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

441–450 of 488 posts

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

#441

Post by reducesuffering »

globular-toast wrote: post #367
ralusek wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Liberalism isn't a leftist ideology, why on earth would you expect a liberal to be a leftist?

This is what happens when several orthogonal concepts are distilled into two categories. Nobody actually knows what left or right actually mean. Originally it was just about economic policy, left being larger government, right being smaller (no party was extreme because that's insane). Now right can also mean authoritarian or racist. To many it's simply left=good, right=bad.

It was never originally about economic policy, you've got them mixed up. Right was originally about support of the French King, authoritarianism, conservatism. Left was in support of the French Revolution, liberalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_political_s...

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

#442

Post by Kalium »

mcguire wrote: post #438
Kalium wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're absolutely right! The companies I mentioned do hire many people with similar skills. Do you think it's possible that this might not be quite the same as being in the same market and thus being a direct commercial competitor for a company's offerings? Otherwise every company is in the Human Resources and Accounting industries. Perhaps the companies in question are not in commercial competition with one another,…

Detroit's problem was not that the companies there were direct competitors, it was that all of them were producing automobiles. When American automobile production moved elsewhere and took a large number of well-paying jobs with it, the bottom fell out of the city's economy. What do you expect to happen to San Francisco if it loses its "tech mecca" status? Will the financial sector or the tourism sector supply enough…

I can see I have been unclear.

Detroit's problem was that automotive production was and is a single sector. This is not true of "tech", as shown by a random sampling of companies being in wildly different economic sectors.

I hope this is better! Thank you for the chance to improve my communications skills. Have a nice day.

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

#443

Post by reducesuffering »

babesh wrote: post #359
ditonal wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My friend lived in SF for 3 years, then left for a year. He called me to say, “dude what happened to SF? Apparently it’s all shit and needles now.” I had to explain to him that nothing has changed. He was just reading sensationalized media. I live in SF, I would like the city cleaned up, more accountability for taxes, more focus on tax payers over homeless. But at the same time, SF represents liberalism in the US so…

I was born in and grew up in SF. I still go once in awhile. SF got a lot worse. I didn’t grow up with tents surrounding City Hall nor tents lining the sidewalk in the Tenderloin. Go look at Polk Street in Nob Hill. Go look at Van Ness. Go look at the Castro. Those aren’t SOMA or the Tenderloin. I saw a smashed bus shelter right off Van Ness. I saw graffiti and garbage on the sidewalk in Nob Hill. There are multiple t…

> The towns and cities on the Peninsula are probably laughing at SF. All the homeless are drawn to SF and have disappeared from their sidewalks.

Haha absolutely wrong. While not as bad as SF, homeless issues everywhere else in the Bay have also gotten much worse. Mountain View, San Jose, Fremont, Oakland, everywhere.

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

#444

Post by DrScump »

dragonwriter wrote: post #415
masonic wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Police don't choose whether to drop charges. The vast majority of nonviolent crimes here now have no police involvement whatsoever. They just have you file an online report for you to forward to your insurance (if any). This includes catalytic converter thefts that can cost over $2000 alone to resolve, let alone other property loss plus vehicle damage.

> Police don't choose whether to drop charges. Police do choose whether and what resources to devote to investigation after a report. If they never identify an offender because they don't do anything with what they are given by retailers, there are no charges to drop. > The vast majority of nonviolent crimes here now have no police involvement whatsoever. Which is a choice by the police .

  Police do choose whether and what resources to devote to investigation
... and when the DA publishes a policy directive of non-prosecution of property crime, like in SF, police stop spending resources there. It's a catch-22.

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

#445

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#446

Post by stjohnswarts »

birken wrote: post #72
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,…

SF is over 5x denser than Dallas, which is the densest major city in Texas. The problem with homelessness is people can't afford to live in homes. It is a lot easier to avoid homelessness when you have essentially endless space to build housing.

So SF needs to reform their overly restrictive building regulations? Ignore the NIMBYism and do what is better for the city as a whole?

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

#447

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#448

Post by stjohnswarts »

Lammy wrote: post #298
api wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've thought this for a while: NIMBYism and other anti-development policies is how liberals implement "red lining" with plausible deniability... even to themselves. They're not trying to exclude the poor and minorities. They're trying to protect the environment! Never mind that these policies encourage sprawl and waste.

Let’s not make this a partisan thing please. Remember the EPA is from the Nixon administration, for example :)

Nixon was a crook but he was the last Republican to have some sensible policies.

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

#449

Post by stjohnswarts »

mikeg8 wrote: post #106
api wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Allowing new housing to be built to satisfy demand.

SF is surrounded by water on 3 sides. Where do you propose all these new houses be built?

Let builders tear down old buildings and single dwelling house and build up and denser. NIMBYism prevents this currently because people want to "keep the feel" of the area. Well that's impossible. Things always change, you can't go back, you can only delay and price yourself out of your own house. At least most get to sell at a good profit.

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

#450

Post by stjohnswarts »

nemo44x wrote: post #371
jb775 wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But wouldn't it make logical sense for the general population to consider trying something different? We're talking decades of single party control (left wing liberals), and these cities are rat-pits. I guess that's why it's so powerful that the left currently owns the mass media...they stir up that visceral hatred to the point where people forget about reality.

Republicans don’t even try and compete in major cities anymore. In fact they use them as a foil to convince their suburban and rural constituency from voting for the party that has “New York values”, etc. they literally just insult that part of the country so how could they win? And why would a Republican do better is a question I’d ask? Their track record across the vast swaths of America they control are full of dr…

The republican party is only staying afloat via voter suppression, radicalization, and gerrymandering. That said they're doing a pretty good job of it. They're trying to double down on it in the South as well, plus take away even more women's rights to do what they want with their body. It's still anyone's ballgame but the left is slowly winning by sheer numbers and demographics. The R wall can't hold forever but they don't seem to be willing to change.
Post reply on HN