[HN Gopher] Tracking the San Francisco Tech Exodus ___________________________________________________________________ Tracking the San Francisco Tech Exodus Author : kyleblarson Score : 135 points Date : 2021-05-19 18:23 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (sfciti.org) (TXT) w3m dump (sfciti.org) | sneak wrote: | It always struck me as odd that a culture so interested in the | internet and data and disrupting existing cash flows would itself | dictate a system in which so, so much cash flows from VCs to | paychecks to landowners in one single metro. | jeffbee wrote: | Surprise: the landlords are in charge of local government. | sneak wrote: | Yeah, but AFAIK there isn't huge overlap between the VC funds | and the landowners, unless there's some hidden corporate | structure of which I am unaware. | | It would be quite silly (and clever) for VC LPs to start | buying up residential properties, knowing that their funding | rounds go right into payroll and then right into SFBA rents | and back into their pockets. :D | jedberg wrote: | YC actually considered this (jokingly I think, but maybe | not?). They realized that many of their startups were | living in just a couple of high rises in San Francisco. | dcolkitt wrote: | I don't think it's directly this malicious. I think it's | more just a blindspot. If you're a 40-something partner at | a major VC firm, who bought his home in Palo Alto in 2005, | then the "cost of living" is largely invisible to you. Sure | you may have a sizable chunk of home equity locked up, but | that's not a monthly cash flow issue. | | Intellectually you know that being located in the Bay Area | is a major burden to the ramen-eating startup founders that | you fund. But it's a lot easier to rationalize that away | with justifications around "cross-pollination of ideas" and | being in the "intangible benefits of being an innovation | center". Certainly a lot easier when you're not worried | about making rent on your 400 square foot studio. | paxys wrote: | And VCs are also landowners | swiley wrote: | Wait... is ycombinator actually a real estate company? /s | nradov wrote: | Peter Thiel made the same point in 2018 and decided to focus | his investments in other regions. | | https://www.sfgate.com/expensive-san-francisco/article/peter... | yesBoot wrote: | Population decline was greater in 2018 and 2019 than 2020. | | Even then it was tenths of a percent. | | Are sure "exodus" is the right word? | runeb wrote: | > For almost as long as we've been tracking the COVID-19 | pandemic, sf.citi has been closely monitoring the San Francisco | tech exodus | | They say 63 percent of tech companies surveyed have already | downsized or plan to downsize their office space in the San | Francisco Bay Area. This is to be expected in a work-from-home | situation like the ongoing pandemic. I don't see anything about | the percentage of it being permanent rather than temporary. | dmode wrote: | I am actually more surprised that 40% decided not to downsize | given the WFH model that is popular now | ska wrote: | Downsizing is usually complicated and can be expensive and/or | distracting. | | Particularly if you don't think it will last long, I can see | a bunch of companies taking a wait-and-see approach. | ghaff wrote: | One thing you're not accounting for is that companies | normally plan for growth--whether or not that ends up | happening. I expect a lot of companies that were likely | exploring real estate expansion pre-pandemic have stomped on | the brakes and will wait and see. So they may or may not | downsize but they probably won't expand like they normally | would have. | ghaff wrote: | I took the pie chart next to the 63% one to be about the long | term. So about half fully remote or substantially remote. | [deleted] | mrwh wrote: | My Bay Area anecdote: a lot of my colleagues left over the past | year, some are staying away, most are returning/have already | returned. Not nothing, not an exodus though. | llsf wrote: | Maybe it is an opportunity to convert some commercial space into | residential space and make the City more affordable ? | | If really so many companies are going remote, then all the | commercial landlords would have to find ways to make money out of | their commercial space. | | Any reasons that could prevent it (e.g. stringent zoning code, | preventing conversion from commercial to residential) ? | hedora wrote: | That would make it easier for people with money to move in. | | The best way to ensure fair and equitable housing is to | constrain the supply as much as possible. | | We don't need to worry though, the zoning and planning | departments will definitely SF from the tyranny of new housing | units. | chaganated wrote: | Potentially leaky vaccine: | https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/02/02/1017161/covid-va... | | Leaky Vaccine + Time: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marek%27s_disease#Prevention | 101001001001 wrote: | In 2020, San Francisco's sales tax revenue dropped by as much as | 70 percent in San Francisco's downtown, which relies heavily on | restaurants and hotels. | | Mother of god... | zirkonit wrote: | Long overdue. | verst wrote: | Businesses shifting to partially or fully remote (the key metric | surveyed in this article) isn't necessarily an exodus from SF. It | just means a decline in the need for office space in SF. | | Additionally, other sources indicate that most SF residents who | left moved to nearby areas [1]. (Those areas themselves may see | their residents moving elsewhere) | | [1]: https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/exodus-study-reveals- | dra... | ghaff wrote: | That's not really surprising. A lot of people like California | and, if you don't need to worry about a daily commute, that | opens up a lot of options that, if not exactly cheap, aren't as | eye watering as the Bay Area. | proc0 wrote: | SF is on a different level of exodus then the rest of the Bay | Area, and I guess also the state. The leadership of the city | forgot there are also nearby cities that aren't trying out crazy | new laws and mandates that obviously make everything much worse. | One of the richest, most advanced places on Earth, making civic | problems worse for decades now. | ClassAndBurn wrote: | I'm so excited for the possibility of rental prices coming down | enough to support the artists and quirky businesses that used to | be around. | | The city's consolidation into tech forced out a lot of the | vibrancy that made San Francisco unique. Those people are still | residents. It's just they've been unable to afford the space to | enact some of the things they used to. | sharadov wrote: | This is something that really bothers me - all those billions | of dollars of tech money and you cannot find a way to house and | support artists. New York billionaires have always found a way | to support artistic endeavors. Case in point - Bloomberg, he | personally donated a lot. | paxys wrote: | Funny you say that because when I lived in New York a few | years ago gentrification and high rents was the top complaint | among residents (mainly around the time Brooklyn started | getting unaffordable), and people would point to San | Francisco as a city which had a lot of money but could still | keep its artsy/counterculture roots intact. | jinushaun wrote: | Because SF billionaires are selfish tourists. On the other | hand, NYC has a long history of patronage and wealthy donors | that contribute to making their city better. | randompwd wrote: | Lol. A billionaire doesn't give money to $causeOfTheDay - | they're "selfish" assholes. They