Liberal policing and policies in San Francisco

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SF is not very dangerous compared to many other American cities. It’s just that Fox News and other right wing outlets whip up republicans into a frenzy about it. Cities in red states like New Orleans, Memphis, St. Louis, Louisville, Jackson MS, Gary, and Cincinnati all have much higher murder rates. Yet it does not fit the narrative so Fox News talks about SF, even though it is wildly prosperous.

SF has its problems, but the right blows it waaay out of proportion.

There are a few major differences between SF and the cities you mention:

1. SF previously didn’t have a major crime or as an extreme of a homeless problem as it does now. Things have gotten much worse. Have things gotten that much worse in St Louis? They likely were already bad to begin with.

2. The other cities you mention have large AA populations compared to SF. New Orleans has always had a large portion of its population below the poverty line and struggled with crime. SF has a minuscule AA population which almost always result in a lower crime rate.

3. SF for many years has been a prized American city with a large amount of tourism. Do you really put St Louis in the same category in terms of what it has to offer?

I will admit that fox focused heavily on SF, but most likely because it’s such an easy story line that gets to its viewers.

What would you rather they focus on?

[Anonymous]

It was just a matter of time before this would happen.......

May he RIP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, the big problem with quality of life in SF is not crime. It is cost of living. SF is beautiful, relative safe for an American city and has pretty good weather. NIMBYism keeps housing supply low. So people can’t afford to live here. If SF was such a hellhole, the average house wouldn’t cost over 1.5 million.

It’s both. You don’t get what you pay for. Filth everywhere

With all of the tech sector billions you'd think SF should and would tax those high flyers to provide the resources to deal with the homeless and clean up the streets. For a supposedly liberal-run city it's odd that isn't happening.

In many ways the Bay Area is a culture clash between liberal and libertarian...and when it comes to economic policy, the libertarians win. The tech companies HQ'ed in SF should be paying more taxes, but they don't. In fact, for the most part, many of the biggest tech companies (e.g. AirBnB, Uber, etc) are predicated on robbing municipalities of tax dollars by falsely claiming that the previously regulated industries they are participating in are "sharing" economies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, the big problem with quality of life in SF is not crime. It is cost of living. SF is beautiful, relative safe for an American city and has pretty good weather. NIMBYism keeps housing supply low. So people can’t afford to live here. If SF was such a hellhole, the average house wouldn’t cost over 1.5 million.

It’s both. You don’t get what you pay for. Filth everywhere

With all of the tech sector billions you'd think SF should and would tax those high flyers to provide the resources to deal with the homeless and clean up the streets. For a supposedly liberal-run city it's odd that isn't happening.

They have thrown simply stupid amounts of money at the problem. It isn't a problem of resources. It is a problem of an ideology that puts the interests of those who contribute nothing to society over those who are indispensable to society.

Sprawling homeless encampments, smash and grab looting gangs, rampant vandalism and property crime of all types... these are all manifestations of an unwillingness to address the problem.

The main problem with homelessness in the Bay Area is not enough housing. Yes, there are also chronically homeless who are unhoused for complex reasons, but the bigger issue in California is lack of housing. Solving this has become completely fraught, with rich people worried about property values and some progressives arguing that increasing the wrong kind of housing stock still unfairly punishes lower income residents. Personally, I just wish it were easier to build more housing here...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, the big problem with quality of life in SF is not crime. It is cost of living. SF is beautiful, relative safe for an American city and has pretty good weather. NIMBYism keeps housing supply low. So people can’t afford to live here. If SF was such a hellhole, the average house wouldn’t cost over 1.5 million.

It’s both. You don’t get what you pay for. Filth everywhere

With all of the tech sector billions you'd think SF should and would tax those high flyers to provide the resources to deal with the homeless and clean up the streets. For a supposedly liberal-run city it's odd that isn't happening.

They have thrown simply stupid amounts of money at the problem. It isn't a problem of resources. It is a problem of an ideology that puts the interests of those who contribute nothing to society over those who are indispensable to society.

Sprawling homeless encampments, smash and grab looting gangs, rampant vandalism and property crime of all types... these are all manifestations of an unwillingness to address the problem.

The main problem with homelessness in the Bay Area is not enough housing. Yes, there are also chronically homeless who are unhoused for complex reasons, but the bigger issue in California is lack of housing. Solving this has become completely fraught, with rich people worried about property values and some progressives arguing that increasing the wrong kind of housing stock still unfairly punishes lower income residents. Personally, I just wish it were easier to build more housing here...

No it isn't.

Nobody lives in a tent on a long term basis due to a lack of housing.

