6 ms·

The two groups that talk about crime are more or less equal in their self-delusion. The left-wing folks aggressively deny there is any sort of problem and the

The two groups that talk about crime are more or less equal in their self-delusion. The left-wing folks aggressively deny there is any sort of problem and the right-wing folks insist such and such a place is a warzone and anyone who goes there should be afraid. Mind you there are plenty of people who are fairly reasonable who you don't see talking about these things publicly much, usually because the people who respond are so very obnoxious. You have people denying reality vs. people exaggerating it, neither really have very good information. I have personally experienced both. I left a formerly nicer neighborhood that took a turn to avoid robberies and too frequent gun shots for downtown where I feel much safer... and manage to offend both sides when I mention this.

whstl 3y ago
Yep. It’s like this for lots of other subjects. From war to paper straws. Not saying whether it is wrong or right, but: it is often people trying to move the Overton window, or people getting manipulated by window movers.
ajross 3y ago
FWIW: per SF's statistics, both violent and property crime rates are at 10+ year lows in every category: https://sfgov.org/scorecards/public-safety/violent-crime-rate-and-property-crime-rate https://sfgov.org/scorecards/public-safety/violent-crime-rat... I'm not how you get a "both sides" argument from that data, but OK. We're in the same phase of this debate that we are with inflation: there was a burst of signal, driven largely by the pandemic and related causes, it receeded, but argumentation is still informed by feelings and not current state. (Edit: and the amount of argumentation below trying to refute this one link WITHOUT ALTERNATIVE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE is pretty much proof that this isn't a fight about facts.)
- Jensson 3y ago
  Statistics from the police is the least accurate way to measure minor crimes, those stats mostly tracks how active the police is and not how much crime there is. Or do you believe that Denmark and Sweden has the most cases of thefts in the world? These stats has nothing to do with how much theft is actually happening. https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/theft/ https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/theft/
  - ajross 3y ago
    Are there better numbers? It seems like these track existing conventional wisdom about the recent crime burst, no? You're just trying to throw out the last 2 years showing a decline? Is that really a reasonable argument? Obviously yes, there's an apples/oranges problem with comparing data sets collected in different countries under different law enforcement regimes, etc... But between e.g. 2022 and 2017 in San Francisco specifically? I don't see the argument. (Also important to note that while "Larceny" might be plausibly related to police ignoring crime, other things like "Murder" are very much not if you aren't accusing the police of hiding bodies. And violent crime shows the same trend.)
    - Jensson 3y ago
      It is much more likely that the police changed a bit on how they report things than that the population at large changed. The real changes gets lost in the noise of police reporting changes. Police reporting changes not just via bureaucratic decisions but also the feelings of the police force in general because it is the people at the bottom that decides what to report, which is very fickle and can change quickly with reasons like "we catch thieves but they just get released, so we stopped caring". Covid likely changed crime rates, yes, but it likely changed police reporting rates much more. That goes for all kinds of events. Saying crime is down since police reporting is down is like saying that kids learn more today since they get better grades today than 10 years ago. Edit: You get much better numbers by asking people if they have been robbed lately, or asking stores how much gets stolen.
    - Fargren 3y ago
      "Are there better numbers?" is not a question that justifies trusting bad numbers. If the best numbers you have are known to be unreliable, using them just because you don't have better ones is not justified. Let's say the real amount per year for the last 10 years is [100, 110, 120, 130, 140], and you have numbers that show [90, 89, 88, 87, 86]. Those numbers are much better than [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. It would still be absolutely wrong to use them to figure out the trend. If you know your source of data is bad, you must throw it out, even if it's the best one you have. If our data is bad, we just don't know.
- ilikehurdles 3y ago
  Just about every category in your chart shows a reversal from a downward trend before 2019 into an upward trend from 2019 onward. The precipitous and unusual drop at the end of the axis reflects a lack of data. Just about every kind of crime is up in Portland as well over 2018 numbers, with homicides almost quadrupling 3 years later. The “both sides” should be considered, because Portland isn’t a war-zone like the far right would portray it as, but it’s significantly worse than it used to be with no reversal in sight. There are worse places to live in the US today, but I’m not off-base for wanting safety and local quality of life to improve rather than decline when compared to previous years. And sure, the next thing to blame is the pandemic recovery. We all faced drastic changes over the last few years, but objectively some of our cities (like Portland where I live) are not recovering as well or at all compared to national trends. And as for Portland, most of our deteriorating trends started before the pandemic. 2020-2022 just accelerated their trajectories.
