Child Population Dwindles in San Francisco

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Problem with this point of view is this is also the case all over the country. The cost of housing/living has gone through the roof over the past few years. Housing prices are absoluely insane right now. So using that as the excuse doesn't work. You must look at reasons exclusive to the bay area.

That statement is based on the false assumption that the cost of living increases are equal across the country.
It also doesnt take into account that a 2% cost of living increase in San Fran is considerably greater than in...oh, lets say, Wisconsin.


You want a reason exclsive to the Bay area? How about the fact that it is one of the most expensive cities to live in the States.

Let's not bring Wisconsin into it. Lets stay with the the 25 largest cities in the US. Why is it San Francisco is experiencing more of a population loss of families than the other 24? Besides the cost of living being ridiculously high, which is alos the case in many other very large cities, whats the one thing that really sticks out? Why is it you PC folk are so afraid to say something as easy as "the sky is blue"? A town with an abnormally high rate of homos living in it will logically have less children in it.

[Nick]

Cocks.

What is your point?

[VariaVespasa]

Problem with this point of view is this is also the case all over the country. The cost of housing/living has gone through the roof over the past few years. Housing prices are absoluely insane right now. So using that as the excuse doesn't work. You must look at reasons exclusive to the bay area.

That statement is based on the false assumption that the cost of living increases are equal across the country.
It also doesnt take into account that a 2% cost of living increase in San Fran is considerably greater than in...oh, lets say, Wisconsin.


You want a reason exclsive to the Bay area? How about the fact that it is one of the most expensive cities to live in the States.

Let's not bring Wisconsin into it. Lets stay with the the 25 largest cities in the US. Why is it San Francisco is experiencing more of a population loss of families than the other 24? Besides the cost of living being ridiculously high, which is alos the case in many other very large cities, whats the one thing that really sticks out? Why is it you PC folk are so afraid to say something as easy as "the sky is blue"? A town with an abnormally high rate of homos living in it will logically have less children in it.

True, as far as it goes, but even if no gays had children then SF should only have 20% less children, but theyre running 25-40% less than the other cities mentioned in the article, so there are other factors at work too.

*Hugs*
Varia

[Aabidano]

Lets stay with the the 25 largest cities in the US. Why is it San Francisco is experiencing more of a population loss of families than the other 24?

I'm fairly sure all the large cities are all losing population, while the 'burbs outside them are growing. Too lazy to look it up though. Large cities fit singles, childless couples and older folks a lot better than young(er) people with kids.

SF is an extreme case and makes good news, probably not unique in this respect though.

[Zaelath]

With the house prices you're talking about in SF, it's no wonder the place is filthy with gays and DINKs. People w/ 2-3 kids are not so likely to struggle with repayments so they can be nearer to the cute restraunts and theatres that they don't have the time to get to.

Oh and of course, people with kids are afraid of gays, and blacks, and muslims, and white trash, and generally keep them locked in the basement for safety and home school them.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

True, as far as it goes, but even if no gays had children then SF should only have 20% less children, but theyre running 25-40% less than the other cities mentioned in the article, so there are other factors at work too.

*Hugs*
Varia

I completely agree. There are other factors. My only problem is some people refusing to acknowledge the large gay populace being a contributing factor.

[Zaelath]

True, as far as it goes, but even if no gays had children then SF should only have 20% less children, but theyre running 25-40% less than the other cities mentioned in the article, so there are other factors at work too.

*Hugs*
Varia

I completely agree. There are other factors. My only problem is some people refusing to acknowledge the large gay populace being a contributing factor.

I'm sure it is a factor, in many ways. They don't have as many kids per capita, they tend to have larger disposable incomes which forces housing prices up, etc, etc.

The problem is that you think most people are bigotted fuckstains like yourself and are fleeing the area because they don't want their kids around those gays.

It's not a matter of people being too stupid to see a correlation, it's about them being disgusted at your ignorant ass conclusion.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

The problem is that you think most people are bigotted fuckstains like yourself and are fleeing the area because they don't want their kids around those gays.

