11 ms·

"Would you send your 5 year old self down the streets of San Francisco or Seattle?" Yes. We live in San Francisco, and our kids went to a daycare in the Civic

"Would you send your 5 year old self down the streets of San Francisco or Seattle?" Yes. We live in San Francisco, and our kids went to a daycare in the Civic Center. We walked [with the kids] by many homeless people every weekday for years. Our interactions with them were almost universally positive; they'd clear the sidewalk to let kids through, try to keep kids from seeing drug use, chat and share candy, etc. On cold days when our kids would refuse to wear shirts [love that young metabolism], homeless folks would yell out, "Put a jacket on that kid!". Most homeless people are just people in terrible situations, not boogiemen to be afraid of. Sure, some of them are mentally ill--if they weren't when they became homeless, it can make you so--but that doesn't make them dangerous. Every assault makes the news, but cities are safer than they've ever been, and I'm very glad to be raising my kids in SF. The public transit and density of services will give them much greater autonomy than if we lived somewhere where you need a car to get anywhere. My older kid's first errand was at age 5.5, to get a loaf of bread IIRC, from a market 1 block away, crossing 1 street. He was stopped by the police. The cop told him to tell his parents that he was too young to be out alone. No CPS, no arrest, fortunately, and he let my kid complete his errand alone, but that's the biggest danger around our neighborhood, not the homeless. We're not in the Civic Center, granted, but we're still in SF proper.

