Californians aren’t leaving the state en masse but are leaving San Francisco • Hacker News Board

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

#471

Post by reducesuffering » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 9:47 AM UTC

babesh wrote: post #463

reducesuffering wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You don’t have to believe me. Go check out videos on YouTube. Use your own eyes. https://youtu.be/1tv0FjfGbUs https://youtu.be/HmOIQv0yu-U Now search for other cities in the Bay. Go see what you find.

I quoted a specific line of yours that purported the rest of the Bay's homeless situation was improving, to the detriment of SF. Linking videos of increasing homeless in SF tells us nothing about the rest of the Bay's situation.

I don't need to "search" youtube videos of the rest of the Bay to get a more accurate picture. I guess I can't speak for that tiny population-slice of the peninsula you did mention, but for the rest I'm all over the rest of the Bay's towns constantly and saying homeless populations "have disappeared from their sidewalks" is quite the overstatement.

You also probably shouldn't scatter your replies across many different nested comments elsewhere?

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

#472

Post by 29athrowaway » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 11:17 AM UTC

3131s wrote: post #226

29athrowaway wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What people call "homelessness", are different (yet overlapping) problems that can be mitigated separately: 1) Public urination / defecation: There is a need for more public bathrooms. That's cheaper than spending millions of dollars cleaning poop and urine from the streets. 2) Public intoxication and substance abuse: Decriminalizing drugs and letting people get as intoxicated as they want is not a responsible approa…

Public intoxication and substance abuse: Decriminalizing drugs and letting people get as intoxicated as they want is not a responsible approach. You won't stop me or anyone else with your nanny-state laws. It's easy to get bricks in Cali, good luck!

There are 2 types of states: states that people complain about, and states that nobody cares about.

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

#473

Post by babesh » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 12:31 PM UTC

reducesuffering wrote: post #471

babesh wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t have to believe me. Go check out videos on YouTube. Use your own eyes. https://youtu.be/1tv0FjfGbUs https://youtu.be/HmOIQv0yu-U Now search for other cities in the Bay. Go see what you find.

I quoted a specific line of yours that purported the rest of the Bay's homeless situation was improving, to the detriment of SF. Linking videos of increasing homeless in SF tells us nothing about the rest of the Bay's situation. I don't need to "search" youtube videos of the rest of the Bay to get a more accurate picture. I guess I can't speak for that tiny population-slice of the peninsula you did mention, but for t…

The paragraph specified the Peninsula. None of the cities you mentioned are even on the Peninsula. San Jose, Fremont, Mountain View, Oakland. None of them are in the Peninsula.

You may be right about those cities that you mentioned but my statement did not apply to them. I don’t know enough about them. I have been to Oakland recently. It’s bad. I have also been to Fremont and Milpitas. The parts I have been to don’t look worse. But who knows.

I don’t know how to gauge the Bay as a whole. That encompasses a very large region that I don’t think many have a good grasp of. The areas you mention don’t even make up half the Bay Area in area yet you are so willing to denigrate what I saw.

You are right, I should have linked to videos of the other cities. I can’t find any for several of the cities on the Peninsula. I did find two on San Jose. One says that it is bad in a specific area and the other is a protest against sweeps of that area by the police.

https://youtu.be/HXq7cXR4r2U https://youtu.be/PGLCHhH5vxY

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

#474

Post by shagie » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 2:25 PM UTC

selimthegrim wrote: post #465

shagie wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I read it correctly, California state constitution amendments are from popular vote in the state - the California legislature can only put them on the ballot to be voted on (and then, its a 2/3 vote there - easier to get 8% of the previous total vote to petition). The Supreme Court can't rule against it because it is constitutional because it is the constitution.

In Baker v Carr I think the SC struck down part of TN constitution for voting malapportionment. Later it did so in AL too.

There have been a number of legal challenges of it - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13...

In particular:

> In 1992, a legal challenge (Nordlinger v. Hahn) was considered by the United States Supreme Court, which subsequently ruled 8–1 that Proposition 13 was constitutional.

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

#475

Post by reducesuffering » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 9:22 PM UTC

babesh wrote: post #473

reducesuffering wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I quoted a specific line of yours that purported the rest of the Bay's homeless situation was improving, to the detriment of SF. Linking videos of increasing homeless in SF tells us nothing about the rest of the Bay's situation. I don't need to "search" youtube videos of the rest of the Bay to get a more accurate picture. I guess I can't speak for that tiny population-slice of the peninsula you did mention, but for t…

The paragraph specified the Peninsula. None of the cities you mentioned are even on the Peninsula. San Jose, Fremont, Mountain View, Oakland. None of them are in the Peninsula. You may be right about those cities that you mentioned but my statement did not apply to them. I don’t know enough about them. I have been to Oakland recently. It’s bad. I have also been to Fremont and Milpitas. The parts I have been to don’t…

Sure I could've focused on explicitly the Peninsula like you originally mentioned, but 75% of the Peninsula is living in Redwood City, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, not the 4 adjacent tiny towns you mentioned + San Mateo.

