4 ms·

> The big peak in violent crime in the 1990s is the crack epidemic. I personally saw driveby shooting attacks and personal murders in broad daylight; 24th stree

> The big peak in violent crime in the 1990s is the crack epidemic. I personally saw driveby shooting attacks and personal murders in broad daylight; 24th street (and the Mission in general) used to be considered a no-go area by folk in better-off neighborhoods. You have your dates and anecdotes off. The crack epidemic was in the 1980s, not the 1990s. There was, however, always a serious heroin trade in that area. After the gang truce in 1992, the Mission was incredibly safe and a great place to live. Going to the bars after work and spilling out into the streets after 2 am was a safe and peaceful affair. Further, a lot of the property crime that people are complaining about has nothing to do with locals; it was perpetrated by organized gangs from outside the city. This is still true today and several investigative news articles on this phenomenon have been published recently. The Mission was never a "no go" area by people who lived in the city. It was an incredibly vibrant place to live and work, with great bars, restaurants, stores, and culture. In many ways, the Mission is the heart of San Francisco given its centralized location and history. For anyone to describe it as a no go area reveals that they never lived there and know nothing about it. That all changed when the tech bros moved out from the Midwest and East coast and chased all the artists out of the city. These people who were forced out were the people who actually cared about their communities and helped each other out and were the spirit and life blood of what the city was in its heart and soul. Now the new blood doesn’t like the new city they helped create, but of course, it’s always someone else’s fault.

anigbrowl 4y ago
No I don't. The crack epidemic continued well into the 90s. I lived in the Mission at the time, loved it, and know the area like the back of my hand. It was a normal thing to get offered crack by 5 different people while walking down 24th from Mission to Harrison; I could BART over there and give you a walking tour of local crimes I personally witnessed. I grew up in a rough town so it didn't bother me much. For anyone to describe it as a no go area reveals that they never lived there and know nothing about it. ...which was why I said it was considered that way 'by folk in better off neighborhoods.' People who lived in places like North Beach or the Marina were horrified by it. You are right about the influx of tech people during the first boom (along with the finance bros, though those have shaped SF in various ways since the gold rush) pushing people out. By the 1990s Haight/Ashbury had already become an unaffordable tourist trap with most of the fancy victorian houses being super expensive. In contrast SoMa was a much more industrial than it is today, with enough turnover that there were always empty spaces that could be rented or borrowed for a rave.
stef25 4y ago
How does replacing artists with tech bros lead to more crime ?
- sammalloy 4y ago
  > How does replacing artists with tech bros lead to more crime ? Honestly, if that’s what you took away from my comment, I don’t think there’s anything I could say to explain it to you. From a systems POV, artists are the bellwether indicator for the health of a city. They function to maintain homeostasis and self-regulation of the community. When they are forced out of a city, the city goes into decline. It’s more complex than that, but that’s part of it. Think about it for 30 seconds: if artists (the general class of writers, musicians, dancers, painters etc.) can afford to live in a city in a sustainable way, that means the economy has achieved a stability where inequality is low, wages meet cost of living, and there’s enough free time for people to create and invent and design without sacrificing their entire life at the altar of a 9-5 job. And when that niche is disturbed and the artists are forced to leave, you then have a large influx of high earners who replace them and raise the level of inequality for everyone, except this time, there is no real interest in maintaining the community and culture that existed before, but rather a new focus on increasing and preserving wealth. That wealth is than targeted and preyed upon by predatory criminals who before would not have paid much attention to low income artists. But to put your misinterpretation and misreading aside for the moment so as to focus on something more constructive, there is good evidence that as more money was pumped into the city from newcomers, a new predator/prey relationship arose from organized crime groups which focused on smash and grabs and home robberies. The so-called South American Tourist Gang has targeted homes throughout California, for example. It’s also of note that organized criminal gangs engaging in smash and grabs are not unique to California. The popular right wing talking point that blames progressive California laws and lax law enforcement for crime has almost zero support in the academic criminal justice community and is based mostly on fear and anger, not evidence. It makes for good political fodder for conservative candidates but isn’t based on reality.

anigbrowl 4y ago

No I don't. The crack epidemic continued well into the 90s. I lived in the Mission at the time, loved it, and know the area like the back of my hand. It was a normal thing to get offered crack by 5 different people while walking down 24th from Mission to Harrison; I could BART over there and give you a walking tour of local crimes I personally witnessed. I grew up in a rough town so it didn't bother me much. For anyone to describe it as a no go area reveals that they never lived there and know nothing about it. ...which was why I said it was considered that way 'by folk in better off neighborhoods.' People who lived in places like North Beach or the Marina were horrified by it. You are right about the influx of tech people during the first boom (along with the finance bros, though those have shaped SF in various ways since the gold rush) pushing people out. By the 1990s Haight/Ashbury had already become an unaffordable tourist trap with most of the fancy victorian houses being super expensive. In contrast SoMa was a much more industrial than it is today, with enough turnover that there were always empty spaces that could be rented or borrowed for a rave.

stef25 4y ago

How does replacing artists with tech bros lead to more crime ?

sammalloy 4y ago
> How does replacing artists with tech bros lead to more crime ? Honestly, if that’s what you took away from my comment, I don’t think there’s anything I could say to explain it to you. From a systems POV, artists are the bellwether indicator for the health of a city. They function to maintain homeostasis and self-regulation of the community. When they are forced out of a city, the city goes into decline. It’s more complex than that, but that’s part of it. Think about it for 30 seconds: if artists (the general class of writers, musicians, dancers, painters etc.) can afford to live in a city in a sustainable way, that means the economy has achieved a stability where inequality is low, wages meet cost of living, and there’s enough free time for people to create and invent and design without sacrificing their entire life at the altar of a 9-5 job. And when that niche is disturbed and the artists are forced to leave, you then have a large influx of high earners who replace them and raise the level of inequality for everyone, except this time, there is no real interest in maintaining the community and culture that existed before, but rather a new focus on increasing and preserving wealth. That wealth is than targeted and preyed upon by predatory criminals who before would not have paid much attention to low income artists. But to put your misinterpretation and misreading aside for the moment so as to focus on something more constructive, there is good evidence that as more money was pumped into the city from newcomers, a new predator/prey relationship arose from organized crime groups which focused on smash and grabs and home robberies. The so-called South American Tourist Gang has targeted homes throughout California, for example. It’s also of note that organized criminal gangs engaging in smash and grabs are not unique to California. The popular right wing talking point that blames progressive California laws and lax law enforcement for crime has almost zero support in the academic criminal justice community and is based mostly on fear and anger, not evidence. It makes for good political fodder for conservative candidates but isn’t based on reality.