Hacker News Reader

Comment by pizzetta | Hacker News Reader

Living with roommates and living in small quarters as well as spending half of your money on housing is okay when you are single and having fun exploring your self and your potential and direction --but once people have children equations change and living in the city becomes less possible --mostly because of the lack of "family-centric" housing stock --whether detached units or multi-bedroom condos and apartment units along with city amenities for kids as well as good school systems. In SF, for example, bad school districts is a very big reason for people to leave for better districts --some parents of means will remain but put their kids in private schools, obviously that does not scale.

View on HN

When you say bad school districts in SF, you mean the one district, right? SF school assignment is a (failed social experiment) lottery system where your kids can be assigned anywhere in the city, regardless of the fact that you live a block from a school.

Most parents leave SF because they don't want their kids being part of a failed social experiment. The SF USD has been playing social scientist since the 1970s with disastrous results.

Want to make it better? Kick the DINKs off the school board and make having an enrolled child a requirement for being on the board.

Yes, the lottery system which can land your kid who lives one block away from their preferred school but gets assigned to a school on the other side of town and 45 mins away in traffic is one big red flashing migraine for many parents.

Yet another good reason to not bother having kids.

Honestly, if I found a partner who wanted kids, I'd be looking really hard at finding a job in another country because this country (US) is a terrible place to raise a kid.

California is notorious for having poorly run schools. For good schools look in Massachusetts. If you look at the BOS metro area they tend towards the top of the school systems nation-wide. It's hard to find poorly run schools in the BOS metro area --occasionally you get a few complaints from people unhappy with blue-collar[1] pupils getting pushed into regional schools in good districts.

[1] mostly white but from non-professional families.

That may be, but in many states (probably any place urban or suburban), you still have to worry about getting arrested if you let your kid walk to school or play outside by himself.

Don't live in SF, but I fail to see how that's inherently bad. It is inconvenient, for sure. But if the school a block from you was terrible and the school your child was randomly assigned to was amazing there would be no problems, right? Doesn't this system simply incentivize all schools to become good?

I do bet, though, that this experiment stemmed from people taking over the areas where the good schools were. You'd just be switching problems, though, by allowing people to go to schools they're geographically adjacent to. See school district boundaries.

When the school is on the other side of town the parents get involved in the students life and education less. They drop them off and pick them up and that's about as far as the interaction goes --they don't go to school functions, PTA activities, or other activities. There is more involvement from parents of kids who live close to the schools and they demand more from the system.

Sure. I don't disagree with any of that.

I still think you'd just be trading one problem for another. In the case that you have to live close then you would have to be wealthy enough to live close to a school that has activities and after school functions, etc, worth going to. The only people who'd be OK with that are obviously the people who either (a) already live close, or (b) can easily afford to move close to the better schools (of course the rich can always just send their kids to private schools, as well).

Poor people would prefer randomness since they're unlikely to get a top tier education for their kids anyway. Randomness gives them a chance. People wealthy enough to care but not wealthy enough to send their kids to private schools, on the other hand obviously won't like this: they'd prefer to guarantee their kids educational security via money.

Poor people also prefer schools nearby, or some place you don’t need 90 minutes and 2 bus transfers to go to school.

What has been improving San Francisco schools (e.g. Balboa High School) was Asians taking over. Which is not a preferable mechanism, in many ways.

What would make San Francisco schools even better is to be able to afford to hire more teachers. The naive approach is to pump more money into the district, and we really should reform Proposition 13 of 1978, but a more practical approach would be to legalize housing construction, so teachers wouldn’t have to compete so much for non-luxury housing with firemen and nurses and service workers and homeless crackheads.

That's a pretty broad and charged statement (re: "Asians"). Mind citing some sources or at least walking us through the logic?

Not directly answering your question, but Lowell HS[1] is the only high performing public HS in SF. Its admission is performance-based and is mostly Asian (56+%).

