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

181–190 of 229 posts

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

#181

Post by labcomputer »

vondur wrote: post #81
marsten wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're a new California homeowner, I recommend you never look up what others on your street pay in property tax.

I wonder how many of the non business properties are still under Prop 13? I can't imagine it would be that many at this point. Business property can probably be held in some sort of trust so it appears to never have changed hands over the years.

Lots. You can inherit prop 13 rates from your parents or grandparents.

It’s a completely sick system that is literally creating a landed gentry

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

#182

Post by DoreenMichele »

david38 wrote: post #180
DoreenMichele wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of city residents need to come to terms with the fact that some of these progressive criminal justice reforms may need to be adjusted a bit, given that we now have years of evidence of their effects. And/or: We need to make affordable housing available, make a car-optional lifestyle more viable, etc. "The beatings shall continue until morale improves" isn't an effective approach to anything, especially since if…

Right, because all these brazen thieves have a right to do that because housing is expensive.

No. They don't have any such right.

But if you design a world where it's more punishing to play by the rules than to break them, some people will break them.

That's just reality.

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

#183

Post by ryandrake »

alexb_ wrote: post #72
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is driving people to steal the scooters if not the need to pay for food and housing?

Money? Plenty of people exist that lack any sort of empathy, and theft is just a risk vs reward calculation. If there's no punishment for getting caught, and reward for not getting caught, then you should always take that gamble. When you completely eliminate all social trust in a society, all empathy is lost and theft just becomes a mathematical equation of risk and reward.

> When you completely eliminate all social trust in a society, all empathy is lost and theft just becomes a mathematical equation of risk and reward.

Almost exactly like how corporations operate. If the profit for doing XYZ is greater than the probability of getting caught times the expected penalty, you do XYZ.

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

#184

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

lanstin wrote: post #122
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, most people move to a city for a job - not because they think the average person that lives there is some aspirational target. SF had an abundance of jobs that paid a boat load of money, and people moved there to take those jobs. Not because it's close to Muir Woods and has the best weather in the world, and the people at cafes wear cool t-shirts (although nearly everyone who moves to SF tries their hardest to co…

Problem is a lot of people already in SF where not there for tech jobs, but beauty, art, banking, social movements, good industrial work, fishing/canning jobs, all that sort of thing. The unusually high software/tech related salaries have somewhat diminished the ability of the other folks to enjoy the lifestyles they previously enjoyed.

> The unusually high software/tech related salaries have somewhat diminished the ability of the other folks to enjoy the lifestyles they previously enjoyed.

Absolutely false.

The refusal of NIMBYists to allow anything to get built which pushed housing costs to infinity is what pushed everyone out w/o a top-1% paying job.

Not that the Bay created a bunch of high paying jobs.

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

#185

Post by ryandrake »

simonsaysso wrote: post #55
f1yght wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you age out of having amenities closer to you? If anything, as you get older things should be even closer.

I would agree in principle, but from experience it seems people are less interested in the energy of the city as they age and acquire more things, and prioritize building their own space around them instead of utilizing the city around them.

Bingo. To someone like me, the "energy of the city" is a severe down-side. I don't want "energy" in my life. I don't care about "amenities". I don't want to hear my neighbors music, or smell their cooking, or deal with their drama. Where I live now, working from home, I could go an entire week without seeing another living soul, and it's wonderful. I value the ability to sit on my porch with a beer, hear nothing but birds and crickets and the stream behind my property gurgling away, smell nothing but the trees, and see nothing but the sunset.

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

#186

Post by Manuel_D »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #182
david38 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, because all these brazen thieves have a right to do that because housing is expensive.

No. They don't have any such right . But if you design a world where it's more punishing to play by the rules than to break them, some people will break them. That's just reality.

Thus, punishing breakage of the rules more severely would lead to fewer people breaking the rules. As per your reasoning, to reduce crime we have to make breaking the rules more punishing than abiding by them.

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

#187

Post by xrikcus »

Dig1t wrote: post #22
belfalas wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A great history professor I had at university was very interested in California politics. His take after years of research was that the thing holding California back is Prop 13, which has to do with taxation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13 Dear HNers, please note: I understand Prop 13 is hugely controversial and the "third rail" of California politics. I don't have a dog in this fight, I…

Is the argument basically just "arg if only we could collect even more taxes we could use the money to fix all our problems"? California already has super high taxes that are skewed towards taxing the rich more. Seems like a joke at this point saying that they need even higher taxes. Also California's system of propositions is one of the closest forms of direct democracy available anywhere, if you like democracy then…

The taxes are skewed towards the rich, but also towards people who want to move for work. It's a wealth transfer towards the asset rich and immobile from the workers and the mobile. It's the economic distortion that's the problem as much as the lower taxation, but certainly part of it is shifting the taxes even more heavily onto the high income earners.

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

#188

Post by DoreenMichele »

Manuel_D wrote: post #186
DoreenMichele wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. They don't have any such right . But if you design a world where it's more punishing to play by the rules than to break them, some people will break them. That's just reality.

Thus, punishing breakage of the rules more severely would lead to fewer people breaking the rules. As per your reasoning, to reduce crime we have to make breaking the rules more punishing than abiding by them.

If you go far enough down that path, you get a world where people break them anyway and get better at covering up and more people look the other way.

Prohibition did not put a stop to people drinking. It just helped make organized crime rich and powerful as ordinary people continued to drink, didn't want to die from bathtub gin being poisonous and crime lords were the only reliable source of safe alcohol.

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

#189

Post by ajmurmann »

Manuel_D wrote: post #59
f1yght wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you age out of having amenities closer to you? If anything, as you get older things should be even closer.

Many of those amenities are not as relevant when you're older. Easy access to bars, restaurants, and clubs is not as important as a larger home and good school districts when you're a parent, for example. Access to things like healthcare, grocery stores, and target are not any more difficult and often easier to access in suburbs. Basically, people's priorities change and the optimal living situation changes according…

"good school districts"

This point seems to be mostly American and a result of how schools get financed in the US and not inherent to cities. Schools being financed by very small areas they are located in is exacerbating the divide between poor and wealthy neighborhoods for no real reason. In contrast, when I grew up in Germany, kids had to commute from the suburbs and villages to the city to attend a really good school.

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

#190

Post by ajmurmann »

AYBABTME wrote: post #70
fundad wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are in denial about aging out of city living.

Maybe in America, but I don't think this trend is true elsewhere. Cities are very convenient (and safe) for families and elders in many countries.

To add to your point: The way we push people into the suburbs in the US leads to more loneliness for adults. If I want to meet up with friends, we usually all have to drive, regardless where we meet because nobody has a pub or restaurant or place where we could do any activity together near their homes. The only exception is one friend who lives in the city proper, but he lives across town, so everyone else has to drive extra far. In contrast, my friends in European cities seem quite happy living in the city proper, sometimes with kids, and they'll just meet with friends and family for brunch on the weekends and can walk or take public transit.
Post reply on HN