Worst city in the Bay Area to live in? (San Diego: fit in, renter)

[Mr. Fantastic]

Originally Posted by ssmaster

you must have missed this part of my post : many people commute from oakland to sf daily

ATTRACTIVE HOMES IN NICE AREAS THAT ARE CLOSE TO MAJOR EMPLOYMENT CENTERS (IN THIS CASE SAN FRANCISCO )ARE HIGHLY DESIRED AND EXPENSIVE IN THE BAY AREA.


I CAN'T DUMB IT DOWN ANYMORE THAN THAT.

I didn't see you posting stats about renters vs owners. Apparently, that might be too "high brow" for you.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by The Land

Again more arrogance on your part, because you're not Black you'll never understand and will just see it as complaining. Because people are not getting lynched in the streets people like you fail to see the covert racism that exists in society today. It's just "Complaining". Do some people lie about racism or whatever of course but that's with anything. I'd like you to point out some examples of me playing your imaginary race card. Please go right ahead. Again who are you to say who's gripe is legitimate or not? Because you're tired of hearing about racism claims? You think it's just soooo annoying to you, so you do the oh god not this again, oh god the "race card". Pure arrogance and ignorance. Race card, cop out, boot straps, blah blah blah. More cliche get over over it euphemisms.

Right, because blacks are the only ones who experience racism right? yeah talk about arrogance. Sometimes people do have legitimate complaints about discrimination and racism, as I already said, but sometimes they don't as well and are being hypersensitive. Do you honestly think every single accusation of racism and discrimination is true? I really don't have time to go through your posts on your current as well as previous screenames, but I've seen you just throw out and blatantly generalize people as being racists who don't agree with your view. I'm sure there are some on the Mesherle thread. Yeah using

[The Land]

Originally Posted by sav858

Right, because blacks are the only ones who experience racism right? yeah talk about arrogance. Sometimes people do have legitimate complaints about discrimination and racism, as I already said, but sometimes they don't as well and are being hypersensitive. Do you honestly think every single accusation of racism and discrimination is true? I really don't have time to go through your posts on your current as well as previous screenames, but I've seen you just throw out and blatantly generalize people as being racists who don't agree with your view. I'm sure there are some on the Mesherle thread. Yeah using

You like to put words in peoples paragraphs don't you. Just like you just made up the whole part about me saying if you disagree with Sharpton you're a racist. Nowhere did I say Blacks are the only ones that experience racism. I said you are not Black so you'll never understand what it's like to experience life in America as a Black person, I'm Black so I'm speaking as a Black person, I don't speak for other races. You can still search for my other screen names and you'll never find me randomly being hypersensitive or overreacting. It's not that you don't have the time, it's that you can't back up your claims. Here let me help you out and try to prove what I'm wrong in anything I've stated. Much of the hate Obama has received is veiled racism due to him being black. Calling Obama "Hussein" or demonizing him by claiming he was born in another country is because he's Black. The Tea Party are very loud now mostly because the president is Black. People who say Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Malcolm X are just as racist as the KKK are 99.9% of the time racists or just ignorant fools. Ready, go.

[ssmaster]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fantastic

I didn't see you posting stats about renters vs owners. Apparently, that might be too "high brow" for you.

from my post at 2:20 pm today :"around 65% of san francisco population are renters you appear to ignore that housing prices are very high throughout the inner core bay area and that the same problems with affordable housing apply more to SF than oakland."


the numbers i have seen run from 63% to 67%.

don't you get tired of being wrong ?

[Taboo2]

Originally Posted by goldenchild08

White San Franciscans began to "redevelop" majority Black areas like the Fillmore forcing Blacks to move to Lakeview or across the Bay to Oakland and Richmond. The city of San Francisco purposely did not redevelop the projects and lower income areas of SF because they wanted Black folks to leave as soon as possible.

First? The Bayview is a pretty gross neighborhood. Every been in their bathrooms at a gas station? GOOD HEAVENS it is worse than Tijuana.

Secondly, Oakland is going the same way as SF with redevelopment according to the new Mayor. She wants to make it all snazzy. SOOO where are the poor blacks headed out too when they can't afford Oakland anymore?

[The Land]

Originally Posted by Taboo2

First? The Bayview is a pretty gross neighborhood. Every been in their bathrooms at a gas station? GOOD HEAVENS it is worse than Tijuana.

Secondly, Oakland is going the same way as SF with redevelopment according to the new Mayor. She wants to make it all snazzy. SOOO where are the poor blacks headed out too when they can't afford Oakland anymore?

