The happiest city -- for some

02.06.13 - 3:33 pm | Tim Redmond |

(159)

Not to go all gloomy on a day when it's finally not cold and the sun is out and San Francisco was just named the happiest city in America, (based on things like the number of shopping centers and cultural events), but really: Let's not all jump up and down and celebrate. This is a very happy city for people who have money; it's becoming a very anxiety-filled city for everyone else.

I've gotten quite a few comments and emails from friends on our cover story this week, and most of them go something like this:

"Great story. Really scary. I hope they don't Ellis Act my building or I won't be able to stay here, either."

If you're a renter in San Francisco, and you've been here a while, and you're under rent control, chances are you're nervous about your future. Because if you get evicted, you're almost certainly leaving town. Maybe you can find a place in Oakland that's smaller than what you currently have at twice the price, or maybe you can't.

This is a city under immense pressure, and while the economically secure can happily go to shopping centers and see the Opera, I would say a majority of the current residents of San Francisco are more stressed about their future than they have been in years. And that doesn't seem to be addressed in the happiness calculus.

Comments

Tim, you've become completely obsessed with the Ellis Act

This must be six pieces related to or mentioned Ellis in the last week.

Let it go, man.

Posted by anonymous on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 4:43 pm

they'll let it go when

they'll let it go when corporate boot lickers quit pimping for landlords.

Posted by janarchy on Feb. 13, 2013 @ 12:16 pm

janarchy, the comment was tongue in cheek.

Do you really think I give a crap when a bunch of whiney, self-absorbed jerks complain?

Posted by anon on Feb. 13, 2013 @ 12:43 pm

If they're so stressed about rent and diminished occupancy

levels then shouldn't moving somewhere those things don't exist be considered part of the solution? Mobility is a great thing and in America it's very easy to exercise.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 4:47 pm

Yeah, I've asked Tim et al this question a hundred time and have

never gotten a satisfactory answer:

Why do people who obviously cannot afford to live in SF think they are nevertheless entitled somehow to live here anyway?

I accept and acknowedge that I cannot afford Los Altos, Aspen, Aruba or Andorra. Why is that so hard for others to do?

Posted by anonymous on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 5:24 pm

Doorknob

"I just don't understand why these people with good jobs, lots of friends, and lots of roots in San Francisco don't just go move somewhere where they don't know anybody! And it's not like our economy is having any problems, so I'm sure they'd just be able to move somewhere and get a good job at a moment's notice. I just don't understand why people might be upset that the place that they were able to live in ten years ago and want to live the rest of their lives in is now out of their reach! It's just *mysterious*."

Or, to put it another way: you have the empathy of a doorknob.

Posted by Fred Fnord on Feb. 08, 2013 @ 11:20 am

Empathy doesn't pay the bills, Fred.

But for those who do care about the poor, than it seems rather obvious that they might be happier somewhere where they were not struggling every month to meet their housing bill.

Oakland and Daly City are both 10 minutes away, and much cheaper.

Posted by anon on Feb. 08, 2013 @ 11:35 am

Well, Empathy, thanks to RENT

Well, Empathy, thanks to RENT CONTROL, I don't have to struggle every month to meet my housing bill. So it seems rather obvious to me you are a snooty turd who does not care about those of us who are not MONEY GRUBBERS.

I have never liked rich folk because they are so BORING. All they do is chase the almighty dollar and boast about how rich they are. BORING. You should move to Oakland and get your bottom kicked by some resentful poor folk. Gosh, it's just ten minutes away and you can easily get back to the City to indulge your obsession with wealth!

Posted by Guest on Feb. 12, 2013 @ 8:49 am

Nice parody of Tim there with his "the rich are boring"

shtick.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 12, 2013 @ 9:09 am

Here is why I believe I

Here is why I believe I personally deserve to live/stay in San Francisco: It's my home and has been for 31 years.

The concepts of belonging and community and rootedness are essential to most people's well being. Maybe not while we are young (although I would have argued that point then), but certainly as we grow older and realize we have become inseparably entwined with the place we call home.

I have been a part of shaping SF through community work, campaigns and public art projects, beginning in 1982. I know every inch of this place better than the lines on my face.

Yes, it's gorgeous, but so is Monte Carlo, and I would never have wanted to live there, make a home and build a life there. Or Los Altos, for that matter. I came to San Francisco because of the culture and the people of this city, and the long legacy that has made it special. It is those of us who are writers and artists and at the cultural and intellectual edge, who work for non profits and who dig into this city to help shape it for the next generation, who have historically made this the place everyone seems to want to be, at least for awhile.

