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

91–100 of 123 posts

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

#91

Post by jopsen »

klipt wrote: post #80
javagram wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A) Deterrents don't work very well, rarely work at all with desperate people, and far less with people who have mental issues.

B) if you end up in a conflict it's always better to run. It's safer for you than to escalate. In sane countries failing to run can invalidate any claim of self-defense. Thus, you'd find yourself on the hook for "armed assult".

Even if you state or country is crazy enough to have a "stand your ground" law, you are always better served by running away or de-escalating by other means.

Your ego might be hurt, but that is rarely fatal :)

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

#92

Post by theNJR »

massaman_yams wrote: post #75
theNJR wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don’t know enough to make a declaration. But I do know that she was renting the downstairs (it was a 2 unit apartment) for the past decade to the same people. Once this is a ghost house, no one will live there, thus one rental off the market. Is some demand artificially constrained?

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

#93

Post by jopsen »

creato wrote: post #78
owyn wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

True, so.... Only shoot the "homeless person assaulting you"... Hmm... I'm not sure that's a lot better, hehehe :)

Wouldn't it be easier to just help the homeless person to not be desperate, offer treatment, and home with TV..

(A room with a TV is a cheap way to prevent crime)

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

#94

Post by hhjjkkll »

asveikau wrote: post #81
chrisseaton wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 f…

I live by a similar mindset, but I do not think it should be like this. It feels like shit, that I have to think of other humans with such a distrust and fear. I'm very envious of homogenous cultures like Japan where you can leave a bike unlocked outside of a store you're shopping at without it being stolen within 10 minutes.

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

#95

Post by MuffinFlavored »

novok wrote: post #37
throw03172019 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Could you give an example of non-sexual harassment you've encountered/are aware of?

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

#96

Post by MuffinFlavored »

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.

I'm struggling to understand why getting catcalled is specific to San Francisco. If you walked down Miami, Atlanta, New York, etc., you feel you wouldn't be catcalled? Why does San Francisco yield a higher catcalling rate?

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

#97

Post by fche »

lostlogin wrote: post #50
fche wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A daily theft of $84 per day has much more than $84/day of cost in terms of corrosion of social trust. A government payout cannot fix that - heck it makes it worse.

Doesn’t that strengthen causality1’s argument? You could give the their their $84 and it would be a straight win if they stopped thieving.

That is a big "if", of course. And I thought the initial idea was to have the gov't pay the losses of the victims of thefts, without incarcerating the thieves. As though that would eliminate the victimization.

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

#98

Post by lostlogin »

MaxfordAndSons wrote: post #72
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.

I read the OP as saying ‘retrain’. Both work

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

#99

Post by novok »

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #95
novok wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is also non-sexual harassment that happens too :/ And the smell of piss and shit everywhere.

Could you give an example of non-sexual harassment you've encountered/are aware of?

Random homeless person getting aggressive / in your personal space, etc.

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

#100

Post by DoreenMichele »

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #95
novok wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is also non-sexual harassment that happens too :/ And the smell of piss and shit everywhere.

Could you give an example of non-sexual harassment you've encountered/are aware of?

Aggressive pan handling.

Agressive sales people trying to buttonhole you.

(Not specific to SF. I experienced such in San Diego.)

Post reply on HN