4 ms·

I'm trying to understand San Francisco's response to this kind of situation. Is it one of the following? (a) The citizens and leaders have a clear plan in pla

I'm trying to understand San Francisco's response to this kind of situation. Is it one of the following? (a) The citizens and leaders have a clear plan in place, and they're waiting for it to bear fruit. (b) The citizens and leaders don't have a plan in place, but they have some other reason to believe the problem will sort itself out. (c) They're paralyzed, because nobody can identify a plan that seems effective and politically acceptable. (d) They don't consider the problem so significant that major action is needed. (e) (something else) Caveat: I'm sure this account is accurate, but I've also heard counterpoints that only small regions of SF are like this. So as an outsider I don't really have a clear picture about the situation.

BenFranklin100 3y ago
I’m not sure either, but apparently some think reparations is the answer: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/14/san-francisco-reparation-plans-black-residents?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/14/san-francisc...
- thephyber 3y ago
  While true, it is irrelevant because no reparations have been passed/distributed.
  - BenFranklin100 3y ago
    It’s relevant in that reparation supporters have cited reparations as an answer to the homeless problem. ’m not sure how it would work in practice: would social workers distribute $5M checks to Black homeless people while leaving the White ones laying next to them on the street? At any rate, the larger point is that SF’s out-of-touch political elites need to work on real solutions rather than engage in performative politics.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    It’s in the mould of San Francisco’s education board busying themselves with renaming schools while schools remained closed [1]. Is it an issue? Sure. Is it the pressing issue for San Francisco? No. [1] https://www.npr.org/2021/04/07/984919925/san-francisco-school-board-rescinds-controversial-school-renaming-plan https://www.npr.org/2021/04/07/984919925/san-francisco-schoo...
- dehrmann 3y ago
  > The more than 100 recommendations included payments of $5m to every eligible Black adult... I'm not sure why ideas like this get floated when the number makes it DoA, and even hurts the credibility of the campaign.
  - cr125rider 3y ago
    The bad idea hurt the credibility of the campaign the most.
tlogan 3y ago
It is d): city leaders (major and some supervisors) claim that there is no problem at all.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  The predictable response to this noble but naïve compassion will be an inhumane crackdown. People respond predictable to insecurity, and it’s not Patrick Henryesque. You can already start to see frustration turning into de-humanisation in these discussions, as one side pleads pragmatism (and at its extremes, cruelty) while calls for compassion (and at its extreme, labels everyone a fascist). We are far from that. San Francisco remains a AAA issuer. But if receipts crash, deficits bulge and services get cut while the administration debates reparations, that’s how you get regrettable policy. There is still time for people to meet in the middle and find humane but productive solutions that don’t involve sloshing billions through useless NGOs.
  - seanp2k2 3y ago
    Businesses are already leaving, tax revenue will crash harder once more businesses and residents leave, then only the grandfathered Prop 13 recipients paying $5k/yr on a property worth $5m right now will remain. It’ll get a lot worse before it gets better. Once all the value is destroyed, developers will swoop in and turn derelict neighborhoods into luxury apartments, the coffee shops will come back, and we’ll be back on the gentrification cycle once more.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > Once all the value is destroyed, developers will swoop in and turn derelict neighborhoods into luxury apartments, the coffee shops will come back, and we’ll be back on the gentrification cycle once more Then everything is fine. It’s just a question of time horizons. I disagree with this determinism. But if you hold it, the present is fine.
julianeon 3y ago
It's really multiple problems at once. In fact I'd argue the homeless problem is a symptom of a larger problem, which is the economic death of that area. The core problem is that it's too big to be solved effectively in the short term, by a single leader or law, so this will have to play out over the long term. Still, one aspect of this does seem easily solved: in Westfield's case, having a bigger police presence. If they had to name a reason why they went out of business, it would be that, not enough police & too much crime. That seems like part of the problem: the police are not responsive, and since police performance is kind of a thing that straddles right/left divisions & powerful constituencies, it's not like one person can easily solve it. There are laws on the books to stop crime, and the DA can do something after suspects are caught, but if the police are missing in action at the places where crimes are happening, not investigating and not making arrests, they will continue. The larger problem is the death of downtown due to: crime, falling tourism, and the rise of remote work. I personally don't think pushing on the 'crime' lever - especially not by just installing another DA - will be enough to stop it. The problem of remote work