It's not though. I've visited friends there anually for the last 15 years. Last year I genuinely feared for my life and this summer my friends totally understand why I'm refusing to enter city limits.
I am very eager for this crime wave moral panic thing to end so I don't have to nod sagely when someone says ridiculous stuff like this (in person, obviously online I'll just communicate my real thoughts).
There's a few nice ones and a few shitty ones. It's like any other city in the US, in that the working class neighborhoods have been gentrified or neglected to various extents, but nice working class neighborhoods have not yet entirely vanished.
What is an example of a coastal city with "nice working class neighborhoods"? I am curious what people mean when they say nice, it seems very value laden.
Generally people use "nice" to refer to low-crime, little blight (abandoned, falling apart homes, junk cars), and well upkept infrastructure and scenery.
Ten years ago, many parts of many coastal cities would qualify. Being in the Bay Area, I know San Jose, Union City, Newark, Fremont, Dublin, Livermore, and Walnut Creek homes were all affordable on working class Bay Area wages. Those days are gone. I'm bitter about most of my friends being unable to afford a middle class life here. However, they're mostly the same people that complain about any new construction and homes, so it's a bit self-inflicted.
> However, they're mostly the same people that complain about any new construction and homes, so it's a bit self-inflicted.
It is a bit self-inflicted, but having lived in cities my whole life you can't ignore the demand side of the story.
White flight has completely reversed itself in the last 15 years and urban areas are now incredibly popular destinations for millennial aged white people who grew up in suburbs in a way that just wasn't the case before. Even with a ton of building, it is hard to keep up with the demand boost.
Don’t forget “social infrastructure” - a good place to raise a family. Parks aren’t filled with homeless. Schools have students who take learning seriously.
This particular act of vandalism is getting attention because Laurelhurst is a very wealthy neighborhood. All of these affected houses are worth at least $1M. The worst impacts of this crisis have been in homeless people themselves and in poor neighborhoods that the city chronically underserves, but outside of internet comments the press has shown little interest in examining that.
The scare quotes around "houseless residents" are stupid. They live in Portland and aren't housed. It's the best descriptor.
A phrase like “houseless residents” is used to convey two unrelated levels of information:
The first level of information is the obvious one: an adjective phrase that describes a homeless person.
The second level of information is about the writer: it conveys the writer’s support for a political position, and an ideological in-group to which the writer claims membership.
The “scare quotes” here are used to convey that the author does not subscribe to the underlying political position that the phrase communicates; rather, they’re quoting someone else’s usage.
Could it also indicate the usage of a new phrase in place of an established word “homeless”? Like if I used the term “apartmentless city dweller” I would probably put in quotes.
> The “scare quotes” here are used to convey that the author does not subscribe to the underlying political position that the phrase communicates; rather, they’re quoting someone else’s usage. This is correct.
No, it's not.
Submitting the original article titles on HN is not making a political statement, it's the rules. Since it's the rules, it's not necessary to add one's own scare quotes - in fact that's the editorializing the rules tell you not to do:
"Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize."
"Tires Slashed, Mirrors Shattered Along Laurelhurst Street Where Tensions Between Neighbors and Houseless Residents Continue to Escalate"
That exceeds the maximum limit on HN, but can be trimmed without the scare-quotes editorialization. (In fact, the scare quotes take away 2 characters that could otherwise be well-utilized.)
The “scare” quotes make it clear that the phrasing is quoted from the original title, which, given the necessity of summarizing the title to fit within the limits, is still, in fact, entirely correct.
Often the people voting for policies that allow urban camping are the people who have private security and aren’t exposed to the effects. The people voting out progressive DAs are the people most affected which happen to be the poorer neighborhoods and don’t have private security.
It's interesting how this has become a popular talking point.
> Often the people voting for policies that allow urban camping are the people who have private security and aren’t exposed to the effects.
The vast majority of voters do not have "private security" - certainly there are not enough with it to influence any election.
> The people voting out progressive DAs are the people most affected which happen to be the poorer neighborhoods and don’t have private security.
Nope, it is the most affluent neighborhoods that are voting for these recalls. [0] Poorer neighborhoods do not like crime, but they also have direct interactions with the criminal justice system and are generally skeptical of "broken-windows" style policing as compared to "stop shootings" style policing.
I dunno, the article you're citing says that Visitation, Tenderloin and Bayview all voted against him:
>"The PVI index shows that neighborhoods in the city’s core — the Haight, the Mission and Bernal Heights — tend to vote more progressively than those on its outer rim, like Lake Merced, Visitacion Valley and the Marina.
>These outer-core neighborhoods, which voted against Boudin in 2019, also voted against him on Tuesday. But this time, they were joined by several neighborhoods that voted for Boudin in 2019, including the Bayview, the Tenderloin and the Richmond."
25 comments
[ 2.2 ms ] story [ 35.6 ms ] threadI’m not trying to attack Portland, I don’t know much about it.
Ten years ago, many parts of many coastal cities would qualify. Being in the Bay Area, I know San Jose, Union City, Newark, Fremont, Dublin, Livermore, and Walnut Creek homes were all affordable on working class Bay Area wages. Those days are gone. I'm bitter about most of my friends being unable to afford a middle class life here. However, they're mostly the same people that complain about any new construction and homes, so it's a bit self-inflicted.
It is a bit self-inflicted, but having lived in cities my whole life you can't ignore the demand side of the story.
White flight has completely reversed itself in the last 15 years and urban areas are now incredibly popular destinations for millennial aged white people who grew up in suburbs in a way that just wasn't the case before. Even with a ton of building, it is hard to keep up with the demand boost.
The scare quotes around "houseless residents" are stupid. They live in Portland and aren't housed. It's the best descriptor.
The first level of information is the obvious one: an adjective phrase that describes a homeless person.
The second level of information is about the writer: it conveys the writer’s support for a political position, and an ideological in-group to which the writer claims membership.
The “scare quotes” here are used to convey that the author does not subscribe to the underlying political position that the phrase communicates; rather, they’re quoting someone else’s usage.
This is correct.
No, it's not.
Submitting the original article titles on HN is not making a political statement, it's the rules. Since it's the rules, it's not necessary to add one's own scare quotes - in fact that's the editorializing the rules tell you not to do:
"Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
In this case, the original title is
"Tires Slashed, Mirrors Shattered Along Laurelhurst Street Where Tensions Between Neighbors and Houseless Residents Continue to Escalate"
That exceeds the maximum limit on HN, but can be trimmed without the scare-quotes editorialization. (In fact, the scare quotes take away 2 characters that could otherwise be well-utilized.)
> Often the people voting for policies that allow urban camping are the people who have private security and aren’t exposed to the effects.
The vast majority of voters do not have "private security" - certainly there are not enough with it to influence any election.
> The people voting out progressive DAs are the people most affected which happen to be the poorer neighborhoods and don’t have private security.
Nope, it is the most affluent neighborhoods that are voting for these recalls. [0] Poorer neighborhoods do not like crime, but they also have direct interactions with the criminal justice system and are generally skeptical of "broken-windows" style policing as compared to "stop shootings" style policing.
[0]: https://www.sfchronicle.com/election/article/These-were-the-...
>"The PVI index shows that neighborhoods in the city’s core — the Haight, the Mission and Bernal Heights — tend to vote more progressively than those on its outer rim, like Lake Merced, Visitacion Valley and the Marina.
>These outer-core neighborhoods, which voted against Boudin in 2019, also voted against him on Tuesday. But this time, they were joined by several neighborhoods that voted for Boudin in 2019, including the Bayview, the Tenderloin and the Richmond."