By people who don't just ignore several thousand years of how various "not too dysfunctional" societies ran themselves for a few quick ideological virtue points.
Much of the shitting on "progressivism" is misguided. There's just as much progressivism and liberal ideology on the other coast and they don't have the same dysfunctionality and failings to nearly the same extents. These kinds of clowns are everywhere but at the end of the day it's the California public who is responsible for electing them and tolerating their poor job performance.
In California, excepting some rare corners, there's only one party. California has a lot of Republicans, in numbers, but they don't have any power in any major city, let alone on the state level. So your idea has already been implemented.
Applying what we could call progressive ideas without thinking them through is a problem. IMHO we should vote for smarter politicians who don't have ideological baggage limiting their decision making.
> Politicians claiming to be be progressive then pandering to corporate interests has.
That doesn't have much to do with SF's problems as far as I can tell. Quite the opposite actually.
All politics is ideological but to blame a single progressive DA for the entirety of the current crime problem in SF without realizing that much of what is happening today is more likely the result of past decisions than one guy actually doing what he said he would do to me is just ridiculous but if you feel that way then convince me in the next election with whatever platform you run on, not telling me I should recall someone so you can just put in your preferred puppet without having to say what you’ll actually do and how it would be better.
> All politics is ideological but to blame a single progressive DA for the entirety of the current crime problem
Isn't that a straw man though? No one reasonable is saying that this DA is responsible for the entirety of the crime problem, and of course this uptick in crime is a nationwide problem! However, the DA isn't doing enough to make things better, and putting people in jail who are committing crimes repeatedly because they've realized there are no consequences for their actions is probably the smarter thing to do ATM. So let's instead elect a DA that will do that (like we did here in Seattle, it won't solve the problem...but it is a start).
If you listen to the recall pushers it doesn’t sound like much of a straw man to me and the idea that the DA isn’t doing enough to prosecute isn’t a new concept here but if you actually look into the details of what Chesa is trying to do there is more method to it than just a blanket non-prosecutional ideology. It doesn’t mean that people don’t face any consequences at all if they fail to meet the standards laid out for them but they are given a chance. But this idea that a progressive ideology isn’t what is needed now because we’re in some nationwide uptick in certain crimes strikes me as odd because if not now then when? And to your point, a recall isn’t an election - the appointee doesn’t have to say anything about what they’re going to do and as it stands now they get to run as an incumbent in the next election which gives them a big advantage. So people are just presuming that whoever is appointed will be the “tough on crime” DA that they presumably want without actually knowing who they’re going to get.
> ut this idea that a progressive ideology isn’t what is needed now because we’re in some nationwide uptick in certain crimes strikes me as odd because if not now then when?
People are simply fed up right now. Even the most liberal progressive will flip to a tough on crime attitude after they reach their breaking limit. If they don't see results, they will keep swapping out people until they get them. The problem perhaps is that the DA's methods would require decades to show some results, but they aren't going to be given that much time.
> So people are just presuming that whoever is appointed will be the “tough on crime” DA that they presumably want without actually knowing who they’re going to get.
Isn't that what an election would get us anyways? We would swap out something we don't think is working for something different, that might still not work, but will at least lead to a chance of an improvement.
“ The problem perhaps is that the DA's methods would require decades to show some results, but they aren't going to be given that much time.”
Or they may not take that long to show results but if we simply allow people to swap out a known for an unknown each time they’re fed up with the apparent lack of action or results of something then that just rewards those that benefit from it without having them have to do the work of convincing anyone that their person will do better because of what they’re promising to do rather than just “we’re not that guy.” I’m not convinced that things have gotten bad enough in SF that “anyone but Chesa” is a strong enough argument and I think he deserves to be allowed to work out the remainder of his term and be judged on that basis. Any opposition after that can come in the form of an actual candidate that has to run an actual campaign to at least give the people some chance of understanding what that candidate’s stances are.
Could you explain how enabling current crime wave is "pandering to corporate interests"? Corporations didn't demand to defund the police or stop prosecuting crime or develop a homeless camp on every major street, as far as I know. Did they?
I'm guessing you live in Texas (as do I), not San Francisco or California, and this is an expression of the "Everything in California is terrible" meme that's popular here.
As another resident, I can vouch there are serious issue but the DA is largely being successfully scapegoated by the troubled police department. Pretty much all the reasons the police cite for their chronic issues and ineffectiveness are utter BS but they seem to have successfully shifted all the blame onto the DA. With the serious police dept issues, pandemic, national trends, and lopsided analysis it’s hard to say how much role the da has had but it’s easy to tell it’s nowhere even close to what most attribute. I think the recall will succeed and the supporters will find nothing changes because he wasn’t the issue.
