San Francisco is imploding

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chicago is next and after that NYC. Ironically it's all Dem run cities (I'm not GOP). Admittedly, something's wrong with the Dem cities..

big cities with black Dem mayors are not so soft on crime because they know that the people hurt most by these criminals are black people. Other than the mayor of Chicago, none of these black mayors are progressives. It's the white mayors and their white savior complex that's driving cities like SF to the ground.

https://news.yahoo.com/black-mayors-are-fighting-to-save-americas-biggest-cities-145527068.html

So.... what are you saying? It's only the white San Francisco mayors that are to blame?

Current one looks pretty black to me.

And let's not talk Baltimore or DC or Detroit or...

as stated, the non progressive black city mayors don't espouse the soft on crime progressive ideals.

“[SF Mayor Breed] Here we go, another white man talking about Black and brown people as if you're the savior of these people,” she told a progressive white city legislator who had criticized her tough approach to open-air drug markets.

Eric Adams, in New York, has also used his own past — he grew up in poverty and later served in the New York Police Department — to argue that stopping crime is the mayor’s foremost job.

https://news.yahoo.com/black-mayors-are-fighting-to-save-americas-biggest-cities-145527068.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This problem started back when Reagan decided to get people out of mental institutions. They all went to the streets. I remember it well as I was starting a career in Chicago. Most Americans had never heard the word "homeless" before that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_Health_Systems_Act_of_1980

Back when all the esteemed psychiatrists advised us that these people would be fine because of medications and should live freely. Very sadly, their lives would be much better if they were taken care of through required long-term hospitalization or group homes, rather than living on the streets.

Yup, it's always 'Reagan's fault!' when there were so many progressives back then foaming at the mouth that it was cruel and inhumane to lockup people with mental problems in govt institutions. Liberals all told us they would be fine living in the world on their own.

? no, that's not what happened. They wanted the mentally ill to be in locally controlled facilities with federally funding, but Reagan gutted the federal funds for the state run institutions.

Read the history of what happened.

https://www.kqed.org/news/11209729/did-the-emptying-of-mental-hospitals-contribute-to-homelessness-here

1981 President Reagan repeals Carter’s legislation with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. This pushes the responsibility of mentally ill patients back to the states. The legislation creates block grants for the states, but federal spending on mental illness declines.

Yes, it is exactly what happened. You clearly only think these things were passed in a vacuum and not in the historical context of the Willowbrook State School report that broke out describing all of the 'horrors' at state run institutions that left a long lasting negative view of mental institutions. That's precisely the same kind of background that was behind the one flew over the cuckoos nest. Based on the outrage, it was actually John F Kennedy and his Community Mental Health Act of 1963, a part of John F. Kennedy's "New Frontier" social programs, that led to a lot of deinstitutionalization. His policy had an immediate and dramatic effect. In his message regarding his new program, Kennedy set a quantitative target for this effort: a reduction by 50% or more of the number of patients then under custodial care, within ten or twenty years . In reality, the process of "deinstitutionalization" proceeded even more quickly and more extensively than that. By 1975, the number of patients in state and county mental hospitals had declined by 62% from the time of the President's message (65% from the peak of 559,000 in 1955). Falling further still over the next decade, the institutional census contracted to 110,000 in 1985 (NIMH 1989) despite growth in the US population and irrespective of the increasing number of mental hospital admissions over much of this period.

Carter tried to address the severe problem that Democrats and JFK started, true. And Reagan made the mistake of removing federal funding for mental institutions, which were under control of states, true. But all of this started loooooooong before Carter and Reagan got into office. It was really JFK who opened the floodgates for deinstitutionalization and who started all of the problems with our mental healthcare. The Willowbrook scandal had a lot of lasting impact, which people who only look at Reagan woefully ignore.

[Anonymous]

Has anyone posting on this thread stepped foot in San Francisco in the past year? It’s so laughably far from the hellscape you are yelling about. I go for work every two months, for about a week at a time, and it feels perfectly safe to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone posting on this thread stepped foot in San Francisco in the past year? It’s so laughably far from the hellscape you are yelling about. I go for work every two months, for about a week at a time, and it feels perfectly safe to me.

Yes, I have. It is definitely not what I would call "perfectly safe". That said, some of the descriptions are overblown and it depends on what part of town you're spending your time in.

