Live data from Hacker News

San Francisco’s Slow-Motion Suicide

nationalreview.com

61–70 of 312 posts

Re: San Francisco’s Slow-Motion Suicide

#61
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I'm guessing the lust billboard guy made their sign as a response to the adult entertainment billboard guy, and the two don't share that much in common.

Right. It's quite unlike San Franciscans virtue signaling about equality but then trying to end the school lottery system.

Re: San Francisco’s Slow-Motion Suicide

#62
I've lived in New York City for about 25 years in three different boroughs, and as as a member of the "arty bohemian gentrifier" class I was in transitional low-income areas and things like occasional street crime, gunshots and stuff like that were not unusual.

But only once did I actually see two street people start a knife fight on a subway train and it was during one of my probably less than five short visits to SF. It's equally rare that I'd agree with a National Review writer but SF was really ugly and quite unsafe feeling. Manhattan in the late 80s was probably a little more comparable to that. But I can't imagine why anyone would want to live in SF nowadays, if you're in tech you should aspire to work remotely and live anywhere you want.

Re: San Francisco’s Slow-Motion Suicide

#63
The silver lining here is that fewer people will be present when the next big one comes and wipes out the city (predicted to occur in the next 500 years).

It makes sense societally to spread out innovation centers in a number of areas to reduce catastrophic risk.

Re: San Francisco’s Slow-Motion Suicide

#64
post #30

The author draws a very unsubtle if not direct line between housing costs and homelessness. Is there any? I was under the impression that most of the homeless are mentally ill and/or transplants from other areas. What percent of them just can't afford the rent?

This is a popular myth. https://www.sftu.org/2018/06/five-myths-about-the-homeless-p... According to that, 71% of people on the streets of SF used to be homed, and aren’t on the streets due to drugs.

Great article, but their bias needs to be seen through.

Re: San Francisco’s Slow-Motion Suicide

#65
post #30

The author draws a very unsubtle if not direct line between housing costs and homelessness. Is there any? I was under the impression that most of the homeless are mentally ill and/or transplants from other areas. What percent of them just can't afford the rent?

I had a coworker ask me if there’s any chance that losing everything you’ve ever held dear and being forced to live in such a scary environment might lead to some of what we perceive as mental illness. I think he’s onto something.

The effects of trauma are lasting and real and I’d imagine there’s a healthy amount of trauma being created in homeless encampments.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-about-trauma...

Re: San Francisco’s Slow-Motion Suicide

#66

Having lived in SF for a number of years now, I 100% agree that SF is just dystopian as hell. Trash everywhere downtown, human feces/needles/smell of urine all over downtown & SOMA, depressing mix of aggressive and zombie-like homeless, very few kids/families, very few minorities (especially African-Americans), barely functioning public transportation system, high rents forcing six-figure earners to live with 2 roomm…

How is it that so much aggressive political rhetoric related to race and the tech industry is coming from this area if there are very few African Americans there in the first place? I live in Atlanta where the minority population is much higher all around and I don't get the sense at all that there's rampant racism or discrimination. Is this problem unique to the Bay Area or is this largely white guilt?

A black friend of mine lived in Savanah, ATL, NYC and in the Midwest.

She said that you find just as many racists everywhere, but she “appreciates” the (urban) Southern racists ones more because they don’t try to hide, so she knows where she stands.

Re: San Francisco’s Slow-Motion Suicide

#67
The elites of SF and many people on HN are caught in this loop:

1. Companies don't take personal responsibility when they do antisocial things, claiming they can't be blamed, since they are just following incentives in order to compete.

2. Companies follow incentives, and lobby government to incentivize the behaviors that make them the most money (even if those behaviors are antisocial).

3. Government, influenced by the belief that the only way to do things is incentives (since regulation risks losing companies to other jurisdictions) gives companies the incentives they ask for (even when those incentives incentivize antisocial behavior).

4. GOTO 1.

We cannot trust markets to regulate the behaviors of companies. There is little to no benefit to any company, i.e. investing in ending homelessness when they can simply wall off their campus and prevent the homeless from entering. Companies might choose one or two social issues to do good on for marketing purposes, while creating equal or greater harm in other areas. Until SF (and indeed, the rest of the world) becomes more willing to regulate companies, things are only going to continue on their current trajectory.

Re: San Francisco’s Slow-Motion Suicide

#68
post #13

San Francisco is a bonsai kitten. It wants to grow into a major world city like NYC, LA, or Tokyo, but its older residents are steadfastly opposed and want to keep it in a jar so it stays cute. The result is a painful deformed mess. I don't really think city planning boards can control how cities grow. A city is a living thing. If it "wants" to grow, let it grow. If it doesn't, I don't think it can be forced. Detroit…

I've lived in New York. Why would anyone want San Francisco to become like that? Is NYC cheap, clean, free of homeless people? No, it is crowded, smelly, expensive, and only livable for the extremely wealthy.

Here's a quick test for you. Next time you go to SF, count how many dogs you see vs children. Then compare the ratio to NYC. Then tell me again about which city is not 'livable'.

Re: San Francisco’s Slow-Motion Suicide

#69

Having lived in SF for a number of years now, I 100% agree that SF is just dystopian as hell. Trash everywhere downtown, human feces/needles/smell of urine all over downtown & SOMA, depressing mix of aggressive and zombie-like homeless, very few kids/families, very few minorities (especially African-Americans), barely functioning public transportation system, high rents forcing six-figure earners to live with 2 roomm…

> very few kids/families, I am raising my kids here and disagree with your assessment. There is a pretty good community of families here.

That's all well and good that you disagree, but SF has 13.4% persons under 18 compared to the national average of 22.6% [0]. There are very few kids / families.

[0] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/sanfranciscocit...

Re: San Francisco’s Slow-Motion Suicide

#70

Having lived in SF for a number of years now, I 100% agree that SF is just dystopian as hell. Trash everywhere downtown, human feces/needles/smell of urine all over downtown & SOMA, depressing mix of aggressive and zombie-like homeless, very few kids/families, very few minorities (especially African-Americans), barely functioning public transportation system, high rents forcing six-figure earners to live with 2 roomm…

How is it that so much aggressive political rhetoric related to race and the tech industry is coming from this area if there are very few African Americans there in the first place? I live in Atlanta where the minority population is much higher all around and I don't get the sense at all that there's rampant racism or discrimination. Is this problem unique to the Bay Area or is this largely white guilt?

>How is it that so much aggressive political rhetoric

What does this even mean?

Post reply on HN