Any semi-functional person who really can't find housing in SF will relocate to somewhere where they can. They aren't just going to move into a tent in the park indefinitely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, the big problem with quality of life in SF is not crime. It is cost of living. SF is beautiful, relative safe for an American city and has pretty good weather. NIMBYism keeps housing supply low. So people can’t afford to live here. If SF was such a hellhole, the average house wouldn’t cost over 1.5 million.

It’s both. You don’t get what you pay for. Filth everywhere

With all of the tech sector billions you'd think SF should and would tax those high flyers to provide the resources to deal with the homeless and clean up the streets. For a supposedly liberal-run city it's odd that isn't happening.

They have thrown simply stupid amounts of money at the problem. It isn't a problem of resources. It is a problem of an ideology that puts the interests of those who contribute nothing to society over those who are indispensable to society.

Sprawling homeless encampments, smash and grab looting gangs, rampant vandalism and property crime of all types... these are all manifestations of an unwillingness to address the problem.

The main problem with homelessness in the Bay Area is not enough housing. Yes, there are also chronically homeless who are unhoused for complex reasons, but the bigger issue in California is lack of housing. Solving this has become completely fraught, with rich people worried about property values and some progressives arguing that increasing the wrong kind of housing stock still unfairly punishes lower income residents. Personally, I just wish it were easier to build more housing here...

As always, the richest f#(&ing it up for everyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, the big problem with quality of life in SF is not crime. It is cost of living. SF is beautiful, relative safe for an American city and has pretty good weather. NIMBYism keeps housing supply low. So people can’t afford to live here. If SF was such a hellhole, the average house wouldn’t cost over 1.5 million.

It’s both. You don’t get what you pay for. Filth everywhere

With all of the tech sector billions you'd think SF should and would tax those high flyers to provide the resources to deal with the homeless and clean up the streets. For a supposedly liberal-run city it's odd that isn't happening.

In many ways the Bay Area is a culture clash between liberal and libertarian...and when it comes to economic policy, the libertarians win. The tech companies HQ'ed in SF should be paying more taxes, but they don't. In fact, for the most part, many of the biggest tech companies (e.g. AirBnB, Uber, etc) are predicated on robbing municipalities of tax dollars by falsely claiming that the previously regulated industries they are participating in are "sharing" economies.

This is an exemplar of modern left-wing thinking.

As already established the problem isn't one of lack of funding. SF's homeless are already lavishly funded by the taxpayers.

You want to raise taxes because maybe if a billion dollars a year isn't enough to solve the problem maybe $2 billion or $10 billion will work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, the big problem with quality of life in SF is not crime. It is cost of living. SF is beautiful, relative safe for an American city and has pretty good weather. NIMBYism keeps housing supply low. So people can’t afford to live here. If SF was such a hellhole, the average house wouldn’t cost over 1.5 million.

It’s both. You don’t get what you pay for. Filth everywhere

With all of the tech sector billions you'd think SF should and would tax those high flyers to provide the resources to deal with the homeless and clean up the streets. For a supposedly liberal-run city it's odd that isn't happening.

They have thrown simply stupid amounts of money at the problem. It isn't a problem of resources. It is a problem of an ideology that puts the interests of those who contribute nothing to society over those who are indispensable to society.

Sprawling homeless encampments, smash and grab looting gangs, rampant vandalism and property crime of all types... these are all manifestations of an unwillingness to address the problem.

The main problem with homelessness in the Bay Area is not enough housing. Yes, there are also chronically homeless who are unhoused for complex reasons, but the bigger issue in California is lack of housing. Solving this has become completely fraught, with rich people worried about property values and some progressives arguing that increasing the wrong kind of housing stock still unfairly punishes lower income residents. Personally, I just wish it were easier to build more housing here...

As always, the richest f#(&ing it up for everyone else.

If the richest are the ones controlling government, I totally agree.
The wealthy people who live there are not creating the policies in SF. They have a BILLION dollar budget to deal with homelessness. Look to the politicians who are squandering that $$ and not beginning to solve the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, the big problem with quality of life in SF is not crime. It is cost of living. SF is beautiful, relative safe for an American city and has pretty good weather. NIMBYism keeps housing supply low. So people can’t afford to live here. If SF was such a hellhole, the average house wouldn’t cost over 1.5 million.

It’s both. You don’t get what you pay for. Filth everywhere

With all of the tech sector billions you'd think SF should and would tax those high flyers to provide the resources to deal with the homeless and clean up the streets. For a supposedly liberal-run city it's odd that isn't happening.

