Such a high price to pay, ruining one of the great American cities, so elite/progressives can feel better about “the system not ruining lives anymore”. Despite the fact elites/progressives never have to deal with the blowback of this perverted mindset, while the average person is stuck holding the bag. This “mind virus” is a plague on society and arguably the biggest challenge this country faces. Wanting a clean and safe city should not be political position.
The “mind virus” is a pervasive dogma peddled by media/elites/progressives. These charlatans use their platform to hypnotize a subset of society for radical change, while never having to feel the downstream effects of their views. The examples are countless; BLM, Defund the Police, Transgenderism, Cancel Culture.
"Mind virus" just sounds like a collection of ideas or political stances you don't agree with. Based on your definition, it's hardly partisan. Just replace media/elites/progressives with religion/the uneducated/regressives and it's the same shit.
I would say the same about religion/uneducated/regressives, however the difference lies in their impact on society, or lack thereof. The “mind virus” penetrates society at a much deeper level than the subset of people you mention. Extreme views of the elite/progressives are amplified and normalized by media, while opposing views are censored and deplatformed. Radicals on both ends of the spectrum are a net negative and tear at the fabric of society. These bad actors have weaponized social media and broken many brains of formerly normal people.
Agreed, “mind virus” comes off as very cable newish (puke), I believe Ethan’s recent podcast interview used “luxury beliefs” to describe this phenomenon.
Here's a good rule of thumb (and one I often break, sadly):
If you're trying to dunk on someone, then use all they hyperbole you want. But if you're trying to convince a progressive to reassess progressive policy and come to the conclusion that it failed, you can't sound like the Facebook comments of your Fox News-loving uncle.
The average progressive will dismiss it out of hand, just like the average conservative will dismiss out of hand some pink-haired Antifa type.
My experience has led me to come to a firm conclusion that San Francisco is the closest thing to a real city on the West Coast and probably west of Chicago. (LA is a federation of idiosyncratic towns and suburbs , San Diego is a federation of more homogeneous towns and suburbs, it would in bad taste to discuss Seattle or Portland, etc...).
I mean that in a good way - San Francisco feels a little bit like, just as one general example, Barcelona in a way that almost all of the other US cities do not. There is a sense of history, a condensed vibrancy in food, culture, and art, and a population of people who strive to be interesting (and sometimes succeed!).
These type if cities have a massive advantage in attracting the youngish and hyper affluent, especially those in a stage of life where certain advantages offered by LA, Miami, or Vegas matter less (or can be better enjoyed via visits).
That San Francisco has pissed away this massive advantage (even granting for the sake of argument maximal effectiveness of con media) should result in a death sentence to its leadership class.
New Orleans is the closest thing to a real city on the Gulf Coast, with a sense of history, and a condensed vibrancy in food and culture (less so art, but music!). Is there a population of people here who strive to be interesting? To a fault, but the people who succeed in being interesting do so inspite of themselves. Also every third person you run into here recently moved from the Bay Area. And of course it's similarly (even more badly?) kneecapped by crime and homelessness.
As someone who doesn't live in the PNW, why would it be in bad taste to discuss Seattle or Portland?
Well, it would be in bad taste for me to discuss those two cities. My experience with both is brief for good reason, visits left me with a strong dislike and there are so many other places to visit that I’ll never go out of my way to return. They *are* awful, but a cutting remark would probably overstate the case.
San Francisco literally just told on itself by getting rid of the drugs/homeless/crime when Xi met with President Biden. To throw a bunch of analogies at this, their Potemkin Village showed all this protesting to be kabuki theater - they know the problem and they know the answer but they don’t want to do it and they don’t like being told about it. Kinda like my dieting.
definitely think the size/layout of the city really hurts it. SF has a lot of issues, but many other cities are dealing with the same. the issue with SF is that all office buildings, government buildings and hotels are near the areas where there is the most public drug use/homelessness - basically anyone visiting the city or commuting to the city is seeing these issues very prominently, whereas a resident from SF who works from home likely doesn't as much. there's nuance here, but if you visit the city for 3 days and only spend time near the hotel and ballpark, you're absolutely only seeing the worst the city has to offer. the issue is, you can't really change this layout (i.e. can't magically relocate multiple hotels and office/gov buildings, although I would bet additional hotels outside of downtown are on the way) so fixing issues like open drug use and homelessness have to be a higher priority for SF more than other cities dealing with the same issues.
