7 ms·

San Francisco Torn as Some See “Street Behavior” Worsen

66 points by whack 11y ago

whack 11y ago
As someone who moved out of SF 2 years ago, this article reflects exactly the frustrations I felt with the city. I'm all for progressive ideals. I support universal healthcare. I support free higher-ed. I support basic income. And I'm perfectly happy to pay drastically higher taxes in order to fund all of the above. But I also want to live in a city where I don't need to worry about my car getting broken into. Where I don't have to worry about being mugged late at night. Where the police department is adequately staffed to minimize crime, and those who do commit crimes are punished for doing so. And call me an elitist, but I'd be very happy if my kids could grow up in a city where the streets are clean and don't smell of piss. I don't see why any of those desires should be in conflict with my progressive ideals, but apparently in SF, that makes me a heartless capitalist pig. Whatever. Water under the bridge now. Best wishes to you SF. I'll just continue living here in my new home where people are willing to face up to real problems with practical solutions.
- JumpCrisscross 11y ago
  New York strikes a more sustainable urban balance than San Francisco. We embrace social programs, but not at the expense of quality of life or development. A lot of the balancing comes from development. It's rare for e.g. a city block to come together to demand better policies. When they do, it's often a NIMBYist backlash against productive policy. Developers, on the other hand, care about the impact of policies on their aggregate holdings. Since they're typically developing a pipeline, their NIMBYist instincts tend to be relatively dulled. Everything seems to point in the same direction. Cities which refuse to grow, instead transferring the fruits of growth to a land-owning elite, fail.
  - ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
    I have a very pessimistic view of how shitty (literally) SF is run, but this strikes me as being just as wrong in the opposite direction. The NYPD strikes me as the law enforcement branch of a police state. Surely there are other big cities that have a decent quality of life that aren't SF or NYC.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      Can you name any big cities with an underclass of antisocial criminals, without a crime problem, and also without aggressive law enforcement to keep them in check?
      - Mandatum 11y ago
        Would Tokyo count here? It's a case of if-you-can't-beat-'em though, which probably isn't the example you want.
        yummyfajitas 11y ago
        I've never been to Tokyo and have no idea. How does Tokyo avoid disorder caused by undesirables?
        Mandatum 11y ago
        The Yakuza is heavily integrated into the government and it has become tolerated by the people. A few decades ago the government cracked down on the Yakuza as they had too much hold on how the government was run, so they splintered and different chapters took different parts of crime (ie Yamaguchi-gumi are heavily against drug trafficking and Dojin-kai are heavily involved in it). Japan is one of the most crime-free countries in the world, because serious crime is monopolised by the criminals (and penalties for cutting their lunch are pretty heavy, which is common amongst most Asian gangs) and "respect" or "honour" is considered sacred. They don't romanticise or make "being an asshole" look fun or positive (ala "Wolf of Wall Street" is a perfect example).
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- e2e4 11y ago
  Where did you move to?
- basch 11y ago
  >Never before had such a plan—known as “fiscal equalization”—been tried at the metropolitan level. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/the-miracle-of-minneapolis/384975/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/the-mira... tldr: the twin cities tax businesses and put the money into low income communities to prevent crime, and in the 70s and 80s, 70% of subsidized units were built in the wealthiest white districts, to prevent ghettos from forming.
  - ooooo00000 11y ago
    But unfortunately Minnesota consistently ranks among the worst regarding the disparity between white and minority educational achievement.
- jupiter90000 11y ago
  People may think what they will of my comment, but I visited San Francisco once and probably will never go back. I worked in downtown Seattle, walked to and from work at all hours in the city and saw all kinds of stuff, but in San Francisco I felt alot more unsafe. Seriously sketchy people that didn't just seem like they were harmlessly going about their crazy business. I wish San Francisco and its people the best, but from a distance.
- HillaryBriss 11y ago
  Police in California cities are extremely expensive once you factor in the low retirement age, generous pension plans and lifetime health benefits. And SF's particular flavor of idealism is carried to a remarkable extreme in the public arena. The homeless (and others who are considered "marginal") get the benefit of the doubt from the police and society in general, even when they're pissing in the street. This is a special kind of thinking which is specific to SF (and perhaps Berkeley and a small number of other cities). I don't believe such thinking is part of progressivism in general.
- carsongross 11y ago
  I used to say "San Francisco is so beautiful that humans, try as they might, just can't ruin it." I was wrong.
- lap42 11y ago
  1) So you are happy to pay "drastically higher taxes" to fund some social programs, have you actually calculated what percentage of your income would be necessary to achieve that? And even with higher taxes, that would not be possible at all? And since taxes are coercively taken from everyone, not only from people that are apparently fine with that, that people who would otherwise hire or build new business that could employ poor people are running out? 2) Do you really expect outsource either money (taxes) and time (you do nothing) to politicians and get results as an outcome? 3) Do you know that you can be a capitalist without being a heartless capitalist pig? 4) Do you know that your progressive ideas is killing America because that didn't work in any country in no time in history?
minimaxir 11y ago