leading to falling vacancy rates, leading to an empty downtown, leading to a rising crime and homelessness problem, hasn't been addressed by any of the contemplated solutions, not seriously imho. Long term, I think downtown will need to be rezoned to be more residential, and the combination of more foot traffic (mostly that) supporting more businesses, and the people & businesses softening the edges of the crime & homelessness problem, will eventually improve the situation. But turning office space into residential space is a huge ask, and even today many people will say it's impossible. It will be years until those downtown office space owners accept this, years more before City Hall can find acceptable ways to rezone that area, more years for the work to be completed, and still more years before people start moving in. So we might see a turnaround starting in, say, a decade. I wouldn't hope for too much until then.
thephyber 3y ago
There are multiple leadership issues, but ultimately there is no single fix. The mayor has little power in SF compared to other cities. My understanding is the Board of Supervisors is more distributed than a typical City Council. Housing: A single person in SF has managed to thwart 1/3 of all building development (source: some anti-NIMBY transparency website), which means NiMBYs have an extraordinarily strong Heckler’s veto. Very little development means supply for dwellings stays far below demand. Rent control ordinance from 1979 has meant that market rate units cost 3x what rent controlled units cost. Tenants in Cali and SF have very strong rights compared to landlords, so people aren’t rushing to invest in SF rental properties. Crime: The state changed the thresholds between misdemeanors and felonies about 8 years ago and most people blame SF for something that a majority of Cali voters did. As far as I can tell, the SFPD is sitting on its hands. As much as they complain about being short staffed, my larger city is nearby and has far fewer officers per resident and still manages to answer more calls. I never understood the argument that officers are slow walking because criminals would be back on the street without the prosecutor pressing charges. The patrol officer doesn’t know or care. This is more likely a “blue flu” thing where police are punishing people for their government’s liberal policies. SF suffers from lots of “bridge and tunnel” criminals. The area around Oakland and Vallejo (across the Bay Bridge) is where lots of the thieves and shooters come from. People don’t tour the East Bay like they do SF and the affluent are more likely to live in SF, so the criminals go to where the money is. Coordinated thief gangs for catalytic converters, store-mob thieves, car theft rings, etc are mostly issues that can’t be solved by SFPD — they all require multi-jurisdiction task forces. Post-pandemic: SF had some of the harshest lockdown policies in the US and there was no policy push to reopen and announce the reopening. The jails were overcrowded during COVID and the Sheriff Department (staffs the jails) is very understaffed, so there were lots of incentives to keep jails from filling up. SF’s city government spends more per capita than pretty much everywhere else in the US on social projects. They vastly overspend on homeless mitigation, health clinics, public bathrooms, etc. It seems to me there is no political consensus in the city for a single plan.
- simoncion 3y ago
  > Rent control ordinance from 1979 has meant that market rate units cost 3x what rent controlled units cost. Point of order: Without those rent control ordinances, all units would cost right around the current market rate. The thing driving costs is failure to build to meet demand. > Tenants in Cali and SF have very strong rights compared to landlords, so people aren’t rushing to invest in SF rental properties. Another point of order: The NIMBYs are the primary reason people aren't rushing to develop residential rental buildings in SF. Or, if you were referring to the fact that oh so many rentals are massively overdue for essential repairs, then that's a combination of * Because your renter is almost certainly already renting the best place they can afford, and because it's almost certain that nothing cheaper will appear on the market, you -as a landlord- have no incentive to do more than the legal minimum. * Because Prop 13 fixes your property value reassessment at something tiny (like 2% per year) until your property changes hands, and because any major improvements to that property are assessed at their current market rate, and then added in to your tax assessment, you -as a landlord- are __seriously__ disincentivized to improve your property.
George83728 3y ago
The root of the problem is the electorate (not the leaders, who are downstream from the electorate), and that problem mainly falls under category A. They, the voters, have this idea that more social services, more compassion and understanding and more tolerance for the minor sorts of crime like vandalism and shoplifting will eventually bear fruit and cause the crime rate to drop. The failure of the plan to deliver the promised results is explained away as a matter of needing more time, more funding, more reforms... The plan hasn't failed; people failed the plan. And of course there is a lot of D, people denying there's a problem at all. The "this is fine" response.
spacemadness 3y ago
The citizens have supported policies greatly increasing homelessness so their house prices can go up. I wouldn’t count on it.