I know one thing: If the profile of the city becomes primarily that of a bedroom community for white high tech workers who spend most or all of their waking hours just working, the rest of us will already be living in exile, even without leaving our apartments.

Posted by Slavenka Anon on Feb. 14, 2013 @ 9:59 pm

And let them eat cake

Where would that be, Lucretia? Seriously. I would not be able to stay in San Francisco if I lost my rent-controlled apartment. I am getting old now, and it would not be "easy," let alone "very easy" for me to move. In fact, it would be a disaster for me. I would lose my social contacts, which are limited to begin with. My physical safety would likely be seriously reduced, since I would have to move to a poorer area. I would be extremely depressed. People like YOU should move and leave the rest of us to enjoy our neighborhoods.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 12, 2013 @ 8:44 am

Not everyone can afford SF, "Guest"

Tell me what the rest of us SF'ers gain by you being here rather than in a place you can actually afford?

Posted by Guest on Feb. 12, 2013 @ 9:09 am

We can't afford dipshits with a lack of compassion

Why don't you move? You're like Marie Antoinette holding out cake to the starving masses.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 12, 2013 @ 5:23 pm

I can afford to live here without a subsidy so have no need to

leave. You, apparently, cannot.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 12, 2013 @ 5:35 pm

Can't afford it?

Cities change, even San Francisco. Those who can not afford to live here should move rather than have others subsidize them via rent control. I'm tired of this author trying to make me feel guilty because I paid my own way through college, got a degree that allowed me a job that paid well and have been successful investor in stock and real estate. This is a blended capitalist/socialist economy, but the monies being paid to NGO Not-for Profits to maintain poor people in SF living in 3rd world living conditions are just plain ridiculous and self-defeating.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 5:31 pm

"I'm tired of this author

"I'm tired of this author trying to make me feel guilty..."

He can't. That's your job. That's your baggage, pleb. Only you can make yourself feel guilty, not the author. One chooses to feel guilty or not. Despite all of your snooty elitism, it sounds like you have issues and you're trying to disguise them with all of your alleged "success." And with your snooty "I'm better than you" elitist, self-absorbed, self-entitled attitude, it's obvious you feel nothing. Just an empty sack. Clearly you've never learned that money does not buy/guarantee happiness. And your not-so-veiled hatred for poor people is sick but typical of your type.

International Troll Society Member #12360969212

Posted by International Troll Society Member #12360969212 on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 9:18 pm

Projecting - again

Poor dear. Don't you think you should seek help for the obviousness of your vulgar behavior?

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 9:47 pm

Well, you're right about one thing

You shouldn't feel guilty because you 'paid your own way through college' and so forth. (Why do I get the feeling that you've left a lot out of that description? Not intentionally, but because you really don't understand that anyone helped you 'pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.').

The reason you should feel guilty is because you're a bad person, lacking all empathy and feeling yourself superior to everyone without your advantages. And, honestly, it sounds like you already do. Good: that's a step in the right direction.

Posted by Fred Fnord on Feb. 08, 2013 @ 11:23 am

Can't afford it?

Let me guess, Can't afford it. You're a white male, right?

Posted by Guest on Feb. 12, 2013 @ 8:51 am

Rent control

is a tool that the non corporate Dems (Avalos, Campos, Peskin and their ilk) use to stay in power. More homeownres equal more conservative voters = more corporate type Dems (Gavvy, Ed Lee, WillieB, Elsbernd/Ferrell and their ilk.) The no corporate Dems and their supporters who make their living off this issue and the homeless/illegal immigrant advocacy industry will fight to the death to maintain it. and all the special privileges that keep bringing the homeless/illegals here to feed their insatiable not for profit machines.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 5:38 pm

So in other words

So what you're saying is that the corporate dems represent well, corporations; while the non corporate dems represent ordinary people. And rent control is one policy that helps ordinary people (who aren't rich) stay in this city. And this is bad... how exactly?

Posted by Greg on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 6:03 pm

So you think housing policy should be determined by whatever

most suits your political agenda winning at the polls?

Posted by anonymous on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 6:18 pm

Playing for keeps.

Playing for keeps.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 9:39 pm

According to time, the game is being lost

Mister Ellis is the trump card in this game.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 10:27 am

And the condo conversion

And the condo conversion limits are the queen of spades that comes in the same hand as your jack of diamonds. +3, sucka.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 10:42 am

Except that TIC's are proliferating and there isn't a damn thing

you or the city can do about it, because it is governed by State law.

