Skip to content

Recent Comments



    you are a dupe cuz damn did you get trolled.



    I think the plastic payment method is a bigger barrier than the device. I don’t know any numbers but anecdotally (from my own experience), way more people lack credit/debit cards than people who have them probably think. Way more.



    25% of all children are in private school, sorry if I was not clear.

    And while it is not true the 100% of private school children are white, it is close enough to a first approximation as any examination of the student body on their websites will reveal.



    I served three years in the 82nd Airborne Division. What have you done for your country?


    Dave Moore

    This got me to wondering what the definition of “segregation” is. I found several and it looks like the two of your are using different ones.

    1) the enforced separation of different racial groups in a country, community, or establishment.

    2) Segregation is the separation of humans into ethnic or racial groups in daily life.

    Sounds like Rich is using #1 and Jim #2. I could be wrong though. Personally I think #1 is not happening in SF but #2 is.


    Cali Curmudgeon

    Over Shrillary or any other Commiecrat? You bet.

    You know, the best way to help the poor we have in this country is stop importing more of them. Overwhelmed public schools, public hospitals, and prisons all too often due to illegal aliens and their progeny.


    Dave Moore

    I don’t think that’s how the math works. 12% of the public school and 25% of the private school means the total representation is somewhere between 12 and 25 (assuming few are home schooled). Since I think 30% of SF kids are in private school it’s around 16 or 17% total, meaning that white kids are under represented at public schools but not to the degree you claim.

    I don’t agree with your claim that “the main reason white people don’t want to put their kids in public schools is racism”. That’s one possible reason and I’m sure it applies to some. I believe the median income of white families is higher than most other groups so another possible reason is that more of them take their kids out of the public schools because more of them can afford to.

    There are lots of other reasons too. Smaller class size, location, an affinity for the schools’ approach to teaching, more accountability; these are all reasons. You might not agree with them but you certainly can’t claim that they all racist.


    Cali Curmudgeon

    Talk about your leftist prejudices. Anyone who does not buy into this extortion / shakedown / con artist game must be “alt-right”. I know you and your ilk were heartbroken when your Soviet dreams fell apart, and you were suffering indigestion after all that Sandinista spooge you politically fellated, but your anti-Americanism is just as wrong now as it was then.

    As for that “seminal paper”, if you truly WERE “the only white family living in a public housing project”, then you would recognize such propaganda for what it is, and reject it.



    Are most people in San Francisco white?


    Cali Curmudgeon

    You assume that every suburban white child has a great public school. Lots of suburban parents still sent their kids to private schools, which were located in the inner cities, the older schools were anyway. I should know–I was one of them who commuted in.



    I am not a “dupe” I am a Race Traitor. Get your alt-right terminology correct. There is lots of racism of all kinds, what makes you think that I ignore it? I know what it is like to be the only white family living in a public housing project. But mostly whites are those advantaged by racism in our society.

    What privilege is it to be white? It is not my job to educate you, that is your responsibility, but you can start with this seminal paper:



    Are you planning on voting for Donald Trump?



    12% (public school white percentage) + 25% (private school percentage) = 37%. Which is very close to 42%, isn’t it?

    Do you have good data on what race the under 18 population is? I don’t the ACS breaks it down that way.


    Cali Curmudgeon

    It still isn’t a wash, because of who is moving in. Post 1945, families who could afford to do so left the inner city for suburbs. In recent years, there has been a reversal of demographics, and people are moving back into the inner cities. San Francisco (city proper) lost population from 1945 to 1985 or around there, but now population has been increasing again since.

    However, that population moving into the inner city, in SF and elsewhere, is largely a childless one. Family rearing, for those who have a choice, is still largely a suburban phenomenon.

    A good article about the phenomenon here:

    “Increasingly, our great American cities, from New York and Chicago to Los Angeles and Seattle, are evolving into playgrounds for the rich, traps for the poor, and way stations for the ambitious young en route eventually to less congested places.”



    Cali, I’m not sure who decided who gets to decide which measure is “real”.

    As to who is having children then, assuming you are the kind of person who counts race as if it is significant, then there are still two contrary trends.

    Non-whites often reproduce at a higher rate than whites – the Mission District has the highest percentage of kids in the city. But whites typically find it easier to afford the city right now.

    so on balance isn’t it a wash?



    Alberto, in a sense you are correct. There is no such thing as reverse racism. There is just racism. any race can be racist against any other race, so why signify one more than the other.

    I think the phrase gets used in a very specific case – where whites are the victims of racism. But that really should not be singled out.



