November 19, 2006 at 7:20 AM #7938PDParticipant
I just read this article on kids living downtown in San Diego. After reading it, I can’t understand why any parent would choose that environment for their children.
* There are some small parks but no play equipment.
* The children are unable to go out and play (I don’t allow my kids out of my fenced yard but at least they have someplace to play).
* There is no decent public school.
* There are few children.
* One in every one hundred people living downtown is a registered sex offender.
Life is different for a downtown kid. Your parents don't shoo you outside to play – they go with you: bike rides to the waterfront, story time at the library. There's also not as many friends, and playgrounds are sparse.
You quickly learn not to look at the mentally ill muttering to themselves. You sidestep the homeless lying on the sidewalk. And you always hold your mom or dad's hand. Nearly one in every 100 people living downtown is a registered sex offender.November 19, 2006 at 8:40 AM #40291barnaby33Participant
Is there some belief that downtown is for families with children? as you pointed out PD, there are very few kids down there. I don’t think of any metro downtown as a good place to raise kids, do you have the expectation that there are places where it is?
I suspect that its implied by the nature of the place that its not a good place for kids, but I could be wrong.
JoshNovember 19, 2006 at 11:49 AM #40301Mexico ResidentParticipant
I think this goes to the heart of the attitude that somehow San Diego (and California) is the promised land where there is abundant opportunity. This was probably truer 50 years ago. I find Mexico (although poor and with a different set of issues) to be MUCH more family friendly.November 19, 2006 at 11:56 AM #40302JJGittesParticipant
Mexico certainly does have its issues.
And this took place in the boondocks, hundreds of miles south of TJ and Ensenada, where ‘everyone is friendly.’ Yeah, I know it happens here too, but I suspect the investigation and follow-up from the cops and DA here may be bit more enthusiastic.
And regarding downtown SD, like the downtowns of most big cities, I find it pretty much to be a dirty pit.November 19, 2006 at 12:12 PM #40304AnonymousGuest
Downtown SD is a terrible place to raise kids, that article in the UT was silly. Who in their right mind would want to raise a family there? The ratio of sex offenders was an interesting stat but not surpriseing. The place is a shit hole, always has been and always will be. I don’t care how many ball parks or condos they build, it is still a shitty area to live in general, but for kids, forget about it.November 19, 2006 at 12:13 PM #40303PerryChaseParticipant
Mexico Resident, where in Mexico do you live?
1 out of 100 is a sex offender?! That’s news to me. Why are there so many pedophiles in America? I thought we were a religious country? What a shame that in today’s world children can no longer play unattended.
I grew up in Paris, France and I walked to school, took the bus and subway at age 7. I even regularly went to be store to buy cigarettes, lottery tickets, wine and liquor for my dad. I didn’t turn out bad and never smoked or drank. Sure, I tried it but decided it wasn’t for me.November 19, 2006 at 2:35 PM #40310PDParticipant
I can only assume that there is a high concentration of sex offenders in that area because they are not being chased away. I have little doubt that the ratio downtown is no where near representative of the ratio elsewhere. You can’t judge the rest of San Diego (or America) by what is taking place in the downtown area.November 19, 2006 at 5:03 PM #40315AnonymousGuest
Perry, it was the same way in America — walking to and from school, playing unattended out on the street, stopping at the store to buy a roll after school, etc. — while I was growing up in the 60s and 70s in Philadelphia and Austin. What’s changed is the proportion of single parent families, which do a lousy job of civilizing their boys. Their is nothing more dangerous to society than a young man who has not been fully civilized. That takes the continuous presence of a firm father.
That’s why us old-fogies are against all this sort of ‘new age’ family stuff; the old way worked, deserves veneration, and the other forms do not rate time of day. Today, we reap what we sowed over the last 40 years. Lovely.November 19, 2006 at 8:14 PM #40323PerryChaseParticipant
jg, I have to agree with you on this one. I went to Catholic school and I do beleive that some old fashioned ideas work extremely well. (No, I was not molested).
