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

70% of San Francisco residents say quality of life has declined: poll

kron4.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 260 posts

Re: 70% of San Francisco residents say quality of life has declined: poll

#171

Post by youmustbeblind »

dougmwne wrote: post #165
youmustbeblind wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair play, might of changed with covid, the many times I went I always thought they should do more for them, same in Katowice, Lodz, etc.. perhaps care has stepped up a bit, always felt safe but that's probably due to male and size. You couldn't move for pushy beggars in 2019

I really think there must have been a recent push to clean things up then based on what you and some friends here have said. I think the Mayor wants to run for President again and one of the richest persons in Poland is making a huge investment in Port Praski a few blocks from here, so they might want a guaranteed ROI, drunks be damned.

Damn it, my message went missing, glad as long as they get real help and isn't just a push them out city center deal

Re: 70% of San Francisco residents say quality of life has declined: poll

#172

Post by justshowpost »

flatiron wrote: post #20
ergocoder wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Petty and non-violent crime is only petty and non-violent because the victims don't fight back. I don't know what the solution is, but calling these petty/non-violent feels like an unfair take. A victim is often traumatized about this kind of experiences, but that is never taken into account. I feel San Francisco is such a screwed up place. But many would disagree with me. I don't live there anymore, but it seems peo…

Sometimes there is no direct victim. Whose the direct victim of public urination or jay walking? I’m not saying they should be legal it’s just nobody really gets traumatized if someone crosses the street without right of way.

Urination damages someone's property, either private or municipal.

BTW, it appears what SanFran's sanctuary status pays off – there is steadily growing number of open defecation cases

https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/City-plans-to-power-was...

Re: 70% of San Francisco residents say quality of life has declined: poll

#173

Post by dougmwne »

walrus01 wrote: post #64

The same as with vancouver, San Francisco and Los Angeles are both some of the rare large cities in the USA where a homeless person can live a fully outdoor lifestyle year-round and not risk freezing to death.

This is often repeated, but the entirety of the US south is warm year-round and the proportion of unhoused homeless is much lower in all those southern cities. Clearly there is something else at play on the west coast that resists housing the homeless.

Re: 70% of San Francisco residents say quality of life has declined: poll

#174

Post by ceejayoz »

throwaway316943 wrote: post #163
ceejayoz wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that's why the slogan's not "defund the police immediately ", I guess. That it'd take a while to make significant progress isn't a reason not to start.

Many people seem to take it to mean that. It even seems like some are trying to implement it that way. Catchy slogans tend to result in shitty implementations.

> Many people seem to take it to mean that.

Sure, just like no one actually knows what "critical race theory" actually means. A concerted effort to encourage these misunderstandings hardly helps.

Re: 70% of San Francisco residents say quality of life has declined: poll

#175

Post by foobar33333 »

knownjorbist wrote: post #168
foobar33333 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most places deal with this via border restrictions. One country with better welfare does not allow themselves to be flooded with people from other countries. This problem can not be solved by one city without the ability to restrict movement.

Border restrictions are a recent phenomenon. If you care about free markets or a smaller state, but not the free movement of labor at the same time, you are holding hypocritical beliefs.

Welfare can not work in an entirely free market system. Thankfully I do not believe in subscribing uncritically to one line of thought.

Re: 70% of San Francisco residents say quality of life has declined: poll

#176

Post by threatofrain »

underseacables wrote: post #6

This is interesting given the protests. As I understand it, San Francisco is generally considered to be a very liberal and progressive city. The politicians are generally considered to be very liberal and progressive. These are the same groups, however, that want to defund the police. I don’t get it. You can want both police reform, and policing, but without the police there’s not really anyone capable, trained, or j…

The police can only effectively deal with the homeless the way LA did in Echo Park -- by kicking them out. Then it becomes an issue for somewhere else.

Re: 70% of San Francisco residents say quality of life has declined: poll

#177

Post by pope_meat »

justshowpost wrote: post #172
flatiron wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes there is no direct victim. Whose the direct victim of public urination or jay walking? I’m not saying they should be legal it’s just nobody really gets traumatized if someone crosses the street without right of way.

Urination damages someone's property, either private or municipal. BTW, it appears what SanFran's sanctuary status pays off – there is steadily growing number of open defecation cases https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/City-plans-to-power-was...

If that's the case our cities should have fallen apart by now from just the dogs alone.