Can you provide some more details about the types of issues the PD has shifted onto the DA?
As an outsider, the only real issue I'm aware of is the refusal to prosecute theft under $1k (edit: $950), which seems like something that is completely out of the police's hands.
Example: the DA won’t prosecute theft under $950, as you say. So the police will literally stand across the street and watch a street vendor get robbed and do nothing.
Just because the DA will refuse to press charges doesn’t mean they couldn’t have still arrested the guy for the night and returned the property, not to mention intervening in a potentially dangerous situation for the shop owner and customers.
> So the police will literally stand across the street and watch a street vendor get robbed and do nothing.
Are you saying that SFPD is not stopping crimes that are occurring in front of them because they believe that the suspect will not be prosecuted? The police are not prosecutors - if they are failing to stop crimes, the fault lies squarely with them.
Can you provide some examples of when this has happened?
There was also a video of cops pulling up and watching a dispensary get robbed
There was another account on next door of a neighbor pursuing a robber after a home invasion and had to pleas with the police to even approach the guy, and they basically just got him his stuff back and tainted all the evidence so no DA would be able to actually prosecute. Not even sure if they actually arrested that guy.
That $950 limit is a widespread but, to be blunt, nonesense talking point that is a great example of how the police absolve their hands of their inaction and how a lack of nationwide context creates myopic assessments.
For example, In the great progressive bastion of Texas the felony theft limit is $2,500, and also the current DA didn’t make the law.
The police have been caught many times simple spectating crimes in action. That’s not the da, that’s cops on strike.
The police choosing to do nothing because the outcome may not be as they desire is ridiculous. Imagine trying that excuse at your work.
Not to mention the progressive solutions are all half-measures. Where are the solutions to the homelessness and poverty? Just reducing criminal punishment and enforcement does nothing.
More like they’re both terrible. But the police were smart enough to figure out they can blame the DA (who deserves blame, but not alone) and avoid accountability for themselves.
Yeah the pandemic does throw a wrench in the assessment. But letting the police so successfully push all the blame onto the da is only going to embolden them and reward bad behavior. If the option was to recall the top police leaders plus the da, then I’d vote yes. Punishing only one side will make the situation worse.
For folks who think SF and Oakland PD issues are limited to their systemic violence against minorities, video documented violence against protestors & intentionally making current levels of crime seem worse to help the recall it’s worth looking into some of their darker crimes.
Check out their abuse of Celeste Guap, how long it took for anyone to do anything, the number of DAs, prosecutors and AGs that looked the other way, the charges dropped and finally the lone officer to actually face charges and the plea deal they received.
Police in the bay area have been able to do anything they want for a long time. The campaign against the current DA really just stems from him doing what is still far below the bare minimum to e remind police that they are not above the law.
Corruption in Texas is super interesting in fact! The lengths that all of the segments of government seem to be taking in order to avoid taking the indicted Attorney General to trial is probably not unique but it’s interesting to see in real time.
I’m guessing he’s from Texas because his username says so.
But I’m from the SF bay area and he’s spot on. We have massive social issues here (homelessness, drug-related crimes, urban blight, etc.) which are being made worse by so-called “progressive” policies.
False dichotomy. There’s a whole universe of policy options.
But to answer your question as posed, conservative policies will probably get us out of the mess we’re in, and then we can have the luxury to consider what smarter long-term progressive policies could be enacted.
Example: there is now an organized crime theft ring coordinating smash-and-grab thefts from storefronts in San Francisco because the DA’s so-called progressive policy of excessive leniency for misdemeanor theft. To the point where stores like CVS are abandoning the city. A “conservative” policy of harsh law enforcement is probably needed to reverse this trend. (That’s not the same as saying we should have harsh punishment for misdemeanors as a general rule forever though.)
Singapore and Tokyo are large, densely-populated cities that don't have the public-order problems that California cities do. I can't say if their policies are "conservative" or not based on the US understanding of the word, but they do seem to work...
California cities very recently didn't have the public-order problems that California cities do. It's a pretty recent phenomenon, and it's hard not to attribute it to the novel ideas of legalizing theft and "reforming" criminals by just letting them go.
In the case of the former, caning is a widely used form of corporal punishment. That is extremely conservative and not something we should re-create in the US.
