calbear93 said:
Unit2Sucks said:
82gradDLSdad said:
Unit2Sucks said:
calbear93 said:
Unit2Sucks said:
calbear93 said:
He is an awkward son of an immigrant who had to earn his way.
Who are you talking about? Ron's parents and grandparents all grew up in Ohio/Pennsylvania.
calbear93 said:
Uncool at Harvard? Do they even know what that means? There is nothing more discriminatory than white elitist liberalism in the East Coast. I swear people were asking me about my family history, talking about weekend dinners at the Hamptons and what cases of wine their siblings are bringing. These from folks who preached about progressive views. The type of people who would find someone like DeSantis "uncool" are truly the insulated, uncool folks who would not survive a minute in the type of neighborhood I grew up in. Screw that. Many of them ended up becoming my close friends in the professional field, but I never considered what was cool at Harvard actually cool.
And the nonsense about Harvard and Yale producing conservative folks. Where did the liberal politicians like Obama and all of the liberal Supreme Court justices graduate from? Nonsense.
And when will folks realize that Newsom has not being doing a good job for our state?
Gavin Newsom isn't running for POTUS on a "Make America Florida" campaign. Newsom is mostly governing for the state and its residents whereas Desantis is clearly governing entirely to support his campaign. Almost nothing he is focused on is designed to solve problems that exist in Florida.
You are right on the immigrant side. Got confused on that point based on Trump's attacks on DeSantis and his Italian heritage. It was his great-grandparents who immigrated from Italy.
My point on Newsom is based on the tit-for-tat between Newsom and DeSantis and the fact that you wrote DeSantis is not doing a good job for Florida. Most people I speak to from Florida believe he has made their lives better. Not sure people say the same for Newsom. They definitely did not think he did as a mayor of San Francisco. But all that aside, seems like Newsom is the kind of WASPY, ineffectual, wealthy elitist aura that people want for their politician to be considered cool.
I think Newsom is a ****** and I don't like him personally but I think he made SF a better place and he did a lot for marginalized groups. I think the state of California has a lot of unique challenges (as does Florida) but most people I speak to think Newsom is doing well. Last I saw his approval rating was close to 60%. If we don't have a bad fire season, I suspect Newsom will continue to fare well.
You have anecdotes of people you speak to from Florida but the ones I speak to think Desantis is a grandstander whose only concern is for his political aspirations and they already have a more popular version of him in Florida. Last I saw his approval ratings were a few points lower with Florida voters than Newsom's with CA voters.
I think that you and I feel totally opposite about SF is interesting and I don't have a solution for that. I don't know you although I hope we meet on the street someday (really mean that). Our views on SF are tough to quantify. I tend to use my eyes having grown up there and now walk in and around most districts in the city, you may know more statistics than I. Like I said, interesting. I have great friends who hold your views. I always listen to them and try to see what they see. The fact that I can't is something that troubles me.
Do we feel opposite?
A lot of people look back at Newsom's tenure (2004-2011) as one of SF's heydays (after recovering from the dotcom bust). I get that SF was awesome if you go back to say 1970 (although the Tenderloin was still terrible) but if you don't think the city was good under Newsom, when did you like it here?
By the way, I do agree that it's tough to quantify and that's not really how I think about life in the city. As someone who has lived here for a while, I think about what life is really like. I probably don't get around the city as much as you do so I just speak to what I know. One point that we can probably agree on is that the "locals" have a pretty good sense as to where to hang out and where not to, so from that perspective I probably only tend to visit places and areas that have something desirable to visit. I stay out of the tenderloin, mid market, bayview, etc. unless there is a very specific reason I have to be there. That was true when I was a kid in the 90's, under Newsom and now under Breed.
The 80's and 90's suffered from far more gang violence, and violent crime generally, and that was something that was experienced by way more San Franciscans than the stuff that's happening now. The crack epidemic was a pretty big deal. The western addition has been gentrified and is much cleaner and safer than it used to be. There are other areas where this is true as well - parts of SOMA, Hayes Valley, etc.
What parts of SF do you think are meaningfully worse than the better SF that you remember? Are there parts that you agree are better now?
Not addressed to me, but I cannot think of one area that is better.
I lived in both Pacific Heights and Russian Hill before moving to Hillsborough when I lived in the Bay Area.
I don't think Newsom added to San Francisco, because it was pretty awesome when Willie Brown was mayor as well. Newsom didn't mess it up as much as the progressive wanted him to.
Agree that the whole Bay Area during that time was fantastic. It was safe to go running all the way across the Golden Gate Bridge in the morning. The only place that felt sketchy at the time was Tenderloin and maybe bits of Panhandle but otherwise was great and safe. Even late run for burritos and beer in Mission felt safe back then. The last time I went to SF before heading out to Napa, I could not wait to leave the city. Homeless situation and before then gentrification of areas that used to have their own culture made SF just undesirable. Even Union Square and Marina seemed unsafe.
I cannot think of a single place in SF that seems better now than when I lived there. Not Newsom's fault. More gentrification from all the tech money followed by COVID and pandemic and the explosion of homelessness and open drug use, but it is not a place I would ever live in again even if I ever moved back up north.
Interesting perspective. It reminds me a bit of inflation - I think it's hard for people to internalize. My Holocaust survivor grandmother thought that $1 bagels were exorbitant and remembered paying $0.05 for them decades prior.
Studies consistently show that people's perception of crime doesn't match reality, with people often thinking crime is rising when it isn't for a variety of reasons.
There is a constant drumbeat of negative news about SF safety that is designed to make people feel this way, much of it narrative driven. I hear it from a lot of different sources.
But when I think on the neighborhood level, it doesn't feel the same. I have friends in Potrero. When they moved there in the early 2000's it was sketchy. A friend of a friend (Cal guy) got shot in the face there by a mugger. It's much safer now in Potrero.
A friend moved to NOPA about 15 years ago because it was "gentrifying" but it was early in the process and she ultimately moved because she didn't feel comfortable with her young kids in that neighborhood. It's fine now.
I'm with my kids right now getting Acai bowls by city college. Used to be a rough neighborhood but is safe and vibrant now.
I've had similar experiences throughout the mission in places that used to be no go zones but are fine now. There are certainly still pockets that I avoid, and they may be worse than before, but they are fewer and more isolated.
I've already mentioned Hayes Valley and the Western Addition.
I too get pulled into the narrative that the city is much worse than it used to be but when I break it down I'm not so sure.
That's why I would love to hear 82's viewpoint (and yours) since I know he walks the whole city (or much of it) and has a historical perspective that might be different from mine.
