San Francisco is imploding

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Quality of life there gas deteriorated. No amount of gaslighting can change that.

Quality of life has deteriorated throughout the entire country. Much more so in rural areas than any major Democratic controlled city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

"Crime is worse than the data shows," Charles "Cully" Stimson, Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow and former prosecutor in San Francisco, told Fox News Digital.

"People do not report these crimes because when you have a DA who's pro criminal and not going to enforce the law, the cops aren't going to go out and arrest somebody when they know the case is going to be no papered."

The first problem, according to Stimson, was the election of a Soros-backed D.A. with a reputation as soft of crime.

Stimson was referring to former San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón, who served in that role from January 2011 until October 2019. Stimson argued that Gascón's term ushered in a new era of rising crime in San Francisco, which had been experiencing nearly two decades of tumbling crime rates at the same time as many other major cities across the country.

Stimson argued that as Gascón's policies started to take hold in the city, crime started to rise around 2015 and 2016. The city's residents got no reprieve from the problem when Gascón left office, thanks to similar policies of former District Attorney Chesa Boudin from January 2020 until he was recalled in July 2022.

"Those policies include not prosecuting any misdemeanors, watering down most felonies to misdemeanors, not asking for long prison sentences even for people who are convicted of the worst crimes, never asking for bail," Stimson said.

Citing FBI and Justice Department data, Stimson pointed out that in the five years before Gascón took office in 2011, there were 757 reported rapes, an average of 151 per year, in San Francisco. But in Gascón's last five years in office, the city had a total of 1,731 reported rapes, or 346 per year.

"You always know with rape … the number of people actually raped is much higher than the number of people who report that they were raped," Stimson said.

He also pointed to aggravated assaults, which, in the five years before Gascón's tenure, tallied up to 11,921 reported incidents, or 2,384 per year. In the last five years of Gascón's term, that number jumped to 13,070, or 2,614 per year.

Such policies continued under the watch of Boudin, producing crime numbers that continued to hover well over pre-2011 rates.

San Francisco's crime issues did not stop with violent crime. The city has also had a surge of retail thefts that have forced many businesses to close their doors in recent years.

"Gascón and Boudin refused to prosecute retail thefts," Stimson said, citing a policy in which retails thefts under $1,000 went unprosecuted.

"You've seen the videos of people just engaging in the five-finger discount, walking into Target, walking into Nordstrom Rack … and just walking out during daylight with $950 worth of stuff," Stimson said. "They refused to prosecute any of that."

The lack of any serious threat of prosecution led many city residents and businesses to stop reporting the crimes altogether, a reality that has resulted in what is likely a vast undercount of such crimes in available statistics, he claimed.

So then zero evidence of his claims. Hm. How can he know about or quantify the many unreported crimes if they were not reported? Should be a simple question to answer but you can’t. It’s all opinion bullsht not real news. Fox is a propaganda machine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quality of life there gas deteriorated. No amount of gaslighting can change that.

Quality of life has deteriorated throughout the entire country. Much more so in rural areas than any major Democratic controlled city.

Haven't noticed any deterioration in my neck of a very rural area. Cost of living has gone up (Thanks, Brandon), but crime is not up at all.
We have businesses relocating here and opening up - not closing down.
I am not afraid of walking the streets in the small towns nearby or in my rural area - at night or anytime - for fear of being a victim of a random attacker.
There's a better chance of encountering a coyote or bear than being a victim of crime.
I can't say the same about SF, or many other large cities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much of San Francisco’s housing problem was caused by unregulated foreign money in real estate. We need to stop selling our country to other countries and non-citizens.

Do you really think that a passed-out drug addict lying on the sidewalk would be all that much better off with a roof over his head? Any apartment you put him in would be a filthy wreck within a month. SF has a drug and crime problem that dwarfs other issues like a housing shortage.

But San Francisco actually has a far lower crime rate than many other cities - same with residents with substance abuse problems.

San Francisco has many problems to be solved - but one issue it does NOT have is being a uniquely unsafe city when it comes to crime rates. That doesn't mean that San Francisco shouldn't address the crime in the city that his harming residents - but it's false to suggest that San Francisco's problems are 'because of crime'.