BenFranklin100 3y ago

I’m not sure either, but apparently some think reparations is the answer: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/14/san-francisco-reparation-plans-black-residents?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/14/san-francisc...

thephyber 3y ago
While true, it is irrelevant because no reparations have been passed/distributed.
- BenFranklin100 3y ago
  It’s relevant in that reparation supporters have cited reparations as an answer to the homeless problem. ’m not sure how it would work in practice: would social workers distribute $5M checks to Black homeless people while leaving the White ones laying next to them on the street? At any rate, the larger point is that SF’s out-of-touch political elites need to work on real solutions rather than engage in performative politics.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  It’s in the mould of San Francisco’s education board busying themselves with renaming schools while schools remained closed [1]. Is it an issue? Sure. Is it the pressing issue for San Francisco? No. [1] https://www.npr.org/2021/04/07/984919925/san-francisco-school-board-rescinds-controversial-school-renaming-plan https://www.npr.org/2021/04/07/984919925/san-francisco-schoo...
dehrmann 3y ago
> The more than 100 recommendations included payments of $5m to every eligible Black adult... I'm not sure why ideas like this get floated when the number makes it DoA, and even hurts the credibility of the campaign.
- cr125rider 3y ago
  The bad idea hurt the credibility of the campaign the most.

tlogan 3y ago

It is d): city leaders (major and some supervisors) claim that there is no problem at all.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
The predictable response to this noble but naïve compassion will be an inhumane crackdown. People respond predictable to insecurity, and it’s not Patrick Henryesque. You can already start to see frustration turning into de-humanisation in these discussions, as one side pleads pragmatism (and at its extremes, cruelty) while calls for compassion (and at its extreme, labels everyone a fascist). We are far from that. San Francisco remains a AAA issuer. But if receipts crash, deficits bulge and services get cut while the administration debates reparations, that’s how you get regrettable policy. There is still time for people to meet in the middle and find humane but productive solutions that don’t involve sloshing billions through useless NGOs.
- seanp2k2 3y ago
  Businesses are already leaving, tax revenue will crash harder once more businesses and residents leave, then only the grandfathered Prop 13 recipients paying $5k/yr on a property worth $5m right now will remain. It’ll get a lot worse before it gets better. Once all the value is destroyed, developers will swoop in and turn derelict neighborhoods into luxury apartments, the coffee shops will come back, and we’ll be back on the gentrification cycle once more.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Once all the value is destroyed, developers will swoop in and turn derelict neighborhoods into luxury apartments, the coffee shops will come back, and we’ll be back on the gentrification cycle once more Then everything is fine. It’s just a question of time horizons. I disagree with this determinism. But if you hold it, the present is fine.

julianeon 3y ago

It's really multiple problems at once. In fact I'd argue the homeless problem is a symptom of a larger problem, which is the economic death of that area. The core problem is that it's too big to be solved effectively in the short term, by a single leader or law, so this will have to play out over the long term. Still, one aspect of this does seem easily solved: in Westfield's case, having a bigger police presence. If they had to name a reason why they went out of business, it would be that, not enough police & too much crime. That seems like part of the problem: the police are not responsive, and since police performance is kind of a thing that straddles right/left divisions & powerful constituencies, it's not like one person can easily solve it. There are laws on the books to stop crime, and the DA can do something after suspects are caught, but if the police are missing in action at the places where crimes are happening, not investigating and not making arrests, they will continue. The larger problem is the death of downtown due to: crime, falling tourism, and the rise of remote work. I personally don't think pushing on the 'crime' lever - especially not by just installing another DA - will be enough to stop it. The problem of remote work leading to falling vacancy rates, leading to an empty downtown, leading to a rising crime and homelessness problem, hasn't been addressed by any of the contemplated solutions, not seriously imho. Long term, I think downtown will need to be rezoned to be more residential, and the combination of more foot traffic (mostly that) supporting more businesses, and the people & businesses softening the edges of the crime & homelessness problem, will eventually improve the situation. But turning office space into residential space is a huge ask, and even today many people will say it's impossible. It will be years until those downtown office space owners accept this, years more before City Hall can find acceptable ways to rezone that area, more years for the work to be completed, and still more years before people start moving in. So we might see a turnaround starting in, say, a decade. I wouldn't hope for too much until then.