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowell_High_School_(San_Franci...

"More teachers" is a naive solution too. It's what teachers' unions are always pushing for, but it's not well correlated with improved outcomes.

One thing that does work: segregating students by ability.

>would be to legalize housing construction, so teachers wouldn’t have to compete so much for non-luxury housing with firemen and nurses and service workers and homeless crackheads.

Serious question here: Why do teachers, firemen, and nurses need non-luxury housing? Why do they need housing at all in fact? If they can't afford to live in SanFran, wouldn't it make more sense for them to just stay out, and go live somewhere else?

For getting people to do those jobs, then places in SF would then need to pay them a princely sum to endure a long commute from other nearby cities. Or if that's too much, SF can simply go without firemen, teachers, and nurses and many other service workers. Surely that would quickly fix the housing problem in SF.

You end up with universally bad schools instead of good and bad schools. Most parents would see that as a bad thing and the very rich pull their kids out and send them to private schools (which cost $30k+/year). So now you're left with bad schools and the rich have exercised their escape option. The result is a high school population where 80% of students live in public housing. I'm not a classist, but that's not the diversity most parents look for.

To balance it out, you would need some sort of region wide tax on private school attendance. If you want to opt out, you gotta pay. That would never happen so...back to the drawing board.

Why exactly would you end up with universally bad schools?

Lack of parent investment and activity in school functions because the school is 40 minutes across town (in a city that is hostile to car use). Oh and if you have multiple kids, they can be sent to different schools.

If the parents are upset, they won't be involved and you get bad schools.

Also the (working) parents are tired and drained after work -all they want to do is pick the kids up and take them back home. They have little energy for any Parent-teacher meetings, functions, fund-raisers, etc.

Crosstown assignments are detrimental to parental involvement in education.

Interesting. I thought the assignments were random, though? Assuming a normal distribution most parents shouldn't have a 40 minute across town commute.

In San Francisco, depending on the time of day and the parking conditions, any trip can become a 40 minute slog.

The distribution is probably uniform, not normal. The point of such programs is generally to homogenize access, not simply blur lines.

I don't understand why this would be the case either. Even if all the rich people send their kids to private school, there is still a middle class population who will not be able to spend $30k a year to send their kids to private school. Plus, not all kids will get selected to go to school across the city from where they live. Some portion will randomly be selected to go to school nearby, so their parents can attend events. I am not saying the random selective policy is good or bad, I just think universally bad schools has to be the product of something else. Perhaps just general bad management of the school by the superintendent?

In my opinion, "involved" parents means educated, empowered parents. We are in a sense the guardians of the school system, and when we vanish, the schools go downhill.

It's not just helping out in the classroom and joining committees. Educated parents know what good education looks like (or at least, we have an opinion in the matter). We know when to demand better. We know when we need to thwart a pedagogical fad. My hometown school eventually adopted algebra in 8th grade, and calculus in high school, because a few parents hounded the school board. Simply by being around, we see what's going on. To be fair, we also support school programs when they work. And we also know how to demand resources, for instance by supporting funding referenda at the local level.

The problem with schools in the US could be expressed by saying that somebody has to stand in as the guardian of the schools, but we don't know who or how.

IMHO, it's because bad students are like bad apples: they spoil the entire barrel. Randomly mixing your students ensures that every school has a fine selection of each of the types of bad students, with the expected result that every good student's education is negatively impacted.

Selective schools, OTOH, can attempt to select against bad & disruptive students.

> To balance it out, you would need some sort of region wide tax on private school attendance. If you want to opt out, you gotta pay. That would never happen so...back to the drawing board.

I don't understand this. That tax already exists; everyone [0] pays for public schools regardless of whether they have children in the system. If you send your children to private school, you are paying for both public and private school. If you don't have children at all, you are still paying for public school.

[0] Of course, "everyone" likely means "every property owner", as school taxes are usually property taxes.

