6 ms·

You have it backwards. The scooters are not, and have never been, a problem. The real problem is feces and needles. The real truth here is the SF gov is greedy,

by voz_ 6y ago

You have it backwards. The scooters are not, and have never been, a problem. The real problem is feces and needles. The real truth here is the SF gov is greedy, and rabidly anti-tech. I cannot wait until this whole place is gentrified and cleaned up. Have you lived in SF? Because this comment reads like an outsider looking in.

gumby 6y ago
Perspective from 25 years in the mission: the scooters were the problem.
appybois 6y ago
I heard they could present a challenge for the blind
mrslave 6y ago
> until this whole place is gentrified and cleaned up Because the rents are still too affordable.
- voz_ 6y ago
  Affordability has nothing to do with gentrification. SF has backwards zoning laws, with insane NIMBY culture.
tehjoker 6y ago
> I cannot wait until this whole place is gentrified and cleaned up. This is a colonial mindset and regards the eviction, impoverishment, and exile of other human beings as nothing compared to one's own desires. Yes they'll be replaced. That's what colonization is.
- voz_ 6y ago
  This is also the mindset that no one is owed a neighborhood - if you want to live in it, buy. If you are renting, too bad. You cannot both have the short term flexibility of rent and the desired staying power of buying.
  - zdkl 6y ago
    Could you develop your train of thought to illustrate how this comment is coherent with another you've made elsewhere: > Affordability has nothing to do with gentrification.
    - voz_ 6y ago
      Yes. I appreciate you asking. Today's gentrification is caused by wealthier people moving into neighborhoods, and making them less affordable. BUT this affordability reduction is relative to the price we were at before. The price we were at before is already extremely unaffordable due to insane building restrictions and a NIMBY attitude baked into regulation. If the city allowed the building of high-rises everywhere, would gentrification stop? No. Certain neighborhoods would get gentrified, and become relatively higher priced. Overall, however, city affordability would skyrocket.
      - zdkl 6y ago
        I believe I understand your opinion. In my very personal opinion you're ignoring a couple of variables: It's probably not even possible to expand housing capacity to a significant degree in most locations it'd matters, Even if it were, I contend the overall cost of living would go up dramatically (even in the hypothetical new high rises) due to transportation saturation and supply chain drama, Also unless you literally double capacity everywhere what incentive do landlords (even new ones) have to moderate aggregate and individual rent growth? Since the state of the area is f'd today and demand is high, if there are any improvements demand can only go (dramatically) up.
        jacobush 6y ago
        Incentives can be changed. The economy is all just conventions and pretty arbitrary rules.
        zdkl 6y ago
        I disagree, insofar as the term "economy" interfaces with human nature and imperatives, such as the means to secure shelter and nurishment.
kristopolous 6y ago
> I cannot wait until this whole place is gentrified and cleaned up The thing you are complaining about Are The Consequences of gentrification. They are the output of the process. The system you advocate for produces that which you are complaining about. It's not going to be "cleaned up". This is what that process yields. Gentrification creates more "cracks to fall through" and so more people "fall through the cracks" through the financial consequences. These issues are the consequence of it - that's why it happens everywhere things are gentrifying. These stratifications produce slums, favelas, cantegrils, gecekondus, barrios, karton siti, paraggoupoli, zopadpatti, baraccopoli, putri, perkampungan kumuh... there's words in almost every language for this phenomena. Policies are machines. They produce things. This is the outcome of the process, globally, for centuries. You can not possibly get to your goal through that method. It does not work. I know how alluring the logic is, but like counterintuitive math and science, the obvious solution does not work and we need to stop pretending otherwise. Reality doesn't give a damn about personal belief and stubbornness in systems that don't work. You can't will a wrong answer into being right. It's the material reality.
- voz_ 6y ago
  No. It is the consequences of almost every major city in the US buying one way bus tickets for its vagrants to SF, compounded with a city wide refusal to police low level street crime.
  - kristopolous 6y ago
    That's what caused say, the rookery at st. giles in the 1850s? fascinating ... please go on...
- josephg 6y ago
  I’m confused by this stance because, here in Australia gentrification seems to result in less crime and fewer homeless people out on the streets. There are no slums here in Melbourne. Or in New Zealand. Or really, any developed nation outside the US. If gentrification means the rich get richer while the poor stay poor, of course gentrification won’t help poor people. But just because that’s how it happens in the US doesn’t mean gentrification itself is to blame. The problem, as you say, is the cracks that people can fall through. Nobody should be sleeping rough and hungry in the richest country on earth. Solve that with a social safety net, not by banning new construction.

