|
California politics? How about Leland Yee, a San Francisco senator famous for his anti-gun views, who was recently arrested by the FBI for corruption and trying to smuggle guns (and shoulder-fired missiles!) into the US with the help of a well known Chinatown gangster named "shrimp boy" and a shady political consultant/former SF school board president. The source of the weapons was a Muslim rebel group from the Philippines named MILF. 
Rah! fucked around with this message at 04:03 on May 1, 2014 |
#
¿
May 1, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 07:12 |
|
|
Fruity Rudy posted:The Guardian has a nice piece on the subject: "Is San Francisco Losing Its Soul?" That article makes some good points, but it's also full of bullshit claims like: quote:Until recently, San Francisco, California – a small city of around 825,000 poised on the tip of a peninsular on America's western edge that sprang up during the 1840s gold rush – wasn't thought of as a centre for business. Rather, it was famed as an artistic, bohemian place with a history of flowering counter-cultures that spilled over and changed America and the world, from the beats in North Beach to the hippies in the hilly region of Haight- Ashbury to the gay rights movement in the Castro neighbourhood. Jefferson Airplane's Paul Kantner called it "49 square miles surrounded by reality". It's a completely ignorant tourist view of SF. Wasn't thought of as a business center until recently? Yeah, I guess the city's status as a primary business center of the west coast starting in the 1850s was all a dream (and it was the primary business center of the west until the mid 1920s, when LA passed it in population). Wells Fargo, Bank of America, the Pacific stock exchange, Hearst Corporation, Chevron, Visa, Bechtel, etc, etc, etc never were founded/headquartered in SF! poo poo, before tech started booming in SF, there was no business at all! Everyone was a hippie and/or beatnik, and no one worked. And a "small" city of 825,000? Nevermind that the SF Bay Area has over 8 million people, making it the 5th largest metropolitan area in the US. themrguy posted:I know a couple people who work in SF regional politics, and evidently Yee has always had a reputation as something of a slimeball who does shady poo poo. Still, they're pretty shocked that instead of getting busted for getting campaign contributions from illegal sources or something similar, he was loving helping to sneak MANPADS into the country. Jesus. Know when to quit Leland. Yeah, I remember reading about him getting caught picking up hookers in the mission district several years ago. And those aren't even nice hookers. Capp street hookers.  I hope you like grime, meth and/or crack, and pimps that'll stab you if you stare at them too long. Though that's changing now, due to gentrification.
Rah! fucked around with this message at 23:35 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
agarjogger posted:Makes me insanely curious about what the author might write about LA. Hollywood, Mexicans, gangs, and NWA probably. When it comes to far off lands (and even close ones!), people tend to only know the stuff that's been sensationalized by the media, unless they've had a reason to learn more. But you'd think that someone writing a giant article for a well known news outlet would do a little more research.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:Eh, there's a difference between SF proper and the surrounding Bay Area. Well yeah, but there are also similarities, namely that they're heavily connected economically and culturally, and are connected by unbroken development. Municipal boundaries are political in nature and relatively arbitrary, and measuring things based on them can be pretty meaningless. To get a sense of a city's true scale you should be looking at the metropolitan area or at least the urbanized area.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
Cicero posted:It's me, I'm one of those guys driving up housing prices in the bay area. The weird thing is, it's not like these tech companies are exactly thrilled about high housing prices either, as that drives up the cost of their office space and forces them to raise salaries in order to attract workers from other parts of the country. If Google or Apple or whoever could have mongo-sized apartment complexes within walking distance, they'd be ecstatic. There are actually conceptual plans for 13,000 units of housing in highrises right next to the new Apple headquarters in Cupertino, 10,000 new units near Google's headquarters in Mountain View, 9,400 new units near Facebook's Menlo Park headquarters, and 3,000 units near the Electronic Arts headquarters in Redwood City. http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2014/02/silicon_valleys_biggest_tech_campuses_as_selfcontained.html But the NIMBYs living in those towns would never let that stuff get built. NIMBYs are the reason nothing ever gets built on the necessary scale to meet demand, and that's why housing is so loving expensive here.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
Papercut posted:Not really, it's been steadily gentrifying for 20-30 years now, basically since the start of the tech industry. Every time a tech bubble bursts, there is a brief lull, but the current trend is no different than the pre-DotCom trend. It is a national trend (look at Boston for example), but for decades the system in SF has allowed NIMBYs to have more power to block projects than in most other big US cities, and it's definitely killed and slowed the construction of a lot of much-needed housing, and has contributed to rising prices in a market that was already tight on housing/somewhat expensive to begin with. There's a large minority of wealthy residents in SF who have a "gently caress you, got mine" attitude, have political connections, and block development to preserve their views and property values, and so they can attempt to mold the city into what they personally think it should be (they apparently view this major city as a quaint European fishing village or some poo poo). For example:  That graphic greatly exaggerates the size of the building being opposed ("fact" huh?), because the freeway should be more than twice as tall as they've depicted it (it's the now gone and much-hated Embarcadero freeway). The campaign to kill that building was dubbed "no wall on the waterfront", as if that tiny building were such a thing, or would be the first of a wave of skyscrapers lining the entire waterfront (and what about the existing taller buildings right next to it, that many NIMBYS live and work in? Why no complaints about them?). Much of the money for the petition to get it on the ballot came from a single wealthy couple living on the lower floors of a neighboring building that's twice as tall as it, and lots more money for it also came from Boston Properties, a developer which owns the neighboring Embarcadero center skyscraper complex (and is currently building the tallest tower in SF). Boston properties and that wealthy couple clearly didn't want to lose views and property value, and used their vast reserves of money to fund a high profile, lie-filled, anti-development propaganda campaign/ballot measure, and got their way...and in the process bypassed city agencies and elected officials that had already approved the building (why do we even have elected officials, a planning dept. full of trained workers etc, if we just negate them with dumb poo poo like this?). Other people who contributed money to the campaign were many members of the "Telegraph Hill Dwellers" neighborhood association, a bunch of wealthy people who try to block basically any construction in the northeast corner of the city. New subway? No not here! New luxury housing? No, not here! New affordable housing? Nope! Etc, etc. Honestly it might not have passed, but tons of people don't seem to pay attention and never vote (voter turn out for that election was at a record low, if i remember right)...except for the NIMBYs of course! They always turn out in full force during elections. Other made-up bullshit reasons to oppose the building were: 1. Oh no, the city will lose a tennis club and parking lot! (that's in prime downtown real estate, and which only the wealthy can afford) 2. Oh no, it's taking the place of affordable housing! (affordable housing would NEVER get built in such an expensive spot) 3. Oh no, it will cast massive shadows on a neighboring park! (nope, this is the northern hemisphere, the sun is in the wrong side of the sky for that  )4. Oh no, it'll overwhelm the sewage system! (complete BS) 5. Oh no, developers will make money off of it! (uh, that's how our capitalist economy works, dummies.) 