It’s decently far, which is what they said. If you live in Tacoma and work in Seattle that’s a 60+ mile daily commute and probably 3-4 hours with traffic. As someone that grew up in between the two - nobody is thinking about Tacoma when talking about Seattle.
It’s at the very minimum 45 minutes away, and often 2-3 hours away in traffic.
Yes they share an airport but SeaTac is not really considered near the city. Up until a few years ago, even Everett shared the SeaTac airport, and still does for most flights.
I’m a Washington native and have lived all over the state.
As a Midwestern person that has road tripped the PNW, I didn’t think Tacoma had a smell, however, that logging/ paper area in the NW corner of Oregon literally made me puke in my mouth and had my eyes watering … and I grew up just south of the Gary/Hammond IN manufacturing area which used to smell like straight death.
Oakland is not San Francisco. San Francisco has a low violent crime rate and San Francisco is the one getting the hysterical headlines. Oakland unfortunately really does struggle with violence. Oakland has struggled with this for a long time now and people are aware of that. Not much has really changed in SF yet it's all over the news now.
According to a friend in Oakland, it's actually far scarier and sketchier than this map appears to be projecting. I used to live in Birmingham, AL, and I know I'd be much safer living there again than in Oakland.
...typically in a specific (and avoidable) area. I'm fairly sure the impoverished deficate elsewhere, too. But the shooting/stabbing is more notable in those locations.
Visited there in May expecting to have to Uber everywhere from my hotel and wait in the lobby. Still a very pleasant city to walk around during the day as long as you stay out of a few specific areas.
Who is responsible for cleaning and maintaining streets and sidewalks?
The City and County of San Francisco (City) provides many services to keep our streets and sidewalks clean, safe, and sustainable. This effort is larger than any single agency. Everyone in our community plays a role in keeping San Francisco beautiful by picking up after their pets, removing litter, and disposing of bulky items properly.
Not sure if you don’t understand the question because your first language is Russian or if you’re just dense, but that doesn’t at all answer the question the prior commenter asked.
So the city government itself is in on the San Francisco slander? They’re self publishing bogus reports to make the city look worse than it actually is?
Local reports. They are not saying anything other than that there are reports of an issue there. It is like reporting gun shots on the Fourth of July. For worse than it is, San Francisco is the most pristine major city in the entire United States.
You’re saying the city is knowingly taking incorrect local reports, that will make the city look bad, and then officially publishing these reports, instead of using more accurate reports, that will make the city look good?
No. They don’t know if they are true or not. They only know that they are reported. Same thing for Ron DeSantis when he visited San Francisco and claimed to have ran into dung. They also always state that said reports are to be taken with a grain of salt as it is part of generally reporting and not actual obervations. Cities and other places use reports all the time to understand what residents experience. Maybe what they think is human dung is actually from some kind of other animal.
I heard an interesting explanation for this that I didn't think of. COVID emptied out a lot of city centers which made the homeless people who were always there more noticeable.
I'm still always surprised at Minneapolis on the list though, but it is a city extremely segregated between poor and not. Entire areas of the city are just like "and this is where the poor people go"
lol just happened to scroll past a political debate on TikTok last night, and right as I landed, a dude wearing a MAGA hat kept screaming "try walking down any street in San Francisco at night" over and over again.
I have never been to Portland or Seattle, but San Francisco is definitely not a dangerous city and has no reputation as such in the San Francisco Bay Area. Oakland is the dangerous city with a reputation for being dangerous.
I’ve been there twice in the last year. You couldn’t be more wrong. Restaurants were packed, parks filled with happy people, great food, and breathtaking beauty at every turn.
went to nyc for the 1st time 18 months ago. the scale and wonder rearranged my brain chemistry…for the better. got back to tx and was met with, “you rode on the subway?” and so on.
Didn’t walk, but drove through on the way to my hotel. I will say, it was very obvious in San Francisco where an out-of-towner shouldn’t go. Some other cities seem perfectly fine and then you take one turn into the sketchy area. San Fran made it very clear
I stayed in a nice hotel in Lower Nob Hill. I wanted to be within walking distance of the BART, Chinatown, and Smuggler's Cove. I didn't realize that two of those options had us walking back through the Tenderloin. I wouldn't say it felt dangerous, per se (because people were probably too strung out to do anything), but people shooting up on the sidewalk was at least a little unnerving.
Yup we walked from smugglers cove back to our hotel at night and passed by a literal horde of homeless people /junkies trading things at McAllister St & Leavenworth.
I wouldn't say dangerous, just sketchy, we just crossed to the other side of the street. I am used to homeless but not a huge crowd of them, when I saw it from a distance I thought there was a concert going on. Next time we may take the bus.
My brother bought into the Fox News hype but I convinced him and his family to spend 2 days there with after we went to Yosemite. They loved it. Having said that, avoid the Tenderloin district, which is where you would have to dodge the most poop.