Indeed, but if you send your kids to private school (or your social peer group does), then you have a counter incentive against supporting the public schools with your tax money and your political empowerment.

This happens with daycare (which is mostly private) and higher education (with private universities having a massive presence), and the society has yet to collapse.

The idea that it's perfectly fine to go to a a private institution years 0-6 and years 18-22+, but the 6-18 range is categorically and unequivocally better served by public institutions has not really been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

I don't think that I made any such claims. But to note a difference between those age groups, 6-18 is the only one for which we've declared a right to access for everybody at the present time. (At the very least, it's in the constitution of some states). The only way I can think of to ensure available capacity is to provide a public option. So I'm interested in how the public schools are managed.

I agree access is important, and it's interesting to see public school unions fight against charter, magnet and private schools in order to restrict that access.

With that said, notice how the distribution of private schools per capita drops significantly in highly-rated public school districts. There's simply no demand for them.

The private-vs-public battle only plays out in low-rated school districts, with one party holding the distinct advantage of being un-fireable.

I'm not sure how this is related to my comment. With that said, I suspect that religion dwarfs any other factor driving the demand for private schools.

In my state, the union definitely does not oppose private schools, and the magnet high school in my district is a union shop. The union opposes the state's growing voucher school program, but proponents of vouchers talk in "access" terms while promoting a barely concealed sectarian agenda. So once again, religion is a driving factor. Meanwhile, the union has been barred from collective bargaining on "working conditions" that include things like tenure. So, the ways that public school teachers can be fired, is at the mercy of the state legislature right now.

So far the voucher schools have under-performed public schools in the same districts, despite being given advantages such as more latitude in hiring and firing, and the ability to reject handicapped kids.

Which is why we need to fight the concept of "school vouchers" - the idea that if you don't go to public school you should get your share of the public school cash to help pay for private school.

It seems like a great way to guarantee corruption in the public schools if they are still paid for services not rendered.

Why fight it? It seems only fair that poor people get the same option to choose good schools for their children that rich people get. I honestly don't see what possible argument there is against it.

There are plenty of good public schools. If everyone deserves a good school, then we need to make all schools good, not drain everyone away from one system and into another.

It wouldn't be draining money, since public schools would get money per-student just like private schools do (conversely, why does the local public school get to count private-school students in its catchment area?). And you're assuming that it's possible to make all public schools good, which from what I can tell is roughly impossible to do given American political realities.

The idea is that public schools should be made good, the government should not be reducing the use of public schools. A good public schooling system is incredibly important for a functioning democracy, because a functioning democracy relies on a well educated citizenry.

> A good public schooling system is incredibly important for a functioning democracy, because a functioning democracy relies on a well educated citizenry.

A good schooling system is necessary, but must it be public?

It's important that it be affordable to everyone, regardless of wealth. If it's private with public funding and a profit motive, that messes things up pretty hard - see what's been happening with college tuitions and unlimited lines of public credit.

> It's important that it be affordable to everyone, regardless of wealth.

That's the whole point of giving each child's parents that child's share of public-education funds.

> If it's private with public funding and a profit motive, that messes things up pretty hard - see what's been happening with college tuitions and unlimited lines of public credit.

Teachers' and administrators' salaries are private profits from public funding, too.

You are, of course, correct that private schools would see the voucher amount as a price floor.

I think that there are bigger issues with collegiate funding, which have to do that people borrow from their futures (backed by public funds) in order to pay for near-term benefits for themselves. I'd have lived much more frugally in college had I internalised that I'd be paying those funds back.

Vouchers could also be said to be a mechanism for letting lower class families receive the same private school education that the rich can already buy.

They won't cover it. For example California pays about 10k per student per year on public education. Private schools in California cost 20 to 30k per student per year.

Funnily enough this is already done in Sweden, since a long time ago. A social-democrat country, would you believe it! It is also the same for health care and elderly homes. It is going to be one of the biggest election questions next year because the social-democrat will try to go for a "profit cap" on private companies in these sectors, because they are founded with tax money.

