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.
Just like Nineties Flava said, the black people who were homeowners left the city a while ago. The current crop of black people leaving the city are probably not homeowners.
Most White people in SF are not homeowners either.
Also, according to the 2010 Census, The City has approximately 3,000 Black households that earn $100,000+ annually, which is more than enough to buy in middle class suburbia in this time of depreciated home values.
Over 5,000 Black households in The City earn $50,000+ annually, still doable for moving out of the city and living decent in my opinion-maybe not home ownership, but still.
As far as those too poor to move, it appears the Nineties Flava is right. Approx 9,500 Black households in SF earn less than $25,000 a year.
This group is the one that needs help with housing in The City. I wonder what the city expects them to do if they can't afford market rate housing?
Quote:
What does this have to do with anything I've said.
Not disagreeing in context but a 3% Black population for a "diverse" city to me is silly.Non defensable really in the diversity discussion
But hey look at the asian population
Honestly even with a 3000 pound elephant (maybe better said 3 pound) the remaining banter becomes trite. SF is diverse with the exception of the Black population and becoming less so. There is frankly no way around it. To me that in and of itself make the grand diverse mantra sort of meaningless. SF is not diverse; it is wealthy. It is more similar to CA in diversity overall and less race/geneology centric but SF to me with this can be said to be diverse among wealthy people. Nothing and nothing less. Not saying is good or bad but to ignore what is happening (and on the whole is very integrated city, mainly among wealthy people of means and not racially diverse as a panacea, but diverse of means. There is a big difference especially in the way SF is pontificated on this board. FTR I really enjoy and like SF but why make it out to be something it isnt.
SF in reality is a less diverse and accepting place than it was 20 years ago; that is the truth
DC is more rapidly gentrifying than anyplace and is still what 40-45% black.
If the black population is the definition of diversity, sure. There's still the asian/white/latino/pacific islander population. Saying that SF is less diverse than DC because at this point it has an insignificant black population is pretty ridiculous when DC is overwhelmingly dominated by two groups even moreso than SF is dominated by whites and asians.
I never understood why "black people" and "real diversity" are often used interchangeably.
The Manhattan neighborhoods where most Blacks live are hardly DIVERSE at all.
Read further. The bigger question though is where are all the Black people in SF; cant find them
If you are going to disregard the fact that SF is now 3% Black and pontificate diversity have at it. Wow those rose colored panacean utopian glasses are thicker than I first thought
SF and CA in general has and always be more integrated in general than the east coast cities where there is still today more nabes of similarity. Would never argue that
Most White people in SF are not homeowners either.
This is an irrelevant fact. If the overwhelming majority of blacks are renters, then what are they using to buy that bigger house out in the suburbs? There's no question that some have done this, but they are more the exception than the rule.
Read further. The bigger question though is where are all the Black people in SF; cant find them
If you are going to disregard the fact that SF is now 3% Black and pontificate diversity have at it. Wow those rose colored panacean utopian glasses are thicker than I first thought
SF and CA in general has and always be more integrated in general than the east coast cities where there is still today more nabes of similarity. Would never argue that
SF IS racially diverse. Again, I never understood why some people equate black people with diversity. The media may propagate that idea, but blacks are not inherently diverse. I bet you that if you asked random people on the street whether a 100% black neighborhood was more diverse than a 100% white neighborhood and vice versa, more people would pick the black neighborhood than neither.
Read further. The bigger question though is where are all the Black people in SF; cant find them
No, you need to explain to us how you can pick on SF for what you perceive to be a lack of diversity, at the same time bragging that Manhattan is 16% Black so it must be more diverse, but in reality, by looking at the NY Times own maps, we see that Blacks look almost totally isolated from the rest of the Island?
That's what you call diverse? Even with a small percentage of Blacks in SF, we can see that they are still more visible relative to Downtown and the center of SF, whereas in Manhattan they are neatly packed away NORTH of Central Park.
You can keep that brand of diversity, not interested.
If the black population is the definition of diversity, sure. There's still the asian/white/latino/pacific islander population. Saying that SF is less diverse than DC because at this point it has an insignificant black population is pretty ridiculous when DC is overwhelmingly dominated by two groups even moreso than SF is dominated by whites and asians.
I never understood why "black people" and "real diversity" are often used interchangeably.
Not saying more less diverse than DC/SF
though losing 150% (8% to 3%) is significant within about ten years
Honestly I do think on the whole SF and the Bay is very diverse though the diversity is not always pure so to speak. I think the diversity as rallying call for SF is way overblown; personally I find SF to be very non diverse on many fronts even if asians and whites live among the rainbows in the 18 maps. And quite frankly the diversity play is used then dismissed when aspects are shown to just frankly be not diverse; this is just one more example. Is wealth bad, by no means; I personally choose to live in a nabe that would on paper have very similar demopgraphics and diversity components to much of SF but there are an increasing am,ount of aspects of SF on the whole that are not diverse (yes I understand there are many cultural and racial offerings that come from the SF construct) and as it is pontificated on this board some fair balance without pure dismiss by the SF faithful
At this point SF is becoming less diverse by the day; to suggest otherwise to me is very shortsighted. DC on the other hand is becoming much more diverse by the day. That is the truth
Personally I choose SF over DC for many reasons, first of which I prefer the city, though DC is a very good city as well.
Wealth diversity is not really nearly as apparent as another form in SF.
No, you need to explain to us how you can pick on SF for what you perceive to be a lack of diversity, at the same time bragging that Manhattan is 16% Black so it must be more diverse, but in reality, by looking at the NY Times own maps, we see that Blacks look almost totally isolated from the rest of the Island?
That's what you call diverse? Even with a small percentage of Blacks in SF, we can see that they are still more visible relative to Downtown and the center of SF, whereas in Manhattan they are neatly packed away NORTH of Central Park.
You can keep that brand of diversity, not interested.
And how is the wealth diversity in SF?
You refuse to accept any notion that is at all negative on SF even when they are basc and clear.
This isnt about comparing Manhattan per se. But riddle me this. Is SF more or less diverse than it was 10 years ago? race/wealth/family composition etc.
SF is less diverse today and you know it. Again I am not saying this is good or bad but diversity as the mantra is something SF is becoming less and less by the day. SF is abolutely becoming more and more a welathy playground (for better or worse) but on diversity it is most definately becoming less so, that is the point
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.
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.
