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

Californians aren’t leaving the state en masse but are leaving San Francisco

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 488 posts

Re: Californians aren’t leaving the state en masse but are leaving San Francisco

#351

Post by mixmastamyk »

jariel wrote: post #159
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's symbolic or virtue signalling. In the SF area, "diverse" is just an HR term of art that means "black, Hispanic, or female". (You'll often see people say things like "we'd like 40% of our candidate pool to be diverse", which only really make sense under that definition.) The idea of building a welcoming environment for people from all walks of life is usually referred to as "inclusion".

No, it's not symbolic, just the opposite, it's Orwellian newspeak/totalitarianism. By your very own words: ""diverse" is just an HR term of art that means "black, Hispanic, or female"", i.e. a completely subjective, odd, and contextual local moralism. The problem is that these folks believe that any 'questioning' of their methods or approach are in fact 'questioning' of the underlying positive impetus of their motiva…

Hyper-liberal American, I say without scorn. I can assure you no one in Bakersfield is asking these kinds of questions.

Re: Californians aren’t leaving the state en masse but are leaving San Francisco

#352

Post by addicted »

atweiden wrote: post #239
benjohnson wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here in Seattle, people just stop reporting when they know nothing will happen.

Just to add some colour to this: This. I moved outside of Portland a few months ago after three serious incidents on my property involving violent vagrants. In all three cases the police took over an hour to show up and did absolutely nothing. I had a man trying to break in to my backdoor. When I confronted him and demanded that he leave, he began swinging punches and pulled out a knife. I managed to restrain him and…

How would that situation be improved if cops were required to spend time and energy pursuing cases where a kid stole a packet of gum from a convenience store?

The fact that cops aren’t responding to cases of violence has nothing to do with the shoplifting laws passed in SF, and frankly, that law should explicitly open up more resources for cops to be able to investigate such violent behavior.

What exactly in Portland prevents them from acting on violent vagrants. Depending on the timeline, this likely has more to do with the fact that police unions across the country deployed a deliberate don’t do police work policy because people decided to protest against the minority of police that were killing in percent civilians merely because of their skin color of the zip code they were arrested in.

Re: Californians aren’t leaving the state en masse but are leaving San Francisco

#353

Post by masonic »

zuminator wrote: post #180
manigandham wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very high limit for simple theft, so now simple theft is what occurs the most. Why would anyone commit felonies or robberies when they can just walk in and take below that limit without any enforcement or consequence? Making crime easier to commit doesn't reduce crime.

Theft under the $950 threshold is still a crime, specifically a misdemeanor, which can result in jail time. The whole idea that theft is going totally unpunished is a false narrative.

Can you name a single person in the Bay Area who served even one full day of jail time for a misdemeanor not involving a firearm and/or domestic violence in the past year?

Under the current "zero bail" guidelines, even felony suspects can be put back on the street the same day. Look up Idris Muhammad, who set three fires while already on probation, was quickly released, then set more fires and busted shop windows.

Re: Californians aren’t leaving the state en masse but are leaving San Francisco

#354

Post by ephextom »

lumost wrote: post #272
aidenn0 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shoplifting is tough because it can often be cheaper for the store to write it off than to sufficiently improve security. I think a misdemeanor for theft is fine, but I agree that these laws should be enforced.

It's unlikely that a shop would seek enforcement if it could result in a violent altercation and scare away customers. Likewise police are more likely to expect violence if they are only called in dire emergencies.

A friend worked at a Macy's in Nevada for a few years. Staff were told that shoplifters should be assumed to be armed, and that security would not normally confront them. Staff would often stand by and let shoplifters walk out the door with big hauls of stuff. Large daily losses to theft were just budgeted for.

Re: Californians aren’t leaving the state en masse but are leaving San Francisco

#356

Post by addicted »

chomp wrote: post #75
systemvoltage wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not intentionally. I corrected the post before you posted.

But did that sound correct that they’d allow any robbery? Using that logic, Texas allows any robbery under $2500: Texas Penal Code § 31.03 (3) a Class A misdemeanor if the value of the property stolen is $750 or more but less than $2,500; (4) a state jail felony if: (A) the value of the property stolen is $2,500 or more but less than $30,000, or the property is less than 10 head of sheep, swine, or goats or any part…

Hey but the fact that Texas has a higher threshold for property crime to be considered more than a misdemeanor would destroy the “liberals are destroying cities with their soft on crime policies” narrative. Which is literally the only reason anyone originates these claims.

I guess it speaks to the success of right wing media in our society that well educated and well informed people get so badly taken in by them.

Re: Californians aren’t leaving the state en masse but are leaving San Francisco

#357

Post by masonic »

dragonwriter wrote: post #324
zuminator wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theft under the $950 threshold is still a crime, specifically a misdemeanor, which can result in jail time. The whole idea that theft is going totally unpunished is a false narrative.