It's odd that the article avoids the question of where crime occurs in the city, as that might provide some answers. A few months ago I made many data visualizations of where criminal arrests occur in San Francisco: http://minimaxir.com/2015/12/sf-arrest-maps/ http://minimaxir.com/2015/12/sf-arrest-maps/ The tl;dr is that, as expected, SF crime is centralized in the Tenderloin, with 16th St Mission being a close second. However, as the years progressed, crime has become relatively less centralized around those areas. (there wasn't much activity on Lombard Street, though.)
- jacobwcarlson 11y ago
  There is no tl;dr for crime, society, and geography. Even if there were I think San Francisco would still be an outlier. Regardless, arrests and incidence of crime are separate things. Making it easier to look at data is certainly useful and thanks for helping in that respect, but that doesn't provide answers on its own.
- ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
  16th St Mission is definitely one of the scariest places to wait for transit (in my case, for the 22), even during the normal work day.
  - bluejekyll 11y ago
    Why not walk up to Valencia? Though, I guess there you might get puked on... I have to say though, the Mission has never felt as dangerous as the 'Loin did 15 years ago, when I used to wait for the 21 at Jones. Eventually I moved to just take the 5 which was safer. I have to say, either I'm lucky or something, but I've not had any issues with crime in S.F. in the 16 years that I've lived here. Philadelphia for example has always felt much more dangerous at night.
JamilD 11y ago
> “We are not going to criminalize people for being poor,” he said. “That criminalization is only going to make it harder for them to get out of poverty.” No, but we should criminalize people if they commit crimes. Laws exist for a reason, and they must be enforced to be effective.
- wpietri 11y ago
  I don't think what you say is wrong. But I don't think it's the ironclad reply you hope. As Anatole France said, "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." I just had my bike stolen out of my back yard here in the Mission two days ago. I'm still mad. But odds are that it was some homeless addict, and enforcing the law and putting him in jail for a few weeks will be no more effective in solving the problem of petty theft than not enforcing the law. I would certainly like to see the cops arrest the people up the stolen goods chain, the people who actually have something to lose. Crime shouldn't pay. But the way to stop people stealing to survive is to help them find some more productive way to survive.
  - JamilD 11y ago
    > But the way to stop people stealing to survive is to help them find some more productive way to survive. I agree with this completely – ultimately, you have to find a better and more sustainable solution. But right now, some people know they can commit crime in San Francisco, and see it through with relatively few consequences, causing a concentration of crime in the city. It provides an incentive to crime… and ultimately, ignoring it won't make it go away either.
  - ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
    But what if it wasn't a homeless addict whose been screwed over by life unfairly?
    - wpietri 11y ago
      Then see what I wrote about "crime shouldn't pay".
mjolk 11y ago
>“We are not going to criminalize people for being poor,” he said. “That criminalization is only going to make it harder for them to get out of poverty.” I don't understand this attitude -- policing crime and taking actions to reduce the number of victims isn't "against" those in poverty. If you're poor and committing non-trivial crimes, it's your personal choices working against you, not society. Maybe I'm too "east coast," but I'm also not comfortable with the idea that criminal acts should be excused if the perpetrator is under some income threshold or got himself/herself hooked on drugs. For those "voting down", please explain to me how my worldview is disagreeable. I'm not against changing my mind based on solid arguments.
- yoo1I 11y ago
  I see where you're coming from. But you have to keep in mind that there a myriad of offences that you're not susceptible to commit if your living standard is above a certain threshold. Say, loitering, because maybe you have no home or a crowded one, so it's better to spend more time of the day on the street. Or petty theft, for people who're really poor. If you're a druggie and need money for a fix. Or say you're in the country illegally. And I am sure we could come up with more. The point is none of these behaviors (well, except loitering, I don't get why that should be criminalized) are desirable for society as a whole, but it's not correct to pretend that the laws applies to all citizens equally, when there a forces that prod some people towards classes of crimes. That goes the other way too, for example considering tax evasion. The question becomes then how to we manage these behaviors, and I'm not sure that an increased pressure by the state to enforce existing laws on a vulnerable population, actually solves anything. Yeah you might have some moral ideas about whether "getting yourself hooked on drugs" is a good idea, from a policy standpoint that's irrelevant, what matters is to manage the fallout that this has on society right now and how to deal with it in the future.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    Or as Anatole France put it, "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
yarou 11y ago
When I lived in NYC, I thought the NYPD were bad. Then I moved to SF and got to experience the wonderful treatment of the SFPD. Can't wait until my lease is up (another 5 months to go) so I can gtfo.
- cookiecaper 11y ago
  Was there ever an update around Ian Murdock? I think his beef with Oakland PD, not SF PD, but I would definitely be interested to know if there was a conclusion to that story.
pervycreeper 11y ago
>I don't see why any of those desires should be in conflict with my progressive ideals This is precisely the origin of the problem.
- andrewflnr 11y ago
  Are you seriously suggesting that progressive ideals require tolerating elevated risk of suffering violence and property damage?
  - malchow 11y ago
    There are many people–social scientists and economists among them–who would suggest to you exactly that. The U.S. has spent (i.e. transferred) trillions fighting poverty. The result? Not much. The good stuff that has happened to poor people since 1945 mostly comes about through private innovation. The thought that reducing safety nets could result in better outcomes for both their intended beneficiaries and those who fund the government is scary, perhaps. But not at all beyond the realm of civil discussion.
    - whateveridunno 11y ago
