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

Why San Francisco’s city government is so dysfunctional

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 441 posts

Re: Why San Francisco’s city government is so dysfunctional

#221

Post by [deleted] »

timoth3y wrote: post #201
CraigJPerry wrote: post #137

I sat and chatted to a homeless fella hanging out at Fisherman’s Wharf in SF for a while. He wasn’t from CA, from Missouri IIRC. He was gay, his family disowned him, he got into drugs. He got bitter, did some nasty stuff to people he hated, did some other misguided things and basically had hit rock bottom. I asked him what he thought would be needed to bring him out of homelessness and keep him inside society. He sai…

> It’s played on my mind many times over the years, how do you help someone in that scenario? Acceptance? If he's clean, groomed, not bothering people, and OK with is life as it is, maybe there is room for him in society. I think a lot of the problem stems from the fact that we all agree that "the homeless problem" should be solved, but we can't agree on what "the problem" is. To some it's "I don't want to see and be…

[deleted]

Re: Why San Francisco’s city government is so dysfunctional

#222

Post by ryanobjc »

CraigJPerry wrote: post #137

I sat and chatted to a homeless fella hanging out at Fisherman’s Wharf in SF for a while. He wasn’t from CA, from Missouri IIRC. He was gay, his family disowned him, he got into drugs. He got bitter, did some nasty stuff to people he hated, did some other misguided things and basically had hit rock bottom. I asked him what he thought would be needed to bring him out of homelessness and keep him inside society. He sai…

Services for the homeless come with a lot of strings attached, a lot more than you'd think, including a bunch of strings that people who are homed would never accept in their own house.

So it's not as simple as homeless people don't want homes, it's because they want freedom.

Re: Why San Francisco’s city government is so dysfunctional

#223

Post by trhway »

rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #213
muh_gradle wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those that are mentally ill, and especially if they are violent, you force them to get the psychiatric help that they need. It's an unpopular opinion. But frankly it's long overdue. For those that have the option to go to shelters, receive plenty of benefits (which SF most definitely provides) but prefer to be homeless, they need to be separated from major city areas where tourists, business people, and every day…

For better or for worse, homelessness in America can largely be attributed to Regan-era changes in policy [1] that prevented people from being committed against their will to psychiatric hospitals. It was done in the name of human rights, but naturally there were ulterior motives. It's time we reverted it. About 10% of humans have been addicts across most cultures throughout most of recorded human history, and they d…

>About 10% of humans have been addicts across most cultures throughout most of recorded human history, and they desperately need help (even if they claim don't want it).

one can wonder why this trait hasn't been selected out by now (or some trait managing it hasn't appeared).

Re: Why San Francisco’s city government is so dysfunctional

#224

Post by poorjohnmacafee »

Hermitian909 wrote: post #207

As someone who's family has been in the bay area for over a century I was disappointed the article didn't mention any of the old money families who've controlled SF politics for decades. This article[0] mentions some, though not all of the families (The Aliotos aren't mentioned here for example). While I haven't fully kept up, I know in the 90s at least a quarter of the financial district was held by two families. Th…

I think a story about an ultra wealthy ruling class that stands behind the public political class is not going to get published in mainstream outlets. I mean it will if it's about Russia or China or historical periods like "the Gilded Age", but I guess you don't see it talked about for modern day West.

Re: Why San Francisco’s city government is so dysfunctional

#225

Post by rrrrrrrrrrrryan »

trhway wrote: post #223
rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For better or for worse, homelessness in America can largely be attributed to Regan-era changes in policy [1] that prevented people from being committed against their will to psychiatric hospitals. It was done in the name of human rights, but naturally there were ulterior motives. It's time we reverted it. About 10% of humans have been addicts across most cultures throughout most of recorded human history, and they d…

>About 10% of humans have been addicts across most cultures throughout most of recorded human history, and they desperately need help (even if they claim don't want it). one can wonder why this trait hasn't been selected out by now (or some trait managing it hasn't appeared).

Anecdotally, while 9/10 people with obsessive traits may crash and burn and possibly end up homeless, 1/10 may succeed spectacularly by becoming obsessed with something healthy-ish, or something that benefits people other than themselves. (Even if it's at the expense of their family and friends).

Re: Why San Francisco’s city government is so dysfunctional

#226

Post by twh270 »

WalterBright wrote: post #173
CraigJPerry wrote: post #137

I sat and chatted to a homeless fella hanging out at Fisherman’s Wharf in SF for a while. He wasn’t from CA, from Missouri IIRC. He was gay, his family disowned him, he got into drugs. He got bitter, did some nasty stuff to people he hated, did some other misguided things and basically had hit rock bottom. I asked him what he thought would be needed to bring him out of homelessness and keep him inside society. He sai…

> It’s played on my mind many times over the years, how do you help someone in that scenario? Offer them help. If they refuse, respect their rights, and move on.

I'm mostly in agreement with that, as I follow a "live and let live" philosophy. Where I part ways with that binary choice is when the person is actively a menace to themselves or others; their behavior has a 'high' cost to society. I can't get on board with respecting someone's right to self-determination when they repeatedly and regularly damage property, attack people, or are otherwise damaging to the fabric of society. In this case I believe the person has lost some of their right to self-determination.

