51–60 of 201 posts
People should consider moving to a different neighborhood first, pretty much none of these problems apply to me where I am in lower haight SF also has way fewer drug murders than cities I have lived in on the east coast
People should have a right to feel safe and secure in their home and possessions and not have to move because the state refuses to fulfill it's function.
This is true at a surface level, but looking deeper at City services and obligations the situation is more complex than simply declaring numbers large. San Francisco also has a much larger population of immigrants from all over including other states.
> Second, and even worse, the people in charge including the mayor, the police leadership, and a majority of the Board of Supervisors (the legislative body for SF), really just don’t seem to care one bit about what’s happening. Sure, they will occasionally rant in public and promise to fix things ...
Don't seem to care apart from occasionally promising to fix things. This is classic San Francisco attitude. Difficult longstanding problems are clearly incompetence, disinterest, a conspiracy of corruption, or perhaps all of these. Records and meetings are typically fully public, but actually attending any of that is too much for a member of the public to bear. Maybe so, but then you also are skipping out on your responsibilities and potential to contribute to some kind of positive solution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's remarkably close by car, and though it was common for me when I lived in SF, I do not know many people who enjoy 2.25ish hour (round trip) walks. And doing $25 a day in ubers adds up fast too.
Those $25 Uber trips aren't necessary if you get a bike. And you don't even need to be in shape anymore with e-bikes...
Edit: An idea that came to mind, someone run with this. Bike lockers would be an amazing feature that likely could curb a lot of the issues. Something with a secure lock built in (like biometric or complex pin), 360degree cameras, and an insurance policy. I'd have paid hourly for that service if I still lived in the city.
Drugs and Homelessness are political problems now. It's been a while since they are treated as health issues, that's why nobody can do anything, it's because like anything in politics it has become a pissing contest between people that are far too removed from the actual problem.
Spot on. In most previous decades, the city government (no matter the party) would have been able to take whatever action (probably more $$ for police and more enforcement) seemed appropriate to the problem, and that would be a non-partisan issue. Now even admitting that there is an actual issue seems to be a partisan stance.
I’m guessing this person moved there for professional reasons if they didn’t even consider moving to any of the other dense parts of San Francisco.
The neighborhoods of San Francisco are: 1. Much more alive than downtown, 2. Safer, 3. Even more “dense” in certain areas given the decline in downtown foot traffic.
Downtown SF (and especially OP's neighborhood of 7th/8th Mission Street) is not the place to be. It's a bit like complaining about LA and living right near downtown. Upper Market, North Beach, Hayes Valley, Valencia St, Mission Dolores, Polk Street, Upper Nob Hill, Haight Ashbury -- all fun locations. I've lived near Dolores Park for the past 15 months now and have had a great experience. I've found community, made n…
Drugs and Homelessness are political problems now. It's been a while since they are treated as health issues, that's why nobody can do anything, it's because like anything in politics it has become a pissing contest between people that are far too removed from the actual problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is addressed at the end of the article. > Why didn’t you just move to a different part of SF? > I wanted to live in a dense, central area and not in a single family house that’s 4 miles from downtown. Also, my neighborhood was perfectly nice when I moved in, and then got bad. What’s to prevent that from happening to other places in the city as well?
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.
> My biggest problem with SF was simply not feeling physically safe [...] SF has a pretty low violent crime rate [...] Instead, the problem was that SF [has] thousands of people wandering around who are suffering from untreated substance abuse and/or severe mental illness
So... I guess the idea is that this is leaning extremely hard on "feeling". Author admits they're not unsafe. Author admits that their real issue is that they don't like being near people with drug habits or mental illness. But they still express it in the lede as "physical safety" anyway! Because that's how they "feel"?
Come on folks. Aren't techies like us supposed to be rationalists? Why are we lying to ourselves (and, in this blog post, others) about what we really want?