dave78 4y ago
> Our interactions with them were almost universally positive ... [they'd] try to keep kids from seeing drug use As someone with kids and living in the Midwest, I just don't even have the words to describe my reaction to this. Wow.
- bombcar 4y ago
  I guess we can translate it to “try not to look at the other sport team’s fans” or something
- caslon 4y ago
  As someone also living in the Midwest, what's your issue with it? A bunch of people are doing a thing. They see a kid. They stop doing it while the kid is in sight, so they're spared seeing it. What could possibly be the issue? If anything, it demonstrates Midwestern values pretty well: Freedom, and a moral, not legal, code that people voluntarily follow to prevent kids from being exposed to potentially-harmful things, without any government needed to enforce it! If anything, it's more considerate than where I live, where people will openly smoke in front of children, which is arguably more harmful, because smoking has second-hand effects, unlike intravenous drug usage.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  > As someone with kids and living in the Midwest, I just don't even have the words to describe my reaction to this. Wow. I'm not sure what you mean: Do you live in a large Midwestern city, like Chicago, and have different experiences? Do you live in a suburban or rural environment and are surprised to hear it? Personally I spend lots of time in cities and I'm not surprised. If you don't have experience there, realize that the horror stories fit a long-term political campaign to denigrate cities in 'blue states' (note that you don't hear anything about crime in Miami, Houston, etc.), which are a political power base of a one party.
  - jasonfarnon 4y ago
    Houston/Harris county is solidly blue
    - wolverine876 4y ago
      Right, but the focus is on cities in blue states.
Volrath89 4y ago
I grew up in a 3rd world country (now I live in Europe) in a city that by HN comments seems similar to SF (big and full of harmless homeless people/drug addicts everywhere). I remember when I was a kid and I was with my mother I stared to a homeless man for some time. Of course he just seemed peculiar to me, I was a little kid, but this guy got mad and screamed "Do I owe you money or what? why do you keep looking at me?" My mother grabbed me in her arms and we just went away quickly. She told me to not look at homeless people for so much time. Of course I was very scared, I don't remember exactly how old I was but I still remember the episode some decades later.
- DFHippie 4y ago
  If you stare at anyone long enough they will get mad. I don't recommend this experiment.
  - cercatrova 4y ago
    It's like a primal reaction among apes and other animals in general. No wonder humans get mad too at being stared at.
  - captainredbeard 4y ago
    > If you stare at anyone long enough they will get mad Well, yes, but decent and functional human beings don't react that way to children.
  - asoneth 4y ago
    I've never observed a person getting mad at a child for staring at them. In my experience people seem to smile, wave, or make funny faces. (A teenager or adult is different, but the story above was a kid small enough for their mother to grab them in her arms.)
  - Rebelgecko 4y ago
    Maybe it's a cultural difference between where I live and where you live, but it's definitely not normal for people to get mad at a child for staring. They're fairly inquisitive by nature.
arcticfox 4y ago
> Our interactions with them were almost universally positive; they'd clear the sidewalk to let kids through, try to keep kids from seeing drug use, chat and share candy, etc. With an adult present, sure, but holy moly would I not leave my kid alone around drug users offering candy and a chat. Hell, I might be one of those hypothetical CPS callers that everyone is worried about if I saw that taking place!
newfriend 4y ago
It sounds to me like you're purposely downplaying the dangers of overwhelmingly mentally-ill, drug-addicted, societal outcasts just so you can post about how enlightened you are. Normal people do not want to put their kids into dangerous situations. And doing so does not make you a good person.
- mplewis 4y ago
  You're afraid of a parent choosing to walk with their kid down a public sidewalk? Get a grip.
  - jtbayly 4y ago
    The person answered “yes” to a question that implied they would send their 5yo child alone down the street. Then described the reason why they would be comfortable doing that is because they have walked it with them. I think it’s reasonable to question that decision based on what they described happening on that street. Your response acts as if the question is whether it’s fine to take your child with you down that street, but that’s not what is under discussion.
  - rglullis 4y ago
    Walking with the kids? Not a problem. But the thought of letting my kids (5 and 2.5) run errands by themselves (in a city like Berlin with its abundant number of homeless and mentally-ill people everywhere) gave me goosebumps. "It's only one block away" and "most homeless people are harmless" would never be words of consolation in case of any calamity.
    - CogitoCogito 4y ago
      > "It's only one block away" and "most homeless people are harmless" would never be words of consolation in case of any calamity. This is extremist thinking and frankly quite useless without considering the actual level of risk involved.
      - 4y ago
welder 4y ago
> but that doesn't make them dangerous. Sometimes it does. I like not needing a car in SF too, but I do notice my kids being affected negatively after seeing a violent deranged person. I bike the long way to school instead of walking because it was impacting their mood so much. Maybe your kids deal with it better than mine, or maybe you're just not noticing how it's affecting them?
livinginfear 4y ago
Sesame Street clearly had a big influence on you. Would you walk on Kensington Ave with your children? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bi1Kf-1qd6Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bi1Kf-1qd6Y
- Mvhsz 4y ago
  A few friends of mine have bought houses in the gentrifying parts of port richmond over the years, and I've biked through several of the intersections in that video. Yeah parts of Kensington Ave are open air drug markets, you avoid those spots. The surrounding neighborhood is run down and pretty low income, but mostly quiet and residential. I assume SF is similar in that outside of downtown you can find a path to anywhere you want to go that avoids the most obvious dangers. Similar to the parent comment, the grocery store I walk to in west philly always has a homeless woman out front and the interactions aren't scary. She says hello to me and my dog who she recognizes and asks for change, I typically say "no but have a nice day" she says "god bless" and that's that. Speaking as a non-parent, if I had a kid near kensington ave and they walked to school (which they mostly do) I would just tell them to walk down Frankford Ave a few blocks south, which is much less scary. Teaching kids those basic "street smarts" is one of the objectives of having "free range" kids. Although I would also add that living a little ways away from the street infamous for being a drug market is within the means of the majority of the Philadelphians, and the vast majority of the hacker news crowd.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  You've picked one of the most famous sites for drugs in the country, and a video edited to show how bad it is. That's not representative of city streets any more than a highlight video of the mansion of biggest lottery winner ever is representative of lottery ticket buyers.
