Posted on 05/24/2005 12:34:12 PM PDT by Uncledave
By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer
SAN FRANCISCO - Anne Bakstad and Ed Cohen are starting to feel as if their family of four is an endangered species in San Francisco.
Since the couple bought a house five years ago, more than a dozen families in their social circle have left the city for cheaper housing, better schools or both.
The goodbyes are so frequent that Carina, age 4 1/2, wants to know when she is going to move, too. Eric, 2 1/2, misses Gus, his playmate from across the street.
"When we get to know people through our kids, we think to ourselves, `Are they renters or owners? Where do they work?' You have to figure out how much time to invest in people," Bakstad said. "It makes you feel like, `Where is everyone going? Stay with us!'"
A similar lament is being heard in San Francisco's half-empty classrooms, in parks where parents are losing ground to dog owners, and in the corridors of City Hall.
San Francisco has the smallest share of small-fry of any major U.S. city. Just 14.5 percent of the city's population is 18 and under.
It is no mystery why U.S. cities are losing children. The promise of safer streets, better schools and more space has drawn young families away from cities for as long as America has had suburbs.
But kids are even more scarce in San Francisco than in expensive New York (24 percent) or in retirement havens such as Palm Beach, Fla., (19 percent), according to Census estimates.
San Francisco's large gay population — estimated at 20 percent by the city Public Health Department — is thought to be one factor, though gays and lesbians in the city are increasingly raising families.
Another reason San Francisco's children are disappearing: Family housing in the city is especially scarce and expensive. A two-bedroom, 1,000-square-foot starter home is considered a bargain at $760,000.
A recent survey by the city controller found 40 percent of parents said they were considering pulling up stakes within the next year.
Determined to change things, Mayor Gavin Newsom has put the kid crisis near the top of his agenda, appointing a 27-member policy council to develop plans for keeping families in the city.
"It goes to the heart and soul of what I think a city is about — it's about generations, it's about renewal and it's about aspirations," said Newsom, 37. "To me, that's what children represent and that's what families represent and we just can't sit back idly and let it go away."
Newsom has expanded health insurance for the poor to cover more people under 25, and created a tax credit for working families. And voters have approved measures to patch up San Francisco's public schools, which have seen enrollment drop from about 62,000 to 59,000 since 2000.
One voter initiative approved up to $60 million annually to restore public school arts, physical education and other extras that state spending no longer covers. Another expanded the city's Children's Fund, guaranteeing about $30 million a year for after-school activities, child care subsidies and other programs.
"We are at a crossroads here," said N'Tanya Lee, executive director of the nonprofit Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth. "We are moving toward a place where we could have an infrastructure of children's services and no children."
Other cities are trying similar strategies. Seattle has created a children's fund, like the one in San Francisco. Leaders in Portland, Ore., are pushing developers to build affordable housing for families, a move Newsom has also tried.
For families choosing to stay in San Francisco, life remains a series of trade-offs. They can enjoy world-class museums, natural beauty and an energy they say they cannot find in the suburbs.
But most families need two or more incomes to keep their homes, and their children spend most of their days being cared for by others.
"We have so many friends who are moving out and say how much easier life has been for them," Bakstad said. "If we can make it work in the city, we would love to stay. In a way, the jury is out."
Hey, at least you admit to being a troll.
It's not just the gay thing. It's quite a prevalent liberal idea that having too many children is wrongfully populating the earth. Also, many are just selfish, and those who can have kids don't. There have been several stories written over the past couple of years about how mothers who take their three or four kids out for a walk in SF get scowls and nasty comments.
I'm reminded of my cousin, who said, "Tulsa? I've never heard of it. Is that in the United States?"
My wife and I could afford to live in San Francisco, but chose to leave just the same. The smell of urine just got to be too much. I'd wager there are more bums on the street than there are children in real families. Lefties have ruined the second most beautifuul city in America.
The children are probably running out of there scared.
posted on 05/24/2005 12:46:11 PM PDT by blowfish
An unfortunate nick given the context is SF....
Right after Tulsa.
Below 10% you don't have any "things" left to grab. They done been grabbed by that 90%. ;)
This is the real problem - the gay population is completely irrelevant. People really, really want to live in San Francisco, and are willing to spend lots of money to do so. By definition, families with children aren't going to have much luck living in such an area, any more than they do in Manhattan.
A lot of people from other parts of the country don't seem to get how the San Francisco Bay Area real estate market works. If you have 2 million to spend on a house, you can get a very nice place here or a very nice place in Kansas City - probably the actual houses will be just about the same, although you are likely to get more land in Kansas City.
If you have 150,000 to spend, you can find a pretty nice house somewhere in the Kansas City area. In San Francisco, you'll be commuting from rural Nevada. There is no low end here, thus there is no place to start where you aren't likely to get shot (thus, the "starter home" price mentioned above) and not many families with children can manage it.
Newsom can't fix this problem, no matter what he does, and neither can any mayor in a high demand area. If San Francisco doubled its housing stock, the new places would fill up immediately and any price drop would be minimal and temporary. He needs to focus on improving the quality of life in San Francisco instead.
Mayor Newsom needs to check the National Listing for
sexual predators housed in his city! Align that with
the Gay/Lesbian population, and it's a wonder there
are any families with small children at all in SF!
A word to Ms. Bakstad and her Significant Other:
What are you going to answer your small sprouts
once they start asking why you aren't married like
other kids they know? Not too many kids react in a
positive manner to the epithets they're going to face
before too long! Do your kids a favor. Give them
valid birth certificates that read like most of
the other non-liberal kiddoes in their kindergarten
class. Your children are branded by your personal
choices of non-conformation.
LOL~ i love Jack!
"Whoever would have thought of that?"
When one gay spokesperson talked about the next generation of gays, it does make one ask how are you going to manufacture them?
Will San Fran become just another western ghost town?
Time to Choose was viciously ninja'd and pwn3d by Admin Mod who was this time wielding a pickaxe handle while dressed to the 9's in a snappy ghilli suit and camo face paint.
So I do have an idea of how boring Tulsa can be.
In keeping with moms advice I will now say something nice about Tulsa. Tulsa is better then Decater, Ill.
He could start encouraging what my old 3-doors-down neighbors did. A queer male couple, they had two daughters via one member of a lesbian couple who lived nearby, with some kind of shared custody arrangement.
I wish I were making that up. Thankfully, at least I don't know the particulars of the mechanics.
(Just between you and me, Admin Mod really turns me on.)
Sure, you can stand on a chair and see Oklahoma City! ~ducking~
Kinda hard to have kids when you're doing the same sex.
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.