
San Francisco Asks: Where Have All the Children Gone? - jseliger
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/san-francisco-children.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share
======
achou
I'm a parent with two children living in SF.

Before I had children, I had _no idea_ how difficult it was going to be, even
putting aside finances. Most people without children just don't get how much
more difficult ordinary life becomes. There is a deep reason that the "boring"
suburbs beckon.

Yes, the schools and the lower housing costs are a part of it. But there's
also just the easier lifestyle, where you don't need to compete as much for
everything. Parking, sidewalks, aggressive cars, daycare, schools, a seat on
the bus, and very much _avoiding crazy people who might harm your children_.

It is extremely stressful to walk your young child across a busy intersection
in SOMA where a driver is aggressively trying to turn, where a crazy person is
screaming at the top of his lungs, where a street that smells of urine awaits
you on the other side.

Putting SF aside, it's extremely difficult to maintain a good relationship
with your spouse when a demanding job takes up a huge amount of time, and when
that job seems like a vacation compared with the weekends with the kids.
Almost universally every parent I know says that going to work on Monday is a
relief, the beginning of their temporary vacation from the intensity of
nuclear family life.

The children themselves create the vast majority of the stress. Parents need
environments that help _reduce_ that burden, not merely keep inconveniences at
bay. At our school the #1 wish of parents, by far, is for faraway grandparents
to move nearby and help. If they could afford it. If they could survive in
this city hostile to the elderly. If they were willing to give up their
comfortable retirement travel adventures to shoulder some of the burden. Very,
very few have this arrangement in SF.

~~~
0x445442
A big problem is two income families. It's always struck me as odd that folks
think they could give parenting their divided attention and then honestly
claim they've given their best effort.

Our culture was hoodwinked into thinking raising children was somehow less
important than having a career. Child rearing is a full time job if performed
optimally and it's importance should be recognized and championed.

~~~
hesdeadjim
That dream was 50's nuclear family hoodwinking based on the sexism at the time
and the woman's "place" in the home. My child goes to daycare and it is
infinitely more stimulating than anything we could do for her at home even if
we've "given our best effort".

What is the spouse who stays home supposed to do in ten years when the child
is much more independent and at school or activities much of the day? He or
she has to either start a career or go to school and then face the ageism for
entry level positions. And what are two spouses supposed to do when they both
deeply enjoy their work and the value it brings them as individuals? My wife
was home with the child for 5 months before getting back into the workforce
and she complained frequently about the loss of identity.

The real problem and solution, as other posters have mentioned, is a strong
support structure from friends and family. We live in a wonderful area of
Colorado, but all of our family is on the east coast or in Germany and it just
isn't going to happen that we move closer. So we struggle and get by, but
having a parent stay home to be daycare full time wouldn't serve either of us.

~~~
wtbob
> My child goes to daycare and it is infinitely more stimulating than anything
> we could do for her at home even if we've "given our best effort".

Is stimulation the most important thing in childrearing?

> What is the spouse who stays home supposed to do in ten years when the child
> is much more independent and at school or activities much of the day?

Volunteer? Find self-fulfillment in something other than a career?

Plus, I think you may be begging the question: while older children require
less _immediate_ attention than younger ones, they still require plenty of
care. It just tends to be more planning and less direct interaction.

Plus, why do you assume only one kid? My mother spent more than a quarter-
century with children at home. She certainly was never bored.

> And what are two spouses supposed to do when they both deeply enjoy their
> work and the value it brings them as individuals?

Maybe work from home? Ultimately, though, parents today must sacrifice for
their children, just as parents have done for millennia. Kids aren't expensive
status symbols: raising them well is a duty, not a lark.

~~~
stinkytaco
It's also just not financially possible. At one time you could raise a family
on a single income, but unless you are in a fairly narrow set of professions,
this isn't possible, at least not the same way it was then. I don't just think
I should "raise" my child, I want them to have opportunities to do things. To
travel, to try sports or music, to do activities, and all these require money.
Even if you did none of these things, money would be tight on a single income
of, say $70,000 a year in a midsized American town or city.

~~~
larrywright
It's all a matter of priorities. When my wife and I got married we knew that
she wanted to stay home with the kids when we had them. To avoid becoming
comfortable with two incomes and have to back down later, we made the choice
to live on only my salary and put hers in the bank. We never got used two
incomes, so it was pretty easy for her to leave her job when the time came.

There's all sorts of caveats with this, of course, and not every family can
make it happen. We definitely don't regret the choice, and I'm certain our
kids are better for it.

