SF could be in for a big 'doom loop' (layoffs, schools)

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by 509

Nope, not uneducated about the Soviets and Hitler. They killed off almost ALL the people (but 2) on both SIDES of my family tree.

Yes, I lived in Berkeley for almost a DECADE.

Yes, San Francisco's politics are JUST LIKE Hitler's and the Soviets. The difference is that San Francisco is Russia in 1916 and 1917. Maybe 1921 without the war.

Humans are great at making excuses and accepting things as "normal". That is why the Soviets managed to kill 100 million people and Hitler convinced Germans that killing Jews was "normal" and a good idea.

That is also why the city of San Francisco flooded the twin to Yosemite Valley and now claims it is "normal". The twin to the most unique glacial valley in the world, lies flooded by the city of San Francisco in a NATIONAL PARK.

And the city of San Francisco does NOT want to make it right.

Presidents Reagan and Bush both offered water and electricity to make up for restoring Hetch Hetchy.

The city of San Francisco said NO. They would rather nature's version of the Sistein Chapel remain flooded.

509, you have many great observations / posts in this forum in the past. But these ^^ here stun me … in an opposite manner.

Wow?

Really?

Just no.

[AnythingOutdoors]

AI to the rescue? Growing tech segment gives hope for SF’s downtown

Will AI ride to downtown's rescue? I guess we'll find out.

[bostonguy1960]

Originally Posted by bostonguy1960

Hmmm...my 27-yesr old nephew living in Boston had a biz trip to San Jose last week, then decided to visit San Francisco for the first time before returning home.

He spent three hours going around town...not sure if mainly walking or a combo or walking and the rental car. He sent me photos from the typical spots.

His assessment? "An awesome city. Only a few areas with the homelessness. A unique city."

So yes. There is hope for your city. So glad you hear he was impressed even with the current conditions I read about.

He loves Vancouver, so to hear about his praise for San Francisco is indeed special.

Oh, I'll add that last fall, minutes after seeing that NYT front-page story about San Francisco's now sad downtown at a supermarket in Boston, I strolled to the Fenway green line station. I chatted briefly there with a 30-year-old female white professional who mentioned she's back visiting Boston after having moved to San Francisco a year or two ago.

I mentioned that article about the sadness of San Francisco, at least according to that story. She seemed to disagree, perhaps not even missing Boston and New England (not sure if she has solid roots in that region). She said she indeed enjoys living in San Francisco nowadays, at least as of the fall, (I assume she meant downtown or near), claiming her major issue is car break ins, at least in her area, and not so much the other oft-mentioned issues.

So again, maybe it's not as bleak in some or most of your city as some or most of the national media and some or most of the posters here suggest?

Hmm...

[vunderbar]

Originally Posted by bostonguy1960

So again, maybe it's not as bleak in some or most of your city as some or most of the national media and some or most of the posters here suggest?

Hmm...

NOTHING delights the right wing more than belittling California in general, and San Francisco in particular.

[mattja]

Originally Posted by blameyourself

Oh gee an op-ed from that famous media site "the San Francisco Standard". Sounds real credible. How long did you have to search for that one (as I'm sure this is daily reading for you). Hyperbole is fun. No agenda here

The San Francisco Standard

In the first quarter of the year, office vacancies were the highest ever recorded, according to real estate broker CBRE. The firm estimated a 29.5% vacancy rate last quarter, substantially higher than rates seen during the dot-com bust and Great Recession and a seven-fold increase from the start of 2020.

https://sfstandard.com/business/down...reaking-point/

NBC

"The vacancy rate in San Francisco is about 30% or about 35 million square feet that is not currently being used," said Colin Yasukochi with commercial real estate firm CBRE. "And that's the highest that we've ever seen in San Francisco."

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/loca...cancy/3204043/

While you attack the messenger, NBC is using the same source as SF Standard.

Also, the SF Standard article quotes more sources than the NBC article.

ETA: And SF Gate too
https://www.sfgate.com/realestate/ar...h-17889017.php

[blameyourself]

Originally Posted by mattja

The San Francisco Standard


NBC


While you attack the messenger, NBC is using te same source as SF Standard.

Also, the SF Standard article quotes more sources than the NBC article.

ETA: And SF Gate too
https://www.sfgate.com/realestate/ar...h-17889017.php

Uh huh. Hyperbole is not limited to just them but as stated (since you ignored the rest of the comment), they've misrepresented information and clearly have a bias based on the owner (as do you as noted in post #39 regarding your absurd comment). Your bias is plain to see based on your posts so not too concerned about anything you say. Let me know if you have anything else I need to explain to you.

[mattja]

Originally Posted by AnythingOutdoors

Salesforce to exit 30-story namesake tower in Downtown SF

To be clear, this is Salesforce East, not the big Salesforce Tower. Salesforce East is at 350 Mission and Salesforce is pulling out of that building entirely.

But they are subleasing even more floors of Salesforce Tower, which is at 415 Mission. At this point, they are down to leasing about 50% of the tower.

At some point, it won't be called Salesforce Tower anymore.

[mattja]

Originally Posted by vunderbar

Funny. Areas that have/had no unions are also usually poorer. Funny how treating workers well trickles down to the community, and union busting trickles up to management, exclusively.

The shipping business moved across the bay to Oakland. They still have the union, but not the radicalized version San Francisco had.

[mattja]

Originally Posted by vunderbar

This is an absurd statement. I know three young people who moved to San Francisco last August. They are amazed by the city's beauty, excitement, and endless cultural attractions. One of them said she's never had the wealth of choices when it comes to evening/weekend adventures - and she's lived in three major American cities, including NYC. The sheer amount of stuff you can do on weekends away from the city is staggering. From the wine country to Yosemite, from the wild and still empty coastal areas, to Tahoe, these young people say it will take them YEARS to explore it all.

Those three people are still noobs. They are new to the area. It's human nature to feel that way.

And I'm not saying it's all bad in SF. Rents are coming down, which is great, but so many small businesses have left it's staggering.

As far as the outlying areas, they're the best part of the Bay Area. You don't need to live in SF to experience the Bay Area and Northern California as a whole.

I've lived here 42 years and rarely go to SF anymore. If I go, it's to Crissy Field and the Marina area and then up to the Marin Headlands (love that area.)

So -- no. Plenty of things do see and do in and around San Francisco. Even during the winter from hell.

There are, but the typical SF renter may not own a car, so that can be difficult for them.

Also, the only winter from hell is late summer near Daly City.

As for your comment to the overreaction to Covid. Bless your lucky heart. How cushy for you that you didn't lose a loved one to Covid.

Clearly it was an overreaction, because even the most liberal cities realize it was a mistake to shut everything down and we still haven't finished paying the price for that.

[mattja]

Originally Posted by blameyourself

Uh huh. Hyperbole is not limited to just them but as stated (since you ignored the rest of the comment), they've misrepresented information and clearly have a bias based on the owner (as do you as noted in post #39 regarding your absurd comment). Your bias is plain to see based on your posts so not too concerned about anything you say. Let me know if you have anything else I need to explain to you.

The only thing you're explained is your own bias which is so strong you ignore that both NBC and the SF Standard used the same source. You sought to attack the messenger and when I showed you they use the same source, you doubled down on your feeble attempt once again.

I don't know anything about the SF Standard's owners and I don't care. But you seem to be obsessed with them and their owners.