Is it just me, or does the black community in SF seem marginalized? (San Francisco: living in, costs)

[0'Farrell]

Originally Posted by LunaticVillage

Yes, SF's Black population is largely marginalized. You wouldn't know SF even had Black people unless you went to the hood in Fillmore, Lakeview, Hunter's Point, Sunnydale or Potrero Hill. That very small Black 6% of the population in SF is very deceiving as many blocks in the formerly mentioned neighborhoods are anywhere from 50-90% Black. Many majority Black areas in SF are very poor. The median household income in the Sunnydale projects is about 14K a year and the projects are about 50-70%+ Black.

I would have guessed that SF and Oakland have the same black population if I was just hanging out downtown.

[sonarrat]

Originally Posted by slumcat

About two years ago we went to SF to visit my daughter, who was working in East Palo Alto on an internship. We spent about one week in SF, which isn't too long, but my impression was that it was very expensive and geared to wealthy white and Asian yuppies. People did not seem very friendly there, either. I am not the camera-toting "touristy" type that people love to hate, when I go to a city I try to be respectful and polite. I asked someone for directions, and he said "I don't know and I don't care." Wow! Thats NYC level rudeness.

I can't speak for San Franciscans, since I don't live there and rarely visit, but I've found that if someone is talking to you on the street there, they're probably going to ask you for money. So I quickly learned to ignore everyone and just make a beeline to where I was going.

[LunaticVillage]

Originally Posted by 0'Farrell

I would have guessed that SF and Oakland have the same black population if I was just hanging out downtown.

My point was that swaths of The City where tourists tread have virtually no Black people. Look at a segregation map of SF for proof. That 6% of the population is highly concentrated in ghettoized pockets mostly in the southern half of The City. Try finding more than two or three Black people in the Sunset, Richmond, Castro, Chinatown, Haight etc. There may be a few Black weed dealers in the Haight near Golden Gate park. But guess where they sleep at night? Lakeview, Hunter's Point, Fillmore, Sunnydale or somehwhere across the bridge in Oakland or Richmond. That being said, you are correct about downtown SF. There are a lot of ghetto Black people from the ghetto areas of SF selling whatever they can on Market street and various other downtown locales. Not to mention that the Tenderloin area has a prominent Black population as well.

[dculross]

sf has a much higher black population than oakland. yes,they do live in squalor and poor neighborhoods that rival third world countries. but the black community in sf is bigger than oakland's. it didn't used to be that way. ever since the new eviction law passed in oakland that made it mandatory for blacks to sell their house to a latino or white, the black population has decreased by 500% over the last few years.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by dculross

sf has a much higher black population than oakland. yes,they do live in squalor and poor neighborhoods that rival third world countries. but the black community in sf is bigger than oakland's. it didn't used to be that way. ever since the new eviction law passed in oakland that made it mandatory for blacks to sell their house to a latino or white, the black population has decreased by 500% over the last few years.

You are more than a little off here. The black population in SF is about 6% or 48k people. The black population in Oakland is about 28% or 112k people. How does SF have a larger black population again?

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by dculross

sf has a much higher black population than oakland. yes,they do live in squalor and poor neighborhoods that rival third world countries. but the black community in sf is bigger than oakland's. it didn't used to be that way. ever since the new eviction law passed in oakland that made it mandatory for blacks to sell their house to a latino or white, the black population has decreased by 500% over the last few years.

Could you please cite the law making it mandatory for blacks to sell houses to a Latino or White?

If there is one, it isn't working. The recent homes sold by Black families in my neighborhood were bought by Asian buyers.

[dalparadise]

While we are at it, please explain how a population can "decrease by 500%". I can't get my head around that.

[northoceanbeach]

There aren't that many of them, so how do you marginalized a tiny margin of the population. Are whites being marginalized in Detroit? I didn't find it much friendly( not to mention) safe there. Whose fault is that?

[LunaticVillage]

Originally Posted by jade408

You are more than a little off here. The black population in SF is about 6% or 48k people. The black population in Oakland is about 28% or 112k people. How does SF have a larger black population again?

You are correct. The proportion of Blacks in both cities is more or less equal to what it always has been. In the 80's, Oakland was nearly 50% Black and San Francisco was anywhere from 13-16% Black back then.

[Joy74]

Originally Posted by dculross

sf has a much higher black population than oakland. yes,they do live in squalor and poor neighborhoods that rival third world countries. but the black community in sf is bigger than oakland's. it didn't used to be that way. ever since the new eviction law passed in oakland that made it mandatory for blacks to sell their house to a latino or white, the black population has decreased by 500% over the last few years.

Doesn't seem like your familiar with SF or Oakland if you think that SF has a higher Black population. Also, If you think any Bay Area neighborhood rivals a third world country, take a trip to India, and then come back. You don't know what squalor is.