11 ms·

People of San Francisco passed a law t̶o̶ ̶a̶l̶l̶o̶w̶ ̶a̶n̶y̶ ̶r̶o̶b̶b̶e̶r̶y̶ ̶u̶n̶d̶e̶r̶ ̶$̶1̶0̶0̶0̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶f̶i̶l̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶c̶a̶s̶e̶ ̶o̶r̶

People of San Francisco passed a law t̶o̶ ̶a̶l̶l̶o̶w̶ ̶a̶n̶y̶ ̶r̶o̶b̶b̶e̶r̶y̶ ̶u̶n̶d̶e̶r̶ ̶$̶1̶0̶0̶0̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶f̶i̶l̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶c̶a̶s̶e̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶c̶a̶l̶l̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶o̶p̶s̶.̶ They also expect safe neighborhoods. You can't have both. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26040812 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26040812 Liberal policies such as this does not solve the actual problem. Instead of providing food and shelter to the poor, perhaps starting an infrastructure program to employ these people and fix the damn roads, they empower the poor to go rampage stores to survive. Edit: I might be wrong. I think I am misreading this, it seems to be not just SF city per se, but the entire state of California. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_California_Proposition_47 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_California_Proposition_47 See sacramento article: https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2019/09/25/grab-and-dash-thefts-rise-police-blame-law/ https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2019/09/25/grab-and-dash-the...

