4 ms·

A ton of people care about property crime and I don't think you should look down on them. SF has 3-5x the property crime of most major cities in the United Sta

A ton of people care about property crime and I don't think you should look down on them. SF has 3-5x the property crime of most major cities in the United States. I imagine most violent crime is targeted (i.e. the victim is not a random person walking down the street), but property crime is scary because it can happen to the best of us, our friends and our family, in even the "safest" neighborhoods. We all know friends whose cars have been broken into. And it's easy to imagine --- what if my kids were at home during one of these home break-ins? (Note that burglaries are not classified as violent crime in SF)

vkou 3y ago
You're performing a sleight of hand. No city census or national crime analysis categorizes burglary as a violent crime, and I'm not sure why you called SF out on it. I don't look down on people complaining about property crime, I'd just like them to be honest about what they are complaining about. SF is 55 out of the biggest 100 cities on burglary rates, by the way. (It's interesting how all this is apparently a controversial take.)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- LawTalkingGuy 3y ago
  > No city census or national crime analysis categorizes burglary as a violent crime, and I'm not sure why you called SF out on it. Most other cities aren't wallowing in it the same way, and aren't holier than thou despite their polices clearly having caused the issue. But you're right, it's not just SF. LA and Seattle are pretty much right there too. The crime cities like SF are worth calling out in a way that other violent cities aren't though because there's a giant epidemic of what we're pressured to call "non-violent crime" like shoplifting and car theft that gets violent instantly whenever the criminal doesn't get their way. I've personally seen people get shoved out of the way of a fleeing thief, and videos of people being attacked when they come back at the wrong time and discover their car being robbed. To say SF isn't violent ignores that the residents are on the edge of violence constantly. > SF is 55 out of the biggest 100 cities on burglary rates, by the way. These crime rates are what's reported by the police and they refuse to take reports of anything that hasn't escalated so they ignore most of what the everyday person suffers. These statistics should be seen more as evidence of collusion in the SFPD, not used to prove the safety of the city.
  - vkou 3y ago
    > LA and Seattle That's a strange way of spelling Cleveland, Memphis, Baton Rouge, Tulsa, Baltimore, Albuquerque, Detroit, Mobile, Cincinnati, Toledo, Des Moines, Seattle, Indianapolis, Spokane, St. Louis, San Bernadino, Bakersfield, Kansas City, Oklahoma City, Milwaukee, Buffalo, Minneapolis, Durham, Orlando, Wichita... And I can't be bothered to list the next 30, all of whom also have more burglaries per capita than SF, and most of which also have more assaults, murders, and rapes. LA is #73 on the burglary index, by the way. You're making a lot of claims, and providing zero data for them. > These crime rates are what's reported by the police and they refuse to take reports of anything that hasn't escalated Please provide a shred of evidence that this doesn't happen in any of the other other cities listed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b... Why even bother arguing this question, if all you have is anecdotes, speculation and just-so stories?
    - LawTalkingGuy 3y ago
      > Why even bother arguing this question I live in two of the drug cities and visit others, and pay taxes that support many of these policies specifically. Do you live in one of the west-coast cities in question, or is this an abstract political battle for you? If you live here, do you feel you're a representative resident? > if all you have is anecdotes, speculation and just-so stories? Well, there's the crux of it, these are anecdotes that have happened to me personally. Over decades of experience and watching things change. And there's tons of data collected by victims but as has been pointed out, the news often chooses to report on acknowledged