  - ajross 3y ago
    > Just about every category in your chart shows a reversal from a downward trend before 2019 into an upward trend from 2019 onward Literally every category in that chart shows a reduction in crime over the last year. You're inventing a "trend" by extrapolating a line straight across an outlier (the covid pandemic). No one would look at that data and say crime is getting worse. You'd say crime got worse and is now back at baseline.
    - ilikehurdles 3y ago
      What does the sentence after the one you quoted say? I forgot. A line graph showing a precipitous drop in the most recent time bucket available is a red flag that you shouldn’t trust that data point.
      - ajross 3y ago
        Why? It's not a real time measurement, they're just adding up the crimes from the 2023 data. Do you expect the 2023 numbers to be revised? Was that true for earlier years? Seems unlikely.
- reducesuffering 3y ago
  I like SF, and it's violent crime rate isn't too bad. But, c'mon, you can't point to property crime and say "this isn't a fight about facts" when it's the 4th highest property crime per capita city in the entire country in a country that already has high crime for the developed world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...
- inglor_cz 3y ago
  Hard science people tend to worship data and dismiss anecdotes, but a situation where the data is incomplete/incorrect (for whatever reason) and anecdotes which point in a different direction are, in fact, correct, is perfectly plausible. For example, the former Soviet Bloc was unmatched in its ability to produce impressive statistics of various achievements, but the real living standard of the people would strike you in the face the moment you would see it. Which is why the secret police often restricted free movement of Western visitors. SF is pretty bad. A few weeks ago, Czech TV reporters were robbed at a gunpoint in broad daylight [0]. Stuff like that simply doesn't happen in Prague, Warsaw or even war-torn, PTSD-heavy Kyiv. It rather corresponds to South African standards of safety. IDK if you can explain it away with positively sounding statistics, but as Feynman says, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." If a culture war coded topic like crime is being discussed and tribal loyalty kicks in, I can imagine people simply ignoring anything that goes contrary to their position and rallying to the flag. [0] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/czech-journalists-covering-apec-san-francisco-robbed-gunpoint-rcna125092 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/czech-journalists-cover...
  - selimthegrim 3y ago
    I wonder what Feynman and Robert Trivers (not a hard science person at all) would make of each other.
  - dfxm12 3y ago
    FWIW, with more guns than people, the USA is the most armed country in the world. It follows that being robbed at gunpoint isn't something that is frequent in a country where there's only 1 gun per 40 people. The same people arguing about violent crime in the USA could do themselves a huge favor by being open to more gun control, but by and large, they are against it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g...
    - southernplaces7 3y ago
      I could just as easily list off several countries that have strict gun control and at the same time also violent crime rates (including those with guns) that are far worse than general levels in the U.S. gun control by itself isn't the problem when it comes to violence. Other, largely social and political factors are much more important, but that's not a neat ideological talking point so it gets ignored more often.
- colechristensen 3y ago
  Many jobs and retailers have left SF. It's not surprising that statistics got "better". Also the police will have had a lot of pressure on them to make the statistics better, they're not to be trusted to publish good statistics. I could find lists of store closures and numbers of jobs gone, but instead one data point: whole foods closing an enormous store after only one year. https://abc7.com/whole-foods-san-francisco-store-closing-worker-safety-concerns/13115702/ https://abc7.com/whole-foods-san-francisco-store-closing-wor... That either means what they say: crime was a huge problem, or they're covering for bad sales: people have left. And the world isn't just SF. Locally I've been in line at a coffee shop twice this year while somebody stole something from the grab and go case and ran... there aren't any more grab and go cases or merchandise at several coffee shops. It wasn't long ago that I could go to the local target and buy things off shelves instead of waiting for someone to open the case with a key.
JohnFen 3y ago
> The left-wing folks aggressively deny there is any sort of problem I have to admit, I don't think I've heard any left-wing folks saying that at all.
klipt 3y ago
> The left-wing folks aggressively deny there is any sort of problem and the right-wing folks insist such and such a place is a warzone and anyone who goes there should be afraid. Some left wing folks will agree you should be afraid but only if you're female/black etc because men/white people might attack you. But they'll insist if you're a white man then you're protected from crime by "privilege". Which is interesting because statistically men are much more often victims of violent crime.