DFHippie 4y ago
This. The cities are actually safer. The chief difference is that the segment of the media dedicated to keeping people fearful, particularly of their neighbors, is enormous now. It was always the case that media liked stories of conflict, but this was moderated by a sense of propriety and responsibility to the community. Now, certain voices have enormous megaphones and no restraints and the paranoia and anger they are actively promoting against their own society has taken root generally.
- a2tech 4y ago
  My wife grew up in the city, and I grew up in the country (not the pretend 'doctors commute to the city and have 10 acres they pretend to farm and raise horses on' but 'white trash, holy shit there's no work' county) and my wife is HORRIFIED by how much violence and random crime there is where I come from. My family still asks how we can live in the city since its so dangerous while meth heads are stealing anhydrous ammonia from fertilizer tanks and will shoot you without blinking if you get in their way just down the street from them.
  - boomboomsubban 4y ago
    If it's anything like my experience in a rural town, they'll bemoan the dangers of the cities while Tom's kid got into meth and conned/robbed ten people they know, Dick's kid goes to the bar every night then drives home drunk to beat his family, and Harry's kid was hiding that he had HIV to sleep with several women in town.
    - hef19898 4y ago
      The devil I know.
    - a2tech 4y ago
      Yup. My best friends dad would stop at the gas station every night after his shift (2nd shift at a foundry) to get a 6 pack of Labatt that he'd drink while driving home, get home and keep drinking. On a good night he'd smoke, drink more beer and eat warmed up dinner. On a bad night, he'd come home, keep drinking, and get into it with his wife and smack her around for awhile. As an adult I realize why they always wanted me to stay over was he wouldn't lay into them while I was there. He'd just leave and go to brothers house. Or as we found out later, his girlfriends.
WalterBright 4y ago
> cities are safer than they've ever been Seattle has seen a large rise in violent crime, and it's hottest around the homeless camps. The fire dept responds to fires in those camps daily.
- caslon 4y ago
  It's pretty stable, though, and the rise isn't actually that large (just about at 2008 levels, and far below 2004 levels): 2008-modernity: https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/23/72/75/21999466/3/rawImage.jpg https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/23/72/75/21999466/3/rawImage.j... Graph that includes pre-2008 levels: https://miro.medium.com/max/700/1*llD-nfzEV_nV-hISBQIRCQ.jpeg https://miro.medium.com/max/700/1*llD-nfzEV_nV-hISBQIRCQ.jpe...
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Recent property crime rates are famously undercounted, as people have largely stopped reporting them because the police do not react. That's why my remark was on violent crime levels.
    - caslon 4y ago
      The first figure on both graphs is on violent crime. It's the orange one that's on property crime.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        I know. I'm just pointing out that the violent crime rate graph is far more credible.
  - com2kid 4y ago
    > It's pretty stable, though, and the rise isn't actually that large (just about at 2008 levels, and far below 2004 levels): I walked through Cap Hill and DT Seattle to catch a bus at 2am back in 2003. No worries at all. A lot of crime isn't reported now days, e.g. my mothers truck just got stolen and she is not going to report it because the police are likely not going to even bother talking to her about it. I've had plenty of friends with stolen cars where the police told them "well you should be more careful with your car" and up and leave. That sort of attitude sure makes the crime stats look good though.
adamredwoods 4y ago
As a parent, I wouldn't do this in busy areas. I've seen people get hit from drivers running stop signs and red lights. I have to look at drivers turning right on red to make sure they see me, not sure that all children are tall enough to do this. Too much of a risk. It doesn't take too much searching to find examples of horrible accidents: https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/kids-hit-by-car-while-walking-to-gilroy-school-police/ https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/kids-hit-by-car-while-wa...
- mr_toad 4y ago
  Cars are statically the biggest risk to children. And this risk is greatly increased when they’re actually in the car.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  I don't think I've ever seen someone be hit by a car. The only people I know who have been hit were riding bicycles in traffic. But I would make sure my kids know not to just trust the lights. > It doesn't take too much searching to find examples of horrible accidents: It doesn't take too much searching to find examples of being hit by lightning or winning the lottery. Anecdotes are meaningless in that context.
  - asoneth 4y ago
    Motor-vehicle crashes account for 20%[1] of child and adolescent deaths in the US. I'm not nearly as terrified of strangers or homeless drug users as the legion of SUV drivers scrolling on their cell phones. Distracted drivers are several orders of magnitude more dangerous and several orders of magnitude more common. [1] from 2016 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6637963/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6637963/
    - boomboomsubban 4y ago
      >Motor-vehicle crashes account for 20%[1] of child and adolescent deaths in the US. Yep, 20% of something that almost never happens. .025% of adolescents die each year, .005% of them due to motor vehicle crashes. Further, the paper suggests most of adolescent vehicle deaths happen as passengers and/or drivers.
godelski 4y ago
> Every assault makes the news, but cities are safer than they've ever been Reminds me of one of my favorite pieces of data.[0] Pew tracks both crime rates and perception of crime rates. There's been an overwhelming declining trend crime (especially violent) in the past 30 years. But if you look at perceptions of crime, people think year over year it is on the rise. There's even a bias that it is on the rise more nationally rather than locally. What I like about this is how it shows the biases that we develop. You're right that _every_ assault makes the news (also there's 350m people in the US, even a 1 in 10k event is likely to occur frequently at the national level). Also, pareto plays a role. Most crime is limited to a few states, and really just a few cities in those states, and even more so specific areas within those cities (pareto is fractal in this way). We humans are typically bad at risk analysis. I should add to this that I grew up and walked to school in the 90's. So it is safe to say that me walking to school as a kid was statistically substantially more dangerous than it is for kids to walk to school today. [0] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/20/facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/20/facts-about...