My friends that live there explicitly told me to avoid certain streets and that was in daylight.

[Anonymous]

My sister lives there.

Basically has had her car broken into 3 times in past 2 years. Can’t leave her house unattended for more than a week as house has been broken into. She was also assaulted in March by a homeless person on her way to work. Knocked her to ground, tried to take her purse. Punched her in the face and broke her orbital bone. NO one came to help her and when police showed up. They could have cared less to look for assailant. Was in hospital for 3 days.

Yeah, they have lived there for 25 years and looking to get the hell out next year when my nephew graduates HS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone posting on this thread stepped foot in San Francisco in the past year? It’s so laughably far from the hellscape you are yelling about. I go for work every two months, for about a week at a time, and it feels perfectly safe to me.

Yes, I was unfortunately there last week and what you are doing is gaslighting, as usual. It is so far from “perfectly safe” that I just shake my head at people like you. SF is a complete $hithole now, due entirely to “progressive” policies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone posting on this thread stepped foot in San Francisco in the past year? It’s so laughably far from the hellscape you are yelling about. I go for work every two months, for about a week at a time, and it feels perfectly safe to me.

Yes. It is nasty and soaked in piss and covered in dookie. Such a filthy, foul smelling city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My sister lives there.

Basically has had her car broken into 3 times in past 2 years. Can’t leave her house unattended for more than a week as house has been broken into. She was also assaulted in March by a homeless person on her way to work. Knocked her to ground, tried to take her purse. Punched her in the face and broke her orbital bone. NO one came to help her and when police showed up. They could have cared less to look for assailant. Was in hospital for 3 days.

Yeah, they have lived there for 25 years and looking to get the hell out next year when my nephew graduates HS.

We're visiting SF friends this very second, and this is exactly what they tell us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This problem started back when Reagan decided to get people out of mental institutions. They all went to the streets. I remember it well as I was starting a career in Chicago. Most Americans had never heard the word "homeless" before that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_Health_Systems_Act_of_1980

Back when all the esteemed psychiatrists advised us that these people would be fine because of medications and should live freely. Very sadly, their lives would be much better if they were taken care of through required long-term hospitalization or group homes, rather than living on the streets.

Yup, it's always 'Reagan's fault!' when there were so many progressives back then foaming at the mouth that it was cruel and inhumane to lockup people with mental problems in govt institutions. Liberals all told us they would be fine living in the world on their own.

? no, that's not what happened. They wanted the mentally ill to be in locally controlled facilities with federally funding, but Reagan gutted the federal funds for the state run institutions.

Read the history of what happened.

https://www.kqed.org/news/11209729/did-the-emptying-of-mental-hospitals-contribute-to-homelessness-here

1981 President Reagan repeals Carter’s legislation with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. This pushes the responsibility of mentally ill patients back to the states. The legislation creates block grants for the states, but federal spending on mental illness declines.

Yes, it is exactly what happened. You clearly only think these things were passed in a vacuum and not in the historical context of the Willowbrook State School report that broke out describing all of the 'horrors' at state run institutions that left a long lasting negative view of mental institutions. That's precisely the same kind of background that was behind the one flew over the cuckoos nest. Based on the outrage, it was actually John F Kennedy and his Community Mental Health Act of 1963, a part of John F. Kennedy's "New Frontier" social programs, that led to a lot of deinstitutionalization. His policy had an immediate and dramatic effect. In his message regarding his new program, Kennedy set a quantitative target for this effort: a reduction by 50% or more of the number of patients then under custodial care, within ten or twenty years . In reality, the process of "deinstitutionalization" proceeded even more quickly and more extensively than that. By 1975, the number of patients in state and county mental hospitals had declined by 62% from the time of the President's message (65% from the peak of 559,000 in 1955). Falling further still over the next decade, the institutional census contracted to 110,000 in 1985 (NIMH 1989) despite growth in the US population and irrespective of the increasing number of mental hospital admissions over much of this period.

Carter tried to address the severe problem that Democrats and JFK started, true. And Reagan made the mistake of removing federal funding for mental institutions, which were under control of states, true. But all of this started loooooooong before Carter and Reagan got into office. It was really JFK who opened the floodgates for deinstitutionalization and who started all of the problems with our mental healthcare. The Willowbrook scandal had a lot of lasting impact, which people who only look at Reagan woefully ignore.