There's also foreign purchasing in San Fran that probably is driving up housing costs - but you can say the same about NYC, LA, Miami, and Chicago. And if this is your grievance - what level of government do you propose will solve it...and what is the constituency of politicians who will support solving it>

When you stop arresting people that commit crime (e.g. people who walk into walgreens take a whole bunch of stuff and simply walk out), of course your rate of crime appears to be 'lower'. There are many ways to manipulate crime stats. But the fact that whole foods had to close in my not like a year due to outrageous levels of theft and safety issues speaks volumes. Now residents are left with a food desert.

Wrong. You can’t hide statistical death rates by not arresting people. Death rates are far higher in rural right wing areas.

Death rates are only one indicator of crime.

The crime you’re ignoring are things like theft and car break ins. They have become rampant in SF, and they are not victimless crimes. The police don’t even bother to come out, so they go severely underreported on any official statistics.

This is the day to day stuff that contributes to the sense of lawlessness.

Look at how the conservatives contort themselves to argue their BS! Move those goalposts!

I thought we were discussing actual crime but now it’s all about a “sense of lawlessness” that is the main problem? Facts be damned! How can anyone define or measure your vague “sense” in the first place? Yep, you may die a violent death in Montana but we should really be focused on San Fran and the fuzzy gut feelings of random internet person who hates democrats. They can’t prove it or show any evidence but they are certain that it’s happening because their friend told them. Or Tucker.

Contort what facts?

Clearly you chose to ignore the article, which discussed the dire straits the city is now in with an $800M budget shortfall. A lot of the shortfall stems from the fact the city is seeing a lot less revenue from property transfer taxes and because there are now huge amounts of vacant office space. Gee, who'd have ever guessed that WFH has liberated people from having to live in SF when they're not required to be there for stupid office culture. People now are now less interested in buying property in SF and no one wants to open up offices/businesses in the city because of crime, homelessness, and open drug use. SF is now one of the worst markets in terms of price correction now that WFH is here. If the doom loop keeps happening, it is only going to get worse. No one wants to live in a city where you have to dodge poop, needles, and have food/pharmacy deserts because criminals re allowed to steal with impunity which causes stores to close.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quality of life there gas deteriorated. No amount of gaslighting can change that.

Quality of life has deteriorated throughout the entire country. Much more so in rural areas than any major Democratic controlled city.

Haven't noticed any deterioration in my neck of a very rural area. Cost of living has gone up (Thanks, Brandon), but crime is not up at all.
We have businesses relocating here and opening up - not closing down.
I am not afraid of walking the streets in the small towns nearby or in my rural area - at night or anytime - for fear of being a victim of a random attacker.
There's a better chance of encountering a coyote or bear than being a victim of crime.
I can't say the same about SF, or many other large cities.

Of course not. Your biased perception is certainly a valid counterpoint to statistical data. Republican education at its finest!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much of San Francisco’s housing problem was caused by unregulated foreign money in real estate. We need to stop selling our country to other countries and non-citizens.

Do you really think that a passed-out drug addict lying on the sidewalk would be all that much better off with a roof over his head? Any apartment you put him in would be a filthy wreck within a month. SF has a drug and crime problem that dwarfs other issues like a housing shortage.

But San Francisco actually has a far lower crime rate than many other cities - same with residents with substance abuse problems.

San Francisco has many problems to be solved - but one issue it does NOT have is being a uniquely unsafe city when it comes to crime rates. That doesn't mean that San Francisco shouldn't address the crime in the city that his harming residents - but it's false to suggest that San Francisco's problems are 'because of crime'.

There's also foreign purchasing in San Fran that probably is driving up housing costs - but you can say the same about NYC, LA, Miami, and Chicago. And if this is your grievance - what level of government do you propose will solve it...and what is the constituency of politicians who will support solving it>

When you stop arresting people that commit crime (e.g. people who walk into walgreens take a whole bunch of stuff and simply walk out), of course your rate of crime appears to be 'lower'. There are many ways to manipulate crime stats. But the fact that whole foods had to close in my not like a year due to outrageous levels of theft and safety issues speaks volumes. Now residents are left with a food desert.

