I ask this in good faith, since I don't live in the area: could you, reader come up with ways/legislation/policy to make the situation described in this article worse?
Take it from an engineering or project management stance: what could you possibly do to encourage the "negative" behaviors depicted here? How would you cause more chaos, more problems?
Now, if you answered that, I ask you: why do you keep doing that?
An often young, idealistic, and privileged body of voters who doesn't have much experience with "real life". They see only idealism, call anyone who disagrees with them Nazis, and the results are predictable. Sadly there's reportedly a mass exodus to other states while the fruit of their idealism begins to manifest and they'll likely not change their ideology much while voting in these new states.
> Now, if you answered that, I ask you: why do you keep doing that?
Because: money.
Solving the SF homeless problems takes cash. 15% of the homeless have traumatic brain injury. Many more have other debilitating health problems. This means funding long term health care facilities--doctors, nurses, equipment, medicine--in cash. Not some "value of your home"--real taxes out of your pocket.
At about $100K per year per patient and about 6000 patients--we're talking $600 million minimum. And long term medical care facilities at that funding level are regularly rated as unacceptable (the "solution" to the poor facilities in California was to simply close them and kick everybody out on to the street which is part of what caused this whole mess in the first place).
Or you can do what everybody is implying with these articles: put all the visible homeless in prison where they won't disturb the property values. This, of course, neatly ignores the fact that the current "rash of property crimes" are mostly perpetrated by gangs and not the homeless.
It's really strange (though logical if you think about who controls them) seeing these articles from supposedly neutral news sources with a very strong right slant. If you look at actual data there is no crime surge and thefts from retailers hurt almost no one (except maybe investors for insurance companies making slightly less money). On the other hand large retailers such as Target blatantly steal millions from employees through overtime violations and minimum wage violations.
In fact, if you look at the numbers, both completely legal civil asset forfeiture and illegal (but not criminal and extremely lacking in enforcement) theft from employees outnumber total value stolen from burglaries.
And for feces and needles: There's an obvious solution more effective than arresting people: public toilets. Many of these cities like to think of themselves as "liberal" while refusing to do the absolute minimum for any of their poorer residents.
This is such a cop out response. Some crime stats are down, others are up, but it ignores the lack of reporting that goes on as well. People just don’t report repeated minor crimes because, what difference does it make?
And thefts from retailers certainly hurt owners (who can’t insure against it). Large retailers might be able absorb it but small ones just go under. Then the community suffers for lack retail shopping.
And blah, blah, wage theft. Sure, that’s the problem too. But it doesn’t make crime NOT a problem.
It’s this exact attitude that has so many people pissed off. There is clearly a bunch of people in SF who have a strong incentive to ignore crime.
This is exactly right. The crime stats are down because there is no point in making a report to a police force who won't make arrests because the DA won't prosecute. Simple as that. Blind reliance on "data" without reference to its inputs and construction is a recipe for bad decisions.
> People just don’t report repeated minor crimes because, what difference does it make?
Yup. Living in big cities trying to file police reports against broken windows or attempted theft is a frustrating exercise. Police officers have straight up told me they wont bother to investigate or improve security but they can give me a police report number to file a claim against insurance. If it's under the insurance deductible, why bother?
Saying “crime is down” without context is pretty much meaningless. Crime is a big ass category of varied things. Also it’s by definition not something that can be measured precisely and varies widely based on reporting and the willingness of those in charge to take reports. The story attempts to add some context.
not hyperbole, progressives actually believe it is compassionate to allow rampant theft and drug use on the streets (as reparations for past oppression of the lower class). see Seth Rogan’s tweets about how having his car broken into 15 times in LA is just part of daily life in a wonderful city
It has nothing to do with compassion and everything to do with raising their social status in front of their peers (e.g. look at me I'm so wealthy/powerful I can live in place with theft etc. and it doesn't even effect me, i.e. a form of "peackocking"). Also a lot of virtue signaling - more important when you are materially well of but realistically can never enter the ranks of the super-rich. Can't compete by buying a mega-yacht but can compete (for social status) by being ever more "virtuous".
This is a funny article. While it admits that crime is going down, it cherry picks a handful of egregious crimes to make the city look like some lawless hellscape, while offering little in way of concrete suggestions to improve things.
By playing up the lawlessness angle, it kind of seems like the author is advocating for more cops?
As somebody that has been homeless in, and consumed enormous amounts of drugs in that city, I find it absolutely hilarious that the homeless people get demonized every time people talk about SF.
