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.
Hi Elvira, I'm going to quote one of your paragraphs, but change a few words to say what some of us have been saying about SF. Maybe that'll make clear some of our position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elvira310
The filth is a huge issue. If it's so dirty that you have to tailor your life around whether or not you can avoid the filth and needles, if you can't travel on certain routes or park your car in certain areas you want to go because the crime is so bad, and you can't take BART for fear of being victimized by a protestor or crime-motivated takeover at some station, then it makes a difference in your overall lifestyle. Or when the stench is so bad that you dread going outside... yuck. When you crave some nature and the best you can do requires you to walk the gauntlet of people (all due sympathy) urinating and defecating on the sidewalk just to get to your zipcar, then this makes a difference—if these things (and people's suffering in general) are a concern to you. I believe that many from the east coast and midwest think these things ARE a concern, and don't want anyone to have to live that way. If those in that situation are not important to you, then by all means, San Francisco, filthy as it is, might suffice and be "better."
Basically, no one disagrees with you, Elvira, that SF has a lot to offer. The question is whether that offer comes at too high a price to those who have a conscience and do not want anyone to live in such desperate conditions. EVERYONE has a price beyond which they are not willing to pay. It seems that as things deteriorate in various parts of SF, more and more people are reaching their "not worth it" price. One can be rational and accept that and try to figure out how to end the deterioration and turn things around. Or one can claim those reaching their "not worth it" price are somehow "narrow," "racist," or otherwise "just not with it." Which approach do you think is more likely to improve matters for the homeless?
Hi Elvira, I'm going to quote one of your paragraphs, but change a few words to say what some of us have been saying about SF. Maybe that'll make clear some of our position.
Basically, no one disagrees with you, Elvira, that SF has a lot to offer. The question is whether that offer comes at too high a price to those who have a conscience and do not want anyone to live in such desperate conditions. EVERYONE has a price beyond which they are not willing to pay. It seems that as things deteriorate in various parts of SF, more and more people are reaching their "not worth it" price. One can be rational and accept that and try to figure out how to end the deterioration and turn things around. Or one can claim those reaching their "not worth it" price are somehow "narrow," "racist," or otherwise "just not with it." Which approach do you think is more likely to improve matters for the homeless?
Let me be clear, I did say in my original post that if I had to pick between a filthy disgusting house on a disgusting street (and all the other horrible things mentioned) and some nice house in Oklahoma, I guess it would be Oklahoma. I don't want to have to step over poop when I leave my front door.
But others who live in the Bay area say that their areas are not so afflicted. They talk about their neighborhoods not having those problems at all.
I'm a native of Southern California and have spent most of my life there. Parts of LA are horrible. The traffic is horrible. (I don't currently live in the LA area, but would like to return to some part of Calif or perhaps Arizona or Nevada.) But when I did live in S. California, I did have to tailor my life around the horrible traffic. I went to school in downtown and it was awful (though not as awful—at least when I was there—as parts of SF are now). But the thing is, I didn't have to take those horrible freeways. I'd stay in the Valley and go downtown as little as possible. Heck, my dad taught me that it was sometimes better to take the bus downtown rather than deal with the traffic and parking.
So, what I'm saying about SF is that I wouldn't want to live in those streets where there were 10 piles of poop reported. But if I could live in a suburb that was not so afflicted, and could pick and choose where to shop, when to go downtown and what places to go (avoiding the things that had gone too far) then I would. The Bay area (not just downtown SF) has a lot to offer. Being stuck in some suburb in Oklahoma is somehow better? I don't think so. I value things like weather, scenery, and things to visit and cultural events and SF (as well as LA) have a LOT more of that than Oklahoma. Not that I'm disliking Oklahoma. It's just got different things going for it.
I'm from the Southwest and it's in my blood. Even if I decided to not live in SF (or LA), I wouldn't think that Oklahoma was a viable substitute.