Wrong. You can’t hide statistical death rates by not arresting people. Death rates are far higher in rural right wing areas.

Death rates are only one indicator of crime.

The crime you’re ignoring are things like theft and car break ins. They have become rampant in SF, and they are not victimless crimes. The police don’t even bother to come out, so they go severely underreported on any official statistics.

This is the day to day stuff that contributes to the sense of lawlessness.

Look at how the conservatives contort themselves to argue their BS! Move those goalposts!

I thought we were discussing actual crime but now it’s all about a “sense of lawlessness” that is the main problem? Facts be damned! How can anyone define or measure your vague “sense” in the first place? Yep, you may die a violent death in Montana but we should really be focused on San Fran and the fuzzy gut feelings of random internet person who hates democrats. They can’t prove it or show any evidence but they are certain that it’s happening because their friend told them. Or Tucker.

Contort what facts?

Clearly you chose to ignore the article, which discussed the dire straits the city is now in with an $800M budget shortfall. A lot of the shortfall stems from the fact the city is seeing a lot less revenue from property transfer taxes and because there are now huge amounts of vacant office space. Gee, who'd have ever guessed that WFH has liberated people from having to live in SF when they're not required to be there for stupid office culture. People now are now less interested in buying property in SF and no one wants to open up offices/businesses in the city because of crime, homelessness, and open drug use. SF is now one of the worst markets in terms of price correction now that WFH is here. If the doom loop keeps happening, it is only going to get worse. No one wants to live in a city where you have to dodge poop, needles, and have food/pharmacy deserts because criminals re allowed to steal with impunity which causes stores to close.

The facts posted above that prove that San Fran is safer and more economically sound than much of Red America, rural or urban. Your attempts to find fault with anything related to Democrats is obvious. You are just another partisan nut job that denies facts and data. Have you even been to San Fran?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much of San Francisco’s housing problem was caused by unregulated foreign money in real estate. We need to stop selling our country to other countries and non-citizens.

Do you really think that a passed-out drug addict lying on the sidewalk would be all that much better off with a roof over his head? Any apartment you put him in would be a filthy wreck within a month. SF has a drug and crime problem that dwarfs other issues like a housing shortage.

But San Francisco actually has a far lower crime rate than many other cities - same with residents with substance abuse problems.

San Francisco has many problems to be solved - but one issue it does NOT have is being a uniquely unsafe city when it comes to crime rates. That doesn't mean that San Francisco shouldn't address the crime in the city that his harming residents - but it's false to suggest that San Francisco's problems are 'because of crime'.

There's also foreign purchasing in San Fran that probably is driving up housing costs - but you can say the same about NYC, LA, Miami, and Chicago. And if this is your grievance - what level of government do you propose will solve it...and what is the constituency of politicians who will support solving it>

When you stop arresting people that commit crime (e.g. people who walk into walgreens take a whole bunch of stuff and simply walk out), of course your rate of crime appears to be 'lower'. There are many ways to manipulate crime stats. But the fact that whole foods had to close in my not like a year due to outrageous levels of theft and safety issues speaks volumes. Now residents are left with a food desert.

Wrong. You can’t hide statistical death rates by not arresting people. Death rates are far higher in rural right wing areas.

Death rates are only one indicator of crime.

The crime you’re ignoring are things like theft and car break ins. They have become rampant in SF, and they are not victimless crimes. The police don’t even bother to come out, so they go severely underreported on any official statistics.

This is the day to day stuff that contributes to the sense of lawlessness.

Look at how the conservatives contort themselves to argue their BS! Move those goalposts!

I thought we were discussing actual crime but now it’s all about a “sense of lawlessness” that is the main problem? Facts be damned! How can anyone define or measure your vague “sense” in the first place? Yep, you may die a violent death in Montana but we should really be focused on San Fran and the fuzzy gut feelings of random internet person who hates democrats. They can’t prove it or show any evidence but they are certain that it’s happening because their friend told them. Or Tucker.

Contort what facts?

