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.
According to the census, San Francisco is currently 6.8% black and 14% hispanic.
That $43,013 number is "per capita income", not income. The median household income in San Francisco is $65,519. The median family income is $81,136.
The same exact argument your using about relative poverty you could also try to use for NYC, because its very similar to San Francisco with the things you mentioned. Still NYC has a poverty rate of nearly 19%. NYC is a city Im very familiar with, and have even lived in for a while before, and I wouldnt say it feels that it has a poverty rate any higher than that. The same thing with many other cities I have been to. Your argument isnt adding up.
I never said that ghettos include only blacks and latinos. I only said a high black and hispanic% thats impoverished is one of my criteria for ghetto. A high minority % (mainly black and hispanic) in a bad area is what makes an area ghetto/hood rather than just a rough area or high crime area. I dont know about you, but if there is a rough neighborhood and its was 90%+ white, I wouldnt call it ghetto.
Poverty and low education level dont always equal ghetto, but the majority of the time, the higher the poverty and lower the education, the worse a neighborhood will be. People with bachelors degrees making $60,000+ a year arent the ones selling drugs and gang banging. Check the cities and neighborhoods that have very high poverty, or very low education, 9 times out of 10 they will be among the most ghetto.
The same exact argument your using about relative poverty you could also try to use for NYC, because its very similar to San Francisco with the things you mentioned. Still NYC has a poverty rate of nearly 19%.
Very true, I never said SF's poverty rate would be higher than NYC, and it wouldn't...but it would likely be a lot higher than it is now. Any city with lots of immigrants and a high cost of living would see a jump in the poverty rate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cle440
A high minority % (mainly black and hispanic) in a bad area is what makes an area ghetto/hood rather than just a rough area or high crime area. I dont know about you, but if there is a rough neighborhood and its was 90%+ white, I wouldnt call it ghetto.
What are you talking about? So "ghetto" is just an arbitrary definition based on number of blacks and hispanics? If you took a bad black neighborhood, but replaced the residents with white people, and all the crime and problems stayed the same, it would magically be "not ghetto?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by GDK94
/thread
yeah...those of us who've been arguing for pages have definitely made out point very clear by now.
The stats say that San Francisco is among the top 10 least ghetto large cities.
The media says that San Francisco is among the top 10 least ghetto large cities.
The family I have in San Francisco says its among the top 10 least ghetto large cities.
The friends/other people I know in San Francisco say its among the top 10 least ghetto large cities.
But 3 or so random people on the online city-data forum that I dont even know say its not.
If the stats are correct, they dont lie. Im also very educated and experienced in urban areas/stats, all of that. Ive been extensively researching this stuff for nearly 7 years. There is usually at least some truth in what the media says about a place. Most of the family/friends/people I know that Im talking about are well traveled and unbiased for the most part. They would have no reason to lie about this.
Yet there is a few random people on city-data who say that me and all of them are lying. First of all, I dont know any of you. For all I know you might have never even lived or been to San Francisco, or maybe you have been there all your life and youve never been out. Maybe you have some agenda. Ive read and considered all that youve said, and none of it does nearly enough for me to believe San Francisco is not among the top 10 least ghetto large cities.
Hopefully now you understand, and it will be the end of this. Im done, unless you want to keep going.
The stats say that San Francisco is among the top 10 least ghetto large cities.
The media says that San Francisco is among the top 10 least ghetto large cities.
The family I have in San Francisco says its among the top 10 least ghetto large cities.
The friends/other people I know in San Francisco say its among the top 10 least ghetto large cities.
But 3 or so random people on the online city-data forum that I dont even know say its not.
If the stats are correct, they dont lie. Im also very educated and experienced in urban areas/stats, all of that. Ive been extensively researching this stuff for nearly 7 years. There is usually at least some truth in what the media says about a place. Most of the family/friends/people I know that Im talking about are well traveled and unbiased for the most part. They would have no reason to lie about this.
Yet there is a few random people on city-data who say that me and all of them are lying. First of all, I dont know any of you. For all I know you might have never even lived or been to San Francisco, or maybe you have been there all your life and youve never been out. Maybe you have some agenda. Ive read and considered all that youve said, and none of it does nearly enough for me to believe San Francisco is not among the top 10 least ghetto large cities.
Hopefully now you understand, and it will be the end of this. Im done, unless you want to keep going.