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

#476

Post by viklove » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 9:24 PM UTC

Kalium wrote: post #442

mcguire wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Unrelated, but I've always found it interesting how people try to avoid appearing like they're actually invested in the conversation they're having and the effect the results have on them.

"I'm not here to exchange ideas and make my understanding of the world better, no, I'm just here to improve my communication skills and I want you to know that!"

I understand the need for self-preservation, but going to this length of lying to yourself and observers to defend your ego is amusing in my opinion.

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

#477

Post by Kalium » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 11:06 PM UTC

viklove wrote: post #476

Kalium wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I hope this is better! Thank you for the chance to improve my communications skills. Have a nice day. Unrelated, but I've always found it interesting how people try to avoid appearing like they're actually invested in the conversation they're having and the effect the results have on them. "I'm not here to exchange ideas and make my understanding of the world better, no, I'm just here to improve my communication sk…

I use it to place the blame of someone refusing or failing to understand on myself. The goal is not to signal a lack of investment, but to give someone a way to admit to being wrong without actually having to admit to anything. It sometimes helps remove a person's ego as an obstacle.

It's the difference between "I failed to be understandable" and "You failed to understand". With the former, they can come back and say that since I've clarified so helpfully, they agree with me without impugning their previous position. The latter allows no such latitude.

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

#478

Post by selimthegrim » Tue, Mar 09, 2021, 12:23 AM UTC

mikem170 wrote: post #434

selimthegrim wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The power producers that did winterize couldn't run their plants for lack of gas due to wellheads and pipelines freezing [0] (Texas Railroad Commission jurisdiction) and an emergency order directing gas away from power plants (TRC again) [1] [0] https://www.texasmonthly.com/news/blackout-crisis-texans-ele... [1] https://www.ft.com/content/12640ebb-5c20-4d00-aec0-9c8810541...

Gotcha. Thanks for the links! I'm just finished reading about the people in Texas who got $10k bills. I'm wondering if these people, residential customers, knew the rate limits were increased for those 32 hours? It's not fair if they don't have a mechanism to monitor or limit the rate they're willing to pay. I wouldn't call that a complete failure of their system, but it needs to be made right. A 10k surprise bill su…

This writeup on the 1989 cold spell might also be of interest:

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/A-t...

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

#479

Post by babesh » Tue, Mar 09, 2021, 2:10 AM UTC

reducesuffering wrote: post #475

babesh wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The paragraph specified the Peninsula. None of the cities you mentioned are even on the Peninsula. San Jose, Fremont, Mountain View, Oakland. None of them are in the Peninsula. You may be right about those cities that you mentioned but my statement did not apply to them. I don’t know enough about them. I have been to Oakland recently. It’s bad. I have also been to Fremont and Milpitas. The parts I have been to don’t…

Sure I could've focused on explicitly the Peninsula like you originally mentioned, but 75% of the Peninsula is living in Redwood City, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, not the 4 adjacent tiny towns you mentioned + San Mateo.

So go add focus on those towns as well or go limit it to mid Peninsula.

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

#480

Post by mikem170 » Tue, Mar 09, 2021, 2:43 AM UTC

selimthegrim wrote: post #478

mikem170 wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gotcha. Thanks for the links! I'm just finished reading about the people in Texas who got $10k bills. I'm wondering if these people, residential customers, knew the rate limits were increased for those 32 hours? It's not fair if they don't have a mechanism to monitor or limit the rate they're willing to pay. I wouldn't call that a complete failure of their system, but it needs to be made right. A 10k surprise bill su…

This writeup on the 1989 cold spell might also be of interest: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/A-t...

Interesting. This thread has refined my opinion.

I still wouldn't characterize this as a "free market failure", implying there is no room for competition, or everything needs to be the same as the rest of the country.

I paid a lot of attention to the following from the grandparent's linked texasmonthly.com article: "You essentially pay up front for peace of mind. But because neither regulators nor state lawmakers ordered anybody to pay, nothing was done." (regarding winterizing, costs to keep the grid robust, etc)

I assume that the regulators and the politicians weren't smart enough to do their part. Free markets can be great, can be better than too much regulation, but need to be tempered by the people's interests. The politicians involved failed big time. Didn't they think past their next reelection? Hopefully they make adjustments, both in their current regulations, and in the processes around reviewing and maintaining those regulations. I'm disgusted at the oversights that led to this. They had regulators who were responsible for this stuff! I'm curious how this will play out.

On a related note, it's not a free market if the customers don't know when the price increases a hundred fold or more.