~~~
stinkytaco
I'm not criticizing people who chose to stay home, but I'm also defensive of
being morally judged for having two working parents. Even if I can afford to
do so (and many people can't), I've opted to give my child a different set of
experiences.

~~~
larrywright
I'm not at all judging anyone who chooses differently than we did. I do think
our kids are better off than if we had chosen differently, but I think they'd
turn out great either way. You're absolutely right - you're giving your child
different experiences, and that's not right or wrong - just different.

I make it a point not to judge other parents' choices (except parents who let
their kids wear camo - that's just inexcusable).

------
mdasen
For me, it feels like the article could have been a lot shorter. "San
Francisco housing prices have gone so high that people can't afford to have
kids here." It never really delved into many of the underlying incentives and
such.

Yea, other locations might have some good draws like schools or a lack of fog.
Yes, SF might have more LGBTQ folk. Neither of those are going to be a good
explanation for the exodus.

Ultimately, I'm not sure cities see this as a problem that needs solving
(regardless of what public officials might say to a reporter). I live in a
similarly expensive city. Schools are expensive and I have no kids so that's a
win for the city. I have high income and can bid up property values which is a
win for the city. The city is building a lot of office space which pays very
high property taxes while using comparatively few city resources (compared to
residential). The abundance of jobs drives property values even higher which
drives tax revenue to the city. Why would a city actually want kids?

I think a big driver of this in SF is that the software industry skews young.
Software is a relatively new field unlike, say, medicine where you'll find a
broader range of ages because computers have become a much bigger part of life
more recently. Software can also be concentrated in certain cities in a way
that doctors are going to be spread out a lot more. So, SF has an army of
young, childless software engineers with more money than they know what to do
with who might not have reached an age where they're thinking about saving
willing to replace anyone looking to have kids who might move out.

So SF has no incentive to make it a better place for kids. If you want kids,
leave and the city will replace you with a young childless person who can
plunge their money into the city rather than asking for city services.

I think it's gone on too long to really course correct at this point. If you
try to take steps to deal with housing prices, you're going to get a lot of
opposition from your voters who have bought property in the city (and sunk
their life savings into it). If I've paid $1M for a condo in SF, I don't want
the city embarking on a big new plan to double the amount of housing. If
anything, I want the opposite.

It's an unfortunate circumstance that wasn't addressed soon enough.

~~~
brd529
Houses in Marin and the Peninsula are just as expensive, only slightly larger,
and they get lots of kids. It's all about the schools.

~~~
johnny99
Schools in SF are a mixed bag, but many of them are very good. We have a 6 and
9 year old, who started in a parochial school. We switched to a well-regarded
local public school, and getting a fantastic education.

Edit: after reading some other comments, I should note, the lottery system is
problematic. We got lucky and got a good school near us, and SFUSD stats show
most people get one of their top few choices. But in a worst-case scenario,
you have a long commute to a bad school--and you leave. The intention is good
--to make good schools available to everyone, not just those who can afford
the good neighborhoods. But until you land your kids in a school you're ok
with, it's a big stressor.

~~~
brd529
The article mentioned Elizabeth Weise who I hadn't heard of, but just spent a
good 30 minutes on her blog. It's excellent. Her "about" page summarizes why
1/3 of SF parents choose private schools. It's a pretty good proxy for why so
many new parents move out before their kids are school age. She dug up another
amazing stat: of all children born in San Francisco 1/4 will move out before
kindergarten, 1/4 will go to private school and 1/2 will go to public school.
The school district expects it's growth to be entirely from kids who live in
public housing.

[http://elizabethweise.com/2014/03/21/1-in-3-san-francisco-
sc...](http://elizabethweise.com/2014/03/21/1-in-3-san-francisco-school-aged-
children-attends-private-school-a-look-into-san-franciscos-education-market/)

------
brd529
I don't agree with Peter Thiel often but I do agree with his quote mentioned
in the article - SF is "structurally hostile to families."

As someone who is trying to raise school-age kids in San Francsico the
insanity of the school lottery process is one of the greatest problems. We
have so many friends who drive an extra hour every morning to take their kids
to their algorithmically chosen school across the city. This when there is a
great school in walking distance.

Don't get me started on Algebra. SF school district has banned algebra in
middle schools.

My happiest friends with kids in the city home-school.

Public transportation is OK for adults, but if you have more than one kid good
luck. That's why you see in this report that parents with kids are driving
everywhere.

And of course, space. Since SF won't build, there is no space.

The parks are great, the playgrounds are great. Most neighborhoods give you
everything you need in walking distance: park, playground, library, grocery.
Except schools. You're going to drive past your local school to get to the
"fairly chosen" one.

We had three candidates running for school board who supported neighborhood
schools and an end to this madness. They all lost.

~~~
krupan
Wait. Your kid is assigned a school across town and it's up to you to get them
there (no school bus)? What if you just can't?

~~~
ransom1538
SF parent here.

The original idea was to mix up the student diversity. Poor kids would
sometimes attend schools in expensive school distracts - Kids from expensive
neighborhoods would attend poorer schools.

