3 ms·
Residents of San Francisco have not been in my experience shy about drinking in public, or, for that matter, shooting fentanyl or defecating. These are rather e
by xyzzyz 5y ago
Residents of San Francisco have not been in my experience shy about drinking in public, or, for that matter, shooting fentanyl or defecating. These are rather everyday occurrences in the city, so I imagine people can handle some outdoor dining in restaurants too.
- wolverine876 5y agoA good point, though many on HN aren't so happy about those outdoor activities.
- xyzzyz 5y agoAlas, they get worst of both worlds: the city government is doing little about those shooting heroin on the sidewalk, because it is too busy focusing on the scourge of urban life, that is, restaurants offering sidewalk dining.
- wolverine876 5y agoThe talking points are endlessly repeated, but does that make them true? What makes this true?
- xyzzyz 5y agoThis is true, because the restaurants and other businesses actually have something to lose when they defy the petty tyranny of the city planning bureau. The bureau knows this, and it doesn’t like the idea of losing the power it has, so it comes down hard to punish those who do not kowtow to it. On the other hand, the heroin addicts don’t really have anything to lose, other than freedom to roam around the city. Since city is not interested in depriving them of that freedom (as jailing the homeless addicts for disorderly conduct would be inhumane, according to San Franciscans), it has no tools to actually incentivize different behavior — it has no punishments left, and so it’s left powerless.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago> The bureau knows this, and it doesn’t like the idea of losing the power it has, I don't think government-bureaucracy-as-a-person-with-desires is a useful way to think or talk about this stuff.
- xyzzyz 5y agoAlas, the bureau is the people running it.
- wolverine876 5y agoHow about the law, their superiors, the politics, institutional culture, etc. No CEO has the power you ascribe to these people.