P.S I actually think we are unique in the world with supplying private companies with tax-money for health and school.

Money isn't the problem (sans disastrous allocation policies like No Child Left Behind). There are dozens of compounding network effects that can make or break a school district and having students with wealthy families is an important one that benefits all students. Wealthy families have more money and time to get involved with the teachers, district governance, PTAs, fund raisers, and extracurricular activities that benefit all students, rich or poor. A large number (maybe even majority) of Catholic private schools, for example, make less per student than public schools but they're often leaps and bounds better than most public schools.

When my public high school in a wealthy LA suburb faced steep budget cuts in the million of dollars during 2009-10, the booster club diverted more than half of the $5 million dollars that they had just raised from donors (families and alumni) for a new fake grass football and baseball field. This saved dozens of teachers, extracurriculars, and even some AP/IB programs. When the music program was cut district wide, dozens of stay at home and working parents got together and saved it by writing grants and running fundraisers (which they have to do every year now). Despite being low-middle class and having single parents who worked all the time, many of my classmates and I were able to participate in anything we wanted to because we could get second hand sports equipment and donations to cover expenses from team members' families. We always had a classmate who had a car or a parent with free time to drive us around, take us to college visits, and help us with science fair projects or model rocketry competitions. Even a few wealthy students can drastically change the support and infrastructure poorer students have access to and it makes a big differences (it certainly did for me).

And property taxes are hugely distorted by Prop 13 in California.

How come? The tax base rate resets at the time of the transaction, and California real estate market is very robust with both new construction and resales. Many California markets have not (or have barely) recovered to pre-2008 levels, if you look at San Bernardino, Modesto or Fresno counties, also anywhere east of Sacramento and parts of Central California where property value is derived from agricultural land value, which did not do well under drought.

The only people who are freeloading under Prop 13 are those who owned their property for 20+ years, and they are freeloading in a very special way where they have been paying those property taxes for 20+ years to build those neighborhoods into desirable areas.

Yes, residential real estate mostly keeps up, but commercial real estate almost never gets reset due to minority ownership schemes:

https://www.thenation.com/article/have-california-voters-fin...

The answer is not as clear-cut as the article makes it to be, as commercial real estate is divided into roughly three groups - residential, commercial proper (e.g. shopping centers, office buildings, entertainment parks, hospitals) and industrial.

The residential owners probably would have no problem with losing Prop 13 protections, as any increases can be passed on to the willing renters. They are likely to lobby for small things, such as delaying assessments by a few months in order to raise rents and process vacancies properly. (Current California law stipulates 30- and 60-day notices for rent increases, so the timing on property tax increases and rent increases needs to be synchronized in some manner).

Things get trickier with commercial and industrial tenants. The big guys know of their power to change the attractiveness and commercial viability of entire plazas and neighborhoods. Therefore if you come out to Costco or Whole Foods or Simon Malls or Wal-Mart and ask them to build out presence in a major way, they would not want to be victims of their own success. From their point of view the value of the area increased only due to a significant long-term investment from their wallet, and they should not be penalized for it.

If the municipality doesn't like it, they're welcome to either build out the facilities themselves or just attempt to raise property taxes on the gas station, laundromat and a liquor store that are the current active tenants of the blighted area.

>just attempt to raise property taxes on the gas station, laundromat and a liquor store that are the current active tenants of the blighted area.

Prop 13 prohibits this.

Yep, I was driving at that. Cities have very little leverage in dealing with commercial operators (I suppose the bigger the city is and the smaller the vendor is, the greater the leverage), therefore no city councilman spends their time fretting over potential revenue losses from commercial property taxes.

It's far easier and time-efficient for the city to chase sales tax revenue (by attracting large retailers), residential property tax revenues (by building denser housing) and revenue from various licensing and permitting activites.