      >The good stuff that has happened to poor people since 1945 mostly comes about through private innovation. Would really like a citation on that.
      - andrewflnr 11y ago
        I don't have a citation, but I think it's reasonably to say that a large part of the good things for poor people have just been things getting cheaper, so that the same amount of economic output buys you more comfort. That's largely a result of private innovation driving down prices. That may or may not be what GP was referring to.
    - andrewflnr 11y ago
      We can have a civil discussion, sure, but when you're talking about tolerating violence, what we're civilly discussing is no longer a civilization. I'm basically with you on the private innovation thing and thinking carefully about safety nets. That's not what I was initially objecting to, so I'm actually not sure where you're coming from.
tommoor 11y ago
At the end of the article: “Police are barred by city ordinance from installing surveillance cameras in San Francisco” This just seems bonkers to me - every few days hoodline is reporting a stabbing / shooting in the TL and they never seem to have any leads, I guess this is why. There should be security cameras on every cross street in the TL.
- x3n0ph3n3 11y ago
  > There should be security cameras on every cross street in the TL. How would you feel if the city wanted to install video cameras all over your neighborhood, keeping track of everyone's comings and goings?
  - alexandercrohde 11y ago
    So my coworker, let's call him "Justin" woke up less than 2 weeks after midnight to two voices and somebody sticking his foot through his open window (lives in tenderloin, with his gf). To me that's a much more pressing fear than overpolicing.
  - HillaryBriss 11y ago
    I think people who live in a crime ridden neighborhood would, in many cases, be supportive if the cameras reduced crime. I believe the practical reality is that, in most places where video security cameras are ubiquitous (e.g. London), the vast majority of the recorded footage is never viewed by anyone and is not archived. There's too much of it and it's too boring.
    - DanBC 11y ago
      Although London also has extensive car number-plate reading technology so they don't need to store the video, they can just store the rats nest of hits of vehicles travelling around.
      - HillaryBriss 11y ago
        Thanks for pointing that out. This does take matters to a different level because someone will surely hack such a nifty DB of license plates, times and locations (if they haven't already). But even so, there's a legitimate policy debate to be had about the value of such a DB vis a vis its riskiness to individual privacy. Unfortunately, that's the difficult world we live in. Medical records have been hacked. Voter records have been hacked. And yet, somehow, societies have continued to compile and update them.
curiousphil 11y ago
"About half the cases here are thefts from vehicles, smash-and-grabs that scatter glittering broken glass onto the sidewalks." This is way too close to home... Was in SF for GDC 2016 about a month ago when my crews vehicle window was smashed (in the Moscone Center Parking Lot) and 5 backpacks full of MacBook Pros, iPads, cash and an expensive digital SLR with even more expensive lenses were swiped in the blink of an eye. We had dropped our stuff there and grabbed a bite to eat when we came back to the horrific site of our rental vehicles window shattered all over the ground. Just the night before we were noting how incredibly quiet SF was at night after 9:30pm. Apparently a quiet city is NOT a crime free one. The security guard and guys in the booth at the parking garage were less than helpful despite there being a variety of security camera screens/cameras. When we called the cops they said we could wait there for an officer but it might be hours so we best just go to the nearest station and file a report. A month out and we've heard nothing on the case despite there being about $20k of belongings grabbed. We didn't really expect to hear much based on their response. Yes I realize it was incredibly stupid to leave that amount of valuables in a vehicle in the city. Lesson learned there. In our city (Boise) you can practically leave your keys in the ignition without any concerns. Thankfully we paid for the no hassle insurance on the vehicle and our company insurance covered most of our stolen goods. It was still a big loss though and a major hassle. I'll never be so naive again. Hopefully someone reading this can learn from our mistake as well.
- JamilD 11y ago
  In San Francisco, if you leave anything worth more than a couple hundred dollars in your car, it's as good as gone. It took me a while to get used to the level of crime in SF too… it's so different from even North San Jose or Mountain View.
  - refurb 11y ago
    In San Francisco, if you leave anything worth more than a couple hundred dollars in your car, it's as good as gone. I'd go further than that. If you leave anything in your car, you can count on it being broken into. A jacket on the floor is enough for them to smash a window to see if there is anything valuable hiding underneath.
ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
Unless you're really rich and can literally isolate yourself from all this, SF really isn't worth it. Of course, if you're really rich, you can live down in Palo Alto, around the same neighborhood Steve Jobs lived in, or someplace like Los Altos Hills, Atherton, etc and avoid all the (literal) shit in SF.
- cookiecaper 11y ago
  SF is past the tipping point IMO. The absurdity of paying $3000+/mo for a 200 sq ft "micro-apartment" finally sunk in I guess. Some other place is going to be home to the next batch of unicorns (well, maybe the third-next batch) and SF will be done for. The city will panic and frantically grant the building permits and provide semi-workable solutions to the rampant crime and traffic problems to try to get some of the glory back, but it will be too little too late.
  - ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
    I think living in Santa Clara County and commuting (preferably on Caltrain) is infinitely better than actually living in SF. There's just as high as concentration of geeks, and its so much safer (three cheers for the suburbs).
KKKKkkkk1 11y ago
What irks me is the hypocrisy of the city supervisor who is speaking out against the capitalist ethos of the new arrivals who disrespect San Francisco's liberal traditions. Seriously dude, a city where you pay > $1K to live in a kennel is as dog-eat-dog as a city can get.
