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

The Street Kids of San Francisco

blog.priceonomics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 210 posts

Re: The Street Kids of San Francisco

#191

Post by php_on_rails2 »

dewitt wrote: post #40

Like another commenter on this thread, I've lived in the Haight for the past nine years. And while the article is interesting and informative, it doesn't quite paint a full picture (literally—the pictures aren't representative, that girl is not a typical street kid by a long shot, she hasn't slept a day outside in her life. Think camo and combat boots and pit bulls, not peace signs and hacky sacks) of the underside o…

So right about SF after dark. Are these street kids responsible for all the shootings in the Mission? Wouldn't be surprised what these kids will do for drugs. Sad.

I had never seen (or smelled!) a homeless person until I moved from my dumb one-stoplight town in Nebraska out to SF. But this place is crawling with them! Free advice to anyone thinking working in high tech is all roses.

Kind of surprised that there aren't more black people around. Heard they were a problem in the 60s. So where did they go? I heard there were some housing projects in Hunters Point, but they're getting bulldozed soon. Why waste such valuable property on freeloading poor people?

Oakland is a scary place. Hope this "street problem" isn't the start of a slippery slope.

Re: The Street Kids of San Francisco

#192

Post by php_on_rails2 »

dewitt wrote: post #50
dewitt wrote: post #40

Like another commenter on this thread, I've lived in the Haight for the past nine years. And while the article is interesting and informative, it doesn't quite paint a full picture (literally—the pictures aren't representative, that girl is not a typical street kid by a long shot, she hasn't slept a day outside in her life. Think camo and combat boots and pit bulls, not peace signs and hacky sacks) of the underside o…

And judging from the other comments, people who have no first-hand exposure to this enviroment are simply eating the article up, believing they have the full story. I'd invite anyone who is prepared to generalize about street kid culture based on this one article alone to spend just one /evening/ walking around Haight and Stanyan. Head into the park a ways. You don't have to go more than 50 yards. I guarantee you tak…

And how! San Francisco has huge problems with drug addiction, open your eyes people. Really painful seeing kids from good families living without hope.

Homelessness is a big problem. And it stinks. The bus can't get here soon enough some days.

Re: The Street Kids of San Francisco

#193

Post by php_on_rails2 »

juan_juarez wrote: post #189
rdouble wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The writer was duped. There is quite a chasm between the flower child from Novato coming down for the weekend to trade peace patches for shrooms and the addict gutter punk types who live there permanently.

Those people are scary. The writer might have actually had to work at getting his story, rather than collecting anecdotes from those that have romanticized the lifestyle.

Why are they allowed on the sidewalk? If these gutter trash want to clog up the streets, they can take their chances in Oakland.

SF passed a sit-lie measure a few years ago specifically to target this problem. Guess they got the "lie" part right.

Re: The Street Kids of San Francisco

#194

Post by fusiongyro »

moxie wrote: post #84
Locke1689 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably because he either pays property taxes or pays rent to someone who uses it to pay property taxes. Fundamentally, one can see people living on the street as belonging to a complex subgroup in our society: one which can be both symbiotic and parasitical. It is symbiotic in the sense that it provides a culture with which many can identify, especially those who have experienced hardship or difficult home lives…

There's an old wobbly story: A wobbly was riding a freight train across the midwest one summer, in between jobs. The train sided out in the middle of nowhere, and it was scorching hot, so the wobbly got off the train and started walking down a dirt road. After a couple of miles, the road passed by an apple orchard. The wobbly hopped over the fence, and sat down to rest under the shade of a big apple tree. The wobbly…

This would be really significant if philosophy had any bearing on real life.

Re: The Street Kids of San Francisco

#195

Post by php_on_rails2 »

johngalt wrote: post #108
moxie wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an old wobbly story: A wobbly was riding a freight train across the midwest one summer, in between jobs. The train sided out in the middle of nowhere, and it was scorching hot, so the wobbly got off the train and started walking down a dirt road. After a couple of miles, the road passed by an apple orchard. The wobbly hopped over the fence, and sat down to rest under the shade of a big apple tree. The wobbly…

Here's a justification for private property. How will there ever be an orchard otherwise ? Orchards don't just burst spontaneously into existence. Imagine that no one 'fought the natives for it'. Instead the land was a vacant waste with no one living there and nothing growing there. Over the years through hard work, dedication and sacrifice the land was amended and the trees grew creating the orchard. The only thing…

Preach, brother. SF didn't spring magically into existence either -- it was built once, then destroyed in a quake, and then built again.

I think that things don't have to stop at the orchard. Years ago, there used to be a big flophouse on Columbus Ave, full of trash and indigents. Transients. Beat "poets", the sort of people glorified by City Lights books.