I agree with your point there, particularly that cities will look for regressive sales tax rather than property tax.

But the effective elimination of property tax on commercial real estate vs. residential real estate also has the problem of hugely distorting the market. When I was looking for office space for my startup around ~2010, there was enough empty commercial space to for every resident to have 200 sq. ft.!

Meanwhile, residential housing stock is so low that the rental market is largely driven by personal acquaintances. I remember calling numbers for 30 ads, and only getting a response from one, because they were like "hey I know that guy!"

This is also a zoning issue. But commercial real estate acts like an investment, and if empty commercial real estate is profitable to hold on to because rents are low and taxes are low, it makes it impossible for a market to properly switch between the two, even when all that commercial real estate can be zoned as acceptable for residential use.

In any case, I see no reason why commercial real estate should be taxed less than residential real estate, unless it would be desirable to distort the market in that way. (And depending on other forces it definitely could be. I just know that Prop 13 is a really bad deal for my county's economy, and don't know why the State should have the power to override the county or city on this.)

i agree with you, and it should be pointed out that prop 13 essentially prevents the state from literally kicking out everyone who can't afford to pay taxes on a home that's now valued at 5-10x what they bought it for, i.e. pretty much everyone that was here before the year 2000.

Except that the exemption can be inherited by descendants indefinitely, creating an ever-increasing windfall for (what amounts to) a tax-privileged bloodline.

When Prop 13 reached the Supreme Court, one justice noted the feudal character:

"These disparities are aggravated by § 2 of Proposition 13, which exempts from reappraisal a property owner's home and up to $1 million of other real property when that property is transferred to a child of the owner. This exemption can be invoked repeatedly and indefinitely, allowing the Proposition 13 windfall to be passed from generation to generation. ...

"Such a law establishes a privilege of a medieval character: Two families with equal needs and equal resources are treated differently solely because of their different heritage."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-1912.ZD.html

Thanks, that was a good read. This sounds like the Prop 58 exemption https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_58,_Real_Esta...

I am too young to remember the pro- and con- arguments concerning this proposition, but it's a little surprise 75.7% of the voters approved.

Looking at a larger picture, cash-starved municipalities are not that exciting to live in, with their dilapidated roads, aging infrastructure, poor public service coverage as far as police, firefighting, libraries and parks, as well as underfunded (and probably underperforming) school districts.

So isn't the issue self-correcting long-term? Places with a larger proportion of Prop 58 exemptions eventually run themselves into the ground, while places with tons of new construction and healthy resale market tax themselves into a nice school district and well-paved roads?

> [0] Of course, "everyone" likely means "every property owner", as school taxes are usually property taxes.

everyone pays property taxes, but only property owners pay it directly. for everyone else it is hidden in the costs of goods and services that required real estate.

The winning bid for a house is from someone who can afford to pay $1000/mo, and there are no property taxes. The house sells at whatever mortgage $1000/mo buys.

Now, add $200/mo of property taxes. The winning bidder now pays whatever mortgage $800/mo buys, since there's nobody who wants to pay $1001/mo overall for it (otherwise they'd have won the other bid).

Taxes on the unimproved value of land are pretty much equivalent to seizing ground rents. That doesn't really make things more expensive.

> they don't want their kids being part of a failed social experiment.

Indeed. You don't see much investigation on the consequences of these experiments; the state is rarely introspective. If there was any bigger accelerant to the white flight phenomena in the 70's than the `integration' experiment I've never heard of it. It went all the way to the Supreme Court and when it was decided that Detroit (and therefore many other big urban school districts) couldn't force surrounding suburbs to participate in the experiment (Milliken v. Bradley) the fate of that city and many others was sealed.

DINK is not an acronym I recognize, and Googling it is difficult.

Do you mean Dual-Income No Kids? If so, which board members have no kids, or no kids in the district?

