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

San Francisco: An Elitist Bubble Ignoring a Crime Epidemic?

dustin-godevais.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 229 posts

Re: San Francisco: An Elitist Bubble Ignoring a Crime Epidemic?

#141

Post by mlsu »

AlbertCory wrote: post #53
uoaei wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, welcome to the conversation, I can tell this is the first time you've engaged with this topic, so I'd love to introduce you to the economic dynamics at play. When property taxes don't rise, people are disincentivized from selling their home because if they buy a new home they must pay property taxes at the new rate, not the grandfathered one. This creates a bottlenecked supply of housing because no one sells. Gro…

Do a little research. If you move in CA and you're over 55, you can now keep your property tax bill. Previously it was only certain counties that honored that; now it's all of them. https://www.financialplannerla.com/transfer-california-prope... > All because they happened to have bought a home before this law passed. Again, do some research. Prop 13 passed in 1978, 45 years ago. The number of current homeowners who…

27% of Californians are over 55. That means the majority do not get to have the benefit of keeping their tax bill when they move. To compound that, the most dynamic economic growth probably comes from under-55s moving, not over-55s -- new jobs, new opportunities, start a family, etc. Obviously it's good if it's easy for old people to move, but the economic value of a young family being able to move closer to a high paying job is probably many multiples more from a "net good for society" standpoint.

Prop 13 freezes your tax rate when you purchase the property. So the subsidy isn't given only to those who buy before the bill was passed -- it is given to anyone who buys before housing goes up, at any time while the law is in place.

It's extremely common for people to borrow against the equity of their home (even moreso if you are very wealthy). I think the parent is arguing that those who own property are borrowing against the value of their (subsidized) asset. Another thing to consider is that a yearly tax on an asset can significantly affect the valuation of that asset, far in excess of the amount of the tax itself.

Of course there's many reasons for the embarrassing lack of ability to solve the housing problem. Prop 13 is a big reason, certainly one worth looking at when considering solutions to this problem.

It's also just unfair. Most people who are subsidized by prop 13 are subsidized for no reason at all, just market timing. And there's another layer to it, which is that the earlier you have bought, the more you are subsidized. Guess what was more difficult for minorities to do 30 years ago? That introduces an additional dimension of racial unfairness to this. Not to mention, it's a subsidy for the rich (homeowners) paid for by the poor (everyone else).

Prop 13 is an anchor around our neck. It's kind of like that excruciatingly painful disease that causes your bones to fuse together, except for growth and prosperity in the state of California.

Re: San Francisco: An Elitist Bubble Ignoring a Crime Epidemic?

#142

Post by qqqwerty »

marstall wrote: post #66

I lived in SF in the late '90s and saw many of the same things people have been posting about here lately . Tweakers on every corner in the Tenderloin, intense/overwhelming-at-times homeless presence in the blocks near Mission and lower Market ... latino gangs operating in the blocks south of 14th ... I heard gunshots fired in my neighborhood (24th street) on two occasions. Anybody here experienced SF then and now? I…

Born and raised here. It is different (of course no city stays exactly the same over three decades). It feels like it is more concentrated now. Back then, there were a lot more areas in the city (and in the Bay) where one would be a little on guard. A lot of those places have gentrified to the point where they are much nicer than they used to be. But the hotspots have gotten a lot worse. On balance, I think more of the bay area population is safer and has a higher quality of life than in the 90s. But if you are near those hotspots, it seems like things are a lot worse than they use to be. This is probably why this topic is so muddy. It is pretty easy to generate a click bait headline about how bad things are by focusing on those few hotspots, but it is a lot harder to convey the more broad QOL improvements that the average resident is likely experiencing. This also explains why there hasn't been some sort of massive exodus, because most residents are not impacted by these issues.

Re: San Francisco: An Elitist Bubble Ignoring a Crime Epidemic?

#143

Post by readthenotes1 »

sylens wrote: post #29

You're seeing this everywhere. Chicago, Philadelphia, and so on - although the problem may be worse in San Francisco. Cities are struggling in the post-pandemic era as the rising cost of living due to inflation in food and other essentials has driven more criminal activity, mostly around theft. This is happening at the same time where many cities are also trying more progressive, reform-based approaches to policing a…

Would I see this in cities outside of the United States? Everywhere is not just Memphis Baltimore and Chicago....

Re: San Francisco: An Elitist Bubble Ignoring a Crime Epidemic?

#144

Post by MaxfordAndSons »

sylens wrote: post #75
rco8786 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're seeing this everywhere. Chicago, Philadelphia From what I have seen (as someone who frequents and pays attention to American cities) making this comparison is unfair to both SF and the other cities in the comparison. It's not like "crime is kinda up and SF is leading the pack", it's more like "crime is kinda up and - holy shit SF is off the charts". The problem is so much more acute in SF, and it needs to be…

That is fair - I've only seen other cities firsthand since the pandemic, not SF.

The Tenderloin in SF was a worst in class skid row area pre-pandemic; post-pandemic it is a full blown open air drug market zone, ala Hamsterdam from The Wire.

Re: San Francisco: An Elitist Bubble Ignoring a Crime Epidemic?

