San Francisco Residents Are Leaving at an Unprecedented Rate • Hacker News Board

Re: San Francisco Residents Are Leaving at an Unprecedented Rate

#111

Post by fosk » Wed, May 06, 2020, 12:53 AM UTC

renewiltord wrote: post #85

fosk wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So - as a result of your logic - you suggest that we allow crime and illegal aliens? We know it does make an impact because the police department regularly arrests them (since they cause negativities in the community) and regularly the courts release them so that they can go back to the same street corner to keep selling death. San Francisco truly is a law-less place.

You get rid of illegal immigrants on the street and you won't move the needle on crime. Listen, I'm not interested in you blowing my money on vanity projects.

We have been blowing up hundreds of millions of dollars on existing vanity projects for 40 years [1] we might as well try something new and - perhaps - enforce some law and order in a lawless and dangerous city.

None of the existing policies are helping moving the needle on crime, while arresting drug dealers and deporting illegal aliens that perform criminal activities will help with the goal of having less criminals and less drugs in the streets.

My son - native San Franciscan - dodges needles every day at the park. What happens if he gets hurt or catches a disease? Do you think this is the future he deserves? Criminals belong to prison.

[1] - https://sf.curbed.com/2019/12/19/21027974/san-francisco-home...

Re: San Francisco Residents Are Leaving at an Unprecedented Rate

#112

Post by RickJWagner » Wed, May 06, 2020, 1:52 AM UTC

Layoffs, VC defunding, poop on the streets and city-corona troubles.

Yes, I can totally understand a strong outflow. (But in a little while it might be time to buy in. I believe someday SF will again be a desirable place to live.)

Re: San Francisco Residents Are Leaving at an Unprecedented Rate

#113

Post by renewiltord » Wed, May 06, 2020, 2:20 AM UTC

fosk wrote: post #111

renewiltord wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You get rid of illegal immigrants on the street and you won't move the needle on crime. Listen, I'm not interested in you blowing my money on vanity projects.

We have been blowing up hundreds of millions of dollars on existing vanity projects for 40 years [1] we might as well try something new and - perhaps - enforce some law and order in a lawless and dangerous city. None of the existing policies are helping moving the needle on crime, while arresting drug dealers and deporting illegal aliens that perform criminal activities will help with the goal of having less criminal…

Listen, you think you're on the opposite side of the guy with one vanity project by coming up with another vanity project but ultimately, to me, you guys are both just vanity project spenders who want to use someone else's money on random things that make you feel like you did something. I'm not interested in budgeting to your ego.

No thank you. Depending on cost + externalities, I'm okay with some number of criminals not being in prison.

Re: San Francisco Residents Are Leaving at an Unprecedented Rate

#114

Post by hellisothers » Wed, May 06, 2020, 4:53 AM UTC

dllthomas wrote: post #94

einpoklum wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they are making a year-on-year relative analysis, so even for a non-representative sample, you can identify a strong trend.

Maybe it's a demographic shift between people who don't use their platform and those who do.

Or that people moving into the city/state are paying moving services while those leaving are DIY moving.

Re: San Francisco Residents Are Leaving at an Unprecedented Rate

#115

Post by fosk » Wed, May 06, 2020, 5:06 AM UTC

renewiltord wrote: post #113

fosk wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have been blowing up hundreds of millions of dollars on existing vanity projects for 40 years [1] we might as well try something new and - perhaps - enforce some law and order in a lawless and dangerous city. None of the existing policies are helping moving the needle on crime, while arresting drug dealers and deporting illegal aliens that perform criminal activities will help with the goal of having less criminal…

Listen, you think you're on the opposite side of the guy with one vanity project by coming up with another vanity project but ultimately, to me, you guys are both just vanity project spenders who want to use someone else's money on random things that make you feel like you did something. I'm not interested in budgeting to your ego. No thank you. Depending on cost + externalities, I'm okay with some number of criminal…

> I'm okay with some number of criminals not being in prison.

And this right here is what’s wrong with San Francisco. You literally support death and crime on what - over the years - costed (and still costs) the city billions of dollars and countless of dead bodies with no tangible results and yet living in a lawful society - like the rest of the world does - is somehow too expensive for you?

The FBI even arrested the guy in charge of the homeless budget for corruption a few months ago (Nuru Mohammed, our dear mayor London Breed's ex-boyfriend, who also used the city funds to pay for Breed’s personal car repairs), and yet all is fine. I guess we don’t put criminals in prison, we elect them: the San Francisco way.

In the meantime people die, but it is an acceptable externality. Cruelty at its finest.