That's what I mean about some people not "getting" it. They don't register that the crummy winter weather, the horrible summer humidity, and the lack of scenery (instead of what you have when you are closer to Sequoia and Yosemite, or if in AZ, the Grand Canyon and Sedona) would not be preferable. The people who don't "get it" honestly can't see the comparison and realize that as nice as Oklahoma may be in its own way, it doesn't offer what someone like me (and many other Californians or Southwesterners) want.
Let me be clear, I did say in my original post that if I had to pick between a filthy disgusting house on a disgusting street (and all the other horrible things mentioned) and some nice house in Oklahoma, I guess it would be Oklahoma. I don't want to have to step over poop when I leave my front door.
But others who live in the Bay area say that their areas are not so afflicted. They talk about their neighborhoods not having those problems at all.
I'm a native of Southern California and have spent most of my life there. Parts of LA are horrible. The traffic is horrible. (I don't currently live in the LA area, but would like to return to some part of Calif or perhaps Arizona or Nevada.) But when I did live in S. California, I did have to tailor my life around the horrible traffic. I went to school in downtown and it was awful (though not as awful—at least when I was there—as parts of SF are now). But the thing is, I didn't have to take those horrible freeways. I'd stay in the Valley and go downtown as little as possible. Heck, my dad taught me that it was sometimes better to take the bus downtown rather than deal with the traffic and parking.
So, what I'm saying about SF is that I wouldn't want to live in those streets where there were 10 piles of poop reported. But if I could live in a suburb that was not so afflicted, and could pick and choose where to shop, when to go downtown and what places to go (avoiding the things that had gone too far) then I would. The Bay area (not just downtown SF) has a lot to offer. Being stuck in some suburb in Oklahoma is somehow better? I don't think so. I value things like weather, scenery, and things to visit and cultural events and SF (as well as LA) have a LOT more of that than Oklahoma. Not that I'm disliking Oklahoma. It's just got different things going for it.
I'm from the Southwest and it's in my blood. Even if I decided to not live in SF (or LA), I wouldn't think that Oklahoma was a viable substitute.
That's what I mean about some people not "getting" it. They don't register that the crummy winter weather, the horrible summer humidity, and the lack of scenery (instead of what you have when you are closer to Sequoia and Yosemite, or if in AZ, the Grand Canyon and Sedona) would not be preferable. The people who don't "get it" honestly can't see the comparison and realize that as nice as Oklahoma may be in its own way, it doesn't offer what someone like me (and many other Californians or Southwesterners) want.
Hi Elvira, yes, some people are claiming their neighborhoods don't have those problems. Based on the people I talk to I find that hard to believe, but let's say they are right, and its only Golden Gate Park, downtown (where the museums, symphony, opera hall, main hotels, many top restaurants are), and Fisherman's Wharf (and the cable car turnarounds). Your previous post stated that where you live is more than your four walls. I also submit it is more than one's neighborhood. Why live in SF if I can't take BART to the symphony without having to navigate the poop and needles, and worry about being attacked on BART? Why live in SF (or even go there) if I can't go to SFMoMA without risking disease? Why live in SF if the main municipal park--Golden Gate Park, the areas equivalent of Central Park in NY or Rock Creek Park in DC--is so overrun with homeless, some of whom have serious mental problems, that it is no longer a welcoming place? In short--what's the point of living in an allegedly world class city if all the things that make a city world class come at the price of exposing oneself to an exceedingly miserable experience just getting there? Yes, I'd prefer to live someplace someone on this thread called cookie-cutter, like some of the east bay cities (and I don't mean Oakland or Berkeley, cities on the same path, just maybe a few months behind). One can get to the "nature" you mentioned just as fast or faster from those locations, and one doesn't need to deal with the SF situation at all in doing so. Indeed, I find I basically avoid the allegedly world class amenities of SF. I travel enough that its much easier and more fun to go to the Hirshhorn in DC, MoMA in NY, the Art Institute in Chicago, because doing so does NOT entail navigating a poop minefield just to get to and from the museums. Same with the symphony, same with more popular acts and arts, and on and on.
So, yes, some people may not live in poop-ridden neighborhoods. But if they want to partake of the amenities a top city typically has, the amenities that partially justify paying a premium to live in a world class city, to do it in SF they have to face the needles and the poop.