dfxm12 3y ago
The left-wing folks aggressively deny there is any sort of problem I'm not familiar with anyone, at least in the mainstream of politics, doing this. I think it is important to note the mainstream, because we do have tons of elected officials and mainstream cable news talking heads making the "warzone" argument (and deliberately mischaracterizing any attempts at police or justice system reform).
- colechristensen 3y ago
  I know many people personally who do it in conversations with me. Locally we have a county attorney who ran and won on, essentially, a platform to not prosecute crimes. She's done such a bad job that in a few egregious cases the state attorney general took cases over. It has gotten to the point where there are liberal-talking-point topics that I just don't address with good friends in the same way you avoid anything political with the slightly unhinged conservative uncle. I'm not familiar with anyone, at least in the mainstream of politics, who is talking about crime and criminals in a way that seems like they are actually interested in making the situation better.
  - thisgoesnowhere 3y ago
    I have yet to see a politician who has ran on "not prosecuting crime" and winning. It's a batshit crazy mega unpopular opinion that we should not prosecute crime so I'm shocked you are so close to someone who was able to succeed on that. Can you share who this person is so I can look up what they ran on?
    - colechristensen 3y ago
      Mary Moriarty, Hennepin County Attorney Of course she said she'd be tough vaguely on violent crime, then but then what she actually meant which was "In addition to prosecution and incarceration in appropriate cases, Mary’s approach to community safety will include: * Offering restorative justice practices as an option for victims. * Advocating for community-based alternatives to incarceration in appropriate cases, including supporting these alternatives at the legislature and pushing for increased funding. * Partnering with schools, families, and others to ensure children who commit crimes have options with structure and support to help them succeed. Closely coordinating with community corrections officials to improve the quality and effectiveness of supervision." One of the most egregious cases involved two teenagers who were paid to kill a young mother, they broke down her door and shot her to death in the middle of the night. Moriarty offered them a plea deal for less than 2 years in juvenile detention. https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/walz-intervenes-assigns-ag-ellison-to-handle-zaria-mckeever-murder-case/ https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/walz-intervenes-assigns-...
deanCommie 3y ago
> The left-wing folks aggressively deny there is any sort of problem and the right-wing folks insist such and such a place is a warzone and anyone who goes there should be afraid. This is contextual and is misleading without it. But it does accurately represent the ineptitude of the left and why it always loses in these situations. Here's how it goes: Problem: Society has people that are poor and mentally challenged. Both turn to drugs to cope. Drugs are illegal, increased demand increases criminality. Drug use exacerbates poverty, homelessness. Society becomes full of drug users committing petty crimes, and drug dealers perpetuating major crimes to contribute to supply. Not to mention addicts dying in the streets from overdoses. All of this in general make cities undesirable and less safe. RIGHT-WING Solution: LET'S GET TOUGH ON CRIME. Drug dealers get arrested. Drug users get arrested. For a little while the streets are cleaner and safer, and everyone is happy. But the root cause hasn't been addressed, so the same problems just return. LEFT-WING Solution: Drug use is a symptom not a root cause. And criminality is inherent to drug trade because drugs are illegal. If we legalize or decriminalize drugs we reduce the criminal element. If we give people safe injection sites they don't have to die from overdoses. And if we fund social programs we can get people out of poverty, off the streets, and into housing. PROBLEM 1: All of this is a lot harder than sending a dozen cops into a tent city and arresting a dozen homeless people. PROBLEM 2: Even if carried out PERFECTLY, there becomes an intermediate step where homeless people are seen being given funds or housing from the government which makes poor-but-not-homeless, and even middle-class people get mad saying "I work so hard, how come this person who is clearly a loser is getting all these handouts? This makes people petty and the right wing seize on it. PROBLEM 3: Going soft on drug use means in the short term you have people using drugs more openly, but not being arrested for it. This makes people grossed out and the right wing seize on it. Before you know it and before any meaningful improvements have been made, you have right wing candidates screaming that all of the problems of society are because the left is too soft, and we need to get tougher. And they usually succeed and they usually win. Because the best the left wing can do is point to statistics that show fewer homeless people are dying of poverty or drug overdoses, and the truth is most humans in society just don't care. So they deny and minimize. The reality is that out of sight out of mind, most gentle moderate even somewhat progressive people would be just as happy if homeless people "disappeared". They don't want to think about what that means. So they vote left when they feel guilty, and right when they're annoyed.

