5 ms·

I lived a couple of blocks from Salesforce tower before the pandemic and found the entire city had lost a ground war to homeless drug addicts. There was a break

I lived a couple of blocks from Salesforce tower before the pandemic and found the entire city had lost a ground war to homeless drug addicts. There was a break in at the Walgreens in the area one night and I spotted some of the crooks hauling cylinders out of the shattered windows while others were mixing stuff over a fire on the sidewalk. I called the cops and the emergency response operator literally told me “what do you want us to do about it?” I replied “something?”. A guy I knew who rented me office space, who also ran a small business with street access, and is from the area, thought this was an okay response because they stole from a big company, he felt it was a victimless crime. So, while I’m glad to see this is happening I’m doubtful any real change will come to San Francisco till there is real economic harm that befalls the community. Basically, when the Detroit 2.0 story comes to town.

giraffe_lady 4y ago
> the entire city had lost a ground war to homeless drug addicts As a former homeless drug addict, it's less of a war and more of a massacre. Despite the fox news-ass propaganda you see on HN all the time almost no one chooses to be out there like that. When I see folks down like that I think what has been done to them not what are they doing to me. This isn't them taking actions against you, this is the consequences of our policies; chickens home to roost shit. If you can't tolerate it then you must fight to change it.
- bbkane 4y ago
  Could you please go into more detail? Specific policies and their consequences and how you would change them?
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    No, I'm not going to here today, but I will explain why. On HN every concrete suggestion must be an absolute fortress of a comment: flawlessly argued and meticulously sourced. Especially an in-this-context radical position like "don't blame the homeless for their situation" will have any exposed detail picked at, and that interaction will be read as discrediting the policy itself rather than a reflection on the context where we're having the conversation. So here is the point I am making: letting people suffer and die in poverty in the center of one of the largest engines of wealth generation in history is wicked. Blaming them for it is monstrous. There are many policies this view could lead you to and I spend a lot of time working towards them with others who are working towards them. But that isn't here! Here I am just trying to get people to see the humanity in the people on the street.
    - INeedMoreRam 4y ago
      - giraffe_lady 4y ago
        You would use your power only to harm them, why would they not use theirs likewise to make you suffer? This is the world you're trying to create?
      - feet 4y ago
        You seem to have zero empathy for people in different situations than your own. Who hurt you?
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        People are hostile because it is personal, and people have indeed been hurt and harmed by the people in different situations. It is difficult to maintain empathy for individuals who rob and assault you and your family.
        feet 4y ago
        I didn't realise he was robbed by all of the homeless people, actually I'm rather impressed now that I know that. Was it purposeful? How does one get robbed by so many people?
      - dang 4y ago
        You can't vandalize HN like this here. Since you've posted quite a few flamewar comments in other threads too, I've banned the account. Please don't create accounts to do that with. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
    - mistersquid 4y ago
      > letting people suffer and die in poverty in the center of one of the largest engines of wealth generation in history is wicked. Blaming them for it is monstrous. Thank you for reminding of the larger context in which the dehumanization of our fellow brothers and sisters occurs. The state is failing to care for its weakest due to 50 years of unfettered accumulative greed and individuals hearts’ have hardened as a psychological coping mechanism against an inability to help. This in the season of charity and good will, no less.
mikem170 4y ago
> this was an okay response because they stole from a big company, felt it was a victimless crime. I wonder if Walgreens thought about hiring their own security guards. It seems to make sense to pay for your own security, right? I assume insurance factors into that decision. There are a lot of people who don't have much empathy for big companies. They would characterize them as soulless profit making machines that squeeze employees and consumers as much as they can, pollute the commons, homogenize the culture, warp politics, regulatory capture, unfair competition, inhumane, etc.
- nradov 4y ago
  Private security guards can't do much more than "observe and report". In order to have any real impact they would have to hire moonlighting police officers, and those are expensive. Insurance is not a factor. Large retailers don't carry insurance policies for shoplifting and minor vandalism.
  - mikem170 4y ago
    Security guards legally could do more than observe and report, but for understandable reasons (liability and pay, I assume) it is the policy of large stores not that do so. Moonlighting police officers are better trained and cost a lot more money. But it still makes sense to me for the stores to spend this money, as opposed to taxpayers paying for more police in an effort to prevent and/or interdict these property crimes at these stores, something the police force was never designed to do, nor is legally obligated to do.
    - nradov 4y ago
      You've got to be kidding. How can it possibly make sense to expect retailers to pay more for security instead of having the police actually do their jobs? If a city has descended so far into anarchy that taxpayers think that crime prevention and interdiction isn't worth spending money on then that city is ultimately doomed. The retailers are just going to leave and online purchasing will become the only option for most consumers products. The profit margins on laundry detergent and baby formula are just too low to cover a high level of private security.

