> Per my own experience SF is not a bad place to live.
I have the opposite view. In SF, your risk of the following occurring is non-negligible and in some cases, shockingly quite likely:
- Being mugged/robbed
- Having your car broken into
- Being harangued or even assaulted by someone who is mentally ill and/or under the influence
- Witnessing public urination, defecation, drug use and grab and go retail theft
- Stepping in human feces
I don't see how a place where these things occur on a regular basis, and where, in most cases, such crimes are not investigated and prosecuted, could ever be considered "not a bad place to live".
I've lived in Toronto, SF and Sao Paulo. In 18 years living in Sao Paulo, I've witnessed one gun-related incident and was victim of robbery once (I lived near Heliopolis, one of the largest slums in the city). In 18 years living in Toronto, I was involved in zero. In my first 2 years in SF, I was harassed twice and witnessed retail theft 2 times.
SF is "not bad" in the sense that you won't get shot in the face. It is however quite bad in the sense that the amount of petty crime is so off the charts that you can't even compile accurate statistics because security personnel at retail stores don't even bother reporting it anymore.
A few months ago, I witnessed another theft in inner Richmond (one of the nicer neighbourhoods), the security guy did a half-ass attempt at running after the guy but gave up and came towards the customer support desk I was at. I asked if that was common, and the security guy literally just shrugs.
I've visited SF four or five times and the last time, I was waiting downtown (sorry I don't remember exactly where, but a high wealth, high traffic area) and a man who was clearly down on his luck came up to me and yelled at me. This was about five years ago.
I've lived in NYC for ~9 years and that's never happened to me.
I've lived in San Francisco for 16 years. Yes, I have experienced the homeless problem. I had my car broken into once when I left my backpack inside. I have never been mugged or robbed or had any physical violence occur, or be threatened. We have many lovely friends who live here. San Francisco is under a lot of pressure: population, finance, environmental. It is not a dystopia. It is a community where people build their lives and deserves love and support. I have spent significant amounts of time in New York, Paris and other world cities. I do not find San Francisco to be all that different from New York or Paris.
> I have never been mugged or robbed or had any physical violence occur, or be threatened.
You're lucky (and not that I want to intentionally bring up this card, but I bet you're a burly caucasian male). I saw a guy jump over the Bart ticket gate on literally my first night in SF. I've witnessed multiple retail theft incidents. I've been spat on, literally out of nowhere. A coworker had his garage broken into and a bike stolen. Another mentioned a friend whose backpack was snatched. (All asians)
> It is a community where people build their lives and deserves love and support.
This comes across as an empty platitude. One can say that about literally anywhere, even a place like Kabul. For me, SF is markedly different from other places I've lived, and if we were talking in terms of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, it doesn't score very well.
> You're lucky (and not that I want to intentionally bring up this card, but I bet you're a burly caucasian male).
Stop this. I'm a non-burly non-caucasian male and this (being mugged, robbed, or undergoing physical violence) has never happened to me even once. Maybe you're unlucky? Drawing from your personal anecdotes gets tiring.
> I've witnessed multiple retail theft incidents. I've been spat on, literally out of nowhere.
I've seen this in SF. I've also seen it in LA, Dallas, Houston, Salt Lake City, and Chicago. I've seen it in NYC also, but not in Manhattan. The difference is that in most other big cities in the US, everyone drives around everywhere, so you're insulated from the folks on the street, or you clearly know which neighborhoods to avoid.
> A coworker had his garage broken into and a bike stolen. Another mentioned a friend whose backpack was snatched. (All asians)
A garage is race-blind, come on. I've lived in a house full of East Asians in the Sunset and this never happened to me. I lived in SOMA with caucasians and this happened to me (well us, nothing of mine was stolen).
I think what you're seeing is that SF is physically a lot less class-segregated than other US cities and that folks drive around here a lot less than they do in other cities. In LA, the crazies mostly hang around Skid Row and the Arts District and if you spend most of your life outside these places (or in a car, as Angelenos are won't to do) you'll never encounter them. In Chicago if you stick to the Loop and downtown. you'll only see gleaming apartments. In Houston, Austin, and much of Salt Lake City (and honestly almost everyone in LA), most everyone just zooms around in a car and only interacts with the homeless or panhandlers as they drive around. As such most affluent folks know to avoid low-income or run-down neighborhoods and so never really interact with the homeless.
In SF you can walk down Valencia between 17th and 22nd and it'll look shiny and fancy, like something out of a promotional poster about "Modern Living". Then you walk a block over to Guerrero and you'll see someone with scabs all over lying on the street naked. You walk down 7th or 8th and see fancy new cafes, but then you walk down 6th and see folks shooting up in broad daylight. Some of this is SF's more tolerant atmosphere for the mentally-ill homeless; in other cities they just get harassed until they accumulate in a part of town that doesn't have the residents, police funding, or political capital to push them out.
