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

Hotel Owners Start to Write Off San Francisco as Business Nosedives

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 163 posts

Re: Hotel Owners Start to Write Off San Francisco as Business Nosedives

#141

Post by seanmcdirmid »

zoky wrote: post #22
prepend wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> run down These aren’t run down hotels. These are both rated 4.2 [0, 1] and while aren’t the greatest in the world are both Hiltons and decent hotels. The criticism doesn’t change the nature of the original article in that San Francisco is less good as it once was and as a result businesses are defaulting on pretty big things rather than invest in keeping them up. The inaccurate language seems to have a “everything’…

The hotels may or may not be themselves run down, but there's also the neighborhood to consider, especially when you're talking about San Francisco. I know someone who used to travel to SF for work a lot, like 10-12 times a year. He had a favorite hotel there that was a block and a half away from his office. But every single time, he'd rent a car, just to drive from the underground parking at his hotel to the undergr…

Even through the worst parts of SF (hello caltrain station to the convention center), I never felt in danger when walking while visiting. Maybe this guy was a hypochondriac or something? I'm guessing some other factor was at play.

Re: Hotel Owners Start to Write Off San Francisco as Business Nosedives

#142

Post by seanmcdirmid »

dismantlethesun wrote: post #108
freediverx wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe instead of complaining about homeless people we should complain about how capitalism creates homelessness.

Why is capitalism only creating homeless encampments in San Fran and not generally in the US? Maybe it’s not capitalism at fault here but a government that is unwilling or unable to supply standard social safety nets like homeless shelters and addiction therapy.

> San Fran and not generally in the US

SF attracts homeless from all over the US, given its mild weather (great for living outside) and generous social services. It has been like that forever also, you can watch old movies from the 1920s about hobos jumping trains to get to SF (or LA, or Seattle, or Portland, or even Vancouver BC, choose any of the west coast cities, all for similar reasons).

People have freedom of movement in the USA, and they mostly take advantage of it.

> Maybe it’s not capitalism at fault here but a government that is unwilling or unable to supply standard social safety nets like homeless shelters and addiction therapy.

The issue is then how do you prevent one locality from having their resources swamped fixing what is really a national problem. SF can't fix the nations problems, so its voters/tax payers get jaded really quickly.

Re: Hotel Owners Start to Write Off San Francisco as Business Nosedives

#143

Post by seanmcdirmid »

rsynnott wrote: post #94
dougmwne wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does “that bad” even mean? Like in some kind of relative sense, people still live there and go about their lives. Some of the things that made it a popular and pleasant city are intact. In an absolute sense, if you were to compare SF with Zurich, you would conclude that it’s a lawless mad max anarchy.

I mean, you could say that of practically anywhere compared to Zurich.

Comparing Lausanne to Zurich might be more apt, but it is still true.

Re: Hotel Owners Start to Write Off San Francisco as Business Nosedives

#144

Post by seanmcdirmid »

courseofaction wrote: post #23
xrd wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's going to be interesting with the new ordinance to outlaw camping from dawn to sundown. If you camp during those hours, you face jail time. The theory is probably that this will separate hard core drug users from homeless people who aren't willing to go into a shelter. That'll be an interesting experiment.

A cruel experiment that will neither relieve suffering nor address its cause. America is insane.

How is outlawing camping during the day in the city "cruel and insane"?

Re: Hotel Owners Start to Write Off San Francisco as Business Nosedives

#145

Post by [deleted] »

briandear wrote: post #72
pixel3234 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not SROs! Hotels should be fully compensated at commercial rate! Maybe slight discount for long term stay could be negotiated. Even $500 per night would be cheaper than current policy!

You want taxpayers to pay $500 per night for homeless? I would be furious to be paying confiscatory taxes and have those taxes go to literally putting zombie drug addicts in hotels. Very unfair to those of us that work hard to pay all those taxes. Perhaps build work camps in the Mojave instead and ship them there. Start making intentional homelessness arduous and you’ll see less of it. Prosecute illegal drug dealing…

[deleted]

Re: Hotel Owners Start to Write Off San Francisco as Business Nosedives

#146

Post by archagon »

briandear wrote: post #72
pixel3234 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not SROs! Hotels should be fully compensated at commercial rate! Maybe slight discount for long term stay could be negotiated. Even $500 per night would be cheaper than current policy!