Moodles 6y ago
Yeah, but we throw a really nice gay pride parade to show we're good people. Loads of BLM support on walls. Many of my colleagues updated their instagram filters.
- bassman9000 6y ago
  Guaranteed a decent amount of people won't see the sarcasm in this comment.
  - Moodles 6y ago
    And that, my friend, is the final reason why I am leaving ;-)
    - bassman9000 6y ago
      The downvotes confirm.
    - efikoman 6y ago
      ?
      - Moodles 6y ago
        I'm saying I also dislike the overly leftist culture in San Francisco, which is another reason why I'm leaving. There are many nice people here, but there are also too many people who I consider too far gone. Stuff like: – Non-ironically comparing Trump to Hitler. "At least Hitler listened to his generals!" Umm what? Seriously? And it's not even true: Hitler rarely did. Just... I can't even. – We can't use the words "blacklist" and "whitelist" now even though they have nothing to do with race. I kid you not, I even heard people talking about "black hole" being "problematic". How patronizing can you be to black people, to think they give a shit? To think this shit is actually helping? – Non-ironically talking about abolishing the police. If you disagree, you're white privileged and subconsciously racist. No? I just want some statistics first. Evidence it might be a good idea? Pros and cons of the police first? Just not viral videos and emotions? – Non-ironically talking about socialism, white patriarchy this, equal outcomes that. Partitioning based on race. – Can't mention Joe Rogan without someone wanting to deplatform, talking about how harmful it is to trans people to even mention the name. You know what sucks the most? I rarely feel able even to discuss these topics in a calm, sensible way with people. Definitely never at work. Many people are just too emotional here. The culture sucks. So I just keep silent most of the time. You have to figure out if it's safe to say moderate things to someone, like you're in the French resistance or something. And I have relatively liberal views on most topics! I'm hardly an unreasonable right wing gun loving Christian, or whatever caricature of "the other" is in their heads. Yet I don't feel welcome here. Yeah, go ahead and downvote because I have different politics to you, even though I was just answering the question (at least I interpreted it as a question asking me to elaborate).
- bob33212 6y ago
  I interviewed at a company based out of SF last week. The HR person had this long comment about diversity and how that is important at their company and asked what I've done in my career to support diversity. I told him a story about how a company I was at had decided to outsource some of the QA work to India and when the first employee in India came to the US to onboard I was very welcoming and did everything I could to help him feel welcome and part of the team including hanging out after work. This HR guy said "Is that really diversity though?" I guess he was looking for a more symbolic or virtue signaling example and with another minority group other than Indians. Something like "I was the first person at my company to put a BLM sticker on my cube."
  - moneywoes 6y ago
    How big is this company
    - mdgrech23 6y ago
      yea wondering the same thing - a lot of small companies allow toxic liberalism to linger.
    - bob33212 6y ago
      over 100B
      - carmen_sandiego 6y ago
        Might as well name and shame them then...
  - prostoalex 6y ago
    "By relocating our manufacturing facility to China and laying off the corresponding employees domestically we have been able to vastly improve workforce diversity numbers".
    - panda88888 6y ago
- dcolkitt 6y ago
  The thing is, as San Franciscans, we really support all the oppressed transgender teenagers in Mississippi. What's that? Build more housing, so they can actually afford to move here and escape the oppression they face in Mississippi? Uh, no, you see, we support them to the extent that it doesn't affect our property values...
tehjoker 6y ago
You can actually, but you need to provide enough basic services so that people in desperate situations have free, healthy, and convenient food, housing, medical care, and education.
- CryptoPunk 6y ago
  Yes, San Francisco is lagging cities in Texas in providing social services, which is why its homelesssness/street-disorder/drug-abuse problem is so much worse. There is a point at which you have to realize/admit that your ideological narrative, and the public sector interests who popularize it, are wrong. The left coast cities, from San Fran to Vancouver, have prioritized decriminalization of drugs, social services, and hands off policing for 'minor' crimes like theft, and have been overtaken by deliquency and squalor as a result.
  - thatguy0900 6y ago
    As someone whos nowhere near liberal enough to want to live in San Francisco, isn't there some kind of diminishing return effect where the better you're homeless services are, the more homeless come to take advantage, and the worse the problem becomes? Especially with the fantastic weather so less exposure deaths? If Texas spends no money on homeless people who don't help themselves they have to leave or die. What's the ratio of Texas homeless that have been in Texas their whole lives vs San Francisco homeless who have been in California their whole lives?
    - edbob 6y ago
      I don't know all the stats, but I know Waco, TX has a large homeless population since I helped out a bit there when I was younger. A quick search shows that Waco spends $39,000/yr per homeless individual[0], and the famous Church Under the Bridge[1] (an open-air gathering under the I-35 overpass) has been unable to meet normally but is making sure that people still get fed [2]. (They are mention feeding 80 people--there were hundreds when I attended, but there are a number of kitchens around so it sounds like most attendees are getting their food elsewhere). I don't know why anyone would assume that homeless people are starving in Texas. What do you think all the shelters and kitchens are for? [0] https://www.waco-texas.com/housing-homelessness.asp#gsc.tab=0 https://www.waco-texas.com/housing-homelessness.asp#gsc.tab=... [1] https://www.churchunderthebridge.org/ https://www.churchunderthebridge.org/ [2] https://www.kwtx.com/content/news/Waco-Church-Under-the-Bridge-continues-feeding-those-in-need-569012371.html https://www.kwtx.com/content/news/Waco-Church-Under-the-Brid...
birken 6y ago
What law are you referring to? Prop 47? There is no law which allows robberies.
- czbond 6y ago
  'Allow' and 'not enforce for motivated individuals' are very close together.
  - birken 6y ago