Hilariously not thought through. (just like rent control). All that actually
happened was the rich kids yanked their children out of public school, the "in
the middle parents" put their kids into catholic school (which is 1/5 the cost
of private here). The poor kids then had to beg their parents to get across
the city -- WHICH THE PARENTS could not. What a mess.

~~~
equalarrow
Also, the rich folks get a place in the poorer neighborhoods (we've talked to
people that just pay an additional rent and don't even move there) which then
gets them their first choice.

------
Naritai
Personal story here. I have a 2-year old, and used to own a condo in what is
now called Mission Bay. Here are some factors that we had to consider when
planning on a child:

-we are not sure how many children we want, and didn't want to lock ourselves into a lifestyle where that decision was driven by finances.

-our 1-bdm 900-sqft condo is not a bad size but still woefully undersized for 1, much less 2, children. The couple on the floor above us had a baby in their unit, and they told us it was hellish.

\- there was a park nearby, which is nice, but the number of dogs we see
reliving themselves on that patch of grass makes me think I'll never let my
child play on that grass.

-people drive aggressively through my street, and I'd be terrified to let my child play on my sidewalk.

-it's really hard to find daycare in SF, and what you do find is expensive. A co-worker told me she got on a school's waiting list before she got pregnant. And when you do find a space, it'll be $2k+ per month per child.

-the public education system in SF is opaque and confusing; there is no assurance that your child will be sent to the school geographically closest, and everybody has a horror story about a friend's cousin's brother who moved away from SF after getting their child assigned to a terrible school across town. I don't know that I'll be able to afford private school if needed (and, see aforementioned comment about finances).

-when it comes right down to it, I want my child to have the sort of childhood I had, which is from a middle American suburb, with the parks, bike rides, and lemonade stands that that entails.

Are any of these 100% accurate? probably not. Maybe I was horribly
misinformed. As you note, most of my info came from conversations with other
people who already had kids. But that's how most people learn, and I imagine
it's how others learn the info they use to make their decisions too. So here I
sit, commenting from my home in the East bay. I miss SF, sure, but you know
what? It's pretty nice out here, too.

~~~
yardie
Our son was born in a 230sqft studio. We moved to a 75sqmtr, 760sqft, 3BR
apartment. This is in Paris where anything over 500sqft is considered
luxurious. Somehow with kids, visitors, and our stuff we managed to make it
work. I honestly believe most Americans are latent hoarders. Just buy
whatever's on sale with no thought on where it fits into our lifestyle.

BTW, everything else I agree with. Childcare is criminally expensive here.

~~~
_delirium
I agree, but the European apartments also typically have _much_ more practical
use of space. The U.S. condo market in particular seems aimed at single people
or couples who want to have cocktail parties all the time, followed by
retreating to their luxurious master bedroom suite for a romantic evening. Or
at least imagine that they would, so are looking for a place that looks
impressive for that use. The focus is on big, airy open spaces (open-plan
living/dining/kitchen areas), plus a large master bedroom suite with attached
master bathroom, walk-in closets, etc.

One reason Americans find it hard to imagine raising a family in an 900 sq ft
(85 m^2) unit is that if you design it this way, it really isn't a lot of
space for a family, or at least not space laid out in a useful way for a
family. That much space would typically be only a 1-bd in SF or one of the
newer NYC buildings (maybe even a studio). While in much of Europe it'd be a
2-bd, or 3-bd, and even compared to American 2-bds the space would be laid out
more practically (e.g. less space devoted to those giant bathrooms and walk-in
closets).

~~~
Naritai
Honest question: do you know of examples of plans/layout diagrams of family
apartments in Europe? I'd love to see how they compare.

~~~
yardie
Here[0] is the layout for a typical F4 apartment near my area in Paris. This
posting just has the floorplan and not interior shots. It's 4 rooms, 2
bedrooms, a salon, and dining. These are middle class, 150 y.o. apartments,
not the shining chrome and glass architect wankfests that are popular now.

[0]
[https://www.century21.fr/trouver_logement/detail/1339155193/...](https://www.century21.fr/trouver_logement/detail/1339155193/?came_from=/annonces/achat-
appartement/cp-75018/s-50-/st-0-/b-0-540000/p-2-3-4-5/page-1/)

------
ltbarcly3
Why I didn't move to SF (even though pretty much all my friends live and/or
work there):

Cost used to be a factor but I think I could afford to live in SF at this
point in my career if I made a few sacrifices.

Really it comes down to:

_Homeless people_ They are everywhere. They are yelling (tourette?). They are
drunk. They are falling asleep standing up at the bus stop (heroin). They have
followed me, calling me a 'billionaire', demanding money and making awful
comments about my wife. They pee in the street right in front of you. Half the
city smells like urine, and EVERY enclosed space that homeless people can get
into smells like urine.

Why would anyone want to have their children near that every day?

~~~
Al-Khwarizmi
I read comments about this phenomenon in SF regularly here, so it must be
really bad. But as an European who has made some trips to America but never
been to SF in particular, it's difficult to understand why there is such a
high density of unpleasant homeless people specifically in that city, and not
in others. Anyone care to explain or hypothesize on reasons?

~~~
manarth
I visited SF a tourist just over a year ago, and I didn't experience any of
the issues being described.

Sure, in places, there were homeless people sitting in doorways, and some of
them asked whether I could spare any change - much like homeless people in
many other cities. I didn't experience any of them shouting at me, shooting up
drugs, demanding money, or peeing in the street. I didn't notice anywhere
smelling of urine (although the sea lions around Pier 39 where a little bit
stinky).

SF has its issues, like most cities around the world, but I don't think
they're as severe or widespread as is being suggested.

~~~
Inconel
I can imagine that it's possible to visit SF and not experience aggressive
panhandling, the shouts of people with mental health issues, public urination
and defecation, and open drug use, but I find it very hard to believe you
could experience much of the city without the smell of urine at least a few
times.

Even touristy, well trafficked areas, Powell St station for instance, will
very often smell of urine.

