Cyclists: Let the Backlash Begin (or Not)
Muni Ticket Agent Arrested After Assaulting Juvenile
So Much For That Plastic Bag Ban
Verizon Droid: Big Deal? Or Just Another Late Arrival Rival?
Feinstein : Will She Or Won't She?
It's always interesting to take an "outside-in" look at our fine city, like when the L.A. Times wrote about the Haight a couple months back.
This time, it's the venerable UK-based Economist that's examining our seven-by-seven, in an article entitled "City in a bottle: The strange half-recovery of California's prettiest city."
Ahhh, Economist, that sort of flattery will get you everywhere. As will amusing turns of phrase, like its reference to "Scruffy Oakland," the startlingly accurate description of the "queue outside Boogaloos" as "interminable," and characterizing the leisure industry as being "in fine fettle." Whatever that means. Silly Brits! So funny. So much snappier than we are. You just can't lose by reading this article.
The piece does tell a compelling story of what's been happening in the city. It focuses on signs of the "half recovery," presents the leisure industry as our economy's new cornerstone, and, somewhat troublingly, the goes into detail on changing face of our citizenry. And it signs off with a little note about the Gavster, who is described as "best known . . .for allowing gay couples to marry."
That's funny -- that's about 10th on our list of things Newsom is well known for. Hmmph. There's that "outside-in" perspective for you.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I listened to their podcast which gave a summary of the article. Someone compared SF to Monte Carlo! Ouch! As for Newsom, I think that's pretty accurate...he's known outside of SF for gay marriage and his hair.
What a slap in the face to the "progressives", lumping them in with Chicken John and Starchild as anti-growth also-rans. Pretty accurate, I'd say.
I forgot to add "booya!" to #2
-slosh415
As a San Francisco public-school parent, volunteer and advocate, I have to raise a polite (no raucousness, please -- they're British) objection to the Economist's indication that people raising kids avoid S.F. because they need to worry about schools. That may be the rap among the poorly informed, but it's a bum one.
We SFUSD parents and our well-educated kids think our schools are jolly good, thank you very much!
Another inch deep fluff piece on the city. I am really starting to think that the "pieds-à-terre" second home belongs on an urban legends webstie. Sure there are folks who have one here, but new condos, (ritz, four seasons, etc) are filling that market place. If you look at it, we are not been over run by euro trash, chinese moguls, or russian ogliarchs. Yeah we have problems, but they do not stem from rich outsiders buying vacation homes...
hi guest,
the truth hurts. we are going french-american or moving when the time comes.
i'm about to come home from heathrow right now and asked my cabbie about all the new condo's along the thames as we drove past. they average 3 million for a 2 bedroom in building that don't look much different than south beach.
oh, and they do the smart thing with their muni over here, pay before you board, which i wish we'd try before giving in to free transit.
Hi Sucka-free: French-American is a perfectly fine school, but there's no need for you to spend the money! Of course it's a personal decision, but you're getting bad information if you think it's something you HAVE to do. I'm about to start my 20th kid-year as an SFUSD parent, so I speak from experience.
My high-schooler attends a school that both SFUSD and private schools feed into, and there's no consistent difference in the level of education between the kids who came from SFUSD K-8 and the kids who came from private K-8 -- including FAIS. That's the moment of truth where many parents realize that they thought they had to spend that $15,000+/year tuition and realize they really didn't.
Contact Parents for Public Schools, 415/468-7077 or www.ppssf.org , for full information and support on learning about SFUSD school.
{I love S.F., but wish I were in London this summer, though...)
Ooh, I spotted an inaccuracy!
"more unusually, Hispanics are also leaving."
Not true! Unlike blacks, the number of Hispanics has not been going down. From the SF Political Issues class at SFSU, I learned that the statistics indicate that more of them are putting multiple families together into single dwellings, rather than leaving.
The job thing is the most interesting.
There was a voter approved ordinance years ago that said the City shall not allow cfonstuction of more than 1mm feet of office space/year. That is 1/2 of a federal building (not-exempt) or one building a year.
Touble is the ecoonomy is cyclical -- might need 3mm feet one year and none for 3 years.
As a result, we never over build and always have tight supply. What does that mean? HIGH prices that encourage people to put offices outside of the City.
Secondly, the gross payroll tax in SF -- nobody else charges it... so why on earth would you start your company here when you can go to San Mateo and still live in the City and simply make everyone drive?
