7 ms·

This would never happen in SF. The local store block would be instantly taken over by homeless druggies [1]. To have this sort of transformation, the local cult

This would never happen in SF. The local store block would be instantly taken over by homeless druggies [1]. To have this sort of transformation, the local culture needs to have little tolerance for disruptive behaviors and peoples. Ex: in Europe many public bathrooms require payment, in the US you can't even allow stores to require a purchase to use the restroom due to public pressure (not laws, yet). [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2CVMCZ6F2M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2CVMCZ6F2M

uoaei 4y ago
Wow, what an intolerant, judgmental, and useless comment. At least you live your values...
- _dain_ 4y ago
  Intolerant, judgemental, and correct.
  - uoaei 4y ago
    Not sure how you can claim that since "correct" only applies to factual claims and above is purely hypothetical. Or do you always assume ideology can stand in place of reality?
    - pookha 4y ago
      I live in a major US city that has expansive "outdoor camping" w homeless who harasse and terrorize(rob) the locals. The progressives live in fear of the homeless AND saying anything about the problem because they don't want to be the bad-guy. It's very interesting. From what I can tell people have become extremely hyper-socialized and are willing to put their safety at risk.
      - uoaei 4y ago
        I also live in a major US city with encampments constructed by the unhoused. My experience does not mirror your anxieties at all, and usually I am at street level, on a bicycle, and not a measly gawker staring from inside a metal box or a cafe. Do you have any evidence to back up the claims about safety? Every time I've encountered a sentiment like this, even people who live in this city, it's just mere supposition -- an expression of anxiety veiled as fact, like the justifications given for the Boudin recall campaign, or else an extremely subjective (if traumatic) experience that doesn't extend readily to the general public. Remember, violent crime and property crime are different things, and neither anecdotes nor anxiety count as data.
        _dain_ 4y ago
        is it an "expression of anxiety veiled as fact" that my friend was stabbed for his phone by one of these "unhoused"?
      - _dain_ 4y ago
        "Over-socialized", one might say.
- ceeplusplus 4y ago
  I think you would have a different opinion when your property was stolen, your partner assaulted, and your sense of safety destroyed by such behavior. You can't promote the use of bikes if your bike is going to be stolen and chopped up the second you take your eye off it. I vote my values too, by the way.
  - munk-a 4y ago
    It really is a hard problem and a hard policy to advance. I'm pro-pedestrianization but can really understand the concerns of car folks in terms of service availability and business health. There have been plenty of times where car restrictions have been done wrong and ended up killing off city centers - but in terms of safety the availability of safe and secure bike storage seems to require an almost autocratic initial effort. Forcing safe storage and monitoring, along with safe bike lanes, to be rolled out so that the demand can grow - it's very hard for demand to grow organically while bike theft and car-bike accidents are so common that they'll discourage usage. Ditto for public transit, when public transit is sparsely utilized it tends to be less safe while as dense public transit will certainly have incidents but the increased ridership leads to increased safety funding and just more witnesses making crime less attractive in terms of expected gain. It is a hard problem even before we get into NIMBYism and other socio-political complications. I definitely disagree with you but I think your comment was quite fair and reasonable.
gumby 4y ago
Most of the city is much more sedate than what was shot on that video (which is extreme. I don’t dispute it, but was next to a treatment center.) Paid public toilets are all over California and businesses do typically restrict bathroom use to paying customers, yes, in SF too. Without SF’s tolerance for weirdos due to the gold rush we wouldn’t have had the rule breakers of the valley.
- ceeplusplus 4y ago
  Funnily enough, this sort of behavior is not tolerated in the actual Valley, where things were actually started. You don't see it happening in Mountain View and Cupertino.
  - gumby 4y ago
    The Valley is all suburbs, where people don't like that sort of thing. That being said, Palo Alto used to have a lot more homeless people, and more weirdness too. I can't imagine the Grateful Dead or Jefferson Airplane starting there any more. Yet still I live in PA. SF has always had a much higher tolerance for weird behavior. Back when the city was a bedroom community for the Valley, people lived there (I did too) for its weirdness and culture. What happened with the dot com boom is that people who didn't appreciate the weirdness showed up, moved to SF, and then complained about it. Honestly SF is a lot cleaner and safer now. Those whiners would not have tolerated the true weirdness.

uoaei 4y ago

Wow, what an intolerant, judgmental, and useless comment. At least you live your values...