What you do not understand is that San Francisco is a very misunderstood city. Most of all by the media, and even by many of it's residents.
The city government and business interests don't WANT anyone to know about the bad side of this city, so it's downplayed in the media as much as they can get it to be. Tourism is this city's #1 source of money, by far. If tourism were to be hurt even just a little bit, by it becoming widely known that SF has ghettos and crime just like some of the more well known violent cities in this country, that wouldn't be good. It's politics. There are some San Francisco residents who don't even venture south in the lower half of the city, and literally don't even know some of those neighborhoods exist. Those kind of people are usually the ones who wrongly believe that SF is so safe. They buy into the stereotype, just like so many other people.
I could write you about 10 pages worth of examples of corruption/incompetence/hypocrisy within the city government and SFPD regarding many things, including crime stats, and things like that. But i'm not going to, because you won't care anyways. I'm a native San Franciscan, and jman650 and a few others are natives too. I've lived here for my entire life. We know what we're talking about.
I'll give you an example of "ghettoness" in SF:
We have two large hispanic gangs in SF, that have been here since the 70's probably: the Nortenos (who wear red) and the Surenos (who wear blue). They're both offshoots of Mexican prison gangs, the Surenos being affiliated with La Eme, or the Mexican Mafia, and the Nortenos being affiliated with Nuestra Familia (we also have the notorious MS-13 in SF, though they're newer and smaller in numbers. An MS-13 member shot a father and his two sons to death with an AK-47 in broad daylight last year, when he mistook them for rival gangmembers. How safe and un-ghetto, innocent family members getting gunned down in the three's).
One of my best friends growing up was jumped into the Surenos when he was 11 years old. His initiation? to find a Norteno, and to shoot him. And my friend did exactly that, he shot a complete stranger in the head at age 11. And things like that are not uncommon at all.
Those gangs operate largely in the Mission district. I have some friends who moved into the mission district last year from the east coast, and they were shocked when on their second night they heard automatic gunfire (part of a spate of violence that left three dead within 5 blocks of their house that night).
And look, 2 shootings in 10 minutes this morning injured 6 people in the Mission District, and the Neighboring Excelsior District (3 blocks from where that father and his sons were killed), more than likely related to the Surenos/Nortenos: http://cbs5.com/local/san.francisco.....2.983060.html
If your family members and friends who live here say it's among the least ghetto cities, I'm sorry but they have no idea what they're talking about.
fine one more example, the last police officers to be killed in action in SF:
2004: an officer was gunned down and another wounded by a gangmember who was hiding an AK-47 under his jacket as he walked down the street.
2006: an officer was killed when robbery suspects rammed his police car with their van.
2006: an officer was killed in a shootout with an escaped convict and robbery suspect.
Oh, and congratulations for writing us off because you don't know us. Hey guess what? We don't know you either, genius. It's called the internet.
I was done, but I guess you want to argue some more.
Do you know JMan650 and the others personally? You now admit that youve lived in San Francisco for your whole life. That confirms what Ive been thinking this whole time. If youve lived there your whole life youve either never been outside of San Francisco, or you have only visited other places. How could you truly know how other areas are compared to San Francisco if youve never even been there for long enough to experience it?
Next you try to bring a few incidents and think that will somehow prove that it cant be among the top 10 least ghetto large cities. Sorry, but it doesnt. San Francisco has ghettos, and Im not saying its soft, but thats really nothing. Gangs, initiations, shootings, some murders, congratulations San Francisco for being a large city in the US. None of that is special and those few incidents dont somehow make the whole city bad, or take it off the list.
Next you say that my family and friends in San Francisco dont know what theyre talking about. Kind of disrespectful honestly. A lot of them have been in San Francisco for a good amount of time, along with living in many other areas throughout their lives. Compared to you, whose only lived in San Francisco. Not only have a lot of them been on the southside, I have friends who are actually from Hunters Point and Bayview. Like I said its the media, the stats, my friends in/from Frisco, my family in/from frisco, others in/from frisco vs a couple people I dont even know on city-data.
For once maybe you should consider its you who doesnt know what theyre talking about. Again, Im done unless you want to keep going.
I was done, but I guess you want to argue some more.
