Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco • Hacker News Board

Re: Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

#141

Post by barrkel » Thu, Mar 24, 2016, 2:36 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #138

robterrell wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Her implication is that this guy's dog is why the taser was visible, and the taser was reported as a handgun, and the police responded to that. I'd say he's a party -- his self-reported distraction started the whole series of events.

He didn't call the police, he didn't report a gun. He was an asshole. We are all assholes, many times per week.

Applying the same label to different people doesn't make them equal or equivalent.

He certainly wasn't a murderer, not even close. But he was an unusually big asshole. I, for one, do not express any serious wish to shoot people very often.

I certainly wouldn't express it in writing over any electronic medium in today's world, but that's a different discussion.

Re: Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

#142

Post by williamcotton » Thu, Mar 24, 2016, 2:37 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #113

navait wrote: post #103

> Evan Snow, a thirtysomething “user experience design professional”..., who had moved to the neighbourhood about six months earlier (and who has since departed for a more suburban environment) > Snow never seemed to recognise that his out-of-control dog was the aggressor: “So Luna was, I think, looking to move around the benches or behind me to run up happily to get a chip from Mr Nieto. Mr Nieto became further – wh…

This is a person Rebecca Solnit chose to single out, carefully juxtaposing reports of his (incredibly obnoxious) behavior against Nieto's shooting, to which, even by Solnit's account (read carefully), he was not a party . I don't want to get drinks with this character in Solnit's story, either. But I'm not sure we should applaud the tactic of summoning up and focusing outrage on people like this.

I can tell you first hand that the neighborhood has been overrun by men like Evan Snow.

Considering you live in Chicago and that Rebecca and I actually live in Bernal Heights I think we have a much better perspective on the situation.

Where I come from you don't call the cops because you think you saw "a Mexican crazy man waving a gun around". If you see something, you leave, and you don't say anything to anyone. If you don't be a snitch then people don't get shot.

If you move from fucking Iowa and you think San Francisco is like adult Disneyland and you parade around town with your white ear buds and you're totally oblivious to reality, you might think that the SFPD is like the security guards at the mall and think you need to call them when you see some "Mexican kids hanging on the street in a pack".

The cops have fucking handguns and are very familiar with using them throughout years of gang violence in the Mission and Bernal. People who live in these neighborhoods don't look forward to having the police roll up searching for a Mexican with a handgun. Bullets fly in all directions. Completely innocent people get gunned down. Someone acting scary and just having a bad day but not hurting anyone gets gunned down. This shit happens all the time. I've been watching people get shot for no god damned reason for years and years and years.

STOP SNITCHIN'

Re: Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

#143

Post by Joe8Bit » Thu, Mar 24, 2016, 2:38 PM UTC

ido wrote: post #122

Joe8Bit wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Broadly speaking you're right, but in London in particular housing stock growth has been significant in the last 10 years but it has had consequently little effect on housing price deflation[0]. There are many theories as to why that is, but a personal pet one is that London is lacking in housing stock across the market and as such it is economically more viable to build at the middle and top end of the market where…

Very dense residential areas still seem rare in London, compared to other cities of comparable size (it has lower population density than e.g. NYC, Paris, Hong Kong, Seoul, Tokyo...)

Completely agree. London really needs to embrace 'up' as a viable building solution. Apparently, a lot of it has to do with some archaic laws surrounding building in London, the 'Protected Views' one is of particular note:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_view

Re: Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

#144

Post by branchless » Thu, Mar 24, 2016, 2:39 PM UTC

cbeach wrote: post #72

Joe8Bit wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think many people would argue with the evolutionary nature of cities. I think what people would say, however, is that when cities change those with the least economic muscle tend to be the most adversely effected (e.g they lose their homes/tenancies when they can't afford to pay inflated rents). Again, that in itself might not be a problem if there were other places to move that poor communities could afford…

Those doing low-paid work in London are obviously important to the city, but I'd argue that those doing high-paid work make more sense to live in the city because theirs is the work that benefits most from the agglomeration that big cities provide. If low-paid workers have to travel further, then their wages will be forced upwards as a result. Employers are forced to pay prevailing market rates to get the staff they…

Those doing the high-paid "work" are often those abusing state granted powers to issue credit. They say to the poor "pledge more of your working life to me in exchange for the right to exist or I will banish you".

There is no relationship between value added and money gained in London.

Re: Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

#145

Post by tptacek » Thu, Mar 24, 2016, 2:39 PM UTC

wambotron wrote: post #137

tptacek wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a person Rebecca Solnit chose to single out, carefully juxtaposing reports of his (incredibly obnoxious) behavior against Nieto's shooting, to which, even by Solnit's account (read carefully), he was not a party . I don't want to get drinks with this character in Solnit's story, either. But I'm not sure we should applaud the tactic of summoning up and focusing outrage on people like this.

Other people said he seemed agitated and nervous when their dogs were walking about by him. I imagine if a dog just charged at you and was barking/howling while its owner was staring at someone's ass, you'd be on edge for a bit as well.

