3 ms·

> such images are quite familiar to any long-term resident of the city. This. I think there is an amusing misconception that the world outside of SF has about

> such images are quite familiar to any long-term resident of the city. This. I think there is an amusing misconception that the world outside of SF has about the place, that it is an idyllic place full of rich technologists in multimillion-dollar hipster-yuppie homes, working to change the world from their conferences at luxury hotels and debating hot JavaScript frameworks over single-origins at Sightglass, Blue Bottle or Ritual. Well, some of that is true, but by and large the city is a place of wealth disparity and struggle for a lot, and that narrative is conveniently lost in the startup gold rush. Nothing in this post is that "disturbing" once you have lived in SF for a while. I don't understand why the Deli Board guy is now suddenly freaking out about this. SoMa has always been "urban decay", and the spot Deli Board is in was pretty cosmetically dirty even when Deli Board opened up there. Even then, SF was a hell of a lot seedier than it is now 15 years ago that's what makes it cool to a lot of people. I remember lots of shady raves down there, hanging out at nightclubs and S&M bars, I remember when kink.com moved to the Armory in 07 and SoMa had a small uproar. Some pieces of that still remain along Folsom there (1015, like a block from Deli Board, for example). I'm happy he's showing off what SoMa is like but this isn't news to anyone, and it shouldn't be to him either.

ethanbond 10y ago
There's a difference between a seedy city with some personality and a culturally neutered city with homeless people and human feces everywhere. San Francisco has not always been the way it is now. Look at the numbers. This doesn't seem to be a complaint that poor people exist, it's that SF is failing its citizens by allowing this to get worse.
- micaksica 10y ago
  > it's that SF is failing its citizens by allowing this to get worse. The electorate of San Francisco themselves are failing these people. The San Francisco government is elected by and serves (primarily) the property owners, then tenants, of San Francisco through their tax revenue. If people are this pissed off about it, they should be funding and opening more shelters and affordable housing, but instead NIMBYism and the zoning laws are forcing more "luxury" apartments and lack of building that these people never had any hope of affording. Of course, slacktivism reigns due to its easier barrier to entry.
  - kafkaesq 10y ago
    Yup. We'd think that a city that literally pulled itself up from the ashes not too long ago could take care of its current public defecation issues, if it had a half a mind (and a bit of spare change) to devote to the issue.

ethanbond 10y ago

There's a difference between a seedy city with some personality and a culturally neutered city with homeless people and human feces everywhere. San Francisco has not always been the way it is now. Look at the numbers. This doesn't seem to be a complaint that poor people exist, it's that SF is failing its citizens by allowing this to get worse.

micaksica 10y ago
> it's that SF is failing its citizens by allowing this to get worse. The electorate of San Francisco themselves are failing these people. The San Francisco government is elected by and serves (primarily) the property owners, then tenants, of San Francisco through their tax revenue. If people are this pissed off about it, they should be funding and opening more shelters and affordable housing, but instead NIMBYism and the zoning laws are forcing more "luxury" apartments and lack of building that these people never had any hope of affording. Of course, slacktivism reigns due to its easier barrier to entry.
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  Yup. We'd think that a city that literally pulled itself up from the ashes not too long ago could take care of its current public defecation issues, if it had a half a mind (and a bit of spare change) to devote to the issue.