3 ms·

You’re comparing SF, a major city, to Lafayette, a suburb. That is objectively a ridiculous comparison. You will see similar disparities in most comparisons of

You’re comparing SF, a major city, to Lafayette, a suburb. That is objectively a ridiculous comparison. You will see similar disparities in most comparisons of that nature. Your only SF specific crime stat is about property crime (shoplifting). Consistent with what I wrote. Your second stat on murders is regional, not specific to SF, which overall remains near all time lows in violent crime. You then blame the regional Bay Area rise on SF’s district attorney which makes no sense. This is all consistent with what I’m saying: the “safety” claims are not supported by data. Some folks in the tech community just keep saying it over and over within a specific sphere but I’m calling B.S. SF is safer than it’s been for most of our lives.

b9a2cab5 5y ago
And yet compared to New York, Chicago, or any other major city the stats are in the dumpster. [1] Or even San Jose. It is clear that even within the Bay Area SF is disproportionately bad and you have to wonder whose responsibility that is. City leadership - the DA and mayor included - have to have some responsibility? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b... (sort by property crime)
- abalone 5y ago
  > And yet compared to New York, Chicago… Chicago has massively higher violent crime rate than SF. By your own citation. > It is clear that even within the Bay Area SF is disproportionately bad You claim with no data. This is what I mean — the facts just don’t support the “SF has gotten less safe” argument.
  - whoknowswhat11 5y ago
    Overall expectations around safety have increased dramatically. Some might say ridiculously? But it is what it is. Many categories of death have had sustained reductions. Air travel fatalities in the US? Vehicle fatalities (excluding motorcycles etc)? So this is all great news. However, recently some cities have just taken a crazy turn. Minneapolis? They are going to abolish their police department, but look at their numbers. Portland, Seattle etc. And yes, San Francisco in 2020 in terms of crime. Is it reasonably possible that faced with closed schools, minimal social life, quality of life issues and yes - crime that while low is substantially higher than the suburbs folks might decide to move out of SF? I did it, and I would recommend it. You can still visit, go to that favorite restaurant or park or etc. It's a fun date night "on the town". But when you get home, and smell the green in the air, and the neighbor waves at you , and your stuff is where you left it, and you kids can run and play without worry, and the schools are great without hedging (ie, 9's and 10's) and you child can go to the neighborhood school if they want - literally biking with you or walking, all those things add up.
    - abalone 5y ago
      Literally have all those things in the heart of SF. Some people just like living in more segregated communities. > And yes, San Francisco in 2020 in terms of crime. Again, no data cited! Even after being called out on it.
      - whoknowswhat11 5y ago
        I literally just cited data upthread. Robberies SF - 344 per 100K. Lafayette 11 per 100K. You are 31!! times more likely to be robbed in a day in SF than in Lafayette. This assumes reporting is equal - in general studies show once crime is up reporting goes WAY down. The difference in crime rates between urban and suburban is relatively well known. I also linked to articles discussing increase in murder in SF. Is there something more you want? Is the question about year over year crime in SF itself?
  - b9a2cab5 5y ago
    Property crime contributes substantially to a feeling of unsafety. You can't just ignore it because you didn't get mugged. If your car window gets smashed you're going to feel unsafe too, you know. And you encounter it much more often than violent crime, so it has a larger effect on your feeling of safety of your surroundings. The data in my link shows SF has disproportionately bad property crime per capita compared to every other wealthy city: NYC, Chicago, San Jose, LA, etc.
hnta9000 5y ago
> You’re comparing SF, a major city, to Lafayette, a suburb. That is objectively a ridiculous comparison. You will see similar disparities in most comparisons of that nature. Why? OP's numbers are per capita. My family and I moved from SF to Lafayette precisely for these reasons: we were subject to assaults and intimidation from strangers in the street in SF (police refused to follow up), our car and garage were broken into once a year on average (police did not report back for any of the 7 police reports we filed), the total losses exceeded $5000. Others have it worse; our doctor had her house burned down by a mentally ill arsonist. In addition, we were not looking forward to raising our kids in the SF public school system and we don't have enough money to pay for private school, so we moved out. In Lafayette, I can let my kids walk to school without worrying about them getting mugged. (By the way, aside from the neighborhood, you may experience public safety very differently depending on your height, weight, sex, and race. The stats won't tell you any of that, nor the amount of under-reporting going on due to the loss of public trust in the police/DA to do their job.) We know many other families who followed similar trajectories.
- abalone 5y ago
  Because the claim is that SF violent crime got worse, which is false. You are resorting to comparing the general disparity in crime rates between major cities and small towns, which is not unique to SF. Therefore it is an illogical argument. I have no disagreement with you in your general point or personal preference for small exclusive bedroom communities where poor people cannot afford to live, but the same could be said in comparison for Miami, Austin, Dallas or any other major city.
  - hnta9000 5y ago
    The original claim was > At some point folks just get tired of dealing / seeing consequence free crime right in front of them. I think families with kids being impacted there particularly. Having lived in the area for 25 years, I think there is definitely more visible consequence-free crime. The stats do show it's a bit less likely that you'll get killed. And to your point, I'm sure Miami has its own problems. But I think SF has been going light on crime to the detriment of its quality of life.

