Skip to comments.Families' exodus leaves S.F. with lowest pct. of children in U.S.
Posted on 03/09/2012 7:37:04 AM PST by SmithL
Last year, a family of three earning $111,000 a year could afford just 23 percent of homes for sale in San Francisco - mostly in southern neighborhoods, including Bayview-Hunters Point.
The median price of a house in the city in 2010 was $668,000. Just 2 percent of new housing units built in the city since 2001 are single-family, detached homes.
These were just a few of the scores of statistics presented at a special Board of Supervisors hearing Thursday to help explain why San Francisco is bleeding families with children - losing 5,278 people younger than 18 between 2000 and 2010, according to census figures.
There are actually about 3,000 more children younger than 5 in the city than there were in 2000, but about 8,000 fewer school-age youths.
The flight of families with children - particularly middle-income and African American families - is leaving San Francisco older, whiter and richer. That has concerned city officials and family advocates who say families with children are essential to a diverse, thriving city.
"This has been a personal issue for me for quite some time," said Supervisor Mark Farrell, who called the hearing and said his two young children are losing lots of their friends to the suburbs - and that his own adult friends are increasingly moving.
"Keeping families in San Francisco is important for a diverse city," he said. "Having children in our parks and our schools and strollers on our sidewalks is important to the vibrancy of our neighborhoods."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
About the families that are leaving...
well, they’re just “intolerant” and “racist” and “sexist” and “homophobic” and....
Well, you get the idea.
Unfortunately, satire has become the new reality.
There's only one solution.........
Stroller obstacle course avoiding the homeless and their pets, used syringes and condoms.
Queers don’t breed.
SF passed an ordinance requiring nudists to “cover up” upon entering a restaurant. What, are we living in the Dark Ages?
That bottom (pun intended) photo was the one I was thinking of...
I sure would like to be a fly on the wall listening to these imbaciles ponder the mystery of why SF is not an attractive place to start or raise a family.
I lived there for 3.5 years. We relocated to TX because it was time to start a family.
Oh, Im sure those San Fransicko homos are very upset about families with children fleeing the city.”
Yes, they are upset because sodomite pedophiles will have to travel outside the city to find victims.
Oh, what the hell am I saying.. it's San Francisco! Traditional families are so 1960s!
I will not even visit, much less live or raise children.
‘The flight of families with children - particularly middle-income and African American families - is leaving San Francisco older, whiter, richer and gayer.’
BINGO! I thought they would be happy with a “thriving city” of fags?
Seriously, if San Francisco wanted children to live there they would tell their bohemian residents to keep their clothes on in public places. No decent parent wants to subject their children to the ruling trashiness there.
A business contact in San Fran once told me “when we hire people, we tell recruiting firms to not even bother with candidates who are married with children, or planning to have children. They will take one look at the cost of housing here, realize that no matter how hard they work they will never, ever be able to afford a house, and then they’ll turn down the offer.”
Sounded like they had been through that drill many times before.
It's way too gay, Jay.
Bums crap on the street, Pete.
Taxes are high, Kwai.
It's no place to raise a boy, Roy
Street fairs are rude, Jude
Walkin' the streets is a real thrill, Phil
Here we are talking about families with children leaving San Francisco, and that can't be addressed on it's own merits. No diversity actually trumps when the problem is addressed. '...essential to a diverse thriving city.' This should read, '...essential to a thriving city.'
The big sins here are, older, more wealthy, and a more White city. You've got evidence of prejudice against the elderly, the wealthy, and Whites.
Leave out the wealthy and White portion of this, and it is reasoned to address the elderly because you need replacement people in any society. Add those in, and ageism becomes something of a problem too.
God forbid a subject of importance be raised without racism and prejudice rearing it's ugly head.
I would not advocate for a Whites only town, but if that is the eventuality, it's not a crime against nature. It would have happened because Black families made choices that were theirs to make. There could just as easily crop up a town that was all Black. Big whoop. Who cares.
Families with kids are leaving San Francisco. Who could have seen that coming? LOL, they made their own bed, now let them sleep in it with whoever they want, and shut up.
Let me guess what's next here. They'll start subsidizing Blacks with children who will move back into town. I'll bet this was the main goal all along, to justify the unjustifiable.