I don't think that we should institute caning, but I do think that new forms of punishment are needed.
Jail and prison are terrible forms of punishment. Someone who goes to prison is going to lose their job, maybe lose their house and possessions, and be away from their family. And that's all to spend time hanging out with convicted criminals all day and learn nothing of value.
Compared with this, caning actually starts to look not so bad. It sends a clear message "don't do that again" without destroying someone's life.
Now, caning also can cause serious damage to your body, so I don't think it's an acceptable punishment, but it would be good to have a better method of punishment that sent a clear message but didn't wreck someone's life and leave them with little alternative but to resort to crime again.
I draw the line, myself, at permanently maiming people for petty crime, so the Saudi method of handling thieves is off the table. Birching or caning was used successfully in anglophone countries for years.
Alternatively, something distasteful and uncomfortable, like being dressed in an orange jumpsuit, shackled to other ne'r-do-wells, and forcd to police the side of a highway for litter for 12 hours a day for a month would also work, if it could be applied with dispatch.
Think hard on the developmental stage of the person behind the wheel of the car. Which do you think will have a more lasting effect on him; camp...or a whipping?
Do you think the woman in the article is wrong for being outraged at the original sentence?
Some of them - like prosecuting crime and dealing with rampant homelessness - would. Some - like restricting hard liquor sales - probably wouldn't. The key is not to choose correct tribe, the key is to choose correct policy. SF - and CA - government has been consistently terrible at that for years.
There are plenty of boneheaded policies in CA, but I'm not sure what's so "progressive" about cutting tax just because you've owned the house for longer.
The argument I've heard is seniors getting priced out, and having to move. Considering what happens when a senior has to move away from their social group, doctor and other resources they know, I can see why that would be bad.
But this leaves them as NIMBYs, preventing more housing. Without more housing, there are fewer people to charge property tax. So you're hit with the double whammy of less taxpayers, and less income from many of them.
I lived in California, near San Francisco. Not everything is California is terrible, but everything to do with SF DA is. SF got really really terrible - and it wasn't like that a decade ago. There are many opinions why that happened but I think "progressive" social engineering experimentation played a large role. I mean, if you decriminalize theft, you get a lot of theft. Who could have thought?
Uvalde is currently at the top of that list and the power problems from last winter. And while I know it's largely dependent on one's political leaning, the Texas laws against books, abortion, immorality (e.g. sex toys), and LBGT issues, among others, don't speak "most free" to me.
I'm sure someone will counter with "but in California..." and the objections will all be true, which is why I stand by my original opinion: neither one is obviously better run than the other.
It's clear that TX has been run better than CA. Many large corporations have left CA for TX. Crime in CA is significantly worse and you are not allowed to protect your life or property. You are free to steal and no one does a thing about it, plenty of examples in the news of this happening in the middle of the day. You have celebrities saying "no big deal" about getting your car broken into, just part of life in CA. Look at all the businesses shutting down, Wallgreens for example. TX isn't covered in homeless camps, drugs and feces. TX's economy is strong and will remain strong due to a business friendly environment. Housing is more affordable (though less than it used to be in metro areas) in part due to less regulations.
And the items you point to as negatives are positives for me. I'm against abortion, sexualizing children (including books). Not sure what you mean by "sex toys". Plenty of those shops around if you are in need of some.
And I've visited CA a few times and have seen it first hand. It's not a place I'd want to take my family for vacation, let alone live. I wish that wasn't true, weather is wonderful.
In Texas, a class C misdemeanors for theft is $50 or less, with progressively increasing penalties based on the amount. $1500 is a felony. You can also shoot thieves in Texas.
The question is not how it is classified, but how it is prosecuted. From what I can see in CA, "misdemeanor" means "no prosecution, and likely not even a brief arrest" (not that thieves care much about brief arrests - they just go back to business after the fun ride is done).
Maybe the thieves are rational actors responding to incentives. Have you considering offering them something above minimum wage if you're annoyed enough to recall a DA because you lack the will or the funds to purchase private security?
I'm sorry, how it became my responsibility to figure out everybody's problems? This is exactly sort of baloney that led to today's problems - that criminals are but innocent victims because they weren't served with high-paying jobs on a silver plate (which jobs btw they have zero interest in if you asked them, because you have to actually work - who needs that trouble?).