whstl 3y ago

Yep. It’s like this for lots of other subjects. From war to paper straws. Not saying whether it is wrong or right, but: it is often people trying to move the Overton window, or people getting manipulated by window movers.

ajross 3y ago

FWIW: per SF's statistics, both violent and property crime rates are at 10+ year lows in every category: https://sfgov.org/scorecards/public-safety/violent-crime-rate-and-property-crime-rate https://sfgov.org/scorecards/public-safety/violent-crime-rat... I'm not how you get a "both sides" argument from that data, but OK. We're in the same phase of this debate that we are with inflation: there was a burst of signal, driven largely by the pandemic and related causes, it receeded, but argumentation is still informed by feelings and not current state. (Edit: and the amount of argumentation below trying to refute this one link WITHOUT ALTERNATIVE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE is pretty much proof that this isn't a fight about facts.)

Jensson 3y ago
Statistics from the police is the least accurate way to measure minor crimes, those stats mostly tracks how active the police is and not how much crime there is. Or do you believe that Denmark and Sweden has the most cases of thefts in the world? These stats has nothing to do with how much theft is actually happening. https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/theft/ https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/theft/
- ajross 3y ago
  Are there better numbers? It seems like these track existing conventional wisdom about the recent crime burst, no? You're just trying to throw out the last 2 years showing a decline? Is that really a reasonable argument? Obviously yes, there's an apples/oranges problem with comparing data sets collected in different countries under different law enforcement regimes, etc... But between e.g. 2022 and 2017 in San Francisco specifically? I don't see the argument. (Also important to note that while "Larceny" might be plausibly related to police ignoring crime, other things like "Murder" are very much not if you aren't accusing the police of hiding bodies. And violent crime shows the same trend.)
  - Jensson 3y ago
    It is much more likely that the police changed a bit on how they report things than that the population at large changed. The real changes gets lost in the noise of police reporting changes. Police reporting changes not just via bureaucratic decisions but also the feelings of the police force in general because it is the people at the bottom that decides what to report, which is very fickle and can change quickly with reasons like "we catch thieves but they just get released, so we stopped caring". Covid likely changed crime rates, yes, but it likely changed police reporting rates much more. That goes for all kinds of events. Saying crime is down since police reporting is down is like saying that kids learn more today since they get better grades today than 10 years ago. Edit: You get much better numbers by asking people if they have been robbed lately, or asking stores how much gets stolen.
  - Fargren 3y ago
    "Are there better numbers?" is not a question that justifies trusting bad numbers. If the best numbers you have are known to be unreliable, using them just because you don't have better ones is not justified. Let's say the real amount per year for the last 10 years is [100, 110, 120, 130, 140], and you have numbers that show [90, 89, 88, 87, 86]. Those numbers are much better than [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. It would still be absolutely wrong to use them to figure out the trend. If you know your source of data is bad, you must throw it out, even if it's the best one you have. If our data is bad, we just don't know.
ilikehurdles 3y ago
Just about every category in your chart shows a reversal from a downward trend before 2019 into an upward trend from 2019 onward. The precipitous and unusual drop at the end of the axis reflects a lack of data. Just about every kind of crime is up in Portland as well over 2018 numbers, with homicides almost quadrupling 3 years later. The “both sides” should be considered, because Portland isn’t a war-zone like the far right would portray it as, but it’s significantly worse than it used to be with no reversal in sight. There are worse places to live in the US today, but I’m not off-base for wanting safety and local quality of life to improve rather than decline when compared to previous years. And sure, the next thing to blame is the pandemic recovery. We all faced drastic changes over the last few years, but objectively some of our cities (like Portland where I live) are not recovering as well or at all compared to national trends. And as for Portland, most of our deteriorating trends started before the pandemic. 2020-2022 just accelerated their trajectories.
- ajross 3y ago
  > Just about every category in your chart shows a reversal from a downward trend before 2019 into an upward trend from 2019 onward Literally every category in that chart shows a reduction in crime over the last year. You're inventing a "trend" by extrapolating a line straight across an outlier (the covid pandemic). No one would look at that data and say crime is getting worse. You'd say crime got worse and is now back at baseline.