Do you know JMan650 and the others personally? You now admit that youve lived in San Francisco for your whole life. That confirms what Ive been thinking this whole time. If youve lived there your whole life youve either never been outside of San Francisco, or you have only visited other places. How could you truly know how other areas are compared to San Francisco if youve never even been there for long enough to experience it?
I "now admit that I've lived here my whole life?" Sorry, but I don't ever recall denying that fact, and there's no reason why i would. The fact that I have lived here my whole life means I know what I'm talking about. More than you, and likely more than any of your friends and family members who "lived here for some time." I've visited many other cities, many times, and I'm not stupid either. YOU have never even been to SF, let alone lived here. Your weak argument on that doesn't go anywhere, because it would apply to you too.
You don't see me trying to argue some false stuff about Cleveland do you? It's a place I've never been. As far as I'm concerned, you're an expert on Cleveland, and I'd be likely to believe what you said about it, or at least consider that you're telling the truth. You would have no reason to lie. Just as I have no reason to lie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cle440
Next you try to bring a few incidents and think that will somehow prove that it cant be among the top 10 least ghetto large cities. Sorry, but it doesnt. San Francisco has ghettos, and Im not saying its soft, but thats really nothing. Gangs, initiations, shootings, some murders, congratulations San Francisco for being a large city in the US. None of that is special and those few incidents dont somehow make the whole city bad, or take it off the list.
Few incidents? That stuff happens all the time. That news article was from this morning. Hey look, another guy was shot today too: http://cbs5.com/local/Bayview.neighborhood.shooting.2.983272.html (broken link)
Quote:
Next you say that my family and friends in San Francisco dont know what theyre talking about. Kind of disrespectful honestly. A lot of them have been in San Francisco for a good amount of time, along with living in many other areas throughout their lives. Compared to you, whose only lived in San Francisco. Not only have a lot of them been on the southside, I have friends who are actually from Hunters Point and Bayview. Like I said its the media, the stats, my friends in/from Frisco, my family in/from frisco, others in/from frisco vs a couple people I dont even know on city-data.
For once maybe you should consider its you who doesnt know what theyre talking about. Again, Im done unless you want to keep going.
Whatever man. Believe what you want. San Francisco is not one of the "10 least ghetto" cities In the US, period. And yes, your friends don't know what they're talking about if they say that, regardless of if they live in HP or not.
Do you really think the media is going to give equal coverage to crime in SF, when notorious Oakland (the whipping boy for crime stories from the Bay) is right next door, and the city government and SFPD do all they can to keep crime from the media's eye? No, they're not. The city government has been covering their asses since day one. After the 1906 earthquake, they lied and said only 300 people died, when the true number is over 3,000. They didn't want investors to abandon San Francisco. They also covered up the fact that over 500 looters were shot and killed by the police and army after the 1906 earthquake, many of whom were actually residents retrieving their belongings. That kind of deceit happens today as well to a certain degree. We have kept a very desirable image in the public eye, and as far as the city government is concerned, we're "fortunate" enough to have two nearby cities with much higher crime rates to point their finger at (Oakland and Richmond). There are many reasons why so many people believe SF is so safe.
SF is beautiful and has many nice, affluent and upper middle class areas, more than many large cities. But our ghettos are ghettos through and through, and some are pretty hardcore. That is enough to keep it off of your list. There's also the fact that Downtown SF is pretty much the downtown for the Bay Area...and that goes for drug dealers and other thugs too, who congregate in the Tenderloin/Mid-Market and parts of SOMA. You won't find many cities in the US with such a "ghetto" gritty, high crime area right in the middle of it's downtown. Once again, you compared SF's "ghettoness" to Honolulu, San Jose, and Seattle, all of which have stats from the past 27 years that prove that they're much safer.
And I don't think i will be done arguing with you until you finally give up or have a grasp on the reality of San Francisco. It's not like much of my time is taken up typing out these little responses to you.
I have family/friends that have lived in San Francisco their whole lives, only visited other places. I have family/friends that have lived in San Francisco for years, and have lived in many other large cities for years. I have family/friends that are from the "ghetto" in Frisco and around the bay area. They all say it is among the top 10 least ghetto large cities. But according to you they dont know what theyre talking about and your "opinion" is correct and theirs isnt.
