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

161–170 of 201 posts

Re: Goodbye, San Francisco

#161

Post by whimsicalism »

davidivadavid wrote: post #158
SavageBeast wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TL;DR - SF proper was a dumpster fire 10 years ago - I have no idea why its taken people so long to catch on to the fact. OP's story tracks 100%. My experience is now 10 years old so factor that in. Even then the Lower Haight was still very bad, its just that it wasn't quite as bad as so many other areas. I lived there, trust me. If automatic gunfire, seeing women beaten on the sidewalk by guys jumping out of cars to…

I have to say the experience of reading the comments here (and all similar stories) gives a lot of Stockholm syndrome vibes. "The city's actually really safe if you completely ignore this whole area that sits in the middle of it otherwise all bets are off" isn't exactly an endorsement.

SF is unique in that the bad areas are smack dab in the downtown of the city, but for almost everyone I know "ignoring this whole area that sits in the middle" is actually way easier than it sounds because it's actually not really in the middle.

Re: Goodbye, San Francisco

#162

Post by whimsicalism »

jansan wrote: post #88

My personal (European) view of what places are of the USA are considered "cool" has completely changed in the last 10 years or so. Before this year I had only been once to the USA, which was as a teenager in Detroit's suburbs many years ago. This year I decided to travel the USA with my wife and kids, but places like San Francisco and New York, which I would have sacrificed a leg to visit not too many years ago, were…

It sounds like you are aging & also perhaps leaning a bit too heavily on the media in deciding where to go.

That said, many areas of the South are among the most underrated parts of the country so I agree with you there.

Re: Goodbye, San Francisco

#163

Post by whimsicalism »

SavageBeast wrote: post #127
whimsicalism wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lower haight is dense and fewer than 2 miles from downtown. I dont perceive the area OP is describing as one I would expect to be free from drug crime even four years ago, whereas I do have that expectation for this region of SF.

TL;DR - SF proper was a dumpster fire 10 years ago - I have no idea why its taken people so long to catch on to the fact. OP's story tracks 100%. My experience is now 10 years old so factor that in. Even then the Lower Haight was still very bad, its just that it wasn't quite as bad as so many other areas. I lived there, trust me. If automatic gunfire, seeing women beaten on the sidewalk by guys jumping out of cars to…

Lower Haight is a lot nicer than it used to be. I don't see any of the things you're describing except for two:

1. shoplifting at that Safeway you mentioned.

2. There are still occasional grab & runs (ie. of laptops from cafes), this is one block from me and they pull a gun in a crowded cafe [0]

Obviously more still needs to be done but I don't find this impacts my day to day that much.

[0]: https://sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/SFS_Robber...

Re: Goodbye, San Francisco

#164

Post by nwienert »

scarmig wrote: post #149
nwienert wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we claiming the Mission is nice? Because it's really not, even the nicer parts worsened pre, during, post pandemic.

At some point, nice is subjective. And Mission definitely has some sketch spots. But Castro, Eureka, Noe border it and are even nicer; then there's Hayes and the Haight and Alamo Square; head west on Haight and you get to Cole Valley and the Inner Sunset; north of Haight you'd hit a few patchy blocks on Fillmore but then come to Japantown, Pac Heights, the Marina. And that list is not even close to exhaustive: the po…

But all of those places have a lot of bums accosting people and shouting, tents right along main walkways, poop in the streets, etc.

Re: Goodbye, San Francisco

#165

Post by prottog »

nradov wrote: post #159
orangecat wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Due to the SB-8 Housing Crisis Act of 2019, it is now largely legal to build housing. Sometimes property developers have had to sue local governments in order to enforce their rights but now most cities are complying. Obtaining the necessary land and building permits is still extremely expensive. A billion dollars worth of new housing would be great, but it would barely begin to address the shortage. https://leginfo.…

> Sometimes property developers have had to sue local governments in order to enforce their rights

I'm glad that the state government has taken a step in the right direction, but the situation on the ground as you describe it still doesn't sound very friendly. There's enough risks in investment and business (that is, property development) as it is without needing to fight City Hall on top of it.

> Obtaining the necessary land and building permits is still extremely expensive.

Land I understand, since it's of a fixed supply in a highly desired area, but there's no reason why permitting should be so burdensome if policy intent is to foster more building.