Whatever Kennedy did, it was not to kill off the federal funds for mental health hospitals, nor did he push off the responsibility to the states. He wanted to actually create more humane mental hospitals.

1963 President John F. Kennedy signs the Community Mental Health Act. This pushes the responsibility of mentally ill patients from the state toward the federal government. JFK wanted to create a network of community mental health centers where mentally ill people could live in the community while receiving care. JFK could have been inspired to act because his younger sister, Rosemary, was mentally disabled, received a lobotomy and spent her life hidden away.

Less than a month after signing the new legislation, JFK is assassinated. The community mental health centers never receive stable funding, and even 15 years later less than half the promised centers are built.

Historically, people with mental disability were put in mental institutions rather than care homes. That's what he was trying to prevent. He did not want full scale de-institutionalization, which you are trying to make it out to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This problem started back when Reagan decided to get people out of mental institutions. They all went to the streets. I remember it well as I was starting a career in Chicago. Most Americans had never heard the word "homeless" before that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_Health_Systems_Act_of_1980

Back when all the esteemed psychiatrists advised us that these people would be fine because of medications and should live freely. Very sadly, their lives would be much better if they were taken care of through required long-term hospitalization or group homes, rather than living on the streets.

Yup, it's always 'Reagan's fault!' when there were so many progressives back then foaming at the mouth that it was cruel and inhumane to lockup people with mental problems in govt institutions. Liberals all told us they would be fine living in the world on their own.

? no, that's not what happened. They wanted the mentally ill to be in locally controlled facilities with federally funding, but Reagan gutted the federal funds for the state run institutions.

Read the history of what happened.

https://www.kqed.org/news/11209729/did-the-emptying-of-mental-hospitals-contribute-to-homelessness-here

1981 President Reagan repeals Carter’s legislation with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. This pushes the responsibility of mentally ill patients back to the states. The legislation creates block grants for the states, but federal spending on mental illness declines.

Yes, it is exactly what happened. You clearly only think these things were passed in a vacuum and not in the historical context of the Willowbrook State School report that broke out describing all of the 'horrors' at state run institutions that left a long lasting negative view of mental institutions. That's precisely the same kind of background that was behind the one flew over the cuckoos nest. Based on the outrage, it was actually John F Kennedy and his Community Mental Health Act of 1963, a part of John F. Kennedy's "New Frontier" social programs, that led to a lot of deinstitutionalization. His policy had an immediate and dramatic effect. In his message regarding his new program, Kennedy set a quantitative target for this effort: a reduction by 50% or more of the number of patients then under custodial care, within ten or twenty years . In reality, the process of "deinstitutionalization" proceeded even more quickly and more extensively than that. By 1975, the number of patients in state and county mental hospitals had declined by 62% from the time of the President's message (65% from the peak of 559,000 in 1955). Falling further still over the next decade, the institutional census contracted to 110,000 in 1985 (NIMH 1989) despite growth in the US population and irrespective of the increasing number of mental hospital admissions over much of this period.

Carter tried to address the severe problem that Democrats and JFK started, true. And Reagan made the mistake of removing federal funding for mental institutions, which were under control of states, true. But all of this started loooooooong before Carter and Reagan got into office. It was really JFK who opened the floodgates for deinstitutionalization and who started all of the problems with our mental healthcare. The Willowbrook scandal had a lot of lasting impact, which people who only look at Reagan woefully ignore.

Whatever Kennedy did, it was not to kill off the federal funds for mental health hospitals, nor did he push off the responsibility to the states. He wanted to actually create more humane mental hospitals.

1963 President John F. Kennedy signs the Community Mental Health Act. This pushes the responsibility of mentally ill patients from the state toward the federal government. JFK wanted to create a network of community mental health centers where mentally ill people could live in the community while receiving care. JFK could have been inspired to act because his younger sister, Rosemary, was mentally disabled, received a lobotomy and spent her life hidden away.

Less than a month after signing the new legislation, JFK is assassinated. The community mental health centers never receive stable funding, and even 15 years later less than half the promised centers are built.