There's no shortage of opportunities to earn one's living - Bay Area is not exactly a post-apocalyptic wasteland where one only can survive by joining a roaming gang of bandits. And we've all seen recordings of people driving through store windows in luxury cars, grabbing all they could and fleeing away - these people aren't forced to do it by lack of jobs at nearby Costco. These people don't want a $17/hr job - they want expensive stuff for free, so they could sell it off and live like kings.
> if you're annoyed enough to recall a DA because you lack the will or the funds to purchase private security?
You now convinced me you're trolling. The argument of "you can't demand maintaining order from DA, just buy private security" can't be taken seriously.
I tend to think recalls in general are bug in a democratic system. For candidates who have done something actually terrible (like breaking laws) there's impeachment or other kinds of dismissal. Otherwise, you wait until the end of the term and vote the bum out?
But why have terms in the first place, if they're that up in the air? The nicest thing I could say for a recall effort is that voters who were too apathetic to vote for another candidate now feel motivated to engage in the process, but as it's an extra vote it incurs costs which the normal cadence of elections doesn't.
I would agree if it was trivial to bring these things about, but it takes a lot of public backing to even get to this point.
It’s just like if we were to hold a state ratification convention. Things would have to be really wrong for us to successfully make changes to our constitution & get everyone on board.
The terms are ordinary balances, for regular circumstances. Recall is for extraordinary bad performance. Like performance reviews and firing on the spot in companies. The former is regular, the latter is for somebody who really screwed up.
The problem is that in practice, recall elections have lower turnout, and so a sufficiently-aggrieved minority can pay to replace the choice of the majority. (Also you don’t get to vote for the replacement, the mayor chooses one in this case).
I think there are clear cases where a recall is useful, but it’s probably fair to say it’s too easy to initiate a frivolous recall in CA right now.
Because the term is long and the harm the bum can do in several years can be enormous. The people hire somebody to do the job, if that person botches the job, the people should have the ability to fire them, not just wait till the term ends.
> His prosecutors are not permitted to seek cash bail, try juveniles as adults or seek longer sentences for perpetrators with gang affiliations.
For the kinds of crimes that frustrate San Franciscans, I don't know if any of these things actually make a difference. Whether prosecutors seek a 3 years or 5 year sentence doesn't seem like it will move the needle.
By the time crimes get to the DA's office, the horse has left the barn - agree or disagree with Boudin, SF crime is predominantly an enforcement (and/or cultural) issue.
What do you mean when you say it's "an enforcement (and/or cultural) issue."? Isn't all crime a cultural issue to some extent? What is the purpose of law enforcement, and prosecution in your mind?
Stopping/preventing crime is handled by police and other organizations. Prosecuting criminals who are caught is handled by the DA's office.
Simply put, it's not the DA's job to stop crime. So if the problem is "there is too much crime in SF", changing the DA themselves isn't going to do much in the short term (perhaps in the long term though, with more people locked up).
>"Stopping/preventing crime is handled by police and other organizations."
How do you expect police to stop and prevent crime? As someone who has been a victim of violent crime, I don't know what the police could have done to prevent it, short of being everywhere all the time.
>"So if the problem is "there is too much crime in SF", changing the DA themselves isn't going to do much in the short term (perhaps in the long term though, with more people locked up)."
I was under the impression that District Attorneys are meant to act as part of a 'feedback system', by disincentivizing crime, protecting the public by imprisoning dangerous people, and providing the opportunity for corrections. I am not sure which, if any role DAs actually accomplish.
The way I read it, the specific policies of the DA can make a difference. My understanding is that the SF DA has deprioritized and eliminated prosecuting smaller crimes, so there is little to no downside for the would be criminal. So then, in this case and theory, the DA has indeed had a big impact on the rise in crime, hence all the hub-bub
GP is referring to the idea that getting 30 years vs 25 for murder is very different from getting in trouble for stealing < $1100. In the later, if you could face jail time, you might think twice about stealing from walgreens.
The SF police no longer bother even trying to stop certain crimes because the DA won't prosecute criminals, so it's a waste of police time. Changing the DA could give police an incentive to resume active enforcement.
It's strange how every year the police have a new excuse. Prior to Boudin they blamed the change to the $950 felony theft limit ( Texas has $2,500). Now they wore that out they've decided it's Boudin. After the recall what will it be next?