crime where a police officer has been sent out and taken a report. FB groups where people log violent street interactions or businesses' windows being broken show a definite uptick that government statistics don't. I know it's true because I walk past enough of those broken windows and stabbing sites to provide a reality check for what I'm seeing published. We know that there are vastly more actual rapes than reported rapes and punished rapes. Why it is so unreasonable that there are vastly more actual attacks and robberies than reported? > [other cities] all of whom also have more burglaries per capita than SF, and most of which also have more assaults, murders, and rapes. Perception of livability despite violent crime has a lot to do with the localization of that crime. If only certain areas, at certain times, are dangerous - and if those areas are ones that can be avoided - then you can generally just go elsewhere with your family and be fine. That's the liberal way SF and such used to work. Sure, there were sleezy places but the street people would even helpfully and quietly warn tourists - "Hey bud, there's a lot of drugs down here, you should really take your kids a few blocks that way." But once it spills over into random attacks outside that area, such that you can be killed at the busiest coffee shop in the city, the entire veneer of safety goes away. We're saying two main things: that it got bad really quickly and predictably, and it's being officially downplayed. > Please provide a shred of evidence that this doesn't happen in any of the other other cities listed in It's somewhat annoying that what should be an issue of local policy ends up being purity-checked by people trying to decide if we're too partisan in national politics. We're talking about our policies, not trying to claim that other cities can't fail just as hard as we are but with a different set of errors.
cemerick 3y ago
That's great; in general, people should be, and I'm not looking down on them for doing so. However, property crime is absolutely irrelevant when presented with the news of someone's murder, yet so many people here are quick to conflate them as somehow equivalent vis a vis personal safety, etc. (Sidenote: I personally don't understand anyone thinking that property crime is "scary". Your car is not your kid. Your wallet is not your body. Your house is not your family. These things are not in the same class, and a loss in one category is not the same as a loss in the other. I'm not sure how one could argue otherwise, but it's apparently a widely-held worldview.)
- vkou 3y ago
  A burglary is much scarier than someone stealing shit from your car, because someone invaded your living space in the latter. It's a much more serious invasion of your privacy than a broken window smash and grab. The point I made in the sibling point stands, though. At 55th in the nation, SF does not have a high burglary rate. It has a high larceny (stealing from stores, cars, etc) rate.
  - cemerick 3y ago
    I'm not comparing e.g. burglaries to car thefts, but the category of property crimes to the category of violent crimes. The former range from unfortunate nuisances to unpleasant material losses (depending on how well you've scoped your insurances); the latter can be life-shattering tragedies.
  - Vervious 3y ago
    Btw, I think technically if the car is locked, it's also classified as a burglary
- bigtex88 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - cemerick 3y ago
    Your "legitimate question" is insulting to me and to those who actually are autistic. Everyone on HN is so nice. No, I don't think being pickpocketed (or having my car stolen or whatever) is "equally as scary" as if my daughter were assaulted or kidnapped. I'd be ashamed to think they're equivalent, lest my daughter believe I view her as valuable as a hunk of steel or a wad of cash. > Property crimes lead to a generally dangerous living area and people don't like to live in dangerous areas because it necessarily leads to more violent crime. This is deeply incorrect. As has been repeated and cited over and over, violent crime in e.g. SF is not particularly high (lower than most other US cities), while its property crime rate is outrageously high.