And then they tore it down and built the TransAmerica pyramid! Now that's progress.

Re: The Street Kids of San Francisco

#196

Post by [deleted] »

php_on_rails2 wrote: post #195
johngalt wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a justification for private property. How will there ever be an orchard otherwise ? Orchards don't just burst spontaneously into existence. Imagine that no one 'fought the natives for it'. Instead the land was a vacant waste with no one living there and nothing growing there. Over the years through hard work, dedication and sacrifice the land was amended and the trees grew creating the orchard. The only thing…

Preach, brother. SF didn't spring magically into existence either -- it was built once, then destroyed in a quake, and then built again. I think that things don't have to stop at the orchard. Years ago, there used to be a big flophouse on Columbus Ave, full of trash and indigents. Transients. Beat "poets", the sort of people glorified by City Lights books. And then they tore it down and built the TransAmerica pyramid…

[deleted]

Re: The Street Kids of San Francisco

#197

Post by php_on_rails2 »

kstenerud wrote: post #134
vacri wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a sad world we live in when "sitting in the shade" is called a crime - and imply that it's bad people aren't getting 'caught' for such trivial things. I mean, if we're talking about absurdity of points, you are saying that a single travelling poor man sitting in the shade is something that is worthy of invoking the power of the federal government to combat.

"sitting in the shade" is not the crime; trespass is the crime. The concept of private property is useful enough on the whole that governments are willing to enforce it, and leave discretion for right-of-access to the owner of said property. This allows the property owner to assess people in terms of risk they pose to said property and either grant or deny access. If said farmer has had problems with transients damag…

"Sitting on the sidewalk" is a crime in San Francisco -- but it's a petty crime, like smoking weed in public. Cops either don't care, or only care when it's "convenient". When they need to get that quota up!

Great illustration on this article..

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Sit-lie-law-primarily-enf...

Re: The Street Kids of San Francisco

#198

Post by php_on_rails2 »

moxie wrote: post #54

This article should really be titled "The Street Kids Of Hippy Hill." By going to one place in order to get a feeling for "street kids," they've gotten an extremely myopic view of that scene. The full picture is much more varied. Traveler kids who go to hobo gatherings would never be caught dead at a rainbow gathering. Rainbow family kids don't drink, and alcohol is even forbidden at gatherings (where nothing else is…

You call that trash "music"? But seriously.

Joking aside, here in the real world, we call squatting "trespassing". These kids just live off the fat of the land. You know what I'm talking about. Fat tourists! I swear to god, the first time I saw one of these kids, my heart opened up to them, along with my stupid wallet. "Need money (f)or weed." Well, fool me once.

Re: The Street Kids of San Francisco

#199

Post by hnal943 »

malandrew wrote: post #143
hnal943 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...or they are providing their own childcare and managing their household.

However, they don't necessarily need to be that competent to provide their own childcare. It's not like the kid is going to fire the parent is the parenting isn't above average. A stay at home parent caring for kids is as likely to play on reddit while the kid watches tv as interacting with the kid all the time and teaching them information, good values and good habits.

Your comment ignores my original point which is that homemakers have economic value, but it's still worthy of a response.

Obviously children are not in control of who takes care of them, but that would be true whether the parents worked or not; parents decide how their children will be cared for in any case. Also, I'm not sure if you've ever tried to browse reddit and watch a toddler at the same time, but I can say from experience it's not as easy as you might imagine. Children, especially when they are younger than school-age, demand a lot of attention just to keep them safe and healthy let alone educated and civilized.

Re: The Street Kids of San Francisco

#200

Post by php_on_rails2 »

yid wrote: post #106
barce wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point of the article is that it's not as bad, or their word, "Dickensian," as people think. The article is missing some hard numbers: how many are choosing the lifestyle? How many of those that do are engaging in criminal / disruptive activity? It's pretty cool you got to check out a commune in Lake county.

> It's pretty cool you got to check out a commune in Lake county. It was a little creepy, to be honest. They have pictorial banners up in the woods, without any words. I was only allowed into the bookshop, and every single book and CD was by the commune leader. Every single one. Edit: I'll add some detail here since people seem to be interested. Lake County is a very, very remote area a few hours north of San Francis…

It's really easy to get into one of those communes. There are tons of messageboards if you know where to look. For all their back to nature blather, they love their resource-sucking smartphones as much as you and I.

The best argument for their "conservation" is really selfishness in disguise. Let's save this unraped land for future generations... to exploit for rare earth minerals.

Honestly, outer space is the only way out.

Post reply on HN