Re: Goodbye, San Francisco

#166

Post by prottog »

codemonkeysh wrote: post #160
casion wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No matter your size, all of those things violate safety. It's not always about being attacked, but general welfare being violated.

The only welfare being violated was the bottom of my shoes.

Surely the "general welfare" is still being violated by the shit on the street and homeless people urinating in public, whether or not the shit or the piss actually got on your person.

Re: Goodbye, San Francisco

#167

Post by pandaman »

thebooktocome wrote: post #118
lotsofpulp wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imprisonment is to keep people moving along, or deter them from coming. Housing is more expensive because of the opposite, it incentives everyone to come get it. On a federal level, housing and healthcare might be cheaper than imprisonment. But what is even cheaper (in the short run) is ignoring it altogether. >I personally don’t understand why the some exceptionally wealthy billionaire in California doesn’t solve th…

Here is SLC’s program, including all the community work they have to do to mollify the NIMBYs: https://www.npr.org/2022/11/06/1134230388/village-salt-lake-... Median rent in SLC: 1.8k/mo, 21.6k/yr Federal prison: ~39k/yr https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/09/01/2021-18... Median rent in CA: 2.9k/mo, 34.8k/yr (according to Zillow) CA prison: 106k/yr (!) https://lao.ca.gov/policyareas/cj/6_cj_inmatecost Inc…

All law enforcement is not economical in this approach, when you are pricing only immediate costs. E.g. prosecuting a murderer is a complete loss of hundreds of thousands dollars if not millions. And we are not even getting the victim back for all these money spent.

Re: Goodbye, San Francisco

#168

Post by scruple »

ren_engineer wrote: post #77

I wonder what the net productivity loss is due to the dysfunction of SF? You've got companies paying huge money to smart employees who then have to worry about problems that are generally reserved for developing nations on a daily basis. That stress has to impact work performance I work remote and it's wild how SF people don't realize how insane they sound to others when they talk about what they deal with and try to…

It's some form of Stockholm Syndrome but for people who live in dysfunctional places.

Re: Goodbye, San Francisco

#169

Post by fairity »

ajross wrote: post #125
fairity wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're just arguing semantics at this point. Sure, the author admits that violent crime rate is under control. But, implicit in his post, is the fact that this is only the case because residents adopt behavioral patterns that remove them from violent crime scenes. Imagine you live in a neighborhood where walking on the right side of the street results in immediate decapitation. While it's true that you can simply alw…

> But, implicit in his post, is the fact that this is only the case because residents adopt behavioral patterns that remove them from violent crime scenes. But the same is true everywhere though. You think that Houston or St. Louis or wherever don't "adopt behavioral patterns" to make themselves feel safer too? Only SF residents are smart enough to make life in the wasteland possible? No, that's silly. SF isn't unsaf…

> You think that Houston or St. Louis or wherever don't "adopt behavioral patterns" to make themselves feel safer too?

No, not nearly to the same extent.

Whether that's the case or not is actually besides my point.

My point is that OP isn't simply claiming that he "feels unsafe". He's likely claiming that he IS unsafe. And, the only reason his unsafe environment hasn't resulted in physical harm is due to his altered behavior.

That line of reasoning is cogent and rational, and therefore, your claims of emotionalism are largely uncalled for.

Re: Goodbye, San Francisco

#170

Post by prottog »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #19

> Thankfully, I escaped with only scrapes and bruises, but that was really upsetting for me, and I felt that it was only a matter of time before something worse happened. Lately, with my observation that much of American life is getting much much worse. I often think about leaving America entirely, attempting to hold my breath a little longer to get what America most has to offer these days -- superior compensation/s…

I've lived in a few different countries and settled in the US. You're right about the pay in America, and it's at a scale beyond what most people (whether inside or outside of America) realize; take for example the state of Mississippi, who many Americans deride as being a "literal third world country", which actually turns out to have a comparable median disposable household income to an economic powerhouse like Germany.

> much of American life is getting much much worse

This sentiment is real and shared by many people, but keep in mind that many of the things that may be getting worse off in this country are becoming even worse in other countries. In fact, the easiest way to feel better about life here may be just to stop reading the news, in the same way that you're not plugged into the news cycle of, say, Denmark.

There's a lot to see in California and Texas outside of whichever cities you may have lived in, and a lot more to see in the rest of the US outside of those states. I invite you to explore more of it before writing it off.

Post reply on HN