#145

Post by mywittyname »

dogmayor wrote: post #67
sylens wrote: post #29

You're seeing this everywhere. Chicago, Philadelphia, and so on - although the problem may be worse in San Francisco. Cities are struggling in the post-pandemic era as the rising cost of living due to inflation in food and other essentials has driven more criminal activity, mostly around theft. This is happening at the same time where many cities are also trying more progressive, reform-based approaches to policing a…

You won't get "briefly detained and released the next day" if you're caught doing the same thing every other night. And the sentence you receive in the end will be far more severe than if you only committed the one initial offense. Penalties and fines will likely erase any money you made on other nights. And oh maybe an investigation is opened to find out who has taken all these scooters, now that 50% of the time you…

Assuming the police care -- which is unlikely unless you're important. More and more, it feels like police largely care about crimes that generate revenue for them, so drug & (select) traffic enforcement. And the odd harassing people if a venue hires them for "security" at $250/hr.

Letting "real" crime go is apparently a good way to get more funding for the department. Every time I go to vote there's another measure to increase local police funding, last time it was an off-cycle vote where that was the only issue (and the voting machine I put my ballot into showed 25 votes by 7pm).

Re: San Francisco: An Elitist Bubble Ignoring a Crime Epidemic?

#146

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

Arrath wrote: post #125
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to be an unfortunate truth that private, for-profit prisons are the opposite of expensive.

How do you mean? Are you supposing they are more cost-effective that public run prisons?

I am observing that many prisons in the US are run privately by corporations for the sake of making a profit. The incarcerated people in such establishments are often given shorter sentences if they agree to perform manual labor for little to no pay. Even if the prisons are getting subsidies which make them profitable, I suspect the owners consider it to be an asset more than a liability.

Re: San Francisco: An Elitist Bubble Ignoring a Crime Epidemic?

#147

Post by wonderwonder »

tootie wrote: post #136
wonderwonder wrote: post #114

Unpopular opinion. Prisons Should really have at least twice as many occupants. If people are unable to live in a polite society and follow the rules they should be removed until they are willing to. How many times do we read about someone that killed/ raped/ assaulted someone and it's revealed they have dozens of prior arrests? Putting them back on the street constantly can only lead to their death or crimes against…

"How many times do we read" It's a known principle that crime reporting has increased far faster than actual crime. And I mean, seriously you look at 2020 and think the major story was the police had bad PR? I'm pretty sure something else pretty big happened that year.

Yes, George Floyd was killed. BLM happened. People rioted. Police stepped back as calls to defund the police began. African Americans began dying due to homicide in massively increased numbers. Did I miss anything?

Re: San Francisco: An Elitist Bubble Ignoring a Crime Epidemic?

#148

Post by MaxfordAndSons »

kyleblarson wrote: post #76
sylens wrote: post #29

You're seeing this everywhere. Chicago, Philadelphia, and so on - although the problem may be worse in San Francisco. Cities are struggling in the post-pandemic era as the rising cost of living due to inflation in food and other essentials has driven more criminal activity, mostly around theft. This is happening at the same time where many cities are also trying more progressive, reform-based approaches to policing a…

"You're seeing this everywhere. Chicago, Philadelphia, and so on - although the problem may be worse in San Francisco." I'm not sure about that. There were 53 shootings in Chicago last weekend alone.

It's an apples to oranges comparison - those cities may have worse problems with violent crime, but SF's issues with property/petty crime and drug use are off the charts.

Re: San Francisco: An Elitist Bubble Ignoring a Crime Epidemic?

#149

Post by AlbertCory »

mlsu wrote: post #141
AlbertCory wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do a little research. If you move in CA and you're over 55, you can now keep your property tax bill. Previously it was only certain counties that honored that; now it's all of them. https://www.financialplannerla.com/transfer-california-prope... > All because they happened to have bought a home before this law passed. Again, do some research. Prop 13 passed in 1978, 45 years ago. The number of current homeowners who…

27% of Californians are over 55. That means the majority do not get to have the benefit of keeping their tax bill when they move. To compound that, the most dynamic economic growth probably comes from under-55s moving, not over-55s -- new jobs, new opportunities, start a family, etc. Obviously it's good if it's easy for old people to move, but the economic value of a young family being able to move closer to a high p…

Why don't you let him defend his own statements, which have little to no foundation at all?

The only thing that would happen if Prop 13 were repealed is: all other taxes would stay the same, but that one would rise, and so would spending. That's why your arguments get no traction at all in CA.

Re: San Francisco: An Elitist Bubble Ignoring a Crime Epidemic?

#150

Post by inconceivable »

marstall wrote: post #66

I lived in SF in the late '90s and saw many of the same things people have been posting about here lately . Tweakers on every corner in the Tenderloin, intense/overwhelming-at-times homeless presence in the blocks near Mission and lower Market ... latino gangs operating in the blocks south of 14th ... I heard gunshots fired in my neighborhood (24th street) on two occasions. Anybody here experienced SF then and now? I…

i visited a lot in the 90s, lived there from 2006-2008 in pac heights/fillmore, and still visit frequently.

i think the difference now is that it's creeping into the 'nice' areas like pac heights, financial district, and russian hill, knob hill, north beach, etc.

like, seeing shattered glass all over downtown is new. massive tent cities is new.

Post reply on HN