3 ms·
> Blaming this on lax social policy around arrests misses the point I think. No. I'm old enough to remember visiting SF in the late 90s. The city was overall
by donw 5y ago
> Blaming this on lax social policy around arrests misses the point I think.
No.
I'm old enough to remember visiting SF in the late 90s. The city was overall clean and safe. Only a few vagrants. The parks were parks and not shantytowns.
Fast forward to today. None of this is true.
That blame lies squarely on city leadership and the policies they push regardless of outcome.
- fragmede 5y agoIn the 80's and 90's, how often did you go to Dolores park? After dark? You didn't if you knew any better, because it was dangerous. It was dangerous for different reasons than threaten the city now though. There were gangs that controlled territory, in ways that you only hear about in movies these days. Gentrification has its issues, and San Francisco's certainly has its share issues, but lets not see the city's past through rose-colored lenses.
- donw 5y ago"There were dangerous areas before" does not negate "things now are fantastically worse".
- fragmede 5y agoIt doesn't negate "things are bad now too", but you'll need to be more specific if you want to claim that things are "fantastically worse". Specifically, none of my friends have been mugged or threatened with a stabbing recently, though a friends sister was gunned down a bunch of years ago. The SFPD managed to find her killer and bring him to justice finally this year. It's popular to hate on them for being ineffectual but they (and the prosecutors office) got it done. To be clear, I'm not saying things aren't bad - they are. I'm saying let's not pretend that things were great in the past either.