I don't disagree with the thesis of this article, but there are a couple points that I think are valuable to include:
- Carlos Correa agreed to a 13-year deal with the Giants last offseason before the team called it off because they didn't like the results of the medical evaluation
- While I'm sure the quality of the city was important to Ohtani, from the beginning of his free agency, it was always about going to a winning team. The Giants finished 21 games behind the Dodgers and 4th in the NL West. No matter where they play, Ohtani was never going to be as interested in the Giants as any of the other teams competing for his services. It's the difference between playing with Mookie Betts (8.3 fWAR in 2023) and Freddie Freeman (7.9) vs Thairo Estrada (3.9) and Patrick Bailey (2.8). I don't want to insult Giants fans, but it was never going to happen.
In a lot of ways I think the continued popularity of Chicago is evidence that the media narrative DOESN'T matter. Chicago still has an awful rep in conservative press, but players keep going. Chicago is much worse on major crimes, but when you have money those honestly aren't that big of a threat. It's not athletes getting shot in Chicago unless they really decide to start shit. The quality of life crimes/general disarray is meaningfully worse in the Bay than in Chicago. I lived in Hyde Park on the South Side and now in Uptown Oakland and while the quality of everything under the trash and graffiti is much higher there's a near-identical AMOUNT of trash and graffiti when compared to a Woodlawn or a Kenwood.
Chicago is poor, the Bay is poorly-run, and I think players have a clear preference for poor over poorly-run.
The high end stores in the Gold Coast in Chicago, cover their branded shopping bags with black bags for a reason. It is only a matter of time before bipping becomes a nationwide problem.
I grew up in the Bay and went to high school in downtown SF in the 90's. I'd walk around downtown on a daily basis, and wouldn't think twice about it. Yeah, you'd see some homeless people here and there, and it was a bit grimey, but it wasn't too dangerous especially during the day. Now, if I was a dad to teenagers, there's no way I'd want them to hangout in downtown SF.
I love where I grew up. I don't agree with a lot of the conservatives who let on that SF is beyond redemption. The suburbs of the Bay Area still seem fine in a lot of ways. There are pockets of the City that are okay. However, over the last few days, I've heard a lot of people defending SF use reasoning like, "Every big city has its problems". I think we can agree that SF has gotten way worse than it was 20 or even just 10 years ago. I cannot remember car break ins being this frequent. I heard a story from a family member that just parked at Ocean Beach for about an hour, and their rental car window got shattered. I remember walking down Van Ness towards the warf a few years ago and seeing all the human feces, and thinking that I don't remember it being this prevalent when I was growing up. I definitely don't remember freezers in grocery stores needing to be locked up. Regardless of why Ohtani or whoever didn't want to sign with the Giants, there problems in SF that didn't exist a few years ago. We all know there are things that need to be done whether we want to admit it or not
I have visited SF 2x in my life, once when I was 16 in early 1998, and once when I was 21 in late 2002. I was blown away by it's beauty and the overall great vibe. I'm amazed I haven't been back. But, at the same time, I have been a dad for almost 10 years, and it just never was one of my destination places.
Stories I have heard and read of San Francisco, being "Man-Francisco" aren't exactly appealing to me either. And, I just can't shake how in 2020, California lost population for the first time since it gained statehood in 1850.
Also, when I hear how social influencer and mega-podcaster - Tim Ferriss, says he needed to move out of San Francisco first and foremost because of its insidious "group think", and I read stories like the ones Ethan provides, I'm left saddened by the demise of a great American city.
It's hard to explain this stuff away. I live just outside NYC, which itself has a host of problems. But, at the same time my experience of NY is being terribly expensive (in a country, where many places are getting too expensive, although not as expensive as NY), but at the same time NYC's underbelly I think is always exposed, for worse and for better.
But, San Francisco seemed to like having an unassailable track record, that has been sorely undercut in recent years (even before the pandemic). And I can understand why people would be saddened by this. But, it is what is. i really do hope that it turns itself around. But, I have yet to hear of efforts to do this in a truly fundamental way.
Longtime subscriber, first time in the comments. I rarely disagree with your takes but this article sent me off the deep end.
To summarize your take, athletes are avoiding San Francisco and are doing so because of the reality on the ground, not the media's outsized doom narrative. I don't take issue with the idea that athletes or any members of the public have changed their views on San Francisco but want to respond to your eager dismissal of the media's impact on this trend as well as share my observations about how changes in the city's commuting patterns have impacted perception. Finally, I want to take issue with the level of rigor going into your free agent mental model.
First, the media and its impact on perceptions of safety.
