Posted on 02/17/2009 9:22:53 AM PST by SmithL
The Northern California Visitor Industry Outlook Conference takes place today in San Francisco. The outlook is not good. In fact, it's gotten worse since the last time this column broached the subject back in December. "There's a world shrinkage in travel. There's no way we can avoid it," said Joe D'Alessandro, CEO of the San Francisco Convention & Visitors Bureau. Tourism is San Francisco's biggest industry. In 2007, the 16.1 million visitors who came to the city spent $8.24 billion and generated $499 million in taxes.
D'Alessandro said he doesn't expect Europeans and Asians, stuck in their own deepening recessions, to be traveling abroad much this year. He also expects a nosedive in U.S. corporate travel, the result not only of company cost-cutting, but of the negative publicity surrounding high-rolling corporate out-of-town festivities. "There's just a lot of uncertainty and unease in business circles about traveling these days," D'Alessandro said. "Until there's more confidence, it's not likely to improve." Today's conference, featuring a range of industry professionals, is open to the public. It runs from 8:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. at the Hilton, 333 O'Farrell St. The price is $158 to $190. For more information, go to sfcvb.org/members/events.asp.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
They can get that on CSPAN now.
And what exactly is there to see in San Francisco? Some decent museums. But Cleveland has decent museums. The Golden Gate Bridge is nice, but there are a lot of places to see good bridges. And as others have mentioned, the city stinks from the bums. It detracts from the cable cars and hills.
There’s some great natural scenery around San Francisco, but it takes a long time to drive there from the airport, what with the traffic. If one goes to Salt Lake City or Portland, Oregon or any of a dozen other cities, one can be in excellent natural scenery far quicker and far less of a cost.
There’s your problem, San Francisco. If you crack down on the vagrants and lower the hotel and rental car taxes, you would probably do a lot better.
I hear that. Then again, I used to live in SF, back in 1987-90. The Haight had just been gentrified and the balance of power among the leftist agitators was on the MAD basis. This was before Harvey Milk, you see. That dramatically empowered the gays and toppled all the agreements and allowances. Everything you’ve seen since followed because the respect for law simply fell apart. I got out and have never been back. I eventually left CA altogether.
However, I did love North Beach, Columbus Avenue, Pier 39, Cliff House, St. Francis Wood, Candlestick Park (assuming I parked on the ballpark property) and the Embarcadero. It used to be just about the most wonderful city in the world. Guess that’s why it got ruined: you got to wonder if humans don’t simply destroy whatever is beautiful.
Or openly proclaiming SF as a sanctuary city for criminal illegal alien gangbangers.....
“But Joseph Russoniello, United States attorney for California’s northern district, took San Francisco officials to task for their long-term policy of not turning over the young people to federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement authorities.
Russoniello said in an interview that “the phenomenon of Hondurans being trucked into the Bay Area, housed in Oakland and sent out to sell crack cocaine” has been going on for years and that dealers claim to be under 18 so they can avoid harsher treatment by federal authorities.
He complained that San Francisco authorities do not verify that the accused are under age and that the dealers and drug traffickers who bring them to this country “know they can game the system by claiming they’re juveniles.”
“The status can’t be confirmed with ICE,” Russoniello said. “There’s virtually no risk and until recently a fully paid ticket home. . . . This was an open loop.”
Newsom insisted Tuesday that the practice of shielding young illegal immigrant offenders from federal officials was not meant to protect lawbreakers.”
“The costs of doing anything in San Francisco are considerably higher” ...
... because both the average and median income for an SF’er is in the 100’s of thousands a year. Any local economy is scaled to the purchasing power of it’s citizens.
The market charges what the market will bear. Life is cheaper where people make less money.
Even more so considering that SF doesn't have any snow removal expenses.
I wholly agree. My maternal Grandparents and Uncle lived in Sonoma while I was growing up in Sacramento, so Mom used to take us up to Sonoma to enjoy the Summers and weekends. As a kid, I loved roaming around Sonoma - in the hills, in the cemetery, the winery properties, digging up arrowheads and old coins, and generally exploring all over. My Uncle had a book bindery and used to often drag his nieces and nephews along with him on trips to SF to visit customers and go book shopping between Napa, Santa Rosa, and San Francisco. Those were some great adventures. We also used to make these big, 12-foot wide delta kites and fly them from the barracks near the Rainbow Tunnel (I forget the real name of the tunnel) and cut the line when they were two miles out and just over the city across the inlet. That was a fun childhood.
The wind was always so good for kites, especially out towards the Presidio. Not sure how old you are, but I also grew up in Sac’to, lived there from 1960 to 1968, then out and in through college. Went back just a few years ago to preside at my father’s funeral. Very sad, but also heartening to see so many people he touched in many years there show up.
Then explain why businesses are fleeing SF in droves and relocating in nearby communities like Silicon Valley where median salaries are even higher.
“Then again, I used to live in SF, back in 1987-90. The Haight had just been gentrified and the balance of power among the leftist agitators was on the MAD basis. This was before Harvey Milk, you see”
Harvey was elected and murdered in 1978.
Oops... :( Maybe it just seemd like it happened later.
OK, I take that back. I got my own dates wrong: I moved to SF in 1977, so it happened right as I arrived. Given I paid exactly no attention to gays then, it would have been just another murder (something I also paid almost no attention to).
If my wife sees these posts, she’s gonna bop me upside the head: we got married in 1981, after having met in, you guessed it, SF.
We spent Christmas there. Loved it. The day we left there was an anti-Israel demonstration. other than that our 8 days there were spectacular.
We spent a week last summer in San Jose for a conference and went up to Napa Valley twice to tour wineries and such. Very nice. We were going to spend a day doing tourist stuff in SF but, in addition to the known weirdo quotient and odd behavior, the town is just filthy. As we crossed the Golden Gate and entered SF proper, there was trash blowing around on the road. In several places. We had to get off the main highway and go through city streets for a mile or so and the place was a dump. Probably a result of many of the issues cited above, but I see no reason to go back there. Too many other places to see to deal with that city’s dysfunction.
As someone who lives on the suburbs of SF, I can say I only go in about twice a year, if that. Mostly when distant relatives come into town and I’m playing tourist guide.
The city isn’t safe. Hippies and homeless (aka bums) abound. There is no reason to go into SF IMHO.
We live in San Jose, and my kids do not like going up to San Francisco because of the bums.
“Then explain why businesses are fleeing SF in droves and relocating in nearby communities like Silicon Valley where median salaries are even higher”
I dunno, run your pet theory by me.
The initial question, why is it so expensive, is because the residents are so wealthy. Again, basic economics at play here. You have a corner store in Appalachia, you charge a $1 for bread because hiking the price means people cut back on bread. SF? They wont blink at $2 for bread. They make 10 times as much money as someone from a poor city.
Moving forward, people who make a lot of money expect the city they live in to reflect that wealth. SF has a killer budget and a big tax scalpel to pay for it because the city is maintained in pristine condition, and that costs a fortune.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.