Your trying too hard, you have too much to prove. You bring up another shooting like that somehow keeps Frisco off the list. News flash, San Francisco has over 750,000 people. It should be normal for it to have at least several shootings per day, and occasional murders. 2 people were killed today in Cleveland. Again, as I said, we are talking about the city as a whole here and not just a few rough neighborhoods in the city. "Ghetto" means more than just high crime rate. If we were just talking about crime rate, San Francisco wouldnt be among the top 10 nicest, but were not.
My views/opinion really means that much to you? I dont see how you plan to accomplish making me take Frisco off the list when the stats, media, friends, family, pretty much everything and everybody else says that it is among the top 10 least ghetto excluding a few of you on city-data I dont even know. Apparently your the ones who cant accept the reality. And apparently you do spend a lot of time typing your "little" (actually very large) responses, your replying to me several times a day and your averaging about 30 minutes after your posts in editing them...
I have family/friends that have lived in San Francisco their whole lives, only visited other places. I have family/friends that have lived in San Francisco for years, and have lived in many other large cities for years. I have family/friends that are from the "ghetto" in Frisco and around the bay area. They all say it is among the top 10 least ghetto large cities. But according to you they dont know what theyre talking about and your "opinion" is correct and theirs isnt.
Your trying too hard, you have too much to prove. You bring up another shooting like that somehow keeps Frisco off the list. News flash, San Francisco has over 750,000 people. It should be normal for it to have at least several shootings per day, and occasional murders. 2 people were killed today in Cleveland. Again, as I said, we are talking about the city as a whole here and not just a few rough neighborhoods in the city. "Ghetto" means more than just high crime rate. If we were just talking about crime rate, San Francisco wouldnt be among the top 10 nicest, but were not.
My views/opinion really means that much to you? I dont see how you plan to accomplish making me take Frisco off the list when the stats, media, friends, family, pretty much everything and everybody else says that it is among the top 10 least ghetto excluding a few of you on city-data I dont even know. Apparently your the ones who cant accept the reality. And apparently you do spend a lot of time typing your "little" (actually very large) responses, your replying to me several times a day and your averaging about 30 minutes after your posts in editing them...
I guess i won't change your mind. You know what I've done this entire time though? Posted stats and other evidence backing my claims up..and you haven't, except for one highly suspect list that you made.
I don't have anything to prove. But i don't like it when people hold misconceptions about anything either. Especially something like SF, which I happen to have a whole lot of knowledge about. Your friends and family that say that SF is one of the 10 least ghetto cities...have they lived in all those other 40 cities with lower crime rates than SF, so that they can make an accurate comparison?
And before you jump on me about crime rates again, yes, crime has a big thing to do with how ghetto a place is. Unless you believe all poor and uneducated people are "ghetto" which as I said, is insulting. And this is getting ridiculous becuase we're gonna have to start arguing semantics about what "ghetto" means. But here it goes: Ask anyone in the US what their definition of "ghetto" is, and tell me how many people don't list a high crime rate as one of the most important criteria. Further more, name me a high-crime area that's middle or upper class. The holes in your argument keep multiplying.
My views/opinion really means that much to you? I dont see how you plan to accomplish making me take Frisco off the list when the stats, media, friends, family, pretty much everything and everybody else says that it is among the top 10 least ghetto excluding a few of you on city-data I dont even know. Apparently your the ones who cant accept the reality. And apparently you do spend a lot of time typing your "little" (actually very large) responses, your replying to me several times a day and your averaging about 30 minutes after your posts in editing them...
You wanna go there with the personal attacks? Because obviously what I have to say WHICH IS ALL TRUE, and backed up with stats is obviously rubbing YOU the wrong way big time. You seem to care a whole about what I have to say as well.
I started my posts in this thread with a bunch of crime stats from the Bureau of Justice, showing SF with some pretty high rates, and you jumped on it, claiming it was false...when you realized it wasn't false, you decided to say that crime rates have no bearing on "ghettoness" in an attempt to invalidate the truth. And the rest is history.
oh and just to let you know, most of that editing is due to:
1. I type fast and tend to make typos (fast, hence why those long posts are little to me)
2. my internet connection sucks and I constantly have to wait a long time before I can change typos.
Oh wait, I thought you didn't care about me that much? Thanks for noticing though. Yes, I do reply several times a day. So do you. You are who I'm replying too.
Last edited by rah; 04-12-2009 at 09:07 PM..
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.
