Why can’t San Francisco’s tech culture solve the city’s social problems?
ft.com
ft.com
Because social problems are not technology problems?
Social problems are not caused by tech, so tech might not be able to solve them.
Head out into the poorer parts of SF and the surrounding area, and see how very little is shared in common with SF other than geography.
But even with having tech as the scapegoat doesn't mean that tech will have the answers (it probably guarantees that the answer isn't in tech at all).
But there are many social issues, in and out of the Valley, where issues are amplified by tech, but not necessarily the ideal way of solving them (for instance, the fact that so many people online engage in trollish behavior, it's a symptom of people and not necessarily one that tech can cure, but tech does definitely amplify it).
Housing had so many different factors that influence it, you can look at everything from governmental policy, cultural changes, land mass and infrastructure to support commuting, and overall consumer preference.
SF's housing issues, while not 100% preceding the rise of tech, definitely were a problem already that tech has amplified.
If a city isn't prepared for economic success, it's going to have a really tough time adjusting to economic pressures (even the success of it's neighbors). However with San Francisco, it's hard to pass it off as being unprepared, but, TBH, while a generally forward thinking community, there is a lot of NIMBY-itis and a pro-conservationist movement that doesn't always desire to compromise. Not having lived there for any great length of time, I'm conjecturing based on what I read, so take my opinion with a large grain of salt :)
I think benioffs solution of spending by relocating homeless and vulnerable families outside the city is quite promising. Instead of the $500k per unit in SF it is conceivable to build more than 10 times more for the same prize elsewhere.
In one years city budget for homeless housing we could conceivably build housing for all if we are willing to follow benioffs solution, making necessary housing less of a lottery.
I'm all for getting the homeless into homes, and for the chronically homeless perhaps sending them somewhere cheap and giving them a lifetime of social services is the answer. But the majority of homeless are not chronically so, these people need economic opportunities, and the places with the cheapest housing are also the places with the fewest economic opportunities. If we want to prevent this class of homeless from slipping into the former group then finding ways to provide them housing in booming cities is preferable.
[0] https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865678779/Is-Utah-still-...
[1] http://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2017/10/12/leading-homel...
[2] http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-utah-shelters-20170707-s...
[3] https://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-corinth/think-utah-solv...
- SF metro area is the 8th most expensive in the world
- only a one bedroom costs $3600
- low skilled entry level jobs are moved elsewhere https://www.google.com.tw/amp/s/www.wired.com/2016/03/those-...
There are large areas not far from San Francisco that is much cheaper. Personally I moved to Oakland, and even that relatively short move makes a huge difference.