It's very odd to me that someone who has done so much to document shortcomings in how the media functions is loathe to acknowledge the possibility of lazy groupthink and pile-ons, in the media's obsession with a San Francisco supposedly on the decline. Or that the obsessive coverage of a city that has become a talisman of leftism could influence public perceptions. This Chronicle article on national poll results contrasted with violent crime is worth checking out https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/san-francisco-national-reputation-poll-18360776.php
It's interesting to note that not only do public perceptions of safety have very little to do with crime statistics, there is a major political divide. Your political team influences which city you consider safe. And as you would expect this divide has only grown. I shouldn't have to tell Ethan Strauss about the impact of the media on polarization and "teaming". Your takes on that subject are one of the reasons why I'm such an enthusiastic subscriber.
SF is much safer today than in the past and the facts support this. Its downtown also looks materially worse than in 2019. Both of those things can be true. You nailed one thing, which is the particular area near the ballpark or where teams tend to stay is the hardest hit in SF. The total insanity around zoning and development in this town (a meaningful public policy failure) means that the hotel inventory is in the worst places. Western SF is booming like never before but unfortunately, those vibrant neighborhoods that now have lunchtime crowds and foot traffic are far away from where most visitors, including athletes, stay. Beyond mere crime statistics, the data shows an overall decrease in homelessness since 2019. That's not to say the problem is going away, far from it. The point is that the change in perceptions isn't due to an exploding homelessness problem. You can walk right by when you see 100 commuters on the street and one homeless person. Take away the commuters and you are all of a sudden VERY aware of unhoused. Perception is reality and the optics have gotten materially worse.
Getting back to the media, there is very little notable about SF's crime or homelessness compared to national trends that impact every single urban area. [Again, not saying there isn't a problem with current rates of property crime or homelessness, just not one that is materially different from other cities.] And yet, SF gets the obsessive media coverage. And in the most recent news cycle, it has gone beyond the left/right media dynamic as even the grey lady herself has joined the pile-on. I believe this is due to the near-universal appeal of good old-fashioned schadenfreude. Who among us (including residents of SF) wasn't sick and tired of countless valedictory articles on the tech boom over the last 15-20 years? How many times can you read about the price of real estate, avocado toast, etc. and not start rooting for a place to go bust? That's my personal view on why the media dynamic has gone past left/right MSNBC/FOX to near universality.
Finally, I'm disappointed in the level of rigor concerning how geography influences an athlete's decisions in free agency. I for one would LOVE more Ethan articles on this topic. But next time maybe collaborate with Nate Silver and try to bring a little data into the equation. I'd love to see evidence of divergence from economic rationality based on quality-of-life considerations.
Absent any data or analysis let's take a quick gander at your mental model. Based on your take should we assume that athletes in their 20s making big free agency bucks are inclined to head to Cleveland or Kansas City because of good schools, and nice suburban neighborhoods? Shouldn't our mental model be that urban areas with the best luxury goods other wealthy people, and culture, offer the biggest draw? Even if we believe that SF slips a bit because of property crime, doesn't it still beat the pants off of being young rich and single in Green Bay, Buffalo, Cleveland, etc.? Please write more on this topic and incorporate evidence from the crack epidemic in NYC, etc.
"Even if we believe that SF slips a bit because of property crime, doesn't it still beat the pants off of being young rich and single in Green Bay, Buffalo, Cleveland, etc.?"
I think that's called a straw man argument. Are the Giants competing for free agents against teams in those types of cities? Aren't they competing against teams for free agents in cities like LA, NYC, Chicago, and maybe cities in Florida and Texas?
My goal was to surface the question "what evidence do we have of something other than financial considerations motivating free agent decisions?" I genuinely would like data-driven analysis of this topic across all sports, not just MLB. I'm not an expert on MLB free-agency but if the argument is that urban crime>$$$, shouldn't there be evidence of free agents taking LESS money to live in safer places? How is the all time highest contract value in the history of US sports evidence of this?
I think the argument is more so that with money being equal or similar, players will choose the better city. And the perception is that SF is no longer a great city. And Ethan argues that it's not only perception, but also reality. As a bay area native who has spent 95% of my life right across the bridge in the east bay, I agree with him based on what I see when I go to SF.
I think you are overestimating the modal (shot) professional athlete's awareness of politics and media and underestimating the impact of what they see when they go outside and talk to other players.
If you believe perception and not data is reality that you should be willing to accept my critique that the media's hyper focus on SF can affect perception, no?
an element Im noticing is the type of property crime x social media has shifted perception. Could be that aggregate # of crimes/property loss is not different, but Andrew Callahan's Jack the Bipper episode of was worth 100 CVS robberies in public perception. Already at least 2 other mentions of it in the comments.