Re: San Francisco Residents Are Leaving at an Unprecedented Rate

#116

Post by shp0ngle » Wed, May 06, 2020, 9:13 AM UTC

Beefin wrote: post #27

shp0ngle wrote: post #7

I know this is hacker news nitpicking, but moveBuddha is incredibly disrespectful name for a company to actual buddhists.

isn't one of the core tenants of buddhism to seek enlightenment through non-reaction? It'd be ironic if they were indeed offended by this name. I don't think the name or intent behind the name contains any malice either. look beyond the surface and understand the intent. Are they intending malice? yes thats offensive, if not then carry on and stop signaling :)

I am married to a Buddhist. Shit like this is always offensive to her. Using the Divine Teacher to sell random stuff.

That's why actual buddhist countries absolutely ban this sort of thing. (Try to name something after Buddha in Thailand or Sri Lanka.)

They are using religious and holy words for their benefit.

I personally do not care that much, since I am not a buddhist.

Re: San Francisco Residents Are Leaving at an Unprecedented Rate

#117

Post by shp0ngle » Wed, May 06, 2020, 9:14 AM UTC

Reedx wrote: post #45

shp0ngle wrote: post #7

I know this is hacker news nitpicking, but moveBuddha is incredibly disrespectful name for a company to actual buddhists.

Are you the spokesperson for actual buddhists?

I am very close to many, although I am not one.

Re: San Francisco Residents Are Leaving at an Unprecedented Rate

#118

Post by shp0ngle » Wed, May 06, 2020, 9:15 AM UTC

paxys wrote: post #32

shp0ngle wrote: post #7

I know this is hacker news nitpicking, but moveBuddha is incredibly disrespectful name for a company to actual buddhists.

Why? Is the name offensive in any way?

Because it uses a religious and holy figure to sell something banal.

Try to imagine naming moving service "movingJesus" in a deeply Christian country, for example.

Re: San Francisco Residents Are Leaving at an Unprecedented Rate

#119

Post by asdff » Wed, May 06, 2020, 6:42 PM UTC

fosk wrote: post #13

> But there are many reasons why the region could finally be experiencing a shrinking population: And yet the author is missing the elephant in the room: the incredibly deteriorating living conditions in a city crammed with drug addicts, human feces and casual violent aggressions at all hours of the day. A city that enables the "homeless lifestyle" without any accountability. Homelessness is - for the most part in Sa…

One of the facets of the Boise decision which made it legal to camp on sidewalks in the Western United States is that you can make sidewalk camping illegal if you have sufficient shelter space. If you live in SF or anywhere else with homeless issues, and are tired of the status quo, the only solution that will ever work is building shelters and building mental health facilities. The decision for a camper would therefore be, spend a night in a shelter with social workers, move to a mental health treatment facility if they are mentally unsound or addicted so substances, or go to jail. The only way out is to build your way out, which is why opposition to shelter construction is so soooo stupid and morally abhorrent.

Re: San Francisco Residents Are Leaving at an Unprecedented Rate

#120

Post by asdff » Wed, May 06, 2020, 6:50 PM UTC

voldacar wrote: post #72

fosk wrote: post #13

> But there are many reasons why the region could finally be experiencing a shrinking population: And yet the author is missing the elephant in the room: the incredibly deteriorating living conditions in a city crammed with drug addicts, human feces and casual violent aggressions at all hours of the day. A city that enables the "homeless lifestyle" without any accountability. Homelessness is - for the most part in Sa…

As someone who has never lived in SF but vaguely heard of their issues with homelessness, that article is super eye-opening. It talks about city bureaucrats and homeless advocacy organizations, but not so much the attitude of the general public. Aren't democracies supposed to have feedback loops that will eventually solve this problem? If they haven't gotten there already, at what point will the general SF citizenry…

The feedback loop works if you assume most people's opinions are rooted in facts. They are often not grounded in reality, especially at the local political level where awful inflammatory opinions readily circulate on social networks like nextdoor and Facebook. People in SF and other cities frequently oppose construction of homeless shelters, with the thinking that this will attract homeless to the area and make the situation worse. Guess what, the homeless are already there, that's why that site in particular was chosen for the potential shelter. At least in LA, when a shelter goes up, cleanings in the area happen much more frequently and it becomes a less attractive place to camp if you need to move all of your things every day. People don't bother reading the details of these plans to see these things.

This degenerate logic against shelter construction ignores the fact that the only alternative to not building shelters and mental health facilities is to allow the homeless population to grow and fester and continue to trash the streets, since thankfully we are not a society that just removes undesirables from existence.