do give money - they're | informed they can't buy forgiveness or they should have | given more or the patronage is paternalistic and heaven | forbid if the billionaire is a white male American. | | May as well keep your money and let those fend for | themselves. | | Much better art created when people do it for the passion.. | on their own time.. with their own resources.. after | they've worked an 8 hour day. | | Whingers are going to complain anyway - no point in | affording them the time and resources to do it more. | Kalium wrote: | Thankfully SF has people like Mark Zuckerberg, and is | appreciative of his donation of a large amount of money to | the city's hospital in order to improve life in the city. | | Right? | kelnos wrote: | > _all those billions of dollars of tech money and you cannot | find a way to house and support artists._ | | Our problem is never that we don't have enough wealth, it's | always that it's concentrated among a small percentage of the | population, and a much larger percentage gets starved out | entirely. | | > _New York billionaires have always found a way to support | artistic endeavors. Case in point - Bloomberg, he personally | donated a lot._ | | If we have to depend on the charity of billionaires, we've | already lost the war. | closeparen wrote: | Concentrated wealth sponsors high culture. There is | extremely limited political will for public funding, and | distributed personal spending decisions give you mass | culture. You are not getting painters without people who | spend tens of thousands on paintings. You are not getting | the theater or the symphony or the opera without a class of | attendees who write checks for hundreds of times more than | a ticket is worth. | Kalium wrote: | How many billions of dollars of tech money, in your opinion, | is enough to find a way to house and support people in a city | where planning is fundamentally structured around finding | ways to _not_ house people? | rcpt wrote: | In California you can get whatever crazy thing you want | passed with O($10M). I bet $1B could get even Prop 13 | overturned which would solve the housing disaster | overnight. | Kalium wrote: | 2020's Prop 19 to reform property taxes just a bit had | about $20 million behind it, and it didn't even land on | the ballot. | | SF would need to gut its entire permitting system. Today, | it can't even make small and incremental improvements: ht | tps://www.sfchronicle.com/local/heatherknight/article/Is- | p... | Apocryphon wrote: | $20m and $1b is a significant difference. | Kalium wrote: | You're absolutely right. That is a significant | difference. | | My point was that O($10m) isn't even enough to reliably | land something on the ballot, much less get whatever | crazy thing you want passed. | | This of course being distinct from undoing Prop 13. | skystarman wrote: | You'd need to end or severely restrict local zoning. | | Everyone loves the idea of cheaper housing for people in | theory. | | Once they realize it means their own property value won't | appreciate as quickly, or may even decrease and then | suddenly they are against it. And they will vote out any | officials that support it. | | There needs to be state or federal intervention. And that | doesn't seem likely at any time in the near future. | paxys wrote: | Rents are already rapidly going back up since their lows late | last year, so don't hold your breath. | hindsightbias wrote: | All the great eras of any city were gritty. You can't have that | with a generation of SodaSopans. | darth_avocado wrote: | Tech didn't out price the people, nimby politics did. Average | home owners in San Francisco have been owners for about 14 | years. [1] Any new development basically hits a brick wall | unless it's on a radioactive dump or ultra expensive downtown. | You all remember the famous laundromat saga, those were not | tech workers preventing new housing, the locals were. [2] | | Anti gentrification policies almost always end up displacing | the populations they are meant to protect. You don't want new | apartments in a specific area because it may bring in newer | crowds? Well guess what, those crowds will come any way, and | now they can out price the people who live there. | | Rent control is another problem, because long time residents | won't move. And with no new inventory, the prices for pretty | much any apartment that enters the market goes sky high. It's | not the tech workers who displace the locals, they are anyway | hunting for apartments in a different price range from the | locals. It's the locals now just budgeting higher portions of | their income towards rent and displacing other locals. This is | exactly what happened in Berlin. [3] | | And last but not the least, I think despite the nostalgia and | how we remember SF differently from what it is now, yes there | were quirky businesses all around. But there were only specific | parts of the city that had them and quite frankly a lot of them | just used to be replaced by newer businesses every couple of | years. But what happened at some point was too much | bureaucracy, red tape and politics crept into the cost of | starting a business that now you have to sink almost a quarter | of a million dollars before you can even start an ice cream | shop. [4] It was partly the "locals" who created these | problems. | | [1] https://journal.firsttuesday.us/california-homeowners-are- | st... [2] | https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2018/08/21/san... | [3] | https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-03-02/berlin... | [4] | https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/heatherknight/article/S-F-... | astrange wrote: | SF didn't have a lot of tech until very recently, when they | were forced out of the valley by the real gentrifying force, | homeowners that won't let anyone build more homes in case it | causes traffic. | | These are also the people making SF expensive. It's not just | artists, it's their own children who can't live there, one | reason SF has fewer families with children than any other city | IIRC. | | As for quirky businesses, that's DRs and licensing. | | https://sf.eater.com/2021/4/22/22397615/matcha-n-more-ice-cr... | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | Is there a good article that describes how / why / when the | startup scene moved from the South Bay to San Francisco? | | I'm not too familiar with the startup scene before 2010. But | from what I know, it was mostly established in its current | form before the Dot Com boom. | | It seems like HP, Cisco, Intel, Apple, Oracle, Sun, Adobe, | Intuit, & Yahoo! where part of one movement. | | eBay, PayPal, Google, Facebook & Netflix obviously added to | that. | | But now all the newer companies are coming from SF - | SalesForce, Twitter, Uber, Lyft, AirBNB, Yelp, Splunk, | Dropbox, Square, Instagram (originally), Slack, StichFix, | Postmates, Instacart, GitHub, Robinhood, Coinbase, etc. | | The only recent, pretty big startups in the South Bay I can | think of are LinkedIn and Quora. YouTube - from San Bruno - | is kind of in the middle. The rest are subsidiaries. | | I mean, the OG companies like Apple and Google and Facebook | are so big that they dwarf the rest of the startups in the | Bay by themselves. So in a sense, the Silicon Valley still | feels like the Peninsula. But the startup scene definitely | seems to have shifted. | rm_-rf_slash wrote: | Short answer: early Silicon Valley needed space for | fabricators, the dotcom era needed space for data centers, | then around 2010ish there were enough cloud providers and | internet connections you