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

Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 318 posts

Re: Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

#71

Post by Agustus »

eli wrote: post #56
Agustus wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is rent control in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., and Oakland, CA. People get priced out of the market through an increase in demand and a lack of corresponding supply opportunities. 1. The lessee stays in a rent controlled location during a period of price increases, absolving themselves of the real-world price increase that is occurring to the landlord. So, to move from the house would mean the…

DC technically has rent control, but there are a variety of loopholes and it does not apply in most cases.

What are the loopholes? Is it like Section 8?

They fell in the statement because it was listed on the Wikipedia article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control_in_the_United_Sta...

Thank you for the heads up.

Re: Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

#72

Post by cbeach »

Joe8Bit wrote: post #19
dmschulman wrote: post #5

This police-assisted murder is a shame but I don't understand why we expect neighborhoods to remain frozen in time forever, never changing their racial or socioeconomic makeup for as long as the area exists. It's a given that neighborhoods, especially in the city, will change over time. The real issue isn't whether people who don't look like the lifelong residents will move in, it's if those new neighbors will treat…

I don't think many people would argue with the evolutionary nature of cities. I think what people would say, however, is that when cities change those with the least economic muscle tend to be the most adversely effected (e.g they lose their homes/tenancies when they can't afford to pay inflated rents). Again, that in itself might not be a problem if there were other places to move that poor communities could afford…

Those doing low-paid work in London are obviously important to the city, but I'd argue that those doing high-paid work make more sense to live in the city because theirs is the work that benefits most from the agglomeration that big cities provide.

If low-paid workers have to travel further, then their wages will be forced upwards as a result. Employers are forced to pay prevailing market rates to get the staff they need.

Re: Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

#73

Post by pygy_ »

Retric wrote: post #59
jemfinch wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> being not only shot to disable but absolutely destroyed There is no such thing as "shoot to disable" with firearms. Firearms are lethal weapons. They should only be used when deadly force is justified, and cannot reliably be used to "disable" someone apart from killing them.

You can "shoot to disable" though it can often result in death. Which can be useful if your trying to keep someone alive to interrogate. However, US police are flat out trained to kill. Note: Disable does not mean they are unarmed / unconscious, it generally means they can't move quickly and even if they could still be quite dangerous.

Case in point, Salah Abdelslam, the Paris terror 'suspect' who was arrested last week in Brussels, was shot in the leg as he was charging the police, then arrested.

Re: Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

#75

Post by RodericDay »

laurencerowe wrote: post #67

There's a lot left out in Solnit's article, see: http://www.modernluxury.com/san-francisco/story/alex-nieto-w...

> Nieto was clearly a man having a crisis, and his purported reaction when approached by police was not that of a rational person. Told to show his hands, Nieto allegedly demanded that the cops show theirs. He then reportedly drew his taser and fired three times. And so he was shot—and shot and shot—by officers who claim they did not realize Nieto was carrying a less-than-lethal device.

This is the stuff she should have included into her article?

This platitude about mental health,

> Our jails are full of men and women whose crime is being mentally ill.

Is not a more compelling analysis of the event than Solnit's take.

Re: Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

#76

Post by Xylakant »

czechdeveloper wrote: post #63
Fiahil wrote: post #35

So. Four policemen put 40 bullets in somebody, and that's supposed to be "normal". What the hell?

People don't fall dead after single bullet like in movies. In real scenarios 40 bullets are quite usual.

Shots fired at persons by the german police in 2014 (total): 46 [1].

[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffengebrauch_der_Polizei_in_...

Re: Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

#77

Post by eli_gottlieb »

RodericDay wrote: post #75
laurencerowe wrote: post #67

There's a lot left out in Solnit's article, see: http://www.modernluxury.com/san-francisco/story/alex-nieto-w...

> Nieto was clearly a man having a crisis, and his purported reaction when approached by police was not that of a rational person. Told to show his hands, Nieto allegedly demanded that the cops show theirs. He then reportedly drew his taser and fired three times. And so he was shot—and shot and shot—by officers who claim they did not realize Nieto was carrying a less-than-lethal device. This is the stuff she should h…

Normally I'm pretty damn critical of the police, but drawing a gunlike weapon that's actually a weapon and not a plastic toy, while also being clearly out of your right mind...

Well, he shouldn't have been shot, but wow.

Re: Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

#78

Post by eli_gottlieb »

Joe8Bit wrote: post #19
dmschulman wrote: post #5

This police-assisted murder is a shame but I don't understand why we expect neighborhoods to remain frozen in time forever, never changing their racial or socioeconomic makeup for as long as the area exists. It's a given that neighborhoods, especially in the city, will change over time. The real issue isn't whether people who don't look like the lifelong residents will move in, it's if those new neighbors will treat…

I don't think many people would argue with the evolutionary nature of cities. I think what people would say, however, is that when cities change those with the least economic muscle tend to be the most adversely effected (e.g they lose their homes/tenancies when they can't afford to pay inflated rents). Again, that in itself might not be a problem if there were other places to move that poor communities could afford…

Housing would be cheaper if they built more of it. Rents in Seattle actually declined this year.

Re: Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

#79

Post by mooseburger »

RVuRnvbM2e wrote: post #31
raldi wrote: post #6

This is the taser Alex Nieto pointed at the police and refused to drop (if the police are telling the truth): http://i2.wp.com/missionlocal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03...

Whether he did or not is almost irrelevant. The police wouldn't have even been there if some dude hadn't decided to call 911 on the guy for "walking while hispanic": > Fritz said he only saw Nieto pacing near a bench and eating from a bag but did not himself see any weapon. http://missionlocal.org/2016/03/witness-testified-alex-nieto...

>"walking while hispanic"

I'm hispanic, Puertorican to be exact. Guy seemed to be dressed like a hoodlum in all images I can see in the article. I get nervous when I see people dressed like that here in San Juan, and he definitely would have seemed shady wandering around in a park, alone, dressed like that.

Sure, maybe it's not tolerant to judge someone like that based on what they wear, but at the same time, I can't fathom why an innocent would insist on literally dressing like a gangbanger.

Re: Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

#80

Post by eli_gottlieb »

mc32 wrote: post #20
dmschulman wrote: post #5

This police-assisted murder is a shame but I don't understand why we expect neighborhoods to remain frozen in time forever, never changing their racial or socioeconomic makeup for as long as the area exists. It's a given that neighborhoods, especially in the city, will change over time. The real issue isn't whether people who don't look like the lifelong residents will move in, it's if those new neighbors will treat…

When middle class families move out it's called *-flight. When poor families move out, it's called gentrification. Both are due to economics, some precipitated, not so much by individual bigotry but rather by self interest (the former wanting to preserve value individually in anticipation of devaluation of property, the latter get pushed out due to economics whereby its not viable to remain in a valuating neighborhoo…

>When middle class families move out it's called *-flight. When poor families move out, it's called gentrification.

There's a vast economic difference between a family moving further upscale and further downscale.

Post reply on HN