Anyway, taking the the cops at their dubious word, assume the DA is terrible. Does it actually make sense to be like "because the DA is terrible, we will also be terrible but you can't criticize us". (Not even getting into the long history of SF policy chronic issues)
Theft under $950 in California is an infraction i.e. a fine with no jail time. In Texas only the first theft under $100 does not carry time (a second offense can already get jail time even under $100 value). This is why there are organized gangs rushing shops in California and no such thing in Texas.
i agree it is an enforcement issue but the line i have heard is enforcement is lacking bc police officers think the convictions won’t happen on the other end so there is no point in them making the arrests in the first place. No idea if that is true or not just the claim i have heard.
I know this is the line, but I'm not sure if I actually believe it.
If I'm a police officer and I catch someone looting, am I really thinking "well, there's no more cash bail so I may as well not bother"?
It seems the core issue is that key SF voters do not want police pursuing low level crime, and they are on order not to. A lax DA might be a symbolic part of this, but they don't seem key.
I agree with this. I'll be on the record and say that I support most of these progressive sentencing reforms, but I do think they need to go hand in hand with better crime prevention/management.
As someone who was born in San Francisco (third gen) and has bounced around between the city and other areas of the state/country most of my life, I can assure you that swapping one set of politicians for another is going to have very little effect on the deep-seated problems facing the city and the Bay Area in general. Which issues are the most important are debatable, but these have to be considered:
(1) Jobs. There used to be a ton of electronics and garment manufacturing jobs in the region. Most such jobs required no more than a high school education, possible some vocational training, but the R & D and white-collar sections also provided employement for the college-educated. That's mostly all gone to China, Mexico, Indonesia, etc. Right out of high school I actually did a couple years doing electronics assembly line manufacturing in various locations, including in an exciting laser-welding shop, making ridiculously good money relative to my peers (I could afford my own apartment at 18) - and there were people who'd been there decades. Gets boring fast, so I went to college, as I didn't want to be there forever.
When you look at the huge homeless population today, I think it was less than 10% back then of what it is now, and my guess is that the availability of those jobs played a big role in that.
(2) Housing. The reality is, either you are in or near the 1% by wealth or you can't buy a home, and rents are ridiculously high, and there are confounding factors like AirBNB taking homes off the market and foreign investors using real estate as a tax haven / money laundering scheme, etc. Developers don't want to build high-density affordable housing as profit margins are lower. Increased population puts strains on public transportation and traffic. The whole region could turn into something like Mexico City (wealthy center protected by police, surrounded by miles of slums and shantytowns). Importantly, people who serve key roles - teachers, service workers, etc. - generally have to commute into the city, was they can't afford local rents. This wealth/poverty class divide is not very stable or pleasant to be around.
I think what a certain sector of wealthy SF wants (basically the people behind the recall effort) is for the police to mainly serve the role of kicking the homeless out of the pricey neighborhoods and concentrating them in areas where they never go, which will heavily impact these poorer neighborhoods, exacerbating the growing class conflict. Oh, and one job sector that is growing? Armed private security. I don't think the outcome of the recall will affect any of this significantly, however.
The only real fixes I see would be a massive jobs program to bring back manufacturing to the region and a push towards Tokyo-style tiny apartment construction across the region.
>The whole region could turn into something like Mexico City (wealthy center protected by police, surrounded by miles of slums and shantytowns). Importantly, people who serve key roles - teachers, service workers, etc.
Mexico City? That's almost every major US city already. Have you been to DC recently? That's it to a T. The government sector is nice, with a little buffer of upper class homes and businesses surrounded by miles of high-crime slums.
What? Which areas are “miles of high-crime slums”? SE DC and parts of suburban Maryland. But the vast majority of the city and suburbs are safe and far from being slums. Look at Arlington, Alexandria, Bethesda etc.
> When you look at the huge homeless population today, I think it was less than 10% back then of what it is now
I'm not sure when "back then" was, but homeless in SF has only increased by around 2% from 10 years ago, and has actually dropped by 15% compared to two years ago. (From https://hsh.sfgov.org/get-involved/2022-pit-count/ using the non-sheltered counts, as you were referencing the population you could 'look at')
Looking at earlier info, the NY Times in 1998 quoted the Coalition on Homelessness saying there were 16,000 homeless on the streets of SF then. That would mean a huge decrease today compared to then, but I suspect the two numbers may have been counted differently. (https://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/13/us/homelessness-tests-san...).
Anyway, it doesn't seem like the data supports your claim that there has been a massive increase in the homeless population lately, unless you go back to at least before the 1980s (https://projects.sfchronicle.com/sf-homeless/overview/)
> "The Bay Area’s homeless population today is larger, less sheltered, and growing faster than ever before. Between 2017 and 2020, the Bay Area’s homeless population grew by 6,878 individuals to a total of 35,118—accounting for more than a quarter of the growth in the total U.S. homeless population."