Another person who cannot read. Try reading the thread and its progression before making a stupid comment. kthxdrivethru

[Sylvus]

The problem is that you think most people are bigotted fuckstains like yourself and are fleeing the area because they don't want their kids around those gays.

Another person who cannot read. Try reading the thread and its progression before making a stupid comment. kthxdrivethru

Man, you haven't said one fucking thing in this thread. Don't accuse people of not being able to read when you can neither read nor write.

You are a homophobe. You've tried to say several times in this thread things like "look at the article, it's the one who mentions the gays!" All you've done in this thread is try and point out where the article talks about gay people and then accuse people of not being able to read.

There is one tiny mention - practically a footnote - of gay people in the article.

San Francisco's large gay population — estimated at 20 percent by the city Public Health Department — is thought to be one factor, though gays and lesbians in the city are increasingly raising families .

Then the majority of the article goes on to talk about how the Mayor of the city, or whoever, is trying to get people to stay, most of which seemed to be initiatives aimed at lower income people. They also mention similar initiatives in other cities. THE WHOLE FUCKING ARTICLE IS ABOUT HOW IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE IN SAN FRANCISCO. For fuck's sake you're a douchebag.

[Zaelath]

The problem is that you think most people are bigotted fuckstains like yourself and are fleeing the area because they don't want their kids around those gays.

Another person who cannot read. Try reading the thread and its progression before making a stupid comment. kthxdrivethru

It ummm has nothing to do with gays it has to do with cost of living + cost of children, gay couples with kids are moving out just as fast.

Careful your bigotry is showing

Careful your stupidity is showing.

The article itself said that the 20% gay population has something to do with it.

Actually I think that people are saying he's homophobic because he was laughing about San Fran losing families because of gay people.

ROFL

That's even funnier. I'm afraid of gay people because I find the fact the media has written an article about the obvious, funny? LOL

Problem with this point of view is this is also the case all over the country. The cost of housing/living has gone through the roof over the past few years. Housing prices are absoluely insane right now. So using that as the excuse doesn't work. You must look at reasons exclusive to the bay area.

Oh of course, how could I have misread all that as an implication that people are fleeing SF because of the gays. I've seen more convincing denials of the blinding obvious from small children.

[Aslanna]

lol once again it's everyone but Midnyte who has the reading comprehension issues. There's a huge shocker.

[Canelek]

I have skimmed several of the posts and may be restating something. Sorry.

Homophobia, if I remember correctly from some psych class, is not the fear of homosexuals per se, but the disgust and innate hatred often associated with a hidden fear of being homosexual oneself.

Sorry for no textbook definition, but that is what I remember.

As humans, we are constantly evolving socially. What was considered taboo even 30 years ago is now not even thought about. I like to think that as a whole, we are more accepting of different lifestyles--perhaps from being more self-centered in our own lifestyles--just trying to get by or even succeed in difficult financial and environmental situations.

It is quite interesting, really, how people that have cast off dogmatic tradition interact with fundamentalists. I am not knocking Christians here, so cool off the typing fingers. I am just stating what is on my mind as I read through this thread.

Anyway, sup thread.

[VariaVespasa]

The problem is that you think most people are bigotted fuckstains like yourself and are fleeing the area because they don't want their kids around those gays.

Another person who cannot read. Try reading the thread and its progression before making a stupid comment. kthxdrivethru

It ummm has nothing to do with gays it has to do with cost of living + cost of children, gay couples with kids are moving out just as fast.

Careful your bigotry is showing

Careful your stupidity is showing.

The article itself said that the 20% gay population has something to do with it.

Actually I think that people are saying he's homophobic because he was laughing about San Fran losing families because of gay people.

ROFL

That's even funnier. I'm afraid of gay people because I find the fact the media has written an article about the obvious, funny? LOL

Problem with this point of view is this is also the case all over the country. The cost of housing/living has gone through the roof over the past few years. Housing prices are absoluely insane right now. So using that as the excuse doesn't work. You must look at reasons exclusive to the bay area.