_dain_ 4y ago
Intolerant, judgemental, and correct.
- uoaei 4y ago
  Not sure how you can claim that since "correct" only applies to factual claims and above is purely hypothetical. Or do you always assume ideology can stand in place of reality?
  - pookha 4y ago
    I live in a major US city that has expansive "outdoor camping" w homeless who harasse and terrorize(rob) the locals. The progressives live in fear of the homeless AND saying anything about the problem because they don't want to be the bad-guy. It's very interesting. From what I can tell people have become extremely hyper-socialized and are willing to put their safety at risk.
    - uoaei 4y ago
      I also live in a major US city with encampments constructed by the unhoused. My experience does not mirror your anxieties at all, and usually I am at street level, on a bicycle, and not a measly gawker staring from inside a metal box or a cafe. Do you have any evidence to back up the claims about safety? Every time I've encountered a sentiment like this, even people who live in this city, it's just mere supposition -- an expression of anxiety veiled as fact, like the justifications given for the Boudin recall campaign, or else an extremely subjective (if traumatic) experience that doesn't extend readily to the general public. Remember, violent crime and property crime are different things, and neither anecdotes nor anxiety count as data.
      - _dain_ 4y ago
        is it an "expression of anxiety veiled as fact" that my friend was stabbed for his phone by one of these "unhoused"?
    - _dain_ 4y ago
      "Over-socialized", one might say.
ceeplusplus 4y ago
I think you would have a different opinion when your property was stolen, your partner assaulted, and your sense of safety destroyed by such behavior. You can't promote the use of bikes if your bike is going to be stolen and chopped up the second you take your eye off it. I vote my values too, by the way.
- munk-a 4y ago
  It really is a hard problem and a hard policy to advance. I'm pro-pedestrianization but can really understand the concerns of car folks in terms of service availability and business health. There have been plenty of times where car restrictions have been done wrong and ended up killing off city centers - but in terms of safety the availability of safe and secure bike storage seems to require an almost autocratic initial effort. Forcing safe storage and monitoring, along with safe bike lanes, to be rolled out so that the demand can grow - it's very hard for demand to grow organically while bike theft and car-bike accidents are so common that they'll discourage usage. Ditto for public transit, when public transit is sparsely utilized it tends to be less safe while as dense public transit will certainly have incidents but the increased ridership leads to increased safety funding and just more witnesses making crime less attractive in terms of expected gain. It is a hard problem even before we get into NIMBYism and other socio-political complications. I definitely disagree with you but I think your comment was quite fair and reasonable.

gumby 4y ago

Most of the city is much more sedate than what was shot on that video (which is extreme. I don’t dispute it, but was next to a treatment center.) Paid public toilets are all over California and businesses do typically restrict bathroom use to paying customers, yes, in SF too. Without SF’s tolerance for weirdos due to the gold rush we wouldn’t have had the rule breakers of the valley.

ceeplusplus 4y ago
Funnily enough, this sort of behavior is not tolerated in the actual Valley, where things were actually started. You don't see it happening in Mountain View and Cupertino.
- gumby 4y ago
  The Valley is all suburbs, where people don't like that sort of thing. That being said, Palo Alto used to have a lot more homeless people, and more weirdness too. I can't imagine the Grateful Dead or Jefferson Airplane starting there any more. Yet still I live in PA. SF has always had a much higher tolerance for weird behavior. Back when the city was a bedroom community for the Valley, people lived there (I did too) for its weirdness and culture. What happened with the dot com boom is that people who didn't appreciate the weirdness showed up, moved to SF, and then complained about it. Honestly SF is a lot cleaner and safer now. Those whiners would not have tolerated the true weirdness.