Hi Elvira, yes, some people are claiming their neighborhoods don't have those problems. Based on the people I talk to I find that hard to believe, but let's say they are right, and its only Golden Gate Park, downtown (where the museums, symphony, opera hall, main hotels, many top restaurants are), and Fisherman's Wharf (and the cable car turnarounds). Your previous post stated that where you live is more than your four walls. I also submit it is more than one's neighborhood. Why live in SF if I can't take BART to the symphony without having to navigate the poop and needles, and worry about being attacked on BART? Why live in SF (or even go there) if I can't go to SFMoMA without risking disease? Why live in SF if the main municipal park--Golden Gate Park, the areas equivalent of Central Park in NY or Rock Creek Park in DC--is so overrun with homeless, some of whom have serious mental problems, that it is no longer a welcoming place? In short--what's the point of living in an allegedly world class city if all the things that make a city world class come at the price of exposing oneself to an exceedingly miserable experience just getting there?
A key point I was making is that given a choice between a suburb of SF (or some other Bay Area town) and OKLAHOMA, hell yes I'd take the Bay Area.
Some here are seriously saying that Oklahoma is better. To them, Oklahoma is a viable substitute. It's not. It's not. Only someone who doesn't understand why many (won't say all) of Californians live in California (or the Southwest) would say that.
Quote:
One can get to the "nature" you mentioned just as fast or faster from those locations, and one doesn't need to deal with the SF situation at all in doing so.
Yeah, exactly. But you can still go to SF if you want to. If you're in OKLAHOMA...where do you go? Is the weather is good? What scenery in Oklahoma measures up to what can be seen in parts of California (and Arizona, etc.)?
Quote:
So, yes, some people may not live in poop-ridden neighborhoods. But if they want to partake of the amenities a top city typically has, the amenities that partially justify paying a premium to live in a world class city, to do it in SF they have to face the needles and the poop.
Nobody wants to to deal with the needles and poop. I can't speak for those who live in the SF area because I haven't even been a tourist there in several years. (I've driven by on the way to somewhere else, but not stopped and visited.) I'll have to take their word for it, that it's worth it for them and they can navigate around the nasty bits (the way I have done when in Southern California) and enjoy this First Class City.
But to move to Oklahoma? Or some other place with horrible winter weather, dreadful summer humidity, and bland scenery halfway across the country? Just because the houses are cheaper and their homeless problem isn't as bad as SF? And to say with a straight face that it's "better" than at least some place in the Bay Area (or the Southwest)? No way.
A key point I was making is that given a choice between a suburb of SF (or some other Bay Area town) and OKLAHOMA, hell yes I'd take the Bay Area.
You are already making the choice by living somewhere else cheaper than the Bay area. Someone else mentioned OKC first but there are hundreds of other similar low priced locations in the USA that offer much better housing choices than the Bay area for the average person.
Do you really want to pay 800-900k to live in a dumpy house in a questionable neighborhood?
Suppose one has a housing budget of only $500,000. The best they could do in the Bay area would be a small house in Concord. This is one of the best housing options since Concord has a Bart train to SF.
To get closer to SF one must pay a lot more. A small house in cold windy San Bruno is close to a million.
There is no way I am going to pay a 949k for a house like that.
What if you have kids and want to get them in the best schools close to SF? Bring 1.2 million for a very tiny 940 sq ft. house in Burlingame.
Sunnyvale might win the prize for the most overpriced Bay area suburb. Look at what $1,600,000 buys there.
This house looks like one of the best buys in San Francisco and I predict it will sell quickly and at over asking price. It is about $400k over my price range of a million. You can have it for only a $6400 mortgage payment and $280k down.
Let's compare to other locations. The Bay area makes the San Diego area look cheap. This house is only a 10 minute drive to the beach and looks ok for $574k.
San Francisco even makes Newport Beach look cheap. Here is a brand new house in Newport Beach for under 1 million. Any house in SF for under a million is very small, old and in an average or worse neighborhood.
