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

San Francisco could collapse – what should California do about it?

sfchronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 161 posts

Re: San Francisco could collapse – what should California do about it?

#41

Post by lkjwelkjlk3t »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #31
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #8

New York of the 1970s [1] is a better analogy than 9/11. San Francisco is going broke. Not because of terrorism, but due to its own devices. It will need to be bailed out. When that happens, the state will take over and face the realities its voters choose to ignore. [1] https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-night-new-york-...

San Francisco is largely owned and controlled by about a half dozen extremely wealthy families, who don't just control SF...they're also "kingmakers" for the governor's office, and have been using their influence for personal gain for decades: https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-pol-ca-gavin-newsom-san-... Not a dime of public money should go to bailing out the Guggenhimes, Buells, Swigs, Marcuses, Fishers, Gettys, a…

[flagged]

Re: San Francisco could collapse – what should California do about it?

#42

Post by JumpCrisscross »

lkjwelkjlk3t wrote: post #35
lkjwelkjlk3t wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

> Downvote all you want

You called for violence against a public official.

Also: “Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading” [1].

> Did Weiner not help pass a bill to legalize raping underage boys?

Did they? Provide a source.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: San Francisco could collapse – what should California do about it?

#43

Post by corbulo »

ppeetteerr wrote: post #17
orzig wrote: post #5

I don’t live there, but as a general rule, people overestimate the probability of “collapse“. Things can be declining for a long time without the dramatic acceleration that merits that term.

Agreed. Just look at Twitter. It's running with a skeleton crew but that's only because a system of that size does not collapse in a day. It takes years for the cracks to show and grow.

Just accept you were fooled...

Re: San Francisco could collapse – what should California do about it?

#44

Post by dehrmann »

I'm not convinced. There's a reason people came back faster to almost every other major city. This makes me think a lot of people were just there for the money, and once they could get the same money without the hassle of the city, they did just that.

The problem is adding more housing downtown doesn't really help the problem beyond making a shorter commute (to WFH jobs?). Especially for the people who moved out, SF's pandemic policies weren't attractive, and it's even worse in a dense neighborhood. There's still the homeless problem. There's still a lot of property crime. This week, there was a post about how hard it is for 8th graders to take Algebra.

Like the article said, I don't really want to give more money to a city that's been so mismanaged.

Re: San Francisco could collapse – what should California do about it?

#45

Post by version_five »

imwithstoopid wrote: post #40
KennyBlanken wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

San Francisco is largely owned and controlled by about a half dozen extremely wealthy families, who don't just control SF...they're also "kingmakers" for the governor's office, and have been using their influence for personal gain for decades: https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-pol-ca-gavin-newsom-san-... Not a dime of public money should go to bailing out the Guggenhimes, Buells, Swigs, Marcuses, Fishers, Gettys, a…

[flagged]

SVB was like three weeks ago, no reason to go back that far

Re: San Francisco could collapse – what should California do about it?

#47

Post by kurthr »

d23 wrote: post #39
ricksunny wrote: post #15

'verge of collapse' & 'brink of collapse' are some of the most frequently-slung clickbait phrases in the editor's grab-bag. Already collapsed? Not going to collapse? Neither newsworthy. 'about to collapse'? That's your stress response being triggered, to be satisfied by clicking on the headline to ascertain how to either head off the stress source or be infotained by it.

Any thoughts on the content of the article itself?

It might as well have been written 20 years ago.

Re: San Francisco could collapse – what should California do about it?

#49

Post by Waterluvian »

> …it was assumed, would never again want to work in office towers over fears of terrorism.

This feels like a ridiculous assumption. Maybe in the emotional moment, but sensible minds wouldn’t for long think that that’s it for the concept of working downtown.

Re: San Francisco could collapse – what should California do about it?

#50

Post by ppeetteerr »

CydeWeys wrote: post #26
ppeetteerr wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Just look at Twitter. It's running with a skeleton crew but that's only because a system of that size does not collapse in a day. It takes years for the cracks to show and grow.

I think the specific situation with Twitter is that it takes a lot more people to create and update a system of this size than it does to merely maintain it. They simply no longer have the capacity to make a large new product at this point, but even a skeleton staff is enough to keep the existing product running.

That's why the cracks are small at first. Patches, new API connections to customers, and ambition will still cause some change, albeit small as you point out. Entropy in a living system always increases.
Post reply on HN