Maybe the fact that the cartels have made it so that San Francisco has some of the cheapest and highest quality methamphetamine and opiates, as well as one of the most accessible pill markets on the west coast contributes more to the city going downhill more than “spending tax money on homelessness programs.”
So many SF rich people sneer at the meth dealer that lives in a tent on their corner, but love their meth dealers that deliver product to them in a BMW.
It’s interesting that this is getting downvoted without any responses. It’s almost like SF resident really don’t like acknowledging their part in the significant drug crisis in that city.
I think there is a sort of fantasy where people plug their ears and cover their eyes and pretend that the homeless drug dealers just sell to… other homeless drug dealers, like there’s some sort of cyclical insulated economy that only the filthy unwashed participate in, and the fancy Tech Folks don’t actively participate in and provide large cash injections to. Trust me, the most successful meth dealers I’ve ever met dealt in multiple ounce weight to _USERS_ that could afford thousands of dollars at a time. They were welcomed happily in SoMa, Sunset, Nob Hill etc. just as much as in the tenderloin.
(I have not been involved in drugs at all for many years, but this stuff doesn’t appear to have changed at all. At least one of your ‘10xer’ buddies either smokes or injects methamphetamine or some sort of substituted cathinones. Have a nice day!)
20 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 48.3 ms ] threadTake it from an engineering or project management stance: what could you possibly do to encourage the "negative" behaviors depicted here? How would you cause more chaos, more problems?
Now, if you answered that, I ask you: why do you keep doing that?
Because: money.
Solving the SF homeless problems takes cash. 15% of the homeless have traumatic brain injury. Many more have other debilitating health problems. This means funding long term health care facilities--doctors, nurses, equipment, medicine--in cash. Not some "value of your home"--real taxes out of your pocket.
At about $100K per year per patient and about 6000 patients--we're talking $600 million minimum. And long term medical care facilities at that funding level are regularly rated as unacceptable (the "solution" to the poor facilities in California was to simply close them and kick everybody out on to the street which is part of what caused this whole mess in the first place).
Or you can do what everybody is implying with these articles: put all the visible homeless in prison where they won't disturb the property values. This, of course, neatly ignores the fact that the current "rash of property crimes" are mostly perpetrated by gangs and not the homeless.
And for feces and needles: There's an obvious solution more effective than arresting people: public toilets. Many of these cities like to think of themselves as "liberal" while refusing to do the absolute minimum for any of their poorer residents.
And thefts from retailers certainly hurt owners (who can’t insure against it). Large retailers might be able absorb it but small ones just go under. Then the community suffers for lack retail shopping.
And blah, blah, wage theft. Sure, that’s the problem too. But it doesn’t make crime NOT a problem.
It’s this exact attitude that has so many people pissed off. There is clearly a bunch of people in SF who have a strong incentive to ignore crime.
Yup. Living in big cities trying to file police reports against broken windows or attempted theft is a frustrating exercise. Police officers have straight up told me they wont bother to investigate or improve security but they can give me a police report number to file a claim against insurance. If it's under the insurance deductible, why bother?
Huh ? It’s free money then
> Overall, though, crime has been trending down for years.
*facepalm*
In a story about how the terrible crime is driving people away, they still had to acknowledge that crime is going down.
i don’t understand this. can anyone shed some light on this? is this just hyperbole?
By playing up the lawlessness angle, it kind of seems like the author is advocating for more cops?
As somebody that has been homeless in, and consumed enormous amounts of drugs in that city, I find it absolutely hilarious that the homeless people get demonized every time people talk about SF.
Maybe the fact that the cartels have made it so that San Francisco has some of the cheapest and highest quality methamphetamine and opiates, as well as one of the most accessible pill markets on the west coast contributes more to the city going downhill more than “spending tax money on homelessness programs.”
So many SF rich people sneer at the meth dealer that lives in a tent on their corner, but love their meth dealers that deliver product to them in a BMW.
I think there is a sort of fantasy where people plug their ears and cover their eyes and pretend that the homeless drug dealers just sell to… other homeless drug dealers, like there’s some sort of cyclical insulated economy that only the filthy unwashed participate in, and the fancy Tech Folks don’t actively participate in and provide large cash injections to. Trust me, the most successful meth dealers I’ve ever met dealt in multiple ounce weight to _USERS_ that could afford thousands of dollars at a time. They were welcomed happily in SoMa, Sunset, Nob Hill etc. just as much as in the tenderloin.
(I have not been involved in drugs at all for many years, but this stuff doesn’t appear to have changed at all. At least one of your ‘10xer’ buddies either smokes or injects methamphetamine or some sort of substituted cathinones. Have a nice day!)