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

The Street Kids of San Francisco

blog.priceonomics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 210 posts

Re: The Street Kids of San Francisco

#41

Post by peterwwillis »

ry0ohki wrote: post #12

"Our initial hypothesis was that life on Haight Street would be a grim, Dickensian hellhole. Instead, we discovered a world of misunderstood, modern-day nomads, blithely toeing the line between poverty, drug dealing, and hippy nirvana." We had to interview homeless people in DC as part of a college project, and found something similar. I think the common perception is that homeless people are just people like you and…

This simplifies the general problem of homelessness, which in reality makes up a large number of people in drastically different situations. Some are families, some are mentally ill, some are sex offenders or felons, some are career homeless, etc. DC's homeless are pretty tame compared to those you'd encounter in Florida, for example.

The article was a neat little look into a single park's homeless culture, but it can be really rough if you wander into the wrong park or alley. Or just taking a bus.

Re: The Street Kids of San Francisco

#42

Post by s_baby »

teebs wrote: post #20
politician wrote: post #7

The legalization of marijuana will utterly destroy this community. From the article, it sounds like weed facilitates a significant part of the economy as both a trade good and a consumable while LSD is a luxury item and hard drugs are not tolerated. Cheap weed will probably induce a net loss of value (that being the value of knowing how to procure it, and trading that value).

It's fascinating that these kids are the opposite of the usual drug dealer stereotype. Based on my limited knowledge, drugs (in particular marijuana) trace back to either small individual growers, medical marijuana patients, or a gang or cartel. (As far as I know, LSD is very difficult to produce because of its highly regulated precursors. Only a few people in the world produce LSD, and they probably sell it to gangs…

Most American LSD is distributed through the "Rainbow Family" distribution network. Basically the same people you see on the streets of San Francisco. It's a stretch calling these people a gang. It has zero connection to drugs like heroin, cocaine, and meth.

Re: The Street Kids of San Francisco

#43

Post by rdouble »

edmundhuber wrote: post #37
nthitz wrote: post #17

Went for a walk through this area about two weeks ago. As you near the park, lot of dealers pop up. In the park, on every corner of the paths people offered to sell me drugs. Marijuana, LSD, Mushrooms were all offered. I could sense different groups competing for territory in the park. I felt uncomfortable.

If you live here, you have to harden yourself against constant harassment for money and offers of drugs, and you have to get used to stepping around garbage and shit in the street. As much as SF should strive to be tolerant, at a certain point it must be recognized that if you don't want to be taken advantage of, as I believe is the case here for "authentic" residents of Haight-Ashbury, i.e. people who pay local taxe…

In 2006-2008 the crusties formed a gauntlet between Cole and Clayton on Haight. They were rude and aggressive and always had at least one rottweiler or pit bull. The locals and tourists could not stand them and the only reason they lasted as long as they did was because they were white. Eventually everyone got too fed up which is why the no sit laws were passed.

Re: The Street Kids of San Francisco

#44

Post by lutusp »

nbroyal wrote: post #36
lutusp wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When I think about the fact that someone whose family "owns a major medevac company" is taking up space at a shelter or panhandling on the street, I get really frustrated. Just to play the devil's advocate, given a spoiled kid of wealthy parents on the threshold of adulthood, would you prefer he stay in the ivory tower, or experience the raw life of the street, even if only as a lifestyle tourist? As it happens, th…

I see that as a false dichotomy. There are many other options between staying in the ivory tower and playing homeless.

> There are many other options between staying in the ivory tower and playing homeless.

Yes, there are. But one advantage of "playing homeless" is that you might run into actual homeless people and find out about their lives.

Re: The Street Kids of San Francisco

#45

Post by jquery »

learc83 wrote: post #14
michaelochurch wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're a biased set, in that most of us have, at least, the option for mentally stimulating work. As fucked as the software industry is, it's better than most other places. Most of them are choosing one (purportedly, although I think I'm right that neither of us has tried it) brain-dead lifestyle over another one. That's why I get irked when people talk about housewives becoming "braindead" from being outside of the e…

>That's why I get irked when people talk about housewives becoming "braindead" from being outside of the economy. Every housewife I know has some kind of mentally stimulating hobby, and most of them make some amount of income from it (photography, crafts etc...). In fact most of them shouldn't really be called "housewives" any more than male remote programmers should be called "househusbands".