Compare to any random location not in the northeast. One can get a nice house and 2 acres for just over $500k in Prescott, AZ
Or how about Rio Rancho in the Albuquerque area? This house has a fabulous desert style and its only $449k.
Even with their rapid real estate appreciation the Pacific NW still looks very reasonably priced compared to the Bay area. This home in beautiful Bellingham is brand new and looks fantastic for only $534k.
How about suburban Atlanta? Here is a huge 5,000 sq. ft. house in a top rated 10/10 school district for $500k. The summer humidity is not as bad as other southern locations due to the 1,000 ft. elevation of the area. I can get any kind of international food there including the best Korean food anywhere in the USA except for the Los Angeles area.
When I lived in the Atlanta area I drove to New York twice, Chicago twice and made trips to many places including the Florida panhandle beaches,the Great Smoky Mountains. Asheville, Savannah,Charleston,Myrtle Beach and New Orleans.
What if a person is a school teacher and only makes $54,000/year? They still could buy a house in the Atlanta area for their family like this one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SocSciProf
The question is whether that offer comes at too high a price to those who have a conscience and do not want anyone to live in such desperate conditions. EVERYONE has a price beyond which they are not willing to pay. It seems that as things deteriorate in various parts of SF, more and more people are reaching their "not worth it" price.
There is no way I am going to pay a 949k for a house like that....!
... etc etc etc ...
And yet every house like that gets snapped up in a heartbeat. So, the truth of this whole topic is that hundreds of thousands of people DO in fact love living in SF and ten's of thousands more are looking to get in. All the dismissiveness of persons saying how stupid it is, how disgusting it is, ad nauseum is nothing more than their personal, subjective feelings ... which is their business. And so it is the business of hundreds of thousands of San Franciscans to love their city in spite of its flaws.
And yet every house like that gets snapped up in a heartbeat. So, the truth of this whole topic is that hundreds of thousands of people DO in fact love living in SF and ten's of thousands more are looking to get in. All the dismissiveness of persons saying how stupid it is, how disgusting it is, ad nauseum is nothing more than their personal, subjective feelings ... which is their business. And so it is the business of hundreds of thousands of San Franciscans to love their city in spite of its flaws.
I KNEW someone was going to point to the speed of real estate sales to claim people love living in SF. It reminds me of the story of the man or woman who idolizes a movie star-looking bombshell/hunk, does everything possible to get involved with that person, and after succeeding gets "dater's remorse" after seeing just how unsatisfying being with the person is. Lots of people are now having that with SF.
There are three factors behind the phenomenon Telemutt identifies, and none of them have anything to do with loving SF:
1)Prices match the earnings of buyers. When the California gold rush happened, thousands flooded to California. Most became paupers. The ones who profited sold goods (food, mining equipment (shovels, picks, pans)) to the miners (the 49ers). They sold the goods at a hefty profit because people had sold everything to come west, and they had lots of money to spend . . . until it ran out. But another boatload of people were always arriving. Thus, the average resources of all miners was low, but the average resources of new miners was high. It was new miners, bringing new money, that turned dry goods dealers into wealthy people. Fast forward to today. California is a wealthy state, and the bay area has a lot of (both new and old) wealth. So prices will match that. That does not mean that the average person's experiences or desires are reflected in those prices, just like the average miner's wealth was not reflected in pick-axe prices in 1849.
Set-up for 2 and 3.
The California real estate buyer is composed of four sets of people--dot-com millionaires, cosmopolitan wealthy people seeking a home in SF to add to their stable of homes, investors, and regulars from the bay area. Most of that fast-selling is occurring because of groups 1 and 3, and to some extent group 2.
2)Dot-com millionaires are basically using imported money to drive house prices (and all other local prices (e.g., Phillz coffee)) upward. They bid against each other. Most regulars cannot compete--all they can do is look on in wonder. With imported money, the cap on what dot-com millionaires can spend dwarfs that of someone using only local money. And as there a lot of those millionaires (but still not many as a percentage of the bay area), by themselves they can bid up prices on select properties.
3)Investors realize that most bay areans are going to have to rent for the foreseeable future. So they are snapping up places and turning them to rentals, further restricting supply and thus further pushing up prices. Even single family homes (and condos) are subject to this force.
