Key jobs that don't pay enough to live in San Francisco (or some other major cities)

[JiminyCricket II]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

... a majority of its citizens still want them that way and do not agree with you that the status quo is to their detriment.

Yeah whentheir places are worth 7x from what they paid in the 80s/90s and you are renting out your broom closet for $2grand a month... sure the status quo isn't to your detriment! Wouldn't it be nice to know you live in and/or rent out your retirement plan.

But...For everyone else in the city who really want to be there, it sucks and the policies are completely to their detriment.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by JiminyCricket II

Yeah whentheir places are worth 7x from what they paid in the 80s/90s and you are renting out your broom closet for $2grand a month... sure the status quo isn't to your detriment! Wouldn't it be nice to know you live in and/or rent out your retirement plan.

But...For everyone else in the city who really want to be there, it sucks and the policies are completely to their detriment.

And yet they keep voting the other way, the recent "No Wall on the Waterfront" vote being the latest example.

The point here is not that the people who voted to block that project (8 Washgton St) and others like it are right but that they appear to remain the majority of voting San Franciscans.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by mhays

Maybe the district isn't the only thing keeping them from graduating.

Of course not. But we are constantly told that poor kids get screwed over because they need more funding for their schools. The social issues are ones no one wants to address. It would involve a lot of personal responsibility and that's called hate these days.

[10023]

I keep arriving at the idea that the one fix for inner city schools might be completely politically impossible, and that's boarding schools. If the neighborhood and parenting (or lack thereof) are the problem, then take both out of the equation. It would cost money, but not necessarily more than the $20k per student some of those urban school districts are spending.

Obviously not realistic, but quite possibly the only solution that works.

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by 10023

I keep arriving at the idea that the one fix for inner city schools might be completely politically impossible, and that's boarding schools. If the neighborhood and parenting (or lack thereof) are the problem, then take both out of the equation. It would cost money, but not necessarily more than the $20k per student some of those urban school districts are spending.

Obviously not realistic, but quite possibly the only solution that works.

Depends how you sell it, politically speaking of course. Kids in boarding schools leaves parents more time for Netflix and social media.

[llamaorama]

Your idea sounds extremely expensive, unnecessary, paternalistic, and much more difficult to implement than alternatives that have a history of working.

Here's what I would do. Integrate social services into high poverty schools, and make character and emotional development of students a part of the curriculum. And let the dust settle, I think endless reform makes for an administrative churn that alienates teachers and distracts them from their job

Also you are off topic..

[Pedestrian]

About half the guys (yes, it was all guys) I went to college with were the product of boarding schools and some of them were pretty dissolute too. Boys left to their own devices (and no boading school staff can supervise like a good parent) can get into a lot of trouble too and learn a lot of evil.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by 10023

I keep arriving at the idea that the one fix for inner city schools might be completely politically impossible, and that's boarding schools.

Long-term, I mean really long-term, the inner city schools population will fix itself.

In the more prosperous cities, inner city public school populations are steadily trending less poor. If you look at the present demographic data compared to 20 years ago, there has already been massive change.

In 1997 there was hardly a decent public elementary school in brownstone Brooklyn; now there are dozens with performance equivalent to the Scarsdale and Greenwich-type suburban public elementaries. I'm on a Brooklyn parent listserv, and every year there are a couple additional elementaries deemed acceptable to affluent parents.

It will probably take 50 years, but the "inner city school problem" is on its way to being corrected, regardless of policy decisionmakers.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

About half the guys (yes, it was all guys) I went to college with were the product of boarding schools and some of them were pretty dissolute too. Boys left to their own devices (and no boading school staff can supervise like a good parent) can get into a lot of trouble too and learn a lot of evil.

My college had tons of boarding school grads and I have so many awful stories. The schools have lots of bullying, hard drugs, sexual abuse and the like. The kids were often super-entitled, and resentful of being shuttled off by their parents.

[llamaorama]

So in the SF Bay Area, could parts of the North Bay ever pick up the slack? Some parts of it are a bit rough, but you have BART all the way to Pittsburg...

