The end of "The End of San Francisco"

I'm of two minds about this article. On one hand I appreciate the nuanced narratives around the housing crisis in San Francisco. It isn't just tech bros, this is a world wide phenomenon at the moment, and in SF specifically it has been happening for decades. I think there is a lot to say about NIMBYs, archaic building codes, the commodification of the housing market, and the huge number of Millennials on the brink of buying their first home. It is a complex issue and we can't just blame Brad and Chad for that. On the other hand, this feels like an excuse for the negative ramifications the tech bro/finance bro has wreaked on the bay area in general. They are correct, the tech bro is not the root of all issues around cost in the bay area -- but they are the loud, obnoxious pointed tip of that spear.

I'm going to admit to a bias as I was born and raised in the area with a family that does not work anywhere near tech. The inflated real estate market and shifting culture are big issues I grapple with, a lot. I'm sure the orchard workers of the 1920-80s would have issues with me and I'm sure the longshore men and miners would have plenty to say about them. Unless you're Ama Mutsan, Ramaytush, Ohlone, or Muwekma there is some wrestling you have to do with as your place as a colonializer or gentrifier. And i grapple with that as well, but I think the issue most folks have with mythic the tech bro is their often apparent hate of San Francisco and eagerness to make a shitpot of money and get out of dodge. To me it doesn't feel like Brad want's to live in SF. He isn't excited to be here. The running joke between him and the other bros at Twitch, Uber, or Andreessen Horowitz is how sick it's going to be to take their vested interests and go set down roots in some bastion of nice, rich, white, conservative values. Oh to live out their days in Bend or Boulder or Bellingham. Where being progressive is recycling, buying local microbrews, and wearing organic cotton Lululemons. This is the tech bro I have an issue with, but I admit there can be another side to that coin.

I've met plenty of people who are incredibly excited to be living in San Francisco. Folks who may work for apple, but who grew up reading Jack Kerouac or Armistead Maupin and were excited by the thought of living in a place known for progressive politics and art. Someone who wants to become part of the community. To join some of the local clubs. To get to know their local bartenders. To volunteer with some of their neighborhood organizations. In short, to try and make San Francisco to make a better place for all San Franciscans to live. And this is what the article overlooks. When people are "gatekeeping" SF, it is from the marauders who are only there to extract resources and capital. For those that move here in earnest, it is fine to be disappointed in a place that is rough around the edges. That the real SF isn't the same without rose colored glasses or may not live up to the hype of a hippie imagination. We do have some glaring problems with drug abuse, wealth inequality, and poor public transit. But when they become a detached article on "human decency" or Brad tweeting that he "pays too much is rent to have to step around human shit". Fuck that shit.

I think that is where Margaret Cho's words ring true to me. The same way writers of the 60s-70s probably rang true to the folks feeling the squeeze then. It's a frustrating process being forced out of your home, born in or found. I agree, SF isn't ending, it's changing. But right now, as we always have, we get to say if we think that's a good thing. We get to cry fowl and point out why it sucks. And then often we do get to, or have to, leave. So, is the changing landscape in SF totally the tech bros fault? No, it's not. Do I still have a particular ire for them? Abso-fucking-lutely!