6. Oh no, it'll increase traffic to apocalyptic levels! (no, the traffic added by a couple hundred new units in downtown will be a drop in the bucket) And a new anti-development ballot measure is expected to pass soon, that will subject any new building on port land (waterfront parking lots and such) to approval by voters (who are largely ignorant on the topic of development, and aside from NIMBYs often don't vote), which will likely kill thousands of proposed housing units that the city desperately needs. Here's another example of shameless NIMBYism from San Francisco: The ultra wealthy people living in the top floors of this 430' building:  Want to block or shorten a proposal for a neighboring 510' tower that would not only add much needed housing, but would also be home to the city's new Mexican Museum:  Its quite obvious that what they really want is to protect their views and thus property values, but they claim their reasoning is increased traffic and shadows on Union Square...never mind the fact that this is literally one of the busiest spots in SF and will always have huge amounts of traffic (why live there if you hate traffic?), and never mind the fact that the NIMBYs' own building is closer to Union Square than the proposed one, and already casts shadows on union square (as it has been doing since 2000). And never mind the fact that the amount of shadows cast by the new building on union square would be negligible, and for a short amount of time on any day. And I'm pretty sure that during certain times of the year it won't cast any shadows at all. The NIMBYs also claimed that the building was out of scale with the surrounding historic buildings (but their own building isn't of course!), despite the fact that there are already multiple skyscrapers within half a block of the proposal, and despite the fact that the Historical Preservation Commission already approved it. I'm pretty sure that they also claimed that if don't get their way with the building being killed or shortened to under 400', they'll take the fight to the ballot, and it wouldn't be surprising if they use their large amounts of money to circulate all kinds of misleading anti-development propaganda around the city, pay for TV commercials, etc. No doubt they'd frame it as the "evil/greedy developers, corrupt politicians, and the 1% vs. affordability for normal San Franciscans and the natural beauty of SF!", just like the other rich NIMBYs did with their "no wall on the waterfront" campaign. And a large number of ignorant SF residents will eat it up, not realizing that by opposing development in such a manner they're actually contributing to rising housing prices, and not realizing that the people who started these anti-development campaigns are the type of selfish, manipulative, wealthy assholes they think they're protecting the city from by supporting said campaigns. Yet another recent example I remember is the case of the renovation of a neighborhood park. It's been held up by a single resident, who keeps appealing it because the construction will disturb her peace and quiet or something. Rah! fucked around with this message at 23:41 on May 2, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 2, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
Papercut posted:I just don't think any of those events is unique to SF, either politically or culturally. They're the same fights that every city goes through with development, just with slightly different particulars. Portland had a massive conflict over a new Trader Joe's in a lovely lot in a rapidly gentrifying neighborhood, and face constant battles with Intel and Nike millionaires fighting new trail construction in parts of Forest Park that the city owns (simply because the millionaires don't want people in their area). Like I said, it's not unique to SF, but based on what I've observed after many years of following development news around the US (and confirmed by most others I've encountered who also follow it, as well as those involved in development here), and what I've learned reading about the history of development in SF over the past several decades, compared to many big US cities (Chicago, NYC, Miami, LA, Houston, Austin, Seattle, etc), NIMBYs in SF seem to more often be successful at blocking or delaying stuff. All the constant restrictions, appeals, lawsuits, etc really does slow things down and unnecessarily strangles housing development, and it also increases the cost of construction, which of course leads to even higher rents and home prices.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:I really love the reverse '50s that is SF where people actively move to urban centers and commute to the suburbs. While it certainly does happen, it's a myth that there's a huge amount of reverse city-to-suburb commuting in SF (I've heard more than a few people claim that "everyone in SF reverse commutes to Silicon valley now!"). The most recent census stats show that 85% of employed San Franciscans work in San Francisco (and another 200,000+ workers from the suburbs come into SF every weekday). To be fair, there probably are more reverse commuters in SF now than in the past, and they have been in the spotlight due to the whole tech worker shuttle bus drama...but they make up a small fraction of SF residents. Same with tech workers for that matter. The tech industry is the fastest growing part of SF's economy and has gotten tons of attention, but the majority of people who work in SF have nothing to do with it.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2014 10:49
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:a lot of the ground isn't suitable for skyscrapers and earthquakes limit the maximum height This isn't true. When the ground is comprised of landfill (like much of downtown SF), all you need to do is anchor the building to the bedrock below the landfill. There's currently a 1,070' building and 802' building under construction in downtown SF, in landfill areas that used to be part of the bay. They both have huge, nearly 300' foot deep pilings anchoring them to the bedrock there. Modern skyscrapers are some of the safest buildings to be in during an earthquake due to modern construction techniques and building codes. The only thing limiting building heights in SF are NIMBYs, who have many times fought for height restrictions over the decades, and often won. It's the reason why much of SF has a ridiculously low 40' height limit, and it's the reason that until recently the maximum height limit in downtown was only 550', with the majority of it being zoned lower than that (which went into effect after the city's 1970s/1980s skyscraper boom). Shbobdb posted:SF needs to stop pretending it is a quaint little city with nice old houses. It needs to build up like a proper city. The frustrating thing is that SF is already built up like a big city. It's the second most densely populated big city in the US, and already has around 500 highrise buildings within city limits, putting it within the top 5 cities or so for highrises in the US. It also has the largest amount of downtown office space of any US city aside from NYC, Chicago, and Washington DC, and is a primary city of the nation's 5th largest metro area. Of course it's adding more people all the time, and needs to build a lot more, or else the end result will be that only the wealthy will live here. Yet you have these delusional NIMBY types who insist SF is a "city of quaint villages", or a "small European-style city", etc, etc, many of which seem to oppose anything taller than 3 or 4 stories as being "out of character". I've lived in SF my entire life, and never understood how some people can be so absorbed in their own little worlds and ideals that they fail to see what SF really is: A big loving city.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:We elected one of the first openly-gay mayors in the world. Supervisor, not mayor.  UberJew posted:This seems less like a problem and more like the whole point of NIMBY activity. I'm not sure I completely understand what you're saying? Yes, a lot of NIMBY activity seems to be an effort to increase property values and make SF more expensive and exclusive (though a lot of people who buy into NIMBY campaigns are ignorant of this, and think it's really about saving the working/middle class), but I would definitely call that "a problem".