Cheap office space drives jobs. Low business taxes bring in jobs. Office buildings are the job creator of today... not new factories.
However, the sups are going the opposite direction -- even suggesting cogestion pricing? You kidding me? Downtown and SOMA is the only place it is easy to get a street meter spot in the entire City. There is no conjestion -- and it would be delightful if there was a little more life and a little more congestion downtown instead of headed out of town on 101-S in the morning.
Lastly -- the condos make sense -- more housing, sure lots will be vacation homes, but the City brings in tremendous property tax from those.
If we as a people choose to disallow new office construction, we are destined to become (or we may already be) a botique city.
Lovely, but not really pratical.
"If we as a people choose to disallow new office construction, we are destined to become (or we may already be) a botique city."
Sorry, but these are 20 year old arguments that were debunked the last time we had a major push for highrise office space construction. Under Feinstein as Mayor, 30 million sq feet of office space was crammed downtown- and yet, as the studies published in the Bay Guardian show, it wasn't those highrises, but the city's small businesses, which created the vast majority of new jobs here. That's why Prop M was passed in 1986, and the limit was enacted- because Feinstein and downtown developers had no legs to stand on with their false pretense of creating jobs.
Is there any reason to believe that somehow the situation has completely reversed itself in the space of two decades? I doubt it.
"Lastly -- the condos make sense -- more housing, sure lots will be vacation homes, but the City brings in tremendous property tax from those."
What use is property tax revenue to fund a city where the poor and working class can't afford to live here in the first place?
Ooh, a study by the Bay Guardian, that's a reliable, unbiased source. And the LAST thing the city needs is more revenue, god forbid the "poor and working class," as well as the rest of us, have a public transportation system that functions on a basic level for those that can't afford a car...
"What use is property tax revenue to fund a city where the poor and working class can't afford to live here in the first place?"
Because there *are* many poor and working class people living in the City-- in SROs, in subsidized/affordable housing, in rent-controlled apartments, in homes bought back when homes were much less expensive. Property taxes fund vital health, recreation, social, transportation, and medical services for low-income San Franciscans. The new revenue from the property tax on new condos-- taxes which under Prop. 13 are much higher on new construction than on homes that have not changed hands in recent years-- has allowed the City to balance its ever growing budget, and to provide better services to the poor than other American cities.
"Ooh, a study by the Bay Guardian, that's a reliable, unbiased source."
Wrong. This wasn't a study by the BG. It was a study by a professor of economics at MIT named David Birch, published in the BG.
"It was all the way back in 1985 when the Bay Guardian first published the results of a study by Massachusetts Institute of Technology economics professor David Birch demonstrating that the vast majority of the new jobs in the city came from small, locally owned independent businesses. A year later another Birch study we commissioned showed that the downtown area was actually losing jobs – and that study destroyed the last argument that development boosters could offer in favor of intensive high-rise construction."
-http://www.sfbg.com/38/01/news_ed_biz.html
"Because there *are* many poor and working class people living in the City-- in SROs, in subsidized/affordable housing, in rent-controlled apartments, in homes bought back when homes were much less expensive."
And other than subsidized/affordable housing, which as you know is scarcely available, none of the things you mentioned are viable options for doing anything but maintaining the numbers of poor/working class who are already here!
Despite the modest restrictions put on market-rate development, the playing field is drastically tilted toward displacing the working and middle classes and growing the numbers of wealthiest here. The way it's going now, you can expect to see San Francisco as one of the most wealth-stratified cities in the entire country. I just think that pursuing and maintaining economic diversity is better for the city in the long run than whatever minor revenue gains are seen by catering to rich out-of-towners.
High rise construction for office space is not even relevant. The status quo is we keep the cost of development so high with fee exactions and affordable housing req. that we get high end luxury condos and a few unit of affordable housing for the lucky (or connected)
We need to find a clever way to allow high rises to be built for the middle class. One idea would be density bonuses, streamlined planning, and exemptions from all the fees and affordable housing req. for developers to build middle class housing.
If there was a will there is a way but the Bay Guardian and the activists prefer the status quo
I blame Al Gore for starting the pieds-um-whatevea thing. Darn it Al, inventing the Internet was enough - you've done enough!
