7 ms·

I know this is about how remote work and that we don't know how bad the collapse of commercial real estate will be -- how huge the tsunami will be, but the sea

I know this is about how remote work and that we don't know how bad the collapse of commercial real estate will be -- how huge the tsunami will be, but the sea has pulled back miles from the shore. But in this case, for SF, it's been exacerbated by the deep poverty and mental illness that sleeps on its streets. It could be America's most beautiful city but the frog of its decline has been slowly boiled for decades and now it's, frankly, gross. We were making so much money that we covered our eyes at the destitution around us as it got worse and worse. So when was the compassion, the empathy, ever going to kick in? Now, when it finally hits us in the pocketbook?

sn0w_crash 4y ago
There is no “compassion or empathy” This is a lie that was sold to the public for votes (power) and taxes (money). The only thing that “will be done” about the homeless and crime in SF is eventually someone will come to power who will get rid of them. Not the problem - but the people. It will not be compassionate but it will happen. This is what inevitably comes to these places in which the incumbents in power are unwilling or uninterested in solving anything.
- iancmceachern 4y ago
  This is not what we should do and of we can avoid it we should, but I agree that this is pragmatically what typically happens, my understanding is that it was what happened as part of Mayor Bloomburg's "clean up" of new york. It didn't solve of get rid of the problems, it just pushed them out if certain areas like Manhatten anf Brooklyn elsewhere to the outer boroughs and Jersey.
  - wrycoder 4y ago
    That's one endpoint. Another is Detroit.
    - nopenopenopeno 4y ago
      The entire rust belt while you’re at it.
proc0 4y ago
> We were making so much money that we covered our eyes at the destitution around us as it got worse and worse I experienced SF leadership protecting them and giving them more rights to live outside and do anything without consequences. It seems they tried really hard to solve the problem for at least a decade, and it only got worse with every policy and decision they made. The solution to the problem has to factor in incentives that may lead to worse outcomes for the city, and I don't think that has been done properly.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  > more rights to live outside What would less rights to this look like just curious.
  - gruez 4y ago
    Dispersing encampments, for one.
    - Tiktaalik 4y ago
      kicking the can down the road and making it someone else's problem.
      - junofan 4y ago
        These people are not idiots. They know exactly what they can get away with.
      - zamalek 4y ago
        That's a straw man. Nobody is saying that you tear their tents down and leave them to the elements. You provide housing, and you don't give the mentally incapacitated a choice about where they live; at least until they recover. What you're suggesting is to do nothing at all, which achieves exactly what is going on right now.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
zamalek 4y ago
The problem is resistance to solutions, both NIMBY and YIMBY generally get in the way of progress. The problems the NIMBY crowd present are obvious. YIMBY will usually fight tooth and nail against any solution that: - isn't 100% effective (no solution is 100% effective), OR - involves making any decisions for the mentally incapacitated Chronic homelessness can be brought to miniscule levels with the approach that Idaho has taken: "just get people into homes." Once that happens so many doors fly open for these victims, usually because they acquire an address. But, again, you have to accept that 5% will get left behind, and that some people will have help forced onto them.
- yellowapple 4y ago
  > isn't 100% effective Homeless shelters and public housing ain't 100% effective, yet I know of zero YIMBYs not pushing for them, let alone "fight[ing] tooth and nail against" them.
THENATHE 4y ago
Part of that destitution was people attempting to move to SF simply because of the frankly insane salaries. People would sooner move there and live in a '72 camper shell on the side of a busy street than live in Arkansas in a mansion, simply because they can make like 90k a year doing stuff that would net 40k or less in Arkansas. What happens to all the people that cant handle that lifestyle, and don't save enough to bail themselves out before they crash and burn? Homelessness.
refurb 4y ago
Yup. I remember it wasn't long ago that people would work in the Valley and live in SF. They were willing to commute 2-3hr each day on corporate shuttles just to live in SF. The quality of life in the city has really taken a hit.
Der_Einzige 4y ago
Compassion is what got Portland, SF, and Seattle into these situations. We are the most compassionate part of America BY FAR. We are now also reaping what we sowed.
throwaway313313 4y ago
More people died in San Francisco during the COVID pandemic due to drug overdoses than COVID, and yet SF residents supported the COVID lockdown to deal with COVID. Nothing of the sort is done to prevent more drug addicts killing themselves daily. In fact, the opposite is done. The term "homeless" is a convenient ideological mislabeling of the problem that most homeless in San Francisco have, which is drug addiction. Addictive drugs distributed on the street are big business. You can see it in person by walking the block long tent cities in San Francisco. (Probably walk with somebody else if you want to do this.) Homeless addicts in San Francisco aren't all depressed philosophers that are self medicating. They are drug distribution network customers. A sort of subscription business if you will. Cities are machines. San Francisco is a machine that kills people by encouraging drug use by enabling illegal drug possession and street dealing in broad daylight. The SF police will not arrest for drug possession. The supposed "compassionate" policies of San Francisco are euthanizing homeless people. The results of this "compassion" kills more people than COVID at its peak did. Yet instead of doing anything about it, people behind these policies double down with policies to aid and abet the illegal drug business that is killing the very people they claim to be so piously advocating for. What makes these pious advocates justify this in their minds? When people have enough money to satisfy most all of their material needs, their form of competition changes to zealous virtue signalling. The extremely highly compensated white collar workers of FAANG companies that live in San Francisco cause these policies because they are so detached from reality, their concerns aren't the concerns of normal people, and so the political representatives they fund represent these impractical ideologies, that include things like not prosecuting shoplifters until the point it's not uncommon to be in a store like CVS or Walgreens and watch people sweep the items on a shelf into a black garbage bag and then walk out. (I've personally seen this and other bizarre theater.)