No shit! I agree. I read the first half of the first graf of the story angry at Solnit, for singling out this guy and scare-quoting his occupation. Then I got to the bit about the dog jumping up on Nieto and the simpering excuse-making this guy made about that and I instantly got angry at the guy instead. What an asshole!

That lasted a couple minutes. But "poorly managed, barking dog jumps up on someone" happens millions of times a day, and those dogs owners are not complicit in murders.

As reported elsewhere, Solnit's story leaves out Nieto's mental illness, which is apparently severe: he appears to have been schizophrenic. We don't know what Nieto's reaction was to the dog. He could have terrified, or he could have been outraged.

A previous version of this comment suggested that Nieto had tased someone else at the park; he had not. I misread something; the taser incident I read about was unrelated to the park.

Re: Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

#146

Post by Tomte » Thu, Mar 24, 2016, 2:40 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #134

Xylakant wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's certainly not that simple. It's still a very stark contrast that the SF police department fired a years supply of bullets in a single incident. I picked 2014 because it's the last available stats atm, and it's actually slightly above average. On average, per use of deadly force, the german police fires about 1/20th - 1/40th in terms of number of bullets. One reason for that is that the german police is train…

When you fire a gun at someone, your goal is to kill them. If you're confronting an armed subject and you manage only to wound them, then not only are you making it possible for the to shoot you back, but you're making it overwhelmingly likely that they will --- who could blame them for trying desperately to save their own lives? So to me, 1 bullet, 20 bullets, 40 bullets, who cares? Dead is dead. If you don't want p…

Dozens of bullets sounds excessive. Very certainly killing someone usually takes far fewer bullets.

This amount of gunfire always suggests an emotional component to me, hatred or something.

That's only very generally speaking, of course. I can imagine situations where dozens of shots are rational.

Re: Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

#147

Post by branchless » Thu, Mar 24, 2016, 2:40 PM UTC

seibelj wrote: post #105

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Housing would be cheaper if they built more of it. Rents in Seattle actually declined this year.

No idea why you are being downvoted. Supply and demand, this is Economics 101. I have made the same arguments about SF and people downvote me too. The #1 way to decrease rent is to build more supply. If there was double the apartments in SF, the rent would not be as high.

Many European countries had big supply pre 2008 and prices continued to rise. China has huge oversupply and yet prices have risen.

It's loose credit. It's the banks.

Re: Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

#148

Post by tptacek » Thu, Mar 24, 2016, 2:41 PM UTC

williamcotton wrote: post #142

tptacek wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a person Rebecca Solnit chose to single out, carefully juxtaposing reports of his (incredibly obnoxious) behavior against Nieto's shooting, to which, even by Solnit's account (read carefully), he was not a party . I don't want to get drinks with this character in Solnit's story, either. But I'm not sure we should applaud the tactic of summoning up and focusing outrage on people like this.

I can tell you first hand that the neighborhood has been overrun by men like Evan Snow. Considering you live in Chicago and that Rebecca and I actually live in Bernal Heights I think we have a much better perspective on the situation. Where I come from you don't call the cops because you think you saw "a Mexican crazy man waving a gun around". If you see something, you leave, and you don't say anything to anyone. If…

Tell me more about how hardcore San Francisco is compared to the sleepy pastoral boulevards of Chicago.

Then, reread Solnit's story. The "snitch" we're talking about didn't call Nieto in. Someone else did.

Re: Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

#149

Post by kazinator » Thu, Mar 24, 2016, 2:42 PM UTC

navait wrote: post #103

> Evan Snow, a thirtysomething “user experience design professional”..., who had moved to the neighbourhood about six months earlier (and who has since departed for a more suburban environment) > Snow never seemed to recognise that his out-of-control dog was the aggressor: “So Luna was, I think, looking to move around the benches or behind me to run up happily to get a chip from Mr Nieto. Mr Nieto became further – wh…

> Is this guy real? ... fits the techbro stereotype exactly.

I have the same reaction.

Complete, with an aggressive dog that, oh, vocalizes.

Re: Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

#150

Post by cauterized » Thu, Mar 24, 2016, 2:42 PM UTC

Nutmog wrote: post #36

eitally wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because in order for cities to function properly, it's important that blue collar workers are able to afford to inhabit them. Un-governed gentrification and unreasonably low levels of low income housing result in situations like exist in the SFBA now, where many middle class households are either forced into extraordinarily long commutes (leads to higher stress, worse health and increased mortality) or cramped living…

What force makes people stay living in the same rented house no matter how bad it makes their life? Somehow people all across America are managing to survive despite not living in gentrified areas. Is SFBA the only place those middle class people can find a job? That sounds kind of unbelievable. Are they unmotivated to move because it's too much hard work? Afraid of losing friends and being unable to make new ones? I…

It's not just about the same house. It's also about moving away from friends, family and support structures that make life better no matter who you are and can make poverty more survivable. And it's about a city's inability to function without people who can pay the rent somewhere close enough to their low-wage jobs (in retail, bartending, waiting tables, etc - at the businesses which make the city desirable to live in in the first place) to make sense for them to work in the city instead of in another community.