8 ms·
938 crimes per square mile in SF [1] It will never get better, you cannot build a moat big enough to insulate yourself there. [1] https://www.neighborhoodscou
by ProAm 3y ago
938 crimes per square mile in SF [1] It will never get better, you cannot build a moat big enough to insulate yourself there.
[1] https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ca/san-francisco/crime https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ca/san-francisco/crime
- Overtonwindow 3y agoWhat percentage would you add to account for crimes? That are not reported?
- gadders 3y agoMaybe we could invent a place to put criminals so they are away from regular law abiding folks. This might even be a solved problem. [Yes /sarcasm obviously]
- kube-system 3y agoThe place where they used to put criminals is the only place in SF with a moat big enough to keep the criminals away! :D But on a serious note, mental health and addiction is not solved by prisons.
- gadders 3y agoSerious question, but why would SF have more of a mental health and addiction problem than other cities? The climate would be nicer in, say, LA or the Carolinas so it's not weather-related.
- kube-system 3y agoI'm not sure that SF does have more of a mental health or addiction problem. It certainly is visible in SF, but other cities have worse statistics depending on what specifically you're measuring. eg: https://drexel.edu/uhc/resources/briefs/BCHC%20Drug%20Overdose/ https://drexel.edu/uhc/resources/briefs/BCHC%20Drug%20Overdo... I'd say the reason it is more visible in SF is due to a combination of the density, walkability, and policies that don't hide the problem as much behind locked doors.
- giraffe_lady 3y agoDon't we already try that approach more than any other place in the world? Is the problem solved?
- gadders 3y agoDo they try that in SF? My understanding was that they moved away from this model. And it doesn't have to be jail if they have mental health or whatever issues. Just put the people that hurt other people in a place where they can't hurt other people.
- giraffe_lady 3y agoThey moved away from it because it doesn't work. It's not working anywhere else either, why would they go back to it? The name doesn't matter call it what you want but when you take a stigmatized group widely considered criminal and a nuisance, not rightly or "correctly" part of society and put them in a place they are not free to leave atrocities are inevitable. And why even them in the first place? Why is the conversation not about jailing a landlord who evicts someone in mental health crisis? They've caused plenty harm.
- gadders 3y agoWhatever they're doing or not doing now is clearly worse. Again I'd ask why the problem is worse in SF than other American cities with better climates.
- giraffe_lady 3y agoIt's a good question! The climate isn't unique but I think the economic and income dynamics may be. Either way though "this isn't working so let's do the other thing we know also doesn't work" isn't a very rigorous approach. I get the frustration but we know that wouldn't solve it, because it didn't solve it there and hasn't solved it anywhere.
- LawTalkingGuy 3y ago
- postalrat 3y ago938 crimes per square mile is quite low considering how long people have been there.
- calvinmorrison 3y agosure you can, that's what they do in J burg. All the wealthy white people have electric security fences around their house and private security guards to protect them.
- dehrmann 3y agoLet's see of Elon does that for the TitterX HQ.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> crimes per square mile What... a stupid measure.
- readthenotes1 3y agoMade up by a Pacific islander? Canadian?