4 ms·

I'm a little disappointed that you're still convinced it's a "safety" thing. People say the same thing about Seattle, and virtually without exception they're p

I'm a little disappointed that you're still convinced it's a "safety" thing. People say the same thing about Seattle, and virtually without exception they're people who have simply never lived in a major city before, and wildly misunderstand what counts as "crime." Like the guy upthread who wanted to move because he'd experienced two car prowls.

ryanckulp 7y ago
i lived in the brand-new Trinity tower on 8th / Mission. leaving my apartment each morning for work i saw... 5-12 broken car windows along 8th outside the hotel. despicable. one could argue a robbed car at 2am is not a safety issue (if nobody is in the car), but i somewhat agree with the broken window theory. the first day i bought a new bicycle and parked/locked it outside the big mall on Market, in front of 2 security guards, my seat was stolen within 30 minutes. etc etc. presence of crime == less safe.
- inferiorhuman 7y ago
  Property crime != violent crime. San Francisco has a problem with both, but the issues with theft and vandalism are far worse than things that'll directly threaten your personal safety.
  - ericd 7y ago
    Well, property crime tends to make people feel unsafe, even if they’re not personally in danger.
  - pnathan 7y ago
    Crime is, fundamentally, crime. Particularly for these cut and dried historical elements like "theft". It's breaking both law and ancient custom. SF needs to address this crime situation. So does, for that matter, Seattle. Short, medium, and long term solutions need to be developed, promoted, and delivered.
  - jshevek 7y ago
    I agree that one can mis-evaluate the level of personal threat by assigning the wrong meaning to evidence of property crimes. This doesn't mean we should assign no meaning, though. Many of the factors at play which can cause escalations of property crime can also lead to violent crime. It may not be rational to see a broken car window and conclude that you are about to be mugged, but if you want to be as safe as possible you probably would prefer to live somewhere where cars are not often broken into.
    - inferiorhuman 7y ago
      This doesn't mean we should assign no meaning, though. Which, as it turns out, is not what I suggested, alluded to, or claimed. Just because we get earthquakes out here doesn't mean I'm going to worry about hurricanes (nor does it mean that neither earthquakes nor hurricanes are significant). It may not be rational to see a broken car window and conclude that you are about to be mugged, but if you want to be as safe as possible you probably would prefer to live somewhere where cars are not often broken into. Having somewhat recently relocated to the burbs, I've had more problems with property crime out here than I did in San Francisco. More homeless people, worse traffic, worse pedestrian infrastructure, much worse (and more expensive) public transit too.
ericd 7y ago
I think most people count “not having to ever think about crime” as being part of what they call “safety”. And experiencing property crime does tend to shatter that feeling of safety.
shados 7y ago
Normalizing crime is a safety issue in itself, including property crime (the difference between a violent and a non-violent crime is often just if you happened to be around or not...) Also I take exception at the "never lived in a major city before". I've lived in "major cities" for most of my life, and it wouldn't take too many car prowls to make me leave. It just never happened. Ironically I've only been to Seattle once over a few days and on my second day got attacked by an homeless person with mental health issues. Fortunately for me, they also had the physical strength of your average toddler so I left the situation without a scratch and wondering wtf just happened.
- gacklesmom 7y ago
  Cities have property crime. The only way around it is to sequester yourself in a gated community or similar. I have a fun anecdote too -- the last time I was out in a rural area I got knocked over in a Walmart by two rednecks who were fighting. I've elected not to judge the entire area based on that one experience.
  - inferiorhuman 7y ago
    Cities have property crime. Cities aren't static entities. New York (pre-Rudy) had major issues with property crime. San Francisco has a significant problem with property crime. I'm fairly unique in my social circle in that I've never had a car broke into, but it's hard to deny the amount of shattered glass on the sidewalks. The problem comes from an influx of people that would rather sequester themselves in gated communities, have robots deliver everything, buy food at the automat, take their self-driving cars everywhere just to avoid human interaction. There's no motivation to improve the situation. Of course the police response to Prop 47 (let's just give up!) is also hurting the situation.
  - shados 7y ago
    They do have property crimes. They do in varying amount based on how accepted it is and how much the city and it's citizens fight it. You realistically can't bring it down to zero, but there is a big gap between, let say, Seattle vs Montreal to pick 2 extremes. Even NYC isn't that bad depending on where you live, but it can swing straight back if people just sit back and accept it.