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
UberJew posted:The people who think it is about saving the middle class are also mostly people who think the 'middle class' starts at double the median income. Not entirely. The high demand and perpetual lack of housing supply is why prices are always rising, but there are plenty of middle and lower class people who think that increased development is what's causing prices to rise, because all that recent development happens to be coinciding with the influx of wealthy transplants and the rapid rise of housing prices. They mistake correlation with causation. It doesn't help that due to the huge supply/demand problem (and the overly slow proposal/approval/permitting process, plus constant lawsuits and appeals of projects slowing things down more and driving prices up more), 90% of new buildings going up are luxury buildings (with the remaining stuff being subsidized affordable housing with a lottery and even certain requirements--like being old--to get in), which means that literally only wealthy people can move into market rate units in SF these days. You can't really blame so many people for jumping to the wrong conclusion about what the city needs, and unwittingly contributing to the problem more by advocating for less development. Rah! fucked around with this message at 00:06 on May 7, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
Also I'm pretty sure I remember Gavin Newsom claiming during his first term that if the murder rate didn't drop, he wouldn't run for mayor a second time. Of course the murder rate increased and was higher than the previous 8 years on every year of his first term (with a 10 year high in 2005, rates nearly as high in 2004 and 2006, and a 12 year high in 2007, that was nearly matched again in 2008!), and he ran for mayor again. Also, being an alcoholic.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I never heard about that, and actually had the impression that care not cash had been pretty successful at actually making a difference for homeless people, unlike the efforts of basically every previous mayor. I distinctly remember willie brown's homeless policy being "send waves of cops to sweep through golden gate park and arrest them, and while we're at it, be sure to confiscate and destroy all their belongings". Hate to break it to you, but the cops never stopped arresting homeless people whenever they feel like it, and they never stopped throwing homeless people's stuff away when they feel like it. Newsom also started his own regular sweeps of golden gate park to remove the homeless. All it did was push them a few blocks away into the surrounding neighborhoods. The doorway of a donut shop near my apartment became a new homeless dude hangout spot after those sweeps started. A law banning overnight parking of campers on city streets was also passed when Newsom was in office, which boned quite a few homeless people (which was the entire point of the law). Newsom also was the one who introduced SF's sit-lie law, which passed and made it illegal to sit or lie on the sidewalk...which was also obviously aimed at homeless people. Thankfully the cops don't really enforce it, but they can if they want (and guess who the cops are most likely to enforce it on?). Oh yeah, while Newsom was around the city also started their practice of hosing the sidewalks of the tenderloin down at night. Sleeping homeless people in the way? They won't wake up/don't want to move? Who cares, blast em with the water cannon! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEyhuegv6Ts edit: that video's kind of crappy. I remember seeing one where it's much more clear that a sleeping homeless guy is getting hosed down, but I can't seem to find it. As for the amount of homeless people in SF, the estimates I've seen over the years usually claim that there are anywhere from 5,000 to 15,000 of them. The lower estimates are always from the official city homeless counts that are occasionally done, but which are inaccurate because they're done at night, the people counting aren't allowed to actually ask people if they're homeless, and people living in cars, or squatting in vacant buildings, or otherwise hidden from plain view, aren't counted. I will say that having Newsom around was good for business and development, and without him we may not have seen nearly as many much-needed housing units get built over the past decade. Rah! fucked around with this message at 20:31 on May 8, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 8, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
ProperGanderPusher posted:If there's one thing San Franciscans enjoy more than calling LA a complete shithole full of terrible people, it's calling Texas a complete shithole full of terrible people. The funny thing is, like 80% of SF's population is made up of transplants from everywhere else in the country/world, including Los Angeles and Texas. Native Californians only make up 30% of SF's population, and SF natives of course are even smaller in number. It makes me feel like some kind of strange and exotic beast, like I should start charging people $10 to look at me, and an extra $10 to poke me with a stick or throw peanuts at me. But drat, I forgot: because I'm not making 6 figures, half of the wealthy transplants in this city have apparently decided that i'm an undesirable who doesn't "deserve" to live in my own home, unlike their superior, noble, money-having selves. Free market at work! Check mate, poors  ProperGanderPusher posted:As much as I prefer SF, this is true. Say what you want about South Park, they basically nailed how smug and insufferable the natives around here can be. Meanwhile, I've never heard an LA native talk poo poo about SF beyond "your street layout is retarded" and "it's too cold in July". I'd say that the majority of people I grew up with in SF never had anything against LA, aside from the Giants/Dodgers rivalry (let's say it was 60/40 for people with no problem with LA vs. people irrationally hating LA). It seems that the SF/LA rivalry is often embellished by transplants who are trying to fit in, just like the idea that you're not allowed to say "Frisco" (which is a name heavily used by members of the city's lower classes, but widely despised among the upper classes and transplants). The majority of ultra smug and insufferable SF residents seem to be transplants from elsewhere, who can't stop informing people about how awesome and superior their new home is, like they have to justify to themselves why they paid out the rear end to move here. Though for the record, upper class native San Franciscans are often just as stupid/annoying/smug about all that poo poo too. In fact they're the ones most responsible for propagating dumb smug poo poo about SF that transplants buy into, because it's that smug upper class part of the population that controls the city government and most of the local media, and ultimately controls the narrative that gets put out about SF, that the rest of the nation sees. Also, that Vice article makes some decent points, but a lot of it's exaggerated bullshit from a transplant hipster's point of view. Rah! fucked around with this message at 18:03 on May 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 16, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:To be fair, I hear SF people use "Bridge and Tunnel" a lot these days and there's generally an attitude that only the poors live in the East Bay and there's a general ignorance of the fact the East Bay has incredible natural