4 ms·
What made San Francisco what it is today? It's not the soft-on-crime District Attorney who cleared out the prisons by releasing criminals back onto the street.
by thatsenough 7y ago
What made San Francisco what it is today?
It's not the soft-on-crime District Attorney who cleared out the prisons by releasing criminals back onto the street.
Not the soft-on-crime SFPD, who barely enforces the law because what's the point? The DA won't prosecute anyway.
Not the fact that the hippies grew up and moved to Marin, and marijuana and mushrooms have been replaced with fentanyl and methamphetamine.
It's certainly not the bustling drug market that operates in 24 hours a day without police interference in the Tenderloin around Hyde and Golden Gate, making the city a go-to destination for drug addicts from across the region.
It's not the hundreds of millions of dollars the city hands out each year to homelessness advocacy groups that have no accountability and deliver no results.
It's not the entrenched NIMBYs who fight housing development tooth and nail.
It's the tech bros.
- um_ya 7y agoIt's hard to change others, but it's easy to change yourself. It's easier to just move to a more conservative state or a more welcoming city with less taxes and less restrictions. I appreciate those that choose to stay and fight, but sometimes it's better just to move on. San Francisco has been getting worse.
- fredsanford 7y ago>> San Francisco has been getting worse. From my first visit there in ~'93 to my last in ~'99 SF felt like it was going downhill quickly. I would not have gone back voluntarily after the first visit if not for job requirements. I had an uncle who lived in Hayward who complained about both areas a lot. After reading the news about needles, mental patients, shitting in the street etc... I dunno how it could get worse.
- someguydave 7y agoYes but if you move to a more conservative state please leave your extreme left wing politics behind.
- smadge 7y agoI think the article was more nuanced than that.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- thatsenough 7y agoI wish it were, but it's not. The author presents a myopic and one-sided view of the situation, scapegoating the city's numerous problems on a single group of people. It's not nuanced at all.
- smadge 7y agoNo, the article literally presents two sides of the story, presents the claims of both sides, and at the ends attempts to provide a synthesis. The two sides presented are those that find fault with the NIMBYs who blocked building more housing, and those that find fault with the “tech bros” who are viewed as gentrifying communities.
- smadge 7y ago“That’s one way to tell the story... But there’s another” “And depending on which camp you found yourself in, there was one of two essays you’d brandish at dinner parties, yell about on Twitter, and pretend to have read that explained what the protests symbolized. One was by the prolific writer Rebecca Solnit ... It took until the following year for those inclined to the second point of view to find their voice, which came under the guise of a long post at TechCrunch by journalist Kim-Mai Cutler ... Point being: This decade has been such that, were you inclined to agree with Cutler or with Solnit, you could find plenty of evidence to support your point of view... As the decade comes to a close, in many ways we’re no closer to a synthesis than when we started. Tech’s villains continue to be awful, both individually and collectively. And our housing production remains anemic. And yet there are signs of hope.“ In fact the heroes of this story, if there are any, are the “tech bros,” big tech companies, and YIMBY’s who are making attempts to build more housing and be neighborly.