Clearly you chose to ignore the article, which discussed the dire straits the city is now in with an $800M budget shortfall. A lot of the shortfall stems from the fact the city is seeing a lot less revenue from property transfer taxes and because there are now huge amounts of vacant office space. Gee, who'd have ever guessed that WFH has liberated people from having to live in SF when they're not required to be there for stupid office culture. People now are now less interested in buying property in SF and no one wants to open up offices/businesses in the city because of crime, homelessness, and open drug use. SF is now one of the worst markets in terms of price correction now that WFH is here. If the doom loop keeps happening, it is only going to get worse. No one wants to live in a city where you have to dodge poop, needles, and have food/pharmacy deserts because criminals re allowed to steal with impunity which causes stores to close.

The facts posted above that prove that San Fran is safer and more economically sound than much of Red America, rural or urban. Your attempts to find fault with anything related to Democrats is obvious. You are just another partisan nut job that denies facts and data. Have you even been to San Fran?

I'm laughing. For someone to really believe this!

Sure, SF has the economic edge with jobs and access. But to claim that it's safer than "red America" is a weird form of denial and distorting data to fit a narrative. I'd much rather live in SF than most of rural America and the sticks hold no appeal for me, but small towns are unquestionably safer and have less crime and violence than places like parts of San Francisco or DC or Baltimore or Detroit or NYC. The sticks have their own problems and weirdo voters with a fetish for banning abortion but personal safety is not one of them. I spend a fair amount of time in MAGAland and put it this way, they're not shutting down stores because of massive shoplifting or prosecutors refusing to prosecute or the police refusing to report to crime scenes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quality of life there gas deteriorated. No amount of gaslighting can change that.

Quality of life has deteriorated throughout the entire country. Much more so in rural areas than any major Democratic controlled city.

100% false. Just came back to DC from two weeks in rural Eastern NC. Now my wife and I are house shopping. QOL is off the charts. Political climate is better, actual climate is better, cost of living is half, etc.

That’s just your biased opinion. Show me objective data because every statistic that I can find shows no such thing. Let me show you my sources and then you can show me your own maps that prove me wrong. But you can’t. Because you are wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much of San Francisco’s housing problem was caused by unregulated foreign money in real estate. We need to stop selling our country to other countries and non-citizens.

Do you really think that a passed-out drug addict lying on the sidewalk would be all that much better off with a roof over his head? Any apartment you put him in would be a filthy wreck within a month. SF has a drug and crime problem that dwarfs other issues like a housing shortage.

But San Francisco actually has a far lower crime rate than many other cities - same with residents with substance abuse problems.

San Francisco has many problems to be solved - but one issue it does NOT have is being a uniquely unsafe city when it comes to crime rates. That doesn't mean that San Francisco shouldn't address the crime in the city that his harming residents - but it's false to suggest that San Francisco's problems are 'because of crime'.

There's also foreign purchasing in San Fran that probably is driving up housing costs - but you can say the same about NYC, LA, Miami, and Chicago. And if this is your grievance - what level of government do you propose will solve it...and what is the constituency of politicians who will support solving it>

When you stop arresting people that commit crime (e.g. people who walk into walgreens take a whole bunch of stuff and simply walk out), of course your rate of crime appears to be 'lower'. There are many ways to manipulate crime stats. But the fact that whole foods had to close in my not like a year due to outrageous levels of theft and safety issues speaks volumes. Now residents are left with a food desert.

Wrong. You can’t hide statistical death rates by not arresting people. Death rates are far higher in rural right wing areas.

Death rates are only one indicator of crime.

The crime you’re ignoring are things like theft and car break ins. They have become rampant in SF, and they are not victimless crimes. The police don’t even bother to come out, so they go severely underreported on any official statistics.

This is the day to day stuff that contributes to the sense of lawlessness.

Look at how the conservatives contort themselves to argue their BS! Move those goalposts!

I thought we were discussing actual crime but now it’s all about a “sense of lawlessness” that is the main problem? Facts be damned! How can anyone define or measure your vague “sense” in the first place? Yep, you may die a violent death in Montana but we should really be focused on San Fran and the fuzzy gut feelings of random internet person who hates democrats. They can’t prove it or show any evidence but they are certain that it’s happening because their friend told them. Or Tucker.