could start a company anywhere but | you already had plenty of talent in the bay and San | Francisco is _fun_. | | Long answer could be a phd thesis but "people needed lots | of space until they didnt" kind of suffices. | kens wrote: | > the OG companies like Apple and Google and Facebook | | History time. It's kind of amusing to see these companies | referred to as OG, when there were many generations of | Silicon Valley startups before them. The real OG was | probably Hewlett-Packard, founded in Palo Alto in 1939. | Another key company was Shockley Semiconductor, founded in | Mountain View in 1956. Eight key employees left Shockley in | 1957 and formed Fairchild Semiconductor, gaining the name | the "Traitorous Eight". Fairchild led to over 126 startups, | sometimes called the Fairchildren, including AMD, Altera, | LSI Logic, National Semiconductor, and SanDisk. | | Two of the Traitorous Eight, Gordon Moore and Robert Noyce, | left Fairchild in 1968, founding Intel in Mountain View. | Later key Silicon Valley companies were Oracle (1977), Sun | Microsystems (1982), and Cisco (1984). Although Apple | started in 1976, it wasn't a dominant company until years | later. Google (1998) and Facebook (2004) are relative | newcomers. | | Information on Fairchild's influence: | https://computerhistory.org/blog/fairchild-and-the- | fairchild... | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | Thanks! This is super cool! | | Question - when did the VC model really come into play? | Were the Fairchildren like AMD VC funded? | | A lot of others have mentioned that space plays a role in | this a lot. Companies needed fabricators and data | centers, which took up space, so it was too expensive to | be in the city. | | Is this really all there was to it? Back in these times - | there was White Flight from the cities, right? Did most | people (even college grads) prefer to work in the suburbs | then? Was this even a factor at all? | clpm4j wrote: | You would enjoy the documentary 'Something Ventured'. | http://www.somethingventuredthemovie.com/ | astrange wrote: | If you're asking why Silicon Valley is in California at | all, the answer is that the state bans all non-compete | agreements and won't enforce ones made in other states. | This is probably why it's not in Cambridge, though it | doesn't explain anything more specific than that. | ghaff wrote: | Companies generally preferred to be located in the | suburbs because it was generally cheaper. But employees | (notably including execs) also preferred to live there. | Manufacturing facilities had absolutely been in cities in | the past. Teradyne was in Boston. Gillette was in Boston. | There are big pharma facilities in Kendall Square today. | So it was at least in part access to workers that moved | companies out of cities. | ghaff wrote: | Apple wasn't terribly interesting until maybe the | mid-2000s. OK they were interesting in the Apple religion | sense but it really took some combination of OS X, the 4G | iPod, and eventually the iPhone taking off to put them in | their current category. One could argue that Apple wasn't | "a force to be reckoned with" until the late 2000s. | astrange wrote: | They were pretty good before the 90s when they invented | the personal computer, there was just a "beleaguered" | era. | ghaff wrote: | They were an interesting hobbyist thing early-on. | Although there were also the S-100 bus systems, etc. I | actually used Apple IIs at work in the early 80s and then | an Apple III. But they were somewhat of a sideshow until | the mid/late 2000s. | clpm4j wrote: | A seemingly significant part of it is because the young | talent wants to live in SF and not commute 1+ hours to an | office park in the South Bay. I think SF also offered | incentives for tech companies to set up shop in the city in | the 2009-2012 time range... https://www.wired.com/story/no- | more-deals-san-francisco-cons... | ghaff wrote: | It also generally became trendy for that demographic to | live in (certain) cities after they graduate. My company | set up an office in the Seaport (partially) for that | reason because our main location an hour west of Boston | was a deal-killer for some people. | clpm4j wrote: | That's certainly true. A career in tech became widely | popular and trendy for millenials and now zoomers (I | believe CS is now the most popular undergraduate major | across US colleges?). Basically once people realized you | can make more money in tech than on Wall St, a percentage | of new grads who would have moved to NYC diverted for SF. | ghaff wrote: | >I believe CS is now the most popular undergraduate major | across US colleges | | I saw that in one Google search and it seems incredibly | unlikely. This seems much more probable (even if you | assign some of the engineering degrees to CS): | | https://www.niche.com/blog/the-most-popular-college- | majors/ | rogerbinns wrote: | I've seen several commentators blame AWS! Before AWS, | startups needed to budget for web servers and similar | hardware, and a place to put them. That meant bigger | offices with more floor space, plus power and similar | services. Once AWS came (2007) startups could be anywhere, | with the city tending to be more attractive to younger | folk. | notsureaboutpg wrote: | Young people want to slum it up in SF, supposedly. | Apocryphon wrote: | Zoom is based in downtown San Jose. | ghaff wrote: | A lot of people forget that many now "elite" cities weren't | that popular until relatively recently. Boston was losing | population until well into the 90s and there was basically no | tech left there by then. | | When I graduated from grad school in the mid-80s, I don't | think a single one of my classmates who got a job in | Massachusetts lived in the city proper. | cbm-vic-20 wrote: | At the time there were a lot more tech companies out along | Routes 128 and 495. This is still true today, but now the | balance has shifted to Boston and Camberville. | ghaff wrote: | Yeah, all the minicomputer companies (which is where most | of us went to work after school). I'd have actually | considered living in Cambridge at the time but it would | have been something like a 45 minute (reverse) commute | whereas I had about a 5 minute commute until I bought a | house. | | Depending upon how you characterize tech, there's still a | lot in the northern and western suburbs, especially if | you include the defense contractors. But, yes, there's | now a lot in Cambridge and the Seaport, especially, as | well as all the biotech/pharma in and near Kendall | Square. | astrange wrote: | Yeah, living in cities was unpopular until about 2000 for a | good reason - they were full of crime. Surprisingly it | turns out giving the entire country lead poisoning was a | bad idea. | | https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/02/lead- | exposur... | | Younger people then moved back in (causing superficial | gentrification) because they couldn't live in the actual | richer areas because those had all blocked new housing | (actual gentrification.) | skeeter2020 wrote: | Is this lead poisoning theory really any more proven than | say, the access to birth control idea? | | Young people tend to be economic migrants and the pockets | of mass economic growth start in cities. They're also | single and relatively poor so they live in multi-tennant | housing near the downtowns where they work. As they get | older, richer and more numerous (i.e. married w/ kids) | they move out of the core. Cycle repeats with rising | prices if growth is still there, or you hollow out the | city and only the poorest remain. SF could stay like it | is, or become