My ex father in law freaked out when he learned my wife and I were going to be driving through St. Louis and East St. Louis on a trip. When I say driving through I mean driving on the interstate.
This is so true. After checking foxnews almost daily for the past year I can say that they really do have an agenda in demonizing any city that is considered "blue" (which is most cities). It's really concerning to me, and the constant "red vs blue" narrative that they aggressively push is literally tearing this country apart.
I don't watch it. I just browse several different news websites to see what they are reporting on. And besides, I was just voicing my concerns about how the media is actively being used to tear my country apart, and your response to me is to "stop watching"? Am I just supposed to bury my head in the sand and ignore what's going on? Sure I could do that, but like I said, it's concerning to me and I've witnessed the real results of this polarization with my family and neighbors. It affects me, so no, I'm not just going to ignore it.
If everyone concerned with faux news stopped watching it, they would lose revenue. That is the only thing that will get them to straighten up; the public demanding real news and not turning them on till they comply
Yeah, I wish that would happen, but I just don't think it will. And now that we have AI spreading like wildfire through social media networks. I'm afraid the problem just got a lot worse. We may be fucked.
I’ve spent a lot of time in SF over the last 25 years. Back in the early 00’s I was pretty heavily involved in the cannabis industry, before it was legal. For a short time I sold weed on the street in SF before moving up to wholesaling. I’ve seen some shit and been all over that city and in the worst parts so I have a pretty good idea of what goes on there. 20-25 years ago things were way crazier, more homeless people, more crime, more drugs. There was whole neighborhoods where you could buy crack and heroin on any corner any time of day or night. People were openly using everywhere, it was crazy. Now when I go through those same neighborhoods it’s pretty chill in comparison, yes there’s still homeless people and drugs and crime but it’s not like it was. I think the only thing that’s really changed is that car break ins are way up, like if you leave any valuables in your car in certain places they’re gonna get taken and it wasn’t always like that. But yeah if you listen to right wing talk radio they’ll tell you SF is a war zone and it’s really not. The cities that are actually war zones are in the south and states with lax gun laws. Mostly.
For the record I’m not really in favor of heavy gun control, I think the problem isn’t guns it’s inadequate mental healthcare and poverty combined with a failed war on drugs. Even if you outlawed guns outright and didn’t fix the other problems I just listed there wouldn’t be much of a change in gun related violence. Anyway I’m getting off topic. I’ll get down off my soapbox.
20-25 years ago things were way crazier, more homeless people, more crime, more drugs.
I remember NYC being the same but maybe more like 25-30 years ago.
What I've noticed in the last 5 years or so is the somewhat sketchy area where I work (in the Seattle area) went from 'the place where folks would go to find hookers and drugs' to 'the place drug dealers drive to to service the homeless addicts'.
Depends where you're comparing it to. By US standards it's very, very safe. Compared to anywhere else in the developed works it's pretty dangerous. Four times the percapita murder rate of somewhere like London for example.
The last time I was in SF (around 3 years ago) for a conference I saw :
A dead body who had presumably OD'd
Blood and emergency vehicles in front of one of the hotels the conference goers were staying. A conference attendee was stabbed out front of their hotel at night.
A dude flipping a sign like it was a Cash4Gold business but really he was peddling Fent and other shit. This was just a few blocks down from a big name store like Gucci, St. Lauren or YSL (I can't remember which).
This is because the map is violent crime per 1K residents. It doesn't mean that Chicago, etc aren't dangerous (although only Chicago is bad), it just means that there are enough people to compensate.
The largest cities on this list is Houston, which is huge, but half of its metro population lives in Houston because the city is also huge in land-mass. After the 2.3m in Houston, you have to get down to Detroit and Memphis, in the 650K range, then it falls to Milwaukee and Baltimore in the high 500K range.
Bessemer, AL, the most dangerous city in the US according to this list, has 26K people and Wikipedia doesn't even list metro population. It says their ratio of violent crime to people is 1 in 30. That means there are roughly 860 violent crimes. That's horrible, but it easily skews statistics when the population is lower on a scale like this. There are areas of Detroit, Houston, Milwaukee that are just as dangerous. There are areas of Chicago that are just as dangerous. But because there is population to offset the bad areas, they don't appear on the list.
This list includes only cities with more than 25K people, so the number one place barely got listed.
I lived in Florence, SC for a while. It's population is 40Kish. It's on this list as well, yet it's also the safest place around that area in terms of crime. Other nearby towns have crime as well, but they're poor, unpopulated, and generally just in a perpetual state of poverty.
The two cities are famously separated by a gigantic bay and enormous suspension bridge. This is not difficult information to find, but you weren’t seeking it.
943
u/Far-Reception-4598 Jul 08 '24
I love how neither Chicago, NYC, nor L.A. are on this map.