  - ilikehurdles 3y ago
    What does the sentence after the one you quoted say? I forgot. A line graph showing a precipitous drop in the most recent time bucket available is a red flag that you shouldn’t trust that data point.
    - ajross 3y ago
      Why? It's not a real time measurement, they're just adding up the crimes from the 2023 data. Do you expect the 2023 numbers to be revised? Was that true for earlier years? Seems unlikely.
reducesuffering 3y ago
I like SF, and it's violent crime rate isn't too bad. But, c'mon, you can't point to property crime and say "this isn't a fight about facts" when it's the 4th highest property crime per capita city in the entire country in a country that already has high crime for the developed world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...
inglor_cz 3y ago
Hard science people tend to worship data and dismiss anecdotes, but a situation where the data is incomplete/incorrect (for whatever reason) and anecdotes which point in a different direction are, in fact, correct, is perfectly plausible. For example, the former Soviet Bloc was unmatched in its ability to produce impressive statistics of various achievements, but the real living standard of the people would strike you in the face the moment you would see it. Which is why the secret police often restricted free movement of Western visitors. SF is pretty bad. A few weeks ago, Czech TV reporters were robbed at a gunpoint in broad daylight [0]. Stuff like that simply doesn't happen in Prague, Warsaw or even war-torn, PTSD-heavy Kyiv. It rather corresponds to South African standards of safety. IDK if you can explain it away with positively sounding statistics, but as Feynman says, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." If a culture war coded topic like crime is being discussed and tribal loyalty kicks in, I can imagine people simply ignoring anything that goes contrary to their position and rallying to the flag. [0] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/czech-journalists-covering-apec-san-francisco-robbed-gunpoint-rcna125092 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/czech-journalists-cover...
- selimthegrim 3y ago
  I wonder what Feynman and Robert Trivers (not a hard science person at all) would make of each other.
- dfxm12 3y ago
  FWIW, with more guns than people, the USA is the most armed country in the world. It follows that being robbed at gunpoint isn't something that is frequent in a country where there's only 1 gun per 40 people. The same people arguing about violent crime in the USA could do themselves a huge favor by being open to more gun control, but by and large, they are against it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g...
  - southernplaces7 3y ago
    I could just as easily list off several countries that have strict gun control and at the same time also violent crime rates (including those with guns) that are far worse than general levels in the U.S. gun control by itself isn't the problem when it comes to violence. Other, largely social and political factors are much more important, but that's not a neat ideological talking point so it gets ignored more often.
colechristensen 3y ago
Many jobs and retailers have left SF. It's not surprising that statistics got "better". Also the police will have had a lot of pressure on them to make the statistics better, they're not to be trusted to publish good statistics. I could find lists of store closures and numbers of jobs gone, but instead one data point: whole foods closing an enormous store after only one year. https://abc7.com/whole-foods-san-francisco-store-closing-worker-safety-concerns/13115702/ https://abc7.com/whole-foods-san-francisco-store-closing-wor... That either means what they say: crime was a huge problem, or they're covering for bad sales: people have left. And the world isn't just SF. Locally I've been in line at a coffee shop twice this year while somebody stole something from the grab and go case and ran... there aren't any more grab and go cases or merchandise at several coffee shops. It wasn't long ago that I could go to the local target and buy things off shelves instead of waiting for someone to open the case with a key.

JohnFen 3y ago

> The left-wing folks aggressively deny there is any sort of problem I have to admit, I don't think I've heard any left-wing folks saying that at all.

klipt 3y ago

> The left-wing folks aggressively deny there is any sort of problem and the right-wing folks insist such and such a place is a warzone and anyone who goes there should be afraid. Some left wing folks will agree you should be afraid but only if you're female/black etc because men/white people might attack you. But they'll insist if you're a white man then you're protected from crime by "privilege". Which is interesting because statistically men are much more often victims of violent crime.