a west-coast steel town, but it's unlikely | to return to what it once was. | peder wrote: | Cities are full of crime again today. Is it a problem | with lead? Or is it a larger condition of cities in the | Americas? | ska wrote: | > Cities are full of crime again today. | | That doesn't seem to actually be the case, but crime | statistics is a notoriously tricky area. | astrange wrote: | It is actually up a lot in 2020-2021 including murders | and other "real" crimes. | | There of course is also an effect where people think all | of Portland is on fire because they saw a protest on TV | once. But also Portland has had twice as much gun | violence this year than all of 2020, which seems like a | problem someone should do something about. | ska wrote: | Sure, there is a notable bump (with all the usual | reporting caveats) in 2020-21; but that doesn't change | the general trend. Or at least so far that doesn't seem | the case. | jeffbee wrote: | Most American cities are way, way below early 1990s | violent crime levels, San Francisco included. SF had | three times more homicides in 1993 than in 2019. | rufus_foreman wrote: | You saw around a 30% increase in homicide rates in large | cities last year, and that increase began suddenly at the | beginning of June. No environmental cause like exposure | to lead can cause that. | | The Mother Jones article referenced above is arguing that | the most effective thing that can be done to combat crime | is lead abatement, I think that argument has taken a | fatal hit. Some cities are in fact seeing homicide rates | close to or even above the 1990s rates, that happened | suddenly and it happened after leaded gasoline had been | banned for 45 years. | | You can't explain the massive increase in homicide in | large cities in 2020 using environmental factors like | lead, the cause has to be cultural or political. | astrange wrote: | It went up a lot in 2020, quite possibly as a reaction to | unemployment and especially not having anything else to | do. | | But yes, before that it was limited to a few hotspots | like St Louis which still had environmental lead | problems. Meanwhile DC in 1990 was more dangerous than | the Iraq War. | majormajor wrote: | > Younger people then moved back in (causing superficial | gentrification) because they couldn't live in the actual | richer areas because those had all blocked new housing | (actual gentrification.) | | You're overlooking the qualitative motives for (somewhat | incorrect) purely financial aspects. Younger people | continued to move to denser parts of cities for at least | a solid decade after in-city rents surpassed suburban | ones. A large demographic group got married and started | having kids much later than previous ones (this part | traces pretty well back to economic factors, though!) so | was looking for _very_ different things in housing. As | those factors started to change, they started following | similar suburbanization patterns, and WFH accelerated | that dramatically. | | "Friends" is probably the clearest pop culture recording | of this, showing the draw of living in the city for | single 20-somethings in the 90s, and then the eventual | appeal of the burbs for the later married w/ kids stage. | Even in the 90s part of it, none of them were there | because NYC was the cheap option. | ghaff wrote: | Manhattan was something of an outlier. Even in not so | great in a lot of ways 1980s Manhattan, a _lot_ of people | moved to "the city." This was especially true in | finance. (Contra my comment about classmates not living | in Boston proper, _many_ lived in Manhattan proper. Of | course, one difference is that the jobs were actually in | Manhattan. ) | | But NYC has always had a singular appeal. And there was | long a certain snobbery(?) about living in Manhattan | specifically. | majormajor wrote: | If we drop NYC we lose the easy TV show example, but I | would still maintain that nobody young was moving to | places like Midtown Atlanta or downtown Austin in the | early 2000s just because they were priced out of the | suburbs. Places were already "pay for the privilege of | living somewhere denser and walkable" by that point. | ghaff wrote: | >nobody young was moving to places like Midtown Atlanta | or downtown Austin in the early 2000s just because they | were priced out of the suburbs. | | Sure. But my point was that, in the aggregate, they | _weren 't_. Maybe by the early 2000s, there were more | jobs there, their parents lived there, their friends were | starting to be there, etc. So, yes, at some point | especially college-educated young professionals started | to pay an urban premium for the lifestyle. We'll see to | what degree that continues. | majormajor wrote: | > Sure. But my point was that, in the aggregate, they | weren't. Maybe by the early 2000s, there were more jobs | there, their parents lived there, their friends were | starting to be there, etc. So, yes, at some point | especially college-educated young professionals started | to pay an urban premium for the lifestyle. We'll see to | what degree that continues. | | I actually agree with `astrange that by the early 2000s, | if not a tad earlier[0], millennials were moving in-town | (though not because their parents lived there! the | opposite, if anything!), but I completely disagree on the | "why" - their claim was that it was because it was | cheaper because suburbs had zoning that caused them to | get too expensive. My claim is that it was a lifestyle | thing, not a "forced out" thing. | | [0] I can't speak firsthand to earlier, but there were a | lot of new or newly-redone apartment buildings by the | early 2000s, suggesting that the trend had been going for | several years already. | ghaff wrote: | Oh, definitely lifestyle. And, yeah, much more because of | friends than family. I'm pretty sure even in the late | 80s, it wouldn't have been cheaper for me to live in (a | decent area of) Cambridge than the suburb I lived in. | tick_tock_tick wrote: | Lets be real it was abortion | | https://freakonomics.com/podcast/abortion/ | | https://freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime- | who-s... | astrange wrote: | It was not (or that was only some of it.) The same crime | rise and fall happened worldwide - this is addressed in | the article. | | Continues to happen too. The parts of the world with the | most terrorism like Iraq/Yemen also most recently had | leaded gas. | thatfrenchguy wrote: | Some of it is immigration too: if you come from Paris or | Berlin, you're not going to want to move to Mountain View, | given how ridiculously boring the peninsula is. | astrange wrote: | If your employer's in South Bay you might as well live | there. It's easier to commute to fun than commute to work. | fnord77 wrote: | there's been a few new "below market rate" apartment and condos | being built. Most all condo developments have BMR units but | some of the new ones are 100% BMR | webwielder2 wrote: | People and companies leave SF because it's too expensive, SF gets | less expensive, people and companies come back to SF, SF gets | expensive...? | dcolkitt wrote: | Except the difference is there's a hell of a lot more bandwidth | available for telework in Colorado and Nevada than there was | the last cycle. | olyjohn wrote: | It's all about the short term profits. Look how much money we | saved leaving SF! Then when the next execs come in it's, look | how much money we saved going back to SF! | jdhn wrote: | It's kind of funny reading this, as I know someone from my | Midwestern state who decided to move to SF in the middle of the | pandemic. I'm curious as to what