On my most recent visit back to the city around the holidays, I saw a young
looking couple shooting up on 21st and Valencia, albeit this was at night, and
I almost had someone poop on me while waiting at the crosswalk at Sutter and
Montgomery, this was at 4pm on a Sunday afternoon.

~~~
manarth

      I find it very hard to believe you could experience much of
      the city without the smell of urine at least a few times.
    

To be fair, there are parts of all cities that I _expect_ to smell of urine:
there's something about stairwells in multi-storey car parks that seems to
demand it [1].

So it's quite possible that I did experience that, but in a context where it
was such a commonplace experience that it simply didn't stick in my memory.

    
    
      I almost had someone poop on me while waiting at the
      crosswalk at Sutter and Montgomery
    

I can't help wondering, in a kind of morbid fascination sense, the mechanics
of this. Was someone hanging their bum out of the window? Crouching down next
to you whilst you were waiting for the lights to change?

[1]
[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2009/mar/27/ncp-...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2009/mar/27/ncp-
smelly-car-parks)

~~~
Inconel
Good point about the multi story garages. And I apologize if my comment came
off as too dismissive. As you said, we're all dealing in anecdata here and
your anecdotes are just as valid as mine. Although, I will reiterate that in
my experience both as a normal resident and a homeless resident of SF, I found
the homeless population particularly aggressive and at times unstable and
violent.

Regarding the narrowly escaping pooping incident, yes, I was waiting for the
lights to change and not paying much attention when an older woman crouched
down on the curb 3-4 feet to my side and relived herself. Without getting into
too much detail, what came out was rather liquified and I only noticed her as
I saw it hit the pavement in front of me.

~~~
manarth
Good grief, I can see why a bizarre incident like that would stick in your
mind.

That said, I can relate a story where I was ordering takeaway on a Friday
evening in (the UK city) Bristol, when one of the customers started weeing
where they were sat, on a bar stool at the counter.

I think some of these incidents are a reflection of cities in general, but
also - like shark attacks and plane crashes - they're talked about because
they are so unusual and rare. The consequent discussions aren't necessarily
proportionate to the number of incidents.

I also wonder whether the "must relocate to San Francisco" phenomenon has
brought in people who have previously lived in more suburban or rural
surroundings, and are attributing their changed experiences specifically to
SF, rather than to cities in general.

Or it could simply be that SF does have a significantly different homeless
population to most cities, which would make for a fascinating study in
behavioural science. It sounds like your experiences support that, and I'll
keep an open mind to the question.

~~~
Inconel
You make an excellent point again on the risk of letting personal experiences
unduly influence perspective.

And I've embarrassingly never considered your point about the transient nature
of tech employment in SF possibly bringing people into contact with the
homeless that don't have any prior experience dealing with them. Great point
and I can definitely see how this could color their experience.

------
stuckagain
The article tries to pin the phenomenon on high housing prices, Google,
Twitter, etc but the numbers aren't really there. The big drop in the percent
of families with children in SF happened between the 1970 and 1990 census. In
1970 24% of households had children, then 19% in 1980, 19% in 1990, and 19%
and 16% in the subsequent decades. The share of children in the population had
already fallen from 25% to 15% by 1990, and is down to 13% today.

All of that happened before software was even a thing in this region, when the
major industries were defense and semiconductors. And it happened regardless
of housing prices going up or down.

~~~
boulos
Umm, you realize that the crazy housing bubble of the 1970s is what got us
Prop 13, right? 1980 in San Francisco was quite the crazy time (I think
someone had linked to a great nytimes article from that period on HN in the
last year or so).

------
settsu
I've observed what seems to be a growing sentiment among 20- to early
30-somethings that is... "child hostile" (?)—no babies or young children doing
in public spaces what babies or young children are wont to do: cry, fuss,
whine, speak loudly, etc. Just seemed to be a notable trend, especially when
it came to places like restaurants and airplanes.

I'm not suggesting this is the sole root of the problem, just that it could be
a factor when you have a city flush with a demographic that is probably the
least likely, after teenagers, to want to stand out for the "wrong" reasons.
Who wants to be "those people" at the trendy restaurant?

~~~
spullara
Do you have kids? Because, as a parent, I don't care what might be bothering
some childless 20 something. On the other hand, who brings their kid to the
trendy restaurant?

~~~
J-dawg
>I don't care what might be bothering [someone]

Sorry, but people like you are what creates this 'hostile' attitude.

You're supposed to care whether your kids are bothering people.

~~~
sidlls
That's a fairly self-centered view you have there. Why should anyone care what
bothers you?

~~~
J-dawg
In my opinion the more self-centered view is going around doing exactly what
you want without any concession to how it affects other people.

I regularly think about whether my actions are bothering anyone else. It's the
opposite of self-centeredness, and something that many modern parents fail to
do.

~~~
sidlls
That isn't the opposite of self-centeredness. In fact odds are you avoid
behaviors that annoy _you_. You simply aren't gifted enough to know the range
of behavior that might bother others. To think you do is arrogant and more
than a little self-centered.

------
czep
High rent and home prices in SF have in recent history been driven by the
finance industry, not tech. This trend has been ongoing since the mid 1980s.
Articles and popular sentiment calling out the tech industry divert attention
away from the true causes of this inflation on the demand side. On the supply
side, of course SF has failed dramatically due to Nimbyism and the powerful
entrenched interests of the landed gentry and real estate industries who work
to keep housing supply limited.