Maybe its just a reality that needs accepting, that the inner cores of San Francisco and the peninsula around Palo Alto down to 'Silicon Valley' are just intrinsically expensive due to a combination of high paying jobs and attractive location. But the Bay Area is geographically massive as a region, and other areas of within a moderate drive or commuter train ride should be more affordable.

A solution would be to improve regional transportation, and incentivize the creation of attractive, strong satellite cores. Both of things are sort of halfway there, honestly.

For example, Livermore could be more than it is. A BART extension and Dumbarton rail could make it more commute accessible. Likewise maybe some economic incentive or development money spent by the state or regional authorities if they exist could be directed towards luring some more high paying jobs to run down places like Vallejo and it could be a bit nicer.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

So in the SF Bay Area, could parts of the North Bay ever pick up the slack? Some parts of it are a bit rough, but you have BART all the way to Pittsburg...

Maybe its just a reality that needs accepting, that the inner cores of San Francisco and the peninsula around Palo Alto down to 'Silicon Valley' are just intrinsically expensive due to a combination of high paying jobs and attractive location. But the Bay Area is geographically massive as a region, and other areas of within a moderate drive or commuter train ride should be more affordable.

A solution would be to improve regional transportation, and incentivize the creation of attractive, strong satellite cores. Both of things are sort of halfway there, honestly.

For example, Livermore could be more than it is. A BART extension and Dumbarton rail could make it more commute accessible. Likewise maybe some economic incentive or development money spent by the state or regional authorities if they exist could be directed towards luring some more high paying jobs to run down places like Vallejo and it could be a bit nicer.

There have been innovation nodes well beyond the San Francisco-San Jose axis for a long time. Emeryville (on the eastern end of the Bay Bridge) has from its beginnings been a biotech hub. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore has kept that area on the scientific map since the dawn of the nuclear age. Berkeley, of course, is Berkeley (and as pricey as SF). The East Bay counties are growing faster than the coastal counties but their citizens also oppose and block growth. Whatever the present character of communities, a lot of the residents oppose change.

And to many of them, "San Francisco" is a strange, scary place they don't want to be like. I learned that when working in the East Bay and listening to my co-workers who lived over there talk about the city.

As far as transportation goes, are you familiar with "ACE" (Altamont Commuter Express)?


https://www.google.com/search?q=Alta...fXwsNzrUSgVhM:

This is commuter rail that potentially brings people living in down-and-out (it went bankrut during the Great Recession) Stockton and other Central Valley towns to the East Bay and Silicon Valley. To be maximally effective, it would probably need some more money pumped into it to make service more frequent and generally upgrade it (including the proposed and potential stations shown), but the line has been in operation for several years now. And, as the map shows, it permits transferring to BART for access to downtown SF and the rest of the central Bay Area.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

So in the SF Bay Area, could parts of the North Bay ever pick up the slack? Some parts of it are a bit rough, but you have BART all the way to Pittsburg...

The thing is, locales aren't fungible. Place matters. The people who really love SF and who pay market rates aren't going to move to Pittsburg. The folks in Marin or on the Peninsula aren't going there either.

I don't know the Bay Area super-well, but I've been in East Bay communities like San Leandro, Hayward, Union City, etc. and I don't know who would live there except immigrants.

They're older, working-class-looking suburbia, with weak cores and unremarkable housing. I would bet schools aren't that great and crime is somewhat of an issue. Aging suburbia. Probably great as temporary way-stations for striving immigrants but who wants to live there if they have big money and choices and value urbanity?

Up in the hills and in Walnut Creek, there are very nice neighborhoods, of course. But the East Bay is cheaper for a reason.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't know the Bay Area super-well, but I've been in East Bay communities like San Leandro, Hayward, Union City, etc. and I don't know who would live there except immigrants.

Check out Piedmont, Orinda, Lafayette, Walnut Creek, Alamo, the "tri-valleys", even the Oakland Hills. There are certainly pleasant upscale suburbs in the East Bay (or why would people like Warriors star Steph Curry choose to live there) but they are generally even less interested in multi-family housing or growth in general than SF/Silicon Valley.