Another thought... maybe we need to create some small business business incubators - kinda like affordable housing for first-time home buyers - give people a chance to get it rolling and then make room for the next startup.
with regard to the school comment though I agree that public schools are getting better in SF the fact is that a majority of parents note this as a real issue that has contributed to their leaving for the suburbs. Whether you think that is informed or not the perception is real
The larger point that SF is a city that is pretty much childless and can't be disputed
It is an odd place to grow up. I have a lot of fiends and family who did and outside of a few pockets it is an adult environment. Once in High School, because of busing you are stuck with a lot of disruptive and troubled kids who make learning hard when you are just trying to keep from having your ass kicked
Anyhow I see my uncle going through this right now. He is entering his daughter in public school and they do seem better. He is still pretty concerned about the state of high schools here. The majority are not good and it certainly isn't white boy day at any of the mainstream ones
"And other than subsidized/affordable housing, which as you know is scarcely available, none of the things you mentioned are viable options for doing anything but maintaining the numbers of poor/working class who are already here!"
Actually, "vital health, recreation, social, transportation, and medical services for low-income San Franciscans" do much to allow poor/working class to remain in SF, and attract poor/working folks to the City. For example, SF provides far better health care for low-income people than almost anywhere else in the US. People with HIV, for example, come to SF for life-saving care that has been denied elsewhere in the US. The number 1 ranked place for HIV/AIDS care in the US is San Francisco General, according to US News and World Report. Anyone, including uninsured people moving from other states and undocumented people from abroad, can come to SF and receive this state of the art care.
The city has long banned the destruction of SROs, and has prevented the attempt to empty Trinity Plaza of its low-income tenants, who will get affordable housing n the new complex. The new condo towers are mostly being built on the Embarcadero, Rincon Hill, and Mission Bay. About 30% of the units in Mission Bay will be affordable. The Embarcadero and Rincon Hill projects have been built on land that was not residential. The builders of one of the largest of these towers, the Millenium, has partnered with Glide to build low-income housing in the Tenderloin.
Despite the fact that San Francisco voters did not pass the last $250,000,000 housing bond, the inclusionary affordable housing program (that is funding by the new market rate housing) is allowing SF to continue to build affordable housing that it is not able to fund otherwise.
"The way it's going now, you can expect to see San Francisco as one of the most wealth-stratified cities in the entire country. I just think that pursuing and maintaining economic diversity is better for the city in the long run than whatever minor revenue gains are seen by catering to rich out-of-towners."
Minor revenue gains? 30,000 condos are under construction!
Even if the average value is only $500k, that equates to $165,000,000 a YEAR! Minor revenue? You kidding me? I would bet that once the $3-4mm places are averaged in that the average will be much higher than $500k.
We are talking about the equivalent of $400-$500 per SF resident / per year from only 30,000 homeowners.
I agree -- don't build condos -- just tax families of 4 $2000 more a year.
That is a pretty pot of moola.
The number of condos currently under construction is far less than 30,000-- see this graphic--
http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2007/02/socketsites_complete_inventory_index_cii_q1_2007.html
...but indeed, the new construction will bring in lots of revenue.
like it or not, san francisco is way more affordable than london or nyc but is just as attractive to folks seeking that type of culture rich environment.
back to guest,
my expectations for my child's public school are not the issue, your choices enrollment program is.
i need to know where my kid is going to school so i can plan my life, and her's not let it up to some rediculous progressive idea that she be forced to go to school on the other side of town with kids of lesser socio economic status. don't tell me about fighting the district for 3 months to get her into the school i originally wanted either, i have a life, a job, and cannot do that.
french american, btw, is cheaper than a nanny, so our costs will go down.
This article confirms my suspicions. The fastest-growing tech industry in the city in recent years has been Caltrain.
"with kids of lesser socio economic status"
"it certainly isn't white boy day at any of the mainstream ones"
what does this shit even MEAN? oh, i know. it means that you folks think poor kids and kids of color are TROUBLE. that the facts of poverty and race automatically equal problems. right. cool!
One of the greatest gifts we can give our children is freedom from prejudice.
Went to an SFUSD public school and got into a perfectly respectable Ivy League school (didn't go all 4 years because I'm a big baby who missed her state). To everyone, please quit baggin' on public schools, k? You try hard enough, you get somewhere. You don't - you won't. Doesn't matter where you are schooled.