    The laws are enforced. I haven't seen any conclusive evidence that shows Prop 47 has led to higher crime rates. In fact there are many studies which show there isn't any, while at the same time the state is saving tons of money not incarcerating non-violent offenders. I haven't seen any conclusive evidence that Chesa Boudin has led to higher crime rates, though I'm not sure how controlled the comparison is of pandemic-city levels vs normal crime levels. Crime happened before prop 47, crime happened after prop 47. Crime happened before Chesa was elected DA, crime happened after he was elected DA. I wish there were no crime, but to point out an example of one crime being committed and then jumping to broad conclusions, while also misrepresenting the supposed rationale for the increase in crime, it's a bit of a red flag for me.
    - williesleg 6y ago
      What laws are enforced? Not shitting on the street isn't enforced. Car break ins and robberies aren't enforced. If it were so wonderful people would move in, not out.
    - ralusek 6y ago
      The consensus on there not being an increase in the crime rate is that police are no longer responding to crimes...so there is no increase in the statistics of criminality...
aidenn0 6y ago
Prop 47 makes theft, not robbery a misdemeanor. Big difference.
- systemvoltage 6y ago
  Thanks for correction, I was wrong. I've corrected the post.
- the_optimist 6y ago
  I witnessed a theft last week where a fellow just walked out with a load of merchandise whilst paying customers counted their coins. The initial social response among the bystanders and customers was alarm. "What just happened!?" Employees responded: "Let it go, it happens all the time." The impact on the "social bond" of society became suddenly clarified. We live in a lawless society. Those that follow the laws are fools pantomiming a voided social contract in outdated custom.
  - aidenn0 6y ago
    Shoplifting is tough because it can often be cheaper for the store to write it off than to sufficiently improve security. I think a misdemeanor for theft is fine, but I agree that these laws should be enforced.
    - lumost 6y ago
      It's unlikely that a shop would seek enforcement if it could result in a violent altercation and scare away customers. Likewise police are more likely to expect violence if they are only called in dire emergencies.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - ephextom 6y ago
        A friend worked at a Macy's in Nevada for a few years. Staff were told that shoplifters should be assumed to be armed, and that security would not normally confront them. Staff would often stand by and let shoplifters walk out the door with big hauls of stuff. Large daily losses to theft were just budgeted for.
chomp 6y ago
> People of San Francisco passed a law to allow any robbery under $1000 That’s just not true at all, come on, you’re intentionally spreading misinformation. It raised the limit to $950 for the felony threshold for simple theft. Robbery is still a felony. “Prop 47 doesn’t cover robberies, theft by the use of force or fear. It doesn’t cover burglaries,” Gascón said. “If you break into a structure with the intent to commit theft or another felony, that continues to be a felony. If someone breaks into your car to steal even a pack of cigarettes, that’s still a felony.” https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/san-francisco-shoplifting-video/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/san-francisco-shoplifting-...
- systemvoltage 6y ago
  Not intentionally. I corrected the post before you posted.
  - chomp 6y ago
    But did that sound correct that they’d allow any robbery? Using that logic, Texas allows any robbery under $2500: Texas Penal Code § 31.03 (3) a Class A misdemeanor if the value of the property stolen is $750 or more but less than $2,500; (4) a state jail felony if: (A) the value of the property stolen is $2,500 or more but less than $30,000, or the property is less than 10 head of sheep, swine, or goats or any part thereof under the value of $30,000;
    - addicted 6y ago
      Hey but the fact that Texas has a higher threshold for property crime to be considered more than a misdemeanor would destroy the “liberals are destroying cities with their soft on crime policies” narrative. Which is literally the only reason anyone originates these claims. I guess it speaks to the success of right wing media in our society that well educated and well informed people get so badly taken in by them.
    - curryst 6y ago
      Texas also has extremely high gun ownership rates, and is one of the few states (maybe the only) that allows the use of deadly force just to protect property. "There's a good chance you get shot to death" is probably a better deterrent than even a felony, though it's a little morally concerning.
navi0 6y ago
Minor correction: in 2014, the people of CA passed Prop 47, which reclassified most non-violent property theft crimes as misdemeanors [0]. This change is largely credited with the dramatic increase in shoplifting in SF. What’s interesting is why SF appears to be the most affected county. It might be because it continues to elect soft-on-crime City Attorneys or that it fails to investigate organized crime rings that then operate with impunity. My favorite example of this is Fremont PD doing SFPD’s job and busting an international auto theft ring mostly operating in SF[1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_California_Proposition_47?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_California_Proposition_47... [1] https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/01/31/thousands-of-stolen-laptops-recovered-in-massive-bay-area-car-burglary-scheme/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/01/31/thousands-of-stolen-l...
- jake891 6y ago
  The incarceration rate of SF county is higher than any country or major city in Europe. Persecution ain’t the issue. Lack of housing, healthcare and honourable work is.
  - NeutronStar 6y ago
    The incarceration rate of the US as a whole is higher. So the fact that SF is also higher doesn't mean much.
  - dcolkitt 6y ago
    Even if you released every prisoner in America, besides the rapists and murderers, the US would still have a higher incarceration rate than Europe. I'm sure the SF specific numbers would tell a similar story. You can't simply compare European to American incarceration statistics without taking into account that the US is an extremely criminal country for the developed world. And no, this doesn't have to do with universal healthcare or any other hobby horse. America had much higher homicide rates going back to the 18th century, well before modern European welfare states. (Not just the US, the Western Hemisphere in general has always had much higher rates of violent crime.) The fact of the matter is that we're a violent society. Absent total abolition of prison, we're always gong to have much higher incarceration rates than Europe.
jswizzy 6y ago
I wish I believed giving the homeless jobs would fix the problem but I watched my dad who owns a business try and help several local homeless or down on their luck types and more often than not they just take advantage of people then go right back to drugs or worse they have mental health issues and probably will never be able to function in society.
- giantrobot 6y ago