vkou 3y ago

You're performing a sleight of hand. No city census or national crime analysis categorizes burglary as a violent crime, and I'm not sure why you called SF out on it. I don't look down on people complaining about property crime, I'd just like them to be honest about what they are complaining about. SF is 55 out of the biggest 100 cities on burglary rates, by the way. (It's interesting how all this is apparently a controversial take.)

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
LawTalkingGuy 3y ago
> No city census or national crime analysis categorizes burglary as a violent crime, and I'm not sure why you called SF out on it. Most other cities aren't wallowing in it the same way, and aren't holier than thou despite their polices clearly having caused the issue. But you're right, it's not just SF. LA and Seattle are pretty much right there too. The crime cities like SF are worth calling out in a way that other violent cities aren't though because there's a giant epidemic of what we're pressured to call "non-violent crime" like shoplifting and car theft that gets violent instantly whenever the criminal doesn't get their way. I've personally seen people get shoved out of the way of a fleeing thief, and videos of people being attacked when they come back at the wrong time and discover their car being robbed. To say SF isn't violent ignores that the residents are on the edge of violence constantly. > SF is 55 out of the biggest 100 cities on burglary rates, by the way. These crime rates are what's reported by the police and they refuse to take reports of anything that hasn't escalated so they ignore most of what the everyday person suffers. These statistics should be seen more as evidence of collusion in the SFPD, not used to prove the safety of the city.
- vkou 3y ago
  > LA and Seattle That's a strange way of spelling Cleveland, Memphis, Baton Rouge, Tulsa, Baltimore, Albuquerque, Detroit, Mobile, Cincinnati, Toledo, Des Moines, Seattle, Indianapolis, Spokane, St. Louis, San Bernadino, Bakersfield, Kansas City, Oklahoma City, Milwaukee, Buffalo, Minneapolis, Durham, Orlando, Wichita... And I can't be bothered to list the next 30, all of whom also have more burglaries per capita than SF, and most of which also have more assaults, murders, and rapes. LA is #73 on the burglary index, by the way. You're making a lot of claims, and providing zero data for them. > These crime rates are what's reported by the police and they refuse to take reports of anything that hasn't escalated Please provide a shred of evidence that this doesn't happen in any of the other other cities listed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b... Why even bother arguing this question, if all you have is anecdotes, speculation and just-so stories?
  - LawTalkingGuy 3y ago
    > Why even bother arguing this question I live in two of the drug cities and visit others, and pay taxes that support many of these policies specifically. Do you live in one of the west-coast cities in question, or is this an abstract political battle for you? If you live here, do you feel you're a representative resident? > if all you have is anecdotes, speculation and just-so stories? Well, there's the crux of it, these are anecdotes that have happened to me personally. Over decades of experience and watching things change. And there's tons of data collected by victims but as has been pointed out, the news often chooses to report on acknowledged crime where a police officer has been sent out and taken a report. FB groups where people log violent street interactions or businesses' windows being broken show a definite uptick that government statistics don't. I know it's true because I walk past enough of those broken windows and stabbing sites to provide a reality check for what I'm seeing published. We know that there are vastly more actual rapes than reported rapes and punished rapes. Why it is so unreasonable that there are vastly more actual attacks and robberies than reported? > [other cities] all of whom also have more burglaries per capita than SF, and most of which also have more assaults, murders, and rapes. Perception of livability despite violent crime has a lot to do with the localization of that crime. If only certain areas, at certain times, are dangerous - and if those areas are ones that can be avoided - then you can generally just go elsewhere with your family and be fine. That's the liberal way SF and such used to work. Sure, there were sleezy places but the street people would even helpfully and quietly warn tourists - "Hey bud, there's a lot of drugs down here, you should really take your kids a few blocks that way." But once it spills over into random attacks outside that area, such that you can be killed at the busiest coffee shop in the city, the entire veneer of safety goes away. We're saying two main things: that it got bad really quickly and predictably, and it's being officially downplayed. > Please provide a shred of evidence that this doesn't happen in any of the other other cities listed in It's somewhat annoying that what should be an issue of local policy ends up being purity-checked by people trying to decide if we're too partisan in national politics. We're talking about our policies, not trying to claim that other cities can't fail just as hard as we are but with a different set of errors.

cemerick 3y ago

That's great; in general, people should be, and I'm not looking down on them for doing so. However, property crime is absolutely irrelevant when presented with the news of someone's murder, yet so many people here are quick to conflate them as somehow equivalent vis a vis personal safety, etc. (Sidenote: I personally don't understand anyone thinking that property crime is "scary". Your car is not your kid. Your wallet is not your body. Your house is not your family. These things are not in the same class, and a loss in one category is not the same as a loss in the other. I'm not sure how one could argue otherwise, but it's apparently a widely-held worldview.)

vkou 3y ago
A burglary is much scarier than someone stealing shit from your car, because someone invaded your living space in the latter. It's a much more serious invasion of your privacy than a broken window smash and grab. The point I made in the sibling point stands, though. At 55th in the nation, SF does not have a high burglary rate. It has a high larceny (stealing from stores, cars, etc) rate.
- cemerick 3y ago
  I'm not comparing e.g. burglaries to car thefts, but the category of property crimes to the category of violent crimes. The former range from unfortunate nuisances to unpleasant material losses (depending on how well you've scoped your insurances); the latter can be life-shattering tragedies.
- Vervious 3y ago
  Btw, I think technically if the car is locked, it's also classified as a burglary
bigtex88 3y ago
[flagged]
- cemerick 3y ago
  Your "legitimate question" is insulting to me and to those who actually are autistic. Everyone on HN is so nice. No, I don't think being pickpocketed (or having my car stolen or whatever) is "equally as scary" as if my daughter were assaulted or kidnapped. I'd be ashamed to think they're equivalent, lest my daughter believe I view her as valuable as a hunk of steel or a wad of cash. > Property crimes lead to a generally dangerous living area and people don't like to live in dangerous areas because it necessarily leads to more violent crime. This is deeply incorrect. As has been repeated and cited over and over, violent crime in e.g. SF is not particularly high (lower than most other US cities), while its property crime rate is outrageously high.