Unlike what the headline suggests, and how I'm sure this will be spun, the main reason for this was cost. San Francisco has some of the most expensive hotel inventory in the country.
Perhaps this is related to the very low number of hotel rooms in San Francisco -- 1/3 the number that exist in Atlanta, and 1/2 of the number in Phoenix. San Francisco makes it as hard as possible to add new inventory to this market.
There's a concerted media effort by conservative outlets to paint SF in a bad light. We have plenty of problems; plenty of self-made problems. But outsiders literally conspiring to harangue us says more about them than it does us.
I agree that the hotel prices definitely drive people out, but also the general logistics problems, and things to do that aren't a conference are really silly in San Francisco compared to holding it in other more tourist-focused areas like Las Vegas. Las Vegas is capable of holding simultaneous high headcount events, and has the infrastructure to get a large number of tourists around without even batting an eye.
I'd be interested to hear other people's experiences but it feels like most conferences in San Francisco would start to become miserable in hotel price and commuting for people coming from out of town once you start getting to 20,000 or more people.
> "The doctors group told the San Francisco delegation that while they loved the city, postconvention surveys showed their members were afraid to walk amid the open drug use, threatening behavior and mental illness that are common on the streets," the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
> "Last year, a UC Berkeley researcher found that some parts of San Francisco were "more unsanitary than many of the dwellings in impoverished, developing countries." A survey of 158 city blocks encountered more than 300 piles of feces and 100-plus improperly discarded needles.
It isn't some right wing conspiracy to make SF look bad, its SF doing it to itself. San Francisco is one of the most beautiful cities in the world, but the choices it has been making has led to its current reality.
If any city can take the loss of the revenue that is going away it is SF, but the reality is that this is an ongoing problem that is getting worse, rather than better, and heads sticking into sand doesn't help anything. Doing more of what hasn't worked isn't a viable solution and helps no one- not the homeless, not the residents, not the tourists. SF needs to live up to its values rather than snipe at imagined enemies- it has resources galore and full power of the law to propose and dispose policy- excuses are not viable.
This smacks of poverty porn and blaming the most vulnerable victims of decades of the elites of both flavors, neoliberals and neoconservatives, stripping social services and underfunding proper mental healthcare that JFK left unfinished and was obliterated by subsequent figures, especially Reagan. The knee-jerk reaction hasn't been housing or humanity, but arrests, tossing property away randomly, disdain, ostensible sympathy and occasional hate. That's the reality and there's no quick fix, but to me, single-point-of-contact, unified delivery, involved social workers who care + housing + mental healthcare + drug treatment + investing in those who can work is a lot better than letting people waste away in squalor. It's embarrassing!
obliterated by subsequent figures, especially Reagan
State mental health spending was higher under Reagan than his predecessor.
The increase in mentally ill on the streets came from Court verdicts severely limiting institutions' power to keep custody of adults against their will.
Readit News
Perhaps this is related to the very low number of hotel rooms in San Francisco -- 1/3 the number that exist in Atlanta, and 1/2 of the number in Phoenix. San Francisco makes it as hard as possible to add new inventory to this market.
San Francisco is throwing up plenty of hotels. For example, almost 200 new rooms are coming with a new 800-foot tower that has just started construction: https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/new-skyscraper-to-rise-in-ci...
There's a concerted media effort by conservative outlets to paint SF in a bad light. We have plenty of problems; plenty of self-made problems. But outsiders literally conspiring to harangue us says more about them than it does us.
Sources:
* 97,500 rooms in metro Atlanta. https://www.ajc.com/business/metro-atlanta-add-more-than-000...
* 34,000 rooms in San Francisco. https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/networth/article/Like-r...
* 8,376 sq mi in Metro Atlanta. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_metropolitan_area
I'd be interested to hear other people's experiences but it feels like most conferences in San Francisco would start to become miserable in hotel price and commuting for people coming from out of town once you start getting to 20,000 or more people.
> "Last year, a UC Berkeley researcher found that some parts of San Francisco were "more unsanitary than many of the dwellings in impoverished, developing countries." A survey of 158 city blocks encountered more than 300 piles of feces and 100-plus improperly discarded needles.
It isn't some right wing conspiracy to make SF look bad, its SF doing it to itself. San Francisco is one of the most beautiful cities in the world, but the choices it has been making has led to its current reality.
If any city can take the loss of the revenue that is going away it is SF, but the reality is that this is an ongoing problem that is getting worse, rather than better, and heads sticking into sand doesn't help anything. Doing more of what hasn't worked isn't a viable solution and helps no one- not the homeless, not the residents, not the tourists. SF needs to live up to its values rather than snipe at imagined enemies- it has resources galore and full power of the law to propose and dispose policy- excuses are not viable.
The increase in mentally ill on the streets came from Court verdicts severely limiting institutions' power to keep custody of adults against their will.
Dead Comment