  If someone is addicted to drugs they don't get to just stop doing drugs without a lot of work on their part and usually a lot of outside help. If someone has addiction issues you can't just give them a job offer and assume all their problems are solved. No matter how thankful or earnest they are in moments of sobriety their addiction tends to have an overwhelming hold over their behavior. Addiction is not just an idle habit you kick with some perseverance and self control.
  - heterodoxxed 6y ago
    Exactly. "I tried to help some cancer patients by giving them jobs and the occasional free meal, but a lot of them just ended up dying of cancer anyways." The day America stops treating addiction as an individual moral failing and starts treating it as a lifelong disease and a collective social failing is the day we finally start to address these issues.
    - runawaybottle 6y ago
      Correction: They day we start dealing with it is the day when your kids are addicted. Until then, it’s not our problem. I’m not sure which drug it’s going to be. Maybe Adderral or Vyvanse being gateway into higher dose amphetamines, or something, but it’s gonna have to be a common drug amongst most of the kids before we take addiction seriously.
      - giantrobot 6y ago
        Even when it's people's kids they as often as not don't take their addiction seriously. With families there's a lot of enabling and co-dependence that occurs. That's in addition to the views that addition is some moral failing or idle habit. I think issues around not taking addiction seriously or not understanding it are facets of us collectively not taking mental health seriously.
xirbeosbwo1234 6y ago
The misinformation about Prop. 47 is stunning to me. It did not change anything relating to violent crime, nor did it make petty theft legal. Petty theft is still punishable by jail time. Robbery is still a felony. What it actually did is raise the line between misdemeanor and felony theft from $450 to $950.
- mcguire 6y ago
  As chomp pointed out, the limit for felony theft in Texas is $2500.
  - carmen_sandiego 6y ago
    The risk of getting shot by is also significantly higher. And non-quip: the police haven’t given up in Texas.
    - NeutronStar 6y ago
      Then the problem is police giving up, not that the law changed
jb775 6y ago
People think overlooking petty crimes should be the norm, but they're ignorant to the long term impacts and complain when their cities turn into Gotham City without Batman. Cities cut overall violent crime rates significantly in past decades by applying logic from the broken windows theory[1]. The real reason this works is bc a significant amount of crime is carried out by a very small number of individuals...and enforcing more penalties increases the chances police will scoop up a portion of those individuals. The unfortunate downside of this strategy is that some people (that aren't in that category) face overly harsh consequences in relation to their crime. New versions of this should be tried to try and minimize that from happening. It should be expected that taking the complete opposite approach would likely lead to much more than a slight increase in petty crimes. Buy hey it sounds good initially and wins votes on the left so why wouldn't they [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory
azinman2 6y ago
> Instead of providing food and shelter to the poor, perhaps starting an infrastructure program to employ these people and fix the damn roads, they empower the poor to go rampage stores to survive. We spend over a billion a year on the homeless. It’s an intractable problem, and the weather, social services, and accepting (of panhandling) population drives demand to locate here.
- imtringued 6y ago
  Yes it's intractable because having homeless people is considered more desirable than actually solving the underlying problems because it would hurt special interests. The average SF resident loves having homeless people because of the secondary benefits that homelessness brings.
  - smaryjerry 6y ago
    Can’t tell if sarcastic or not. People literally do love the secondary benefit of saying they help the homeless, and politicians basically run on that. Obviously the parent comment saying demand is created was talking about homeless demand to travel to an area with better benefits and/or lesser enforcement of laws that homeless would break, like camping on sidewalks and using the world as the toilet.
alsetmusic 6y ago
> Instead of providing food and shelter to the poor, perhaps starting an infrastructure program to employ these people and fix the damn roads, they empower the poor to go rampage stores to survive. Why not both? "In 2013, the Utah Housing and Community Development Division reported that the cost of emergency room treatment and jail time averaged over $16,000 a year per homeless person, while the cost of providing a fully subsidized apartment was only $11,000."[0] The author quoted above makes an excellent case – multiple times – for reducing cost to society if we'd just spend the money to get people off the street in a chapter titled, Criminalizing Homelessness. Think of the number of hours spent by police responding to calls related to homelessness and what social ills it creates. Consider that there are functional individuals who want to contribute to society, but medical bills or a run of bad luck has created circumstances under which this is impossible. Getting those people back into the economy could be useful. I'm not saying this addresses other issues, such as mental illness. There's quite a lot of services that would be needed there, as well. Also, job training, etc. Another chapter, We Called for Help, and They Killed My Son, deals with the first part. There's also the problem of addiction among the unhoused. There's a chapter on that as well. I've spot-checked info in the book a number of times and found the information to be well researched. According to the chapter, The War on Drugs, what we've been doing to combat drug use is an even more colossal failure and cash sink than probably most of us realize (assuming that you already think it's a failure). The book has me convinced that it's cheaper for society, overall, to just pay to help people rather than funding the punitive system that's currently in place. [0] The End of Policing, by Alex S. Vitale pg 97 ^^ This book is excellent. I've already bought copies for three people who are close to me who I think will be open to its message.
- ojbyrne 6y ago
  The main problem is that any politician who tried to get these policies in place would find themselves out of a job pretty quickly, unfortunately.
- masonic 6y ago
  the cost of providing a fully subsidized apartment was only $11,000. Sure, but that doesn't count spending on emergency room treatment and jail time in addition to the cost of the apartment. Housing didn't stop the other resource consumption or criminal activity. It also doesn't count the other costs of providing that housing in the first place. The current debate in Mountain View of turning over one hotel to unhoused people includes spending $70,000 per room just in construction/conversion costs for a nice hotel that's barely 30 years old.

