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.
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...
Other parts of the standards (focus on group work, and on racial justice work in math) which may be designed in part to help reduce achievement gap do raise some questions around preparedness of some students that would result. This will only work if they get rid of standardized testing I think in later years (college admissions etc).
I'd move back again for work if I have to, but it would take a lot of $$$$ to convince me.
More shit than I've ever seen on any city streets. Every doorway, tree, and wall reeks of piss. It's no way to live.
Not saying that's ok, just that SF is hardly unique in that regard.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...
Based on this thread, there's a lot going on that people are lucky enough not to notice, or choose not to notice, but it definitely makes SF a risky choice for businesses. I probably fared as well as I did because I'm tall and didn't go out much without other people with me.
Sigh. NM, c'mon, we can do better. Can't we?
Chicago is still a very segregated city, and the north side is relatively safe. San Francisco is small, and while the problem areas concentrate around Civic Center / Tenderloin / SOMA, literally everything else is in walking distance, so petty property crime is quite widespread.
I worked in the tenderloin - so plenty of open air drug dealing (not a huge problem) as well as random attacks on people (a problem). My roommate was jumped and beaten near our place - very disruptive to his life in general.
I actually caught folks who had stolen my car, good response by police, got them in the car too driving it. I asked, if I pressed charges, what's the consequence. A few days in jail if I was lucky and wanted to spend years pursuing the case - these would be guys who I'd then have a beef with in my neighborhood.
I didn't carry a gun or knife and just didn't want to beef with the dudes hanging out. At some point you are like, is this worth it? As you get older, have kids - you just want to let you kid play. Where I am now the kids can play on their own with neighbors on the street - no worries. Much nicer in my view.
I challenge that statement. Do you have any data support it? It is a myth repeated over and over by certain people and it’s never supported by data.
Violent crime in SF is near all time lows. That’s just the facts.[1]
My neighborhood I’ve lived in for 15 years has gotten so much safer and we are raising kids and loving it.
The crazy thing is the conservative tech activists who moved to Miami.. moved to a city with higher crime! Miami is higher crime than SF. So is Dallas (that was another profile in the local paper).
It’s insane that no one is challenging them on the facts. I think this is all because a bunch of progressive supervisors got elected who are critical of certain elements of the tech industry, and the tech guys don’t have a good response and so they are doing the usual conservative tough-on-crime political ploy to try to get rid of them.
[1] https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/san-francisco/san-fran...
https://www.sfchronicle.com/local-politics/article/Out-of-co...
If you haven't been seeing this you haven't been watching. It's absolutely brazen - daylight robbery literally - and turns the store workers and folks shopping into cynics.
Chelsea (new DA) took office end of 2019 or early 2020. That really marked a major change.
"A violent year: Bay Area killings spiked 35% in 2020"
https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/A-violent-year-Bay...
You probably don't realize how much crime is simply unreported - it's a massive amount. Go to any car glass shop - they will tell you how "crime free" SF is.
Note that I grew up in an actual low crime city. That means I never had a house key, we never locked the house. We left the keys in our cars. This isn't out in the middle of no where, this was a city (with very low crime).
You say your children can walk to neighbors freely like children can in east bay? You are the exception in SF.
I realized that folks in the city are just so used to crime, to the steps you have to take to avoid it, they don't realize the impact it has on their quality of life. You really don't get to know your neighbors that well (relative to a totally safe neighborhood where everyone is more welcoming). This last bit is anecdotal, but neighbors really look out for each other outside SF. Folks do the block email lists, get togethers.
I did a quick comparison to Lafayette in east bay.
San Francisco 2019 Murders (which was a low) - 4.5 murders per 100K. Lafayette - 0.0 per 100K. Robberies SF - 344 per 100K. Lafayette 11 per 100K. Lafayette had 3 robberies in the entire year. The differences are likely larger as in SF there are so many robberies per day that a fair number just don't get reported, especially in some parts of town where cops are not liked - folks are not calling it all in.
Your only SF specific crime stat is about property crime (shoplifting). Consistent with what I wrote.
Your second stat on murders is regional, not specific to SF, which overall remains near all time lows in violent crime. You then blame the regional Bay Area rise on SF’s district attorney which makes no sense.
This is all consistent with what I’m saying: the “safety” claims are not supported by data. Some folks in the tech community just keep saying it over and over within a specific sphere but I’m calling B.S. SF is safer than it’s been for most of our lives.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b... (sort by property crime)
Chicago has massively higher violent crime rate than SF. By your own citation.
> It is clear that even within the Bay Area SF is disproportionately bad
You claim with no data.
This is what I mean — the facts just don’t support the “SF has gotten less safe” argument.
Many categories of death have had sustained reductions. Air travel fatalities in the US? Vehicle fatalities (excluding motorcycles etc)? So this is all great news.
However, recently some cities have just taken a crazy turn. Minneapolis? They are going to abolish their police department, but look at their numbers. Portland, Seattle etc. And yes, San Francisco in 2020 in terms of crime.
Is it reasonably possible that faced with closed schools, minimal social life, quality of life issues and yes - crime that while low is substantially higher than the suburbs folks might decide to move out of SF?
I did it, and I would recommend it. You can still visit, go to that favorite restaurant or park or etc. It's a fun date night "on the town". But when you get home, and smell the green in the air, and the neighbor waves at you , and your stuff is where you left it, and you kids can run and play without worry, and the schools are great without hedging (ie, 9's and 10's) and you child can go to the neighborhood school if they want - literally biking with you or walking, all those things add up.
> And yes, San Francisco in 2020 in terms of crime.
Again, no data cited! Even after being called out on it.
Robberies SF - 344 per 100K. Lafayette 11 per 100K.
You are 31!! times more likely to be robbed in a day in SF than in Lafayette. This assumes reporting is equal - in general studies show once crime is up reporting goes WAY down.
The difference in crime rates between urban and suburban is relatively well known. I also linked to articles discussing increase in murder in SF.
Is there something more you want?
Is the question about year over year crime in SF itself?
The data in my link shows SF has disproportionately bad property crime per capita compared to every other wealthy city: NYC, Chicago, San Jose, LA, etc.
Why? OP's numbers are per capita.
My family and I moved from SF to Lafayette precisely for these reasons: we were subject to assaults and intimidation from strangers in the street in SF (police refused to follow up), our car and garage were broken into once a year on average (police did not report back for any of the 7 police reports we filed), the total losses exceeded $5000. Others have it worse; our doctor had her house burned down by a mentally ill arsonist.
In addition, we were not looking forward to raising our kids in the SF public school system and we don't have enough money to pay for private school, so we moved out. In Lafayette, I can let my kids walk to school without worrying about them getting mugged. (By the way, aside from the neighborhood, you may experience public safety very differently depending on your height, weight, sex, and race. The stats won't tell you any of that, nor the amount of under-reporting going on due to the loss of public trust in the police/DA to do their job.)
We know many other families who followed similar trajectories.
I have no disagreement with you in your general point or personal preference for small exclusive bedroom communities where poor people cannot afford to live, but the same could be said in comparison for Miami, Austin, Dallas or any other major city.
> 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.
Having lived in the area for 25 years, I think there is definitely more visible consequence-free crime. The stats do show it's a bit less likely that you'll get killed. And to your point, I'm sure Miami has its own problems. But I think SF has been going light on crime to the detriment of its quality of life.