Oh of course, how could I have misread all that as an implication that people are fleeing SF because of the gays. I've seen more convincing denials of the blinding obvious from small children.

Actually, troll though he often is, I'm gonna hafta support Midnyte on this one- Neither you nor Sylvus appear to have read and understood what he has and has not said in this thread, or what the original article said. PAY ATTENTION. /whap. Idiots.

Varia

[Zaelath]

Actually, troll though he often is, I'm gonna hafta support Midnyte on this one- Neither you nor Sylvus appear to have read and understood what he has and has not said in this thread, or what the original article said. PAY ATTENTION. /whap. Idiots.

Varia

*shrug* you go with that. He's had every opportunity to say that wasn't what he meant, and he hasn't. He's danced around the point, and made the usual distraction comments, but he hasn't denied that he feels people with kids are leaving SF in droves because they're afeared of the homosexuals.

Given his well known penchant for employing any faulty logic that supports his narrow minded bias, it's a pretty fair assessment I'd have thought.

[Aabidano]

I've heard Pensacola FL called the "Gay Riviera" by folks I knew up there and tourists that visited for some of the "festivals" (for lack of a better term).

It's cheap and has very good schools, and is growing despite a surprisingly large gay resident and visitor population. There's a number of weeks in the year locals don't go to Pensacola Beach, the boardwalk or anywhere near the convention center.

[Niffoni]

I think that the problem is that all the gay people are getting the hell out of the city. Did you know that SF's population is 80% hetero?? What a breeder pit!

[Sylvus]

Actually, troll though he often is, I'm gonna hafta support Midnyte on this one- Neither you nor Sylvus appear to have read and understood what he has and has not said in this thread, or what the original article said. PAY ATTENTION. /whap. Idiots.

Varia

Yeah, I read and re-read the original article four or five times, unless the link he posted doesn't match the quoted article. What does it say that I'm missing?

Let's go over it together...

"When we get to know people through our kids, we think to ourselves, `Are they renters or owners? Where do they work?' You have to figure out how much time to invest in people," Bakstad said. "It makes you feel like, `Where is everyone going? Stay with us!'"

Does that sound like gay concerns to you? Sounds a bit more like financial concerns to me...

It is no mystery why U.S. cities are losing children. The promise of safer streets, better schools and more space has drawn young families away from cities for as long as America has had suburbs.

The first of the reasons that have nothing to do with homosexuality.

There is one tiny mention - practically a footnote - of gay people in the article.

San Francisco's large gay population — estimated at 20 percent by the city Public Health Department — is thought to be one factor, though gays and lesbians in the city are increasingly raising families .

There you have the second reason they give in the article, and it is not the focus of the article. Not only that, it goes on to point out that the gay people that Midnyte is blaming as the cause (because he didn't read the article... well, he didn't need to because it was so obvious that it was funny!) are actually RAISING FAMILIES.

Another reason San Francisco's children are disappearing: Family housing in the city is especially scarce and expensive. A two-bedroom, 1,000-square-foot starter home is considered a bargain at $760,000.

A recent survey by the city controller found 40 percent of parents said they were considering pulling up stakes within the next year.

There you have the third reason, followed by the comment that a lot of families are pulling up stakes. So the first reason is "no mystery". The third item is a "reason", and the second, gay thing "is thought to be one factor". Hmm...

Determined to change things, Mayor Gavin Newsom has put the kid crisis near the top of his agenda, appointing a 27-member policy council to develop plans for keeping families in the city.

"It goes to the heart and soul of what I think a city is about — it's about generations, it's about renewal and it's about aspirations," said Newsom, 37. "To me, that's what children represent and that's what families represent and we just can't sit back idly and let it go away."

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.

Looks like that 27-member council has done a couple things aimed at providing a break to people who can't afford that very expensive city that has a shortage of family housing.

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.