Let's get real, most homemakers are simply indulging their bourgeois fantasies. Not that I blame them, I'd do the same thing if I thought I could get away with it, but I'd probably get served divorce papers.

Re: The Street Kids of San Francisco

#46

Post by SilasX »

angersock wrote: post #18

Anybody remember the article a few days ago with the author complaining about the Google bus and the invasion of tech folks into the Bay Area and how they weren't improving the community? And how a lot of people were like "Hey, well, it's putting wealth into helping San Francisco!". Well, how's this fit into that calculus?

Probably in the "pearls before swine" sense. Long-time natives just don't appreciate how much the influx of tech folks is improving things, nor how few cities would love to have such a "problem".

Re: The Street Kids of San Francisco

#47

Post by rza »

But in a city that lionizes entrepreneurs who sacrifice everything to create the next big thing, there is something admirable about the street kids’ total embrace of drugs, freedom, and a lifestyle that society scorns.

This. In an isolated society of highways and McMansions where it's taboo to converse with random strangers, what the world needs now is not the next big social iPhone app, but a stronger sense of community, which we could learn a thing or two from these 'kids'.

Re: The Street Kids of San Francisco

#48

Post by dorkrawk »

lutusp wrote: post #35
nbroyal wrote: post #30

I don't want to be insensitive, but some of these individuals' behavior smacks of privilege. When I think about the fact that someone whose family "owns a major medevac company" is taking up space at a shelter or panhandling on the street, I get really frustrated. These are resources that should be used by those who are really down on their luck and have no other option, not someone/some group who wants to live out t…

> When I think about the fact that someone whose family "owns a major medevac company" is taking up space at a shelter or panhandling on the street, I get really frustrated. Just to play the devil's advocate, given a spoiled kid of wealthy parents on the threshold of adulthood, would you prefer he stay in the ivory tower, or experience the raw life of the street, even if only as a lifestyle tourist? As it happens, th…

I've been fortunate enough to live a comfortable life, but I was able to get some experience living on the street through a volunteer project I did in college working with the homeless in Washington DC. We spent the first 48 hours of our time in DC living on the street with no money. We slept in a church parking lot for 2 nights in snowy weather. We then donated all of our panhandling money not spent on food for those 2 days to the homelessness organization we were working with and spent the rest of the time volunteering in soup kitchens and raising awareness about an upcoming bill regarding homelessness. That certainly changed my perspective on things AND I was able to provide a net benefit for the organizations that help people on the streets.

Sure, living on the streets for 2 days isn't the same as living there for 2 years but there are ways to get perspective without being an unnecessary drain on a system already spread thin.

Re: The Street Kids of San Francisco

#49

Post by rasengan0 »

I too enjoyed the article having volunteered at HAFMC and seeing so many on need. That was decades ago, but I've often wondered when the wandering quest winds down, what became of their experience? The article hints at the Elders but I suspect that is the minority. Would be interesting to see a Up series a la Micheal Apted

Re: The Street Kids of San Francisco

#50

Post by dewitt »

dewitt wrote: post #40

Like another commenter on this thread, I've lived in the Haight for the past nine years. And while the article is interesting and informative, it doesn't quite paint a full picture (literally—the pictures aren't representative, that girl is not a typical street kid by a long shot, she hasn't slept a day outside in her life. Think camo and combat boots and pit bulls, not peace signs and hacky sacks) of the underside o…

And judging from the other comments, people who have no first-hand exposure to this enviroment are simply eating the article up, believing they have the full story. I'd invite anyone who is prepared to generalize about street kid culture based on this one article alone to spend just one /evening/ walking around Haight and Stanyan. Head into the park a ways.

You don't have to go more than 50 yards. I guarantee you take back many of the things you've said on this thread.

Post reply on HN