- wolverine876 4y ago
  While I generally agree ... > Most crime is limited to a few states, and really just a few cities in those states, and even more so specific areas within those cities (pareto is fractal in this way). What is that based on? Some tangential data leans in the other direction: The most recent FBI/DoJ report (that I'm aware of) said recent increases in gun crime were spread pretty evenly, urban and rural, across the country - though that's just one kind of crime, and only the increases. Another report said crime is worse in 'red states' than 'blue states', and the latter tend to have larger cities (I think). Hardly conclusive data, I know, and I'd love to see some.
  - godelski 4y ago
    This is pretty common in pareto distributions. Here's a heat map from 2020 data with state level resolution[0]. You'll notice that crime is in fact not evenly distributed (my claim). Here's a similar map but with county level precision[1]. And here's a heat map for crime in San Francisco[2]. Nothing I've stated is really that controversial and is pretty well known by anyone that looks at crime statistics. I think it is also relatively easy for the average person to buy because everyone knows where "the bad part of town" is. Really that's all I've said. That "the bad part of town" exists fractally. There's the "bad states," "bad cities," "bad counties," "bad towns," and "bad parts of towns." I think this all should be rather unsurprising. To clarify on your FBI/DOJ statement, this doesn't have to be in disagreement with what I said. You can have increases in violent crime over the last year (or even 5) and a dramatic decline in the last 30. The Pew study that I cited does specifically look at violent crime and uses FBI statistics. But let's add more. Here's a DOJ 1993-2011 showing a large decrease in both fatal and non-fatal gun violence[3]. Here's a Reuters article that shows homicides (and the pareto effect I mentioned above) from 1980 to 2019[4]. Notice the trend towards declining (I never said it _strictly_ declined). [0] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Violent_Crime_Rate_by_U.S._state.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Violent_... [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/crime-rates-by-county/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/crime-rates... [2] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Crime-heat-map-and-overview-of-the-considered-zip-codes-in-San-Francisco_fig1_337585003 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Crime-heat-map-and-overv... [3] https://info.publicintelligence.net/DoJ-GunViolence1993-2011.pdf https://info.publicintelligence.net/DoJ-GunViolence1993-2011... [4] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-plans-new-steps-combat-us-gun-violence-violent-crime-climbs-2021-06-23/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-plans-new-steps-comba...
OJFord 4y ago
I'm also not a parent so I'll join the top-level commentor in not telling you what to do, but I know that I personally will draw the line well short of letting them share a homeless stranger's 'candy'! (Related but not exactly a reply - I think this is a fairly uniquely North American phenomenon, my experience in the UK in the 00's matches these American 70's etc. experiences, and I see no sign that it's changed here. More evidence that it's to do with the way towns are structured I suppose. Or 'towns' - you don't really have them and that's the problem.)
dleslie 4y ago
You're assuming that crime is reported with the same reliability.
- ryan_lane 4y ago
  This is fear mongering, and works in both directions. You're assuming that older crime stats were reported with more reliability.
  - dleslie 4y ago
    Sure, that's something to consider. What I've read leads me to believe that less crime is reported due to increasing lack of faith in the criminal justice system. Here in Canada, it's hard to trust any crime stats because of this: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/more-crimes-going-unreported-survey-1.897562 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/more-crimes-going-unreported-... https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/is-crime-in-canada-really-declining-mli-study-questions-statscans-numbers/ https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/is-crime-in-canada-really-declin...
rglullis 4y ago
> Most homeless people are just people in terrible situations. No one cares about averages, and this is not a game of statistics where I'd be interested in playing out the game just because the odds are in my favor. We don't need to care about the state of "most" strangers when all it takes is one outlier that turns out to be a psychotic.
WaxedChewbacca 4y ago
uranium 4y ago
OK, since some folks have commented on the candy thing: That was a one-time event, on the Muni, with both parents there, and with the giver asking our permission to give our son a sealed lollypop. I don't recommend kids take candy from strangers without parents there, but I do talk to strangers in front of my kids, and encourage them to also. I don't tell my kids that all strangers are dangerous. First, because it leads to a culture of fear and disrespect. Second, because I obviously don't act as if they are, so it would lead to distrusting my advice. They have to learn the difference between "stranger who seems reasonable and nonthreatening with whom you can casually chat" and "stranger telling at clouds whom you should avoid". They figure that out pretty young, if you let them.
naravara 4y ago
Honestly I’ve never seen it as bad as in certain parts of Seattle. The meth use is very readily apparent and it has people behaving way out of line and highly erratic or aggressive. That said, I still worry more about car traffic and reckless drivers than the homeless. But having aggressive people on drugs yelling at passers by is not an ideal or safe environment for kids to be in. For one thing, it distracts the people in cars. . .
DocTomoe 4y ago
I am usually a supporter of 'free-range kids', but I'd draw the line with Skid Row. Sure, the vast majority of homeless folks may be relatively harmless, but I'd wager that the density of less-than-harmless people is higher in that environment.
- hef19898 4y ago
  Statistically, kids are most likely to be abused and hurt in any imaginable way by people in their social circles, be that family, coaches, youth group leaders, teachers,... I'm not worried about my children seeing a poor drug addict or homeless in the streets. It actually is a great opportunity to talk about what this means, how it can happen and not to be afraid of it. And it can show them to be careful, without supervision, on certain things.
  - DocTomoe 4y ago
    > Statistically, kids are most likely to be abused and hurt in any imaginable way by people in their social circles Sure. But I can't make them social recluses just so they never encounter that high-risk group. That does not mean I need to encourage them seeking out another high-risk group on top of that. Not wanting your kid to walk alone through Skid Row does not mean you are hiding the issue of homelessness - you can still talk about that at other opportunities.

