3 ms·

Oh he absolutely knows it's bad policy, however he also knows it wins votes from people in San Francisco. The problem is a large numbers of voters in SF don't

Oh he absolutely knows it's bad policy, however he also knows it wins votes from people in San Francisco. The problem is a large numbers of voters in SF don't realize it's bad policy, and maybe a bigger problem would be why are district attorneys elected positions in the first place?

kenneth 5y ago
Even if they weren't, people would elect a Mayor on a progressive no-prosecuting-crime platform who'd then hire an awful DA… The problem isn't with the position of DA, it's with "progressive" voters.
- Cookingboy 5y ago
  I consider myself liberal, but I agree with you, the California/SF branch of progressivism are extremely toxic. Much of the platform is based on feelings and ideology instead of facts and problem solving, but it manages to even be worse than the right wing counterpart somehow because it comes served with a side dish of "holier and smarter than thou!"
  - seanhandley 5y ago
    Plenty of "holier than thou" to go round on both sides of the political spectrum.
bushbaba 5y ago
I think there’s a lot of Californians voting in bad policy to curtail gentrification. I’ve seen the logic used by many in SF.
- midhhhthrow 5y ago
  I had to think about that for a second. It kinda makes sense and works. If you make SF an awful enough place, companies might finally start to consider leaving.
narrator 5y ago
Can someone who lives in SF chime in and tell us why you voted for Mr. Boudin? Knowing what I know about bay area politics, I bet half the people who voted for him will say that crime in San Francisco is not the district attorney's fault and blame Regan for closing down the mental hospitals in the 70s. I live just outside San Francisco city limits and everything is peaceful, because the criminals know that the laws are enforced here. It's that simple. Encountering homeless people shitting in front of me, or screaming bloody murder at the top of their lungs at 2 a.m or whatever was a regular occurrence in S.F. I thought about homeless people every day in S.F. I don't think about homeless people at all where I live now. The homeless budget in S.F is $300 million dollars a year. That employs a lot of people! Where I live now it's not a whole lot and yet there is no homeless problem.
- imgabe 5y ago
  I think it's partially a positive feedback loop. I'm not sure how to solve the problem. But it probably goes: SF spends a lot of money on services for the homeless, so lots of homeless people keep going there to get those services. Other places don't spend any money on services for the homeless, so the homeless people leave. If every place spent a little bit on services for the homeless, there would be just a few homeless everywhere instead of lots of homeless in a few places and no homeless in other places. But that would require coordination to ensure nobody free-rides and just lets other places take on the homeless. $300 million is a lot though. I've worked on construction projects building ~250 unit apartment buildings that had budgets of $25 million. It seems like you could just build actual housing for most of the homeless with that kind of budget. (Of course that would require SF to allow housing to be built).
  - narrator 5y ago
    What would all those city employees who work in the homeless industry do if there wasn't a 300 million dollar budget? They wouldn't be able to afford to live in the city. I think a lot of San Francisco's problems come from too much tax money. They have a $12.3 billion dollar budget. That's more than some small European countries! The city collects an enormous amount of taxes from all the tech money and needs to do something with it so they get the big idea that they are going to try and fix all social problems with the universal and only solution to all problems: more money.
foota 5y ago
The alternative would be that they believe it is good policy and they're willing to accept some increase in crime. Not saying I necessarily agree or accept that the policies are necessarily causing an increase in crime, but I do think it's worth pointing out that this is a possibility. (that imo is not unlikely)
- Cookingboy 5y ago
  You are right it is a possibility, I actually think "incarceration rate" may actually be this alternative benchmark you suggested. Now the question is do voters realize that benchmark can be artificially lowered by terrible policies that don't help anyone other than make some people "feel good"? We can literally make all crimes legal and we'd end up with an incarceration rate and prison population of zero.
- anonfornoreason 5y ago
  In my social circle, which includes co-workers and families, this is explicitly stated, and it's rationalized with "they deserve more than they have, so if it takes crime to get them more, that's just in my book". I think it's more likely than you expect, at least on the very vocal group that is aggressively pushing the overton window on our views on the social contract.
  - Cookingboy 5y ago
    Next time you should ask them "do you think the all victims of those crimes deserved their fate as well?"
    - anonfornoreason 5y ago
      I try not to be aggressive when I engage in these conversations and instead focus on positive solutions based on finding out why they believe what they believe, instead of contrarian “in your face” sort of takes. They aren’t effective in my experience. Read “the righteous mind” by Jonathan Haidt. Great audiobook too.

kenneth 5y ago

Even if they weren't, people would elect a Mayor on a progressive no-prosecuting-crime platform who'd then hire an awful DA… The problem isn't with the position of DA, it's with "progressive" voters.

