A few nights ago I found myself in the Tenderloin district of San Francisco. Arguably the roughest neighborhood in the whole city, it has everything the naysayers warn about. Massive amounts of loitering, likely drug deals, homeless population living on the streets, littering everywhere, and a general cloud of loud noises. Paradoxically, sprinkled in between all of this are new condos, the symbol of gentrification.
Honestly though, who would want this status quo? It’s nice to see some signs of improving the situation. I understand why NIMBYs get up in arms whenever there are talks of low-income housing or housing for the homeless getting build in their neighborhood. For better or worse, the Tenderloin shows that looks like, and people are afraid that if such housing gets built in their proverbial backyard, the negative externalities get brought along as well.
No one wants to live near loud noises, drug use, and loitering. I grew up in the poorer parts of San Francisco so I’m familiar with all those things. Moving to the west side of the city was in part to get away from those public nuisances. It’s probably dubious to equate low-income/homeless housing to having those negative qualities, but that’s the perception! That’s what I grew up with, that’s what everyone see when visiting the Tenderloin (excellent Vietnamese food there).
This isn’t a defense of outright NIMBY-ism. Surely there’s a non insignificant amount of NIMBYs whose fears are exactly as I described above. The character of the neighborhood they want is quiet, clean, and unobstructed. You can argue those fears are irrational, but how can you see what’s going on in the Tenderloin and not draw some similar thoughts and conclusions?
I couldn’t.
Zed.