Some of the Covid emergency programs sort of worked by putting people in hotels, but those hotels are pretty sketchy places at best. This might account for the apparently flat rate in SF but anyone walking around the poorer neighborhoods can see it with their own eyes:
97 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 127 ms ] threadBy people who don't just ignore several thousand years of how various "not too dysfunctional" societies ran themselves for a few quick ideological virtue points.
Much of the shitting on "progressivism" is misguided. There's just as much progressivism and liberal ideology on the other coast and they don't have the same dysfunctionality and failings to nearly the same extents. These kinds of clowns are everywhere but at the end of the day it's the California public who is responsible for electing them and tolerating their poor job performance.
> Politicians claiming to be be progressive then pandering to corporate interests has.
That doesn't have much to do with SF's problems as far as I can tell. Quite the opposite actually.
Isn't that a straw man though? No one reasonable is saying that this DA is responsible for the entirety of the crime problem, and of course this uptick in crime is a nationwide problem! However, the DA isn't doing enough to make things better, and putting people in jail who are committing crimes repeatedly because they've realized there are no consequences for their actions is probably the smarter thing to do ATM. So let's instead elect a DA that will do that (like we did here in Seattle, it won't solve the problem...but it is a start).
People are simply fed up right now. Even the most liberal progressive will flip to a tough on crime attitude after they reach their breaking limit. If they don't see results, they will keep swapping out people until they get them. The problem perhaps is that the DA's methods would require decades to show some results, but they aren't going to be given that much time.
> So people are just presuming that whoever is appointed will be the “tough on crime” DA that they presumably want without actually knowing who they’re going to get.
Isn't that what an election would get us anyways? We would swap out something we don't think is working for something different, that might still not work, but will at least lead to a chance of an improvement.
Or they may not take that long to show results but if we simply allow people to swap out a known for an unknown each time they’re fed up with the apparent lack of action or results of something then that just rewards those that benefit from it without having them have to do the work of convincing anyone that their person will do better because of what they’re promising to do rather than just “we’re not that guy.” I’m not convinced that things have gotten bad enough in SF that “anyone but Chesa” is a strong enough argument and I think he deserves to be allowed to work out the remainder of his term and be judged on that basis. Any opposition after that can come in the form of an actual candidate that has to run an actual campaign to at least give the people some chance of understanding what that candidate’s stances are.
As an outsider, the only real issue I'm aware of is the refusal to prosecute theft under $1k (edit: $950), which seems like something that is completely out of the police's hands.
Just because the DA will refuse to press charges doesn’t mean they couldn’t have still arrested the guy for the night and returned the property, not to mention intervening in a potentially dangerous situation for the shop owner and customers.
Are you saying that SFPD is not stopping crimes that are occurring in front of them because they believe that the suspect will not be prosecuted? The police are not prosecutors - if they are failing to stop crimes, the fault lies squarely with them.
Can you provide some examples of when this has happened?
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/bayarea/heatherknight/article...
Some overlap with the prior one: https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/bayarea/heatherknight/article...
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/bayarea/heatherknight/article...
There was also a video of cops pulling up and watching a dispensary get robbed
There was another account on next door of a neighbor pursuing a robber after a home invasion and had to pleas with the police to even approach the guy, and they basically just got him his stuff back and tainted all the evidence so no DA would be able to actually prosecute. Not even sure if they actually arrested that guy.
And then there is the fairly recent examples of extreme racism of some of the officers that tainted criminal cases leading them to be dismissed. https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-sfpd-racist-tex...
For example, In the great progressive bastion of Texas the felony theft limit is $2,500, and also the current DA didn’t make the law.
The police have been caught many times simple spectating crimes in action. That’s not the da, that’s cops on strike.
Not to mention the progressive solutions are all half-measures. Where are the solutions to the homelessness and poverty? Just reducing criminal punishment and enforcement does nothing.
Check out their abuse of Celeste Guap, how long it took for anyone to do anything, the number of DAs, prosecutors and AGs that looked the other way, the charges dropped and finally the lone officer to actually face charges and the plea deal they received.
Police in the bay area have been able to do anything they want for a long time. The campaign against the current DA really just stems from him doing what is still far below the bare minimum to e remind police that they are not above the law.
But I’m from the SF bay area and he’s spot on. We have massive social issues here (homelessness, drug-related crimes, urban blight, etc.) which are being made worse by so-called “progressive” policies.
