Comments on: Child Population Dwindles in San Francisco

By: firebird

firebird — Sun, 29 May 2005 01:39:45 +0000

Face it parents dont want their kids to continue to live in such a wretched hole its become as bad as Sodom and Gomorrah.

By: ..:My Life As I See It:..

..:My Life As I See It:.. — Fri, 27 May 2005 03:14:04 +0000

Funny quote of the day

“Do these people snack on lead paint chips or something?”

Comment by “Laura” from the comments section of this post by LaShawn Barber. Laura’s comments were in response to…

By: SCSIwuzzy

SCSIwuzzy — Fri, 27 May 2005 01:11:39 +0000

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.

By: jab

jab — Thu, 26 May 2005 23:57:05 +0000

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.

By: lawhawk

lawhawk — Thu, 26 May 2005 19:42:24 +0000

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.

By: Jim Rockford

Jim Rockford — Thu, 26 May 2005 19:12:55 +0000

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.

By: leftbasher

leftbasher — Thu, 26 May 2005 19:01:42 +0000

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.

By: RedBeard

RedBeard — Thu, 26 May 2005 12:30:50 +0000

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!”

By: Paul from California

Paul from California — Thu, 26 May 2005 06:24:03 +0000

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.

By: jab

jab — Thu, 26 May 2005 06:15:56 +0000

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.

By: AF

AF — Thu, 26 May 2005 04:36:03 +0000

Ironically, the gay population was the major voting block that pushed to clean up homelessness.

By: SCSIwuzzy

SCSIwuzzy — Thu, 26 May 2005 02:20:55 +0000

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.

By: Indigo Red

Indigo Red — Thu, 26 May 2005 01:25:58 +0000

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.

By: seal-lover

seal-lover — Thu, 26 May 2005 00:25:17 +0000

jab-Chicago does not come close to San Frans natural beauty? You really do need to cut down on the caffeine.

By: Chris Roberts

Chris Roberts — Thu, 26 May 2005 00:17:30 +0000

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.