    And how would you know? Did you take a poll?


    alberto rossi

    just when you thought streetblog comments couldn’t go any lower, the folks who like to scream “reverse racism” show up


    Cali Curmudgeon

    Of course, dupes like you ignore the racism against White people, or Asian people for that matter, perpetrated by Blacks. And what privilege indeed? The privilege of paying taxes, being demonized?


    Cali Curmudgeon

    “San Francisco is 42% white in population”. However, those whites are mostly older empty-nesters, younger singles who are childless as of now, or gay. The real percentage to measure should be based on who is having children in The City, not who is not.



    Good article. Actually the lines on Middlefield in Palo Alto are meant to slow traffic, and define a narrower travel lane, but they don’t mark a Bike Lane. Cyclists are not legally confined to the right side of that line. Middlefield from Loma Verde to Palo Alto Ave. is a stressful place to ride a bicycle.



    In this case, yes, I’m sure you’re right.

    I was speaking more generally. There are opportunities to carve bike lanes out of lesser-used side-walks, such as are routinely seen in Europe, as an alternative to removing parking or congesting traffic, both of which typically garner populist opposition.



    We’re getting pretty close to the point where a smart phone goes from a luxury to a necessity. On a recent trip to Scotland I encountered a parking meter that was smart-phone enabled. Without such a phone I could not use the meter and therefore could not park there.

    Likewise, I encountered a train station where tickets could only be bought by smart phone but where there were signs indicating “penalty fares” if you travel without a valid ticket.

    It’s just a matter of time, and I hate it too.

    Totally agree re Simon, BTW.



    Also, there are protected bike lanes on Telegraph in Oakland, Fulton in Berkeley, Polk and JFK in SF, etc. I just assumed that the article was talking about the “South Bay” as a distinct region from the more central Bay Area cities.



    The problem is not how much it costs but the fact that you need smart phone linked to a payment method and some technical know how. The very thing that makes it so convenient for many makes it completely inaccessible for a subset of the population. Surely in due time, uptake of smart phones will increase and the technology will improve and become more accessible.

    Meanwhile, L. Simon gets to garner votes using racial undertones.



    > taking the lateral space from a side-walk rather than
    > from vehicular lanes
    There was never a side-walk here, just two broken shoulders which drivers often didn’t respect. Now the shoulder is narrowed on one side and eliminated from the other. The space was carved mostly out of the shoulders and partly out of the main travel lanes.



    But you’ve just told us that a large majority of white parents take their kids out of the SFUSD system.

    So how is that “working” for most of them?



    You keep telling us that your spouse is non-white like it is some badge of virtue and nobility.

    Can you see why some people might perceive that as being a tad precious?



    Murphstahoe, you’ve devoted hundred of comments here in your utterly failed strategy of trying to censor opinions that you disagree with.

    How does that help the discussion here?



    I do not believe that there is any meaningful segregation of neighborhoods in SF by race. There are clear cases of certain demographics wishing to associate with their own kind, and of course economic factors means that not everyone can live where they want.

    But the term “segregation” in its historic sense is inappropriate here



    you are wasting your breath. You’ve not been around, there is this cool block feature. It makes for very strange comment threads where you don’t see 50% of the replies that apparently come from one specific user, but on the whole it’s pretty cool.



    You seem to want to massively broaden this topic to a generic debate about race. That’s way beyond the topic here, and not something that I think we will agree about or resolve.

    My race is irrelevant just as, as far as I am concerned, is yours and everyone else’s.



    Segregated neighborhoods mean segregated schools:

    Your claim that our neighborhoods are not segregated is not backed up by the fact. And neighborhoods are segregate due to generations of discrimination. The Federal government used to red line poor black neighborhoods, which caused under investment which we can still see the impacts of today. Most segregation is the result of institutionalized racism.



    Our neighborhoods are segregated and it is black and brown people who suffer the most from this racist segregation.

    I married someone of another race and produced mix raced children. Seems like I support diversity at the most fundamental level. And I don’t even live in Noe Valley anymore, but your confusion is understandable.



    Why won’t you tell us if you are white or not? White people walk around in a cloud of privilege and call themselves “post-racial”. That is pretty rich.

    Racism is still a very real problem in America and denying that is racist in my book.



    The systems works fine for most people.


    Rogue Cyclist

    There are also the protected lanes on Cargo Way in SF, which was reported on here:

    The walkway does seem kind of narrow, especially with the fence on one side. The Bay Bridge path is laid out in a similar fashion, but it feels more open.