They are going to Antioch, Concord, Pittsburg, down south. I read an article about how the suburbs are going to turn into the new inner cities because of people with money moving back into the cities and people with not much money moving out to the suburbs due to affordability.

[llowllevellowll]

Originally Posted by Taboo2

Secondly, Oakland is going the same way as SF with redevelopment according to the new Mayor. She wants to make it all snazzy. SOOO where are the poor blacks headed out too when they can't afford Oakland anymore?

There are many neighborhoods in Oakland that poor minorities of all sorts haven't been able to afford for a long time. Black Flight, if you will, appears to dictate a similar approach that White Flight took in U.S. history - a movement toward the suburbs - in this case, for affordability and to the east bay and the distant east bay.

Richmond: 36% black
Pittsburg: 26% black (with Antioch growing to around 11% now)
Vallejo: 24% black
Fairfield: 20% black

In the case of Richmond and Vallejo especially, a great deal of interest was seen during WWII because of the amount of jobs that existed in those locales as well, but even now, I think we see a propensity toward seeking the more eastern-lying suburbs like Stockton and Tracy, which now both have black populations over 10%.

I can't remember because it's been so very long since I read this, but I found this article interesting a great many months (maybe even a few years ago): http://www.sanfranmag.com/story/what...-san-francisco

[goldenchild08]

Uhh your link shows how the Bay Area is just like everywhere else when it comes to racial segregation. Oakland is on two of those lists and SF gets honorable mention as well. The Bay Area isn't some unique integrated racial utopia like you seem to be suggesting, it's segregated like everywhere else, maybe better than some places but still up there with the rest.

Actually, the San Francisco I know is not the same San Francisco out-of-towners and tourists know. The SF I speak for is the San Francisco where houses don't have big well-manicured lawns and two car garages. The SF I know has liquor stores on every corner and is VERY diverse. The so-called "ghetto" areas of SF are the most diverse. For instance, my old hood in Lakeview in SF is more Black, Hispanic and Asian than the rest of the City. Look the up Oceanview section on this link, sucka:

Neighborhoods in San Francisco - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, that data is skewed. It says Asians are segregated from other races which is not true. Asians live everywhere in SF including the ghetto neighborhoods. My grandparents live in the Sunset District which is indistinguishable from China. As far as Whites being segregated from the main population of minorities, this is probably true.

I wasn't suggesting the Bay was a racial utopia at all. If you read any of my previous posts, you would know that I acknowledged the fact racism is ingrained in the history of San Francisco. I've commented about how Blacks are being systematically pushed out of SF. Blacks and many minorities are much more likely be poor in The City. If anything, I was shedding light on the fact that ALL poor minorities slang and bang in SF. That's the reason why the crime rate is so high. The Tenderloin is one of the highest crime rate areas of SF but is also one of the most racially diverse areas of the City. The Tenderloin is a dangerous dirty orphan village for forgotten kids of all nationalities. That's the closest to a racial utopia to which San Francisco can be defined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ten...co,_California

[goldenchild08]

sf is one of the highest crime cities in the country? never heard this before.

You gotta go there to experience it for yourself. San Francisco's economy is solely based on tourism. Making the City look bad would equate to SF going broke. That is the reason why the real crime statistics about SF are swept under the rug.

The worst areas of SF are remote and hidden away from tourists. Beyond those hills, the Golden Gate Bridge and the Trans America Building is violent neglected third world poverty. For instance, crime and violence in my old neighborhood is so bad that the local cops are scared to even go there. My old hood is patrolled by the Feds and has prepubescent ten year old year old crack dealers. Life must be pretty bad to make a preteen want to sell crack or dope for a better life. That sad part about it is that my old hood was MUCH more dangerous, violent and drug filled when I was growing up there in the 80's and 90's. Read about my old hood in SF right here:

Capitol Ave: a tale of two neighborhoods and other San Francisco, CA Warning Or Danger Tips - VirtualTourist.com

This article talks about how Lakeview used to be back in the 80's and 90's:
http://articles.sfgate.com/2005-12-1...y-neighborhood

[majoun]

Originally Posted by ssmaster

from my post at 2:20 pm today :"around 65% of san francisco population are renters you appear to ignore that housing prices are very high throughout the inner core bay area and that the same problems with affordable housing apply more to SF than oakland."


the numbers i have seen run from 63% to 67%.

don't you get tired of being wrong ?

Not to mention that renters vs. owners issues are totally irrelevant to the subject at hand or any discussions of what's middle class and what's not anywhere.

But things like "relevance", "facts", and "logic" mean little to the Mission Viejo Kid.