So while we argue apples and oranges, pomegranates have entered the equation
The media certainly affects perception amongst the population who consume a large amount of media as opposed to their own experience or relationships. I would put professional athletes in the second category, not the first category. As Ethan points out, athletes are in a rare demographic of people who visit the 30 or so major metro areas in the country every week and have first-hand experience on which to draw.
>obsession with a San Francisco supposedly on the decline
It is not really a "perception" major retailers and hotels are closing in a way that is not happening in comparable cities without SFs problems. It really is different.
Now you might argue the benefits are worth the costs, but denying the costs is just disconnecting with reality.
The rules state that you're not allowed to criticize Progressive / Liberal policies, no matter what is happening on the ground. Those malls closed and the stores are shuttered because of FOX news talking points. How could it be anything else??
I fear my Philly is headed in a direction similar to San Diego... the center city area was once on a good trajectory half a decade ago and they simply didn’t pay attention to how bad it’s gotten post-COVID. Who tf wants to arrive in center city, see a man slumped or shit on the street or someone screaming/yelling or D)all of the above..?? And this happens right out front of the two largest stations in the city: 30th & Jefferson. It’s absurd. We recently moved out of the city recently after getting married so we could afford a home, but I remember my wife started asking me to accompany her to the subway because she was afraid... and she NEVER did that in the years she was going down there on her own, and she’s tough as nails. I get down to the sub with her and what else do I see but bodies all around passed out or sleeping, needles, human shit smears, rats eating around the bodies on the ground. Shapiro better step in to clean this up if he wants a presidential bid in the future...
Such a damn shame… and to think, I was just passing thru SD for work a couple months ago and when seeing the skyline from the airport I thought “looks like a beautiful city, I’ll have to come back to check out the downtown” 🤷🏻♂️
I consider myself damn near as far left as it gets but the SF problem is real. My wife and I have decided against buying tickets to certain concert venues when we realize what area they’re in after a couple really scary walks back to our car after previous events.
But anyone acting like there are easy solutions to these problems and the incompetent left is just letting it happen is perpetuating the conservative talking points. These are some of if not the most difficult problems facing our entire society acting like the right has magic solutions to these problems they just aren’t in charge is ridiculous.
This is pretty much where I come down on the issue too. The way people (on both sides) talk about the homeless makes me sick. These are mentally ill people who are suffering in ways most of us could never imagine. Yet, people talk about them as if they're vermin that need to be exterminated.
I have friends who wring their hands over homeless encampments creeping ever so closer to their neighbourhoods because it lowers their property values. You have well off people who are fortunate enough to own homes and they're complaining about homeless people who are just trying to survive... it's disgusting.
I know a trainer on one of the MLB teams and they weren’t allowed to leave their very-fancy-hotel-near-the-ballpark at night (unless it was team organized) because of security concerns.
Who knows if this is an overreaction, but this is the kind of thing that resonates with players who, to Strauss’ point, have experiences with 20+ other cities to compare to.
Ruy Teixeira's "Fox News Fallacy" strikes again. Progressives just have this reflex where if an issue is being covered on Fox News, that automatically means it's completely untrue. It's doing immense damage to liberal causes as we now get the routine spectacle of well-meaning progressives telling us to stop believing our lyin' eyes. "Debunking" SF's homeless and crime problem might make you feel good on twatter, but it doesn't make you right.
After it was announced that the Wizards and Caps were planning to move out of downtown DC and build a new one in northern VA there was a lot of NIMBY opposition and people mad about DC losing sports teams.
But the people I saw on social media and call-ins on sports radio all mentioned one thing: crime. And even if some crime is up and some is down, and even if it’s being overstated city officials still need to take those concerns seriously.
And that’s the biggest problem here. Even if people are conflating crime with public disorder their perceptions about safety matter.
Ethan you should consider trying to book Andrew Callaghan for the podcast. He just did an investigative series on the streets of SF; some of that footage can be found here: https://youtu.be/URfCwT3UQy4?si=4OfDcOUG7sXn40a8
As a subscriber to both your site and his, I think y'all would jibe.
Such a high price to pay, ruining one of the great American cities, so elite/progressives can feel better about “the system not ruining lives anymore”. Despite the fact elites/progressives never have to deal with the blowback of this perverted mindset, while the average person is stuck holding the bag. This “mind virus” is a plague on society and arguably the biggest challenge this country faces. Wanting a clean and safe city should not be political position.
What do you mean by “mind virus”?
The “mind virus” is a pervasive dogma peddled by media/elites/progressives. These charlatans use their platform to hypnotize a subset of society for radical change, while never having to feel the downstream effects of their views. The examples are countless; BLM, Defund the Police, Transgenderism, Cancel Culture.