None of those dynamics has to do with a love of SF. Investors just see dollar signs. Dot-com millionaires see social connections, venture capital, and, later, dollar signs, which is why they all don't leave and work remotely. No love of SF there--they'd be just as happy (if not more so) if all the venture capitalists moved to Austin. Finally, cosmopolitans "hear" SF is nice, and being able to say "Maybe we'll spend the holidays in SF" is as useful to them as being able to say "Maybe we'll spend the holidays in Paris." For those people Burlingame won't do. Many of those people spend less than ten days a year in some of their properties. Money is no object to them. They don't love SF any more than they love anyplace else--they just love being able to say they have X places.
When will the bubble pop? Things like the poop and needles are means by which it will happen. But, it may be years, and a few more tragedies, before the bubble does pop.
Finally, Elvira, I don't know why you are focused on Oklahoma. Yes, someone mentioned it, but they did so to pejoratively suggest that living in Walnut Creek or Orinda is just as soulless (to them) as living in the middle of the U.S.A. If you and I agree that living outside SF is a way to avoid SF's filth, and that one can avoid venturing into SF (except maybe to go to SFO to catch a hot show at the Guggenheim), then I think you have switched sides in this discussion. The person rejecting Oklahoma did so to reject all the suburbs around SF, not to champion the bay area as a whole.
I KNEW someone was going to point to the speed of real estate sales to claim people love living in SF. It reminds me of the story of the man or woman who idolizes a movie star-looking bombshell/hunk, does everything possible to get involved with that person, and after succeeding gets "dater's remorse" after seeing just how unsatisfying being with the person is. Lots of people are now having that with SF.
There are three factors behind the phenomenon Telemutt identifies, and none of them have anything to do with loving SF:
1)Prices match the earnings of buyers. When the California gold rush happened, thousands flooded to California. Most became paupers. The ones who profited sold goods (food, mining equipment (shovels, picks, pans)) to the miners (the 49ers). They sold the goods at a hefty profit because people had sold everything to come west, and they had lots of money to spend . . . until it ran out. But another boatload of people were always arriving. Thus, the average resources of all miners was low, but the average resources of new miners was high. It was new miners, bringing new money, that turned dry goods dealers into wealthy people. Fast forward to today. California is a wealthy state, and the bay area has a lot of (both new and old) wealth. So prices will match that. That does not mean that the average person's experiences or desires are reflected in those prices, just like the average miner's wealth was not reflected in pick-axe prices in 1849.
Set-up for 2 and 3.
The California real estate buyer is composed of four sets of people--dot-com millionaires, cosmopolitan wealthy people seeking a home in SF to add to their stable of homes, investors, and regulars from the bay area. Most of that fast-selling is occurring because of groups 1 and 3, and to some extent group 2.
2)Dot-com millionaires are basically using imported money to drive house prices (and all other local prices (e.g., Phillz coffee)) upward. They bid against each other. Most regulars cannot compete--all they can do is look on in wonder. With imported money, the cap on what dot-com millionaires can spend dwarfs that of someone using only local money. And as there a lot of those millionaires (but still not many as a percentage of the bay area), by themselves they can bid up prices on select properties.
3)Investors realize that most bay areans are going to have to rent for the foreseeable future. So they are snapping up places and turning them to rentals, further restricting supply and thus further pushing up prices. Even single family homes (and condos) are subject to this force.
None of those dynamics has to do with a love of SF. Investors just see dollar signs. Dot-com millionaires see social connections, venture capital, and, later, dollar signs, which is why they all don't leave and work remotely. No love of SF there--they'd be just as happy (if not more so) if all the venture capitalists moved to Austin. Finally, cosmopolitans "hear" SF is nice, and being able to say "Maybe we'll spend the holidays in SF" is as useful to them as being able to say "Maybe we'll spend the holidays in Paris." For those people Burlingame won't do. Many of those people spend less than ten days a year in some of their properties. Money is no object to them. They don't love SF any more than they love anyplace else--they just love being able to say they have X places.