As a SF resident since 2010 with a now 3 year old (Pac Heights pre-kid, Outer
Richmond post), we are most likely to leave the city before he starts
kindergarten. Although our preference would be to stay, the major factors are
1) home prices and 2) the school situation. We are renting at what would now
be considered a reasonable rate, but our building has recently changed hands
and the new owner's modus operandi is to Ellis or OMI as soon as our protected
status is ended this summer. While we could afford to buy in the city, we
would not be able to simultaneously budget for private schools. The public
school system is in our opinion, far too much risk. Yes there are good
schools, but even the best have crowd control problems for simple demographic
reasons. Fully one third of SF school children attend private schools, and
among the remaining two thirds there is an unfortunately sizable constituent
whose family backgrounds are not as committed to education as we are. While we
chafe at the insular homogeneity of the suburbs, we are also not so blind as
to place our son in a school where significant resources must be expended on
crowd control at the expense of quality education.

It's a tough bind to be in. Just yesterday I attended the grand opening
ceremony for Alamo school's playground where supervisor Mark Farrell and
Sandra Lee Fewer were both highly encouraging for families to stay in the
Richmond. I don't doubt their sincerity and I do believe they are doing
everything in their power to make the city more family friendly. But my
household simply does not have the resouces to compete with all-cash offers
from overseas investors or investment bankers. It will be sad to bid farewell
to this city, but education for my son is far more important to me.

~~~
ransom1538
I found the amount of 'all-cash' offers in sf totally disturbing. SF homes are
from 1-3million in a decent area. That amount of money can't be _saved_ by
working. That is money passed down or achieved by some nutty liquidity event -
but those are quite rare. Where is this money coming from? This money is from
Trusts [1] with hidden directors and foreigners (from politically unstable
areas) using land as a great place to secure their money. If you own a deed
that is registered with sf county - good luck to china, venezula, or russian
officials trying to take it. Transferring titles is a circus - even if you
live here. Thus your cash is secure, and you can continue your shady dealings
in those countries not to worry about the current political winds.

Example of trusts: [1] [http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-suing-
Academy-of-Ar...](http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-suing-Academy-of-
Art-over-real-estate-empire-7396553.php)
[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/all-cash-buyers-
rea...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/all-cash-buyers-real-
estate_n_3861227.html)

------
santaclaus
> The city has also invested millions in upgrading parks, according to Phil
> Ginsburg, the general manager of the city’s Recreation and Parks Department.

I'm not sure infrastructure is the issue here. Bay area parks can be a bit,
well, heavy on needles and doodoo.

~~~
quanticle
The main problem is the cost of housing. You can have the best parks. You can
have the best schools. But when your city's median home price is seven figures
and rising, it's not affordable for people to raise a family in your city.

~~~
wyager
Wealthy people raise families too. The GP is right, the problem is that SF
parks are unsafe for children. Needles, human waste, etc. SF parks are very
hard-hit by the homeless problem. I don't claim to know how to fix it, but I
notice that many plausible solutions are struck down because, roughly
speaking, they're not nice to the homeless people leaving shit and needles
everywhere.

~~~
geebee
As someone with two school aged kids in SF, I can say with some confidence
that you are overstating this. I live south of 280, and I've gone to a ton of
playgrounds around glen park, sunny side, mission terrace, and the sunset.
Yes, there is a homeless presence in and near playgrounds, and some areas get
pretty bad.

But the hyperbole gets ridiculous. Seriously, you'd think you're dodging human
shit and needles every third step in every corner of SF. I have spent a great
deal of time in SF playgrounds over the last decade (in the aforementioned
neighborhoods), and the playgrounds are very safe for children, and don't have
shit and needles everyone.

------
bufordsharkley
One thing to point out-- the inefficiency of Prop 13 makes it much more
difficult for families to grow.

As this article[0] points out, only 30% of three-bedroom households in SF have
any children at all.

[0] [http://sf.curbed.com/2017/1/19/14327998/san-francisco-
famili...](http://sf.curbed.com/2017/1/19/14327998/san-francisco-families-
children-housing-report)

~~~
Inconel
Prop 13, along with rent control, at least the non-means tested variety, are
definitely huge impediments to allowing SF to become a more family friendly
city.

Much of the anti density/development uproar is rooted in those issues.

------
ranndino
America is really killing itself slowly (if people stop having kids we'll die
out eventually but terrible economic consequences will hit much earlier)
because of how bad the policies here are. Family values is just something
conservatives like to blather about while doing everything to make people not
wanna have full fledged families.

Having kids shouldn't be this difficult and it isn't in countries where the
government has common sense policies to actually support family values but in
US half the country has been brainwashed to think of them as evil socialism.

I know many Europeans with kids and they seem to be much less stressed out
than Americans, still have time for hobbies and are genuinely enjoying having
kids. It turns out that having kids doesn't have to be completely overwhelming
when you have long maternity leave, government providing free day care and
great public schools in your area (none of that lottery politically correct
idiocy) plus parents who aren't living thousands of miles who prefer spending
their retirement playing infinite rounds of golf and going on cruises over
being involved grandparents.

The government system and the individualistic, selfish mindset of Americans
(both things that we delusionally pride ourselves on) is the cause of many
major problems here and many people are still unwilling to even admit them.

