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

61–70 of 123 posts

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

#61

Post by chrisseaton »

mc32 wrote: post #5
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.

In traditional residential neighborhoods it’s still ok. It’s the tenderloins, SoMA, areas of the mission, etc., that have above average street crime. In the residential neighborhoods it’s petty theft, car break-ins and such. Nothing to worry about, but if you live there it can weigh on you after a while.

> it’s petty theft, car break-ins and such. Nothing to worry about

Why are people so chilled-out and blasé about having their things taken or damaged? Are you genuinely not bothered about the destruction due to a political belief about property or do you think it's unavoidable? It doesn't happen in most places - it doesn't have to be that way.

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

#62

Post by ben_jones »

keithly wrote: post #46
wpietri wrote: post #22

Crime's definitely a problem here, but parts of this strike me as exaggerated. I live in the Mission, and have for almost 20 years. I don't think crime is noticeably worse. This is also the first time I've heard a claim that crime is a significant reason for stores closing. When I talk with actual business owners, the big reasons are 1) massive rent increases, and b) difficulty finding staff at $15/hr. As an example,…

It's a politically conservative publication funded by the Manhattan Institute think tank https://www.manhattan-institute.org/

I've also started to see NRA sponsored youtube channels [1] doing in-depth reporting on San Francisco's problems. It's not a bad documentary actually, but conveniently leaves out the whole NIMBY movement while featuring a real estate agent as a primary source focusing instead on the failures of local (liberal) government.

I fear we're seeing a massive ramp up in propaganda leading up to the 2020 elections. San Francisco will play a prominent role of "look how bad $FOO are at government!".

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSNBxnnawq4

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

#63

Post by purple_ducks »

idlewords wrote: post #11

I used to go running in the early morning near Dolores Park. I remember a period of about six weeks when the entire row of cars there parked overnight would reliably have their windows broken every morning. I also struggle to remember ever seeing an SFPD officer patrolling this neighborhood (two blocks from a major police station) on foot.

> I also struggle to remember ever seeing an SFPD officer patrolling this neighborhood (two blocks from a major police station) on foot.

Footbeats have been cut back from pretty much all police incl. in Europe.

Policing(even moreso with reduced personnel) is more reactive than preventative. Getting from A to B and dealing with issue in B is generally quicker and safer by vehicle than having somebody run to B and then dealing with issue. Limited energy stores etc.

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

#64

Post by icxa »

ben_jones wrote: post #62
keithly wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a politically conservative publication funded by the Manhattan Institute think tank https://www.manhattan-institute.org/

I've also started to see NRA sponsored youtube channels [1] doing in-depth reporting on San Francisco's problems. It's not a bad documentary actually, but conveniently leaves out the whole NIMBY movement while featuring a real estate agent as a primary source focusing instead on the failures of local (liberal) government. I fear we're seeing a massive ramp up in propaganda leading up to the 2020 elections. San Franci…

Wait, but you just admitted it was in depth, and not bad, parent gp said similar, so my question to both gp and you and those that think like this: why does that automatically equate to propaganda? Because it's not 'your side'? Why is the fact that it is a conservative think tank relevant? Evaluate the content on its merits and evidence. The fact that it doesn't cover one angle as extensively as you would have liked doesn't make it propaganda.

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

#65

Post by owyn »

orthoxerox wrote: post #35
the_snooze wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

So your solution for homelessness is ... shooting random homeless people? Even "self defense" carries with it a test for proportional response.

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

#66

Post by noirbot »

chrisseaton wrote: post #61
mc32 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In traditional residential neighborhoods it’s still ok. It’s the tenderloins, SoMA, areas of the mission, etc., that have above average street crime. In the residential neighborhoods it’s petty theft, car break-ins and such. Nothing to worry about, but if you live there it can weigh on you after a while.

> it’s petty theft, car break-ins and such. Nothing to worry about Why are people so chilled-out and blasé about having their things taken or damaged? Are you genuinely not bothered about the destruction due to a political belief about property or do you think it's unavoidable? It doesn't happen in most places - it doesn't have to be that way.

I think they meant that it wouldn't be an issue if you're a visitor and just looking to hike through the area. It's obviously not a good thing, but if I don't live there, I don't have a car to get broken into, so it's not a worry for me to be in that area vs. somewhere where I might get assaulted.

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

#67

Post by theNJR »

massaman_yams wrote: post #47
fche wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Simple. Demand for housing. Supply issues aside, a huge number of people want to live in the SFBA, and the rents reflect that.

My grandmother in law just sold her place in SF after living there since the 60s.

7 of 9 offers were from Chinese nationals looking to park their money. Full cash, no inspection, no contingency and of course never visited by the potential buyer.

Market forces and demand are not necessarily about a desire to live there.

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

#68

Post by anigbrowl »

icxa wrote: post #64
ben_jones wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've also started to see NRA sponsored youtube channels [1] doing in-depth reporting on San Francisco's problems. It's not a bad documentary actually, but conveniently leaves out the whole NIMBY movement while featuring a real estate agent as a primary source focusing instead on the failures of local (liberal) government. I fear we're seeing a massive ramp up in propaganda leading up to the 2020 elections. San Franci…

Wait, but you just admitted it was in depth, and not bad, parent gp said similar, so my question to both gp and you and those that think like this: why does that automatically equate to propaganda? Because it's not 'your side'? Why is the fact that it is a conservative think tank relevant? Evaluate the content on its merits and evidence. The fact that it doesn't cover one angle as extensively as you would have liked…

This reads as very disingenuous given the time the parents posts tok to supply reasons for their argument. Maybe you should evaluate the totality of their posts rather than seizing on a single word that makes you uncomfortable.

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

#69

Post by DoreenMichele »

It looks to me like a great deal of this is rooted in the homeless issue in San Francisco, which is directly related to the very high cost of housing in SF.

Studies show that simply building more housing of any kind whatsoever helps alleviate the problem, even if you build more luxury housing. Lack of affordability is tied to straight up lack of availability. (Seems easy enough to infer that lack of availability should be directly to tied to incidence of homelessness as well.)

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

#70

Post by microtherion »

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…

I have no opinion about the grandparent account one way or the other. But are you implying that the original article was NOT "ideological", "advancing agendas" and "fighting enemies"?

If this kind political article is legitimate for this site (and I would argue that it is, given that it touches on the daily experience of many HN contributors), shouldn't it also be legitimate to take the other side of the political debate?

Post reply on HN