You want taxpayers to pay $500 per night for homeless? I would be furious to be paying confiscatory taxes and have those taxes go to literally putting zombie drug addicts in hotels. Very unfair to those of us that work hard to pay all those taxes. Perhaps build work camps in the Mojave instead and ship them there. Start making intentional homelessness arduous and you’ll see less of it. Prosecute illegal drug dealing…

That’s an insane way to think about your fellow human beings. “Dump them in the desert?” Really? (Sadly not uncommon, though.)

Re: Hotel Owners Start to Write Off San Francisco as Business Nosedives

#147

Post by trilbyglens »

freediverx wrote: post #102
HlessClaudesman wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Getting accosted several homeless people in a short stretch feels unsafe, especially to the sort of out of towner who is not inured to it, in a way that driving does not. Both have a very low risk per unit of travel, but in the moment we have no way of qualitatively measuring that risk. I stayed in SF for a few nights, it was pretty shocking to me the amount of homeless people (euphemism creep: temporarily unhoused)…

Maybe instead of complaining about homeless people we should complain about how capitalism creates homelessness.

Agreed, but we should also also talk about how the social left basically got mental institutions shut down in the 80s, and how there is literally no place to put people who are unable to mentally deal with life in america.

Mentally ill people are a massive part of the homeless population and we basically just yeet them out on to the street.

Re: Hotel Owners Start to Write Off San Francisco as Business Nosedives

#148

Post by mc32 »

archagon wrote: post #146
briandear wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You want taxpayers to pay $500 per night for homeless? I would be furious to be paying confiscatory taxes and have those taxes go to literally putting zombie drug addicts in hotels. Very unfair to those of us that work hard to pay all those taxes. Perhaps build work camps in the Mojave instead and ship them there. Start making intentional homelessness arduous and you’ll see less of it. Prosecute illegal drug dealing…

That’s an insane way to think about your fellow human beings. “Dump them in the desert?” Really? (Sadly not uncommon, though.)

It does not have to be a desert, it could be Manteca[1]. lots of people live and work in Manteca and call it home. If there would be people eligible who are productive (taking classes, working, providing care for someone) then we could keep them in SF, else, we need to be able to provide them affordable (to the city/taxpayers) shelter and recovery services in facilities set up for that and there is no reason Manteca could not be such a place.

[1]Manteca, Stockton, Modesto, Fresno, etc.

Re: Hotel Owners Start to Write Off San Francisco as Business Nosedives

#149

Post by archagon »

mc32 wrote: post #148
archagon wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s an insane way to think about your fellow human beings. “Dump them in the desert?” Really? (Sadly not uncommon, though.)

It does not have to be a desert, it could be Manteca[1]. lots of people live and work in Manteca and call it home. If there would be people eligible who are productive (taking classes, working, providing care for someone) then we could keep them in SF, else, we need to be able to provide them affordable (to the city/taxpayers) shelter and recovery services in facilities set up for that and there is no reason Manteca…

So we just keep passing the buck? Where do they get dumped when Manteca does not want them?

(Not that there’s any point in discussing this in the first place, since it will never actually happen.)

Re: Hotel Owners Start to Write Off San Francisco as Business Nosedives

#150

Post by mc32 »

archagon wrote: post #149
mc32 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does not have to be a desert, it could be Manteca[1]. lots of people live and work in Manteca and call it home. If there would be people eligible who are productive (taking classes, working, providing care for someone) then we could keep them in SF, else, we need to be able to provide them affordable (to the city/taxpayers) shelter and recovery services in facilities set up for that and there is no reason Manteca…

So we just keep passing the buck? Where do they get dumped when Manteca does not want them? (Not that there’s any point in discussing this in the first place, since it will never actually happen.)

It's cheaper to operate in Manteca. That's the point. Paying 500/night for just shelter doesn't make sense. It could be in an unincorporated area. These people need shelter, supervision and treatment till they get better.
Post reply on HN