happens once everything reopens, | will people move back, or is this a permanent change? | rubyist5eva wrote: | There is no amount of money that I would take to live in that | abomination of a city. | RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: | There is now enough vacant office space in San Francisco to give | every homeless person in the city 2000 square feet. | | (From the article: 16 Million square feet of vacant office space, | and a quick Google search gave me a homeless population of 8000) | pengaru wrote: | Isn't it already well established SF has far more space | allocated to jobs than housing for the workers? | | In other news, the sky is blue, and water is wet. | woah wrote: | I always wonder what the point of these comparisons is. Can you | imagine cramming 8000 homeless people with hardcore drug | addictions and untreated mental illness in a vacant office | tower? | astrange wrote: | Note most of them aren't homeless because they did drugs, | they're doing drugs because they're homeless because they | lost their homes. Ain't nothing else to do. | unixhero wrote: | It would make for a hellofa janitor survival simulator game. | Maybe as a story pack to SimTower. | spoonjim wrote: | What's your prediction for the outcome of doing that? Parceling | the office space into 2,000 square foot spaces and giving them | free of charge to each homeless person in SF? Please be | specific. | paxys wrote: | What would a homeless person do with an office? | sky_rw wrote: | Start a SoLoMo app company, obviously. | Decker87 wrote: | That's great to hear! | umeshunni wrote: | There's always enough X in San Francisco to give every homeless | person X/n of it. | | What's lacking in San Francisco is the political will to do | anything meaningful about homelessness (or crime, or the | housing crisis, or infrastructure, or the schools or anything | other than vague virtue signaling) | throwkeep wrote: | To their credit, they've found new ways of using resources in | the most inefficient way possible. | | "San Francisco is paying $16.1 million to shelter homeless | people in 262 tents placed in empty lots around the city | where they also get services and food -- a steep price tag | that amounts to more than $61,000 per tent per year." | | https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/article/S-F- | pays-61-000-a-... | admax88q wrote: | At that cost they could just pay the homeless 61k per year | and they could rent their own homes | rgblambda wrote: | That was my first thought as well but then remembered | that often the reason for homelessness is mental health | issues. Many homeless people are just incapable of taking | care of themselves. | | e.g. not paying rent/bills when they physically have the | money to do so, gambling addict so getting into massive | amounts of debt, getting evicted due to antisocial | behaviour/vandalism of property. | Apocryphon wrote: | Convert the empty real estate to the mental health | facilities that Reagan emptied? | kelnos wrote: | Maybe that's the case, but instead why not rent | apartments on behalf of the homeless people, put them | there, and get them evaluated and treated by a mental | health professional? | | Living in an actual building rather than a tent in a | parking lot ("protected" or otherwise) seems like a great | first step and healing some of those mental health | issues. | | When the treatment starts working to a degree that the | formerly-homeless person can be trusted with the cash, | give it to them, along with the rent bills. | ngokevin wrote: | While I imagine there are a lot of detractors here, I | like universal basic income. We could try to slice it and | have a system to pick and choose who gets it, but as | we've seen, the waste that goes into the bureaucracy when | it's not just "give everyone a check". | acchow wrote: | Not if there isn't enough housing. | fleshdaddy wrote: | Is that an accurate count? That actually sounds surprisingly | low. I figured it was quite a bit higher. | redis_mlc wrote: | - The reported SF outdoors homeless numbers vary from 5,000 - | 10,000 | | - But it depends on what data you have and how you slice it: | | - 60% of the $300 - $350 million homeless budget goes to | welfare rentals (single women and moms are eligible for that, | rarely men), so that's 15,000+ adults plus children alone | | - there's probably more than 10,000 on the street, and | growing daily as average rents are over $3,500/month now. | | As you can see, with a population of only 500,000 and almost | 5% of thoe homeless, SF has a major problem. | | What the EU learned from African economic migration is that | once somebody is in their regionn, authoriities have to | process them one by one, which can take years per case. So | once a city gets behind, there's no good story. | katabatic wrote: | That's nearly 1% of the population of San Francisco. It's | already shockingly high. | eplanit wrote: | "San Francisco's office vacancy rate has risen to 19.7 percent" | | Wow -- when I was there in the "dot-com boom" of the late '90s | and early '00s, such a vacancy rate was unheard of (it was 0.5% | for housing, and similar for commercial real estate). | | Oh well, they've earned this outcome. | jeffbee wrote: | What's awful is asking rents have barely budged. Peaked at | around $85/sf, now around $75/sf. The landlords can afford to | just sit on inventory. | brdd wrote: | Totally false. We saw many commercial units between $35-50/sf | IG and just signed on one at $37/sf. | jeffbee wrote: | "At the first quarter of 2021, the overall citywide asking | rent was $73.76 per square foot (psf) down 12.0% from the | peak of $83.82 psf with the Class A citywide figure at | $77.66 psf, down 10.0% from $86.31 psf,. Direct space | continues to be marketed at near record levels for the time | being with the citywide Class A direct asking rent at | $84.47 psf and the CBD Class A direct asking rent at $85.71 | psf" -- Cushman and Wakefield | | "Totally false" -- Internet rando | jedberg wrote: | > Cushman and Wakefield | | Aka a company with a vested interest in convincing you | that the $75 price they are offering you is totally in | line with the average and it's really good and you should | just take it. | jeffbee wrote: | But an anecdote about a class-C storefront on 7th street | is more reliable? | jedberg wrote: | I'd say both are anecdotes with bias, but honestly, the | random internet commenter has less incentive to massage | the data than WC. | htormey wrote: | Also, are these figures factoring in things landlords are | doing now to sweeten the deal without dropping the per | month/sq price? | | I.e giving months away for free or other incentives like | that? Anecdotally I've heard office rent is way down as | well. | pradn wrote: | Some loans are backed by certain rent levels. So commercial | real estate owners don't have as much freedom to reduce their | prices as you might think. | acchow wrote: | Commercial leases are often multi-year. If they expect the | high vacancy rates to evaporate within a year or two, why | would they drop the rates now to fill the vacancy? | ttul wrote: | At those vacancy rates, the only thing holding up rents is the | overwhelming amounts of liquidity in the economic system. Land | owners still have cash, in other words. Back in 2001, I rented | an office for free. The landlord could then reduce his property | tax rate by showing the city that it was occupied at zero rent. | Stranger things might happen this time around with 20% vacancy. | redis_mlc wrote: | You missed out on the "dot bomb" in 2000. | | There were tunbleweed-like plants blowing around