geography, historic architecture and some silly museums too. Not only does that frustratingly common mindset show a lack of understanding of the east bay, which is very economically diverse, it also shows the same misunderstanding for SF, which is also pretty economically diverse. So many people heave this idea that SF is solely populated by the wealthy, yet this is how the city's income groups break down (as of 2011): households making less than $10,000: 21,561 - 6.4% $10,000 to $14,999: 20,258 - 6.0% $15,000 to $24,999: 28,152 - 8.3% $25,000 to $34,999: 23,862 - 7.1% $35,000 to $49,999: 31,665 - 9.4% $50,000 to $74,999: 47,260 - 14.0% $75,000 to $99,999: 37,965 - 11.2% $100,000 to $149,999: 55,237 - 16.3% $150,000 to $199,999: 29,848 - 8.8% $200,000 or more: 42,558 - 12.6% people living in poverty: 99,977 - 12.3% (don't forget this is the federal poverty line, if adjusted for cost of living, the number would be higher) As you can see, SF still has a poo poo ton of poor people and middle class people, despite gentrification. poo poo, SF has more people living under the federal poverty line than Oakland does (Oakland has the higher rate, but most people would probably not guess SF has more in total). But people tend to only pay attention to stuff that the media has sensationalized, and then that stuff gets completely exaggerated: "the city is all yuppies!" "everyone commutes to silicon valley!" "there are no poor or middle class people anymore!" etc, etc. Rah! fucked around with this message at 18:02 on May 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 16, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Halloween in the Castro has been utterly neutered from the awesomeness it used to be.. To be fair, that wasn't for no reason. It was because of multiple years in a row of drunken fights, stabbings, and a mass shooting (10 injured) during the event. Not that punishing the entire city for the actions of a few is a great idea, but killing the event didn't come out of left field. Trabisnikof posted:There's also something special about SF stealing a NYC term in an attempt to be superior to Oakland/Berkeley/et al. "bridge and tunnel crowd" Yet another term that's largely used by transplants and upper class SF residents, who have little to no experience with SF's poor/rougher side, who think all criminals live in the scary apocalyptic wasteland of the east bay (because that's where all the poors supposedly are, remember!). Funnily enough, back when that aforementioned Castro Halloween shooting occurred, half the people commenting on news sites and in the thread about it here on SA, were blaming the "bridge and tunnelers", and the "Oakland thugs" or whatever. Yet who did the culprits end up being? Two rival SF gangs from Sunnydale and Lakeview (also known as Oceanview/Ingleside) who have been killing each other for decades. ProperGanderPusher posted:A ton of those lower and middle class people are only still able to stick around due to rent control. Good luck if you're middle or working class and trying to move in at the moment. I recall a news article stating that it's now literally impossible to afford a house on a public school teacher's salary right now anywhere in the city limits. Yeah and that's definitely a problem. At least half of all housing units in SF (170,000-200,000 of them) have rent control, and it's the main thing keeping the non-wealthy in the city at this point. tequilaunicorn posted:I guess my SF experience is different all around, though, because most people I know do not hate LA. Whenever I hear someone mouthing off about LA, if I investigate I find they usually have a.) been in SF/the bay area for less than two years and b.) never been to LA. That's been my experience too, more or less.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Family Values posted:Jesus Christ you guys really do believe you're exploring uncharted territory, don't you? The main difference is that in the previous waves of gentrification in SF, from the 70s through the 80s, 90s, and early/mid 2000s, there were still plenty of relatively cheap parts of the city that the middle class and poor could afford. SF was actually losing people in the 70s and early 80s too, and also had a huge crime spike lasting from the late 60s through mid to late 2000s, both of which helped keep things cheaper than they could have been, despite yuppies/beatniks/gays/etc gentrifying certain areas over the decades. But this new round of gentrification/insane housing prices is hitting the remaining middle class/lower class areas, and unlike before there are few places left in SF proper that the non-wealthy can turn to. Even other parts of they bay area are seeing large housing price increases these days. So it's a more alarming situation for the middle and lower classes of SF than previous waves of gentrification were. The Bay Area basically hosed itself through decades of NIMBY policy strangling the housing supply. Craptacular! posted:I have to ask: How much of all these new highrises in San Francisco are office towers, rather than luxury condos? The NIMBY crowd fought office development for a long time. A lot of them are office towers. In the area around the transbay terminal and rincon hill, where 90% of new highrise construction is occurring, there are currently 5 office towers and 7 residential towers under construction. As for NIMBYs, there are various reasons why they oppose development, but a common theme seems to be "tall is bad". Many of them don't care what's getting built...they don't want it unless it's a 2 or 3-story imitation Victorian house, and even then they probably don't want it. One of the effects of the NIMBY crusade in the 80s, after the city's 60s/70s/80s skyscraper boom, is that only a set amount of office space can be built each year (500,000 sq. ft. or so, I think?). Any remaining space rolls over and adds up on subsequent years though, so after very little office construction in the 90s and relatively little in the 2000s as well, the city has saved up a ton of office space that can be built in a single year. I'm pretty sure most of it is now spoken for with current and planned developments. Craptacular! posted:Part of the reason so many workplaces are in the burbs is that the largest office building in town is still the Transamerica building This is actually not true The Bank of America Building is the largest tower in SF by square footage. The new Transbay tower which is under construction will be the new tallest tower in SF, at 1,070 feet, but it's slimmer than Bank of America, so it has less office space in it ("only" 1.5 million square feet). Also, there have been tens of millions of square feet of office space built in SF since Transamerica went up (with millions more under construction and planned right now), and SF has by far the most office space of any one location in the Bay Area. Downtown SF has around 80 million square feet of class a/b office space, which eclipses the amount in downtown Oakland and downtown San Jose combined (each have around 10-15 million sq. ft.). Space has never been a problem when it comes to locating a business in SF, but the cost of operating that business can be a reason to locate elsewhere. It's cheaper in the suburbs, not to mention that until recently the low density/large footprint office park style of development was seen as very desirable (and still is, to a lesser extent), and there really isn't room in SF for that, even if there is enough office space for what's needed. Despite that, SF still has the largest job base and corporate presence in the bay area though. Craptacular! posted:You can't put Google in the city, the room just isn't there. Again, not true when just looking at the amount of office space (the desire for a low-density suburban campus not-withstanding). In fact, earlier this year Google was rumored as a candidate to lease the aforementioned transbay tower that's under construction, but for whatever reason they didn't, and Salesforce took it instead. Rah! fucked around with this message at 22:08 on May 25, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 25, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
