Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Should San Mateo and San Francisco Counties merge into 1 County??
Yes, Redwood City should be in San Francisco County 8 15.69%
No, South San Francisco should stay in San Mateo County 31 60.78%
San Francisco County should include the enitre SF Peninsula(including Palo Alto and Mountain View and Los Altos) 12 23.53%
Voters: 51. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-16-2019, 09:04 AM
 
Location: East Bay, San Francisco Bay Area
23,538 posts, read 24,029,400 times
Reputation: 23962

Advertisements

I voted option #2.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-18-2019, 06:23 PM
 
2,041 posts, read 1,523,721 times
Reputation: 1420
Just recently I found that if SF had the peninsula just down to and including South SF, it would become about 85 square miles and about 1,070,000. I honestly think something like that would be the only way SF will ever even hit 1 million. With rents the highest in the country, I don't see SF sustaining growth for much longer. New York and LA's populations are plummeting and they aren't even as expensive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2019, 10:40 PM
 
Location: Northern California
4,606 posts, read 3,000,886 times
Reputation: 8374
No one has a offered a good reason for merging the two counties.
Population bragging rights is not a good reason.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2019, 05:10 PM
 
Location: West coast
5,281 posts, read 3,077,727 times
Reputation: 12275
I don’t see any gain.
Maybe some dilution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2019, 07:09 PM
 
Location: Unplugged from the matrix
4,754 posts, read 2,976,993 times
Reputation: 5126
Quote:
Originally Posted by KoNgFooCj View Post
Just recently I found that if SF had the peninsula just down to and including South SF, it would become about 85 square miles and about 1,070,000. I honestly think something like that would be the only way SF will ever even hit 1 million. With rents the highest in the country, I don't see SF sustaining growth for much longer. New York and LA's populations are plummeting and they aren't even as expensive.
SF can fit 1M comfortably into its current borders but it's hard to build housing anywhere in the Bay, let alone the City. There's enough under utilized land (shopping centers, parking lots, etc.), that new housing can be built on top of to accommodate over 1M residents.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2019, 04:16 AM
 
2,041 posts, read 1,523,721 times
Reputation: 1420
Quote:
Originally Posted by DabOnEm View Post
SF can fit 1M comfortably into its current borders but it's hard to build housing anywhere in the Bay, let alone the City. There's enough under utilized land (shopping centers, parking lots, etc.), that new housing can be built on top of to accommodate over 1M residents.
I sure hope you're right. City government needs to get on the ball and realize there's nothing short of a housing crisis on their hands. According to this, San Fran's population growth is slowing fast. I could see San Francisco beginning a long path of population decline within the next few years if the city doesn't take drastic measures to fix the problems.


http://worldpopulationreview.com/us-...co-population/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2019, 06:21 AM
 
Location: On the water.
21,736 posts, read 16,350,818 times
Reputation: 19831
Quote:
Originally Posted by KoNgFooCj View Post
I sure hope you're right. City government needs to get on the ball and realize there's nothing short of a housing crisis on their hands. According to this, San Fran's population growth is slowing fast. I could see San Francisco beginning a long path of population decline within the next few years if the city doesn't take drastic measures to fix the problems.


http://worldpopulationreview.com/us-...co-population/
There is no housing crisis. There is a population crisis.

The best thing that could happen to SF would be a population decline. Just exactly how is it a good idea to grow continuously in a finite paradigm?

Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell.” - Edward Abbey
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2019, 12:13 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 °N, 🌄°W
11,761 posts, read 7,260,344 times
Reputation: 7528
No way! I don't want to see my tax money wasted on SF political agendas in addition to how it's now wasted on Peninsula political agendas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:13 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top