If you were right, why would Tim be whining so much about this?

Posted by Guest on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 11:03 am

OMFG.... once again, then FUCKING MOVE

How boring has this pseudo-emotional rant gotten? "What's being overlooked is that SF is not an easy place to live if you're poor".

Holy sweet shitballz NO FUCKING SHIT!!! Seriously, what is this? Is this like, journalism? It's awful. And somehow it's on repeat here at the SFBG. Make the broken record stop. Please.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 6:17 pm

Aww...

I really feel for you. It must suck to have someone forcing you to read these articles. Just terrible torture.

Seriously: if you hate this so much, why do you read them? It's a bizarre behavior. Do you just *adore* being angry all the time? Do you read them out of a sense of guilt, torturing yourself because you secretly feel yourself unworthy of the wealth that, let's face it, is probably a result of your upbringing and connections rather than any actual self-worth? Do you read them just because you will click on any story that's put in front of you, like a monkey with a typewriter?

People who go seek out things that they hate, solely so they can complain about them, are mindboggling to me. Go read redstate.com or something.

Posted by Fred Fnord on Feb. 08, 2013 @ 11:28 am

I'm not sure which is worse,

I'm not sure which is worse, that these trolls hang out on sites they hate to attack posters who are in sync with the editorial position of this rag, that Tim and the SFBG allow the barn animals in the farm house, or that people actually pay the trolls to spend all waking hours here harassing.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 08, 2013 @ 12:09 pm

Are you talking about Lilli at SFGate?

Sounds like it.

Posted by anon on Feb. 08, 2013 @ 12:30 pm

You describe my state of mind

You describe my state of mind perfectly Tim.

I am way more anxious now that when Newsom was mayor. There are luxury condos going up all over town as though it will have the slightest effect on workforce housing prices. Mainland triads more likely.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 8:00 pm

Daly City is just 3 miles away

Even better Oakland is just 8 miles away! So many options for you here!

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 8:15 pm

Ah... The good ole "yellow

Ah... The good ole "yellow peril" rears its head again.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 12:50 pm

Yep, progressive love racial minorities except for the asians

The model minority troubles them, for some reason.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 1:22 pm

Nice try Lucretias

Divide and conquer... pitting Asians against progressives. Won't work.

Posted by Greg on Feb. 08, 2013 @ 9:52 pm

Bad things happened to the

Bad things happened to the Chinese long ago so all Chinese and Chinese Americans are permanently insulated from any criticism even though there is a Chinese American Mayor, Board President, Assessor, Assemblymember?

If we can talk about Central American gangs, then we can talk about Chinese gangs.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 08, 2013 @ 10:20 pm

The broken record from the

The broken record from the smug, arrogant, extremely immature, childish, self-entitled homeowners who think they deserve special rights is that, "if you can't afford to live here, then move." That is screamed in all caps, like the children they are. There's no concern at all about someone being evicted and their entire life being unrooted, their friends or family.

There's something called karma. And maybe someday these low-level, cold, snarly, nasty, lobotomized amateur trolls (of the old breed) who clearly don't care about anyone but their own smug non-useful selves will receive a load of karma as retribution for their hateful troll "act" on here.

Clearly, the impression from the elitist homeowners is that they want only wealthy (and I suspect mostly white) people living in San Francisco. Make this city one big "gated community." There are many gated communities around the country. Why don't they move to one since that's what they want? Wouldn't that be easier for the smugs since they have the luxury with their supposed enormous wealth to move anywhere. Wouldn't that be easier instead of trying to ruin San Francisco and turn it into a "gated community" of only wealthy people. When that happens, who will want to come to San Francisco? Kiss your tourism industry goodbye. Because who want to come to a city filled with nasty, unfeeling, uncaring people such as those holding the majority sick attitude on this forum? One would be better advised to visit pond scum.

International Troll Society Member #12360969212

Posted by International Troll Society Member #12360969212 on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 8:40 pm

Do not demonize all

Do not demonize all homeowners. Simply because someone is better off than you does not make them wealthy or conservative politically.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 8:53 pm

I stand by what I wrote. I

I stand by what I wrote. I worked with real estate liars here at one time and speak from experience with homeowners and homeowner associations.

But specifically I wrote, "elitist homeowners." Emphasis on "elitist."

There are some good homeowners, but I thought that was obvious and didn't need to be said considering I had said "elitist homeowners."