But to answer your question as posed, conservative policies will probably get us out of the mess we’re in, and then we can have the luxury to consider what smarter long-term progressive policies could be enacted.
Example: there is now an organized crime theft ring coordinating smash-and-grab thefts from storefronts in San Francisco because the DA’s so-called progressive policy of excessive leniency for misdemeanor theft. To the point where stores like CVS are abandoning the city. A “conservative” policy of harsh law enforcement is probably needed to reverse this trend. (That’s not the same as saying we should have harsh punishment for misdemeanors as a general rule forever though.)
Jail and prison are terrible forms of punishment. Someone who goes to prison is going to lose their job, maybe lose their house and possessions, and be away from their family. And that's all to spend time hanging out with convicted criminals all day and learn nothing of value.
Compared with this, caning actually starts to look not so bad. It sends a clear message "don't do that again" without destroying someone's life.
Now, caning also can cause serious damage to your body, so I don't think it's an acceptable punishment, but it would be good to have a better method of punishment that sent a clear message but didn't wreck someone's life and leave them with little alternative but to resort to crime again.
Alternatively, something distasteful and uncomfortable, like being dressed in an orange jumpsuit, shackled to other ne'r-do-wells, and forcd to police the side of a highway for litter for 12 hours a day for a month would also work, if it could be applied with dispatch.
https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/victim-of-hit-and-ru...
Think hard on the developmental stage of the person behind the wheel of the car. Which do you think will have a more lasting effect on him; camp...or a whipping? Do you think the woman in the article is wrong for being outraged at the original sentence?
But this leaves them as NIMBYs, preventing more housing. Without more housing, there are fewer people to charge property tax. So you're hit with the double whammy of less taxpayers, and less income from many of them.
I'm sure someone will counter with "but in California..." and the objections will all be true, which is why I stand by my original opinion: neither one is obviously better run than the other.
And the items you point to as negatives are positives for me. I'm against abortion, sexualizing children (including books). Not sure what you mean by "sex toys". Plenty of those shops around if you are in need of some.
And I've visited CA a few times and have seen it first hand. It's not a place I'd want to take my family for vacation, let alone live. I wish that wasn't true, weather is wonderful.
>California’s state and local government revenues and spending are 60 percent higher than Texas on a per-resident basis
>K-12 spending per student is much higher in California, student outcomes are if anything better in Texas
In Texas, theft under $2500 is a misdemeanor.
Don’t be absurd.
You can only legally shoot them at night.
There's no shortage of opportunities to earn one's living - Bay Area is not exactly a post-apocalyptic wasteland where one only can survive by joining a roaming gang of bandits. And we've all seen recordings of people driving through store windows in luxury cars, grabbing all they could and fleeing away - these people aren't forced to do it by lack of jobs at nearby Costco. These people don't want a $17/hr job - they want expensive stuff for free, so they could sell it off and live like kings.
> if you're annoyed enough to recall a DA because you lack the will or the funds to purchase private security?
You now convinced me you're trolling. The argument of "you can't demand maintaining order from DA, just buy private security" can't be taken seriously.
I don't see how that's a convincing argument for why it's a "bug". Quick remediation seems like a feature?
It’s just like if we were to hold a state ratification convention. Things would have to be really wrong for us to successfully make changes to our constitution & get everyone on board.
I think there are clear cases where a recall is useful, but it’s probably fair to say it’s too easy to initiate a frivolous recall in CA right now.
For the kinds of crimes that frustrate San Franciscans, I don't know if any of these things actually make a difference. Whether prosecutors seek a 3 years or 5 year sentence doesn't seem like it will move the needle.
By the time crimes get to the DA's office, the horse has left the barn - agree or disagree with Boudin, SF crime is predominantly an enforcement (and/or cultural) issue.
Simply put, it's not the DA's job to stop crime. So if the problem is "there is too much crime in SF", changing the DA themselves isn't going to do much in the short term (perhaps in the long term though, with more people locked up).
How do you expect police to stop and prevent crime? As someone who has been a victim of violent crime, I don't know what the police could have done to prevent it, short of being everywhere all the time.
>"So if the problem is "there is too much crime in SF", changing the DA themselves isn't going to do much in the short term (perhaps in the long term though, with more people locked up)."
I was under the impression that District Attorneys are meant to act as part of a 'feedback system', by disincentivizing crime, protecting the public by imprisoning dangerous people, and providing the opportunity for corrections. I am not sure which, if any role DAs actually accomplish.