"Mind virus" just sounds like a collection of ideas or political stances you don't agree with. Based on your definition, it's hardly partisan. Just replace media/elites/progressives with religion/the uneducated/regressives and it's the same shit.
I would say the same about religion/uneducated/regressives, however the difference lies in their impact on society, or lack thereof. The “mind virus” penetrates society at a much deeper level than the subset of people you mention. Extreme views of the elite/progressives are amplified and normalized by media, while opposing views are censored and deplatformed. Radicals on both ends of the spectrum are a net negative and tear at the fabric of society. These bad actors have weaponized social media and broken many brains of formerly normal people.
Calling it a "mind virus" is sloppy hyperbole, but the "pervasive dogma peddled by media/elites/progressives" is a real thing.
And the results are usually suboptimal, to say the least.
Agreed, “mind virus” comes off as very cable newish (puke), I believe Ethan’s recent podcast interview used “luxury beliefs” to describe this phenomenon.
Here's a good rule of thumb (and one I often break, sadly):
If you're trying to dunk on someone, then use all they hyperbole you want. But if you're trying to convince a progressive to reassess progressive policy and come to the conclusion that it failed, you can't sound like the Facebook comments of your Fox News-loving uncle.
The average progressive will dismiss it out of hand, just like the average conservative will dismiss out of hand some pink-haired Antifa type.
My experience has led me to come to a firm conclusion that San Francisco is the closest thing to a real city on the West Coast and probably west of Chicago. (LA is a federation of idiosyncratic towns and suburbs , San Diego is a federation of more homogeneous towns and suburbs, it would in bad taste to discuss Seattle or Portland, etc...).
I mean that in a good way - San Francisco feels a little bit like, just as one general example, Barcelona in a way that almost all of the other US cities do not. There is a sense of history, a condensed vibrancy in food, culture, and art, and a population of people who strive to be interesting (and sometimes succeed!).
These type if cities have a massive advantage in attracting the youngish and hyper affluent, especially those in a stage of life where certain advantages offered by LA, Miami, or Vegas matter less (or can be better enjoyed via visits).
That San Francisco has pissed away this massive advantage (even granting for the sake of argument maximal effectiveness of con media) should result in a death sentence to its leadership class.
New Orleans is the closest thing to a real city on the Gulf Coast, with a sense of history, and a condensed vibrancy in food and culture (less so art, but music!). Is there a population of people here who strive to be interesting? To a fault, but the people who succeed in being interesting do so inspite of themselves. Also every third person you run into here recently moved from the Bay Area. And of course it's similarly (even more badly?) kneecapped by crime and homelessness.
As someone who doesn't live in the PNW, why would it be in bad taste to discuss Seattle or Portland?
Well, it would be in bad taste for me to discuss those two cities. My experience with both is brief for good reason, visits left me with a strong dislike and there are so many other places to visit that I’ll never go out of my way to return. They *are* awful, but a cutting remark would probably overstate the case.
San Francisco literally just told on itself by getting rid of the drugs/homeless/crime when Xi met with President Biden. To throw a bunch of analogies at this, their Potemkin Village showed all this protesting to be kabuki theater - they know the problem and they know the answer but they don’t want to do it and they don’t like being told about it. Kinda like my dieting.
definitely think the size/layout of the city really hurts it. SF has a lot of issues, but many other cities are dealing with the same. the issue with SF is that all office buildings, government buildings and hotels are near the areas where there is the most public drug use/homelessness - basically anyone visiting the city or commuting to the city is seeing these issues very prominently, whereas a resident from SF who works from home likely doesn't as much. there's nuance here, but if you visit the city for 3 days and only spend time near the hotel and ballpark, you're absolutely only seeing the worst the city has to offer. the issue is, you can't really change this layout (i.e. can't magically relocate multiple hotels and office/gov buildings, although I would bet additional hotels outside of downtown are on the way) so fixing issues like open drug use and homelessness have to be a higher priority for SF more than other cities dealing with the same issues.
I don't disagree with the thesis of this article, but there are a couple points that I think are valuable to include:
- Carlos Correa agreed to a 13-year deal with the Giants last offseason before the team called it off because they didn't like the results of the medical evaluation
- While I'm sure the quality of the city was important to Ohtani, from the beginning of his free agency, it was always about going to a winning team. The Giants finished 21 games behind the Dodgers and 4th in the NL West. No matter where they play, Ohtani was never going to be as interested in the Giants as any of the other teams competing for his services. It's the difference between playing with Mookie Betts (8.3 fWAR in 2023) and Freddie Freeman (7.9) vs Thairo Estrada (3.9) and Patrick Bailey (2.8). I don't want to insult Giants fans, but it was never going to happen.