Moodles 6y ago

Yeah, but we throw a really nice gay pride parade to show we're good people. Loads of BLM support on walls. Many of my colleagues updated their instagram filters.

bassman9000 6y ago
Guaranteed a decent amount of people won't see the sarcasm in this comment.
- Moodles 6y ago
  And that, my friend, is the final reason why I am leaving ;-)
  - bassman9000 6y ago
    The downvotes confirm.
  - efikoman 6y ago
    ?
    - Moodles 6y ago
      I'm saying I also dislike the overly leftist culture in San Francisco, which is another reason why I'm leaving. There are many nice people here, but there are also too many people who I consider too far gone. Stuff like: – Non-ironically comparing Trump to Hitler. "At least Hitler listened to his generals!" Umm what? Seriously? And it's not even true: Hitler rarely did. Just... I can't even. – We can't use the words "blacklist" and "whitelist" now even though they have nothing to do with race. I kid you not, I even heard people talking about "black hole" being "problematic". How patronizing can you be to black people, to think they give a shit? To think this shit is actually helping? – Non-ironically talking about abolishing the police. If you disagree, you're white privileged and subconsciously racist. No? I just want some statistics first. Evidence it might be a good idea? Pros and cons of the police first? Just not viral videos and emotions? – Non-ironically talking about socialism, white patriarchy this, equal outcomes that. Partitioning based on race. – Can't mention Joe Rogan without someone wanting to deplatform, talking about how harmful it is to trans people to even mention the name. You know what sucks the most? I rarely feel able even to discuss these topics in a calm, sensible way with people. Definitely never at work. Many people are just too emotional here. The culture sucks. So I just keep silent most of the time. You have to figure out if it's safe to say moderate things to someone, like you're in the French resistance or something. And I have relatively liberal views on most topics! I'm hardly an unreasonable right wing gun loving Christian, or whatever caricature of "the other" is in their heads. Yet I don't feel welcome here. Yeah, go ahead and downvote because I have different politics to you, even though I was just answering the question (at least I interpreted it as a question asking me to elaborate).
bob33212 6y ago
I interviewed at a company based out of SF last week. The HR person had this long comment about diversity and how that is important at their company and asked what I've done in my career to support diversity. I told him a story about how a company I was at had decided to outsource some of the QA work to India and when the first employee in India came to the US to onboard I was very welcoming and did everything I could to help him feel welcome and part of the team including hanging out after work. This HR guy said "Is that really diversity though?" I guess he was looking for a more symbolic or virtue signaling example and with another minority group other than Indians. Something like "I was the first person at my company to put a BLM sticker on my cube."
- moneywoes 6y ago
  How big is this company
  - mdgrech23 6y ago
    yea wondering the same thing - a lot of small companies allow toxic liberalism to linger.
  - bob33212 6y ago
    over 100B
    - carmen_sandiego 6y ago
      Might as well name and shame them then...
- prostoalex 6y ago
  "By relocating our manufacturing facility to China and laying off the corresponding employees domestically we have been able to vastly improve workforce diversity numbers".
  - panda88888 6y ago
dcolkitt 6y ago
The thing is, as San Franciscans, we really support all the oppressed transgender teenagers in Mississippi. What's that? Build more housing, so they can actually afford to move here and escape the oppression they face in Mississippi? Uh, no, you see, we support them to the extent that it doesn't affect our property values...

tehjoker 6y ago

You can actually, but you need to provide enough basic services so that people in desperate situations have free, healthy, and convenient food, housing, medical care, and education.

