cities so they can get the "free" stuff. Same with progressive voters who vote for things like "free" daycare, "free" UBI, "free" college, "free" reparations, "free" loan pay off, "free" healthcare, "free" ham sandwiches.

It's a mind set whether you are homeless or just a democrat voter. You go to or vote for people to take care of you because you can't.

https://www.ocregister.com/2019/07/31/democratic-candidates-peddle-free-stuff-for-everyone/

This thread is truly funny. I’ve lived in the heart of SF for over 30 years, and me and my co-residents have been waiting for the pending apocalypse the whole time, and we will keep waiting. Big city problems exist, of course, all the while the city continues to thrive and innovate. Yes, wacky leadership sometimes, but not enough to derail all the good stuff. Overall, I do think quality of life has declined over the years because the city is TOO crowded. Maybe if a fraction of the 40% threatening to leave actually would leave, I’d be able to get into my favorite restaurants on short notice.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

missing the point wrote:

The homeless are transient. The idea isn't to put them all in jail. The idea is to make conditions such that they prefer a different city.

San Francisco has a lot of homeless people because it is a good place to be homeless, so homeless people from all over go there. Make SF a bad place to be homeless and they'll go somewhere else.

What if "somewhere else" also makes it a bad place to be homeless?

You missed the point

missing the point wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

There isn't enough room in jails for all these arrests and they certainly can't pay fines. What is the purpose of the funding and is it the reason behind the large homeless population? What happens if the funding is eliminated? I doubt if people in residential areas want tents in their neighbors either.

The homeless are transient. The idea isn't to put them all in jail. The idea is to make conditions such that they prefer a different city.

San Francisco has a lot of homeless people because it is a good place to be homeless, so homeless people from all over go there. Make SF a bad place to be homeless and they'll go somewhere else.

They will go somewhere else but they will still be homeless. Conservatives don't want to acknowledge that this is a national issue. As long as there are no tents in their neighborhood they can blame the big cities for their bad policies.

There are no other developed countries that have the homeless problem we have in the US. It doesn't just reflect badly on liberal cities, it reflects badly on the whole country.

Meanwhile, in San Jose

https://abc7news.com/san-jose-homeless-encampment-airport-faa-sj/10842315/

SDSU Aztec wrote:

energeticlotuseater wrote:

San Fran is a cool city, near a lot of great outdoor activities with awesome food but the homelessness problem combined with the insane cost of living is just out of control. When I went for my morning runs there while on vacation a couple years back I couldn’t go a block without seeing a group of homeless people on a stoop or just blocking the sidewalks , and I was in nice expensive areas. While walking around people homeless people were just constantly asking me for money.

Fun city to visit for a few days but I’m not sure I would want to live there full time

If Republicans took over the governing of S.F., what would be their solution to the homeless problem?

They would have nipped the problem in the butt before it ever got that bad. You look at the homeless issues in San Fran or LA there is no city in America with an even borderline functional Republican party that had anything resembling that mess. Take Austin for example. The Republican party while the minority at least poses enough of a threat that they are taking action at a point where their homeless population is around 3000. In LA we are talking 100K homeless!!!!! It's probably a lot more.

To borrow from Friedman, "There is a lot of rot in Capitalism." There is great wealth in California this has helped buoy the state for a long time, but the state is declining, and now at a stunning rate. There are a lot of good things about living in California but at a certain point the taxes, homeless, rising crime, 3 months Smokeout during fire season, the overreaching government shutting down businesses, declining public schools, constant water crisis, high cost of living etc. it just is not worth it anymore. There is really only so much people will take. I have numerous friends who have moved and many more I know are on the fence.

California is doubling down on failed policy in cities like San Fran at a state level and this trend of migration out of the state is going to continue. I don't see any end to the downward spiral.

" It doesn't just reflect badly on liberal cities, it reflects badly on the whole country."

No - It reflects bad on Democrats who allow this to happen in places they alone govern.

We don't have a homeless problem in Idaho or Utah or Wyoming or anywhere east of California and Seattle.

These are democrat voters - camping and crapping on democrat run streets. They will remain there as long as there is a "free" ride.....

There are over 180,000 homeless people living on the streets of California, Oregon, and Washington cities. Of the 10 cities with the highest rates of homelessness, all but two are on the West Coast.

https://invisiblepeople.tv/why-is-homelessness-such-a-problem-on-the-west-coast/

CrispyChicken wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

If Republicans took over the governing of S.F., what would be their solution to the homeless problem?

A start would be a return to institutions for the dysfunctional mentally ill and almshouses.

That strategy was ended by an extremely conservative governor back in the 70s. Such facilities would be extremely expensive and and the homeless are U S. Citizens so deciding who would be committed would be complicated. It's estimated that about 25-35% of homeless are mentally ill so institutionalizing them wouldn't completely solve the problem.