~~~
GoreonKnows
[http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN](http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN)?

US - 1.9 births per woman EU - 1.5 births per woman

In many places in western Europe we look at US policies to try to increase
births.

~~~
astrange
That looks like a mean, but what's the distribution? And since this is births
per woman so far in their life (I guess), how old are the women?

------
amasad
One other cause could be that silicon valley tech companies "is about
infantilizing people" in the words of the late Aaron Swartz (about Google
employees in this case).

They make it so easy to not know how to feed yourself, clean your clothes, or
even make friends outside work. Now the decision to care for another human
being becomes much much scarier.

[http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/googlife](http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/googlife)

------
cperciva
_If you have no children around, what’s our future?_

This question at least has a simple answer, and it's exactly the same as San
Francisco's future has been for decades: Immigration.

~~~
madgar
Do you mean immigration from other countries, or other US states?

~~~
cperciva
Unless I'm very much mistaken, both.

------
SwellJoe
It's kind of a no dogs kind of city, as well. I see people with dogs around
San Francisco and the bay area, but I don't know where they're living. When I
lived there I had to search for _ages_ to find a place that allowed dogs, and
it was a house, a lot more expensive than I'd hoped to spend on housing (I
took it and lived there for three years...never moving to a cheaper place even
when my girlfriend moved out and I was covering rent by myself).

The search for an apartment around the bay area when you have a dog goes
something like this:

1\. Search by size, location, price range. Get back hundreds of results.

2\. Narrow search with a filter: Allows pets. Get back two dozen results.

3\. Oops. Many of these don't allow dogs, only cats and goldfish. Narrow
search again, allows dogs. Now, we've got eight to choose from in the entire
region.

4\. Notice that many have a size limit...dogs under 25 pounds. Ok, read every
ad through to the end to find out whether they allow real dogs, or only
barking cats. Great. Two options, both more expensive and farther away from
the train and a downtown than I really wanted.

Not that I'm bitter. But, I don't live in the valley, anymore.

At least if you have kids, you're protected by law. Landlords cannot prevent
you from renting because you have children. But, they can refuse to rent to
someone with a dog.

~~~
jessaustin
_...they can refuse to rent to someone with a dog._

Thank goodness, although one wonders how much longer we'll be spared from
that.

~~~
SwellJoe
Oh, I'm not suggesting the law should change. I'm just saying that housing is
a sellers market in the bay area, to an extreme degree; sellers can set
whatever ridiculous terms they want, and someone will still buy.

What needs to change in the bay area is the housing supply. There just needs
to be a lot more of it, so landlords stop being so picky and charging so much.
It can cost several thousand dollars to move in the bay area, right now, by
the time you cover deposit, first and last months rent, etc. And those are the
kinds of terms you find on housing in the bay area. It's just an absurdly
lopsided market, where renters have so little negotiating power.

Every rental market is a little tougher for dog owners, but nowhere have I
seen such an extreme disparity as in the bay area. That's really all I'm
saying.

~~~
jessaustin
Well then, of course you're right. To solve the problems you cite, supply
would have to increase drastically. The current situation, however, solves the
problems that actually interest TPTB.

------
jamespitts
It is not just price IMO, even though this is obviously a major factor.
Several other things make this place hostile to families:

\- school system creates a somewhat unpredictable situation

\- not enough decent parks spread throughout the city

\- units on the market are often inappropriate for families

\- all new buildings are designed for young, single tenants

\- due to rent control and housing scarcity, many older apartments are not
well-maintained

\- 40% the city sidewalks are a noisy polluted clusterfsck, 40% are desolate
and boring

\- few trees or covered sidewalks, reducing shelter from sun and elements,
walking around unpleasant

\- streets are extremely wide in many parts of the city, creating a dangerous
environment for children

~~~
skewart
The lack of street trees and the wide, busy streets make SF sidewalks really
unpleasant. Another thing is that so many of the row houses have garages and
driveways to the street, not an alley. So not only are sidewalks uglier - in
many parts of the city it's mostly pavement all around you, with walls of
garage doors - but also you have to watch out for cars coming in and out of
garages.

Some neighborhoods in SF are really pleasant and walkable, but overall the
city isn't really pedestrian-friendly at all. It's not designed for walking,
and it isn't dense enough. It's more of a high-density car-oriented city,
which is kind of the worst of both worlds.

------
janlukacs
"Why would a city actually want kids?"

"School districts want kids for the same reason start-ups want customers: it's
hard to scale with smaller demand."

"I know you don't like sitting next to a table full of kids at a restaurant.
Me neither. But children are necessary components of a thriving community"

I believe in capitalism, i'm not sure if this is representative of SF (never
been) but this hyper capitalism with no soul/morals/religion where everything
is a transaction, an asset, a business is simply scary and starting to feel
like Logan's Run. Will you be paying breeders in "poor" areas to supply "kids"
for your startups next? (let the down votes pour)

~~~
PeterisP
Aren't we already doing this?

