If you went to sf, lived there and decided its not for you and you moved on with your life then your not the people I'm talking about. This thread is filled with people who went on a trip or saw some articles online and now need to keep comparing sf to their southern or mid west hometown or random places in asia and declare how horrible it is. Of course there's valid reasons to not live in a city, its a different lif…
To be fair, "New York is dying" is a big editorial cottage industry that's been around for decades, people in SV are just less aware of it. It's definitely active now.
Which is kind of my original point, these tech commentary sites are focused on sf and the bay area. If there was genuine curiosity in how cities function I would think there would be more diversity in the cities we talk about. But there seems to be a bias towards negative sf bay area news, I think some it is driven by insecurity.
Comparing acid attacks in London to San Francisco's problems is like comparing plane crashes to car crashes. The former is worse per occurrence and gets more attention, but the latter is much, much more common and so worse overall.
You've missed my point entirely. My point is that just because I heard an acid attack outside my hotel in London, it does not make me qualified to criticize London or those who choose to live there. Just as someone who visited SF a few times and saw some feces (etc) is not qualified to criticize SF or those who choose to live here.
Yes but then you ask people you know whether xyz thing is common, and it turns out the tent cities are permanent, and in fact everyone runs into people who need psychological help each day.
Nobody will tell you that London has an acid attack problem. I've lived here for years and heard about it maybe once on the news. Everyone will tell you SF has an issue with homelessness/mental health, and they've seen it with their own eyes.
half US homeless are in California with migrants arriving daily crime in SF has absolutely exploded These don't seem to be reflected in easily googleable stats https://www.usich.gov/tools-for-action/map/#fn[]=1400&fn[]=2... https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/stay-safe/crime-data/crim...
Devil’s advocate: a lot of crime in San Francisco isn’t reported. For example, the case mentioned in the article.
Sure, the data might be bad. That's a sensible objection - I think the question it raises is 'what's your data'. Like, what are you devil's advocating, on what basis. The 'quality of data' question applies universally.
Because we walk around our own cities for YEARS and see less of this then we do on a random walk on a single day.
SF is a very densely populated place, so that shouldn't be a surprise (if you live in NYC, I don't believe you).
Lots of people have visited SF as well as more densely populated places both in the US and elsewhere.
So have I - and downtown SF is worse (in terms of littering, human excrement, aggressive panhandling, street crime) than the problematic parts of NYC, DC, Philly and Baltimore, worse than densely populated capitals in Latin America or East Asia or Eastern Europe. It's better than Indian cities but that is a very low bar for one of the world's richest cities.
Is anybody else getting tired of the constant stream of inflammatory posts ragging on San Francisco or the Bay Area? I feel like I've been seeing one every one or two days that make it to the top of HN. These types of posts just seem to fit into this ongoing narrative that SF (and relatedly, silicon valley), are all falling apart due to poor governance. It's beginning to feel like a strong echo chamber in here. What…
Bad governance is possible and even if you win 90 percent of the vote, it doesn’t mean you are governing well but it does mean you are governing to your constituents priorities. Obviously if people actually were bothered about these issues they wouldn’t continue to vote the same people in. Locals actually want this to happen, but indirectly just as a side effect of their other higher priorities. They are willing to make the sacrifices needed to allow people to stay out of jail, not be prosecuted for small crime, not be prosecuted for drugs, trespassing, not ruin people’s lives with criminal records. They allow people freedom to be a little bad. It’s just unfortunate that this kindness actually multiplies the people that want to receive this kindness. Where are people going to, we’ll the place that doesn’t kick them out, tell them to move their tents, doesn’t prosecute them, let’s then have freedom to do drugs. It’s not bad governance, it’s just different governance. And now anyone who doesn’t like that governance has to just leave, politicians get even more votes than ever before, and this validates that they have had the right priorities all along. Long story short the city gets exactly what it’s citizens want, it may not be perfect but I’m the trade offs are desirable. Personally , I come from Seattle, city with a large homeless population and I went to Portland Oregon and I was shocked how much homeless there are camping on the sidewalks of Portland, and just how it felt like I was surrounded by mentally ill people. It sounds like San Francisco is the same and for people like me that doesn’t feel like a dying city, it feels like a dead city, just inhabited by those who have accepted it as is. No doubt there are some nice outskirts or nice areas, but the threat you feel with unpredictable people constantly around isn’t something I’m at all used to and would never want at that level.