- wpietri 11y ago
  I see you edited it, but you originally wrote: > Why don't you think about the people who are trying to put a shelter above their heads and not just about the homeless? Which I think is a more honest representation of your view. San Francisco has become a dog-eat-dog city because of the new arrivals, because of the massive wealth streaming in to the city. It has become a very different place than it was in the eras that it welcomed the beatniks, the hippies, the gay community. Those people came to put a roof above their heads. They came to find a home. The newest arrivals have mostly come to line their pockets.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
applecore 11y ago
San Francisco is a failed city. The failure of its prosperous element to do anything about it is an indictment of its entire culture.
- user10001 11y ago
  The draw of SF used to be that it was a free-wheeling, anything goes type of place. But that was decades ago. Now there is hardly a reason to go there unless it's something business related.
- JamilD 11y ago
  I agree San Francisco has its problems, but calling it a failed city is grossly overstating the problem. San Francisco continues to have a high degree of social mobility relative to the rest of the United States [0]. [0] http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/the-geography-of-the-american-dream/283308/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/the-geog...
  - ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
    You mean if you have a Stanford or CMU CS degree and wine and dine with VCs? Sure, its a great place for upward mobility. Now what about everyone who was actually born in SF and who isn't in tech?
    - JamilD 11y ago
      One of the metrics, as mentioned in the article, is the probability of a child being in the upper quintile of income, given that their parents were in the bottom quintile (hardly wining and dining with VCs). In SF, that probability is 0.122, or 12.2%… extremely high relative to the rest of the country. Atlanta is 0.045, and even New York City is only 0.105.
marcoperaza 11y ago
The liberal utopia. Where no one has the moral confidence to do what must be done. Where people are so worried about being nice that they forget to be good.
saosebastiao 11y ago
Despite being in the tech industry, the only people I know that live in San Francisco fall firmly in the "Have-nots" category, and it has been illuminating watching their resentment turn to anger to full on (as in actually violent) class warfare. 15 years ago, those that moved there seemed genuinely happy and peaceful. Now they are on standby to riot. Being able to see both sides is an interesting perspective and unfortunately it doesn't give me much hope. The rhetoric on one side is dismissive and bordering on authoritarian, the rhetoric on the other side is growing hateful and violent. Whereas living in Stockton (where I am from, as well as those I know living there) could be compared to living in Cleveland or Detroit, the only parallel I see in San Francisco is Paris circa the 1780s. Which is kinda scary.
- adrienne 11y ago
  Gee, I can't imagine why people would be hateful and violent when they're being driven further and further into poverty - and out of their homes and neighborhoods - by rent-seekers and rich dudebros. I can't imagine why they'd be hateful and violent when they're starving and homeless the next street over from 20something billionaires who do basically nothing useful for humanity. Paris circa the 1780s is exactly right. I hope the homeless of SF build a guillotine very soon.
phantarch 11y ago
I just spent the last week in SF (am from a flyover state), and had a difficult time enjoying walking the city without feeling stressed about not knowing if the next block would feel safe or not. It definitely solidified my decision to not move out there.
- KKKKkkkk1 11y ago
  Where is that place where you're supposed to meet gentle people with flowers in their hair? Not in San Francisco for sure.
refurb 11y ago
I wonder how much of this has to do with Prop 47 which resulted in only a citation and no arrest for: • Commercial burglary (theft under $950) • Forgery and bad checks (under $950 value) • Theft of most firearms • Theft of a vehicle (under $950 value) • Possession of stolen property (under $950 value) • Possession of heroin, cocaine, illegal prescriptions, concentrated cannabis, and methamphetamine It's California-wide, but it would be interesting if an increase in crime happened after it was passed.
ianbicking 11y ago
> “We are not going to criminalize people for being poor,” he said. “That criminalization is only going to make it harder for them to get out of poverty.” Underlying this sentiment is the idea that the poor are a monolith. That someone stealing from cars or someone with mental problems who can't maintain a job or relationships is a good representation of "the poor". The guy in the article who had his BMW broken into can afford to be blasé about the incident - he's insured, whatever was stolen he can replace without blinking an eye. The poor person who is robbed can't just replace whatever was stolen. "Poor people" aren't just perpetrators, they are also disproportionately victims (unless SF is different, which it probably is because it's so weird) - and I think they yearn for safety and stability MORE than wealthy people, they just can't do much about it. We mistake the complacency - which is the natural and probably healthy reaction when you don't feel you can affect social change - for a comfort with all aspects of the urban environment.
riebschlager 11y ago
Wow. Why did this fall off the front page so fast?
marcoperaza 11y ago
Why was this nuked from the front page? It's way lower in the rankings than it should be for its age and point count. Am I really witnessing such petty censorship? http://imgur.com/irJgUPD http://imgur.com/irJgUPD
cromwellian 11y ago
I was robbed at gunpoint on my birthday a few years ago in front of the SF Chronicle for my cellphone! The thief was finally caught, he wore a leather holster and was called the cowboy bandit by the police and robbed 40 other people. At trial, one particular gentleman had been beaten and facially disfigured after handing over his phone because the thief noticed he was gay. My old boss had his car smashed and valuables removed. And a popular travel blogger who reviews national parks in her RV which she lives in and is herself rather poor, stopped in SF overnight and had all of her possessions stolen from her trailer.