dave78 4y ago

> Our interactions with them were almost universally positive ... [they'd] try to keep kids from seeing drug use As someone with kids and living in the Midwest, I just don't even have the words to describe my reaction to this. Wow.

bombcar 4y ago
I guess we can translate it to “try not to look at the other sport team’s fans” or something
caslon 4y ago
As someone also living in the Midwest, what's your issue with it? A bunch of people are doing a thing. They see a kid. They stop doing it while the kid is in sight, so they're spared seeing it. What could possibly be the issue? If anything, it demonstrates Midwestern values pretty well: Freedom, and a moral, not legal, code that people voluntarily follow to prevent kids from being exposed to potentially-harmful things, without any government needed to enforce it! If anything, it's more considerate than where I live, where people will openly smoke in front of children, which is arguably more harmful, because smoking has second-hand effects, unlike intravenous drug usage.
wolverine876 4y ago
> As someone with kids and living in the Midwest, I just don't even have the words to describe my reaction to this. Wow. I'm not sure what you mean: Do you live in a large Midwestern city, like Chicago, and have different experiences? Do you live in a suburban or rural environment and are surprised to hear it? Personally I spend lots of time in cities and I'm not surprised. If you don't have experience there, realize that the horror stories fit a long-term political campaign to denigrate cities in 'blue states' (note that you don't hear anything about crime in Miami, Houston, etc.), which are a political power base of a one party.
- jasonfarnon 4y ago
  Houston/Harris county is solidly blue
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    Right, but the focus is on cities in blue states.

Volrath89 4y ago

I grew up in a 3rd world country (now I live in Europe) in a city that by HN comments seems similar to SF (big and full of harmless homeless people/drug addicts everywhere). I remember when I was a kid and I was with my mother I stared to a homeless man for some time. Of course he just seemed peculiar to me, I was a little kid, but this guy got mad and screamed "Do I owe you money or what? why do you keep looking at me?" My mother grabbed me in her arms and we just went away quickly. She told me to not look at homeless people for so much time. Of course I was very scared, I don't remember exactly how old I was but I still remember the episode some decades later.

DFHippie 4y ago
If you stare at anyone long enough they will get mad. I don't recommend this experiment.
- cercatrova 4y ago
  It's like a primal reaction among apes and other animals in general. No wonder humans get mad too at being stared at.
- captainredbeard 4y ago
  > If you stare at anyone long enough they will get mad Well, yes, but decent and functional human beings don't react that way to children.
- asoneth 4y ago
  I've never observed a person getting mad at a child for staring at them. In my experience people seem to smile, wave, or make funny faces. (A teenager or adult is different, but the story above was a kid small enough for their mother to grab them in her arms.)
- Rebelgecko 4y ago
  Maybe it's a cultural difference between where I live and where you live, but it's definitely not normal for people to get mad at a child for staring. They're fairly inquisitive by nature.

arcticfox 4y ago

> Our interactions with them were almost universally positive; they'd clear the sidewalk to let kids through, try to keep kids from seeing drug use, chat and share candy, etc. With an adult present, sure, but holy moly would I not leave my kid alone around drug users offering candy and a chat. Hell, I might be one of those hypothetical CPS callers that everyone is worried about if I saw that taking place!

newfriend 4y ago

It sounds to me like you're purposely downplaying the dangers of overwhelmingly mentally-ill, drug-addicted, societal outcasts just so you can post about how enlightened you are. Normal people do not want to put their kids into dangerous situations. And doing so does not make you a good person.

