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

Goodbye, San Francisco

yolken.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 201 posts

Re: Goodbye, San Francisco

#101

Post by whimsicalism »

kneebonian wrote: post #33
whimsicalism wrote: post #7

People should consider moving to a different neighborhood first, pretty much none of these problems apply to me where I am in lower haight SF also has way fewer drug murders than cities I have lived in on the east coast

People should have a right to feel safe and secure in their home and possessions and not have to move because the state refuses to fulfill it's function.

Sorry but I am anti- rights predicated on feeling. I can't even control my own feelings, not sure why you expect the state to be able to do so.

Re: Goodbye, San Francisco

#102

Post by jhp123 »

whimsicalism wrote: post #57
shsachdev wrote: post #37

Downtown SF (and especially OP's neighborhood of 7th/8th Mission Street) is not the place to be. It's a bit like complaining about LA and living right near downtown. Upper Market, North Beach, Hayes Valley, Valencia St, Mission Dolores, Polk Street, Upper Nob Hill, Haight Ashbury -- all fun locations. I've lived near Dolores Park for the past 15 months now and have had a great experience. I've found community, made n…

Yeah he picked probably among the worst neighborhoods to live in. I have noticed this is a recurring pattern among single male tech friends I have to move to Soma due to office proximity and then end up hating the city.

it's probably a pattern because the city government allowed more housing construction there than anywhere else.

Re: Goodbye, San Francisco

#103

Post by scarmig »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #91
yohannparis wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a city where you need to be careful about which neighbourhood to live in.

Don’t all big cities have bad neighborhoods?

SF is weird in that one block can be pretty nice, and a walk a few minutes in the wrong direction can put you in the middle of skid row. It is a rapid and jarring transition.

A night out for the unaware can start with an early dinner at a Michelin-starred restaurant in Hayes. You enjoy a performance of La Boheme at the opera, and afterwards walk across the street to look at the beautiful neoclassical architecture of City Hall lit up at night with colors of pride. You walk one more block looking for a nightcap and... What the fuck, why am I surrounded by tents, drug dealers, and someone seizing on the sidewalk from a fentanyl overdose?

Re: Goodbye, San Francisco

#104

Post by jkubicek »

rossdavidh wrote: post #46

I am interested to hear from any HN readers who live in SF, as to whether or not this sounds factually accurate.

I've never lived in SF, but I've worked and spent a lot of time in the area around the OP's home; it sounds like a pretty accurate description of one of the worst neighborhoods in the entire city.

He could walk four blocks in any direction and have a dramatically safer and more enjoyable experience.

Re: Goodbye, San Francisco

#105

Post by 238947687066782 »

I wish there was a single source of truth website that was like a status page for this whole issue.

A dashboard of the stats and what is being done about it.

From the outside it seems blatantly obvious that it's simply a lack of policing.

I really don't get the animosity of the left-wingers about police, and the way everyone has to pussy-foot around these issues. No one is having issues with police if they aren't breaking the law. This view of the police is so distorted.

The unwavering KPI of every city should be: citizen safety. This is the basic human need, and it should override every other concern.

Here is the solution:

1. You are not allowed to setup a tent on the street. You must stay in housing provided by the government outside of the city in a cheap area. You will be given free transporation there.

2. If you are a repeat offender found to be sleeping on the street, then you will be arrested, and imprisoned.

3. A mental health disorder is not an excuse. If necessary, build a jail that is a mental health treatment center.

I don't get what is so hard about this.

Just make it clear: it's illegal to sleep on the street, loiter, do drugs on the street.

What is the worst thing that happens from this policy implemented fully?

Re: Goodbye, San Francisco

#106

Post by ddoolin »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #40
maerF0x0 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's remarkably close by car, and though it was common for me when I lived in SF, I do not know many people who enjoy 2.25ish hour (round trip) walks. And doing $25 a day in ubers adds up fast too.

Those $25 Uber trips aren't necessary if you get a bike. And you don't even need to be in shape anymore with e-bikes...