66 points by whack 11y ago

whack 11y ago

As someone who moved out of SF 2 years ago, this article reflects exactly the frustrations I felt with the city. I'm all for progressive ideals. I support universal healthcare. I support free higher-ed. I support basic income. And I'm perfectly happy to pay drastically higher taxes in order to fund all of the above. But I also want to live in a city where I don't need to worry about my car getting broken into. Where I don't have to worry about being mugged late at night. Where the police department is adequately staffed to minimize crime, and those who do commit crimes are punished for doing so. And call me an elitist, but I'd be very happy if my kids could grow up in a city where the streets are clean and don't smell of piss. I don't see why any of those desires should be in conflict with my progressive ideals, but apparently in SF, that makes me a heartless capitalist pig. Whatever. Water under the bridge now. Best wishes to you SF. I'll just continue living here in my new home where people are willing to face up to real problems with practical solutions.

JumpCrisscross 11y ago
New York strikes a more sustainable urban balance than San Francisco. We embrace social programs, but not at the expense of quality of life or development. A lot of the balancing comes from development. It's rare for e.g. a city block to come together to demand better policies. When they do, it's often a NIMBYist backlash against productive policy. Developers, on the other hand, care about the impact of policies on their aggregate holdings. Since they're typically developing a pipeline, their NIMBYist instincts tend to be relatively dulled. Everything seems to point in the same direction. Cities which refuse to grow, instead transferring the fruits of growth to a land-owning elite, fail.
- ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
  I have a very pessimistic view of how shitty (literally) SF is run, but this strikes me as being just as wrong in the opposite direction. The NYPD strikes me as the law enforcement branch of a police state. Surely there are other big cities that have a decent quality of life that aren't SF or NYC.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    Can you name any big cities with an underclass of antisocial criminals, without a crime problem, and also without aggressive law enforcement to keep them in check?
    - Mandatum 11y ago
      Would Tokyo count here? It's a case of if-you-can't-beat-'em though, which probably isn't the example you want.
      - yummyfajitas 11y ago
        I've never been to Tokyo and have no idea. How does Tokyo avoid disorder caused by undesirables?
        Mandatum 11y ago
        The Yakuza is heavily integrated into the government and it has become tolerated by the people. A few decades ago the government cracked down on the Yakuza as they had too much hold on how the government was run, so they splintered and different chapters took different parts of crime (ie Yamaguchi-gumi are heavily against drug trafficking and Dojin-kai are heavily involved in it). Japan is one of the most crime-free countries in the world, because serious crime is monopolised by the criminals (and penalties for cutting their lunch are pretty heavy, which is common amongst most Asian gangs) and "respect" or "honour" is considered sacred. They don't romanticise or make "being an asshole" look fun or positive (ala "Wolf of Wall Street" is a perfect example).
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
e2e4 11y ago
Where did you move to?
basch 11y ago
>Never before had such a plan—known as “fiscal equalization”—been tried at the metropolitan level. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/the-miracle-of-minneapolis/384975/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/the-mira... tldr: the twin cities tax businesses and put the money into low income communities to prevent crime, and in the 70s and 80s, 70% of subsidized units were built in the wealthiest white districts, to prevent ghettos from forming.
- ooooo00000 11y ago
  But unfortunately Minnesota consistently ranks among the worst regarding the disparity between white and minority educational achievement.
jupiter90000 11y ago
People may think what they will of my comment, but I visited San Francisco once and probably will never go back. I worked in downtown Seattle, walked to and from work at all hours in the city and saw all kinds of stuff, but in San Francisco I felt alot more unsafe. Seriously sketchy people that didn't just seem like they were harmlessly going about their crazy business. I wish San Francisco and its people the best, but from a distance.
HillaryBriss 11y ago
Police in California cities are extremely expensive once you factor in the low retirement age, generous pension plans and lifetime health benefits. And SF's particular flavor of idealism is carried to a remarkable extreme in the public arena. The homeless (and others who are considered "marginal") get the benefit of the doubt from the police and society in general, even when they're pissing in the street. This is a special kind of thinking which is specific to SF (and perhaps Berkeley and a small number of other cities). I don't believe such thinking is part of progressivism in general.
carsongross 11y ago
I used to say "San Francisco is so beautiful that humans, try as they might, just can't ruin it." I was wrong.
lap42 11y ago
1) So you are happy to pay "drastically higher taxes" to fund some social programs, have you actually calculated what percentage of your income would be necessary to achieve that? And even with higher taxes, that would not be possible at all? And since taxes are coercively taken from everyone, not only from people that are apparently fine with that, that people who would otherwise hire or build new business that could employ poor people are running out? 2) Do you really expect outsource either money (taxes) and time (you do nothing) to politicians and get results as an outcome? 3) Do you know that you can be a capitalist without being a heartless capitalist pig? 4) Do you know that your progressive ideas is killing America because that didn't work in any country in no time in history?

minimaxir 11y ago

It's odd that the article avoids the question of where crime occurs in the city, as that might provide some answers. A few months ago I made many data visualizations of where criminal arrests occur in San Francisco: http://minimaxir.com/2015/12/sf-arrest-maps/ http://minimaxir.com/2015/12/sf-arrest-maps/ The tl;dr is that, as expected, SF crime is centralized in the Tenderloin, with 16th St Mission being a close second. However, as the years progressed, crime has become relatively less centralized around those areas. (there wasn't much activity on Lombard Street, though.)

