5 ms·

It's unclear to me the connection between tech giants and the horrors of drug addiction. Are the tech giants supposed to enforce laws on the street, or is this

It's unclear to me the connection between tech giants and the horrors of drug addiction. Are the tech giants supposed to enforce laws on the street, or is this the duty of law enforcement officers? Is it because of the great disparity in wealth that makes "tech giants" culpable? I think that's bullshit. The blame rests on the city officials, in my opinion.

Pfhreak 7y ago
The connections are not simple to see immediately. There are many interwoven systems at play here. For example, high pay attracts engineers, landlords prefer high earning tenants. Other companies start in SF because there is a lot of talent there. They grow and attract more engineers. That's just one system that can contribute to a changing city, and there are many others. (including city officials like you mention). I'd encourage you not to dismiss the idea outright and try to fit it with a simple root cause.
- coleifer 7y ago
  The article points the finger at tech but in my opinion utterly fails to make a connection.
- TulliusCicero 7y ago
  What you're describing comes from a successful economy. There's nothing specific to tech there, you could've been describing media or finance or logistics and it'd be the same. Most of the time, when people complain about tech in SF, they're really just complaining about the economy being good. But they can't say that, it sounds silly, so they act like it's something specific to tech.
dleslie 7y ago
They draw in huge numbers of well-paid employees, who place enormous pressure on the housing market and have the buying power to allow it to skyrocket in value. If you believe that housing is a key concern, then the effect of the presence of tech workers cannot be overlooked.
basch 7y ago
At a most basic level, crime is a "haves" problem, in that those that have have something to lose. The more you have, the more you stand to lose if order breaks down. In the same way the people with more buildings should pay more into a fire department, those more destabilized by potential crime should be paying to alleviate it, or better yet prevent it. Think of low income housing, and the prevention of ghettos forming as the precautionary side of a coin, and police force as the reactionary. For a city obsessed with data driven decision making, it sure feels like a bunch of fingers in ears refusing to acknowledge a truth. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/the-miracle-of-minneapolis/384975/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/the-mir...

Pfhreak 7y ago

The connections are not simple to see immediately. There are many interwoven systems at play here. For example, high pay attracts engineers, landlords prefer high earning tenants. Other companies start in SF because there is a lot of talent there. They grow and attract more engineers. That's just one system that can contribute to a changing city, and there are many others. (including city officials like you mention). I'd encourage you not to dismiss the idea outright and try to fit it with a simple root cause.

coleifer 7y ago
The article points the finger at tech but in my opinion utterly fails to make a connection.
TulliusCicero 7y ago
What you're describing comes from a successful economy. There's nothing specific to tech there, you could've been describing media or finance or logistics and it'd be the same. Most of the time, when people complain about tech in SF, they're really just complaining about the economy being good. But they can't say that, it sounds silly, so they act like it's something specific to tech.

dleslie 7y ago

They draw in huge numbers of well-paid employees, who place enormous pressure on the housing market and have the buying power to allow it to skyrocket in value. If you believe that housing is a key concern, then the effect of the presence of tech workers cannot be overlooked.

basch 7y ago

At a most basic level, crime is a "haves" problem, in that those that have have something to lose. The more you have, the more you stand to lose if order breaks down. In the same way the people with more buildings should pay more into a fire department, those more destabilized by potential crime should be paying to alleviate it, or better yet prevent it. Think of low income housing, and the prevention of ghettos forming as the precautionary side of a coin, and police force as the reactionary. For a city obsessed with data driven decision making, it sure feels like a bunch of fingers in ears refusing to acknowledge a truth. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/the-miracle-of-minneapolis/384975/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/the-mir...