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

81–90 of 123 posts

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

#81

Post by asveikau »

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 grew up on the east coast. My inclination has always been: don't leave valuables in cars, especially not visibly so. Keep your stuff in sight and typically on your person. Here in SF, I often see people leave laptops on tables as they go to coffee shop bathrooms and I think, "wow, that person is crazy". (Even though I have never seen their laptops be stolen.) And it wasn't SF that did that to me.

Where are people from that they don't feel they have to be vigilant of opportunistic property crime? I disagree that it doesn't happen everywhere, just that the amount or frequency varies with the place.

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

#82

Post by minderasure »

travisjungroth wrote: post #2

I grew up in Sonoma and lived in San Francisco for three years. I’m near the end of a two month stay in Medellín, Colombia. I’m looking to make the move out of SF permanent. People here ask me why I’d move to a city like Medellín from SF. It’s because there’s less crime, less drug use, less homelessness and less street harassment for my girlfriend.

Having lived in Medellin for a few months and currently living in SF I feel like this is a gross exaggeration. While SF certainly has more pronounced problems with homelessness and drugs, Medellin has vastly more violent crime. There are many neighborhoods Medellin I wouldn't dare be in past midnight.

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

#83

Post by tibiapejagala »

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.

Acting like the parent poster suggested shooting random homeless people as a solution for homelessness is disgusting.

Defending yourself from a person who hits you in the head with a hard object is reasonable (at least in the rest of the world outside of California), shooting too.

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

#84

Post by anigbrowl »

DevKoala wrote: post #44
seattle_spring wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are basically zero public restrooms there. If you need to pee, what exactly else are you supposed to do? Tough it out for the 1.5 hours it takes to ride a bus 5 miles back to your apartment?

Go into a McDonald’s or another restaurant. Are you honestly excusing drunken wealthy people coming out of bars and treating the streets of the Mission like it’s a public urinal?

Kinda, yeah. There used to be more public restrooms (not least in every bart station) but they shut them down after September 11 for 'security reasons' and have never been able to figure the problem out since. Sure, you could hide a bomb in a public toilet, but on the other hand that's probably the least-bad place for an explosion to occur if someone ever decides to do that.

If you don't have public toilets, then drunk people are gonna relieve themselves in alleys and the like. That's just a fact of life, not a moral issue.

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

#85

Post by anigbrowl »

luckydata wrote: post #40
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.

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.

As defined by whom, though?

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

#86

Post by rayiner »

NotSammyHagar wrote: post #25
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.

The US crime rate went down when Rudy was mayor, because in part the population age bubble of the baby boomers among others got older. Crime rates went down all over the us, conservative or liberal mayors. A thing that also happened with the police doing almost certainly illegal frisking of people on the street in nyc was that they disproportionately were doing this to minorities - this is hugely damaging to our demo…

> I think conservatives are mostly white peoples and they don’t see it happening

It should be noted that while “minorities” (i.e. black and Hispanic people) were disproportionately targeted by stop and frisk, 53% of hispanic people polled supported the program (similar to the 57% of white people who supported it). Indeed, 25% of black people polled supported the program: https://www.blackenterprise.com/nypd-stop-and-frisk-poll-rac.... When you account for the fact that people who vote are older and more conservative than the general public answering polling questions, it’s quite probable that a significant majority of Hispanic voters and a large minority of black voters supported the program. It’s disrespectful to all those people to say that only white people could support the program.

I personally think the program is unconstitutional. But there is a real danger in assuming that “minorities” have liberal policy views. Their voting with democrats because of certain key issues obscures the large representation of conservatism within minority groups. People tend to pretend like black conservatives don't exist, but almost as many black people consider themselves conservative (22%) as white people who consider themselves liberal (24%). Hispanics, meanwhile, are evenly split between conservatives, moderates, and liberals: https://news.gallup.com/poll/245813/leans-conservative-liber....

Views on marijuana legalization are a good example: https://www.people-press.org/2014/04/02/section-2-views-of-m.... 55% of whites, 60% of blacks, but only 43% of hispanics believe marijuana should be legal. Twice as many hispanic people (39%) and slightly more black people (23%) support jail time for minor marijuana possession, as compared to white people (19%). (Remarkably, Hispanics as a group support jail time for minor possession at higher rates than Republicans as a group.)

Likewise with mandatory minimums, 30% of whites, 33% of blacks, and 41% of hispanics view reducing mandatory minimums for drug crimes to be a "bad thing." Hispanics are much closer to republicans (45%) than to democrats (29%) on that measure, even though hispanics overwhelmingly vote Democrat. You see similar results with the death penalty, with almost half of hispanics supporting it, and a third of black people.

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

#87

Post by immichaelwang »

anigbrowl wrote: post #76
immichaelwang wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I've only donated and voted for liberal candidates. Also, my comment explicitly said 'leftists' which is different than liberals. Argument was also in direct response to a comment. Good day to you~

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

#88

Post by wpietri »

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'll answer, as I guess you're addressing me with this (although I'm not totally sure what "parent gp" means).

As I said, the article, which is on a topic where I'm reasonably well informed, seemed at best badly written to me. When an article is a) bad, and b) bad in a way that's convenient to somebody, it's worth asking how it got published.

Personally, I think "evaluate the content on its merits and evidence" is a bad heuristic for general-audience media like this. If somebody is going to cover a topic like "20+ years of the history of San Francisco crime and its economic and social impacts, plus the implications for urban policy" in 1000 words, they're leaving a lot out. This article lacks both an explicit argument and real evidence. It's basically saying, "Trust me, the writer, that I know what I'm talking about."

That can be fine when the person is an expert who works for an organization that is very good at producing solid journalism. But when it's disinformation, propaganda, or just the sort of bias-confirmation piece that many agenda-driven publishers put out, then it can be enormously harmful. So it's absolutely worth asking who paid for the piece to exist.

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

#89

Post by wpietri »

anigbrowl wrote: post #73
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.

Good point. I said crime was no worse, but now that I think about it, it's pretty clearly better.

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

#90

Post by inferiorhuman »

seattle_spring wrote: post #42
DevKoala wrote: post #27

In SF, there is major organized crime. It’s very obvious. I remember that during my first year in SF, a travel bag was found with a man mutilated inside. I live in a cheap studio in the Mission to save on rent. The things I see remind me of my childhood in South America. I just wonder when the kidnappings will start. Also, even professionals have lost all respect for the city. People with a six figure salary urinatin…

There are basically zero public restrooms there. If you need to pee, what exactly else are you supposed to do? Tough it out for the 1.5 hours it takes to ride a bus 5 miles back to your apartment?

There are basically zero public restrooms there. If you need to pee, what exactly else are you supposed to do?

That's largely true in Spain as well, but nobody shits all over the sidewalks there.

Post reply on HN