A mechanism where people are born and raised in cheap areas and in their
twenties go to a expensive place to live and work is (a) in general, already
happening in SF; (b) unusual, but kind of works and (c) could be sustained
indefinitely, at least without any obvious factors preventing that.

------
_dark_matter_
Shouldn't the schools in SF be incredible? I mean with the skyrocketing costs
of residences intersected with the hugely decreased student populations,
$/pupil should be higher than ever. Seems like a great place to start to draw
families back into the city.

~~~
dragonwriter
$/pupil in public school operating costs is mandated to be equal across the
state; local tax base may make more money available for capital improvements,
but doesn't make any more available for classroom operations (even to keep pay
of faculty and staff in line with living costs.)

~~~
JauntTrooper
SF children are also assigned a school via a lottery. Kids can't go to the
school that's closest to them unless they get lucky. My co-worker was assigned
a school with a terrible commute, so he reluctantly chose a private school
instead.

I think it was done to improve racial/socioeconomic integration, but in
practice it means wealthier parents withdraw from the system and send their
kids to private schools instead.

The results: 58% of SF public school students are on free/reduced-price
lunches, higher than the national average. That means they're in families
making $43k for a family of four (quite tough in SF).

The racial impact is also striking. San Francisco is 42% white, but in
2013-2014, only 13% of SF public school students were white. That number is 9%
for high schoolers.

~~~
mesh
You can find a good description of the system in this article:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/education/21sfschool.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/education/21sfschool.html)

\---------

Here is how the current system works: Let’s say a 5-year-old — we’ll call him
Jake, like my son — wants to go to kindergarten. His parents fill out an
application and list seven schools they prefer.

The more desirable schools get more applications than they have seats; in some
cases that ratio is 20 to 1. That’s where the Diversity Index comes in. Known
as “the lottery,” the index uses five factors to determine a child’s profile:
poverty level, socio-economic status, English-language proficiency, academic
achievement and, for upper grades, the quality of the student’s previous
school.

Once that profile is built, the child is placed in one of his selected
schools, in a class of students whose collective profile is as different from
his own profile as possible. As each child is added, the class profile is
adjusted, and more “most different” children are placed. Students living near
their selected schools are considered first. The district also gives
preference to children who have siblings at the same school and apply on time.

But there is no guarantee that a child will get in a selected school. And once
the lottery has filled all the slots, those soon-to-be kindergartners who get
into none of their choices are offered a place in a school with open
positions. Proximity to their home and transportation are considered.

Designed to be race-neutral, the system has instead been widely criticized as
too complex and opaque. “It’s all magic and voodoo,” Ms. Menegaz said, only
half joking.

\---------

Basically, they try to balance out the schools, but it means that if you are
of a higher socio-economic status you are placed into schools with people with
lower socio-economic status to try to balance things out. But that often means
being placed into schools that are farther away, and don't perform well. So,
it pushes away people from public schools who can afford to move away, or send
their kids to private schools (this is why we left San Francisco).

~~~
em500
> But there is no guarantee that a child will get in a selected school. And
> once the lottery has filled all the slots, those soon-to-be kindergartners
> who get into none of their choices are offered a place in a school with open
> positions. Proximity to their home and transportation are considered.

Is there _any_ system that can "guarantee" that a child will get in a selected
school when there are big demand-supply gaps?

~~~
jessaustin
_Is there _any_ system that can "guarantee" that a_ [customer will receive a
service] _when there are big demand-supply gaps?_

I think you're looking for a market? There never seems to be a problem getting
e.g. a haircut, in any community.