Space-Bird posted:On one hand, it's nice you don't have thousands more people commuting in their BMWs, but, in a lot of ways, it's made San Francisco a weird reverse commuter city. Where do you even begin to fix something like that? Can we please kill this increasingly common, and very wrong misconception? Are there more tech workers commuting south now than in the past? Yes. Do they represent even close to a majority of SF's workforce? Hell no. Of employed SF residents, 85% work within SF, according to the latest census stats. Only 15% commute out of the city, and they're definitely not all tech workers either. In addition, the city gains 200,000+ commuters every day from the suburbs. And for those interested: Oakland takes in 40,000 commuters every weekday, and SJ actually loses 5% of it's population to suburban job centers during the day...so if anything, San Jose is the weird "reverse commuter" big city of the Bay Area.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Right, the elite gets nice coach buses. Also there are plenty of MUNI long haul commuter lines for pleabs that are quite similar to the google buses. No there isn't, unless something changed recently that I never noticed. AC transit and Golden Gate transit have some buses like that though, which have service to SF. Muni operates only within the city of SF (aside from a weekends-only line that goes to the Marin headlands, and the 14-mission line, which ends just past the SF border, in Daly City), so there's no need for them to run fancy commuter buses.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:^ That doesn't sound right, where did you find that number? SF has around 450,000 employed residents according to the census. 15% work outside of SF, which means there are more like 67,000 "reverse-commuters" living in SF, not 100,000. SF would have to have 670,000 employed residents for 15% of them to equal 100,000. Trabisnikof posted:You're right. I should have said AC Transit instead of MUNI, but the entire point still stands. Plebs have to use worse buses to try to make the same commutes that the tech elite buses cover. Agreed that it's kind of screwed up how the transplant techies have created their own exclusive public transit system that operates at the expense of everyone else (it's frustrating as gently caress to get stuck behind one of those as they take up the bus stop meant for the Muni bus that you're on, making you late for an appointment in the process  ). Though you have to wonder what kind of horror liquids would seep into the nice cloth seats on a Muni-run commuter bus. Rah! fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Jun 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/american_community_survey_acs/cb13-r22.html Interesting. My bad, I screwed up when getting my numbers from the census, and equated "principal city" with SF, when really there are multiple principal cities in the metro area. About 85% of SF's workers work in a "principal city" but not necessarily SF itself.So 20% of employed SF residents work outside the city, rather than 15%...which is still a far cry from the "SF is now a silicon valley bedroom community" BS that I've seen more than a few people claim in recent years, especially when considering that SF has so many commuters coming into it everyday as well.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:obscene startups popping up every day. This kind of "gently caress you I'm rich / poor people get out" attitude is everywhere in SF right now. The pay-for-parking startup is extra stupid, because it will definitely lead to fights. A dude was even murdered for trying to save a parking spot several years ago. It's not like parking-rage murder is common, but still...why risk getting into arguments/fights/getting stabbed, just to make 5 bucks? I know I would be mad if I saw someone getting ready to leave a parking spot, and then they told me that they were saving it for someone else who was going to give them $5, or told me that they'd give it to me instead for $5. Thankfully I'm not the stabby type. Did the people who thought this dumb poo poo up really not take into account that this will piss a lot of people off, or do they just not care? "Maybe if you don't want to be mad, you should be able to afford $5 for parking. It's not our fault someone more deserving got that parking spot"
Rah! fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Jun 20, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
Except for the fact that a big reason why the bay area doesn't have enough housing or adequate public transit is because of people like him. "THEM TRAINS AND POORS AND SHADOWS ON MY LAWN AND CARS ON MY STREET AND NOISE IN MY EARHOLES AND DETOURS FOR CONSTRUCTION BAH GAWD STOP IT ALL" Hordes of crotchety old folks and other assorted assholes have been dong that for decades, and it's a big reason why so many other people in the Bay Area are getting hosed by housing prices.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Glad to see our corporate warriors are fighting against tyranny for us: http://blog.sfgate.com/cityinsider/2014/06/26/monkeyparking-tells-sf-its-not-going-to-kill-its-parking-app/ I can't wait until some douche doing this gets their car rammed by a raging crazy person, or gets stabbed in the face or something. Oh wait, I actually don't want that to happen, because stuff like that is bad. As is charging people for the use of public property that you don't own. Which is exactly why this parking app is a stupid idea.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
keevo posted:So what's going on in Murrieta? A bunch of dumb  types were urged by their dumb type mayor to protest against dirty, fence-hopping, Mexican scum (who are mostly children), because they're being moved to a border patrol station there.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
Kwyjibo posted:Yeah, this is the most over-hyped story I've seen in a while, though it delivers plenty of hilarious political fodder. They kept some buses from entering a border patrol station. The border patrol probably figured it wasn't worth the trouble of breaking the group up forcefully, especially since the local police seemed to be doing gently caress all to disperse the protesters since the protesters are white and protesting against the presence of non-whites, so the border patrol is (I heard/read somewhere) doing the sensible thing and heading back to San Ysidro until some undisclosed time, presumably when the protesters get bored and go home. That may have already happened, but I haven't seen any follow-up stories. I just saw news footage of a community meeting type thing they had, where the people were voicing their concerns. One old woman (white, of course) was literally crying as she spoke into the mic, and said: "I feel we're being destroyed" These people really believe they're under attack by the America-destroying Mexican horde. I mean, I already knew that, but it still blows my mind how delusional people can be.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2014 10:11