thephyber 3y ago

There are multiple leadership issues, but ultimately there is no single fix. The mayor has little power in SF compared to other cities. My understanding is the Board of Supervisors is more distributed than a typical City Council. Housing: A single person in SF has managed to thwart 1/3 of all building development (source: some anti-NIMBY transparency website), which means NiMBYs have an extraordinarily strong Heckler’s veto. Very little development means supply for dwellings stays far below demand. Rent control ordinance from 1979 has meant that market rate units cost 3x what rent controlled units cost. Tenants in Cali and SF have very strong rights compared to landlords, so people aren’t rushing to invest in SF rental properties. Crime: The state changed the thresholds between misdemeanors and felonies about 8 years ago and most people blame SF for something that a majority of Cali voters did. As far as I can tell, the SFPD is sitting on its hands. As much as they complain about being short staffed, my larger city is nearby and has far fewer officers per resident and still manages to answer more calls. I never understood the argument that officers are slow walking because criminals would be back on the street without the prosecutor pressing charges. The patrol officer doesn’t know or care. This is more likely a “blue flu” thing where police are punishing people for their government’s liberal policies. SF suffers from lots of “bridge and tunnel” criminals. The area around Oakland and Vallejo (across the Bay Bridge) is where lots of the thieves and shooters come from. People don’t tour the East Bay like they do SF and the affluent are more likely to live in SF, so the criminals go to where the money is. Coordinated thief gangs for catalytic converters, store-mob thieves, car theft rings, etc are mostly issues that can’t be solved by SFPD — they all require multi-jurisdiction task forces. Post-pandemic: SF had some of the harshest lockdown policies in the US and there was no policy push to reopen and announce the reopening. The jails were overcrowded during COVID and the Sheriff Department (staffs the jails) is very understaffed, so there were lots of incentives to keep jails from filling up. SF’s city government spends more per capita than pretty much everywhere else in the US on social projects. They vastly overspend on homeless mitigation, health clinics, public bathrooms, etc. It seems to me there is no political consensus in the city for a single plan.

simoncion 3y ago
> Rent control ordinance from 1979 has meant that market rate units cost 3x what rent controlled units cost. Point of order: Without those rent control ordinances, all units would cost right around the current market rate. The thing driving costs is failure to build to meet demand. > Tenants in Cali and SF have very strong rights compared to landlords, so people aren’t rushing to invest in SF rental properties. Another point of order: The NIMBYs are the primary reason people aren't rushing to develop residential rental buildings in SF. Or, if you were referring to the fact that oh so many rentals are massively overdue for essential repairs, then that's a combination of * Because your renter is almost certainly already renting the best place they can afford, and because it's almost certain that nothing cheaper will appear on the market, you -as a landlord- have no incentive to do more than the legal minimum. * Because Prop 13 fixes your property value reassessment at something tiny (like 2% per year) until your property changes hands, and because any major improvements to that property are assessed at their current market rate, and then added in to your tax assessment, you -as a landlord- are __seriously__ disincentivized to improve your property.

George83728 3y ago

The root of the problem is the electorate (not the leaders, who are downstream from the electorate), and that problem mainly falls under category A. They, the voters, have this idea that more social services, more compassion and understanding and more tolerance for the minor sorts of crime like vandalism and shoplifting will eventually bear fruit and cause the crime rate to drop. The failure of the plan to deliver the promised results is explained away as a matter of needing more time, more funding, more reforms... The plan hasn't failed; people failed the plan. And of course there is a lot of D, people denying there's a problem at all. The "this is fine" response.

spacemadness 3y ago

The citizens have supported policies greatly increasing homelessness so their house prices can go up. I wouldn’t count on it.