jacobwcarlson 11y ago
There is no tl;dr for crime, society, and geography. Even if there were I think San Francisco would still be an outlier. Regardless, arrests and incidence of crime are separate things. Making it easier to look at data is certainly useful and thanks for helping in that respect, but that doesn't provide answers on its own.
ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
16th St Mission is definitely one of the scariest places to wait for transit (in my case, for the 22), even during the normal work day.
- bluejekyll 11y ago
  Why not walk up to Valencia? Though, I guess there you might get puked on... I have to say though, the Mission has never felt as dangerous as the 'Loin did 15 years ago, when I used to wait for the 21 at Jones. Eventually I moved to just take the 5 which was safer. I have to say, either I'm lucky or something, but I've not had any issues with crime in S.F. in the 16 years that I've lived here. Philadelphia for example has always felt much more dangerous at night.

JamilD 11y ago

> “We are not going to criminalize people for being poor,” he said. “That criminalization is only going to make it harder for them to get out of poverty.” No, but we should criminalize people if they commit crimes. Laws exist for a reason, and they must be enforced to be effective.

wpietri 11y ago
I don't think what you say is wrong. But I don't think it's the ironclad reply you hope. As Anatole France said, "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." I just had my bike stolen out of my back yard here in the Mission two days ago. I'm still mad. But odds are that it was some homeless addict, and enforcing the law and putting him in jail for a few weeks will be no more effective in solving the problem of petty theft than not enforcing the law. I would certainly like to see the cops arrest the people up the stolen goods chain, the people who actually have something to lose. Crime shouldn't pay. But the way to stop people stealing to survive is to help them find some more productive way to survive.
- JamilD 11y ago
  > But the way to stop people stealing to survive is to help them find some more productive way to survive. I agree with this completely – ultimately, you have to find a better and more sustainable solution. But right now, some people know they can commit crime in San Francisco, and see it through with relatively few consequences, causing a concentration of crime in the city. It provides an incentive to crime… and ultimately, ignoring it won't make it go away either.
- ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
  But what if it wasn't a homeless addict whose been screwed over by life unfairly?
  - wpietri 11y ago
    Then see what I wrote about "crime shouldn't pay".

mjolk 11y ago

>“We are not going to criminalize people for being poor,” he said. “That criminalization is only going to make it harder for them to get out of poverty.” I don't understand this attitude -- policing crime and taking actions to reduce the number of victims isn't "against" those in poverty. If you're poor and committing non-trivial crimes, it's your personal choices working against you, not society. Maybe I'm too "east coast," but I'm also not comfortable with the idea that criminal acts should be excused if the perpetrator is under some income threshold or got himself/herself hooked on drugs. For those "voting down", please explain to me how my worldview is disagreeable. I'm not against changing my mind based on solid arguments.

yoo1I 11y ago
I see where you're coming from. But you have to keep in mind that there a myriad of offences that you're not susceptible to commit if your living standard is above a certain threshold. Say, loitering, because maybe you have no home or a crowded one, so it's better to spend more time of the day on the street. Or petty theft, for people who're really poor. If you're a druggie and need money for a fix. Or say you're in the country illegally. And I am sure we could come up with more. The point is none of these behaviors (well, except loitering, I don't get why that should be criminalized) are desirable for society as a whole, but it's not correct to pretend that the laws applies to all citizens equally, when there a forces that prod some people towards classes of crimes. That goes the other way too, for example considering tax evasion. The question becomes then how to we manage these behaviors, and I'm not sure that an increased pressure by the state to enforce existing laws on a vulnerable population, actually solves anything. Yeah you might have some moral ideas about whether "getting yourself hooked on drugs" is a good idea, from a policy standpoint that's irrelevant, what matters is to manage the fallout that this has on society right now and how to deal with it in the future.
- icebraining 11y ago
  Or as Anatole France put it, "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

yarou 11y ago

When I lived in NYC, I thought the NYPD were bad. Then I moved to SF and got to experience the wonderful treatment of the SFPD. Can't wait until my lease is up (another 5 months to go) so I can gtfo.

cookiecaper 11y ago
Was there ever an update around Ian Murdock? I think his beef with Oakland PD, not SF PD, but I would definitely be interested to know if there was a conclusion to that story.

pervycreeper 11y ago

>I don't see why any of those desires should be in conflict with my progressive ideals This is precisely the origin of the problem.

andrewflnr 11y ago
Are you seriously suggesting that progressive ideals require tolerating elevated risk of suffering violence and property damage?
- malchow 11y ago
  There are many people–social scientists and economists among them–who would suggest to you exactly that. The U.S. has spent (i.e. transferred) trillions fighting poverty. The result? Not much. The good stuff that has happened to poor people since 1945 mostly comes about through private innovation. The thought that reducing safety nets could result in better outcomes for both their intended beneficiaries and those who fund the government is scary, perhaps. But not at all beyond the realm of civil discussion.
  - whateveridunno 11y ago
    >The good stuff that has happened to poor people since 1945 mostly comes about through private innovation. Would really like a citation on that.
    - andrewflnr 11y ago
      I don't have a citation, but I think it's reasonably to say that a large part of the good things for poor people have just been things getting cheaper, so that the same amount of economic output buys you more comfort. That's largely a result of private innovation driving down prices. That may or may not be what GP was referring to.
  - andrewflnr 11y ago
    We can have a civil discussion, sure, but when you're talking about tolerating violence, what we're civilly discussing is no longer a civilization. I'm basically with you on the private innovation thing and thinking carefully about safety nets. That's not what I was initially objecting to, so I'm actually not sure where you're coming from.