"SF school assignment is a (failed social experiment) lottery system where your kids can be assigned anywhere in the city, regardless of the fact that you live a block from a school."

I am well aware of this policy and have been for a long time.

AND YET, I still get mortified and upset every time I am reminded of it. It's mind-bogglingly bad policy. My children are not in SFUSD but even still, I feel like I should work politically against this policy just to make the world a (much) better place.

I see a few factors in my friends (mid to late 30s, east coast city) that leads me to believe there won't be a mass exodus to the burbs:

- They aren't having children at all

- They are having children very late, essentially already settling in the city

- They are having fewer children if any

- Since all of the jobs are in the city, they are optimizing commute times

- The burbs housing stock are all 40+ year old homes that need significant system updates

- I don't see the unbridled consumerism the boomers had, less stuff = less requirement of space

> Since all of the jobs are in the city, they are optimizing commute times

I find that funny, because in Texas, the jobs are all in the suburbs and are rapidly moving farther out into the suburbs and even the exurbs.

I live in the suburbs of Dallas, and of the four jobs I've had, I've commuted further out into the suburbs for three of them. Only one of my jobs was in the city. And the number of jobs in the suburbs are growing: we've had some big-name companies relocate their headquarters from other states to Dallas suburbs like Plano and Frisco, and one big-name company that used to be headquartered in Downtown Dallas just moved their headquarters to Irving, another suburb of Dallas.

Also, my current employer is based in an inner-ring suburb (Plano) and there's been talk of how we're probably going to outgrow our office in a couple of years, and from what I've heard we're very likely to relocate to an exurb.

> The burbs housing stock are all 40+ year old homes that need significant system updates

This doesn't apply to Texas either. Most of the suburbs, and especially the exurbs, were built in the last 30 years or so, and a good amount of them were built in the last 10-20 years (e.g. everything in Prosper and Celina is very new development). Most of what's now suburb and exurb was farmland when I was a kid, and I'm only 32.

Yes, but Texas (outside of Austin) is basically like a totally different country. It bears zero resemblance to NYC, Boston, DC, SanFran, etc.

Absolutely not, the sprawl of Dallas is not that different from sprawl of D.C. only bigger not different.

It bears a whole lot of resemblance to LA, Phoenix, Denver, Tuscon, Las Vegas, Jacksonville, Atlanta, ...

I could keep going, but the point is NYC, SF, and Boston are the outliers in the US, not the other way around.

Boston is really a mix. There are some startups and, increasingly, satellite offices in Boston/Cambridge of both local and west coast companies. Plus biotech/pharma in Kendall Square of course. But the main offices of a lot of the local tech and tech-related employers are still out on the 128 and 495 corridors as they've been for decades.

> Texas (outside of Austin)

Austin is no different from the rest of Texas. I have friends in Austin; the way they describe Pflugerville, it sounds exactly like Plano or Richardson. Dell's corporate campus is in Round Rock, too.

Yeah, the city center is full of hipsters, but the suburbs are indistinguishable from those of Dallas and Houston.

The same is true of Phoenix. A lot of large employers like Intel and Wells Fargo and startups like Infusionsoft have campuses in what is typically considered a suburb, like Scottsdale or Chandler. I'd personally much rather live in a suburb then a "cool" city center. I've done both and I enjoy the peace, quiet and space more than being able to walk to buy groceries.

I agree, I recently moved from Seattle to the suburbs. It's nice to be able to go places and get groceries without it being a production that takes a bunch of planning.

It depends on the industry. Land is cheaper in the suburbs, so companies with little reason to be in the center are likely to be located further out.

Same in almost every city in France. Sometimes a small pole of office buildings has been built near the main railway station, but everything else is in the close suburbs because land and thus office surface is cheap there, and that's all what matters for companies. So everybody spends hours commuting from the city to the suburb, or from a suburb to another suburb.

all relating back to not having enough money to do the above...

