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

181–190 of 201 posts

Re: Goodbye, San Francisco

#181

Post by scarmig »

prottog wrote: post #174
scarmig wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Factually, there aren't any glaring errors. The way it frames things is weird, though. Not to say SoMa and downtown aren't shitholes that will make you feel unsafe multiple times per day; they are. But most other neighborhoods have a much safer vibe, and many of them are literally a 10 minute bus ride to downtown. His pooh-poohing the idea of moving to a different neighborhood is just weird. (If he were complaining a…

> many of them are literally a 10 minute bus ride to downtown Is that 10-minute bus ride a pleasant experience on a daily basis? If you live in a quiet part of the city but must commute back and forth to downtown during which you run a non-negligible risk of a particular unpleasant encounter, then you don't gain a whole lot by being in that quiet part.

Depends on the particular bus line. Yes, they can be unpleasant.

However, you do gain a whole lot living in a quiet area compared to living in the middle of the shitshow, and it's not close to comparable.

Re: Goodbye, San Francisco

#182

Post by orangepurple »

test098 wrote: post #178
orangepurple wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree; He needs to just accept that he will be assaulted in some neighborhoods and avoid those. /s

have you ever lived in a major city that didn't have dangerous neighborhoods? at any time in the history of the united states? i'm a minority who has been harassed and assaulted in certain parts of the united states (hint: in rural areas). what's your advice for me and what prescriptions do you have to quell rural violence?

Yes. I lived in Warsaw for 20 years. Warsaw has zero dangerous neighborhoods and has a population of 1.86 million.

My recommendation for you to stay safe as a minority in America who feels threatened is to obtain a concealed carry permit, a Glock 43 with holster, and a cell phone you can use to call 911. When shit hits the fan try to run away and call 911 but if you can't run away you can leave the phone off the hook with the 911 operator on the other end. If you can't talk your encounter is recorded even if you aren't able to engage with the operator immediately. The 911 recording can clear up any self-defense issues.

Re: Goodbye, San Francisco

#183

Post by chubot »

nradov wrote: post #157
sebmellen wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only city where I haven’t found the “hill effect” to be true is Pittsburgh. It seems every hilltop area there is quite bad.

In many US cities, low lying areas near water (rivers, large lakes, oceans) were often used as cargo ports. Factories and other industrial facilities were then built nearby which made it easier to obtain raw materials and ship out finished products. And naturally low wage, blue collar workers tended to live near those jobs. Such areas were also at greater risk of flooding, and suffered more from air, water, and noise…

Two good examples of the flip are the Ferry Building in SF and Chelsea Market in Manhattan. Those used to be big industrial / shipping / cargo buildings but now sell upscale food :)

It's kind of funny how you see the same economic patterns play out in different cities over hundreds of years

Another pattern is that train stations and big US post offices are often in the oldest parts of town, and I think they have started to move over the years. That real estate is often extremely valuable, so the govt or business finds something else to do with it

Re: Goodbye, San Francisco

#184

Post by thebooktocome »

pandaman wrote: post #167
thebooktocome wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Murderers aren’t really representative of the homeless.

Bear in mind mere homelessness is not unequivocally a crime in the states, see Martin v. Boise (2020 or so).

Re: Goodbye, San Francisco

#185

Post by test098 »

orangepurple wrote: post #182
test098 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

have you ever lived in a major city that didn't have dangerous neighborhoods? at any time in the history of the united states? i'm a minority who has been harassed and assaulted in certain parts of the united states (hint: in rural areas). what's your advice for me and what prescriptions do you have to quell rural violence?

Yes. I lived in Warsaw for 20 years. Warsaw has zero dangerous neighborhoods and has a population of 1.86 million. My recommendation for you to stay safe as a minority in America who feels threatened is to obtain a concealed carry permit, a Glock 43 with holster, and a cell phone you can use to call 911. When shit hits the fan try to run away and call 911 but if you can't run away you can leave the phone off the hook…

the people who were doing the harassing and assaulting included law enforcement. Philando Castile was famously killed when he revealed to the officer that he had a (legally) concealed weapon. do you have any other suggestions?

my point here is that there are places in the US that are not safe for various subgroups. in major cities, this is (unfortunately) a common issue but that doesn't mean that it's magically going to go away - the alternative is to be prepared when moving to literally the most dangerous part of the city.

Re: Goodbye, San Francisco

#186

Post by ajross »

yuliyp wrote: post #179
ajross wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they're not about safety! And the author (and presumably you too?) admit as much. Again, aren't we supposed to be better than arguing about policy issues via reference to our personal emotions? Isn't that what the woke hippies on the school board are doing?

That's a pretty big stretch to claim that everything related to emotion is equally suspect. Safety is something which naturally has a very strong perception element to it. A lack of a feeling of safety causes people to change their behavior in ways which tend to destroy a community (by moving away, avoiding public spaces, not shopping in certain areas, etc). Those harms to the community are tangible. Dismissing them…

> That's a pretty big stretch to claim that everything related to emotion is equally suspect.

The context is an emotional argument that is directly and explicitly contradicted by data. Yeah, I'd say that's suspect. Do you really disagree? "Facts don't care about your feelings", as it were.

Instead, what we're seeing in this subthread is a bunch of pontification about how the data is measuring the wrong thing or how feelings are important all by themselves. Which is fine. But none of that makes living in SF dangerous when it isn't, so an argument about SF based on safety problems is... just plain wrong.

Re: Goodbye, San Francisco

#187

Post by ladberg »

jansan wrote: post #177
whimsicalism wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The age factor certainly played a role, but I do not think the media influenced in my decision a lot. Judging from European mainstream media the southern red states are full of retards, which I cannot confirm from our visit. Quite the opposite, Huntsville seems to be packed with bright engineers, Savannah is full of "weird" (in a very positive way) people, and Nashville is not just the capital of corny country music,…

> Not sure if all this is true, but I did not feel like finding out.

It is most definitely not true

Re: Goodbye, San Francisco

#188

Post by pandaman »

thebooktocome wrote: post #184
pandaman wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Murderers aren’t really representative of the homeless. Bear in mind mere homelessness is not unequivocally a crime in the states, see Martin v. Boise (2020 or so).

>Murderers aren’t really representative of the homeless.

Nobody is arguing they are.

>Bear in mind mere homelessness is not unequivocally a crime in the states

Nobody is for prosecuting homelessness. Vagrancy, loitering, public consumption of drugs and alcohol, obstruction of public right of way, public nuisance, public defecation, trespassing etc, etc, are crimes though and we should be going after their perpetrators regardless of their having a home.

Re: Goodbye, San Francisco

#189

Post by fmajid »

whimsicalism wrote: post #139
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.

It's much nicer than soma in my opinion and there are basically only two drug dealing/prostitution corridors along shotwell area and capp.

The Norteńo and Sureńo gangs had running machine gun battles in the Outer and South Mission just a decade ago, until the Feds took them down using the gang enhancements so decried by progressives like Chesa Boudin.

Re: Goodbye, San Francisco

#190

Post by fmajid »

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.…

The Builder's Remedy doesn't apply to SF yet because of its sham "Housing Element" plan it filed with the State government, that has realistically zero chances of ever happening, but bought them an 8 year reprieve.
Post reply on HN