"We are at a crossroads here," said N'Tanya Lee, executive director of the nonprofit Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth. "We are moving toward a place where we could have an infrastructure of children's services and no children."

Other cities are trying similar strategies. Seattle has created a children's fund, like the one in San Francisco. Leaders in Portland, Ore., are pushing developers to build affordable housing for families, a move Newsom has also tried.

For families choosing to stay in San Francisco, life remains a series of trade-offs. They can enjoy world-class museums, natural beauty and an energy they say they cannot find in the suburbs.

What's that trying to say, Varia?

But most families need two or more incomes to keep their homes, and their children spend most of their days being cared for by others.

That seems like a pretty clear-cut conclusion to the article to me, and what the author is trying to boil the issue down to. Tell me again which article you read?

"We have so many friends who are moving out and say how much easier life has been for them," Bakstad said. "If we can make it work in the city, we would love to stay. In a way, the jury is out."

I'm not sure about you, but I'd say the scale of relative difficulty of my life shifts a lot more based on how tight the budget is this month than based on how many dudes are blowing each other in houses on my block.

I think that you're the idiot, and not because you didn't read the article, but because you often stick up for a narrow-minded, dim-witted bigot.

[Drasta]

its the gay agenda at work !

[Phugg_Innay]

This whole debate is not about gay/straight. Its cost and cost alone.

Put yourself here , you have a home that you payed say $400k (steal anywhere withinn 100 miles of the bay). Now that home is worth $750k ... what would YOU do ? I for one would sell the shit right quick. Move to another state where I could buy 2-3 times the house with the equity alone , and only have to pay taxes on the new property. That could mean that 1 parent has to work (like in the 50's) and the other can stay home with the kids and get them a RIGHT childhood.

My wife and I are in this dilema, we cannot afford to get into a house out here even thought together we make over $100k a year. Average price for a house in our current neighborhood (60miles from SF) is $600k , that is for a starter. Built in the 60's maybe 3 bedroom 2 bath with very little upgrades , No AC, yet nice sized yards. To come up with 60k down is impossible, payments on 600k loan would be over $3500mo (more than we bring home. On top of that add daycare , commute price and all the other things.
We did have an opportunity to buy in a town about an hour away , $350,000 for house built in 97 , 1400sqft 3 bed 2 bath. Payment would have been $2400mo. Now add $800-$1000 for daycare 2 kids now 6 and 11. plus double the commute cost from 150 to 350 per mo , add in the 1hr each way to and from work (time away from loved ones) what is it all about ??

Its all about the Benjamins , those who have it flaunt it , those who dont are fucked.

If we were to relocate , our wages would drop by 40 percent. Its not worth it. Life sucks , carry on

[Aabidano]

If we were to relocate , our wages would drop by 40 percent. Its not worth it. Life sucks , carry on

You can get a decent house here (Tampa) for $100-175k, we've decent schools and minimal taxes. Lots of other Metro areas are very similar from the little bit of research I've done when job hunting. I make about 80-90% of what our people in Santa Clara and Boston do in similar R&D positions.

Your wages might drop by 40%, but your housing expense would drop by 75% or more, commuting by 50%, taxes by 5-10%, childcare is much cheaper as well. When you don't both have extensive commutes your quality of life goes up as well, you actually get to see each other and your kids an extra 40 or so hours a month. Combined that's a big deal, to me at any rate.

Add to it that I've never heard a siren, or seen a helicopter from my house, and the sky gets dark at night. Totally different from living in Alameda county.

[Deward]

I took a $20k per year pay cut when I left Milwaukee to move to a small town (30k people). I have saved more here than I ever could have in Milwaukee and I have no commute. My wife and I have saved $60,000 cash in the slightly less than 4 years we have lived here and have a house that we never could have afforded in Milwaukee. The move was definitely worth it in the long run. My wife and I make well under $100k per year combined. Small towns are just so much cheaper to live in.

[Aslanna]

Small towns are just so much cheaper to live in.

Especially once Wal-Mart moves in and kills all the local businesses.