It's not a false narrative, though what is a false narrative is that it's directly because of prop 47, and not retailers adopting policies directed at limiting employees confronting thieves, resulting in fewer being caught. To the extent prop 47 plays a role, it's because police departments deemphasize followup enforcement on misdemeanors, though there is no legal requirement that they do so: a crime shouldn't need a…

Police don't choose whether to drop charges.

The vast majority of nonviolent crimes here now have no police involvement whatsoever. They just have you file an online report for you to forward to your insurance (if any). This includes catalytic converter thefts that can cost over $2000 alone to resolve, let alone other property loss plus vehicle damage.

Re: Californians aren’t leaving the state en masse but are leaving San Francisco

#358

Post by refurb »

mbgerring wrote: post #314
refurb wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hats off to your optimism, but having lived in SF it looks the govt has only gotten more dysfunctional. It was never about “building a city that works for everyone” and good luck on changing that.

Civic participation is a long, hard slog that rewards the people who stay with it. Best of luck to you wherever you landed.

There is no lack of civic participation in SF. That’s why it’s the way it is today. It’s community organizations like Calle 24 who don’t want tech folks and don’t want new housing. They run the city.

Re: Californians aren’t leaving the state en masse but are leaving San Francisco

#359

Post by babesh »

ditonal wrote: post #138
ubertoop wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come on dude. People aren't talking about the "weird" or quirky aspects of SF. We're talking about fucking needles, and human feces in the street. Stop protecting this shit by labeling it as something other than human suffering and a public health disaster.

My friend lived in SF for 3 years, then left for a year. He called me to say, “dude what happened to SF? Apparently it’s all shit and needles now.” I had to explain to him that nothing has changed. He was just reading sensationalized media. I live in SF, I would like the city cleaned up, more accountability for taxes, more focus on tax payers over homeless. But at the same time, SF represents liberalism in the US so…

I was born in and grew up in SF. I still go once in awhile. SF got a lot worse.

I didn’t grow up with tents surrounding City Hall nor tents lining the sidewalk in the Tenderloin.

Go look at Polk Street in Nob Hill. Go look at Van Ness. Go look at the Castro. Those aren’t SOMA or the Tenderloin. I saw a smashed bus shelter right off Van Ness. I saw graffiti and garbage on the sidewalk in Nob Hill. There are multiple tents pitched right off the freeway off ramp in the Castro.

The problem of SF is not affordability. It is that its policies make it a honeypot for homeless. These people are in no shape at all to work. Think mental issues, drug abuse, etc...

These issues are societal and not limited to SF. Furthermore, SF’s policies don’t seem to be helping at all.

If you want to contain it, turn Salesforce tower into a homeless shelter and ban tents on sidewalks. Establish work programs to clean up street. Perhaps some of the people will turn around their lives.

The towns and cities on the Peninsula are probably laughing at SF. All the homeless are drawn to SF and have disappeared from their sidewalks.

Many towns on the Peninsula are not cool with homeless pitching tents on sidewalks. They get their tents taken down and are directed to homeless shelters.

SF seems ok with it, so all the homeless go there and pitch tents. Homeless elsewhere hear about this and head off to SF. SF politicians run on leftist agendas and then pour money into this endless pit.

Re: Californians aren’t leaving the state en masse but are leaving San Francisco

#360

Post by masonic »

alsetmusic wrote: post #271
systemvoltage wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People of San Francisco passed a law t̶o̶ ̶a̶l̶l̶o̶w̶ ̶a̶n̶y̶ ̶r̶o̶b̶b̶e̶r̶y̶ ̶u̶n̶d̶e̶r̶ ̶$̶1̶0̶0̶0̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶f̶i̶l̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶c̶a̶s̶e̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶c̶a̶l̶l̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶o̶p̶s̶.̶ They also expect safe neighborhoods. You can't have both. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26040812 Liberal policies such as this does not solve the actual problem. Instead of providing food and shelter to the poor, perhaps st…

> Instead of providing food and shelter to the poor, perhaps starting an infrastructure program to employ these people and fix the damn roads, they empower the poor to go rampage stores to survive. Why not both? "In 2013, the Utah Housing and Community Development Division reported that the cost of emergency room treatment and jail time averaged over $16,000 a year per homeless person, while the cost of providing a f…

  the cost of providing a fully subsidized apartment was only $11,000.
Sure, but that doesn't count spending on emergency room treatment and jail time in addition to the cost of the apartment. Housing didn't stop the other resource consumption or criminal activity.

It also doesn't count the other costs of providing that housing in the first place. The current debate in Mountain View of turning over one hotel to unhoused people includes spending $70,000 per room just in construction/conversion costs for a nice hotel that's barely 30 years old.

Post reply on HN