Some of the smaller McMansions in the East Bay community of Blackhawk, a community for some reason beloved of professional athletes among others:


https://www.google.com/search?q=Blac...9tEZXj8fMz8BYN

[10023]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

Your idea sounds extremely expensive, unnecessary, paternalistic, and much more difficult to implement than alternatives that have a history of working.

Here's what I would do. Integrate social services into high poverty schools, and make character and emotional development of students a part of the curriculum. And let the dust settle, I think endless reform makes for an administrative churn that alienates teachers and distracts them from their job

Also you are off topic..

I don't think it would be more expensive than the $20k per student that urban schools currently cost, and I have no problem with paternalism. I believe that government does need to look after people who can't look after themselves (or whose parents can't look after them).

Crawford, the trends you describe are largely demographics based. Inner city schools become better with gentrification, but those poor students that move elsewhere aren't necessarily better off. They're just being displaced by students from families of higher socioeconomic status.

Anyway, I realize this is off topic but that's par for the course. Any discussion of inner city cost will eventually stray into demographics and quality of schools which are the two main confounding factors in the US. Here in the UK boarding schools are so common that it's not as much of a factor in where to live.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

. . . the inner cores of San Francisco and the peninsula around Palo Alto down to 'Silicon Valley' are just intrinsically expensive due to a combination of high paying jobs and attractive location. But the Bay Area is geographically massive as a region, and other areas of within a moderate drive or commuter train ride should be more affordable.

A solution would be to improve regional transportation . . . .

Want jobs for the ‘forgotten man’? Finish high-speed rail.
BY THE EDITORIAL BOARD

Disparaging California’s high-speed rail project as an overpriced boondoggle is a kind of received wisdom by now.

Self-styled protectors of taxpayers carp. Powerful congressional Republicans go out of their way to undermine the $64 billion project. It’s the “crazy train,” or the “train to nowhere.” Tesla founder Elon Musk says a hyperloop would be a smarter alternative. Advocates of driverless cars say they will be the answer.

But rail is not crazy in Europe or in Asia. And Fresno, Madera, Merced and Stanislaus counties, home to nearly 2 million Californians, are not nowhere. They are, however, too often forgotten.

The Sacramento Bee’s editorial board, which opposed the 2008 ballot measure that authorized high-speed rail, long since has come to see the life-changing potential of a transportation system that connects the San Joaquin Valley to Silicon Valley. It’s not too complicated to see the short and long-term reasons why.

San Mateo County’s unemployment rate is 2.5 percent. In Santa Clara County, the rate is 3.1 percent. Statewide, 4.8 percent of the workforce is out of a job. In too much of the other California that straddles Highway 99, times remain tough . . . .

The Central Valley needs to become part of the rest of the state.

An efficient way to get to the Silicon Valley is one way connect it with the rest of California. There will be mutual benefit. Consider housing. In Santa Clara County, the median price of a home is north of $1 million. In Fresno, it slightly more than $200,000.

High-speed rail is at a particularly perilous point now. Its director, Jeff Morales, has stepped down, after withstanding more than his share of shots, many of them cheap. His replacement will need proven skills that include the ability to manage a huge construction project and navigate the fraught politics.

Gov. Jerry Brown, who inherited the project from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, has been an enthusiastic supporter, but knows his successor might not be nearly as excited, particularly if Brown fails to secure stable funding.

The most obvious source is California’s cap-and-trade program by which greenhouse gas emitters such as refineries, food processors and people who drive cars powered by internal combustion engines pay to offset the damage they cause to the environment.

Sen. Bob Wieckowski, an East Bay Democrat, is carrying Senate Bill 775, which would extend cap-and-trade and lock in funding for certain public works projects including high-speed rail which, in time, will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. SB 775 requires a two-thirds vote, tough for Democrats who recently voted to raise gasoline taxes and other fees by $5 billion a year for road maintenance.

