3 ms·
Okay, 50% worse or something I could maybe buy, but 1000%? You're giving a single bureaucrat way too much credit. People always seem to believe that there was
by vladTheInhaler 5y ago
Okay, 50% worse or something I could maybe buy, but 1000%? You're giving a single bureaucrat way too much credit. People always seem to believe that there was some magical time when San Francisco was an artist's refuge, and the rent was cheap, and there was no crime. I don't buy it. I was driving with my father a while back, and he pointed out the apartment where he used to live. And the spot down the street where the under-aged prostitutes used to hang out. Parts of the city have been a mess longer than anyone has been alive. Some are improving, some are getting worse. Let's not pretend that firing one person would somehow fix all of that.
- kjksf 5y agoA lot of strawmanning here. As someone who lived in SF for over 10 years I can tell you that in the first 7 years there were zero homeless tents at Mission / Van Ness and in the following 3 years the street was lined up with them. There were zero homeless in the tunnel to Powell station and then the tunnel was lined up with them. You could not only see but also smell. I don't know how to express going from 0 homeless to "have I been teleported to a favela?" in percentages. You can't divide by 0. Yeah, SF never was a paradise but now it's definitely a slum.
- bifrost 5y agoIts a cascade of bad bureaucrats but the latest one takes the cake in being horrendous. The open violence has exploded, period. The crime against artists in the 1990's was VERY very low, and the rent was affordable.