Also, it's not like many of SF-centeic problems are not also foind in LA
In a lot of ways I think the continued popularity of Chicago is evidence that the media narrative DOESN'T matter. Chicago still has an awful rep in conservative press, but players keep going. Chicago is much worse on major crimes, but when you have money those honestly aren't that big of a threat. It's not athletes getting shot in Chicago unless they really decide to start shit. The quality of life crimes/general disarray is meaningfully worse in the Bay than in Chicago. I lived in Hyde Park on the South Side and now in Uptown Oakland and while the quality of everything under the trash and graffiti is much higher there's a near-identical AMOUNT of trash and graffiti when compared to a Woodlawn or a Kenwood.
Chicago is poor, the Bay is poorly-run, and I think players have a clear preference for poor over poorly-run.
When you have money property crime is less of a threat (by definition.) It's hard to buy your way out of a gunshot wound.
The high end stores in the Gold Coast in Chicago, cover their branded shopping bags with black bags for a reason. It is only a matter of time before bipping becomes a nationwide problem.
I grew up in the Bay and went to high school in downtown SF in the 90's. I'd walk around downtown on a daily basis, and wouldn't think twice about it. Yeah, you'd see some homeless people here and there, and it was a bit grimey, but it wasn't too dangerous especially during the day. Now, if I was a dad to teenagers, there's no way I'd want them to hangout in downtown SF.
I love where I grew up. I don't agree with a lot of the conservatives who let on that SF is beyond redemption. The suburbs of the Bay Area still seem fine in a lot of ways. There are pockets of the City that are okay. However, over the last few days, I've heard a lot of people defending SF use reasoning like, "Every big city has its problems". I think we can agree that SF has gotten way worse than it was 20 or even just 10 years ago. I cannot remember car break ins being this frequent. I heard a story from a family member that just parked at Ocean Beach for about an hour, and their rental car window got shattered. I remember walking down Van Ness towards the warf a few years ago and seeing all the human feces, and thinking that I don't remember it being this prevalent when I was growing up. I definitely don't remember freezers in grocery stores needing to be locked up. Regardless of why Ohtani or whoever didn't want to sign with the Giants, there problems in SF that didn't exist a few years ago. We all know there are things that need to be done whether we want to admit it or not
I have visited SF 2x in my life, once when I was 16 in early 1998, and once when I was 21 in late 2002. I was blown away by it's beauty and the overall great vibe. I'm amazed I haven't been back. But, at the same time, I have been a dad for almost 10 years, and it just never was one of my destination places.
Stories I have heard and read of San Francisco, being "Man-Francisco" aren't exactly appealing to me either. And, I just can't shake how in 2020, California lost population for the first time since it gained statehood in 1850.
https://www.ppic.org/publication/whats-behind-californias-recent-population-decline-and-why-it-matters/#:~:text=of%20this%20explainer.-,California's%20population%20has%20declined%20for%20the%20first%20time,start%20of%20the%2021st%20century.
Also, when I hear how social influencer and mega-podcaster - Tim Ferriss, says he needed to move out of San Francisco first and foremost because of its insidious "group think", and I read stories like the ones Ethan provides, I'm left saddened by the demise of a great American city.
It's hard to explain this stuff away. I live just outside NYC, which itself has a host of problems. But, at the same time my experience of NY is being terribly expensive (in a country, where many places are getting too expensive, although not as expensive as NY), but at the same time NYC's underbelly I think is always exposed, for worse and for better.
But, San Francisco seemed to like having an unassailable track record, that has been sorely undercut in recent years (even before the pandemic). And I can understand why people would be saddened by this. But, it is what is. i really do hope that it turns itself around. But, I have yet to hear of efforts to do this in a truly fundamental way.
Longtime subscriber, first time in the comments. I rarely disagree with your takes but this article sent me off the deep end.
To summarize your take, athletes are avoiding San Francisco and are doing so because of the reality on the ground, not the media's outsized doom narrative. I don't take issue with the idea that athletes or any members of the public have changed their views on San Francisco but want to respond to your eager dismissal of the media's impact on this trend as well as share my observations about how changes in the city's commuting patterns have impacted perception. Finally, I want to take issue with the level of rigor going into your free agent mental model.
First, the media and its impact on perceptions of safety.