CryptoPunk 6y ago
Yes, San Francisco is lagging cities in Texas in providing social services, which is why its homelesssness/street-disorder/drug-abuse problem is so much worse. There is a point at which you have to realize/admit that your ideological narrative, and the public sector interests who popularize it, are wrong. The left coast cities, from San Fran to Vancouver, have prioritized decriminalization of drugs, social services, and hands off policing for 'minor' crimes like theft, and have been overtaken by deliquency and squalor as a result.
- thatguy0900 6y ago
  As someone whos nowhere near liberal enough to want to live in San Francisco, isn't there some kind of diminishing return effect where the better you're homeless services are, the more homeless come to take advantage, and the worse the problem becomes? Especially with the fantastic weather so less exposure deaths? If Texas spends no money on homeless people who don't help themselves they have to leave or die. What's the ratio of Texas homeless that have been in Texas their whole lives vs San Francisco homeless who have been in California their whole lives?
  - edbob 6y ago
    I don't know all the stats, but I know Waco, TX has a large homeless population since I helped out a bit there when I was younger. A quick search shows that Waco spends $39,000/yr per homeless individual[0], and the famous Church Under the Bridge[1] (an open-air gathering under the I-35 overpass) has been unable to meet normally but is making sure that people still get fed [2]. (They are mention feeding 80 people--there were hundreds when I attended, but there are a number of kitchens around so it sounds like most attendees are getting their food elsewhere). I don't know why anyone would assume that homeless people are starving in Texas. What do you think all the shelters and kitchens are for? [0] https://www.waco-texas.com/housing-homelessness.asp#gsc.tab=0 https://www.waco-texas.com/housing-homelessness.asp#gsc.tab=... [1] https://www.churchunderthebridge.org/ https://www.churchunderthebridge.org/ [2] https://www.kwtx.com/content/news/Waco-Church-Under-the-Bridge-continues-feeding-those-in-need-569012371.html https://www.kwtx.com/content/news/Waco-Church-Under-the-Brid...

birken 6y ago

What law are you referring to? Prop 47? There is no law which allows robberies.

czbond 6y ago
'Allow' and 'not enforce for motivated individuals' are very close together.
- birken 6y ago
  The laws are enforced. I haven't seen any conclusive evidence that shows Prop 47 has led to higher crime rates. In fact there are many studies which show there isn't any, while at the same time the state is saving tons of money not incarcerating non-violent offenders. I haven't seen any conclusive evidence that Chesa Boudin has led to higher crime rates, though I'm not sure how controlled the comparison is of pandemic-city levels vs normal crime levels. Crime happened before prop 47, crime happened after prop 47. Crime happened before Chesa was elected DA, crime happened after he was elected DA. I wish there were no crime, but to point out an example of one crime being committed and then jumping to broad conclusions, while also misrepresenting the supposed rationale for the increase in crime, it's a bit of a red flag for me.
  - williesleg 6y ago
    What laws are enforced? Not shitting on the street isn't enforced. Car break ins and robberies aren't enforced. If it were so wonderful people would move in, not out.
  - ralusek 6y ago
    The consensus on there not being an increase in the crime rate is that police are no longer responding to crimes...so there is no increase in the statistics of criminality...

aidenn0 6y ago

Prop 47 makes theft, not robbery a misdemeanor. Big difference.

systemvoltage 6y ago
Thanks for correction, I was wrong. I've corrected the post.
the_optimist 6y ago
I witnessed a theft last week where a fellow just walked out with a load of merchandise whilst paying customers counted their coins. The initial social response among the bystanders and customers was alarm. "What just happened!?" Employees responded: "Let it go, it happens all the time." The impact on the "social bond" of society became suddenly clarified. We live in a lawless society. Those that follow the laws are fools pantomiming a voided social contract in outdated custom.
- aidenn0 6y ago
  Shoplifting is tough because it can often be cheaper for the store to write it off than to sufficiently improve security. I think a misdemeanor for theft is fine, but I agree that these laws should be enforced.
  - lumost 6y ago
    It's unlikely that a shop would seek enforcement if it could result in a violent altercation and scare away customers. Likewise police are more likely to expect violence if they are only called in dire emergencies.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - ephextom 6y ago
      A friend worked at a Macy's in Nevada for a few years. Staff were told that shoplifters should be assumed to be armed, and that security would not normally confront them. Staff would often stand by and let shoplifters walk out the door with big hauls of stuff. Large daily losses to theft were just budgeted for.

