Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The High Cost of Low-level Crime in San Francisco

city-journal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 123 posts

Re: The High Cost of Low-level Crime in San Francisco

#31

Post by sincerely »

ryanmarsh wrote: post #3

Going to be there next week. Lived there twenty years ago. Haven't spent much time in the city since. All I hear is horror stories. I hope everything is ok? I was going to try to break in my new hiking boots after work each day. Any suggestion on safe places to walk with my pack on? I'm camping in Montana the following week.

During the day you will be 100% safe. After like 10PM there are a few places downtown that you maybe don't want to walk around alone but honestly if you can ignore homeless people shouting stuff at you the odds of getting robbed or anything are very low.

Re: The High Cost of Low-level Crime in San Francisco

#32

Post by gibolt »

intopieces wrote: post #15

Which of the high-crime areas have rent control? What would the crime look like if the market had let the rents rise? It's my intuition that people rarely commute 1hr in bumper to bumper traffic to smash windows.

I believe a large amount is attributable to the homeless (or near homeless) population. Everything around them exploded out of their range, and this is the only power they feel they have to not get priced out or feel any semblance of personal power.

Re: The High Cost of Low-level Crime in San Francisco

#33

Post by [deleted] »

dang wrote: post #18
door5 wrote: post #16

San Francisco absolutely does not need a racist[1] mayor. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_Cit...

I've banned this account because, as we've told you repeatedly before, you're not allowed to use HN as place for ideological battle, and that's basically all you've been doing. No, that's not because we favor racist mayors. It's because HN needs to be protected against people who only want to use it to advance agendas and fight enemies. If we don't protect it, those things will soon engulf everything else, the same w…

[deleted]

Re: The High Cost of Low-level Crime in San Francisco

#34

Post by cm2012 »

immichaelwang wrote: post #8

I've wondered if what San Francisco needs is a Rudy Giuliani type mayor. Someone to come in a shake up the status quo with valid right leaning polices when it comes to crime.

Crime started to drop precipitously 2 years before Giuliani was elected, during Dinkins' tenure.

Re: The High Cost of Low-level Crime in San Francisco

#35

Post by orthoxerox »

the_snooze wrote: post #23
gibolt wrote: post #9

I generally agree with reduced sentences, if any at all, for minor offences. Once someone becomes a 3+ time offender, it is worth removing them from the street. The majority of cases are caused by a tiny number of people who do it serially because they can.

In Berkeley there's a woman on the streets who has a long history of assaults and property crimes. She obviously doesn't have the mental health care she desperately needs, but I feel the local government is giving up its legitimacy by keeping her on the streets and being all "surprised Pikachu" when she whacks a stranger over the head with a tree branch. https://www.berkeleyside.com/2018/11/01/woman-arrested-in-do...

How come no one has shot her yet in self-defense?

Re: The High Cost of Low-level Crime in San Francisco

#36

Post by luckylion »

the_snooze wrote: post #23
gibolt wrote: post #9

I generally agree with reduced sentences, if any at all, for minor offences. Once someone becomes a 3+ time offender, it is worth removing them from the street. The majority of cases are caused by a tiny number of people who do it serially because they can.

In Berkeley there's a woman on the streets who has a long history of assaults and property crimes. She obviously doesn't have the mental health care she desperately needs, but I feel the local government is giving up its legitimacy by keeping her on the streets and being all "surprised Pikachu" when she whacks a stranger over the head with a tree branch. https://www.berkeleyside.com/2018/11/01/woman-arrested-in-do...

> I feel the local government is giving up its legitimacy by keeping her on the streets

That's generally how I feel when government looks away regarding crime. When you give up the monopoly on violence, you're walking down a dangerous path. Citizens have entrusted the government with law enforcement, but they will return to taking care of that themselves if the government doesn't want the job any more, and I don't see any possibility of that being a good thing.

Re: The High Cost of Low-level Crime in San Francisco

#37

Post by novok »

throw03172019 wrote: post #10
MuffinFlavored wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your girlfriend gets harassed walking down the street of SF more than she does in Colombia? What kind of harassment are you talking about?

Walking down Market street from 5th - 8th Street gives you a 50/50 chance of getting cat-called as a female.

There is also non-sexual harassment that happens too :/

And the smell of piss and shit everywhere.

Re: The High Cost of Low-level Crime in San Francisco

#38

Post by jarjoura »

I had an interesting experience the other week, as I went to Montreal in Canada. It was still super cold up there, barely getting above freezing this late into the year. Holy hell, the sheer amount of homeless people I saw on the streets, the crazy amount of drug dealers trying to sell me shit, it was next level.

Now, I'm not trying to suggest it's any better or worse than San Francisco. It's bad for the simple reason that Montreal is in this climate zone where it's fucking COLD for 50% of the year.

Anyway, the point I'm getting at is, I had always been under the assumption that San Francisco, (and Oakland) were unique in the temperate climate that enabled the insane amounts of homelessness you see here. Instead what I've just come to realize, it's 110% SF's policies that have enabled this culture.

If its a problem in Montreal, a place where no one should ever be allowed to sleep outside because, quite honestly, they would die, then they too lack the proper policies to deal with it.

For SF to ever fix this problem, they have to first admit that it's not OK, and for all of us here in Hacker News though it seems obvious to us, it's clearly not obvious to the city.

Re: The High Cost of Low-level Crime in San Francisco

#39

Post by vkou »

fche wrote: post #21
rectang wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why they chose to lead with her Because it's super important for political reasons that San Francisco be seen as failing. It's the same phenomenon as perception of the national economy: if you don't like who's in power, you think the economy is poor.

How would you support the proposition that San Francisco is not failing, or is even flourishing?

By counting the number of millionaires who live in it. By that metric, it's one of the greatest cities in the world.

Or by counting the value of it's real estate. Or the value of the companies it has created.

Re: The High Cost of Low-level Crime in San Francisco

#40

Post by luckydata »

rectang wrote: post #12
omegaworks wrote: post #7

The primary source at the top of their article, Susan Dyer Reynolds, is not an expert in any way but editor-in-chief of the Marina Times, an independent community newspaper . I wouldn't trust a single word out of this NIMBY's mouth. Why they chose to lead with her and quote her like she's an authority on the subject is beyond reason.

> Why they chose to lead with her Because it's super important for political reasons that San Francisco be seen as failing. It's the same phenomenon as perception of the national economy: if you don't like who's in power, you think the economy is poor.

San Francisco IS failing in all the ways that matter for a city, the fact that is rich is just a thin golden veneer over the dumpster it has become.
Post reply on HN