It's very odd to me that someone who has done so much to document shortcomings in how the media functions is loathe to acknowledge the possibility of lazy groupthink and pile-ons, in the media's obsession with a San Francisco supposedly on the decline. Or that the obsessive coverage of a city that has become a talisman of leftism could influence public perceptions. This Chronicle article on national poll results contrasted with violent crime is worth checking out https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/san-francisco-national-reputation-poll-18360776.php
as is the related story here https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/sf-crime-safety-national-poll-gallup-18329066.php?fromrichie(Feel free to take issue with SF Chronicle citations but the issue has been well documented more broadly.)
It's interesting to note that not only do public perceptions of safety have very little to do with crime statistics, there is a major political divide. Your political team influences which city you consider safe. And as you would expect this divide has only grown. I shouldn't have to tell Ethan Strauss about the impact of the media on polarization and "teaming". Your takes on that subject are one of the reasons why I'm such an enthusiastic subscriber.
SF is much safer today than in the past and the facts support this. Its downtown also looks materially worse than in 2019. Both of those things can be true. You nailed one thing, which is the particular area near the ballpark or where teams tend to stay is the hardest hit in SF. The total insanity around zoning and development in this town (a meaningful public policy failure) means that the hotel inventory is in the worst places. Western SF is booming like never before but unfortunately, those vibrant neighborhoods that now have lunchtime crowds and foot traffic are far away from where most visitors, including athletes, stay. Beyond mere crime statistics, the data shows an overall decrease in homelessness since 2019. That's not to say the problem is going away, far from it. The point is that the change in perceptions isn't due to an exploding homelessness problem. You can walk right by when you see 100 commuters on the street and one homeless person. Take away the commuters and you are all of a sudden VERY aware of unhoused. Perception is reality and the optics have gotten materially worse.
Getting back to the media, there is very little notable about SF's crime or homelessness compared to national trends that impact every single urban area. [Again, not saying there isn't a problem with current rates of property crime or homelessness, just not one that is materially different from other cities.] And yet, SF gets the obsessive media coverage. And in the most recent news cycle, it has gone beyond the left/right media dynamic as even the grey lady herself has joined the pile-on. I believe this is due to the near-universal appeal of good old-fashioned schadenfreude. Who among us (including residents of SF) wasn't sick and tired of countless valedictory articles on the tech boom over the last 15-20 years? How many times can you read about the price of real estate, avocado toast, etc. and not start rooting for a place to go bust? That's my personal view on why the media dynamic has gone past left/right MSNBC/FOX to near universality.
Finally, I'm disappointed in the level of rigor concerning how geography influences an athlete's decisions in free agency. I for one would LOVE more Ethan articles on this topic. But next time maybe collaborate with Nate Silver and try to bring a little data into the equation. I'd love to see evidence of divergence from economic rationality based on quality-of-life considerations.
Absent any data or analysis let's take a quick gander at your mental model. Based on your take should we assume that athletes in their 20s making big free agency bucks are inclined to head to Cleveland or Kansas City because of good schools, and nice suburban neighborhoods? Shouldn't our mental model be that urban areas with the best luxury goods other wealthy people, and culture, offer the biggest draw? Even if we believe that SF slips a bit because of property crime, doesn't it still beat the pants off of being young rich and single in Green Bay, Buffalo, Cleveland, etc.? Please write more on this topic and incorporate evidence from the crack epidemic in NYC, etc.
Respectfully,
David P.
"Even if we believe that SF slips a bit because of property crime, doesn't it still beat the pants off of being young rich and single in Green Bay, Buffalo, Cleveland, etc.?"
I think that's called a straw man argument. Are the Giants competing for free agents against teams in those types of cities? Aren't they competing against teams for free agents in cities like LA, NYC, Chicago, and maybe cities in Florida and Texas?
My goal was to surface the question "what evidence do we have of something other than financial considerations motivating free agent decisions?" I genuinely would like data-driven analysis of this topic across all sports, not just MLB. I'm not an expert on MLB free-agency but if the argument is that urban crime>$$$, shouldn't there be evidence of free agents taking LESS money to live in safer places? How is the all time highest contract value in the history of US sports evidence of this?
I think the argument is more so that with money being equal or similar, players will choose the better city. And the perception is that SF is no longer a great city. And Ethan argues that it's not only perception, but also reality. As a bay area native who has spent 95% of my life right across the bridge in the east bay, I agree with him based on what I see when I go to SF.
This is what leftism delusion looks like. SF is a shit hole.
I think you are overestimating the modal (shot) professional athlete's awareness of politics and media and underestimating the impact of what they see when they go outside and talk to other players.