chomp 6y ago

> People of San Francisco passed a law to allow any robbery under $1000 That’s just not true at all, come on, you’re intentionally spreading misinformation. It raised the limit to $950 for the felony threshold for simple theft. Robbery is still a felony. “Prop 47 doesn’t cover robberies, theft by the use of force or fear. It doesn’t cover burglaries,” Gascón said. “If you break into a structure with the intent to commit theft or another felony, that continues to be a felony. If someone breaks into your car to steal even a pack of cigarettes, that’s still a felony.” https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/san-francisco-shoplifting-video/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/san-francisco-shoplifting-...

systemvoltage 6y ago
Not intentionally. I corrected the post before you posted.
- chomp 6y ago
  But did that sound correct that they’d allow any robbery? Using that logic, Texas allows any robbery under $2500: Texas Penal Code § 31.03 (3) a Class A misdemeanor if the value of the property stolen is $750 or more but less than $2,500; (4) a state jail felony if: (A) the value of the property stolen is $2,500 or more but less than $30,000, or the property is less than 10 head of sheep, swine, or goats or any part thereof under the value of $30,000;
  - addicted 6y ago
    Hey but the fact that Texas has a higher threshold for property crime to be considered more than a misdemeanor would destroy the “liberals are destroying cities with their soft on crime policies” narrative. Which is literally the only reason anyone originates these claims. I guess it speaks to the success of right wing media in our society that well educated and well informed people get so badly taken in by them.
  - curryst 6y ago
    Texas also has extremely high gun ownership rates, and is one of the few states (maybe the only) that allows the use of deadly force just to protect property. "There's a good chance you get shot to death" is probably a better deterrent than even a felony, though it's a little morally concerning.

navi0 6y ago

Minor correction: in 2014, the people of CA passed Prop 47, which reclassified most non-violent property theft crimes as misdemeanors [0]. This change is largely credited with the dramatic increase in shoplifting in SF. What’s interesting is why SF appears to be the most affected county. It might be because it continues to elect soft-on-crime City Attorneys or that it fails to investigate organized crime rings that then operate with impunity. My favorite example of this is Fremont PD doing SFPD’s job and busting an international auto theft ring mostly operating in SF[1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_California_Proposition_47?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_California_Proposition_47... [1] https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/01/31/thousands-of-stolen-laptops-recovered-in-massive-bay-area-car-burglary-scheme/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/01/31/thousands-of-stolen-l...

jake891 6y ago
The incarceration rate of SF county is higher than any country or major city in Europe. Persecution ain’t the issue. Lack of housing, healthcare and honourable work is.
- NeutronStar 6y ago
  The incarceration rate of the US as a whole is higher. So the fact that SF is also higher doesn't mean much.
- dcolkitt 6y ago
  Even if you released every prisoner in America, besides the rapists and murderers, the US would still have a higher incarceration rate than Europe. I'm sure the SF specific numbers would tell a similar story. You can't simply compare European to American incarceration statistics without taking into account that the US is an extremely criminal country for the developed world. And no, this doesn't have to do with universal healthcare or any other hobby horse. America had much higher homicide rates going back to the 18th century, well before modern European welfare states. (Not just the US, the Western Hemisphere in general has always had much higher rates of violent crime.) The fact of the matter is that we're a violent society. Absent total abolition of prison, we're always gong to have much higher incarceration rates than Europe.

jswizzy 6y ago

I wish I believed giving the homeless jobs would fix the problem but I watched my dad who owns a business try and help several local homeless or down on their luck types and more often than not they just take advantage of people then go right back to drugs or worse they have mental health issues and probably will never be able to function in society.

giantrobot 6y ago
If someone is addicted to drugs they don't get to just stop doing drugs without a lot of work on their part and usually a lot of outside help. If someone has addiction issues you can't just give them a job offer and assume all their problems are solved. No matter how thankful or earnest they are in moments of sobriety their addiction tends to have an overwhelming hold over their behavior. Addiction is not just an idle habit you kick with some perseverance and self control.
- heterodoxxed 6y ago
  Exactly. "I tried to help some cancer patients by giving them jobs and the occasional free meal, but a lot of them just ended up dying of cancer anyways." The day America stops treating addiction as an individual moral failing and starts treating it as a lifelong disease and a collective social failing is the day we finally start to address these issues.
  - runawaybottle 6y ago
    Correction: They day we start dealing with it is the day when your kids are addicted. Until then, it’s not our problem. I’m not sure which drug it’s going to be. Maybe Adderral or Vyvanse being gateway into higher dose amphetamines, or something, but it’s gonna have to be a common drug amongst most of the kids before we take addiction seriously.
    - giantrobot 6y ago
      Even when it's people's kids they as often as not don't take their addiction seriously. With families there's a lot of enabling and co-dependence that occurs. That's in addition to the views that addition is some moral failing or idle habit. I think issues around not taking addiction seriously or not understanding it are facets of us collectively not taking mental health seriously.