International Troll Society Member #12360969212

Posted by International Troll Society Member #12360969212 on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 9:25 pm

marcos can be like that sometimes.

I wish that marcos would think twice when he imagines that someone on this side of the table needs to be corrected, because it's often a phenomenon of his own imagination.

Sorry marcos, but don't be such a pissant.

:0)

Posted by lillipublicans on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 9:02 am

Leave two lefties alone together long enough and they will

always start squabbling. But here I think lilli is right. marcos cannot claim the moral high ground on affordable housing while planning to own more than one home and rent them out at a market rent.

Also his NIMBY'ism directly contradicts his claim to want more, and so more affordable, housing.

Hypocrisy is undermining his credibility here.

Posted by anon on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 9:34 am

So many on 'the left' have

So many on 'the left' have learned to love to lose.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 08, 2013 @ 10:57 pm

Sorry, but one major

Sorry, but one major progressive error has been presupposing people's politics based on their housing status or income.

How about "That minority of homeowners who are elitist?"

This way you don't alienate potential allies--one would think that a movement descending into hyper minority status would think that important if you were trying to put together a viable political coalition.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 12:55 pm

To Do Not Demonize All

Are you really "better off" than renters?

A pseudo-progressive fat boy bought a TIC near me. He decided to victimize me in many ways because he considered himself my "better" now that he was a homeowner. All the while, he was flipping real estate, gonna be a wealthy man!

Well, the real estate bubble burst and gave him a reality check. And his ugly personality became obvious to his "friends," who started avoiding him.

Now fat boy cannot live in his TIC because he cannot afford it. He has moved out of SF.

So much for being "better off." Life isn't that simple, is it?

Posted by Guest on Feb. 12, 2013 @ 9:00 am

Nice fantasy, Guest.

Feel better now?

Posted by Guest on Feb. 12, 2013 @ 9:12 am

"who want to come to a city filled with nasty, unfeeling..."

Evidently you've never visited New York.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 8:56 pm

There are hundreds of tight

There are hundreds of tight knit communities in NYC. People actually grow up and can stay there.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 9:15 pm

Did anyone say there isn't?

New York is filled with people who outsiders view as "nasty and unfeeling." It's part of the legendary NY ethos - yet people still visit.

Don't lecture me on the diversity of New York Marcos. I lived in New York.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 9:26 pm

Oh yeah...our wealthy people are driving the tourists away

>"When that happens, who will want to come to San Francisco? Kiss your tourism industry goodbye. Because who want to come to a city filled with nasty, unfeeling, uncaring people such as those holding the majority sick attitude on this forum?."

So by your logic nobody wants to visit Paris, Tokyo, Geneva, Zurich or Sydney? Because they are the most expensive cities on the planet. They are all more expensive than San Francisco to live in.

Let me guess....you think that our current offering of endless panhandling, people sleeping in every doorway and streets that double as bathrooms is fine as it is. Just the way to welcome tourists.

Maybe you should revisit the issue when you can make even a slight bit of sense.

Posted by Troll on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 10:21 pm

Grade: -1 (per

Grade: -1 (per International Troll Society guidelines)

I take it you're new at trolling so let me not be too harsh. Your post is not polished under ITS (International Troll Society) guidelines. A brief critique follows:

Your trolling style is old school. Now you may say that you've read your style of trolling from many other trolls and you just copied them. Yes, that's a problem and many people do and they lack originality (as of course you do). This is an example of old school, where you wrote:

"Let me guess...."

That's in violation of ITS guidelines. It's number 21 on the list of "old school" phrases to be avoided. "Let me guess..." is an attempt to be sassy and smug and there are other ways of doing that that are not old school.

Secondly,

You "theme trolled." Not good. Do you know what "theme trolling" is? Theme trolling is where you work in to any post regardless of the topic your "theme" hatred of whatever it is that you hate. So in your case, you hate the homeless so you worked that in to your troll post. Bad idea. Because hating the homeless is in violation of ITS Ethics Code guidelines (p. 42, paragraphs 9-11 specifically addresses that).

So sleep on it, pleb, and because of the cheap and tawdry manner in which you troll, you might reconsider whether you want to even continue to pursue trolling, because as it stands now, it doesn't look for you. Not at all. Like all the other imposter/amateur trolls on this site, you're too unpolished and on top of that you have personal issues (for example, your hatred for the homeless which says quite a bit about you as a person, pleb). But do sleep on it.

International Troll Society Member #12360969212

Posted by International Troll Society Member #12360969212 on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 3:31 am