|
|
|
Speaking of the tech world and diversity...look, they're trying to attract women!quote:there were the pitches from college engineering programs in curly purple typeface accented by flowery images. She started to notice that many websites for budding female engineers are pink. Then there was the flyer for an after-school program hanging in a hallway of her high school. Printed on purple polka-dot paper, it read, "Are you a tech girl? Are you a web diva?" There's more! quote:At a recent Bay Area tech mixer put on by Girl Geek Dinners, the tech company that chose the decor elected to replace office lightbulbs with pink and purple ones, bathing the entire event in a fuchsia glow. An open bar was covered with a pink sequined runner. Guests were encouraged to take a Cosmo-style personality quiz revealing their nerd girl personas and given slap-bracelets and strawberry lip balm at the door. And more! quote:In February, at a Harvard event designed to get women interested in computer science, sponsor Goldman Sachs handed out cosmetic mirrors and nail files. Google joined in on the action too! quote:Last month, Google announced its plan to spend $50 million over the next three years encouraging young women to give coding a try. The website for the project features articles about inspiring women, like Erica Kochi, who leads UNICEF's Innovation Unit. The first item on a page of coding projects for girls to try is a 3-D-printed bracelet. http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/How-not-to-attract-women-to-coding-Make-tech-pink-5602104.php I guess that's what happens when things are run by dudes who last had contact with a female when they were 9 years old. Rah! fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Jul 6, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
These asshats who think they're extra special and deserving of praise just because they created "something" are...well, special
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I've lived here most of my life and I've never met or heard anyone freak out or even comment on area codes. I've lived in SF my entire life, and i have no idea what he's talking about either. Transplants...get off my
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2014 22:54
|
|
. Get better friends or something.
|
Cicero posted:Just saw this incredibly depressing graphic: The thing that often doesn't get mentioned in lists like this, is that it lists prices for market rate units only, and ignores rent controlled units (and I'm pretty sure it's prices for 2 bedroom units as well). San Francisco for example has around 350,000 housing units, of which 170,000-200,000 have rent control...so half or more of SF's population is actually not paying ultra insane rents like you see on those kinds of rent rankings (and how many market-rate units are even on the market in SF right now? Several thousand at most? Not much). And that's why SF is not in fact 100% populated by rich people, despite how it might appear when seeing numbers like that. Rent is still high for most people of course, but not quite that ridiculous. For example, I'm in a studio apartment in the Sunset district, right across from the beach. It has a yard, mini kitchen and a bathroom, so it's not like its bare-bones, and it's "only" $900 a month...which is quite cheap compared to current market rate prices for a studio in SF, even those in the middle of the ghetto. Rah! fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Nov 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Boot and Rally posted:A lot of the cities on that list do not have rent control. In any event, rent control prevents you from loving current tenants I wasn't implying that every city has rent control, I know it's relatively rare. But I take issue with the fact that lists like that one constantly get published with the title "median rent", but without making it clear what's actually getting measured, and without taking something like rent control into account (which is a huge oversight in a city like SF, where half the population does not pay market rate prices). And then people get the wrong idea after seeing said lists, and say dumb things like "wow, poor people can't afford to live in San Francisco!" Boot and Rally posted:the point of the charts is to show the cost to move, not the cost to stay. That makes more sense. But all I saw was a screenshot of a list titled "median rent", with no other info included.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
Papercut posted:San Francisco had a measure this year that was basically this and it got annihilated. Yup. Unfortunately, the majority of people who vote in SF are crotchety old people (mostly so they can say "NO!" to something...typical NIMBYs), property owners/landlords (when there's something that will lead to raising their property values and rents, otherwise who cares), and ignorant people who easily get tricked into voting against their own interests, often by said crotchety old NIMBYs. Everyone else doesn't pay attention, unless the election involves the ability to vote no on extra taxes for soda or something. And that's why last year the city passed development restrictions on the entire waterfront, all because some rich people didn't want to lose a few views and their precious tennis club to a new and relatively small apartment building filled with badly-needed housing units. They tricked quite a few people into supporting them with a well-funded campaign to "stop the wall on the waterfront", that was filled with all kinds of hilarious and scary-sounding lies about shadows and traffic and evil greedy developers hurting the working man (nevermind that half of said NIMBYs live in or own even taller neighboring buildings than the building in question, and were obviously just trying to preserve their own views/property values, at the expense of the working man). But the voter turn out in that election was a record low anyways. Except for the NIMBYs, of course! They all made sure to vote, and they got their way with yet another anti-development proposition that will contribute even more to rising housing prices in SF. At least they aren't getting away with that stuff as frequently as they did in the 1970s and 1980s, which is when a lot of dumb anti-development stuff was passed (as a response to the building boom back then) that led to SF's current housing crisis. Kobayashi posted:The thing about poor people is that they don't remain frozen in time. They fall in love, have children, break up, grow up, and lose their jobs just like everyone else. With the San Francisco rental market, the only choices they have after major life events are to 1) deal with it or 2) move out of San Francisco. It's not really social mobility if their current, rent controlled place is their only option. Trust me, I know. I'm low income myself and know all too well what it's like to live in SF these days with very little money (loving depressing, at least it's home and a beautiful/awesome city). I can't afford to move out of my current rent-controlled place unless I get lucky as one of the first in line for another low-priced rent-controlled spot (like I was for the one i'm in now), or unless I want to share a room in an apartment with 5 other people (I don't...and that bullshit often involves needing to be first in line too! this loving city). In that post I was mostly just ranting about lists of stuff in the media that are badly done, and give people the wrong idea about things. I guess I've heard and read one too many people claim in the past that poor people can't afford SF. Because look, the median rent is so high! It says right there on this list that i found! In conclusion, SF (and the rest of the Bay Area) needs a lot more housing. Since 1980, SF has added only 50,000 housing units, yet the population has grown by 150,000, and is now at an all time high with no signs of slowing. We needed to have built 150,000 units since 1980, not 50,000. Rah! fucked around with this message at 01:29 on Nov 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
