Topic: San Francisco becoming a child-free zone as youth population declines

[IronDioPriest]

Alternate titles: [blockquote]"Hey, who knew that gay ass and oral sex didn't produce kids?" or,
"I guess when you do everything you can to destroy the family, families that don't want to be destroyed leave" or,
"Hey, all the kids are gone! Now we can REALLY get freaky!"[/blockquote]

My title: "May you reap the rewards of your perversity."

San Francisco becoming a child-free zone as youth population declines

Despite efforts to stem the tide of family flight, the population of children in San Francisco continues to ebb.

Families that remain in The City are bucking the trend that has plagued San Francisco for years as the number of children — defined as people up to 17 years old — has dropped from 181,532 in 1960 to 107,524 today, according to the latest U.S. Census Bureau figures. The 2000 census counted 112,802 youths.

The decrease is disappointing news for city officials, who have attempted to counter the family-flight trend by creating more affordable housing, improving schools and cutting costs, such as a college savings account for kindergarten enrollees.    

“It’s definitely not a hopeful sign that we have 5,000 less kids,” said N’Tanya Lee, the executive director of San Francisco-based advocacy group Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth, which lobbies City Hall on budget and housing issues.

The census has yet to release a more detailed age breakdown of The City’s youth population.

A 2009 controller’s survey found families with children were no longer more likely to leave The City than other people, with the exception of families with children under the age of 6.

“The percentage of parents with young children considering a move has increased from 36 percent in 2007 to 41 percent in 2009 — though it remains lower than the 45 percent in 2005,” the report said.

“I’m very surprised,” said Margaret Brodkin, the former head of the Department Children, Youth and Their Families. “I thought we had finally turned the corner in being a more child-friendly city and keeping families in The City.”

More @ Link...

[Libertas]

The die-back has begun.

Good riddance!

[charlesoakwood]

Turkey baster sales are up by 5000.  I wouldn't consider it an investment opportunity.

[Glock32]

The decrease is disappointing news for city officials, who have attempted to counter the family-flight trend by creating more affordable housing, improving schools and cutting costs, such as a college savings account for kindergarten enrollees.   

Their answer to every damn thing is government this, government that. A program here, a subsidy there. All they really need to do is become tax friendly (somehow San Fran is whatever-friendly to every perversity under the sun, but not basic economics) and maybe for just a few minutes stop congratulating themselves for conspicuously reveling in debauchery.

[LadyVirginia]

“I’m very surprised,” said Margaret Brodkin, the former head of the Department Children, Youth and Their Families. “I thought we had finally turned the corner in being a more child-friendly city and keeping families in The City.”

So banning Happy Meals goes in the "child-friendly city column"?

[Pandora]

“I’m very surprised,” said Margaret Brodkin, the former head of the Department Children, Youth and Their Families. “I thought we had finally turned the corner in being a more child-friendly city and keeping families in The City.”

So banning Happy Meals goes in the "child-friendly city column"?

Of course it does!  'Smatter fuh you?  It's for their own good!

[LadyVirginia]

“I’m very surprised,” said Margaret Brodkin, the former head of the Department Children, Youth and Their Families. “I thought we had finally turned the corner in being a more child-friendly city and keeping families in The City.”

So banning Happy Meals goes in the "child-friendly city column"?

Of course it does!  'Smatter fuh you?  It's for their own good!

Oh, right.  Thanks for pointing that out to me. 

A few more of those child-friendly bans and there'll be no families left they'll have to worry about.

[Dan]

Whaddaya' mean procreation is a problem? I thought it was completely normal behavior?

[Pandora]

Whaddaya' mean procreation is a problem? I thought it was completely normal behavior?

That would depend on who's defining "normal", now wouldn't it?

[IronDioPriest]

...A few more of those child-friendly bans and there'll be no families left they'll have to worry about.

But... who will attend the parades if all the children are gone?

[Glock32]

Oh don't worry, they're forcing children into the act too. Three cheers for gay adoption!

[Libertas]

Wow, this is a toughie...

What would be best for the children?  Being wards of the state or staying with these demented parents?

Oh I know, how about banning adoption to non-standard family units!

 

[LadyVirginia]

What would be best for the children?  Being wards of the state or staying with these demented parents?

It's not about what's best for the children.

It's about a continued rationalization of deviant behavior.

[Libertas]

What would be best for the children?  Being wards of the state or staying with these demented parents?

It's not about what's best for the children.

It's about a continued rationalization of deviant behavior.

I reject thier choice of props!

 

[Pandora]

What would be best for the children?  Being wards of the state or staying with these demented parents?

It's not about what's best for the children.

It's about a continued rationalization of deviant behavior.

I've got to spit when I hear the rationalization that since all gays want is to be considered normal, they should be allowed to join in the normal societal institutions such as marriage and adopting children; that it would promote their stability and cut down on the promiscuity.

As if.  That way they get to be deviants adorned with the props of normality.

[LadyVirginia]

...they get to be deviants adorned with the props of normality.

And it works.  Pretend it's normal and a lot of folks will start to believe it. 

About 10 years ago my 60+ friend told me her 30-something daughter was considering moving in with her boyfriend.  Told me she had some misgivings about it because she was an 'old-fashioned' mom.  Before I could agree she added that she thought her daughter should get a ring before she moved in.

 

So that's the standard for old-fashioned.

Okey-dokey. I stand corrected.

 

[Pandora]

...they get to be deviants adorned with the props of normality.

And it works.  Pretend it's normal and a lot of folks will start to believe it. 

About 10 years ago my 60+ friend told me her 30-something daughter was considering moving in with her boyfriend.  Told me she had some misgivings about it because she was an 'old-fashioned' mom.  Before I could agree she added that she thought her daughter should get a ring before she moved in.

 

So that's the standard for old-fashioned.

Okey-dokey. I stand corrected.

 

Been there, done that, got the heartburn.  There's so much of that going on my extended family of Italian descent - 29 first cousins - they look at me like I have two heads when I object to "Gina" having a big, white wedding just after the birth of her second, never mind refusing to attend the two baby-showers.

Recently, Mike Huckabee pointed out, mildly, that Natalie Portman was not a standard of morality, being pregnant out of wedlock, and the man was put in his place by having it pointed out that the woman was engaged after all.

We need a ::throwing hands in the air:: smilie.

[LadyVirginia]

Been there, done that, got the heartburn. 

Me too.

In the last 20+ years every wedding in our family has been between couples who'd lived together. Except me and my dh. As added bonus most of those weddings followed a positive pregnancy test. 

Embarrassed myself years ago when someone asked if I thought a female relative who was pregnant would have a big wedding. Of course, I said she wouldn't. Nope. Big, ole thing  --the wedding --not her belly. Oh, wait, it was too.  Talk about ignoring the elephant in the room.

Interestingly, we're the only ones who had more than the 2.3 replacement children.  All girls. And you better believe they know what's acceptable behavior in this family.  Thankfully, I've overheard enough of their conversations to know they agree.

I second the hands in air smiley.

[Pandora]

Good for you and your girls. 

We don't have any children and, with the current state of affairs, there are days I believe it was probably for the best.  I'd be the raving lunatic at the school board meetings over "Heather Has Two Mommies".