ryanckulp 7y ago

i lived in the brand-new Trinity tower on 8th / Mission. leaving my apartment each morning for work i saw... 5-12 broken car windows along 8th outside the hotel. despicable. one could argue a robbed car at 2am is not a safety issue (if nobody is in the car), but i somewhat agree with the broken window theory. the first day i bought a new bicycle and parked/locked it outside the big mall on Market, in front of 2 security guards, my seat was stolen within 30 minutes. etc etc. presence of crime == less safe.

inferiorhuman 7y ago
Property crime != violent crime. San Francisco has a problem with both, but the issues with theft and vandalism are far worse than things that'll directly threaten your personal safety.
- ericd 7y ago
  Well, property crime tends to make people feel unsafe, even if they’re not personally in danger.
- pnathan 7y ago
  Crime is, fundamentally, crime. Particularly for these cut and dried historical elements like "theft". It's breaking both law and ancient custom. SF needs to address this crime situation. So does, for that matter, Seattle. Short, medium, and long term solutions need to be developed, promoted, and delivered.
- jshevek 7y ago
  I agree that one can mis-evaluate the level of personal threat by assigning the wrong meaning to evidence of property crimes. This doesn't mean we should assign no meaning, though. Many of the factors at play which can cause escalations of property crime can also lead to violent crime. It may not be rational to see a broken car window and conclude that you are about to be mugged, but if you want to be as safe as possible you probably would prefer to live somewhere where cars are not often broken into.
  - inferiorhuman 7y ago
    This doesn't mean we should assign no meaning, though. Which, as it turns out, is not what I suggested, alluded to, or claimed. Just because we get earthquakes out here doesn't mean I'm going to worry about hurricanes (nor does it mean that neither earthquakes nor hurricanes are significant). It may not be rational to see a broken car window and conclude that you are about to be mugged, but if you want to be as safe as possible you probably would prefer to live somewhere where cars are not often broken into. Having somewhat recently relocated to the burbs, I've had more problems with property crime out here than I did in San Francisco. More homeless people, worse traffic, worse pedestrian infrastructure, much worse (and more expensive) public transit too.

ericd 7y ago

I think most people count “not having to ever think about crime” as being part of what they call “safety”. And experiencing property crime does tend to shatter that feeling of safety.

shados 7y ago

Normalizing crime is a safety issue in itself, including property crime (the difference between a violent and a non-violent crime is often just if you happened to be around or not...) Also I take exception at the "never lived in a major city before". I've lived in "major cities" for most of my life, and it wouldn't take too many car prowls to make me leave. It just never happened. Ironically I've only been to Seattle once over a few days and on my second day got attacked by an homeless person with mental health issues. Fortunately for me, they also had the physical strength of your average toddler so I left the situation without a scratch and wondering wtf just happened.

gacklesmom 7y ago
Cities have property crime. The only way around it is to sequester yourself in a gated community or similar. I have a fun anecdote too -- the last time I was out in a rural area I got knocked over in a Walmart by two rednecks who were fighting. I've elected not to judge the entire area based on that one experience.
- inferiorhuman 7y ago
  Cities have property crime. Cities aren't static entities. New York (pre-Rudy) had major issues with property crime. San Francisco has a significant problem with property crime. I'm fairly unique in my social circle in that I've never had a car broke into, but it's hard to deny the amount of shattered glass on the sidewalks. The problem comes from an influx of people that would rather sequester themselves in gated communities, have robots deliver everything, buy food at the automat, take their self-driving cars everywhere just to avoid human interaction. There's no motivation to improve the situation. Of course the police response to Prop 47 (let's just give up!) is also hurting the situation.
- shados 7y ago
  They do have property crimes. They do in varying amount based on how accepted it is and how much the city and it's citizens fight it. You realistically can't bring it down to zero, but there is a big gap between, let say, Seattle vs Montreal to pick 2 extremes. Even NYC isn't that bad depending on where you live, but it can swing straight back if people just sit back and accept it.