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

Trends in the San Francisco (mostly dog?) poop crisis

renthop.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 257 posts

Re: Trends in the San Francisco (mostly dog?) poop crisis

#141

Post by paggle »

undersuit wrote: post #132
paggle wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why on earth wouldn't you want toilets for the homeless to have enough privacy for a drug deal? The alternative is having the drug deals done in public where I and my kids have to see it happen.

What's wrong with exchanging money and goods that you need to shield your children from? What about the events that happen after, injections of said goods?

Yes, you're right, which is why when I lived in the city I lived away from neighborhoods where that kind of stuff happened, when that activity came to my neighborhood I moved out of the city. The city didn't seem to want to move the drug dealers and users, so I had to move myself.

Re: Trends in the San Francisco (mostly dog?) poop crisis

#142

Post by J5892 »

KingMachiavelli wrote: post #41
frostyj wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that can be discovered and rescued, but not if they just shoot in a cubicle that no one even knows they are there I guess. That's the only(?) explanation on why SF closed up all public restrooms on Market street

> that can be discovered and rescued, I don't know if anyone would describe being thrown in an American prison 'rescued'.

I assume he meant given medical attention if they overdose.

Re: Trends in the San Francisco (mostly dog?) poop crisis

#143

Post by standardUser »

paulddraper wrote: post #138
umeshunni wrote: post #83

More broadly, the San Francisco livability crisis is out of control. Poop is only a visible and easily disagreeable symptom of the broader problem. The local government can patch symptoms of the problem but some of them (housing, mental health, opioid epidemic) are state-level or national problems that the local government have very little power or ability to solve. Some of the law and order issues are issues the loc…

> state-level or national problems Sincere question: Why does San Francisco seem to be the only one with those news stories (not NYC, LA, Chicago, Miami, etc.)?

There's plenty of attention on the same topic in LA, Seattle, Portland etc. Basically anywhere the climate (political and weather) is favorable for living in a tent on the sidewalk year round.

Re: Trends in the San Francisco (mostly dog?) poop crisis

#144

Post by danschumann »

dividedbyzero wrote: post #47
danschumann wrote: post #13

You could actually enforce the laws and put people in safe jails with better living conditions than they have now, outside the city limits. It seems like being more and more lenient is not a solution to a problem getting worse and worse.

Put homeless people in jails? For being homeless?

There are plenty of things that are bad for the public health that have been decriminalized... drug use, public defecation, etc. If they simple enforced the laws, they'd have reason to have people stop living on the streets (where they have no reason to be), and start living in places set up to handle them ( asylums, jails, shelters, whatever you want to call it ).

Re: Trends in the San Francisco (mostly dog?) poop crisis

#145

Post by danschumann »

jessaustin wrote: post #45
malvosenior wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity why is that not a solution? Why is it inherently better for them to live on the streets of SF than someplace with running water and electricity? It's also obviously better for the citizens of SF to not have to deal with human feces, dirty needles and massive amounts of property crime (at the least). There's tons of empty space in the US, it seems reasonable to move people who are breaking the law, ca…

You can't keep humans in place, who don't want to stay in place. If you paid some benighted town in the Great Plains $500/head to accept your homeless, that town would just buy each transplanted San Francisco resident a sandwich and a bus ticket, pocketing the rest. It would soon become a joke on SF streets, "yeah I just got back from Nebraska!"

You can't tread on the citizens of San Fran who are doing nothing wrong, but must put up with the problems caused by other people who have no reason to be there, who are doing illegal acts without punishment like drug use and public defecation.

Re: Trends in the San Francisco (mostly dog?) poop crisis

#146

Post by chipotle_coyote »

weberc2 wrote: post #108
ng12 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not at all a SF problem, it's a metropolitan city problem. NYC, Boston, Denver, Austin, Boise, both Portlands, etc all have the same housing crisis. The truth is well-paying (i.e. middle class) jobs are coalescing in a small number of cities which have failed to adapt to the growth. As a software engineer this means I can either make great money in one of the aforementioned cities or a fraction of it in an "off-…

> It's not at all a SF problem, it's a metropolitan city problem. NYC, Boston, Denver, Austin, Boise, both Portlands, etc all have the same housing crisis. I was responding to the claim that it's a state- or national-level problem. Perhaps you would argue that this meets some criteria for being a 'national-level' problem, but it's not obvious to me.

