Which is why the San Jose Earthquakes should be one of the most attractive teams to potential DPs around the planet. They can live in S.F. if they like, and play down in Silicon Valley. David Beckham's commute from Beverly Hills to Carson is longer.
Both beautiful, engaging and safe cities in my personal experience. And both very, very well-known to Lew Wolff, who nonetheless has decided to place his soccer club in San Jose.
I never disputed the facts, I'm just pointing out your ignorance as you continue to use statistics as your ONLY basis for comparison.
How is it ignorant to use facts to back up my point? I believe that's what you call a supported argument. As opposed to your opinion which is backed by nothing but stating that Oakland has nice parts. I admitted as much, but Oakland also has parts that are some of the most run down and dangerous areas of the Bay Area and California.
The fact that Oakland has high crime rates would support your argument (that Oakland is the Detroit/Newark/St. Louis of CA) IF it were the only meaningful characteristic between the cities. You're labeling the city as akin to another city based on a single factor, ignoring numerous other factors that differentiate Oakland from the cities listed above. A similar crime rate is the only thing Oakland has in common with Detroit aside from them both being port cities. In my opinion that's not enough to label it the "Detroit" of CA.
Both have VERY high crime rates, the highest per capita in their states. Both are big port cities. Both former industrial centers that have had a large portion of their industry leave. Both have some very nice areas, and some very not nice areas. Both have an underperforming NFL and MLB team. Both have a "nicer" city right across a suspension bridge from them. The biggest difference is that Detroit is a bigger city so it's problems seem bigger, and indeed in some areas you're right, they are a more "rundown" city. But fact is Oakland isn't a shining beacon of a town either, and I say that as someone who spends a fair amount of time in Oakland enjoying it.
Yes, Oakland has nice places, they also have people there who are very proficient and prolific at killing each other.
Arbitrary data like sports team performance aside, ALL those things are in some way consistent with your typical major American city, not specific to Oakland or Detroit. Most major cities were once industrial centers, have clear class divides, and have issues with crime.
The typical American city does not have these problems nearly to the extent Oakland and Detroit do though. And most have not had the majority of their industry sapped away, rather they've adapted to having new industries come in.
For a few reasons, obviously: playing at a higher level, higher budgets, all that stuff. There's a dropoff between the top flight and lower levels in almost any country I can think of, but it seems to be more pronounced here because of the fairly large gap between the divisions in terms of infrastructure and quality, because of other sportainment options, because we're not yet a "real" soccer nation and, yes....because there's no pro/rel.
How so? Last time on South Park the dark lord Kathulu destroyed San Francisco. There's nothing left at the end of the peninsula in the South Park universe but a smoking pile of rubble.
Ahhh I was talking about the episode "Smug Alert". Basically paints San Francisco as a city of smug progressive elitists who enjoy the smell of their own farts and think the city is more european than american. Funny episode.
It's a very American city, only with good architecture and decent restaurants. It's that little touch of Spokane in the untamed wilds of Northern California.
I doubt most of America would agree with that assessment. Most of the US see's SF as about as un-American a city as you can get. Which is unfair really, it's not the city that is nuts, just the leadership and few very vocal people. The Board of Supervisors IMO are the ones responsible for the ultra left leaning, anti-business, anti-military, anti-establishment insanity that is often pegged on "San Francisco." By and large the majority of San Franciscans aren't in that "crazy" boat, they're a silent suffering majority.
"Nuts" and "unamerican" when it comes to political opinions are a matter of perspective. Politics aside, San Francisco is a great kaleidoscope of shapes, sizes, and colors and culturally American at its core - creative, resilient, hopeful. In that respect, it is similar to cities whose politics are purple or red. "Nuts" would be avoiding the delights of a place because you like to stay mad about politics all the time. It would be like a liberal who loves to hike refusing to go to Yosemite because rural places tend to vote Republican.
I wouldn't agree with this assessment at all. In fact, of all the places in the U.S. to visit, I would put San Fran at the top of the list of places that folks I've known throughout my life have mentioned that they want to visit. It's the symbol of the manifest destiny, our expansionist dreams. San Francisco, to many Americans, is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
Oh I don't disagree that a ton of people visit San Francisco, but many do so despite their feelings. Remember feelings about a place don't dictate whether people go there. I personally think LA is the seventh level of hell but I seem to end up there every month or two despite my views.