One thing to note is that the 2021 population is an estimate, and if you are a Census buff as I am, and compare the Census' 2019 estimates to the 2020 actual populations (as calculated from the census), there are often very large differences.
The article also says that CA's estimate of the population decline is much smaller, and arguably CA itself would have more accurate data for this particular metric (residency and voter rolls).
So while I'm sure the gist of the argument is true, there is probably a larger margin of error on the calculation than you'd think at first glance. I'm not quite going to say the article is sensationalist, but if you look at the totality of the data (house prices, rental prices, CA's population estimates, etc), I'm not sure the "SF is in freefall" narrative holds up.
The article also says that CA's estimate of the population decline is much smaller, and arguably CA itself would have more accurate data for this particular metric (residency and voter rolls).
So while I'm sure the gist of the argument is true, there is probably a larger margin of error on the calculation than you'd think at first glance. I'm not quite going to say the article is sensationalist, but if you look at the totality of the data (house prices, rental prices, CA's population estimates, etc), I'm not sure the "SF is in freefall" narrative holds up.