One time, I was at the park and my dog, who is normally well-behaved, started to eat some junk that he wasn’t supposed to. So I gave him a light spanking. Some lady came up and scolded me. What was I supposed to do? Reason with the dog? Little did that lady know that I treat my dog better than most humans are treated.
When my dog was a puppy, I took him to training school and the most effective way to make a dog heel it to use a choke chain and yank on it hard a few times when he pulls away. The dog learned his lesson real quick and didn’t pull anymore. Sounds rough, but that’s the proper and loving way to do it.November 19, 2006 at 10:07 PM #40327bgatesParticipant
Perry, would you say your offhand insults of religion reflect the arrogance that is a well-known Gallic flaw, or is it a personal rather than ethnic failing?
Rest assured that children in Paris still walk to the store or take the subway. They can’t get a ride in a car; the North Africans have set all of those on fire already.November 20, 2006 at 12:31 AM #40334CardiffBaseballParticipant
I want to say what a depressing article, but if these folks are fine with it, who am I to judge. That elementary school didn’t sound too good. You also read about South Park or North Park being family friendly, but I couldn’t imagine sending my kids to the public school there. I guy I know who lives in Linda Vista, and (despite two break-ins during upgrade) and raves about how awesome it is. Meanwhile the daughter goes over to High Tech High, instead of whatever the regular HS would be (Kearny Mesa I think).November 20, 2006 at 8:46 AM #40347BugsParticipant
The pedophiles and homeless (both groups of which are not mutually exclusive) were there before the Yuppies brought their investments..er..kids to experience the vibrant downtown scene. Father Joe and the other 20 social services providers down there would have to be relocated out of downtown before this problem shifts elsewhere.
One of the reasons the suburban lifestyle emerged back in the 1950s was because city dwellers wanted to raise their kids away from these types of environments.November 20, 2006 at 8:52 AM #40349(former)FormerSanDieganParticipant
Has anyone ever looked at the sex offender maps (http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov). I was shocked by the overall density when I first looked at it a couple years ago. Downtown is pretty dense, but there are a lot of places in SD that are as densely offended as downtown (parts of Normal Heights,El Cajon, Oceanside and Escondido are fairly dense with these guys).November 20, 2006 at 9:24 AM #40351BugsParticipant
Pretty much any neighborhood with a high population density relatively low rents, and has services within walking distance is going to have a higher number of homeless and other marginal performers. More gangs, more drug addicts, more welfare recipients, more undocumented immigrants, etc..November 20, 2006 at 2:56 PM #40370AnonymousGuest
Map downtown Oceanside and you will be amazed at the density of sex offenders, although most are not violent but rather ‘she was 16 he was 20’ type of offenses. Still, it appears that almost every other house in DT Oceanside has a registered sex offender living in it.
Aren’t we also dealing with a situation where people no longer feel obliged to follow social norms, standards of conduct etc., but instead seek their own self gratification and individual pursuit of whatever they want. Back in 1950 you would be looked at strangely if you didn’t wear a suit to church, if a man wore earings in public, if you displayed semi pornographic material in public. Today it’s a free for all freak fest, standards have been thrown aside and the goal seems to be to act as strange, cocky and self absorbed as possible, while doing everything possible to ignore societal standards and norms.
Our children’s heroes like 50 cent exemplify this attitude so it is no wonder that we are experiencing moral decay, both sexual and also societal. Just take a look at myspace.com and you will find all the proof you need. The goal seems to be to create the most offensive, sexual homepage possible to showcase to the entire world that you are indeed an individual, that you don’t ‘care what other people think’ etc. Popular culture to include movies, music etc. is no better. Isn’t it no wonder that people who would have otherwise walked the straight and narrow back in say 1955, are now IMing 15 years olds, engaging in risky behavior etc. that all would have been prevented in the past by shame, lack of opportunity and a desire to conform?
- The forum ‘Properties or Areas’ is closed to new topics and replies.