dfxm12 3y ago

The left-wing folks aggressively deny there is any sort of problem I'm not familiar with anyone, at least in the mainstream of politics, doing this. I think it is important to note the mainstream, because we do have tons of elected officials and mainstream cable news talking heads making the "warzone" argument (and deliberately mischaracterizing any attempts at police or justice system reform).

colechristensen 3y ago
I know many people personally who do it in conversations with me. Locally we have a county attorney who ran and won on, essentially, a platform to not prosecute crimes. She's done such a bad job that in a few egregious cases the state attorney general took cases over. It has gotten to the point where there are liberal-talking-point topics that I just don't address with good friends in the same way you avoid anything political with the slightly unhinged conservative uncle. I'm not familiar with anyone, at least in the mainstream of politics, who is talking about crime and criminals in a way that seems like they are actually interested in making the situation better.
- thisgoesnowhere 3y ago
  I have yet to see a politician who has ran on "not prosecuting crime" and winning. It's a batshit crazy mega unpopular opinion that we should not prosecute crime so I'm shocked you are so close to someone who was able to succeed on that. Can you share who this person is so I can look up what they ran on?
  - colechristensen 3y ago
    Mary Moriarty, Hennepin County Attorney Of course she said she'd be tough vaguely on violent crime, then but then what she actually meant which was "In addition to prosecution and incarceration in appropriate cases, Mary’s approach to community safety will include: * Offering restorative justice practices as an option for victims. * Advocating for community-based alternatives to incarceration in appropriate cases, including supporting these alternatives at the legislature and pushing for increased funding. * Partnering with schools, families, and others to ensure children who commit crimes have options with structure and support to help them succeed. Closely coordinating with community corrections officials to improve the quality and effectiveness of supervision." One of the most egregious cases involved two teenagers who were paid to kill a young mother, they broke down her door and shot her to death in the middle of the night. Moriarty offered them a plea deal for less than 2 years in juvenile detention. https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/walz-intervenes-assigns-ag-ellison-to-handle-zaria-mckeever-murder-case/ https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/walz-intervenes-assigns-...

deanCommie 3y ago

> The left-wing folks aggressively deny there is any sort of problem and the right-wing folks insist such and such a place is a warzone and anyone who goes there should be afraid. This is contextual and is misleading without it. But it does accurately represent the ineptitude of the left and why it always loses in these situations. Here's how it goes: Problem: Society has people that are poor and mentally challenged. Both turn to drugs to cope. Drugs are illegal, increased demand increases criminality. Drug use exacerbates poverty, homelessness. Society becomes full of drug users committing petty crimes, and drug dealers perpetuating major crimes to contribute to supply. Not to mention addicts dying in the streets from overdoses. All of this in general make cities undesirable and less safe. RIGHT-WING Solution: LET'S GET TOUGH ON CRIME. Drug dealers get arrested. Drug users get arrested. For a little while the streets are cleaner and safer, and everyone is happy. But the root cause hasn't been addressed, so the same problems just return. LEFT-WING Solution: Drug use is a symptom not a root cause. And criminality is inherent to drug trade because drugs are illegal. If we legalize or decriminalize drugs we reduce the criminal element. If we give people safe injection sites they don't have to die from overdoses. And if we fund social programs we can get people out of poverty, off the streets, and into housing. PROBLEM 1: All of this is a lot harder than sending a dozen cops into a tent city and arresting a dozen homeless people. PROBLEM 2: Even if carried out PERFECTLY, there becomes an intermediate step where homeless people are seen being given funds or housing from the government which makes poor-but-not-homeless, and even middle-class people get mad saying "I work so hard, how come this person who is clearly a loser is getting all these handouts? This makes people petty and the right wing seize on it. PROBLEM 3: Going soft on drug use means in the short term you have people using drugs more openly, but not being arrested for it. This makes people grossed out and the right wing seize on it. Before you know it and before any meaningful improvements have been made, you have right wing candidates screaming that all of the problems of society are because the left is too soft, and we need to get tougher. And they usually succeed and they usually win. Because the best the left wing can do is point to statistics that show fewer homeless people are dying of poverty or drug overdoses, and the truth is most humans in society just don't care. So they deny and minimize. The reality is that out of sight out of mind, most gentle moderate even somewhat progressive people would be just as happy if homeless people "disappeared". They don't want to think about what that means. So they vote left when they feel guilty, and right when they're annoyed.