SF ranks 9th Dirtiest US City (San Diego, San Francisco: 2013, home builders, neighborhood)

[sav858]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

“What's wrong with dirty cities? If San Francisco ever became as sterile/anti-septic as San Diego, I'd stop going there! There's something very unnatural about cities that are too clean!”

That's quite a reach their interpreting that comment to condone "mentally insane homeless" and "poo". Especially considering the study had nothing to do with the homeless. So yeah you literally are making this stuff up.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by tijlover

What's wrong with dirty cities? If San Francisco ever became as sterile/anti-septic as San Diego, I'd stop going there! There's something very unnatural about cities that are too clean!

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

See, there are locals who think mentally insane homeless, litter, poo and the smell of urine give the city character. I wasnt making that stuff up lol.

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Lol odd I dont see any post prior to yours that condones any of that.

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

“What's wrong with dirty cities? If San Francisco ever became as sterile/anti-septic as San Diego, I'd stop going there! There's something very unnatural about cities that are too clean!”

There's the sequence of posts in consideration for your claim made (in the 2nd quoted post).

Do you see mention by tjlover of anyone loving your list: mentally insane homeless, litter, poo and the smell of urine ?

It's called “hyperbole”, bmw .... a number of CD posters engage in it with a passion. It doesn't serve any interest of solutions.

[Finper]

Originally Posted by HappyinCali

How are you consistently so wrong? When was SF the jewel of CA? It was always known as a city with a massive underbelly. The tenderloin started of as a sketchy and massive red light district, known for significant crime. Stop making stuff up and read some history.

So pimps and Ho's built the beautiful Victorian houses and Nob hill huh??? Guess I better crack that history book after all.

[BurnInTheMil]

I only find this intriguing simply because some people refuse to believe SF is actually dirty.

Tis’indeed Very dirty. I hate on SF a lot, but I never would wish a place to be ranked & talked about constantly as dirty.

[bmw335xi]

Originally Posted by Greg10556

I only find this intriguing simply because some people refuse to believe SF is actually dirty.

Tis’indeed Very dirty. I hate on SF a lot, but I never would wish a place to be ranked & talked about constantly as dirty.

You know you're dirty when you have to spend hundreds of thousands of tax dollars to put up signs saying elevators are not a toilet in your public transit stations lol

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Greg10556

I only find this intriguing simply because some people refuse to believe SF is actually dirty.

Tis’indeed Very dirty. I hate on SF a lot, but I never would wish a place to be ranked & talked about constantly as dirty.

And which people think that? No one on this thread, or many of the others, have said or suggested SF was clean as far as I can tell.

[bmw335xi]

Originally Posted by sav858

And which people think that? No one on this thread, or many of the others, have said or suggested SF was clean as far as I can tell.

Most on this forum think it's no different than any other city though. I don't care enough to look up past threads, but I'm sure the subject will pop up again.

[SocSciProf]

SF can easily be 9th by that metric, and still #1 by the metric we were discussing yesterday. Why? Because the two studies are different. Consider the new study. They use the following to rank cities:

Amount of litter
Homes with signs of pests (mice, roaches)
Particulate Matter (air pollution)
Nitrogen dioxide (air pollution)
Population density

Of those 5, only "amount of litter" is partly connected to yesterday's study. Yesterday's (or the day before's) study assessed KIND of litter as well as amount: feces, needles, heaps of trash. Not the same as "litter".

If you use particulate matter, nitrogen oxide, and population density, you've stacked the deck in favor of SF. Air pollution, by the way, seems to be counted twice. With respect to air pollution, SF benefits from onshore flow which tends to reduce air pollution by blowing it eastward. Further, SF doesn't have heavy manufacturing, so that tends to reduce air pollution as well. All cities have traffic, so that's pretty much a wash (no pun intended); the question isn't only how much pollution does traffic make, it's how much of it sticks around. In SF, not nearly as much as elsewhere.

Population density is not dirt--just look at Tokyo--so including it in the measure is invalid. Even so, SF is not the most dense, so it looks allegedly better.

All cities have mice and roaches, so that measure doesn't make any real difference.

So, really, all this study tells us is SF has relatively clean air--compared to how bad it is on the ground, where people, you know, walk around and potentially step in poo.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

Most on this forum think it's no different than any other city though. I don't care enough to look up past threads, but I'm sure the subject will pop up again.

With regards to what? I think most, if not nearly all, agree for homelessness it's one of the worst. For overall cleanliness, it isn't that much different than most other dense, urban cities. Either way thinking that SF is not that different than other cities doesn't imply they think it's clean. But you and others will twist their words around to mean exactly that to support your BS position and go on some hyperbolic diatribe.

What you do is basically take what one or two adamant posters say, twist their words around, and then act like they represent "most on this forum". Of course you don't care to look up past threads, why bother when it won't actually support your absurd claims? Yes the subject will pop up again and you and a few others will do what they always do:

1) Misinterpret their posts and add a bunch of assumptions
2) Act like one or two posters represent the majority of posters.
3) Disappear or refuse to respond when called out

[gizmo980]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

I lived on Haight Street in the 60's ... while I was in the military ... and we used to laugh at the people on Army st who dressed up.

I have a feeling you & I would've partied together if I lived in SF (and was alive) during that time.