Let’s play a guessing game. Before you read the story, list two reasons why you think the child population in San Francisco is dwindling. Then read the story. Rocket science, it’s not.
Child Population Dwindles in San Francisco
Previous post: Confessions of a Former Islamist
Next post: Sowell on ‘Liberals, race, and history’
{ 1 trackback }
{ 39 comments }
La Shawn, from the story;
“Newsom has expanded health insurance for the poor to cover more people under 25, and created a tax credit for working families. And voters have approved measures to patch up San Francisco’s public schools, which have seen enrollment drop from about 62,000 to 59,000 since 2000.
One voter initiative approved up to $60 million annually to restore public school arts, physical education and other extras that state spending no longer covers. Another expanded the city’s Children’s Fund, guaranteeing about $30 million a year for after-school activities, child care subsidies and other programs.”
They still have not figured out why folks are moving. Adding more entitlements is going to fix it? This from the city which pays it’s homeless people! “Logic” died on the left coast long ago.
The weather?
I could not resist. How are you La Shawn?
Hi Renee! Been on vacation?
Appoint a 27 member policy panel to come up with ways to keep families? Gimme a break. Newsom is so smart he’s stupid (but then that seems to be common among the educated liberal circles).
Sometimes I wonder La Shawn… we must be rocket scientists.
I have no sympathy for San Francisco, California, or the West Coast. I hate how they think they are always “in” and that things should revolve around them. I’ve seen it in Californians who come to the East Coast and have contempt. At least the East Coast has a level, logical, and sane mind. Tree huggers galore in CA – yet THEY are the ones with 8-lane highways and no public transportation! Sierra Club HQ yet THEY can’t get legislation to stop suburban sprawl and clearing land for massive roads and highways? The whole place is infested with crazy anarchist liberalism and pontificating hypocrisy. Only in CA can they consistently vote actors in as politicians. I’m sorry, but Jane Fonda and Martin Sheen – and a host of Hollywood maggots – have convinced me that not one of these celebrities have a brain worth more than a peanut.
Am I harsh and over generalizing? Absolutely – but truth simmers beneath my diatribe.
All the more reason to establish the independent Progressive People’s Republic of San Francisco, complete with George Soros as Fearless Leader, Michael Moore as Boris Badenov, and Babs Boxer as Natasha Fatale.
I was going to say homosexuality…was I right?
My guess would have been taxes and abortion. Considering that most of California is a “Liberal Utopia”, I figured it wasn’t very “family oriented”. By the way, I love their ideas to alleviate the problem, more programs that are going to require more money. Yeah that will bring ‘em all back in droves. Idiots.
Do these people snack on lead paint chips or something?
Remember that Newsom is the mayor who was signing gay marriage certificates.
Their problem is that housing prices are too expensive for a family to live in and the property taxes make it that much worse. They are trying to pull the same stuff in Texas, but it’s being fought tooth and nail.
La Shawn
Sorry about Newsome’s “initiatives” – these add even more local taxation for “working people” – that includes me.
Another problem with SF is “non childbearing couples” will contribute to the decline of births – Sunday while in SF Arboretum and Japanese Garden, I saw a number of same-sex couples taking the “San Francisco Stroll” – holding hands in the park – so sweet, but won’t produce children.
Great place to visit – but what sane person would really choose such an environment? Traffic, high taxes, and forced indoctrination of your children that homosexuality is not only “normal”, but “preferred”.
Sorry – I choose the “Redneck South”
Housing? I know some people out there, and its impossible to get a place for oneself, much less a family. You’d think the dot-com bust would have cooled things down but no. Its worse than here in DC.
I lived in SF for four years, and I was born and raised in California. We left 10 years ago, and our house has tripled in value. How is a young couple supposed to get a start when it is so expensive? My wife and I got tired of seeing, in front of our house, condoms and hypodermic needles. We witnessed several assaults. We left for peace and serenity in the Virginia countryside. Do I sound like a contemptuous Californian?
I haven’t read the article yet, so this is my guess. I live in L.A. California so I think I have somewhat of an idea as to the contributing factors, and in L.A. it isn’t much different than SF.
I would say one major cause is Homosexuality being so widely accepted and encouraged, but primarliy the failing public schools and high property values which in turn drives families away from the city to other acceptable/affordable places, i.e the growth of the San Fernando Valley area and other surrounding communities, Ventura, Antelope Valley, etc. The cost of housing has risen by around 12% in California from 2004! Owning property, while easier to qualify for, has become far more expensive to afford & maintain for working families, therefore they are going to move where it is cheaper to live and more conducive for raising families. I know several families that have moved from Los Angeles to San Fernando Valley, Antelope Valley as well as out of state such as to Texas.
Am I warm?
LAURA AND NARDO: Not all of California is like that.
Orange County, CA is very family friendly. It was Orange County that started the whole recall thing, and had a big influence in Arnold’s election to Governor.