Re: 70% of San Francisco residents say quality of life has declined: poll

#178

Post by desine »

DanHulton wrote: post #137
underseacables wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but lack of police enforcement has led to greater numbers of homeless people acting without worry, setting up camps, pooping in the streets, vandalism, assault, robbery, etc. Greater police presence is an excellent deterrent for homeless misbehavior and crime. Otherwise there is no limitation on what those unhoused persons can do, thus exacerbating the problem. It may not have caused it, but the lack of police…

Whole lotta assumptions here. The biggest one is "Greater police presence is an excellent deterrent for homeless misbehavior and crime." So much of what you said is, honestly, what a lot of homeless people need to do, just to survive. When you don't have safe, ready access to bathrooms, you go outside. When you don't have a job and can't get money, you steal to eat. When you are subject to this misery for long enough…

There's lots of programs available in California. If you're not currently drunk or high, you can generally get a bed and food for a day at a shelter in most West Coast metropolitan environments. If you're in these shelters, there's jobs programs that can get you earning a modest paycheck quickly. Unfortunately there's a large and growing segment of unhoused that don't want this, though. They want to be able to drink, or use other drugs. And that makes them ineligble for most of these programs. So they set up camp, continue to decline in mental health due to stress, diet, drug use. And they spiral farther into the drain.

It's these people that need the strong hand of law enforcement to whip them into shape. It's for their own good, honestly, which bothers me as a big proponent of personal liberty and personal responsibility. But their options are either shape up, or slowly decline to a tragic death. A puppy who is not trained not to bite toddlers very well may end up getting euthanized. Sometimes strict enforcement is the morally just choice.

edit: my point is that both are needed. The options for the self motivated, and the guiding hand of arrest for those who cannot save themselves.

Re: 70% of San Francisco residents say quality of life has declined: poll

#179

Post by prewett »

nemothekid wrote: post #116
prewett wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then they should say "reform the police" not "defund the police". If you "defund the police", they will cease to exist, since nobody will be paying them. It might or might not be what the "defund" people are actually want, but it is what they are saying , so it isn't really a strawman argument. Personally, I assume people actually mean what they say, so I think it's more likely they just want to be "radical" and have…

> Then they should say "reform the police" not "defund the police". If you "defund the police", they will cease to exist, since nobody will be paying them. Great idea, let's call the CEO of a grass roots protest and have their marketing department update the website copy. Do you realize what you are saying? > Personally, I assume people actually mean what they say, so I think it's more likely they just want to be "ra…

> I think a very useful skill in life is being able to read past slogans and actually understand what people are asking for

I think a very useful skill in life is accurately communicating what you actually want to say so that the receiver understands your message. The responsibility of communicating is on the protestor--they are the ones trying to change things.

I don't think that the extremist language had anything to do with getting people talking about the problem. George Floyd's death is what got people talking about it. Seems to me the more radical people are advocating "defund the police" as a solution. If they really want police reform, why not just say that? They wouldn't alienate everyone who thinks that is a silly idea. So tactically it is a major blunder because they've needlessly lost support. Why would someone who disagrees with "defund the police" as a solution risk working with them--what if they actually believe what they say?

> If extremist messaging is what gets people talking about the problem then so be it.

This cuts both ways. Can I assume that you're good with the right wingers' extremism, too? And how are you going to keep it from escalating? They still aren't listening, better make the statement louder, maybe in blood this time? Extremism begets extremism.

I am pretty opposed to extremism, and I think a large part of the problem in the US is that the only voices are the extreme ones shouting really loud. A group of friends driven by loud, extreme voices is dysfunctional, and larger groups are no different.

Besides, reacting to a problem with extremes doesn't solve the problem, it only changes what problem you have. Historically it usually changes for the worst.

Re: 70% of San Francisco residents say quality of life has declined: poll

#180

Post by justshowpost »

ergocoder wrote: post #25
flatiron wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes there is no direct victim. Whose the direct victim of public urination or jay walking? I’m not saying they should be legal it’s just nobody really gets traumatized if someone crosses the street without right of way.

We talked about different kind of crimes. For example, the Walgreen robbing incident is a non-violent crime because nobody confronted the thieves. I have no idea if breaking car window is considered a violent crime.

Breaking car window is clearly nonviolent property crime presumed no one gets hurt.

> because nobody confronted the thieves

Not really because of this, but rather because there was no assault to addition to the property crime. Its not absolutely impossible for that robber with bicycle from the Walgreen's video to repent when guard lazily tried to stop him.

Post reply on HN