If you believe perception and not data is reality that you should be willing to accept my critique that the media's hyper focus on SF can affect perception, no?
an element Im noticing is the type of property crime x social media has shifted perception. Could be that aggregate # of crimes/property loss is not different, but Andrew Callahan's Jack the Bipper episode of was worth 100 CVS robberies in public perception. Already at least 2 other mentions of it in the comments.
So while we argue apples and oranges, pomegranates have entered the equation
Excellent insight.
The media certainly affects perception amongst the population who consume a large amount of media as opposed to their own experience or relationships. I would put professional athletes in the second category, not the first category. As Ethan points out, athletes are in a rare demographic of people who visit the 30 or so major metro areas in the country every week and have first-hand experience on which to draw.
>obsession with a San Francisco supposedly on the decline
It is not really a "perception" major retailers and hotels are closing in a way that is not happening in comparable cities without SFs problems. It really is different.
Now you might argue the benefits are worth the costs, but denying the costs is just disconnecting with reality.
The rules state that you're not allowed to criticize Progressive / Liberal policies, no matter what is happening on the ground. Those malls closed and the stores are shuttered because of FOX news talking points. How could it be anything else??
I fear my Philly is headed in a direction similar to San Diego... the center city area was once on a good trajectory half a decade ago and they simply didn’t pay attention to how bad it’s gotten post-COVID. Who tf wants to arrive in center city, see a man slumped or shit on the street or someone screaming/yelling or D)all of the above..?? And this happens right out front of the two largest stations in the city: 30th & Jefferson. It’s absurd. We recently moved out of the city recently after getting married so we could afford a home, but I remember my wife started asking me to accompany her to the subway because she was afraid... and she NEVER did that in the years she was going down there on her own, and she’s tough as nails. I get down to the sub with her and what else do I see but bodies all around passed out or sleeping, needles, human shit smears, rats eating around the bodies on the ground. Shapiro better step in to clean this up if he wants a presidential bid in the future...
San Francisco** typo!
You weren't wrong, though. Downtown San Diego is rapidly joining its sister cities to the North as a place to be avoided.
Such a damn shame… and to think, I was just passing thru SD for work a couple months ago and when seeing the skyline from the airport I thought “looks like a beautiful city, I’ll have to come back to check out the downtown” 🤷🏻♂️
I consider myself damn near as far left as it gets but the SF problem is real. My wife and I have decided against buying tickets to certain concert venues when we realize what area they’re in after a couple really scary walks back to our car after previous events.
But anyone acting like there are easy solutions to these problems and the incompetent left is just letting it happen is perpetuating the conservative talking points. These are some of if not the most difficult problems facing our entire society acting like the right has magic solutions to these problems they just aren’t in charge is ridiculous.
This is pretty much where I come down on the issue too. The way people (on both sides) talk about the homeless makes me sick. These are mentally ill people who are suffering in ways most of us could never imagine. Yet, people talk about them as if they're vermin that need to be exterminated.
I have friends who wring their hands over homeless encampments creeping ever so closer to their neighbourhoods because it lowers their property values. You have well off people who are fortunate enough to own homes and they're complaining about homeless people who are just trying to survive... it's disgusting.
I know a trainer on one of the MLB teams and they weren’t allowed to leave their very-fancy-hotel-near-the-ballpark at night (unless it was team organized) because of security concerns.
Who knows if this is an overreaction, but this is the kind of thing that resonates with players who, to Strauss’ point, have experiences with 20+ other cities to compare to.
Ruy Teixeira's "Fox News Fallacy" strikes again. Progressives just have this reflex where if an issue is being covered on Fox News, that automatically means it's completely untrue. It's doing immense damage to liberal causes as we now get the routine spectacle of well-meaning progressives telling us to stop believing our lyin' eyes. "Debunking" SF's homeless and crime problem might make you feel good on twatter, but it doesn't make you right.
https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/the-fox-news-fallacy?r=9o52w&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
After it was announced that the Wizards and Caps were planning to move out of downtown DC and build a new one in northern VA there was a lot of NIMBY opposition and people mad about DC losing sports teams.
But the people I saw on social media and call-ins on sports radio all mentioned one thing: crime. And even if some crime is up and some is down, and even if it’s being overstated city officials still need to take those concerns seriously.
And that’s the biggest problem here. Even if people are conflating crime with public disorder their perceptions about safety matter.
Ethan you should consider trying to book Andrew Callaghan for the podcast. He just did an investigative series on the streets of SF; some of that footage can be found here: https://youtu.be/URfCwT3UQy4?si=4OfDcOUG7sXn40a8
As a subscriber to both your site and his, I think y'all would jibe.
I just watched the first 90 seconds of this. It looks incredible!