> mostly because of the lack of "family-centric" housing stock --whether detached units or multi-bedroom condos and apartment units

So...what kind of housing stock accommodates people living with roommates? The exact same 2/3/4 bedroom apartments that young single people share are the ones that families need. If the issue is that 4 single people with jobs can outcompete a couple with 3 kids, then the problem is with the total quantity of housing stock, not the mix.

If you look at the new housing stock coming on-line there is a dearth of "family" housing stock --most units have DINKs in mind. they have bikes in mind, not strollers. Yoga space, not daycare, an open floor plan with no child's room, etc.

New families don't have the income to pay what 3/4/five professionals can pool together to afford that 2/3/4 bedroom flat.

The last time I went searching for apartments in the Seattle metro area there were /mostly/ 2 bedroom units. Even the nicer unit I'm currently in is a failure as far as sound-proofing goes.

Some market regulation, like with fire codes, would really help with improving quality of life by raising privacy and encouraging larger unit-plan apartments.

Please no. Regulations should exist for safety and dealing with externalities. Regulating sound-proofing is neither of those and would expand government overreach without enough benefit.

The idea there would be that it's one of those things that's hard for consumers to evaluate in the time they have to evaluate it, because a walkthrough doesn't provide a representative sample. For example, you probably won't know how frequently ambulances take the road next to that apartment in the middle of the night.

Dealing with information asymmetry is one of the big functions of consumer protections laws, and is one of the useful functions of government.

Codes mandate minimum insulation levels and fireproofing between neighboring units already, and the same measures for both also tend to reduce sound transmission. Requiring insulation between neighboring units isn't much of a stretch.

The externality is on the customer who didn't factor the noise into their value calculation, because it's hard to judge before you live there for a while. So because they don't bear the cost of inadequate soundproofing, developers will tend towards the cheapest option.

I'm still not convinced by this or either of the other replies. Safety issues I should be protected from by the government. "It's loud" is something I should walk away from after my lease is up without the government ever being involved. Some people appreciate cheaper options even if they are louder and there isn't a good reason to have the government prevent them from being allowed to take those options.

I wouldn't object to some kind of noise rating system instead. The point is just that soundproofing is not something people can judge effectively during viewings, so it doesn't get priced effectively by the free market. Maybe a noisier property will have slightly higher turnover, but the rental price will probably not be noticeably affected.

> mostly because of the lack of "family-centric" housing stock

An interesting anecdote: I live in Little Rock, AR, which, as I'm sure you're thinking, is just a booming urban metropolis. I don't know what is different about the city here, but every single apartment, townhouse, etc. is very clearly built with a family in mind. There's always a master bedroom and a child bedroom. (It was very frustrating when apartment hunting with a friend since neither of us were ever pleased with the child room.)

If I had to speculate, it's likely that the vast majority of people who can afford to live downtown are older. The city has a growing tech scene, but most of its employees are middle aged.

There's no rule that says that rich cities will continue to have bad schools. To take one counter example, there are plenty of well-off parents in NYC who send their kids to public schools because New York has built a number of public schools that are good (not enough, to be fair, but enough that there are plenty of families here). The same could happen in San Francisco.

One problem is that SF doesn't have a gifted and talented program until near high school (and the junior highs are terrible across the board).

Even with more schools, the school board would mismanage them. It's easier just to move than it is to fight an entrenched bureaucracy.

Of course, but given that in the SF example, at least, the proportion of the pop under 18yoa is very low, so that more or less will result in fewer resources dedicated to education. If the proportion under 18yoa of people were increasing we'd see an investment for the future --but given the characteristics of housing stock in SF, we're not likely to see the proportion of under 18yoa increase significantly in the near future.

Or as Peter Thiel put it, "San Francisco is structurally hostile to families."

> The same could happen in San Francisco.

It could, but who is going to push for this change? SF has an extremely low proportion of families (fewest children of any major city). Are single millennials and DINKs going to make this a priority?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com