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

Californians aren’t leaving the state en masse but are leaving San Francisco

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 488 posts

Re: Californians aren’t leaving the state en masse but are leaving San Francisco

#401

Post by curryst »

mushbino wrote: post #70
Moodles wrote: post #6

I'm leaving San Francisco next month also. I just see no reason to continue living here. The weather is nice in California, but the city is so mismanaged it's a joke. The homelessness has been an issue for decades now and local politicians always talk about it, but what do they actually do to help? I genuinely have no clue where the high taxes go. I just find it so ironic that San Francisco is a bastion of liberalism…

What do they do in the conservative cities that's more successful?

In my limited experience, they're just far less kind. They won't hesitate to arrest you, and if they do, they'll throw away all the stuff you had collected and take your dog to the pound if you had one. Police won't help if you call, and if someone else calls about you then you are presumed guilty.

The end result is that the homeless either end up leaving, or moving their camp to somewhere out of the way like the woods. If you're an eye sore, people will call 911 on you 15 times a day.

I'm not advocating for it, but "let's make the homeless in our city so miserable they don't want to be seen" seems to be effective in reducing the eye sore.

Re: Californians aren’t leaving the state en masse but are leaving San Francisco

#402

Post by imtringued »

rayiner wrote: post #252
judge2020 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So your solution is not to kick the wealthy out of the union, but to kick California out of the union, simply because it has a large population of wealthy people?

The problem isn’t the wealthy people per se. The problem is industries like tech that generate highly paid upper middle class jobs that most people aren’t qualified for (and realistically will never be qualified for), as opposed to a larger number of middle class jobs that most people can be qualified for. There is a reason people pine for coal and oil jobs. Head out to east or west Texas sometime. Lots of prosperity…

> The problem isn’t the wealthy people per se. The problem is industries like tech that generate highly paid upper middle class jobs that most people aren’t qualified for (and realistically will never be qualified for), as opposed to a larger number of middle class jobs that most people can be qualified for.

You talk as if that is a problem. If you are surrounded by rich customers you also get to charge more for your low skill job. The problem is that there isn't enough housing for both high skill and low skill workers.

Re: Californians aren’t leaving the state en masse but are leaving San Francisco

#403

Post by rorykoehler »

imtringued wrote: post #381
rorykoehler wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I notice in Berlin is a conflation between NIMBYism and desire to solve problems with good planning and not just filling in every yard in the city so no apartments get sunlight anymore.

What you need is simple incremental growth. Let people decide what they need instead of dictating what they need. This means increasing the number of available options. If there is a way to increase options while retaining things like sunlight then you should do that.

The incremental growth ship sailed 15 years ago. They need to zone with the intention to knock down badly built old buildings and build 3+ number of floors there instead.

Re: Californians aren’t leaving the state en masse but are leaving San Francisco

#404

Post by tomjakubowski »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #52
tehjoker wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can actually, but you need to provide enough basic services so that people in desperate situations have free, healthy, and convenient food, housing, medical care, and education.

Yes, San Francisco is lagging cities in Texas in providing social services, which is why its homelesssness/street-disorder/drug-abuse problem is so much worse. There is a point at which you have to realize/admit that your ideological narrative, and the public sector interests who popularize it, are wrong. The left coast cities, from San Fran to Vancouver, have prioritized decriminalization of drugs, social services,…

And yet rents remain sky high in those same cities, despite the pandemic shuttering workplaces and slowing local economies, because lots of people still really want to live in them. There is a point at which you have to realize/admit that your ideological narrative, and the interests who popularize it, are wrong.

Re: Californians aren’t leaving the state en masse but are leaving San Francisco

#405

Post by manigandham »

dragonwriter wrote: post #324
zuminator wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theft under the $950 threshold is still a crime, specifically a misdemeanor, which can result in jail time. The whole idea that theft is going totally unpunished is a false narrative.

It's not a false narrative, though what is a false narrative is that it's directly because of prop 47, and not retailers adopting policies directed at limiting employees confronting thieves, resulting in fewer being caught. To the extent prop 47 plays a role, it's because police departments deemphasize followup enforcement on misdemeanors, though there is no legal requirement that they do so: a crime shouldn't need a…

Do you seriously think retailers had their employees confronting thieves? This isn't a recent change, they were always instructed to call the police instead of interfering. And if crime isn't being prosecuted then why would police waste limited resources on catching thieves just to see them out on the street with no consequence?

You are looking at this backwards. It's all directly because of policy changes, because that's what changed the judicial behavior, which affected upstream police behavior, which affected upstream public's behavior.

Re: Californians aren’t leaving the state en masse but are leaving San Francisco

#406

Post by smaryjerry »

imtringued wrote: post #379
azinman2 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Instead of providing food and shelter to the poor, perhaps starting an infrastructure program to employ these people and fix the damn roads, they empower the poor to go rampage stores to survive. We spend over a billion a year on the homeless. It’s an intractable problem, and the weather, social services, and accepting (of panhandling) population drives demand to locate here.