tommoor 11y ago

At the end of the article: “Police are barred by city ordinance from installing surveillance cameras in San Francisco” This just seems bonkers to me - every few days hoodline is reporting a stabbing / shooting in the TL and they never seem to have any leads, I guess this is why. There should be security cameras on every cross street in the TL.

x3n0ph3n3 11y ago
> There should be security cameras on every cross street in the TL. How would you feel if the city wanted to install video cameras all over your neighborhood, keeping track of everyone's comings and goings?
- alexandercrohde 11y ago
  So my coworker, let's call him "Justin" woke up less than 2 weeks after midnight to two voices and somebody sticking his foot through his open window (lives in tenderloin, with his gf). To me that's a much more pressing fear than overpolicing.
- HillaryBriss 11y ago
  I think people who live in a crime ridden neighborhood would, in many cases, be supportive if the cameras reduced crime. I believe the practical reality is that, in most places where video security cameras are ubiquitous (e.g. London), the vast majority of the recorded footage is never viewed by anyone and is not archived. There's too much of it and it's too boring.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    Although London also has extensive car number-plate reading technology so they don't need to store the video, they can just store the rats nest of hits of vehicles travelling around.
    - HillaryBriss 11y ago
      Thanks for pointing that out. This does take matters to a different level because someone will surely hack such a nifty DB of license plates, times and locations (if they haven't already). But even so, there's a legitimate policy debate to be had about the value of such a DB vis a vis its riskiness to individual privacy. Unfortunately, that's the difficult world we live in. Medical records have been hacked. Voter records have been hacked. And yet, somehow, societies have continued to compile and update them.

curiousphil 11y ago

"About half the cases here are thefts from vehicles, smash-and-grabs that scatter glittering broken glass onto the sidewalks." This is way too close to home... Was in SF for GDC 2016 about a month ago when my crews vehicle window was smashed (in the Moscone Center Parking Lot) and 5 backpacks full of MacBook Pros, iPads, cash and an expensive digital SLR with even more expensive lenses were swiped in the blink of an eye. We had dropped our stuff there and grabbed a bite to eat when we came back to the horrific site of our rental vehicles window shattered all over the ground. Just the night before we were noting how incredibly quiet SF was at night after 9:30pm. Apparently a quiet city is NOT a crime free one. The security guard and guys in the booth at the parking garage were less than helpful despite there being a variety of security camera screens/cameras. When we called the cops they said we could wait there for an officer but it might be hours so we best just go to the nearest station and file a report. A month out and we've heard nothing on the case despite there being about $20k of belongings grabbed. We didn't really expect to hear much based on their response. Yes I realize it was incredibly stupid to leave that amount of valuables in a vehicle in the city. Lesson learned there. In our city (Boise) you can practically leave your keys in the ignition without any concerns. Thankfully we paid for the no hassle insurance on the vehicle and our company insurance covered most of our stolen goods. It was still a big loss though and a major hassle. I'll never be so naive again. Hopefully someone reading this can learn from our mistake as well.

JamilD 11y ago
In San Francisco, if you leave anything worth more than a couple hundred dollars in your car, it's as good as gone. It took me a while to get used to the level of crime in SF too… it's so different from even North San Jose or Mountain View.
- refurb 11y ago
  In San Francisco, if you leave anything worth more than a couple hundred dollars in your car, it's as good as gone. I'd go further than that. If you leave anything in your car, you can count on it being broken into. A jacket on the floor is enough for them to smash a window to see if there is anything valuable hiding underneath.

ZanyProgrammer 11y ago

Unless you're really rich and can literally isolate yourself from all this, SF really isn't worth it. Of course, if you're really rich, you can live down in Palo Alto, around the same neighborhood Steve Jobs lived in, or someplace like Los Altos Hills, Atherton, etc and avoid all the (literal) shit in SF.

cookiecaper 11y ago
SF is past the tipping point IMO. The absurdity of paying $3000+/mo for a 200 sq ft "micro-apartment" finally sunk in I guess. Some other place is going to be home to the next batch of unicorns (well, maybe the third-next batch) and SF will be done for. The city will panic and frantically grant the building permits and provide semi-workable solutions to the rampant crime and traffic problems to try to get some of the glory back, but it will be too little too late.
- ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
  I think living in Santa Clara County and commuting (preferably on Caltrain) is infinitely better than actually living in SF. There's just as high as concentration of geeks, and its so much safer (three cheers for the suburbs).

