|
|
|
|
|
by panopticon
2822 days ago
|
|
> These issues are very real in many parts of the country(other cities have drug problems, expensive housing, homelessness, traffic) and yet SF bears the brunt of these criticisms. Most of my "metro" experience comes from the midwest (Chicago, Minneapolis/St Paul, Kansas City) and maybe it doesn't count for much, but moving to the Bay Area was like taking those city-living annoyances and putting them on steroids. I can completely understand why SF takes the brunt of the criticisms. |
|
While the issues may have been hidden from a lot of people living and working outside of KC proper and shielded from the eastside...KC has an insane amount of problems esp wrt gun violence and segregation. Now I have never had the chance to live in San Fransisco, but I would've jumped at the chance to leave KC for SF...and I'm the kind of person who would always choose to deal with midtown KC's issues than to move to the 'burbs.
Edit: A cursory search to try and back up what I am getting at: https://bismarcktribune.com/news/national/the-cities-with-th...
Comically enough, Kansas City shows up on this list twice due to the state boundary. Anyway - most of these cities are back east. I would take being harassed by a couple hobos, tents, and the occasional human turd over sky-high homicide rates any day - though from what I gather Oakland compares to midwestern cities in this regard.