b9a2cab5 5y ago

And yet compared to New York, Chicago, or any other major city the stats are in the dumpster. [1] Or even San Jose. It is clear that even within the Bay Area SF is disproportionately bad and you have to wonder whose responsibility that is. City leadership - the DA and mayor included - have to have some responsibility? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b... (sort by property crime)

abalone 5y ago
> And yet compared to New York, Chicago… Chicago has massively higher violent crime rate than SF. By your own citation. > It is clear that even within the Bay Area SF is disproportionately bad You claim with no data. This is what I mean — the facts just don’t support the “SF has gotten less safe” argument.
- whoknowswhat11 5y ago
  Overall expectations around safety have increased dramatically. Some might say ridiculously? But it is what it is. Many categories of death have had sustained reductions. Air travel fatalities in the US? Vehicle fatalities (excluding motorcycles etc)? So this is all great news. However, recently some cities have just taken a crazy turn. Minneapolis? They are going to abolish their police department, but look at their numbers. Portland, Seattle etc. And yes, San Francisco in 2020 in terms of crime. Is it reasonably possible that faced with closed schools, minimal social life, quality of life issues and yes - crime that while low is substantially higher than the suburbs folks might decide to move out of SF? I did it, and I would recommend it. You can still visit, go to that favorite restaurant or park or etc. It's a fun date night "on the town". But when you get home, and smell the green in the air, and the neighbor waves at you , and your stuff is where you left it, and you kids can run and play without worry, and the schools are great without hedging (ie, 9's and 10's) and you child can go to the neighborhood school if they want - literally biking with you or walking, all those things add up.
  - abalone 5y ago
    Literally have all those things in the heart of SF. Some people just like living in more segregated communities. > And yes, San Francisco in 2020 in terms of crime. Again, no data cited! Even after being called out on it.
    - whoknowswhat11 5y ago
      I literally just cited data upthread. Robberies SF - 344 per 100K. Lafayette 11 per 100K. You are 31!! times more likely to be robbed in a day in SF than in Lafayette. This assumes reporting is equal - in general studies show once crime is up reporting goes WAY down. The difference in crime rates between urban and suburban is relatively well known. I also linked to articles discussing increase in murder in SF. Is there something more you want? Is the question about year over year crime in SF itself?
- b9a2cab5 5y ago
  Property crime contributes substantially to a feeling of unsafety. You can't just ignore it because you didn't get mugged. If your car window gets smashed you're going to feel unsafe too, you know. And you encounter it much more often than violent crime, so it has a larger effect on your feeling of safety of your surroundings. The data in my link shows SF has disproportionately bad property crime per capita compared to every other wealthy city: NYC, Chicago, San Jose, LA, etc.

hnta9000 5y ago

> You’re comparing SF, a major city, to Lafayette, a suburb. That is objectively a ridiculous comparison. You will see similar disparities in most comparisons of that nature. Why? OP's numbers are per capita. My family and I moved from SF to Lafayette precisely for these reasons: we were subject to assaults and intimidation from strangers in the street in SF (police refused to follow up), our car and garage were broken into once a year on average (police did not report back for any of the 7 police reports we filed), the total losses exceeded $5000. Others have it worse; our doctor had her house burned down by a mentally ill arsonist. In addition, we were not looking forward to raising our kids in the SF public school system and we don't have enough money to pay for private school, so we moved out. In Lafayette, I can let my kids walk to school without worrying about them getting mugged. (By the way, aside from the neighborhood, you may experience public safety very differently depending on your height, weight, sex, and race. The stats won't tell you any of that, nor the amount of under-reporting going on due to the loss of public trust in the police/DA to do their job.) We know many other families who followed similar trajectories.

abalone 5y ago
Because the claim is that SF violent crime got worse, which is false. You are resorting to comparing the general disparity in crime rates between major cities and small towns, which is not unique to SF. Therefore it is an illogical argument. I have no disagreement with you in your general point or personal preference for small exclusive bedroom communities where poor people cannot afford to live, but the same could be said in comparison for Miami, Austin, Dallas or any other major city.
- hnta9000 5y ago
  The original claim was > At some point folks just get tired of dealing / seeing consequence free crime right in front of them. I think families with kids being impacted there particularly. Having lived in the area for 25 years, I think there is definitely more visible consequence-free crime. The stats do show it's a bit less likely that you'll get killed. And to your point, I'm sure Miami has its own problems. But I think SF has been going light on crime to the detriment of its quality of life.