I'm not saying SF is a bed of roses and I do think the police here need to take a much harder line on property crime, but I think a lot of the negative experiences here are motivated by SF's lack of physical segregation and its walking-first culture. America has historically just relegated the poor and homeless to the streets and used cars to literally and figuratively zoom away from them. Now that cities are coming back into vogue, the US will have to confront the fact that it never fixed its poverty problem but just shoved it out of sight.
> Drawing from your personal anecdotes gets tiring.
Perhaps that says more about the impact of high crime stats on real people than my individual luck. The reality remains that various forms of crime are deeply intertwined with various forms of inequality (be it correlation between race/gender/etc and violence/harrassment, or geographic segregation and property crime)
I've lived in Toronto and Sao Paulo, so I have quite a bit of perspective on how far the crime-o-meter range stretches. Even if I did accept that my experience in SF was some sort of freaky statistical anomaly (and I don't, since even y'all "lucky" folks acknowledge being victims of break-ins), that can't fully explain why my volume of bad experiences in SF is so much higher than that of living near a huge slum in a 3rd world city with a ridiculously high crime rate.
> huge slum in a 3rd world city with a ridiculously high crime rate.
If you think Sao Paulo is a 3rd world city, then I don't know what you'd bin Naypyidaw or Monrovia into. 4th world maybe?
You'd probably enjoy living in a South Bay suburb. There's lots of pockets of different races and you'd never have to meet anyone outside of that community and you'd have total local control of police response and other things. Crime rates are low and cultural values are homogeneous in the community.
I try to avoid postulating about places I've not been to. I was born in Sao Paulo, under the reign of military dictatorship, at that (look up its relationship w/ the US if you feel like filling your daily dose of WTFs).
The "3rd world" denomination is not something I came up with, and I certainly don't want to be the one drawing more classist lines as some attempt to distance myself from folks in Liberia or Myanmar or Afghanistan or whatever, as I'm sure they're already going through enough crap as is.
South Bay is, as far as I can tell (I only lived there for a few months), quintessential North American suburbia. It's not that different from Toronto suburbia, to be honest; my wife wants to move to South Bay if we end up settling around these parts. The house prices though :/
Really? Having lived in both for a good period of time, I found New York City to be far more livable and safer. The homeless, petty crime, and general disfunction issues here in SF are laughable for what some might consider to be a "world class city".
The homeless and those issues pretty much only exist in the tourist areas near downtown, the tenderloin, soma, etc. The tourists come and see all of that and get the idea SF is some horrible dystopia, but unless you live in those areas, it's not a problem. I lived in Noe Valley for 3 years and never ran into a single problem from your list. SF is so much more than downtown.
As long as we're giving personal anecdotes, I lived in the mission (the "good side" near dolores park) for 8 years and experienced most of that list. I was physically assaulted last fall while walking back from Noe Valley at 2pm in the afternoon. Nobody answered the police non emergency number while I followed the assailant (who threw a right hook that I only partially dodged as he walked past me on the street).
Sure, you get better at dodging feces and ignoring the drug use, littering, and theft, but let's not pretend it's confined to "downtown, the tenderloin, soma, etc".
I've lived and worked in Manhattan and DC, and spent time in many international cities. I've walked all over all of them, and never felt less safe than I regularly did walking to work in soma.
SF has a unique political situation, a climate that makes homelessness "bearable" and a huge number of absentee landlords (thanks, Prop 13).
We were sad to move out in January. SF is a gorgeous city filled with kind, interesting people. "Horrible dystopia" is certainly an exaggeration, but the situation is bad and has gotten much worse in the past few years.
There are homeless encampments and tents on streets in the Marina district now, so these issues aren't isolated to "tourist areas".
Yes, some parts of the city definitely have it worse than others, but I don't think it's fair to dismiss these issues on the basis that there are small residential enclaves that are less affected.
If you want to enjoy SF's restaurant scene, nightlife, hiking, etc., you will inevitably have to go to areas where this crime is rampant. And this crime should not be happening in an American city, let alone one that is so rich.
The "bad / dangerous" part of the city is now significantly larger than it was even three years ago, when you moved here. It's been expanding rapidly the past few years.
Can confirm. In general, unless you actually step into them, human feces are not a problem. Just watch your step and be alert. How difficult can it be?
I have the opposite view. In SF, your risk of the following occurring is non-negligible and in some cases, shockingly quite likely:
I don't see how a place where these things occur on a regular basis, and where, in most cases, such crimes are not investigated and prosecuted, could ever be considered "not a bad place to live".