What to do about it? I don't really know; software development is my gig so this is far outside my expertise. But from what I observe, prison as it currently is implemented doesn't work, and doing nothing isn't working either.

Given the right environment and help, I'd hope that some (many? most?) can transform themselves and become healthy or at least functional in society. Some options that seem to help: a 12-step program, CBT and other therapy, drugs, low-dose hallucinogens (LSD, mushrooms, etc.).

Re: Why San Francisco’s city government is so dysfunctional

#227

Post by bpodgursky »

chrisseaton wrote: post #188
CraigJPerry wrote: post #137

I sat and chatted to a homeless fella hanging out at Fisherman’s Wharf in SF for a while. He wasn’t from CA, from Missouri IIRC. He was gay, his family disowned him, he got into drugs. He got bitter, did some nasty stuff to people he hated, did some other misguided things and basically had hit rock bottom. I asked him what he thought would be needed to bring him out of homelessness and keep him inside society. He sai…

As long as they aren’t harming anyone why can’t you respect their wishes and leave them alone if that’s what they want? What if someone decided you needed help even after you made it clear you didn’t want it?

I don't consider it humane to let someone live on the streets begging until they happen to die of a drug overdose.

I don't care about their wishes, guided by drug addiction and mental health issues. To allow and enable this much squandering of human potential is a moral crime.

Get people clean of drugs, healthy, stable, and educated. By force, if needed. If from that baseline he decides to go back into a life of drugs and onto the streets, then so be it. But don't allow people to commit themselves to a slow death until they've been forced to step onto a better path and see what their life _could_ be.

Re: Why San Francisco’s city government is so dysfunctional

#228

Post by bsder »

proc0 wrote: post #215
Hermitian909 wrote: post #207

As someone who's family has been in the bay area for over a century I was disappointed the article didn't mention any of the old money families who've controlled SF politics for decades. This article[0] mentions some, though not all of the families (The Aliotos aren't mentioned here for example). While I haven't fully kept up, I know in the 90s at least a quarter of the financial district was held by two families. Th…

Yeah, I haven't heard of that, but it seems like this kind of corruption is the most possible explanation.

Possibly, but I don't think its required.

The Irvine Company is very similar in Southern California. It seems like they own everything when you want office real estate.

So, it's corruption, right?

Well, except that if you talk to any contractors (like your internet provider installer) you find that they love The Irvine Company because there is someone who has a little bit of competence for them to talk to when they need to. As opposed to every other real estate company that seems to be staffed by brain-damaged monkeys.

So, you can posit corruption. Or, you can posit that real estate management is one of those markets that tends toward monopoly because you can amortize the costs more effectively the more properties you own.

Re: Why San Francisco’s city government is so dysfunctional

#229

Post by lhorie »

kmtrowbr wrote: post #64
LurkingPenguin wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Per my own experience SF is not a bad place to live. I have the opposite view. In SF, your risk of the following occurring is non-negligible and in some cases, shockingly quite likely: - Being mugged/robbed - Having your car broken into - Being harangued or even assaulted by someone who is mentally ill and/or under the influence - Witnessing public urination, defecation, drug use and grab and go retail theft - Step…

I've lived in San Francisco for 16 years. Yes, I have experienced the homeless problem. I had my car broken into once when I left my backpack inside. I have never been mugged or robbed or had any physical violence occur, or be threatened. We have many lovely friends who live here. San Francisco is under a lot of pressure: population, finance, environmental. It is not a dystopia. It is a community where people build t…

> I have never been mugged or robbed or had any physical violence occur, or be threatened.

You're lucky (and not that I want to intentionally bring up this card, but I bet you're a burly caucasian male). I saw a guy jump over the Bart ticket gate on literally my first night in SF. I've witnessed multiple retail theft incidents. I've been spat on, literally out of nowhere. A coworker had his garage broken into and a bike stolen. Another mentioned a friend whose backpack was snatched. (All asians)

> It is a community where people build their lives and deserves love and support.

This comes across as an empty platitude. One can say that about literally anywhere, even a place like Kabul. For me, SF is markedly different from other places I've lived, and if we were talking in terms of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, it doesn't score very well.

Re: Why San Francisco’s city government is so dysfunctional

#230

Post by Calvin02 »

ryanobjc wrote: post #220
Hermitian909 wrote: post #207

As someone who's family has been in the bay area for over a century I was disappointed the article didn't mention any of the old money families who've controlled SF politics for decades. This article[0] mentions some, though not all of the families (The Aliotos aren't mentioned here for example). While I haven't fully kept up, I know in the 90s at least a quarter of the financial district was held by two families. Th…

I find the Economist has fairly shallow "analysis" if you can even call what they do analysis. So I am disappointed but not surprised that they missed on the real story. The Economist is as useful in terms about learning about the world as reading headlines.

I’m sorry you’re getting downvoted but as someone who has subscribed to The Economist for 20+ years now, I feel the same way as you do.

In areas that are on the periphery, their coverage feels shallow and unsatisfying. I would imagine that the writers, who are some of the best in business, are doing their research but trying to make the content accessible. I can’t fault them for that. However, in this day and age, I would expect them to offer more depth.

Post reply on HN