etalian posted:Yeah the whole fear of Manhattanization ended high density infill attempts in the past. It'll never be as dense as Manhattan, unless literally half the city is replaced by wall-to-wall highrises....which will never happen. SF is estimated to hit 1 million residents by 2035, and even then Manhattan will be over three times as densely populated as SF. And Paris, a city that I've heard more than a couple NIMBY SF residents compare SF to, and hold up as an example of a city with "proper" form/density that should be emulated, is three times as densely populated as SF. "Manhattanization" was always a dumb and overblown term, meant to scare people. And you're right about mass transit. Thankfully improvements are being done, and others are being planned, but like everything it's all so drat slow and expensive. But even then, it'll probably never be built up enough to support Manhattan-style density. Rah! fucked around with this message at 01:42 on Nov 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
The huge increase in gentrification and the growing gap between the haves and the have-nots sure is having a 100% positive effect on San Francisco: http://www.latimes.com/local/crime/la-me-aa2-snapshot-sf-crime-20141120-story.html  quote:San Francisco sees sharp rise in property and violent crimes SF is definitely a lot less murderous than it's been for the majority of the past 50 years. The city is currently at just 40 murders, when a decade ago there would have been 80-something at this point, or well past 100 if it were 1992/1993, much of the 1980s, and most of the 1970s (though the 26 murders in the past 5 months is a bit worse than the first half of the year, when there were only 14 murders)...it makes sense given that most of the city's worst public housing has been demolished by now, or allowed to grow increasingly abandoned in preparation for future demolition, and most of the other rough areas have been gentrifying to some extent as well (such as the Mission District). Many of the most violent people in the city are disappearing as things change, or they're increasingly getting busted by the cops/feds...those guys are part of a criminal underclass (of maybe several thousand people these days?) that's existed for many decades, that's probably responsible for 75% of the murders and shootings going on in the city. But those really hardcore gangbangers and drug dealers definitely aren't all gone or the source of all crime, and it's not that surprising to see that other categories of crime have spiked in recent years, given the constantly increasing housing prices and the fact that there are still a lot of poor people in SF (the poverty rate actually increased slightly since 2000). The increase in the rape rate is weird and troubling though. Also, the quote in that article where Adachi puts SF's poverty rate at 23%, is apparently taking cost of living into account. The poverty rate stats you see in the US census/American Community Survey don't do this, and use the same poverty threshold for the entire nation (and put SF at a 12% poverty rate), which is really stupid because a city like SF or NYC is way more expensive then a city like Detroit, or some small town in the middle of Nebraska, or the central valley or inland empire in CA, etc. The census stats vastly underestimate true poverty levels in more expensive cities. Another thing to note is that the SFPD apparently doesn't submit proper violent crime statistics to the FBI's yearly uniform crime reports (they admitted to fixing aggravated assault stats in 2009, no one cared, the media barely covered it), so any violent crime stats you see for SF, from at least 2005 to 2009, and seemingly still (judging by the lack of any increase in aggravated assaults in 2010-2012), are lower than the reality. Not that SF is the only department doing it, it's just something that very few people know about. Looking at the stats for the past ten years, of big/medium cities in CA (and the entire west coast for the most part, all the way through west Texas to Dallas and Houston) the worst ones for violent crime seem to be in Northern CA, and in/next to the Bay Area: Oakland, Stockton, San Francisco, and Sacramento. And of course the San Francisco Chronicle and mayor Ed Lee had nothing to say about the rising crime rate or the SFPD fixing crime stats. You have to check out a small free local paper, or the LA times for that, apparently. In regards to growing rents and wealth disparity, Lee did promise 30,000 new housing units (1/3rd of them affordable), which sounds great. And then you see that it's going to take two decades to build it all, and you also see that most of the affordable housing that was supposed to have been built already in the past 10 years, hasn't been built. But all the luxury stuff is going up at break-neck speed of course (thanks decades of NIMBY development policy loving up supply and demand and property prices so much!). To make matters worse for some people, when the city rebuilds public housing these days, they end up being privately owned and managed, and apparently there have been incidents where previous resident who were promised a unit in the new building were rejected by management due to claims that they'll be too dirty and disruptive or whatever. I'm pretty sure I remember reading last year about a family that claimed they were rejected due to accusations that they'd bring in bed bugs and disturb the peace. I can't find the article though. Rah! fucked around with this message at 04:01 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
While sideshows are definitely an Oakland tradition, and the biggest ones tend to happen there, its not like you have to be in Oakland to see one.  http://youtu.be/VoIOMcnQtSQ http://youtu.be/vYdjkNPO2nw http://youtu.be/LnExIojT_ZQ http://youtu.be/y0nKrL_ZgR4
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