mplewis 4y ago
You're afraid of a parent choosing to walk with their kid down a public sidewalk? Get a grip.
- jtbayly 4y ago
  The person answered “yes” to a question that implied they would send their 5yo child alone down the street. Then described the reason why they would be comfortable doing that is because they have walked it with them. I think it’s reasonable to question that decision based on what they described happening on that street. Your response acts as if the question is whether it’s fine to take your child with you down that street, but that’s not what is under discussion.
- rglullis 4y ago
  Walking with the kids? Not a problem. But the thought of letting my kids (5 and 2.5) run errands by themselves (in a city like Berlin with its abundant number of homeless and mentally-ill people everywhere) gave me goosebumps. "It's only one block away" and "most homeless people are harmless" would never be words of consolation in case of any calamity.
  - CogitoCogito 4y ago
    > "It's only one block away" and "most homeless people are harmless" would never be words of consolation in case of any calamity. This is extremist thinking and frankly quite useless without considering the actual level of risk involved.
    - 4y ago

welder 4y ago

> but that doesn't make them dangerous. Sometimes it does. I like not needing a car in SF too, but I do notice my kids being affected negatively after seeing a violent deranged person. I bike the long way to school instead of walking because it was impacting their mood so much. Maybe your kids deal with it better than mine, or maybe you're just not noticing how it's affecting them?

livinginfear 4y ago

Sesame Street clearly had a big influence on you. Would you walk on Kensington Ave with your children? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bi1Kf-1qd6Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bi1Kf-1qd6Y

Mvhsz 4y ago
A few friends of mine have bought houses in the gentrifying parts of port richmond over the years, and I've biked through several of the intersections in that video. Yeah parts of Kensington Ave are open air drug markets, you avoid those spots. The surrounding neighborhood is run down and pretty low income, but mostly quiet and residential. I assume SF is similar in that outside of downtown you can find a path to anywhere you want to go that avoids the most obvious dangers. Similar to the parent comment, the grocery store I walk to in west philly always has a homeless woman out front and the interactions aren't scary. She says hello to me and my dog who she recognizes and asks for change, I typically say "no but have a nice day" she says "god bless" and that's that. Speaking as a non-parent, if I had a kid near kensington ave and they walked to school (which they mostly do) I would just tell them to walk down Frankford Ave a few blocks south, which is much less scary. Teaching kids those basic "street smarts" is one of the objectives of having "free range" kids. Although I would also add that living a little ways away from the street infamous for being a drug market is within the means of the majority of the Philadelphians, and the vast majority of the hacker news crowd.
wolverine876 4y ago
You've picked one of the most famous sites for drugs in the country, and a video edited to show how bad it is. That's not representative of city streets any more than a highlight video of the mansion of biggest lottery winner ever is representative of lottery ticket buyers.

DFHippie 4y ago

This. The cities are actually safer. The chief difference is that the segment of the media dedicated to keeping people fearful, particularly of their neighbors, is enormous now. It was always the case that media liked stories of conflict, but this was moderated by a sense of propriety and responsibility to the community. Now, certain voices have enormous megaphones and no restraints and the paranoia and anger they are actively promoting against their own society has taken root generally.

a2tech 4y ago
My wife grew up in the city, and I grew up in the country (not the pretend 'doctors commute to the city and have 10 acres they pretend to farm and raise horses on' but 'white trash, holy shit there's no work' county) and my wife is HORRIFIED by how much violence and random crime there is where I come from. My family still asks how we can live in the city since its so dangerous while meth heads are stealing anhydrous ammonia from fertilizer tanks and will shoot you without blinking if you get in their way just down the street from them.
- boomboomsubban 4y ago
  If it's anything like my experience in a rural town, they'll bemoan the dangers of the cities while Tom's kid got into meth and conned/robbed ten people they know, Dick's kid goes to the bar every night then drives home drunk to beat his family, and Harry's kid was hiding that he had HIV to sleep with several women in town.
  - hef19898 4y ago
    The devil I know.
  - a2tech 4y ago
    Yup. My best friends dad would stop at the gas station every night after his shift (2nd shift at a foundry) to get a 6 pack of Labatt that he'd drink while driving home, get home and keep drinking. On a good night he'd smoke, drink more beer and eat warmed up dinner. On a bad night, he'd come home, keep drinking, and get into it with his wife and smack her around for awhile. As an adult I realize why they always wanted me to stay over was he wouldn't lay into them while I was there. He'd just leave and go to brothers house. Or as we found out later, his girlfriends.