It was my last day in SF after a semester-long internship, and I decided to take photos around downtown. I was passing through Union Square on my way home when I saw a guy weaving through traffic, with two people chasing after him and yelling at him to give something back. I instinctively started booking it after him, caught up to him in the middle of a food truck area, grabbed him by his hoodie collar, and pinned hi…
What you did was illegal. Additionally, that's a misuse of "instinctive".
> Citizens in California are allowed to make a citizen's arrest including use of reasonable force. For a misdemeanor (as the shoplifting described in this case appears to be), only if the arrested party actually committed the offense and it occurred in the arresting party’s presence (for a felony , the terms are somewhat looser.) As the description clearly indicates that the offense did not occur in the poster’s pres…
I judged the given probability P(crime | guy being chased in the streets & SF) as much higher than chance, which is what led me to yield to instinct. I realize that I was over my head considering the guy was much bigger than me and I had no way of knowing if he was armed or not, but I sleep better at night knowing I did what I could to act as a decent human being.
You physically attacked a person because he was being chased. Later on, you learned that he might have taken a pair of shoes that were in all likelihood manufactured using slave labor. Can you explain how you are in any way different from a person who would have participated in a lynch mob in the rural south less than a generation ago?
Edit: I got downvoted, so I want to clarify that I didn't say this person is like a lynch mob participant. I'm just curious how they distinguish their conduct.
Comparing acid attacks in London to San Francisco's problems is like comparing plane crashes to car crashes. The former is worse per occurrence and gets more attention, but the latter is much, much more common and so worse overall.
You've missed my point entirely. My point is that just because I heard an acid attack outside my hotel in London, it does not make me qualified to criticize London or those who choose to live there. Just as someone who visited SF a few times and saw some feces (etc) is not qualified to criticize SF or those who choose to live here.
> My point is that just because I heard an acid attack outside my hotel in London, it does not make me qualified to criticize London or those who choose to live there.
Yes it does. People are allowed to have opinions and express them. I've never been to SF, but I can just tell from what I've seen on sites like this that I would hate it. You can feel otherwise and that's fine, but other people will judge SF for their inaction on issues like ubiquitous homelessness.
In early 2020, before lockdown, I visited San Francisco as a tourist with my wife. We took a wrong turn at a book store and wound up on a street covered in feces. The next street was fine. Then on the next, we watched a homeless woman shoot up on the street. Then a supercar pulled into a garage. I'm not the best traveled, I'll admit, so I can't compare SF to foreign cities. I'm a simple hillbilly from the Southeast,…
> This was my third time in SF. > Also, I've always refused to move to Silicon Valley > The author is in denial. > it is a really expensive shithole I'm always amazed by people who have visited a place a few times as a tourist and think "I'm qualified to shit on people who choose to live here". What makes you think you have any say in the situation? SF has massive neighborhood diversity as far as living situations go…
Ive lived in SF for years. It’s exactly like this
It’s not just downtown,
It’s not like this in any cities at all
Voting, contributing to campaigns, some volunteering around prop times. Though I'll admit I haven't done much around the recall of our DA outside of donating. I should be doing more there. I'm also active in my neighborhood in my own way, trying to get people together for events (think trivia, bar game tournaments, etc). Though of course this has limited during covid. I think your comment is kinda rude, though. Even…
I simply asked, didn't suggest you weren't doing things. Please read my comment carefully--I specifically tried to be careful not to imply anything. I asked because I think participating locally is the only real answer, so kudos.