I like how some people seem to think that if you can get some food and go to a bar with no trouble that a neighborhood must be perfectly fine...as if you're gauraunteed to get robbed and/or shot whenever you step foot in a high crime area. The tenderloin didn't get its reputation for no reason. Sure it has some good cheap food and bars, a lot of families, immigrants, cool architecture, and even some hipster and yuppie types...and it also has a lot of people just passing through during the day, on their way to other parts of the city, as well as lost tourists wandering around. So its obviously not all bad. But it has serious problems too: tons of poverty, slumlords, the highest concentration of parolees in the city, high violent and property crime rates (including the highest robbery rate in the city), tons of drug dealers, homeless people, addicts, pimps and prostitutes, gang members, crazy people, hustlers, etc. Its also got no shortage of people smoking crack/meth or shooting up in public, and no shortage of people making GBS threads on the sidewalk. It's one of the most grimy and violent neighborhoods in the state/western US. Do a search for "tenderloin" on a news website and see what you get. Here are a few examples from the past month: http://m.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/man-critically-injured-in-stabbing-early-saturday-in-the-tenderloin/Content?oid=2912207 http://m.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/man-fatally-stabbed-in-tenderloin-identified-five-suspects-at-large/Content?oid=2912202 http://m.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/man-shot-in-leg-in-tenderloin-over-gambling-debt/Content?oid=2911606 http://m.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/dog-stolen-from-car-thrown-in-dumpster-to-be-reunited-with-owner/Content?oid=2911438 http://m.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/man-shot-in-back-in-tenderloin/Content?oid=2911291 http://m.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/man-accused-of-murder-in-tenderloin-car-theft-collision-back-in-court/Content?oid=2911037 If you keep searching news archives you can read about drug warfare, running gunbattles, tourists getting killed by stray bullets, snitches getting kidnapped and burned alive, people getting shot for bumping into other people, etc. Just like any other high crime american neighborhood with serious drug and poverty issues. That being said, the crime rate is dropping, just like so many other parts of the city/country. And keep in mind that your chances of being a victim will always be higher if you live there, especially if you're a minority and/or poor, and even more so if you're involved in a life of crime. When it comes to high crime neighborhoods, I do think the tenderloin might be kind of unique in that it's so busy during the day, is surrounded by upscale touristy areas/is in the middle of downtown, and has plenty of interesting stuff to make it an attraction, despite the fact that its also a grimy high crime area that can be dangerous at times. And that probably throws some people off, causing them to think that the TL must not really be that rough. Rah! fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Nov 30, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
etalian posted:The dubious reputation means it's the last bastion against gentrification since it lacks rich white people appeal. True, but not entirely...It's not the last bastion against gentrification in SF, and it's not like it completely lacks rich white appeal/gentrification either. There's just less of it than most other parts of the city. There are new luxury condos getting built in the tenderloin as we speak, which isn't surprising given the crazy property prices here and the central location. Like I said in my last post, the Tenderloin really does have an attractive side to it despite the crime/poverty/drug problems: It's relatively cheap, has tons of amenities, is in the middle of downtown, has great public transit service, cool historic architecture, etc. It's pretty much always been a rough neighborhood and the main reason it didn't start gentrifying 50 years ago is because people worked to keep it a working class/poor area, with building height restrictions and a ban on converting apartments/SROs to luxury hotels (or something similar, can't remember exactly), both of which were a reaction to large hotels getting built on the periphery of the tenderloin and union square in the 1960s and 1970s. Then the city concentrated tons of social and homeless services there. Add lots of drugs to the mix, and you get the current day version of the Tenderloin. It would be like a cross between nob hill and union square by now if that anti-gentrification campaign never happened ...expensive, and full of tourists and fancy people. Rah! fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Dec 1, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
etalian posted:
What do you even mean by "good fundamentals", and how exactly does SF not have any of them? Housing prices are hosed up in SF, but other than that it's a great city. And it has better public transit than 99% of America.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
CPColin posted:Then how come you use the word "Cali"? "Don't call it Cali, and don't call it Frisco, and don't call it Nor Cal because that's farther north where i am, you're actually in central California, and far northern CA is actually not even Nor Cal it's really upstate CA and/or Jefferson, and  "Suck it, you name-elitists. Are there assholes in LA or San Diego who get upset if you call the city by a certain name, the same way there are some assholes in SF who get upset when the city gets called "Frisco"?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 07:12 |
|
|
Leperflesh posted:The deal is, nobody gets mad or thinks you're being rude, it's just a way of labeling yourself as an outsider. But that's not true at all. There are tons of SF natives now and in the past who are fine with the name "Frisco", and grew up saying it. Which is why it's so stupid that there's a section of SF's population that claims that only outsiders say it. And it's extra stupid because Herb Caen, the person who made it popular to hate the name "Frisco", was an outsider himself, and even admitted later that the name has strong working class roots in SF, and that he was wrong to hate it so much. And just like with Herb Caen, it seems that half the people who hate the name so much are also transplants, and only hate the name because they heard that they were supposed to hate it, and so in an effort to prove how much of an authentic San Franciscan they are, they make sure to remind everyone that it's a bad thing to say. And then they call an actual SF native an outsider for saying it. There's definitely some class lines at play too...I find that middle to upper class people (especially the older and/or richer they are) are more likely to hate "Frisco", while working class people, especially in the black community, and hip-hop fans are more fond of saying "Frisco". And the Hells Angels love saying it too, of course. It makes sense that there's some confusion over the name among transplants and visitors, because who is mostly in charge of the media and tourist stuff that most people see about SF? The rich people of course, who seem to mostly hate the name "Frisco", and who love to claim that it's only uncultured/ignorant outsiders who have the nerve to say it. I'm thinking there's probably some overlap here with the kind of person who blames all of SF's crime on Oakland/the east bay. Basically anything they don't like is the fault of "not San Francisco". Crime scaring you? Blame it on another city! Hear a nickname you don't like? It's those dumb poors and tourists from elsewhere! Too much traffic? Curse those bridge and tunnelers! Etc, etc. I mean poo poo, during the 2014 world series parade, Hunter Pence constantly yelled "Frisco!" at the crowd, and no one stabbed him over it. They cheered along. I'm sure some fancy-pants people did have a heart attack every time he yelled it though. And that concludes my rant about some random nickname for some random city Now excuse me while I act like a name-elitist-hater hypocrite and get mad at all these new assholes renaming SF neighborhoods with cutesy acronyms. It's not "NOPA" dammit. It's North of the Panhandle, or simply "the panhandle". Or the Western Addition. Or gently caress you
Rah! fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Dec 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2014 21:11
|
|