xirbeosbwo1234 6y ago

The misinformation about Prop. 47 is stunning to me. It did not change anything relating to violent crime, nor did it make petty theft legal. Petty theft is still punishable by jail time. Robbery is still a felony. What it actually did is raise the line between misdemeanor and felony theft from $450 to $950.

mcguire 6y ago
As chomp pointed out, the limit for felony theft in Texas is $2500.
- carmen_sandiego 6y ago
  The risk of getting shot by is also significantly higher. And non-quip: the police haven’t given up in Texas.
  - NeutronStar 6y ago
    Then the problem is police giving up, not that the law changed

jb775 6y ago

People think overlooking petty crimes should be the norm, but they're ignorant to the long term impacts and complain when their cities turn into Gotham City without Batman. Cities cut overall violent crime rates significantly in past decades by applying logic from the broken windows theory[1]. The real reason this works is bc a significant amount of crime is carried out by a very small number of individuals...and enforcing more penalties increases the chances police will scoop up a portion of those individuals. The unfortunate downside of this strategy is that some people (that aren't in that category) face overly harsh consequences in relation to their crime. New versions of this should be tried to try and minimize that from happening. It should be expected that taking the complete opposite approach would likely lead to much more than a slight increase in petty crimes. Buy hey it sounds good initially and wins votes on the left so why wouldn't they [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory

azinman2 6y ago

> Instead of providing food and shelter to the poor, perhaps starting an infrastructure program to employ these people and fix the damn roads, they empower the poor to go rampage stores to survive. We spend over a billion a year on the homeless. It’s an intractable problem, and the weather, social services, and accepting (of panhandling) population drives demand to locate here.

imtringued 6y ago
Yes it's intractable because having homeless people is considered more desirable than actually solving the underlying problems because it would hurt special interests. The average SF resident loves having homeless people because of the secondary benefits that homelessness brings.
- smaryjerry 6y ago
  Can’t tell if sarcastic or not. People literally do love the secondary benefit of saying they help the homeless, and politicians basically run on that. Obviously the parent comment saying demand is created was talking about homeless demand to travel to an area with better benefits and/or lesser enforcement of laws that homeless would break, like camping on sidewalks and using the world as the toilet.

alsetmusic 6y ago

> Instead of providing food and shelter to the poor, perhaps starting an infrastructure program to employ these people and fix the damn roads, they empower the poor to go rampage stores to survive. Why not both? "In 2013, the Utah Housing and Community Development Division reported that the cost of emergency room treatment and jail time averaged over $16,000 a year per homeless person, while the cost of providing a fully subsidized apartment was only $11,000."[0] The author quoted above makes an excellent case – multiple times – for reducing cost to society if we'd just spend the money to get people off the street in a chapter titled, Criminalizing Homelessness. Think of the number of hours spent by police responding to calls related to homelessness and what social ills it creates. Consider that there are functional individuals who want to contribute to society, but medical bills or a run of bad luck has created circumstances under which this is impossible. Getting those people back into the economy could be useful. I'm not saying this addresses other issues, such as mental illness. There's quite a lot of services that would be needed there, as well. Also, job training, etc. Another chapter, We Called for Help, and They Killed My Son, deals with the first part. There's also the problem of addiction among the unhoused. There's a chapter on that as well. I've spot-checked info in the book a number of times and found the information to be well researched. According to the chapter, The War on Drugs, what we've been doing to combat drug use is an even more colossal failure and cash sink than probably most of us realize (assuming that you already think it's a failure). The book has me convinced that it's cheaper for society, overall, to just pay to help people rather than funding the punitive system that's currently in place. [0] The End of Policing, by Alex S. Vitale pg 97 ^^ This book is excellent. I've already bought copies for three people who are close to me who I think will be open to its message.

ojbyrne 6y ago
The main problem is that any politician who tried to get these policies in place would find themselves out of a job pretty quickly, unfortunately.
masonic 6y ago
the cost of providing a fully subsidized apartment was only $11,000. Sure, but that doesn't count spending on emergency room treatment and jail time in addition to the cost of the apartment. Housing didn't stop the other resource consumption or criminal activity. It also doesn't count the other costs of providing that housing in the first place. The current debate in Mountain View of turning over one hotel to unhoused people includes spending $70,000 per room just in construction/conversion costs for a nice hotel that's barely 30 years old.