sn0w_crash 4y ago

There is no “compassion or empathy” This is a lie that was sold to the public for votes (power) and taxes (money). The only thing that “will be done” about the homeless and crime in SF is eventually someone will come to power who will get rid of them. Not the problem - but the people. It will not be compassionate but it will happen. This is what inevitably comes to these places in which the incumbents in power are unwilling or uninterested in solving anything.

iancmceachern 4y ago
This is not what we should do and of we can avoid it we should, but I agree that this is pragmatically what typically happens, my understanding is that it was what happened as part of Mayor Bloomburg's "clean up" of new york. It didn't solve of get rid of the problems, it just pushed them out if certain areas like Manhatten anf Brooklyn elsewhere to the outer boroughs and Jersey.
- wrycoder 4y ago
  That's one endpoint. Another is Detroit.
  - nopenopenopeno 4y ago
    The entire rust belt while you’re at it.

proc0 4y ago

> We were making so much money that we covered our eyes at the destitution around us as it got worse and worse I experienced SF leadership protecting them and giving them more rights to live outside and do anything without consequences. It seems they tried really hard to solve the problem for at least a decade, and it only got worse with every policy and decision they made. The solution to the problem has to factor in incentives that may lead to worse outcomes for the city, and I don't think that has been done properly.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
giraffe_lady 4y ago
> more rights to live outside What would less rights to this look like just curious.
- gruez 4y ago
  Dispersing encampments, for one.
  - Tiktaalik 4y ago
    kicking the can down the road and making it someone else's problem.
    - junofan 4y ago
      These people are not idiots. They know exactly what they can get away with.
    - zamalek 4y ago
      That's a straw man. Nobody is saying that you tear their tents down and leave them to the elements. You provide housing, and you don't give the mentally incapacitated a choice about where they live; at least until they recover. What you're suggesting is to do nothing at all, which achieves exactly what is going on right now.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

zamalek 4y ago

The problem is resistance to solutions, both NIMBY and YIMBY generally get in the way of progress. The problems the NIMBY crowd present are obvious. YIMBY will usually fight tooth and nail against any solution that: - isn't 100% effective (no solution is 100% effective), OR - involves making any decisions for the mentally incapacitated Chronic homelessness can be brought to miniscule levels with the approach that Idaho has taken: "just get people into homes." Once that happens so many doors fly open for these victims, usually because they acquire an address. But, again, you have to accept that 5% will get left behind, and that some people will have help forced onto them.

yellowapple 4y ago
> isn't 100% effective Homeless shelters and public housing ain't 100% effective, yet I know of zero YIMBYs not pushing for them, let alone "fight[ing] tooth and nail against" them.

THENATHE 4y ago

Part of that destitution was people attempting to move to SF simply because of the frankly insane salaries. People would sooner move there and live in a '72 camper shell on the side of a busy street than live in Arkansas in a mansion, simply because they can make like 90k a year doing stuff that would net 40k or less in Arkansas. What happens to all the people that cant handle that lifestyle, and don't save enough to bail themselves out before they crash and burn? Homelessness.

refurb 4y ago

Yup. I remember it wasn't long ago that people would work in the Valley and live in SF. They were willing to commute 2-3hr each day on corporate shuttles just to live in SF. The quality of life in the city has really taken a hit.

Der_Einzige 4y ago

Compassion is what got Portland, SF, and Seattle into these situations. We are the most compassionate part of America BY FAR. We are now also reaping what we sowed.

throwaway313313 4y ago

More people died in San Francisco during the COVID pandemic due to drug overdoses than COVID, and yet SF residents supported the COVID lockdown to deal with COVID. Nothing of the sort is done to prevent more drug addicts killing themselves daily. In fact, the opposite is done. The term "homeless" is a convenient ideological mislabeling of the problem that most homeless in San Francisco have, which is drug addiction. Addictive drugs distributed on the street are big business. You can see it in person by walking the block long tent cities in San Francisco. (Probably walk with somebody else if you want to do this.) Homeless addicts in San Francisco aren't all depressed philosophers that are self medicating. They are drug distribution network customers. A sort of subscription business if you will. Cities are machines. San Francisco is a machine that kills people by encouraging drug use by enabling illegal drug possession and street dealing in broad daylight. The SF police will not arrest for drug possession. The supposed "compassionate" policies of San Francisco are euthanizing homeless people. The results of this "compassion" kills more people than COVID at its peak did. Yet instead of doing anything about it, people behind these policies double down with policies to aid and abet the illegal drug business that is killing the very people they claim to be so piously advocating for. What makes these pious advocates justify this in their minds? When people have enough money to satisfy most all of their material needs, their form of competition changes to zealous virtue signalling. The extremely highly compensated white collar workers of FAANG companies that live in San Francisco cause these policies because they are so detached from reality, their concerns aren't the concerns of normal people, and so the political representatives they fund represent these impractical ideologies, that include things like not prosecuting shoplifters until the point it's not uncommon to be in a store like CVS or Walgreens and watch people sweep the items on a shelf into a black garbage bag and then walk out. (I've personally seen this and other bizarre theater.)