But oil companies, always an influential lobby, should become Democrats’ allies, understanding that a retooled market-based cap-and-trade system is far preferable to the alternative: a dictate by legislators and regulators that emitters cut emissions.

A shorter term benefit of high-speed rail can be seen each workday at 14 job sites in Fresno and Madera counties. After years of infuriating delay, 1,100 people, many in hard hats, attest that construction is underway.

There’s foundation work on a bridge spanning the San Joaquin River at the north end of Fresno near Highway 99, and a huge trench, which will carry rail cars under Highway 180 north of downtown Fresno. At the south end of Fresno, work advances for the superstructure of a viaduct that will take the trains up and over major roads and Highway 99.

A new bridge is expected to open for traffic any day, carrying two-way traffic over Union Pacific Railroad tracks and the future high-speed train line in downtown Fresno. It will replace two one-way bridges that weren't tall enough to accommodate high-speed rail.

At last count, 380 small businesses had a piece of the project. A review of high-speed rail documents through the end of March showed more than $1 billion in construction invoices for work between Madera and Shafter had been approved.

In time, $6 billion will have been spent in and around Fresno. Ask experts when the last time was that such a sum was spent on a public works project in Fresno, and they will laugh. Never . . . .

The $20 billion Central Valley to Silicon Valley leg won’t carry commuters until 2025, give or take. But once it does, the forgotten part of California that coastal residents fly over or zip past en route to Yosemite will become connected to the rest of the state and gain their share of California’s bounty. That’s not a boondoggle. That’s fair.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/editor...#storylink=cpy

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by 10023

I keep arriving at the idea that the one fix for inner city schools might be completely politically impossible, and that's boarding schools. If the neighborhood and parenting (or lack thereof) are the problem, then take both out of the equation. It would cost money, but not necessarily more than the $20k per student some of those urban school districts are spending.

Obviously not realistic, but quite possibly the only solution that works.

Love it. I wouldn't mind taxes going up slightly to save a kids life literally and figuratively. Also, we would all be better off with less crime. Win win

[llamaorama]

I don't think it would be more expensive than the $20k per student that urban schools currently cost, and I have no problem with paternalism. I believe that government does need to look after people who can't look after themselves (or whose parents can't look after them).

Firstly, that cost per student figure is a massive outlier. Normally the high end of per pupil spending is twice that. Also I can guarantee that a public boarding school would cost more than that, because it would inherent the cost structure of an already expensive school then tack on the cost of housing, cleaning, food service to it. Just no.

Secondly, you are presenting a false dilemma. The two choices aren't either to spent an exorbitant amount of money making poor kids miserable by putting them in abusive boarding schools, or to continue to spend an exorbitant amount of money funding mismanaged school systems with lots of legacy costs without asking where each dollar goes.

The correct action to take is to tackle the issue of how money actually reaches students. If a line item in the budget reduces class sizes, it stays and grows. If a budget item doesn't contribute, it shrinks.

[10023]

Abusive boarding schools? I have lots of friends that went to boarding schools. My whole family in England did. I fully intend to send my own children to boarding school, if I have any.

The problem with inner city schools is not the schools, it's the inner city. It's the gangs that infest the schools and the neighborhood, it's the stuff that kids get up to outside of school, and it's their uneducated parents.

[Pedestrian]

^^Seems like all you'd need to solve that issue less exensively than boarding school is to be an "educated parent".

I mentioned I went to college with about half the class being from boarding schools, but most of the rest were from elite day schools or top quality public schools (e.g. New York's Stuyvesant and Bronx Hgh School of Science, New Trier High in IL, New Canaan High in CT etc). The city kids mostly managed to get to and from their schools on public transit in NYC in a pre-Giuliani age when NYC was more gritty than today. I don't know if the credit for their success goes to their parents or the schools. I think a lot may go to their culture (yeah quite a few Jews in that group and today it would probably be Asians).

[llamaorama]

You could get most of the same benefits of a boarding school for the vast majority of students by just extending the school day to have a study or activity period at the end.