When will the bubble pop? Things like the poop and needles are means by which it will happen. But, it may be years, and a few more tragedies, before the bubble does pop.
Finally, Elvira, I don't know why you are focused on Oklahoma. Yes, someone mentioned it, but they did so to pejoratively suggest that living in Walnut Creek or Orinda is just as soulless (to them) as living in the middle of the U.S.A. If you and I agree that living outside SF is a way to avoid SF's filth, and that one can avoid venturing into SF (except maybe to go to SFO to catch a hot show at the Guggenheim), then I think you have switched sides in this discussion. The person rejecting Oklahoma did so to reject all the suburbs around SF, not to champion the bay area as a whole.
Your summary is incomplete. There are hundreds of thousands of homeowners living in San Francisco who could score a lottery-sized windfall by selling and moving elsewhere ... and yet, they do not. They stay. Because it's home and they love it.
As for the rental speculation market: well, the question begs simple transference: to the renters. To which I would submit an example:
Quote:
This week the rental site Zumper released the results of a survey of 14,284 renters in 36 U.S. cities. Among the findings: In spite of the withering cost of living and renting in the city, the roughly 600 San Francisco respondents were among the most satisfied with their community.
Some of the highlights:
Asked to rank their satisfaction with the city on a scale of one to five, 49 percent of San Francisco survey takers gave the city a five. An additional 31 percent marked SF a four out of five score.
Conversely, only six percent of people scored the city a one or a two.
Of the three dozen communities included in the poll, only six garnered a better average rating among residents than SF.
The recent foreign investor speculation market share does not begin to account for any sizeable % of residential properties. The fact is: for all those who have become disenchanted with the City, even more still love it with a passion.
I am not arguing which position is “right” or “wrong”. I don't believe there is such a position - except subjectively. What's curious and amusing both is that so many feel the need to justify their feelings. I lived in and around the City and Bay Area for decades before finally relocating away. I never became a bit disenchanted with the City itself ... though I tired of the growing congestion of the Bay Area at large. I'm simply enjoying more sunny warm temperatures in San Diego ... and less congestion in the rural central coast where I split my time.
Your summary is incomplete. There are hundreds of thousands of homeowners living in San Francisco who could score a lottery-sized windfall by selling and moving elsewhere ... and yet, they do not. They stay. Because it's home and they love it.
As for the rental speculation market: well, the question begs simple transference: to the renters. To which I would submit an example:
The recent foreign investor speculation market share does not begin to account for any sizeable % of residential properties. The fact is: for all those who have become disenchanted with the City, even more still love it with a passion.
I am not arguing which position is “right” or “wrong”. I don't believe there is such a position - except subjectively. What's curious and amusing both is that so many feel the need to justify their feelings. I lived in and around the City and Bay Area for decades before finally relocating away. I never became a bit disenchanted with the City itself ... though I tired of the growing congestion of the Bay Area at large. I'm simply enjoying more sunny warm temperatures in San Diego ... and less congestion in the rural central coast where I split my time.
Three quick observations: Selection, Objectivity, and Origins, in reverse order.
Origins: This thread began with a simple observation: Hundreds of needles and lots of feces were found in key areas of SF. THEN, those who believe "There is no truth" started contesting the findings. They claimed those areas aren't like neighborhoods--as if it is unimportant if our shared civic space is so defiled that it is a health-risk to use it. THEN they claimed that all other cities have the same needle and poop on the sidewalk problem, despite lots of evidence to the contrary. After a slight digression claiming SF wins because it was, with an extremely faulty "study" deemed only the NINTH dirtiest city, they moved on to claiming any who could not enjoy the putrid smell of SF in the morning must be racists seeking some kind of cookie cutter nirvana. So, I really don't think its appropriate to claim everyone here is trying to persuade others about their values. One set of people pointed to a documented fact. Others tried to offer "alternative facts" to justify their tastes. They have freedom to their tastes, but not their own "alternative facts."
Objectivity: It is possible to count the number of needles and the amount of feces on sidewalks. That has been done. One can react to that in different ways. Some could cheer it: "YAY, we are free to shoot-up and poop wherever we want!" Others can decry it. But the FACTs remain either way.