WalterBright 4y ago

> cities are safer than they've ever been Seattle has seen a large rise in violent crime, and it's hottest around the homeless camps. The fire dept responds to fires in those camps daily.

caslon 4y ago
It's pretty stable, though, and the rise isn't actually that large (just about at 2008 levels, and far below 2004 levels): 2008-modernity: https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/23/72/75/21999466/3/rawImage.jpg https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/23/72/75/21999466/3/rawImage.j... Graph that includes pre-2008 levels: https://miro.medium.com/max/700/1*llD-nfzEV_nV-hISBQIRCQ.jpeg https://miro.medium.com/max/700/1*llD-nfzEV_nV-hISBQIRCQ.jpe...
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Recent property crime rates are famously undercounted, as people have largely stopped reporting them because the police do not react. That's why my remark was on violent crime levels.
  - caslon 4y ago
    The first figure on both graphs is on violent crime. It's the orange one that's on property crime.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      I know. I'm just pointing out that the violent crime rate graph is far more credible.
- com2kid 4y ago
  > It's pretty stable, though, and the rise isn't actually that large (just about at 2008 levels, and far below 2004 levels): I walked through Cap Hill and DT Seattle to catch a bus at 2am back in 2003. No worries at all. A lot of crime isn't reported now days, e.g. my mothers truck just got stolen and she is not going to report it because the police are likely not going to even bother talking to her about it. I've had plenty of friends with stolen cars where the police told them "well you should be more careful with your car" and up and leave. That sort of attitude sure makes the crime stats look good though.

adamredwoods 4y ago

As a parent, I wouldn't do this in busy areas. I've seen people get hit from drivers running stop signs and red lights. I have to look at drivers turning right on red to make sure they see me, not sure that all children are tall enough to do this. Too much of a risk. It doesn't take too much searching to find examples of horrible accidents: https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/kids-hit-by-car-while-walking-to-gilroy-school-police/ https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/kids-hit-by-car-while-wa...

mr_toad 4y ago
Cars are statically the biggest risk to children. And this risk is greatly increased when they’re actually in the car.
wolverine876 4y ago
I don't think I've ever seen someone be hit by a car. The only people I know who have been hit were riding bicycles in traffic. But I would make sure my kids know not to just trust the lights. > It doesn't take too much searching to find examples of horrible accidents: It doesn't take too much searching to find examples of being hit by lightning or winning the lottery. Anecdotes are meaningless in that context.
- asoneth 4y ago
  Motor-vehicle crashes account for 20%[1] of child and adolescent deaths in the US. I'm not nearly as terrified of strangers or homeless drug users as the legion of SUV drivers scrolling on their cell phones. Distracted drivers are several orders of magnitude more dangerous and several orders of magnitude more common. [1] from 2016 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6637963/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6637963/
  - boomboomsubban 4y ago
    >Motor-vehicle crashes account for 20%[1] of child and adolescent deaths in the US. Yep, 20% of something that almost never happens. .025% of adolescents die each year, .005% of them due to motor vehicle crashes. Further, the paper suggests most of adolescent vehicle deaths happen as passengers and/or drivers.

godelski 4y ago

> Every assault makes the news, but cities are safer than they've ever been Reminds me of one of my favorite pieces of data.[0] Pew tracks both crime rates and perception of crime rates. There's been an overwhelming declining trend crime (especially violent) in the past 30 years. But if you look at perceptions of crime, people think year over year it is on the rise. There's even a bias that it is on the rise more nationally rather than locally. What I like about this is how it shows the biases that we develop. You're right that _every_ assault makes the news (also there's 350m people in the US, even a 1 in 10k event is likely to occur frequently at the national level). Also, pareto plays a role. Most crime is limited to a few states, and really just a few cities in those states, and even more so specific areas within those cities (pareto is fractal in this way). We humans are typically bad at risk analysis. I should add to this that I grew up and walked to school in the 90's. So it is safe to say that me walking to school as a kid was statistically substantially more dangerous than it is for kids to walk to school today. [0] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/20/facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/20/facts-about...