They have thrown simply stupid amounts of money at the problem. It isn't a problem of resources. It is a problem of an ideology that puts the interests of those who contribute nothing to society over those who are indispensable to society.

Sprawling homeless encampments, smash and grab looting gangs, rampant vandalism and property crime of all types... these are all manifestations of an unwillingness to address the problem.

The main problem with homelessness in the Bay Area is not enough housing. Yes, there are also chronically homeless who are unhoused for complex reasons, but the bigger issue in California is lack of housing. Solving this has become completely fraught, with rich people worried about property values and some progressives arguing that increasing the wrong kind of housing stock still unfairly punishes lower income residents. Personally, I just wish it were easier to build more housing here...

As always, the richest f#(&ing it up for everyone else.

If the richest are the ones controlling government, I totally agree.
The wealthy people who live there are not creating the policies in SF. They have a BILLION dollar budget to deal with homelessness. Look to the politicians who are squandering that $$ and not beginning to solve the problem.

SF shows what the progressives can achieve with complete control of the local and state government and practically unlimited resources.

[Anonymous]

Having to pay money for goods is a racist institution of white supremacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, the big problem with quality of life in SF is not crime. It is cost of living. SF is beautiful, relative safe for an American city and has pretty good weather. NIMBYism keeps housing supply low. So people can’t afford to live here. If SF was such a hellhole, the average house wouldn’t cost over 1.5 million.

It’s both. You don’t get what you pay for. Filth everywhere

With all of the tech sector billions you'd think SF should and would tax those high flyers to provide the resources to deal with the homeless and clean up the streets. For a supposedly liberal-run city it's odd that isn't happening.

They have thrown simply stupid amounts of money at the problem. It isn't a problem of resources. It is a problem of an ideology that puts the interests of those who contribute nothing to society over those who are indispensable to society.

Sprawling homeless encampments, smash and grab looting gangs, rampant vandalism and property crime of all types... these are all manifestations of an unwillingness to address the problem.

The main problem with homelessness in the Bay Area is not enough housing. Yes, there are also chronically homeless who are unhoused for complex reasons, but the bigger issue in California is lack of housing. Solving this has become completely fraught, with rich people worried about property values and some progressives arguing that increasing the wrong kind of housing stock still unfairly punishes lower income residents. Personally, I just wish it were easier to build more housing here...

As always, the richest f#(&ing it up for everyone else.

If the richest are the ones controlling government, I totally agree.
The wealthy people who live there are not creating the policies in SF. They have a BILLION dollar budget to deal with homelessness. Look to the politicians who are squandering that $$ and not beginning to solve the problem.

SF shows what the progressives can achieve with complete control of the local and state government and practically unlimited resources.

Several posters already pointed out above that the tech-sector libertarians subvert a lot of policy in SF.

[Anonymous]

All those brilliant startups, CEOs and engineers in SF and apparently not a one of them has a clue what to do about the homeless either.

The hard and unglamorous problems are always left for government to deal with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, the big problem with quality of life in SF is not crime. It is cost of living. SF is beautiful, relative safe for an American city and has pretty good weather. NIMBYism keeps housing supply low. So people can’t afford to live here. If SF was such a hellhole, the average house wouldn’t cost over 1.5 million.

It’s both. You don’t get what you pay for. Filth everywhere

With all of the tech sector billions you'd think SF should and would tax those high flyers to provide the resources to deal with the homeless and clean up the streets. For a supposedly liberal-run city it's odd that isn't happening.

In many ways the Bay Area is a culture clash between liberal and libertarian...and when it comes to economic policy, the libertarians win. The tech companies HQ'ed in SF should be paying more taxes, but they don't. In fact, for the most part, many of the biggest tech companies (e.g. AirBnB, Uber, etc) are predicated on robbing municipalities of tax dollars by falsely claiming that the previously regulated industries they are participating in are "sharing" economies.

This is an exemplar of modern left-wing thinking.

As already established the problem isn't one of lack of funding. SF's homeless are already lavishly funded by the taxpayers.

You want to raise taxes because maybe if a billion dollars a year isn't enough to solve the problem maybe $2 billion or $10 billion will work?

Yes. It costs more to deal with homeless and clean up the mess etc than to ship them somewhere else and pay for housing. But they want this lifestyle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Having to pay money for goods is a racist institution of white supremacy.

I think we are on the right track to fix this. It’s going to take a few more years but as we see more and more republicans die off, it will get better. UBI is the answer to this problem that makes the Rich very uncomfortable.

[Anonymous]

The US is rapidly becoming a 3rd world S hole.