Selection: Lots of research shows that if you ask people if they like something they are in, they are very likely to say "Yes!" Two reasons underlie this finding. First, people who do not like something--a job, a marriage, a rental--are more likely to get out of it. So, those left are only those who "like" it, on average. Second, those who's dislike is starting to dawn often do not admit it, to others or even themself, UNTIL they see a way out. So, lots of those claiming to like their soulless marriage will turn 180 degrees after they glimpse an available alternative--perhaps a person with whom to have an affair, or perhaps sufficient economic independence to make leaving a viable option. For these social scientific reasons, pointing to survey data claiming people like something is perhaps the absolute WEAKEST "evidence" one could use. Surveys are good for more solid things, like, what's the relationship between parents' earnings and kids' likelihood to go to college. They are NOT good for the question Telemutt cites, because answers depend too much on 1)what is the alternative and 2)processes that are not visible to the analyst of any given person's answer.
So, sorry to pour cold water on your "evidence" Telemutt, but, that just happens to be the implication of what social scientists have found. Sorry.
You are already making the choice by living somewhere else cheaper than the Bay area. Someone else mentioned OKC first but there are hundreds of other similar low priced locations in the USA that offer much better housing choices than the Bay area for the average person.
Yes, there are a lot of places but again there has to be that "perfect storm" of weather and location (near exciting things, beautiful scenery) and not just any beautiful scenery, but Southwestern beautiful scenery, which I believe for many residents of the Southwest, is key. (Someone protesting, "But, but, we have lakes" in Oklahoma or Arkansas isn't going to fulfill the scenery requirement.)
Quote:
How about suburban Atlanta?
See, not getting it. Atlanta is a nice place, and the humidity probably isn't as bad as some places, but it doesn't have that gorgeous Southwestern scenery. It does have some mountains and scenery, but frankly, it's just too different from that "perfect storm." I'd prefer it over Oklahoma, though.
Quote:
What if a person is a school teacher and only makes $54,000/year? They still could buy a house in the Atlanta area for their family like this one.
If you're not making enough to live in SF already, then you're not in SF already.
Those who live in SF (including the surrounding areas that are less shady) can afford to do so, and so why shouldn't they continue to live there?
Or, they could move (as I have mentioned previously) to some other less expensive spot in the Southwest. (Arizona, Nevada, some other part of California). But Oklahoma? Or Chicago? (I think someone mentioned that as a preferable alternative.) Chicago has exciting things to do and see, but it has horrific weather and flat drab scenery. One out of three is not good enough. (In my opinion and I suspect in the opinion of many who love SF.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulemutt
And so it is the business of hundreds of thousands of San Franciscans to love their city in spite of its flaws.
Exactly. Either they love it or they don't.
I'm not from SF, have only been a tourist, but I am a native of California and have lived outside of Calif in places with bad weather, less exciting scenery and with a lot less exciting things to do and see. The people there don't "get it" either. I hope to return to the Southwest. They go, "But we have scenery!" (and they point to a lake, or a modest hill). They go, "Our weather isn't bad! We have four seasons!" (I DON'T WANT four seasons. I like milder weather.) They honestly don't comprehend why someone would prefer somewhere different. I don't question their desire to live where they do; why do they argue that I'm supposed to love what they love when I clearly don't?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SocSciProf
Finally, Elvira, I don't know why you are focused on Oklahoma.
Yes I am. Because I'm still gobsmacked that anyone would mention it as an alternative and be serious. And I think someone mentioned Chicago as well. And were serious.
Quote:
The person rejecting Oklahoma did so to reject all the suburbs around SF, not to champion the bay area as a whole.
It's a pretty house, but it's in OKLAHOMA. Nope nope nope.
I can understand if someone just can't afford to live in the Bay area and their family is in Oklahoma... It's not the worst place in the world, but if I had the money to support me living in SF, and I had enjoyed living there but didn't like the poop and needles, I wouldn't be escaping by moving to OKLAHOMA.
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.
You have summed up the situation perfectly!
