FruitOfTheVale
Superstar
If you can afford to live in San Francisco you can't be broke.
This simply is not true. The key word is if you can afford to live comfortably in San Francisco you can't be broke. The vast majority of renters in the city rent rooms/closets/etc in regular-sized houses with 3 or more people... in the Mission that number is more like 6-8 people. It is very easy to be broke and live in San Francisco.
That, and you're ignoring that 40,000 San Franciscans live in public housing, the majority of whom make less than $15,000 a year. If that's not broke then nobody in the US is broke. Picture how far $15,000 a year goes in San Francisco for 1 person let alone a family of 4+... the answer is nowhere.
Someone already posted the link. The actual number was 43. High per capita but not in general. Per capital works as the basis for danger in theory but at certain points it should be thrown out. 30k is enough to fill a stadium, and if 6 people die (or 43 at it's peak) from that stadium, I don't feel that it should be magnified simply because Palo Alto segregated it's minority population. Again, I agree that it's high for the population of the city but in general it's not. Even if you reduced cities like Saint Louis down to equal EPA it's would still be worse.
But again, we're talking about over 20 years ago. It goes without saying that 6 isn't a high number even if you include per capita in the argument.
East Palo Alto was never part of Palo Alto. the name change happened in the 70s/80s (it was originally called Ravenswood) and it existed as a port city long before Palo Alto was established. At one point it was almost renamed "Nairobi" because of how black the city was... nuff said.
Last edited: