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

71–80 of 123 posts

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

#71

Post by ben_jones »

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…

I believe that the video presents itself as an informational resource for understanding the social issues of the city, but instead knowingly omits critical information in order to better support the videos real goal - to galvanize a voting base and support an entirely unrelated agenda to the video's actual content.

I believe this qualifies as propoganda because it intentionally paints a different reality, misinforming viewers and potentially causing them to make meaningful decisions against their best interest.

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

#72

Post by MaxfordAndSons »

Causality1 wrote: post #13

>“We could be keeping them and be giving services while they’re in jail,” says Fabbri. “It could really be effective. >we’re not solving our problems when we pretend low-level crimes aren’t important. Those two facts are the crux of the issue. Prisons do not rehabilitate criminals; they just restrain them. Couple that with the fact it costs, on nationwide average, $84 per day to incarcerate someone and the average pe…

> Prisons do not rehabilitate criminals; they just restrain them.

I think it's worth pointing out that, while that's certainly true of most if not all of the US prison system, it's not necessarily the case that incarceration is never rehabilitative.

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

#73

Post by anigbrowl »

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,…

I lived in the Mission 20 years ago and I've seen people get shot in the face in the middle of the day on 24th and it wasn't a big deal. By (my) historical standards the neighborhood is only mildly sketchy these days, I'd be happy to walk anywhere at 3am.

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

#74

Post by joegahona »

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.

What type of people are doing the cat-calling? Homeless people or construction workers or.....?

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

#75

Post by massaman_yams »

theNJR wrote: post #67
massaman_yams wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's part of the effect, but I don't think you can reasonably claim it's most of it - demand for rental housing is still high.

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

#76

Post by anigbrowl »

immichaelwang wrote: post #26
rayiner wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rudy Giuliani certainly deserves a lot of credit for cleaning up New York City--as US Attorney when he dismantled the Mafia. Whether his policies as mayor were effective is highly debated.

Agreed. But it's not like the current policies, some of which include blatantly not enforcing laws, are working. Giuliani was also a prolific mayor when it come to building housing. I don't think any right leaning or even centrist political candidate in SF could withstand the inevitable smear campaign that far leftist groups would organize against them.

Left wingers are very much in support of housing. It seems like you've come here to grind a political axe. In general it's better to make good arguments in your first comment rather than reveal them in striptease fashion.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#77

Post by travisoneill1 »

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…

It is a failure of the government to properly deal with the NIMBY movement. There are NIMBY's everywhere but somehow it's only SF where new apartments don't get built. Also isn't "look how bad $FOO are at government!" a perfectly fair argument for against voting for $FOO?

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

#78

Post by creato »

owyn wrote: post #65
orthoxerox wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> So your solution for homelessness is ... shooting random homeless people?

That's not even remotely what the parent said. Random homeless people != Homeless person assaulting you.

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

#79

Post by gkop »

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.

The smash-n-grab laptop theft is extremely organized in some instances at least: https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/01/31/thousands-of-stolen-l...

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

#80

Post by klipt »

javagram wrote: post #53
orthoxerox wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It’s california, CCW permits are May-Issue (I.e., very rare) and open carry is banned. It’s less likely that assaulting random civilians will get you shot there than in, say, Texas.

How about pepper spray? If assaulting random civilians got you pepper sprayed half the time, that might be a deterrent.
Post reply on HN