~~~
dllthomas
It's much easier to quickly scale the number of barbers, and even so people
sometimes can't get an appointment where they want when they want.

~~~
jessaustin
Haha ask any teenager if she wants to start school at 7 AM. Also this entire
thread is about SF's misguided "go to the school on the other side of the city
rather than the one on your own block" program.

Better hairdressers are paid more money. If the same were true for teachers,
they would "scale" too.

------
tlogan
I'm a parent with two children living in SF (sunset) and depending on middle
school lottery results we will be forced to move.

It is not that we are moving because of lifestyle, because it is expensive
(yes it is), etc. The problem is: if our middle school kid ended up begin
placed in middle school at other side of the town (Mission, Marina, etc.) it
will theoretically impossible for us get them to and from the school.

So two things needs to be fixed and we will stay:

\- public transit system and/or

\- school system

------
thekevan
So what? With its insanely high rent and notoriously overworked populous,
isn't SF a perfect place for people that don't have kids? There are millions
of other places in the U.S. that are extremely kid friendly. Having one or two
that aren't might even be a good thing. (Meaning you always need an
alternative to the norm)

------
denverpeterson
My wife and I just moved from SF to Minneapolis two weeks ago.

She's an SF native and I'm from Minnesota.

I work in tech for a company based in SOMA. Our daughter was born in April.

We managed in our one bedroom in the Tenderloin for nine months. We probably
could have stuck it out longer, but we certainly weren't saving any money and
the looming thought of child care costs and school were enough to push us to
our decision.

------
funeralfunk
My wife and I decided to move from SF to Walnut Creek some months before she
gave birth. We're paying slightly more for rent, but instead of a 1-bedroom,
we now live in a townhouse. Aside from more space, this has other perks: we
don't have to deal with loud neighbors, crappy Victorian radiators, communal
appliances, and playing garage Tetris. The commute sucks, but the benefits
outweigh this drawback.

------
dirkg
Its really sad and terrifying that most people think spending all day taking
care of and raising their children is terrifying, boring, unproductive,
undesirable because of a variety of reasons etc etc.

No one has mentioned the joys. And raising your kid and being a good parent is
not supposed to be easy or enjoyable. Its a lifelong task. Your parents did
it. Its your responsibility.

------
tabeth
Maybe I'm naive (I don't have children), but many of these articles basically
can be reduced to "I want it all." [1] Nothing is wrong with that, but
considering the popularity and ideal climate one can't expect to live in the
bay area without a few caveats, right?

The first thing I thought when I saw the title was, "oh, just move." Then I
thought, "ah, people won't want to move because it's San Francisco." And so I
see three options for anyone who complains about anything in any city:

1\. Move

2\. Pay extra for whatever convenience(s) you require (e.g. private school, a
home closer to the school, etc.)

3\. Attempt to change the law.

So, when there's an issue like the one of schools, doesn't it just mean there
are not enough people interested in (3) or are not affected by it
sufficiently? Or maybe (3) is just too much effort. Regardless, if people
REALLY wanted it and there were a sufficient amount of people affected, the
problem would be fixed, no? I think also that the problem is compounded by
conflicts of interest. Maybe people paying extra for private school makes it
more difficult to change the law.

Disclaimer: I have no knowledge of city politics.

[1] Seriously though.

> “Everybody talks about children being our future,” said Norman Yee, a member
> of San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors. “If you have no children around,
> what’s our future?”

The future is being kicked out or becoming like Detroit (if god forbid the
tech industry somehow collapses). Isn't this literally what happened to the
past inhabitants of SF? They were kicked out once the higher paid people
started coming in droves? The same will happen to everyone else once the
wage(s) become sufficiently high. Isn't this just the free market or whatever,
at work?

Even if SF was a good place for kids and there were tons of kids, it would
only be available for people of sufficiently high income. This article, then,
would be titled "San Francisco Asks: Where have all of the regular families
gone?" and would lament how no one goes to public school. Well, NYT has
written similar articles already
([http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/25/us/backlash-by-the-bay-
tec...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/25/us/backlash-by-the-bay-tech-riches-
alter-a-city.html)).

------
niftich
I wonder, where in particular does SF's children-to-family rate diverge from
the national metrics? Are all races having fewer children in SF than
nationally, or just some? Are all incomes having fewer children, or just some?

Not that the overall stats aren't illustrative, but it's often enlightening to
drill down. The 53,000 public schoolchildren, who are they demographically and
socioeconomically, and how do they differ from, say, NYC, Chicago, LA?

~~~
Naritai
The article alludes to an important point - it never quite asserts that
anybody is having fewer children. Instead, when people decide to have
children, they move to a suburb.

------
pacala
Raising children is the ultimate expense. It makes zero economic sense, it
only makes biological sense. Biological, as in a people with no children
ceases to exist in a historical blip. Our metrics and the policies they drive
are solely concerned with improving the economy. The gradient is stronger in
the more expensive place, thus more noticeable. Hence pieces in NYT.

~~~
redditmigrant
People, or most people atleast, dont have kids for biologically progressing
their clan. They have kids because it brings them emotional fulfillment and
happiness. Its gives people a sense of family. So even though it makes little
raw economic sense, it makes lot of sense if you start valuing your happiness
and your happiness depends on a sense of family.

~~~
kelnos
One could argue that happiness being so traditionally tied to a sense of
family is a part of the biological imperative, or at the very least strongly
encoded in our social and cultural mores. People get pressured by their
friends and extended family to get settle down, get married, and have kids.

If you look at a place like Japan, they're starting to lose that social
pressure. It's worrisome for their economy and for care of the elderly in the
longer term, but I find it fascinating to see what people do (and don't do)
when societal pressures change or go away.

------
emmelaich
I recently visited SF for the first time.

The hills make it hostile to kids already; you simply could not trust you kid
to go out on most places with a bike or a skateboard.

Of course it's always been like that so what matters is how much it (kid pop.)
has declined. Which I couldn't actually find in the article.

------
fblp
What is it like raising kids in east bay? does anyone have experiences to
share?

~~~
stuckagain
"The East Bay" is extremely large, so this question cannot be answered. I am
raising children in north Oakland, near Berkeley. I think the combination of
those two cities offers me what I want: enough interesting urban amenities,
sufficient transit system, plenty of other kids for my kids to play with, and
enough open space.

But as I said the east bay runs practically all the way to Tracy, so no one
answer can suffice.

------
bennettfeely
I wonder how much of this can be attributed to the Roe Effect.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_effect)

------
gruglife
Oakland/Marin/south bay

~~~
santaclaus
> Oakland

I've lived in Oakland for almost a year and I can count on one hand the number
of times I've seen a child older than an infant.

~~~
ubernostrum
I strongly suspect the answer to "do you see a lot of children around" depends
heavily on neighborhood.

------
cobbzilla
Short Answer: The East Bay.

------
lets-tryagain
the SF school lottery system is the primary culprit

