Replies

I've read two articles about the absence of children in San Francisco. In one, although they didn't say it outright, the impression of the article was that their problem was that there weren't children playing in the playgrounds. It wasn't really like they had a problem with the absence of children, but that they looked at children playing in the background as a kind of kinetic sculpture that was missing from the city. I almost got the impression that they were going to suggest renting out children from the suburbs so they could have the right aesthetic of a vibrant city.

The second article was about the declining numbers of children in San Francisco schools. Once again, the question of why there aren't children in San Francisco wasn't addressed. The problem that the article discussed was how to avoid laying off teachers when they weren't needed anymore. According to what I can find, demographically, around 15% of San Francisco residents are 19 or under, whereas a sampling of other cities shows a 25-30% 19 or under demographic. The solution for the San Francisco Unified District was to close schools, but absorb all the faculty and staff into other facilities, so they wouldn't lose their jobs. In neither of the articles was there an indication that the absence of children itself was a matter for concern.