Cookingboy 5y ago
I consider myself liberal, but I agree with you, the California/SF branch of progressivism are extremely toxic. Much of the platform is based on feelings and ideology instead of facts and problem solving, but it manages to even be worse than the right wing counterpart somehow because it comes served with a side dish of "holier and smarter than thou!"
- seanhandley 5y ago
  Plenty of "holier than thou" to go round on both sides of the political spectrum.

bushbaba 5y ago

I think there’s a lot of Californians voting in bad policy to curtail gentrification. I’ve seen the logic used by many in SF.

midhhhthrow 5y ago
I had to think about that for a second. It kinda makes sense and works. If you make SF an awful enough place, companies might finally start to consider leaving.

narrator 5y ago

Can someone who lives in SF chime in and tell us why you voted for Mr. Boudin? Knowing what I know about bay area politics, I bet half the people who voted for him will say that crime in San Francisco is not the district attorney's fault and blame Regan for closing down the mental hospitals in the 70s. I live just outside San Francisco city limits and everything is peaceful, because the criminals know that the laws are enforced here. It's that simple. Encountering homeless people shitting in front of me, or screaming bloody murder at the top of their lungs at 2 a.m or whatever was a regular occurrence in S.F. I thought about homeless people every day in S.F. I don't think about homeless people at all where I live now. The homeless budget in S.F is $300 million dollars a year. That employs a lot of people! Where I live now it's not a whole lot and yet there is no homeless problem.

imgabe 5y ago
I think it's partially a positive feedback loop. I'm not sure how to solve the problem. But it probably goes: SF spends a lot of money on services for the homeless, so lots of homeless people keep going there to get those services. Other places don't spend any money on services for the homeless, so the homeless people leave. If every place spent a little bit on services for the homeless, there would be just a few homeless everywhere instead of lots of homeless in a few places and no homeless in other places. But that would require coordination to ensure nobody free-rides and just lets other places take on the homeless. $300 million is a lot though. I've worked on construction projects building ~250 unit apartment buildings that had budgets of $25 million. It seems like you could just build actual housing for most of the homeless with that kind of budget. (Of course that would require SF to allow housing to be built).
- narrator 5y ago
  What would all those city employees who work in the homeless industry do if there wasn't a 300 million dollar budget? They wouldn't be able to afford to live in the city. I think a lot of San Francisco's problems come from too much tax money. They have a $12.3 billion dollar budget. That's more than some small European countries! The city collects an enormous amount of taxes from all the tech money and needs to do something with it so they get the big idea that they are going to try and fix all social problems with the universal and only solution to all problems: more money.

foota 5y ago

The alternative would be that they believe it is good policy and they're willing to accept some increase in crime. Not saying I necessarily agree or accept that the policies are necessarily causing an increase in crime, but I do think it's worth pointing out that this is a possibility. (that imo is not unlikely)

Cookingboy 5y ago
You are right it is a possibility, I actually think "incarceration rate" may actually be this alternative benchmark you suggested. Now the question is do voters realize that benchmark can be artificially lowered by terrible policies that don't help anyone other than make some people "feel good"? We can literally make all crimes legal and we'd end up with an incarceration rate and prison population of zero.
anonfornoreason 5y ago
In my social circle, which includes co-workers and families, this is explicitly stated, and it's rationalized with "they deserve more than they have, so if it takes crime to get them more, that's just in my book". I think it's more likely than you expect, at least on the very vocal group that is aggressively pushing the overton window on our views on the social contract.
- Cookingboy 5y ago
  Next time you should ask them "do you think the all victims of those crimes deserved their fate as well?"
  - anonfornoreason 5y ago
    I try not to be aggressive when I engage in these conversations and instead focus on positive solutions based on finding out why they believe what they believe, instead of contrarian “in your face” sort of takes. They aren’t effective in my experience. Read “the righteous mind” by Jonathan Haidt. Great audiobook too.