So when you remove much of the punishment, it would be reasonable to expect crime to increase.
GP is referring to the idea that getting 30 years vs 25 for murder is very different from getting in trouble for stealing < $1100. In the later, if you could face jail time, you might think twice about stealing from walgreens.
Anyway, taking the the cops at their dubious word, assume the DA is terrible. Does it actually make sense to be like "because the DA is terrible, we will also be terrible but you can't criticize us". (Not even getting into the long history of SF policy chronic issues)
If I'm a police officer and I catch someone looting, am I really thinking "well, there's no more cash bail so I may as well not bother"?
It seems the core issue is that key SF voters do not want police pursuing low level crime, and they are on order not to. A lax DA might be a symbolic part of this, but they don't seem key.
https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/boudin-forced-to-rent-u-...
If your model is that crime is a cycle and you need to rehabilitate more than punish, then this is the playbook to follow.
(1) Jobs. There used to be a ton of electronics and garment manufacturing jobs in the region. Most such jobs required no more than a high school education, possible some vocational training, but the R & D and white-collar sections also provided employement for the college-educated. That's mostly all gone to China, Mexico, Indonesia, etc. Right out of high school I actually did a couple years doing electronics assembly line manufacturing in various locations, including in an exciting laser-welding shop, making ridiculously good money relative to my peers (I could afford my own apartment at 18) - and there were people who'd been there decades. Gets boring fast, so I went to college, as I didn't want to be there forever.
When you look at the huge homeless population today, I think it was less than 10% back then of what it is now, and my guess is that the availability of those jobs played a big role in that.
(2) Housing. The reality is, either you are in or near the 1% by wealth or you can't buy a home, and rents are ridiculously high, and there are confounding factors like AirBNB taking homes off the market and foreign investors using real estate as a tax haven / money laundering scheme, etc. Developers don't want to build high-density affordable housing as profit margins are lower. Increased population puts strains on public transportation and traffic. The whole region could turn into something like Mexico City (wealthy center protected by police, surrounded by miles of slums and shantytowns). Importantly, people who serve key roles - teachers, service workers, etc. - generally have to commute into the city, was they can't afford local rents. This wealth/poverty class divide is not very stable or pleasant to be around.
I think what a certain sector of wealthy SF wants (basically the people behind the recall effort) is for the police to mainly serve the role of kicking the homeless out of the pricey neighborhoods and concentrating them in areas where they never go, which will heavily impact these poorer neighborhoods, exacerbating the growing class conflict. Oh, and one job sector that is growing? Armed private security. I don't think the outcome of the recall will affect any of this significantly, however.
The only real fixes I see would be a massive jobs program to bring back manufacturing to the region and a push towards Tokyo-style tiny apartment construction across the region.
Mexico City? That's almost every major US city already. Have you been to DC recently? That's it to a T. The government sector is nice, with a little buffer of upper class homes and businesses surrounded by miles of high-crime slums.
I'm not sure when "back then" was, but homeless in SF has only increased by around 2% from 10 years ago, and has actually dropped by 15% compared to two years ago. (From https://hsh.sfgov.org/get-involved/2022-pit-count/ using the non-sheltered counts, as you were referencing the population you could 'look at')
Looking at earlier info, the NY Times in 1998 quoted the Coalition on Homelessness saying there were 16,000 homeless on the streets of SF then. That would mean a huge decrease today compared to then, but I suspect the two numbers may have been counted differently. (https://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/13/us/homelessness-tests-san...).
Anyway, it doesn't seem like the data supports your claim that there has been a massive increase in the homeless population lately, unless you go back to at least before the 1980s (https://projects.sfchronicle.com/sf-homeless/overview/)
http://www.bayareaeconomy.org/report/bay-area-homelessness-2...
> "The Bay Area’s homeless population today is larger, less sheltered, and growing faster than ever before. Between 2017 and 2020, the Bay Area’s homeless population grew by 6,878 individuals to a total of 35,118—accounting for more than a quarter of the growth in the total U.S. homeless population."
Some of the Covid emergency programs sort of worked by putting people in hotels, but those hotels are pretty sketchy places at best. This might account for the apparently flat rate in SF but anyone walking around the poorer neighborhoods can see it with their own eyes:
https://www.kqed.org/news/11914346/more-people-became-unhous...
That's only part of the picture: the growing gap between wealthy and poor is a more significant long-term issue.