Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They probably do but you have to realize that San Francisco isn't as historical as Charleston, it's not quite as old after all. Also if it gets to bad they can just repeal the law i assume?
Not to mention San Francisco/Bay area is ginormous. There are tons of different neighborhoods and Silicon Valley and where most of the techies have made home isn't even considered San Fran; it's more San Jose and the Southern Valley. Putting the tech companies all in one place, drove up property values so much that people had to be bussed in from cheaper neighborhoods which ultimately leads to the satellite gentrification that is pissing off a lot of people in the Bay area.
They probably do but you have to realize that San Francisco isn't as historical as Charleston, it's not quite as old after all. Also if it gets to bad they can just repeal the law i assume?
I do understand that San Francisco isn't as historical but there is nothing about preserving or dealing with the history that is driving this new control of what goes on in the City of Charleston...specifically Upper King Street.
And yes I appreciate San Francisco is a much larger metropolitan area.
Yea, screw competition, who needs a free market anyway. The people downtown live in residential areas where they aren't building the bars anyway. Thriving tourism and desirable downtown should be a want of the council and people who live there. This whole thing is absurd. They should want more local food and bev businesses to come in. Legislation like this never accomplishes what it is set out to do.
Yea, screw competition, who needs a free market anyway. The people downtown live in residential areas where they aren't building the bars anyway. Thriving tourism and desirable downtown should be a want of the council and people who live there. This whole thing is absurd. They should want more local food and bev businesses to come in. Legislation like this never accomplishes what it is set out to do.
Yea, screw competition, who needs a free market anyway. The people downtown live in residential areas where they aren't building the bars anyway. Thriving tourism and desirable downtown should be a want of the council and people who live there. This whole thing is absurd. They should want more local food and bev businesses to come in. Legislation like this never accomplishes what it is set out to do.
How many more bars do we need???
The pause button is the best thing to happen. We need to work on infrastructure
Cannon/Spring/Meeting/East Bay all have narrow 2-3 lanes........We need to work on parking and infrastructure before any more growth.
As many as the market demands and will support. That's not saying there can't be restrictions, extra taxes, etc. However, artificially limiting growth doesn't make any sense.
Quote:
The pause button is the best thing to happen. We need to work on infrastructure
No, they need to accelerate infrastructure planning and improvements. Its not like there wasn't writing on the wall. The entire area has had plenty of time to plan and adapt, and they chose not to act. Now they need to act and the answer isn't to stifle growth.
Quote:
Cannon/Spring/Meeting/East Bay all have narrow 2-3 lanes........We need to work on parking and infrastructure before any more growth.
Again, accelerate infrastructure planning and improvements. Its not like they can't plan and forecast for growth while the area is being developed. Its ridiculous.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.