    A bike lane separated from a side-walk by a paint line is open to rather obvious problems. If this was done on a crowded street like Valencia in SF then people would quickly expand into the bike lane, and cyclists would then be back in the traffic. Or there would be bike-pedestrian accidents.

    But in a suburban area like this such a design could work, because there won’t be many pedestrians. And taking the lateral space from a side-walk rather than from vehicular lanes avoids the disadvantage of causing more traffic congestion.

    Otherwise I tend to agree with you that if it’s important for cyclists to be physically separated from vehicles, then it’s important for vulnerable pedestrians to be physically segregated from cyclists. Problems in SF’s mixed-use path in the Panhandle have shown that, absent cars, cyclists can be the danger.



    Obviously some parents don’t want their kids to go to a state school. Much of this discussion has been criticism of SFUSD schools from various people so it should not surprise you that parents seek alternatives.

    I would not call it “white flights” (yet another emotive phrase). In fact in other circles the concern is “non white flight”. Liberals need to make their mind up. But better, liberals need to stop obsessing about race.

    And being post-racial simply means not thinking in narrow race-based terms. I think it’s a lot healthier in general to not conceptually separate people out and then decide that some classes are somehow better or more desirable than others.



    Again, a school should reflect its community. If that community is 50% Asian then I’d expect the school to be 50% Asian.

    And “segregated” is an emotive word to use. Our neighborhoods are not segregated at all. Many are truly diverse while others skew towards one particular demographic by choice not force or mandate. Is ChinaTown “segregated” because Chinese people like to live there and non-Chinese people generally do not? Of course it isn’t and saying otherwise is mischievous and provocative.

    You seem to have a “thing” about race, seeing it everywhere you look and imbuing it with all kinds of significance. If anything that makes you the racist. Many of us have evolved to a point when we no longer think like that. Heck, the voters rejected affirmative action 20 years ago now. Where have you been all that time?



    “Region’s First Separated Bike Lanes”

    Sounds like you’re not aware of Shoreline Drive in Alameda.

    Aside from the overly-bold headline, I’m glad to hear of the progress in the South Bay



    If we all sent our kids to our local school, our schools would be segregated, because our neighborhoods are segregated. There are many studies which show that Blacks and Latinos in segregated schools do worse than when they are in integrated schools. If you support racist outcomes than that makes you a racist in my book.



    What is your explanation for the “white flight” from San Francisco public schools? San Francisco is 42% white in population but the San Francisco public schools are only 12%. I think we can find our missing white children in the private school system which is 25% of the overall percentage of children here.

    Why don’t Asians send their kids in droves to private schools? They are 35% of the overall population of San Francisco and 41% of the student population.

    How sweet of you that you think of yourself as post-racial. I guess that means you think that racism is a thing of the past and there is no discrimination left in the world.

    You wouldn’t happen to be white, would you?



    You sure do stereoptype people a lot, whether by race or where they live.

    And just because you got lucky with the allocation system doesn’t mean it works for everyone.



    Well, Jym, when I meet someone, the first thing I think isn’t “oh, he’s black” or “hmm, she’s Hispanic” so I don’t have a lot of use for racial divisions and taxonomies.

    I believe that schools should reflect their community and not be artificially micro-managed to instead superimpose a contrived, arbitrary set of quotas.

    The real evil isn’t old-school racism any more but rather the reverse racism of thoughtless interventionist idealogues.



    Nonsense. Most parents simply want a school with the highest academic standards, which is safe, and which is convenient to their home, ideally so that they can walk there.

    And often the best performing schools and students aren’t white, but rather Asian.

    Your comments put all the blame for SF’s dysfuctional schools on “white racists” but that is much too glib and convenient an excuse. In fact most evolved and educated parents don’t think in terms of race any more, it being an artificial, divisive and unhelpful concept.

    Truly post-racial people and parents don’t talk the way you do.



    Guess you know how to work the system. Good for you!



    My kids go to SFMOMA, the zoo, the neighborhood park which is a block away that they can walk to. As teens they can take Muni and have the freedom and independence that this brings them. They have a fierce independence and ability to confidently interact with strangers that sheltered coddled suburban kids usually lack. There are many advantages to being raised in a city.



    My mixed race children are leaning Mandarin at a public elementary in San Francisco. They are slotted to go to one of the better performing Jr. High Schools in The City. Hopefully the eldest will end up at SOTA (School of the Arts) and the youngest at Lowell.



    I believe in integrated schools, don’t you?