Yes it's intractable because having homeless people is considered more desirable than actually solving the underlying problems because it would hurt special interests. The average SF resident loves having homeless people because of the secondary benefits that homelessness brings.

Can’t tell if sarcastic or not. People literally do love the secondary benefit of saying they help the homeless, and politicians basically run on that. Obviously the parent comment saying demand is created was talking about homeless demand to travel to an area with better benefits and/or lesser enforcement of laws that homeless would break, like camping on sidewalks and using the world as the toilet.

Re: Californians aren’t leaving the state en masse but are leaving San Francisco

#407

Post by smaryjerry »

alsetmusic wrote: post #271
systemvoltage wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People of San Francisco passed a law t̶o̶ ̶a̶l̶l̶o̶w̶ ̶a̶n̶y̶ ̶r̶o̶b̶b̶e̶r̶y̶ ̶u̶n̶d̶e̶r̶ ̶$̶1̶0̶0̶0̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶f̶i̶l̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶c̶a̶s̶e̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶c̶a̶l̶l̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶o̶p̶s̶.̶ They also expect safe neighborhoods. You can't have both. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26040812 Liberal policies such as this does not solve the actual problem. Instead of providing food and shelter to the poor, perhaps st…

> Instead of providing food and shelter to the poor, perhaps starting an infrastructure program to employ these people and fix the damn roads, they empower the poor to go rampage stores to survive. Why not both? "In 2013, the Utah Housing and Community Development Division reported that the cost of emergency room treatment and jail time averaged over $16,000 a year per homeless person, while the cost of providing a f…

This works on a micro scale or closed system but that is not what happens when providing more resources causes people to migrate to your area to take advantage of the resources without ever needing to be contributing to them. A population will simply be over run by those desiring the free housing and this is obvious is any program created like this to tackle the issue. They always run out of room for these high demand resources and eventually cities may have taken care of the homeless problem for the people it meant to, but thousands of new people show up. If it were that easy as just providing housing and the problem was fixed then poverty across the whole world would be eliminated. Not saying that’s not possible, but you would literally have to do that across the entire world or in an entire closed system to make it work.

Re: Californians aren’t leaving the state en masse but are leaving San Francisco

#408

Post by maya24 »

lettergram wrote: post #265
mushbino wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying the homeless and mentally ill in San Francisco are just lazy and grifting the system? There's plenty of data available to show how naive that statement is. What would be your proposed solution?

Link the data. I’m saying it attracts people who need something. You stop services to people maintaining the status of quo and invest in rehabilitating and upon failure, removing people. The problem is (idk how many homeless you’ve spoken with in SF). Most chose to be there, you have to make it somewhere they can’t live like that. This is a failure of policy. Other cities have solved this, SF can too.

Please link your data showing that for me and Rome to Soviet Russia people flock to population center because of socialism.

Re: Californians aren’t leaving the state en masse but are leaving San Francisco

#409

Post by smaryjerry »

tomjakubowski wrote: post #404
CryptoPunk wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, San Francisco is lagging cities in Texas in providing social services, which is why its homelesssness/street-disorder/drug-abuse problem is so much worse. There is a point at which you have to realize/admit that your ideological narrative, and the public sector interests who popularize it, are wrong. The left coast cities, from San Fran to Vancouver, have prioritized decriminalization of drugs, social services,…

And yet rents remain sky high in those same cities, despite the pandemic shuttering workplaces and slowing local economies, because lots of people still really want to live in them. There is a point at which you have to realize/admit that your ideological narrative, and the interests who popularize it, are wrong.

The thing is businesses can not rebuild and move buildings quickly. When jobs disappear rents will go down. It seems impossible San Francisco could be the next Detroit but it’s actually not that improbable. There is just so much inertia keeping businesses from being able to move that they can’t or won’t. The actually physical cost to spent billions to build a headquarters but also the need to be closely located to other businesses that you will work with. Without this inertia you would see much more businesses leaving than are now, and there are more than ever leaving.

Re: Californians aren’t leaving the state en masse but are leaving San Francisco

#410

Post by maya24 »

lettergram wrote: post #339
mushbino wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cut off services and have them go where? Also, how do you ban someone from a city? This is just a purely NIMBY response and not in any way realistic or helpful. You just really don't like it in your backyard and want it in someone else's backyard. I feel like your next suggestion is euthanasia.

(1) Offer rehabilitation (many homeless don't willingly take advantage of this). (2) Regularly push them out of where they are staying with officers. If necessary, use hoses or w.e. People will either leave because they can't stay there or they attempt to rehabilitate. This is what they do most places outside of California. This method often leads to rehabilitation, because they don't really have a choice. Those who…

Can we also start hosing down rich white kids who drop out of rehab?
Post reply on HN