the streets of | SOMA, and you could park on the sidewalk and nobody would | notice or care. | | The vacancy rate was probably over 50%, and in some blocks | 100%. | spamizbad wrote: | Good? Always seemed problematic so much tech was all tied up in | SF and the Bay Area. | ardit33 wrote: | It is the only true city in the area, where younger people can | have a urban lifestyle... the rest is depressing suburbia.... | San Jose, and the rest feels like a cultural grave. The only | other town that is walkable is Berkley, but that is too small | for hosting large companies. Also, parts of Oakland, but the | city itself has major governance issues, and crime in general. | | I think NYC and Austin are booming right now. While nyc is a | world class city, the 'progressives' have taken over the NY | State legislation, and personally it is worrying. | | While some of the legislation might be long overdue, and good, | there are many parts of the 'progressive' movement that is just | nihilistic, and destructive in the long run and it might end up | goin the route of SF. So, this year will be the wait and see | year on how NY will move forward. If it goes the way of SF | (with destructive policies) it might not look good. | | But, NYC-ers are more rational, and both of the leading | candidates for Mayor seem to be more in the centrist, or center | left camp, and the far left / super progressive ones are not | doing well. | spamizbad wrote: | All of the cities you mention have progressive leadership and | that's not likely to change. Most non-progressives have | decamped to the suburbs (or "depressing suburbia" as you call | it) decades ago. | gfodor wrote: | When you have young kids 'depressing suburbia' can be a | feature not a bug. | closeparen wrote: | Until they need to go places during the day and your whole | life becomes dedicated to driving them around. | astrange wrote: | NYC is just about as bad at housing as the Bay Area is, but | the problem hasn't gone on for as many decades so you haven't | noticed yet. NYC population is actually shrinking for this | reason, and there are several silly rules (not by modern | progressives) like high IZ for "affordability" that prevent | all construction, and I think they're about to essentially | ban new hotels. | | Btw, the reason progressives didn't take over before is that | Cuomo was actually conspiring to make his own party the | minority in the legislature, because he thought if he was | forced to ever actually do anything it'd hurt a future | presidential run. | thereare5lights wrote: | > and crime in general | | That's no different in SF | cyberbanjo wrote: | I thought Oakland was worse | neltnerb wrote: | Oakland is a big place. It varies by neighborhood same as | San Francisco. Most is fine, certainly no worse than the | Tenderloin. | astrange wrote: | How does SF have so many neighborhoods when it's so | small, anyway? You can walk across the city and back in a | day. | mandelbrotwurst wrote: | How big does a neighborhood need to be / how many should | it have? | | The neighborhoods in SF as most people think of them are | larger than the areas that many suburb residents tend to | think of as defining their neighborhoods. | astrange wrote: | It's more than suburban areas bleed into each other less | because you can't walk between them - instead there's | some dense areas you drive between. | mandelbrotwurst wrote: | That's not exactly a high bar | neltnerb wrote: | And the vast majority of Oakland is fine. I used an | extreme example to demonstrate that the idea that Oakland | has worse crime issues than SF is highly dependent on | where you happen to be. Oakland is just physically huge, | suggesting it has an issue with "crime in general" is | myopic and ignores that almost all of it is fine, same as | SF. | mandelbrotwurst wrote: | Ah OK, gotcha - I misinterpreted your comment as meaning | things are fine in the Tenderloin. | jackfruitpeel wrote: | I'm living in one of the nicest neighborhoods in Oakland, | and I would definitely not consider it "fine". The area | is beautiful, but we're plagued by gunpoint robberies, | burglaries, dumping, etc -- people coming in and treating | us as a place to loot and leave. | | I love Oakland, but I'm gone as soon as our rent is up. | There's a general lawlessness here that's incredibly | frustrating. | 101001001001 wrote: | My friend lives in the Oakland hills which is one of the | nicest areas in oakland. His car has been stolen three | times in the past five years. They've had an attempted | break in and a contractor they hired had his truck | stolen. Oakland is a hell hole. | godot wrote: | It's somewhat interesting that some numbers are based on the bay | area (drop in bay area tech workers inflow/outflow, what | percentage of bay area workforce will remain remote), while other | numbers based on San Francisco alone (drop in SF residents, SF | GDP, business tax revenue, etc.). | | I know that outside of California, the world views "SF" and "the | bay area" mostly as one and the same. Based on anecdotes I feel | like this doesn't tell the full story, though maybe it does give | you a high level overview (like this site does). | | Among both personal friends and coworkers, ex-coworkers (from a | decade+ of working in the bay area) -- surely there are people | who move out of state (to Denver, Austin, Miami, etc.); but the | more common trend is -- people who used to live in SF are moving | out to the east bay / surrounding areas; and people who were | already in the east bay before move even further away (Sacramento | area, etc.). Another interesting bit -- Sacramento doesn't get | talked about in tech circles and sites like this and related | articles, because it's not supposed to be the "next sexy tech | town", but in reality is a _lot_ of people have moved here since | the pandemic, both tech and not. I moved here before the | pandemic, and witnessed the housing market rise more than the | east bay (where there 's already an influx of SF people moving | to) this past year. | | All I'm saying is there's a lot of nuances in this general | exodus! | eagsalazar2 wrote: | Anecdotal but this isn't my personal experience at all. Almost | everyone I know is moving home to be closer to family like the | midwest, east coast, etc or to awesome lifestyle towns like | Park City, Truckee, Jason Hole, Boise, SLC, Boulder, etc, etc. | Of 20 people I can name off the top of my head who've left SF | area, only a couple migrated from SF to Oakland, etc. | lacker wrote: | I would like to counteranecdote and say that the nice east | bay neighborhood I live in is getting flooded by families | leaving San Francisco right now. | dragonwriter wrote: | > Anecdotal but this isn't my personal experience at all | | Yes, but there have been plenty of nonanecdotal studies, and | the surge in Bay Area (and broader urban coastal California) | outmigration around the pandemic has been overwhelmingly to | inland California, particularly (in the Bay Area case) the | Sacramento region. (California had a preexisting net domestic | outmigration, too, but that's separate from the more recent | "San Francisco tech exodus", which is specifically part of | the pandemic urban outmigration.) | | Unfortunately for my finances (being a Sacramento-area | homeowner that isn't going to sell right now), that'll | reverse when the reasons people valued the coastal urban | centers are restored with full economic reopening. | slownews45 wrote: | This for sure. East bay, north bay all getting SF exodus. Then | my friends in richmond moved even further away but still | extended bay area. The place with