Orange County contributes more money to the GOP than any other County in the nation……I believe (IMHO).
Don’t lump us all together.
It’s housing, housing, housing.
San Fran is built on a narrow peninsula…
no room for growth, and the house market as well as rental market is near maximum capacity…
This is why (not homosexuality, not liberalism, not traffic, not “indoctrination”) that it is so hard to raise a family in the City by the Bay… the only people who can afford the insanely tight housing market are young professionals… when couples start families, they generally move to other parts of the Bay Area where it is only a tad cheaper… All of this, of course, is NOT because San Fran is not considered a great place to live, but because way too many people are trying to live here, and there is very little room for growth, pushing out families who need more space for less money.
It is DEFINITELY a problem that needs to be addressed for the long-term stability of that great city, but NOT for the reasons some of you have left here in the comments.
jab-
You are entirely on point. I think there are issues of safety, quiet, and privacy that all large cities lack, and they contribute to families moving to suburban areas. But as you say, the primary issue in SF is housing costs. I have a cousin that commutes from Modesto 100 miles away!
Glamchild,
yes, California has an enormous variety of places in which to live. The weather anywhere on the coast is gorgeous, and Orange County is beautiful, if a little crowded for me.
I wonder why new appartment buildings aren’t being build? especially at those prices!
Could it be that SF doesn’t WANT any new housing and fights ANYONE who might even THINK about building there?
They have no one to blame but themselves.
If you have a family WHAT are you doing still in California? Let alone SF.
I believe the reasons are:
(1) the high density of gays, who are less likely to have children (I’ve read polls saying that 25-30% of the city’s population is gay); and
(2) tight housing market, which is exacerbated by the city’s extreme restrictions on constructions. San Francisco may be on a peninsula, but yet it can’t build UP? It does not because of environmentalists’ control on zoning issues in the city.
Those are the two reasons I selected, Molotov, especially stringent restrictions on land use. White liberals, full of sound and fury about “diversity,” do a great job making sure blacks and Hispanics live nowhere near them.
Bingo, La Shawn.
Exactly right.
Rather like the environmentally-correct liberal pontificators in Massachusetts who fought tooth and nail to derail a proposed environmentally-correct energy wind farm. Do as I say, not as I do.
I’m a 4th Generation San Franciscan. 50 years ago MY parents couldn’t find a house they could afford in the City and left for the suburbs. 25 years ago when my husband and I were looking for a house, we moved even further out to find one we could afford. Nothing’s changed.
Besides being short on physical space, SF also has rent control, which limits return on investment in apartment buildings. It’s also extremely difficult to evict a tenant once they’re in. Many people with children don’t want to live in apartments; the weather, compared to many of the surrounding suburbs, is foggy and damp; and the blue collar jobs that paid well when my dad was working have moved out of SF.
I work in SF and live close enough that we take advantage of the attractions without too much trouble. And I can actually see the sun during the summer!
There is a lot of misinformation here…
(1) San Francisco has one of the highest poluation DENSITIES in
United States (S.F. is something like the 14th largest city by population, but out of the top 20 US cities by population, S.F. is ranked #2 in population DENSITY… ONLY NYC has a greater population DENSITY).
It is NOT a simple matter to just “build UP” and squeeze even more people into a tiny area… it puts incredible burdens on sanitation, water, energy resources, safety,security, etc…
The point is S.F. CANNOT just build more housing to get out of this scenario without the population density going through the roof. Some of you act as if S.F. has all this available space that they are not building on… it doesn’t. And let’s not forget the fact that S.F. sits on a very active earthquake zone, which places restrictions and cost increases on building UP…
(2) The gay population is NOT 30%… let’s not be ridiculous.
It’s closer to 10%… maybe 15%… but almost 1 out of 3? Not even in gay S.F. is that the case.
(3) LaShawn said: “White liberals, full of sound and fury about “diversity,†do a great job making sure blacks and Hispanics live nowhere near them.”
So now you are ascribing racist motives? You rightly condemn when liberals cavalierly throw around charges of racism… so why do you do the same? For such a racist bunch of liberals, they sure liked electing pro-business, pro-growth Willie Brown as mayor. As mentioned before… it is mostly an ECONOMIC problem.
S.F., like any densely populated city in the U.S. has its share of major problems, but they certainly are no worse than
D.C., NYC, Boston, Atlanta, Chicago, LA, etc. But none of those cities come close to S.F. natural beauty.
I agree with you on this: the homosexual population is nowhere close to 30 percent; it’s more like 2 percent. The mantra “It’s about economics” argument doesn’t seem to help conservatives much. They’re still accused of racism when trying to enact sound economic policies to curb drunken-sailor government spending.
By the way, you should cut back on the caffeine. – Admin
There is NOTHING as naturally beautiful as a Chicago-style deep-dish pizza.
This story also caught my eye this morning. I was interested in hearing how they explained what seems to be obvious.
As I read, I thought it was interesting that there was a “kid crisis” and that they were trying to attract families with children.