It isn't necessarily obvious, but in some ways that's because the San Francisco Bay area is such an outlier that it's easy to miss how fast housing costs in metro areas around the country have been rising relative to salaries. The median home value in Sacramento, for instance, is $330K, compared to San Francisco's staggering $1.3M -- but the home price in San Francisco in November 2011 was $633K, whereas in Sacramento it was $183K. (This is according to Zillow, and I picked those points because they're about the lowest points in the last eight years, just before the CA housing market had started to recover.) Housing prices in Sacramento have been going up slightly faster than they have in San Francisco -- and they're not flooded with techies making $200K+ annual salaries. (Granted, there are some techies from here who are probably willing to commute from there at this point.)

And this isn't just a California thing.

"Home prices are rising at twice the wage of growth." https://www.curbed.com/2019/5/15/18617763/affordable-housing...

"Low-cost housing is disappearing from the market." https://www.huffpost.com/entry/housing-crisis-inequality-har...

You can find a lot of these articles around without much effort.

Re: Trends in the San Francisco (mostly dog?) poop crisis

#147

Post by danschumann »

dfcagency wrote: post #49
jessaustin wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't keep humans in place, who don't want to stay in place. If you paid some benighted town in the Great Plains $500/head to accept your homeless, that town would just buy each transplanted San Francisco resident a sandwich and a bus ticket, pocketing the rest. It would soon become a joke on SF streets, "yeah I just got back from Nebraska!"

I stopped replying because it's just classic entitled NIMBY-ism happening here. You're not going to get through to them.

It's more like "why are they downtown?" they have no good reason to be there, and many bad things they're doing which are already illegal. It's not really nimby if i live in the midwest and am just scratching my head like.. "that dude is doing drugs in front of a cop in that video, why isn't the copy arresting him?" Is that compassion? Lol

Re: Trends in the San Francisco (mostly dog?) poop crisis

#148

Post by gojomo »

LoSboccacc wrote: post #88
11235813213455 wrote: post #82

The problem is not so much their poop, it's the pets themselves. For example, in USA, 25% of the meat production is meant for pets [1], it's huge, given also that meat production is not environmental-friendly. The whole pets products industry is really large, there are maybe close to 1 billion pets worldwide. Other example, cats affect negatively ecosystems (birds, little reptiles, some important insects, ..) My prop…

this went from being environmentally sensitive to culling species wholesale real fast remember last time we culled cats what happened?

I don't "remember" what happened last time "we" culled cats, so what happened?

(If you're alluding to the idea that the "black death" plagues were worsened by cat culls, that's an oft-repeated story but somewhat dubious with regard to verifiable facts. Cats themselves can carry the plague bacteria & transmit it to humans – eg https://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/08/us/house-cats-spread-huma... – and even regions where cats are superstitiously cherished suffered repeated plague outbreaks.)

Re: Trends in the San Francisco (mostly dog?) poop crisis

#149

Post by danschumann »

jessaustin wrote: post #94
malvosenior wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's entirely reasonable to not want human feces and strung out addicts IMBY.

Is it reasonable to ship them to someone else's "BY"?

if you "shipped" them somewhere, they'd be in an asylum/shelter/jail facility which is set up to handle them, not in a back yard, not downtown, not IN THE STREETS.

Re: Trends in the San Francisco (mostly dog?) poop crisis

#150

Post by jackfoxy »

kec wrote: post #104
weberc2 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuine (outsider) question: how is housing not a uniquely-SF problem? The rest of the country and even other parts of California seem to have affordable housing, at least relatively speaking. EDIT: RE downvotes, shame on me for not being familiar with SF politics, I guess. It is, after all, the center of the universe. (◔_◔)

The parts of California which don’t have a housing problem are, broadly speaking, the parts of California which aren’t attractive to a ton of people as places to live. The root cause is prop 13 disincentivizes moving around keeping the supply illiquid, and encourages ninbyism preventing new construction, as you’re basically locked in whenever you currently live.

Not just prop 13, but the capital gains part of the tax code.

Used to be you could sell your house for more than you paid and have 2 years to roll it into buying a new house for the same or more money. Now the difference is taxable capital gains regardless of what your new living situation becomes.

IIRC this changed about 20 years ago.

Post reply on HN