Historically, people with mental disability were put in mental institutions rather than care homes. That's what he was trying to prevent. He did not want full scale de-institutionalization, which you are trying to make it out to be.

Except that's exactly what JFK's policies led to - virtually full scale deinstitutionalization after the Willowbrook scandal. Facts are facts.

Whether or not deinstitutionalization was intended doesn't matter, the results in the end showed that's exactly what happened because of JFK. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The US' mental health problems started looooong before Carter and Reagan because of JFK's policies in response to Willowbrook.

[Anonymous]

London Breed should be reading this.

What is she plan to make her city safe again? Safe enough for federal employees to be able to go to work on person? For people to walk down the street and it step over feces, needles? Not to have cars broken into every second. And Nothing is die about it. The mayor and previous Mayors including Newsom should never be allowed to hold office again for letting this happen to their citizens. It’s an awful embarrassment to the rest of the world. Progressive policies at their best!!! Yeah right. Progressive policies of no bail, no arrest, no persecution, allowing shoplifting lead to this crap!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone posting on this thread stepped foot in San Francisco in the past year? It’s so laughably far from the hellscape you are yelling about. I go for work every two months, for about a week at a time, and it feels perfectly safe to me.

Yes, I have a child living there and I travel there frequently as we have real estate there. I don't understand what exactly are you denying. We do want a lot of policies that are in place in California to be implemented across the US because they are the best policies for Americans. But denying it? Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, it’s official. San Francisco is an unsafe disaster of crime and drugs. Where is the mayor? Where is the Governor? How could they let this happen.



Federal Employees are now advised Not To Go To Work and the Pelosi federal building in downtown San Fran is it is too Unsafe due to crime and drugs!!!!!! So if it’s not safe for Federal Employees to go to work in person, how is it safe for any resident??

https://www.newsweek.com/san-francisco-federal-workers-told-work-remotely-drug-crime-1819791?amp=1

Is this a joke? When I worked at the federal site in Suitland 10 years ago, we had shots fired into the complex and just outside the complex — regularly. I grew up in an inner city so it didn’t rattle me quite the same way as some of my colleagues. The bullet holes in our office walls and the murder of the flower shop ladies did hit home but still BUT WE WENT TO THE OFFICE.

It is hard to believe that the feds are telling its employees and contractors not to go into the office there bc of crime and drugs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:London Breed should be reading this.

What is she plan to make her city safe again? Safe enough for federal employees to be able to go to work on person? For people to walk down the street and it step over feces, needles? Not to have cars broken into every second. And Nothing is die about it. The mayor and previous Mayors including Newsom should never be allowed to hold office again for letting this happen to their citizens. It’s an awful embarrassment to the rest of the world. Progressive policies at their best!!! Yeah right. Progressive policies of no bail, no arrest, no persecution, allowing shoplifting lead to this crap!

London Breed already knows, and she's telling the progressive saviors that they don't know what's better for poor black people.

Hopefully the progressive white people will listen.

“Bullshit.”

With that one word, London Breed became a national star. It was December, 2021, and though the pandemic was receding, San Francisco’s struggles with crime, drug use and homelessness were getting worse. In an emotional press conference, the mayor declared that she’d had enough of street crime and open-air drug use.

“We are not a city where anything goes,” she said.

Breed was raised in a housing project by her grandmother; her brother, Napoleon, is in prison for involuntary manslaughter. Those experiences have allowed Breed to speak about criminal justice issues with a unique combination of compassion and resolve.

“Here we go, another white man talking about Black and brown people as if you're the savior of these people,” she told a progressive white city legislator who had criticized her tough approach to open-air drug markets.

https://news.yahoo.com/black-mayors-are-fighting-to-save-americas-biggest-cities-145527068.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone posting on this thread stepped foot in San Francisco in the past year? It’s so laughably far from the hellscape you are yelling about. I go for work every two months, for about a week at a time, and it feels perfectly safe to me.

Yes, I was unfortunately there last week and what you are doing is gaslighting, as usual. It is so far from “perfectly safe” that I just shake my head at people like you. SF is a complete $hithole now, due entirely to “progressive” policies.

Charles Barkley brought it up during the playoffs. Youtube has disappeared most of the videos. Found this shorter version.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MNs7Wc6LLM