by voz_ 6y ago

gumby 6y ago

Perspective from 25 years in the mission: the scooters were the problem.

appybois 6y ago

I heard they could present a challenge for the blind

mrslave 6y ago

> until this whole place is gentrified and cleaned up Because the rents are still too affordable.

voz_ 6y ago
Affordability has nothing to do with gentrification. SF has backwards zoning laws, with insane NIMBY culture.

tehjoker 6y ago

> I cannot wait until this whole place is gentrified and cleaned up. This is a colonial mindset and regards the eviction, impoverishment, and exile of other human beings as nothing compared to one's own desires. Yes they'll be replaced. That's what colonization is.

voz_ 6y ago
This is also the mindset that no one is owed a neighborhood - if you want to live in it, buy. If you are renting, too bad. You cannot both have the short term flexibility of rent and the desired staying power of buying.
- zdkl 6y ago
  Could you develop your train of thought to illustrate how this comment is coherent with another you've made elsewhere: > Affordability has nothing to do with gentrification.
  - voz_ 6y ago
    Yes. I appreciate you asking. Today's gentrification is caused by wealthier people moving into neighborhoods, and making them less affordable. BUT this affordability reduction is relative to the price we were at before. The price we were at before is already extremely unaffordable due to insane building restrictions and a NIMBY attitude baked into regulation. If the city allowed the building of high-rises everywhere, would gentrification stop? No. Certain neighborhoods would get gentrified, and become relatively higher priced. Overall, however, city affordability would skyrocket.
    - zdkl 6y ago
      I believe I understand your opinion. In my very personal opinion you're ignoring a couple of variables: It's probably not even possible to expand housing capacity to a significant degree in most locations it'd matters, Even if it were, I contend the overall cost of living would go up dramatically (even in the hypothetical new high rises) due to transportation saturation and supply chain drama, Also unless you literally double capacity everywhere what incentive do landlords (even new ones) have to moderate aggregate and individual rent growth? Since the state of the area is f'd today and demand is high, if there are any improvements demand can only go (dramatically) up.
      - jacobush 6y ago
        Incentives can be changed. The economy is all just conventions and pretty arbitrary rules.
        zdkl 6y ago
        I disagree, insofar as the term "economy" interfaces with human nature and imperatives, such as the means to secure shelter and nurishment.

kristopolous 6y ago

> I cannot wait until this whole place is gentrified and cleaned up The thing you are complaining about Are The Consequences of gentrification. They are the output of the process. The system you advocate for produces that which you are complaining about. It's not going to be "cleaned up". This is what that process yields. Gentrification creates more "cracks to fall through" and so more people "fall through the cracks" through the financial consequences. These issues are the consequence of it - that's why it happens everywhere things are gentrifying. These stratifications produce slums, favelas, cantegrils, gecekondus, barrios, karton siti, paraggoupoli, zopadpatti, baraccopoli, putri, perkampungan kumuh... there's words in almost every language for this phenomena. Policies are machines. They produce things. This is the outcome of the process, globally, for centuries. You can not possibly get to your goal through that method. It does not work. I know how alluring the logic is, but like counterintuitive math and science, the obvious solution does not work and we need to stop pretending otherwise. Reality doesn't give a damn about personal belief and stubbornness in systems that don't work. You can't will a wrong answer into being right. It's the material reality.

voz_ 6y ago
No. It is the consequences of almost every major city in the US buying one way bus tickets for its vagrants to SF, compounded with a city wide refusal to police low level street crime.
- kristopolous 6y ago
  That's what caused say, the rookery at st. giles in the 1850s? fascinating ... please go on...
josephg 6y ago
I’m confused by this stance because, here in Australia gentrification seems to result in less crime and fewer homeless people out on the streets. There are no slums here in Melbourne. Or in New Zealand. Or really, any developed nation outside the US. If gentrification means the rich get richer while the poor stay poor, of course gentrification won’t help poor people. But just because that’s how it happens in the US doesn’t mean gentrification itself is to blame. The problem, as you say, is the cracks that people can fall through. Nobody should be sleeping rough and hungry in the richest country on earth. Solve that with a social safety net, not by banning new construction.