wolverine876 4y ago
While I generally agree ... > Most crime is limited to a few states, and really just a few cities in those states, and even more so specific areas within those cities (pareto is fractal in this way). What is that based on? Some tangential data leans in the other direction: The most recent FBI/DoJ report (that I'm aware of) said recent increases in gun crime were spread pretty evenly, urban and rural, across the country - though that's just one kind of crime, and only the increases. Another report said crime is worse in 'red states' than 'blue states', and the latter tend to have larger cities (I think). Hardly conclusive data, I know, and I'd love to see some.
- godelski 4y ago
  This is pretty common in pareto distributions. Here's a heat map from 2020 data with state level resolution[0]. You'll notice that crime is in fact not evenly distributed (my claim). Here's a similar map but with county level precision[1]. And here's a heat map for crime in San Francisco[2]. Nothing I've stated is really that controversial and is pretty well known by anyone that looks at crime statistics. I think it is also relatively easy for the average person to buy because everyone knows where "the bad part of town" is. Really that's all I've said. That "the bad part of town" exists fractally. There's the "bad states," "bad cities," "bad counties," "bad towns," and "bad parts of towns." I think this all should be rather unsurprising. To clarify on your FBI/DOJ statement, this doesn't have to be in disagreement with what I said. You can have increases in violent crime over the last year (or even 5) and a dramatic decline in the last 30. The Pew study that I cited does specifically look at violent crime and uses FBI statistics. But let's add more. Here's a DOJ 1993-2011 showing a large decrease in both fatal and non-fatal gun violence[3]. Here's a Reuters article that shows homicides (and the pareto effect I mentioned above) from 1980 to 2019[4]. Notice the trend towards declining (I never said it _strictly_ declined). [0] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Violent_Crime_Rate_by_U.S._state.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Violent_... [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/crime-rates-by-county/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/crime-rates... [2] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Crime-heat-map-and-overview-of-the-considered-zip-codes-in-San-Francisco_fig1_337585003 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Crime-heat-map-and-overv... [3] https://info.publicintelligence.net/DoJ-GunViolence1993-2011.pdf https://info.publicintelligence.net/DoJ-GunViolence1993-2011... [4] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-plans-new-steps-combat-us-gun-violence-violent-crime-climbs-2021-06-23/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-plans-new-steps-comba...

OJFord 4y ago

I'm also not a parent so I'll join the top-level commentor in not telling you what to do, but I know that I personally will draw the line well short of letting them share a homeless stranger's 'candy'! (Related but not exactly a reply - I think this is a fairly uniquely North American phenomenon, my experience in the UK in the 00's matches these American 70's etc. experiences, and I see no sign that it's changed here. More evidence that it's to do with the way towns are structured I suppose. Or 'towns' - you don't really have them and that's the problem.)

dleslie 4y ago

You're assuming that crime is reported with the same reliability.

ryan_lane 4y ago
This is fear mongering, and works in both directions. You're assuming that older crime stats were reported with more reliability.
- dleslie 4y ago
  Sure, that's something to consider. What I've read leads me to believe that less crime is reported due to increasing lack of faith in the criminal justice system. Here in Canada, it's hard to trust any crime stats because of this: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/more-crimes-going-unreported-survey-1.897562 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/more-crimes-going-unreported-... https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/is-crime-in-canada-really-declining-mli-study-questions-statscans-numbers/ https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/is-crime-in-canada-really-declin...

rglullis 4y ago

> Most homeless people are just people in terrible situations. No one cares about averages, and this is not a game of statistics where I'd be interested in playing out the game just because the odds are in my favor. We don't need to care about the state of "most" strangers when all it takes is one outlier that turns out to be a psychotic.

WaxedChewbacca 4y ago

uranium 4y ago

OK, since some folks have commented on the candy thing: That was a one-time event, on the Muni, with both parents there, and with the giver asking our permission to give our son a sealed lollypop. I don't recommend kids take candy from strangers without parents there, but I do talk to strangers in front of my kids, and encourage them to also. I don't tell my kids that all strangers are dangerous. First, because it leads to a culture of fear and disrespect. Second, because I obviously don't act as if they are, so it would lead to distrusting my advice. They have to learn the difference between "stranger who seems reasonable and nonthreatening with whom you can casually chat" and "stranger telling at clouds whom you should avoid". They figure that out pretty young, if you let them.

naravara 4y ago

Honestly I’ve never seen it as bad as in certain parts of Seattle. The meth use is very readily apparent and it has people behaving way out of line and highly erratic or aggressive. That said, I still worry more about car traffic and reckless drivers than the homeless. But having aggressive people on drugs yelling at passers by is not an ideal or safe environment for kids to be in. For one thing, it distracts the people in cars. . .

DocTomoe 4y ago

I am usually a supporter of 'free-range kids', but I'd draw the line with Skid Row. Sure, the vast majority of homeless folks may be relatively harmless, but I'd wager that the density of less-than-harmless people is higher in that environment.

hef19898 4y ago
Statistically, kids are most likely to be abused and hurt in any imaginable way by people in their social circles, be that family, coaches, youth group leaders, teachers,... I'm not worried about my children seeing a poor drug addict or homeless in the streets. It actually is a great opportunity to talk about what this means, how it can happen and not to be afraid of it. And it can show them to be careful, without supervision, on certain things.
- DocTomoe 4y ago
  > Statistically, kids are most likely to be abused and hurt in any imaginable way by people in their social circles Sure. But I can't make them social recluses just so they never encounter that high-risk group. That does not mean I need to encourage them seeking out another high-risk group on top of that. Not wanting your kid to walk alone through Skid Row does not mean you are hiding the issue of homelessness - you can still talk about that at other opportunities.