the most at risk is SF. Still | huge concentration of wealth, but the non- employment factors | have been hurt. | | Gone very light on crime - super light. At some point folks | just get tired of dealing / seeing consequence free crime right | in front of them. I think families with kids being impacted | there particularly. | SiVal wrote: | _I think families with kids being impacted there | particularly._ | | Yes, one example that is not widely known of what happens | when the Lions of the Left have the power to do what they | really want is public middle school algebra in SF. ("The Lion | of the Left" was the self-given nickname of one of SF's most- | loved talk show hosts back in the 90s.) | | SF grandees noticed that some races tended to take geometry | (the class after algebra I) more than others. The number one | goal of public education, they claimed, was to "close the | achievement gap", so they eliminated geometry from middle | school. If no one took it, no one who didn't take it would be | behind, so no gap. | | But then they noticed that some races still took algebra I | more often than other races. So they eliminated that, too. | [1] No one, no matter how well prepared, would be allowed to | take algebra in any public middle school. The best students | would be required to take the same classes as the worst, for | great justice. Achievement gap closed. | | Except that better students still had four years in high | school to try to catch up to where they would have been if | not held back, and not all races were equally likely to do | this. | | So, for more justice, all public schools in SF were required | to keep their best math students in the same classes with the | worst all the way from K-10. They are now only allowed to be | different individuals the final two years of HS. Anyone who | wants to take calculus in a SF high school now has to | scramble to cram two years (algebra II/trig & pre-calc) into | 11th grade to (poorly) prepare for calculus in 12th--until | that miscarriage of justice can be eliminated, too. | | Those who can afford it go to work at tech companies where | they use various means to silence the "haters" who resist, | while sending their own children to private schools that | don't have these policies. | | Many of those who can't afford it have been moving out of the | city to suburbs that have begun the process (lots of | districts have now eliminated middle school geometry and | advanced placement classes) but are still lagging behind SF | in implementing full justice. (Big Tech is working on it, but | pockets of resistance remain.) | | SF Chronicle, a big proponent of policies like this, | describes it as positively as they can: [1] | https://www.sfchronicle.com/education/article/SF-schools- | mov... | BurritoAlPastor wrote: | What crime? I've got complaints about living in SF, but it's | basically crime-free from my experiences. | nitrogen wrote: | Not the OP, but while I was living in SF I saw drugs sold | on the street, needles left on the ground in public parks, | people stealing registration stickers off license plates, | smashed car windows, people blocking sidewalks and | harassing pedestrians, ridiculously unsafe driving (e.g. | running reds including cops, ppl cutting across three lanes | to make a left from the right lane, etc), guests who | visited me were flashed by randos, a dude was jerking into | a newspaper box by the BART, neighbors would smoke inside | nonsmoking apartments with shared ventilation, etc. | | I'd move back again for work if I have to, but it would | take a lot of $$$$ to convince me. | olyjohn wrote: | Sounds like parts of just about every big city. | mc10 wrote: | Many of these are absent in New York, including very | visible homeless encampments, so no, these are not in | "just about every big city"; many of these are specific | to West Coast cities due to a failure in public policy. | dcolkitt wrote: | I think it's really easy how normalized a person can get to | petty crime. Like a frog in boiling water. You'll talk to | people in SF who totally brush off smash-and-grabs. They'll | say something like "stupid me, shouldn't have left my | AirPods visible in the center console." You don't even | realize that it's not normal to have to worry about stuff | like that. | mercutio2 wrote: | It is normal to worry about smash and grabs in every US | urban area I've ever lived in or visited. | [deleted] | duderific wrote: | Anecdotally, my sister moved to SF from the east coast a | couple of years ago. After her patio was burgled a few times, | she didn't feel safe so she and her husband moved to Santa | Rosa, about 90 minutes north. She's happy as a clam there. | gopalv wrote: | > Sacramento doesn't get talked about in tech circles and sites | like this and related articles, because it's not supposed to be | the "next sexy tech town", but in reality is a lot of people | have moved here since the pandemic, both tech and not. | | Sacramento also has a train line that takes you to Santa Clara, | which is better than driving - this has made it a better choice | for a few of the folks to consider that over Dublin or | Pleasanton in the most recent migration (Amtrak is close to a | lot of hardware-lab specific jobs like Nvidia, Lockheed, | Marvell, GlobalFoundries and Arista), though that connectivity | might shift if BART finally loops around to SJC. | | Also Sacramento has good schools, decent federal funding pull | (over say Tracy) and an airport with a few direct flights from | Seattle or NYC. | | The only downside pretty much is the weather in comparison and | that too not by much. | Judgmentality wrote: | > The only downside pretty much is the weather in comparison | and that too not by much. | | Sports, bars, culture, muni metro, proximity to the ocean, | proximity to nature (I can be alone in natural parks with | less than 30 minutes of driving from my house in SF), jobs, | dating, restaurants, I could go on. | | I'm not even someone that plans on staying in SF (I actually | don't like it that much), but there are lots of downsides if | I left for Sacramento. I realize there are upsides as well, | but I think it's disingenuous to say 'Sacramento is as good | or better than San Francisco except for the weather' | vincentmarle wrote: | Endless homeless people and camps, needles on the streets, | feces on the streets, yelling drunks, crime and burglaries. | | Yeah, SF definitely has a "lot" going for it. Glad I left. | dotBen wrote: | Keep in mind SF.citi is a policy advocate/lobbying group for | San Francisco legislation rather than the Bay Area more | generally. | | But they blend in wider Bay Area population stats because this | is really about jobs that generate SF payroll tax which gives | these employers a tacit say and leverage. Remember if you live | in Oakland or Redwood City but are employed in San Francisco | city/county, some of your payroll tax is being generated to | benefit the city of San Francisco even if you are not a | resident there. | | That's why SF City is worried about SF based businesses and SF | Bay Area workers. | | _(BTW this is also why cities such as Mountain View and | Cupertino want to attract large business campuses like Google | and Apple but don 't want to build homes - they get more income | from growing payroll tax but don't then have to spend more on | schools, services etc for a growing population - they shift the | burden onto other cities and counties that house those workers | as they then have to generate tax revenue from other means)_ | dragonwriter wrote: | > But they blend in wider Bay Area population stats because | this is really