giraffe_lady 4y ago

> the entire city had lost a ground war to homeless drug addicts As a former homeless drug addict, it's less of a war and more of a massacre. Despite the fox news-ass propaganda you see on HN all the time almost no one chooses to be out there like that. When I see folks down like that I think what has been done to them not what are they doing to me. This isn't them taking actions against you, this is the consequences of our policies; chickens home to roost shit. If you can't tolerate it then you must fight to change it.

bbkane 4y ago
Could you please go into more detail? Specific policies and their consequences and how you would change them?
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  No, I'm not going to here today, but I will explain why. On HN every concrete suggestion must be an absolute fortress of a comment: flawlessly argued and meticulously sourced. Especially an in-this-context radical position like "don't blame the homeless for their situation" will have any exposed detail picked at, and that interaction will be read as discrediting the policy itself rather than a reflection on the context where we're having the conversation. So here is the point I am making: letting people suffer and die in poverty in the center of one of the largest engines of wealth generation in history is wicked. Blaming them for it is monstrous. There are many policies this view could lead you to and I spend a lot of time working towards them with others who are working towards them. But that isn't here! Here I am just trying to get people to see the humanity in the people on the street.
  - INeedMoreRam 4y ago
    - giraffe_lady 4y ago
      You would use your power only to harm them, why would they not use theirs likewise to make you suffer? This is the world you're trying to create?
    - feet 4y ago
      You seem to have zero empathy for people in different situations than your own. Who hurt you?
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        People are hostile because it is personal, and people have indeed been hurt and harmed by the people in different situations. It is difficult to maintain empathy for individuals who rob and assault you and your family.
        feet 4y ago
        I didn't realise he was robbed by all of the homeless people, actually I'm rather impressed now that I know that. Was it purposeful? How does one get robbed by so many people?
    - dang 4y ago
      You can't vandalize HN like this here. Since you've posted quite a few flamewar comments in other threads too, I've banned the account. Please don't create accounts to do that with. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
  - mistersquid 4y ago
    > letting people suffer and die in poverty in the center of one of the largest engines of wealth generation in history is wicked. Blaming them for it is monstrous. Thank you for reminding of the larger context in which the dehumanization of our fellow brothers and sisters occurs. The state is failing to care for its weakest due to 50 years of unfettered accumulative greed and individuals hearts’ have hardened as a psychological coping mechanism against an inability to help. This in the season of charity and good will, no less.

mikem170 4y ago

> this was an okay response because they stole from a big company, felt it was a victimless crime. I wonder if Walgreens thought about hiring their own security guards. It seems to make sense to pay for your own security, right? I assume insurance factors into that decision. There are a lot of people who don't have much empathy for big companies. They would characterize them as soulless profit making machines that squeeze employees and consumers as much as they can, pollute the commons, homogenize the culture, warp politics, regulatory capture, unfair competition, inhumane, etc.

nradov 4y ago
Private security guards can't do much more than "observe and report". In order to have any real impact they would have to hire moonlighting police officers, and those are expensive. Insurance is not a factor. Large retailers don't carry insurance policies for shoplifting and minor vandalism.
- mikem170 4y ago
  Security guards legally could do more than observe and report, but for understandable reasons (liability and pay, I assume) it is the policy of large stores not that do so. Moonlighting police officers are better trained and cost a lot more money. But it still makes sense to me for the stores to spend this money, as opposed to taxpayers paying for more police in an effort to prevent and/or interdict these property crimes at these stores, something the police force was never designed to do, nor is legally obligated to do.
  - nradov 4y ago
    You've got to be kidding. How can it possibly make sense to expect retailers to pay more for security instead of having the police actually do their jobs? If a city has descended so far into anarchy that taxpayers think that crime prevention and interdiction isn't worth spending money on then that city is ultimately doomed. The retailers are just going to leave and online purchasing will become the only option for most consumers products. The profit margins on laundry detergent and baby formula are just too low to cover a high level of private security.