Here is an article regarding the issue:

wazzu1452 wrote:

We don't have a homeless problem in Idaho or Utah or Wyoming or anywhere east of California and Seattle.

Where have you been in SLC? I can remember homeless encampments around Pioneer Park even many years ago?

wazzu1452 wrote:

"the blue states subsidizing their complete lack of production"

REALITY

California, with 12% of the American population, is home today to about 34% of the nation’s welfare recipients.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-jackson-california-poverty-20180114-story.html

I am not saying SF's leadership has been ideal, but know this. California has the 5th-largest GNP in the WORLD. The San Francisco Bay Area alone has the 12th-largest GNP in the WORLD. California is for winners.

You bum ass red states just siphon money away by taking more than California on every tax dollar by a humongous margin. We subsidize you.

Also it was the reds who shut down mental institutions and care in California. That's where many homeless people would normally go. Maybe if we didn't subsidize red states we could build more shelters with mental institution support features. Of course, California's budget is massive and there is a huge surplus thanks to Gavin Newsom's fiscal prudence, so they might be turning that around.

And rather than taking ownership of it in any way, the intolerant red cities in California and elsewhere keep shipping the homeless off to places like San Francisco, because they lack the human compassion and infrastructure to address it. They just want to do things like sweep the homeless, dysfunctional people under the rug rather than try to figure out a way to sort hem out.

wazzu1452 wrote:

We don't have a homeless problem in Idaho or Utah or Wyoming or anywhere east of California and Seattle.

And following up, if you think homelessness is confined to west coast cities you have never spent any time outside of Idaho. Have you spent time in Denver? There are homeless encampments in every large city in the US. Yes, it is worse on the west coast for different reasons. How would you like to spend a homeless winter in Chicago?

Democrat run California, with its suffocating cost of living and huge population, is home to an inordinate number of households receiving public assistance. In fact, with $103 billion going toward welfare, the Golden State’s spending on the financially needy is more than the next two on the list combined.

Democrat run New York, at number two, paid out $61.4 billion in 2015.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/no-other-state-comes-close-to-california-when-it-comes-to-welfare-spending-2017-11-28

you eh eh wrote:

runnerboy70 wrote:

Everything Democrats touch turns to feces.

yeah i think all of the san francisco liberals are clamoring to live in des moines or shreveport or rural georgia

it amazes me how stupid conservatives can be

regardless of how bad you might think sf has gotten the us would be an absolute third-world country without the liberal cities you point to as failures

think of how many loser, redneck methy states are the reddest of the red -- now compose an entire country of them, without the blue states subsidizing their complete lack of production

You mad bro? Thanks for so many well thought out arguments, smart guy!

Please secede. California as an independent country. I like it. 40 Million people. You don't need 49 other states dragging you down. Your state flag has the words "California Republic". Get out of the USA now.

There used to be an awesome LRC thread about opening up camps specifically for the homeless, outside of cities. Too bad it got deleted...

Have you spent time in Denver?

You mean TOTALLY RUN BY DEMOCRAT Denver?

Yes - of course they have a homeless issue. Democrats are in charge.

but 90% of USA Homelessness is west coast BLUE cities.

Denver, Colorado, where Democrats have been in charge for 59 years,

dinkyman wrote:

missing the point wrote:

The homeless are transient. The idea isn't to put them all in jail. The idea is to make conditions such that they prefer a different city.

San Francisco has a lot of homeless people because it is a good place to be homeless, so homeless people from all over go there. Make SF a bad place to be homeless and they'll go somewhere else.

They will go somewhere else but they will still be homeless. Conservatives don't want to acknowledge that this is a national issue. As long as there are no tents in their neighborhood they can blame the big cities for their bad policies.

There are no other developed countries that have the homeless problem we have in the US. It doesn't just reflect badly on liberal cities, it reflects badly on the whole country.

Leftists don’t understand that if you enable people to be homeless there will be a lot of homeless people.

Also, you should move to a different “developed country”. Sounds like the USA is not a good fit for you.

wazzu1452 wrote:

Have you spent time in Denver?

You mean TOTALLY RUN BY DEMOCRAT Denver?

Yes - of course they have a homeless issue. Democrats are in charge.

but 90% of USA Homelessness is west coast BLUE cities.

Denver, Colorado, where Democrats have been in charge for 59 years,

Didn't you state that "we don't have a homeless problem in Idaho or Utah or Wyoming or anywhere east of California and Seattle"? Is Denver not east of those locations?

If you are going to expect anyone to take your argument seriously at least strive to be somewhat accurate. It turns out that about 27% of homelessness is in CA and about 35% on the west coast. There are more homeless people in Georgia, Ohio, or AZ than in Colorado.

Why are you so obsessed with this topic anyway? You don't live in blue state. What happens in CA doesn't impact you so just stay away if you find everything there so offensive.