about jobs that generate SF payroll tax which | gives these employers a tacit say and leverage. | | SF doesn't have local payroll tax, it has a local _income | tax_ that applies both to residents and to nonresidents on | income earned in SF. | | EDIT: Actually, this is wrong, too; despite a lot of sources | indicating it. Sab Francisco _had_ a 1.5% payroll expense | tax, but voted to phase it out in 2012, and then (while it | had declined to a much lower but nonzero number), voted to | eliminated it last year, both times in favor of a gross | receipts tax on business | lemoncucumber wrote: | > SF doesn't have local payroll tax, it has a local income | tax that applies both to residents and to nonresidents on | income earned in SF. | | This is false. There are some low-quality websites that | have incorrect information about a nonexistent 1.50% SF | income tax, if that's where you're getting your | information. | | San Francisco used to have a payroll tax up until last | year, when Prop F replaced it with a gross receipts tax. | [1] | | [1] https://sftreasurer.org/prop-f-overhaul | bumby wrote: | Do you happen to know the reason for favoring a gross | receipts tax over the previous payroll tax? Just curious | as someone who previously lived in an area with a Griggs | receipt tax, it seems it was universally despised. | [deleted] | burlesona wrote: | This matches my experience as well. Sacramento is underrated | IMO. It's a nice city, and being under 3 hours to both SF and | Lake Tahoe is great. | nr2x wrote: | I'm relocating to Bay Area right now, would love to live in SF, | but the schools are grossly mismanaged so I'm going to MV | instead. I doubt I'm the only person. | davidw wrote: | > but the more common trend is -- people who used to live in SF | are moving out to the east bay / surrounding areas | | Emily Badger had an article in the NYT recently showing exactly | this. People are moving from the core to the "suburbs". | notsureaboutpg wrote: | I have heard a lot of people say online that most people are | suburbizing but not leaving the bay, but this does not match my | experience. | | Many, many people only moved to the bay in the first place | because of job availability and not for the reasons others | describe (e.g. the weather, the people, the policies, the | cosmopolitanism). And many of us left behind our families and | friends to do so. Of this group of people, many many have | returned, almost my entire group of friends from college. I | myself moved closer to my parents and embraced fully remote | work. | | The bay area is lionized, especially on sites like this, but | many tech workers dislike it for various reasons and are happy | to get the ticket to jump ship. | sQL_inject wrote: | I'd posit a unpopular viewpoint: that the attachment to the | 'Bohemian' culture is more or less an unhelpful, unprogressive | fixation with the past, shamelessly fueled by hypocritical NIMBYs | in the city with obvious incentives regarding home value. Can | anyone explain why the old SF culture is any more relevant than | Byzantine culture? | | As an Artist and an Engineer who used to live in SF and moved | south recently, I'd argue most of the folks I interacted with in | this oft-cried-over demographic were more aptly described as | aspiring artists, and that their net contributions to the | 'culture' were mimetic and surface-level at best. If you take | away the weed, bob marley shirts, and hemp shopping bags, what | exactly can we say they did? | | None of this is to say the 'nerds' were contributing much to the | culture themselves, but I don't think there's much of an argument | against them other than that they're boring, rich, and talked | about Apps. These same people brought in quickly consumed tax | revenue which the city has gorged into in its gluttonous waste. | | The root of the problem is the mistrust of the 'Other,' the | 'Outsider' as new folks (often Nerds) immigrate to the city, | which IS a net benefit to the blending of cultures and ideas. The | fixation of preserving the crumbling vestige of the past is what | prevents the service level workers from ever regaining a | foothold, and the scapegoat is the Nerds, when it should be the | landlords and Old Guard. | nscalf wrote: | In my opinion, SF has peaked. I personally moved to SF during the | pandemic, and am planning to move out when my lease is up. The | amount of disarray in the city is wild. Crime seems to be | entirely ignored, the homeless problem has exploded and there is | a widespread hate if you call it for what it is: a public health | and humanitarian crisis. And the most important thing that SF had | to make it a tech hub has been broken and moved online: the | network effect. | | I moved here because I felt like I didn't have a choice if I | wanted to build or be part of successful startups, now I feel | like living here is hindering that process. You can live anywhere | and get cheaper talent across the country, pay less taxes, and | have almost the same upsides. | 762236 wrote: | You have to live someplace with a moonlighting law to have the | same upsides. Otherwise, prepare to sign a work contract where | the employer owns every thought in your head, and every piece | of code that you write on you own time (like when trying to | make a startup on the side). | ghaff wrote: | Or just don't work for a company that has such requirements | in their contracts. Just because something is allowed doesn't | mean most/many/all companies do. | mbgerring wrote: | Important context for reading this is that sf.citi is Ron | Conway's organization through which he acts as a political power | broker and secures political favors for the tech industry. It is | in his interest to create the impression that the tech industry | in SF is experiencing some kind of crisis in order to extract | money, tax breaks or other favorable treatment from the Board of | Supervisors. | sharadov wrote: | I think this so called "exodus" is temporary. Young people will | come back to SF, it's the only city in the larger Bay Area which | has culture and vibrancy. San Jose downtown area has plenty of | potential, and it was seeing a renaissance pre-covid - google | buying a lot of land and looking to expand is a good sign. I miss | the SF of the early 2000s, where there was a bohemian quirkiness. | Unless prices come crashing down it's highly likely any artist | could sustain himself. | kilbuz wrote: | Everyone misses the SF of their youth. As will current | residents. | htormey wrote: | Oakland night life isn't that bad :) | nkellenicki wrote: | I moved from SF to Oakland last year during the pandemic, and | honestly, Oakland is just as great as SF for restaurants, | bars, and nightlife... as long as you have a car or method of | transportation. | Apocryphon wrote: | What neighborhoods? Downtown is pretty quiet. | mtc010170 wrote: | I know very little about the Bay area, so I'm not saying | you're wrong. But I don't understand how that evaluation | could be accurately made during the pandemic. | Ericson2314 wrote: | That is quite a caveat. Public transportation is a must to | have a cultural scene that is both vibrant and not | homogeneously upper class at scale. | rpearl wrote: | The article they cite | (https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/People-are-leavi...) | for claiming 10% of SF left is kind of misleading; 8 of the top | 15 places they went to are _also_ in the bay area, and all but | one was in California. | | "SF residents move to Oakland and Berkeley" isn't a very exciting | headline though ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-05-19 23:00 UTC)