How safe is your bike, even chained up, in downtown SF?

Re: Goodbye, San Francisco

#107

Post by whimsicalism »

jhp123 wrote: post #102
whimsicalism wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah he picked probably among the worst neighborhoods to live in. I have noticed this is a recurring pattern among single male tech friends I have to move to Soma due to office proximity and then end up hating the city.

it's probably a pattern because the city government allowed more housing construction there than anywhere else.

If you feel uncomfortable around homeless people, there are plenty of other areas that the city allows housing construction, like the Dogpatch area without large homeless populations. I would not necessarily recommend that area either, but it is a tradeoff.

Re: Goodbye, San Francisco

#108

Post by lotsofpulp »

realo wrote: post #98
lotsofpulp wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a non federal level, imprisoning people and hence goading them elsewhere is the only solution. No city/county/state has the resources to be able to offer healthcare or housing. Freedom of movement across the country means net benefit recipients would move in, and net payers into the system would move out.

Well... OP does mention that SF has an operating budget of 14 billion dollars per year... I am pretty sure that _something_ could be done with even a small portion of that _yearly_ ingress of capital.

It is easy to write that, but I invite anyone to pencil it out. Same situation with healthcare. "Billions" seem like a big number, until you dig into the cost of emergency heart surgery, NICU babies, cancer treatments, etc.

Note the problems you will be up against.

Homeless populations are likelier to have more mentally ill, drug addicted, and people with criminal history among them. Any people around proposed sites would be obviously opposed to any new facilities being built near them. That is why the west coast states pay $200k+ per key to buy hotels and motels and convert them to homeless shelters, because locals cannot fight it since it is already zoned for multi tenant housing.

And then you have induced demand. Taxpayers in any other place would have no problem keeping their taxes lower by paying for flights and buses to anyone who needs them to get to SF.

Re: Goodbye, San Francisco

#109

Post by orangecat »

thebooktocome wrote: post #82
lotsofpulp wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a non federal level, imprisoning people and hence goading them elsewhere is the only solution. No city/county/state has the resources to be able to offer healthcare or housing. Freedom of movement across the country means net benefit recipients would move in, and net payers into the system would move out.

Imprisonment is far more expensive than housing. SLC ran a pilot program years ago proving the concept. Of course, if one is the retributive sort, nothing grinds one’s spleen more than someone worse off getting something “they don’t deserve”. I personally don’t understand why the some exceptionally wealthy billionaire in California doesn’t solve the homelessness problem themselves, expending some mere fraction of the…

I personally don’t understand why the some exceptionally wealthy billionaire in California doesn’t solve the homelessness problem themselves

If you were an exceptionally wealthy billionaire, how would you solve it? Especially considering that the obvious approach of "build housing" is largely illegal.

Re: Goodbye, San Francisco

#110

Post by subsubzero »

whimsicalism wrote: post #57
shsachdev wrote: post #37

Downtown SF (and especially OP's neighborhood of 7th/8th Mission Street) is not the place to be. It's a bit like complaining about LA and living right near downtown. Upper Market, North Beach, Hayes Valley, Valencia St, Mission Dolores, Polk Street, Upper Nob Hill, Haight Ashbury -- all fun locations. I've lived near Dolores Park for the past 15 months now and have had a great experience. I've found community, made n…

Yeah he picked probably among the worst neighborhoods to live in. I have noticed this is a recurring pattern among single male tech friends I have to move to Soma due to office proximity and then end up hating the city.

Alot of this is due to the policy decisions of Ed Lee(ex SF mayor). He authorized tax breaks for a bevy of tech companies to operate in the tenderloin tax free(for a few years). The reason for this was to revitalize a blighted neighborhood with an infusion of highly paid tech workers. This is turn lead to a huge amount of tech employees moving to one of the worst areas in SF. Sf for sure is falling apart but I did spend some time recently in the sunset and things seemed pretty normal over there - at least in broad daylight, but everywhere else I visited was not great at all.
Post reply on HN