In a recent Forbes issue there was a snippet about the future political impact of polictically conservative families with many children compared to politically liberal families with smaller numbers of children. Not rocket science there either.
Part of it is Rent Control, which puts artificial constraints on housing prices. SF is the where rent control was created.
What happens is that with any vacancy, or new development whatsoever, housing prices go sky high in an attempt to overcompensate from the constraints of these artificial price controls.
SF, for decades, refused to let the marketplace determine housing prices. They refused to let basic laws of supply and demand determine housing prices/rental rates.
And, now they have a problem because if it. Anywhere you have rent control, you’ll always see abnormally high housing prices.
The housing situation is ridiculous. My college roomate lives in Antioch and his modest home would sell for 3 times less here in the Dallas/Fort Worth market. He’s counting down the days until he can move back here and buy himself a Mark Cuban style mansion.
People may deflect the gay situation, but you can argue, with a measure of consitency, that most parents do not want to raise their kids in an environment where they can be exposed to alternative lifestyles, regardless of what type they are. The fact that there is a higher percentage of gays/lesbians in SF increases the likelihood that parents list exposure to alternative lifestyles as a factor for why they move.
I would say that the housing situation, though, is by far the #1 concern.
jab-Chicago does not come close to San Frans natural beauty? You really do need to cut down on the caffeine.
1. Homosexuals tend toward non-reproduction.
2. San Francisco is waaaaay too expensive for families and they are moving to more affordable communities.
3. San Francisco is losing it’s glitter; not hip to live there anymore.
4. SF is not very business freindly, too many regulations and taxes are too high.
I could go on, but I’ll stop there.
Hmm, My first thought was of the high cost of living (I used to live in Sunnyvale). My second thought was the school system. Then it was the hobos that they refuse to get off the streets. It wasn’t until I read the article that I thought of the homosexuals.
Hobos-dangerous to the children
homos-part of the landscape in SF
But, to be honest, while they are a big part of SF compared to other areas, they usually are a good thing for schools in that they provide taxes without as many students. Even with SF’s higher proportion, they wouldn’t be more than a dent if the rest of the town wasn’t getting out.
Ironically, the gay population was the major voting block that pushed to clean up homelessness.
seal-lover,
I wasn’t dissing Chicago… it is one of my favorite cities, and I love visiting whenever I get the chance… and I would be ecstatic to live there.
As an Asian born and raised in California, I say high taxes and horrible schools. They say parents can be charged with child endangerment if they volunterily send their kids to inner city schools. All the corporate headquarters in downtown SF have left… Chevron, Bechtel, Schwab… The homeless go to SF like flies to dog poo. One SF City supervisor wondered out loud, “it seems the number of homeless are increasing.” Ouch! Other local cities push their homeless to SF.
The problems of San Francisco stem from a liberal agenda. The same thing infects all other big cities to varying degrees, including my beloved Chicago. It’s really no wonder that the folks living in the rest of Illinois see Chicago as the enemy, given the sorry state of City Hall.
The truly disturbing thing is that the big city libs cannot see themselves honestly in a mirror. It’s like the old joke about the woman watching the parade and saying, “Oh, look! Everyone is out of step but my son!”
Gays don’t reproduce.
Housing costs too much.
It’s a liberal irony: they support suicide, abortion and birth control. If they practice what they preach they will eventually make themselves extinct.
jab – How can the gay population in San Francisco, an acknowledged center of gay living and culture, only be 10%? I thought Kinsey and GLAAD told us that 10% of the population at large (you know, in places like Kalispell MT, Lutz, FL and Fort Kent, ME)is gay. Something’s not quite right here.
Tight housing market, high cost of living, high cost of doing business there, and a liberalism that has run amok – where a decline in student population means an increase in education spending.
Now, one could argue that there’s a similarly tight housing market and high costs of living/doing business in places like NYC, but we don’t see a decline in school age populations, so we have to look elsewhere.
Alternative schooling? Homeschools? Private schools? Charter schools? Anyone?
Are immigrant (both relocations from elsewhere in the US and from abroad) populations replacing those lost to surburbs? Possibly. NYC has seen a growth in its population from the last census. What about SF? This could explain part.
The issue of homosexuality? Again, it’s a possibility, but I doubt it.
Jim,
Kinsey’s numbers have widely been discredited… not even gay civil rights groups believe his numbers anymore…
In the general population, maybe 10% have experimented with homosexuality at least once in their lives, but that certainly does not mean they identify as gay… That number is most likely
2-4% in the general population, and upwards of 10% in a city like S.F.
While Kinsey was wrong, and I think the overall gay pop is at most 2%, 10% sounds low for San Fran.
Maybe it’s all the metro sexuals and liberal thinkers that see gay as chic, and emulate, all wandering the streets… with the damned hobos.
Face it parents dont want their kids to continue to live in such a wretched hole its become as bad as Sodom and Gomorrah.
Comments on this entry are closed.