KKKKkkkk1 11y ago

What irks me is the hypocrisy of the city supervisor who is speaking out against the capitalist ethos of the new arrivals who disrespect San Francisco's liberal traditions. Seriously dude, a city where you pay > $1K to live in a kennel is as dog-eat-dog as a city can get.

wpietri 11y ago
I see you edited it, but you originally wrote: > Why don't you think about the people who are trying to put a shelter above their heads and not just about the homeless? Which I think is a more honest representation of your view. San Francisco has become a dog-eat-dog city because of the new arrivals, because of the massive wealth streaming in to the city. It has become a very different place than it was in the eras that it welcomed the beatniks, the hippies, the gay community. Those people came to put a roof above their heads. They came to find a home. The newest arrivals have mostly come to line their pockets.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

applecore 11y ago

San Francisco is a failed city. The failure of its prosperous element to do anything about it is an indictment of its entire culture.

user10001 11y ago
The draw of SF used to be that it was a free-wheeling, anything goes type of place. But that was decades ago. Now there is hardly a reason to go there unless it's something business related.
JamilD 11y ago
I agree San Francisco has its problems, but calling it a failed city is grossly overstating the problem. San Francisco continues to have a high degree of social mobility relative to the rest of the United States [0]. [0] http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/the-geography-of-the-american-dream/283308/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/the-geog...
- ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
  You mean if you have a Stanford or CMU CS degree and wine and dine with VCs? Sure, its a great place for upward mobility. Now what about everyone who was actually born in SF and who isn't in tech?
  - JamilD 11y ago
    One of the metrics, as mentioned in the article, is the probability of a child being in the upper quintile of income, given that their parents were in the bottom quintile (hardly wining and dining with VCs). In SF, that probability is 0.122, or 12.2%… extremely high relative to the rest of the country. Atlanta is 0.045, and even New York City is only 0.105.

marcoperaza 11y ago

The liberal utopia. Where no one has the moral confidence to do what must be done. Where people are so worried about being nice that they forget to be good.

saosebastiao 11y ago

Despite being in the tech industry, the only people I know that live in San Francisco fall firmly in the "Have-nots" category, and it has been illuminating watching their resentment turn to anger to full on (as in actually violent) class warfare. 15 years ago, those that moved there seemed genuinely happy and peaceful. Now they are on standby to riot. Being able to see both sides is an interesting perspective and unfortunately it doesn't give me much hope. The rhetoric on one side is dismissive and bordering on authoritarian, the rhetoric on the other side is growing hateful and violent. Whereas living in Stockton (where I am from, as well as those I know living there) could be compared to living in Cleveland or Detroit, the only parallel I see in San Francisco is Paris circa the 1780s. Which is kinda scary.

adrienne 11y ago
Gee, I can't imagine why people would be hateful and violent when they're being driven further and further into poverty - and out of their homes and neighborhoods - by rent-seekers and rich dudebros. I can't imagine why they'd be hateful and violent when they're starving and homeless the next street over from 20something billionaires who do basically nothing useful for humanity. Paris circa the 1780s is exactly right. I hope the homeless of SF build a guillotine very soon.

phantarch 11y ago

I just spent the last week in SF (am from a flyover state), and had a difficult time enjoying walking the city without feeling stressed about not knowing if the next block would feel safe or not. It definitely solidified my decision to not move out there.

KKKKkkkk1 11y ago
Where is that place where you're supposed to meet gentle people with flowers in their hair? Not in San Francisco for sure.

refurb 11y ago

I wonder how much of this has to do with Prop 47 which resulted in only a citation and no arrest for: • Commercial burglary (theft under $950) • Forgery and bad checks (under $950 value) • Theft of most firearms • Theft of a vehicle (under $950 value) • Possession of stolen property (under $950 value) • Possession of heroin, cocaine, illegal prescriptions, concentrated cannabis, and methamphetamine It's California-wide, but it would be interesting if an increase in crime happened after it was passed.

ianbicking 11y ago

> “We are not going to criminalize people for being poor,” he said. “That criminalization is only going to make it harder for them to get out of poverty.” Underlying this sentiment is the idea that the poor are a monolith. That someone stealing from cars or someone with mental problems who can't maintain a job or relationships is a good representation of "the poor". The guy in the article who had his BMW broken into can afford to be blasé about the incident - he's insured, whatever was stolen he can replace without blinking an eye. The poor person who is robbed can't just replace whatever was stolen. "Poor people" aren't just perpetrators, they are also disproportionately victims (unless SF is different, which it probably is because it's so weird) - and I think they yearn for safety and stability MORE than wealthy people, they just can't do much about it. We mistake the complacency - which is the natural and probably healthy reaction when you don't feel you can affect social change - for a comfort with all aspects of the urban environment.

riebschlager 11y ago

Wow. Why did this fall off the front page so fast?

marcoperaza 11y ago

Why was this nuked from the front page? It's way lower in the rankings than it should be for its age and point count. Am I really witnessing such petty censorship? http://imgur.com/irJgUPD http://imgur.com/irJgUPD

cromwellian 11y ago

I was robbed at gunpoint on my birthday a few years ago in front of the SF Chronicle for my cellphone! The thief was finally caught, he wore a leather holster and was called the cowboy bandit by the police and robbed 40 other people. At trial, one particular gentleman had been beaten and facially disfigured after handing over his phone because the thief noticed he was gay. My old boss had his car smashed and valuables removed. And a popular travel blogger who reviews national parks in her RV which she lives in and is herself rather poor, stopped in SF overnight and had all of her possessions stolen from her trailer.