3 ms·

SF is a ground zero test bed for policy making. Other cities will learn from their mistakes and hopefully all of us will benefit. I think we can just agree decr

by xyst 5y ago

SF is a ground zero test bed for policy making. Other cities will learn from their mistakes and hopefully all of us will benefit. I think we can just agree decriminalizing and not prosecuting "petty theft" is just a disaster.

zozbot234 5y ago
People just don't learn. We've known that it was important to keep petty crime in control since NYC's "No Broken Windows" policies of the 1990s.
- kilotaras 5y ago
  AFAIK there's not much causal evidence for supporting NYCs "No Broken Window" policies effect. Phasing out of lead has more explanatory power.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > We’ve known that it was important to keep petty crime in control since NYC’s “No Broken Windows” policies of the 1990s. Actually, it is clear that that local policy either did nothing at all but was simply adopted at the right time to be given local credit for broader demographic (e.g., population bulge aging out of the main crime-driving age band), economic, and environmental (e.g., lead exposure) factors, or it was so successful that it somehow managed to effect places outside of New York across the country that didn’t adopt similar policies.
  - dllthomas 5y ago
    The "people don't learn" phrasing is particularly amusing, since the disagreement seems to be between those who "learned" once and those who "learned" twice (leaving aside whether what was "learned" in either case was right or wrong).
  - swearwolf 5y ago
    Living in a place where you see crime and decay all around you, but the data doesn’t back up what you see with your eyes, you really start to question the quality of the data and the conclusions built on top of it.
  - PolygonSheep 5y ago
    > it somehow managed to effect places outside of New York across the country that didn’t adopt similar policies. I definitely remember "tough on crime" being nationally popular (not just in NYC) in both parties through the '90s. Even if it wasn't called "broken windows policing". Obviously some of the Bratton/Giuliani policies were specifically tailored to NYC and not really applicable elsewhere (no need to crack down on subway fare evasion in Houston for example) but the general sentiment of "the police should aggressively enforce all laws and lock all criminals up" was extremely popular. This is not to say that any of this was right, or good, or just, or why crime fell or whatever. But it was definitely popular in the '90s outside of NYC.
- azth 5y ago
  There's a reason punishments are necessary, even if they might seem harsh.
CityOfThrowaway 5y ago
Yes. As a resident of SF I was curious, accepting, and optimistic of our policy experiments in the following: 1. Effectively decriminalizing all drugs 2. Focus on harm reduction instead of police enforcement to reduce drug problems 3. Bureaucracy free disbursement of cash aid to those who need it 4. Decarceration and jail avoidance as a method of preventing structural employer discrimination of people with records from ruining peoples lives It didn't work. The city is a mess in all of the ways that the harshest critics of these policies predicted. It wasn't hard to predict, but the vision of equitable, punishment-free utopia beguiled the population and led them to mayhem. We need to reverse course, yet the most vocal proponents are doubling down on their failed agenda.
- swearwolf 5y ago
  This is probably the most disappointing thing about being on the left in the U.S. - we’re supposed to be the people who “believe science” and “trust the data”, but I’ve never once seen advocates for this policy or that reverse course when it’s obvious that policy is a failure. Instead, they seem to head straight for the No True Scotsman fallacy. It didn’t work, but only because we didn’t really commit to it. Next time we’ll do it twice as hard and spend three times as much doing it. And if it does work then, it’s because of capitalism. Or white supremacy. Or the patriarchy. If we just fix those, it’ll definitely work. And if not, it’s only because we didn’t really fix those things right because the master’s tools can’t tear down the master’s house.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
wongarsu 5y ago
From what I heard the idea was "hand out fines instead of jail time for petty theft". What happened instead was "you can commit petty theft in broad daylight and nobody will care". The former policy sounds like an idea that might work with heavy enforcement, while the latter shouldn't even be worth discussing as a viable strategy. I think the real lesson is how SF somehow still ended up with the latter.

by xyst 5y ago

zozbot234 5y ago

People just don't learn. We've known that it was important to keep petty crime in control since NYC's "No Broken Windows" policies of the 1990s.

kilotaras 5y ago
AFAIK there's not much causal evidence for supporting NYCs "No Broken Window" policies effect. Phasing out of lead has more explanatory power.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> We’ve known that it was important to keep petty crime in control since NYC’s “No Broken Windows” policies of the 1990s. Actually, it is clear that that local policy either did nothing at all but was simply adopted at the right time to be given local credit for broader demographic (e.g., population bulge aging out of the main crime-driving age band), economic, and environmental (e.g., lead exposure) factors, or it was so successful that it somehow managed to effect places outside of New York across the country that didn’t adopt similar policies.
- dllthomas 5y ago
  The "people don't learn" phrasing is particularly amusing, since the disagreement seems to be between those who "learned" once and those who "learned" twice (leaving aside whether what was "learned" in either case was right or wrong).
- swearwolf 5y ago
  Living in a place where you see crime and decay all around you, but the data doesn’t back up what you see with your eyes, you really start to question the quality of the data and the conclusions built on top of it.
- PolygonSheep 5y ago
  > it somehow managed to effect places outside of New York across the country that didn’t adopt similar policies. I definitely remember "tough on crime" being nationally popular (not just in NYC) in both parties through the '90s. Even if it wasn't called "broken windows policing". Obviously some of the Bratton/Giuliani policies were specifically tailored to NYC and not really applicable elsewhere (no need to crack down on subway fare evasion in Houston for example) but the general sentiment of "the police should aggressively enforce all laws and lock all criminals up" was extremely popular. This is not to say that any of this was right, or good, or just, or why crime fell or whatever. But it was definitely popular in the '90s outside of NYC.
azth 5y ago
There's a reason punishments are necessary, even if they might seem harsh.

CityOfThrowaway 5y ago

Yes. As a resident of SF I was curious, accepting, and optimistic of our policy experiments in the following: 1. Effectively decriminalizing all drugs 2. Focus on harm reduction instead of police enforcement to reduce drug problems 3. Bureaucracy free disbursement of cash aid to those who need it 4. Decarceration and jail avoidance as a method of preventing structural employer discrimination of people with records from ruining peoples lives It didn't work. The city is a mess in all of the ways that the harshest critics of these policies predicted. It wasn't hard to predict, but the vision of equitable, punishment-free utopia beguiled the population and led them to mayhem. We need to reverse course, yet the most vocal proponents are doubling down on their failed agenda.

swearwolf 5y ago
This is probably the most disappointing thing about being on the left in the U.S. - we’re supposed to be the people who “believe science” and “trust the data”, but I’ve never once seen advocates for this policy or that reverse course when it’s obvious that policy is a failure. Instead, they seem to head straight for the No True Scotsman fallacy. It didn’t work, but only because we didn’t really commit to it. Next time we’ll do it twice as hard and spend three times as much doing it. And if it does work then, it’s because of capitalism. Or white supremacy. Or the patriarchy. If we just fix those, it’ll definitely work. And if not, it’s only because we didn’t really fix those things right because the master’s tools can’t tear down the master’s house.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

wongarsu 5y ago

From what I heard the idea was "hand out fines instead of jail time for petty theft". What happened instead was "you can commit petty theft in broad daylight and nobody will care". The former policy sounds like an idea that might work with heavy enforcement, while the latter shouldn't even be worth discussing as a viable strategy. I think the real lesson is how SF somehow still ended up with the latter.