Contort what facts?

Clearly you chose to ignore the article, which discussed the dire straits the city is now in with an $800M budget shortfall. A lot of the shortfall stems from the fact the city is seeing a lot less revenue from property transfer taxes and because there are now huge amounts of vacant office space. Gee, who'd have ever guessed that WFH has liberated people from having to live in SF when they're not required to be there for stupid office culture. People now are now less interested in buying property in SF and no one wants to open up offices/businesses in the city because of crime, homelessness, and open drug use. SF is now one of the worst markets in terms of price correction now that WFH is here. If the doom loop keeps happening, it is only going to get worse. No one wants to live in a city where you have to dodge poop, needles, and have food/pharmacy deserts because criminals re allowed to steal with impunity which causes stores to close.

The facts posted above that prove that San Fran is safer and more economically sound than much of Red America, rural or urban. Your attempts to find fault with anything related to Democrats is obvious. You are just another partisan nut job that denies facts and data. Have you even been to San Fran?

I've been to SF multiple times for business. It is nasty. Urine smells permeate everywhere. I've seen multiple people defecate in the streets and mounds of poop on sidewalks in the heart of the city. So disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much of San Francisco’s housing problem was caused by unregulated foreign money in real estate. We need to stop selling our country to other countries and non-citizens.

Do you really think that a passed-out drug addict lying on the sidewalk would be all that much better off with a roof over his head? Any apartment you put him in would be a filthy wreck within a month. SF has a drug and crime problem that dwarfs other issues like a housing shortage.

But San Francisco actually has a far lower crime rate than many other cities - same with residents with substance abuse problems.

San Francisco has many problems to be solved - but one issue it does NOT have is being a uniquely unsafe city when it comes to crime rates. That doesn't mean that San Francisco shouldn't address the crime in the city that his harming residents - but it's false to suggest that San Francisco's problems are 'because of crime'.

There's also foreign purchasing in San Fran that probably is driving up housing costs - but you can say the same about NYC, LA, Miami, and Chicago. And if this is your grievance - what level of government do you propose will solve it...and what is the constituency of politicians who will support solving it>

When you stop arresting people that commit crime (e.g. people who walk into walgreens take a whole bunch of stuff and simply walk out), of course your rate of crime appears to be 'lower'. There are many ways to manipulate crime stats. But the fact that whole foods had to close in my not like a year due to outrageous levels of theft and safety issues speaks volumes. Now residents are left with a food desert.

Wrong. You can’t hide statistical death rates by not arresting people. Death rates are far higher in rural right wing areas.

Death rates are only one indicator of crime.

The crime you’re ignoring are things like theft and car break ins. They have become rampant in SF, and they are not victimless crimes. The police don’t even bother to come out, so they go severely underreported on any official statistics.

This is the day to day stuff that contributes to the sense of lawlessness.

Look at how the conservatives contort themselves to argue their BS! Move those goalposts!

I thought we were discussing actual crime but now it’s all about a “sense of lawlessness” that is the main problem? Facts be damned! How can anyone define or measure your vague “sense” in the first place? Yep, you may die a violent death in Montana but we should really be focused on San Fran and the fuzzy gut feelings of random internet person who hates democrats. They can’t prove it or show any evidence but they are certain that it’s happening because their friend told them. Or Tucker.

Contort what facts?

Clearly you chose to ignore the article, which discussed the dire straits the city is now in with an $800M budget shortfall. A lot of the shortfall stems from the fact the city is seeing a lot less revenue from property transfer taxes and because there are now huge amounts of vacant office space. Gee, who'd have ever guessed that WFH has liberated people from having to live in SF when they're not required to be there for stupid office culture. People now are now less interested in buying property in SF and no one wants to open up offices/businesses in the city because of crime, homelessness, and open drug use. SF is now one of the worst markets in terms of price correction now that WFH is here. If the doom loop keeps happening, it is only going to get worse. No one wants to live in a city where you have to dodge poop, needles, and have food/pharmacy deserts because criminals re allowed to steal with impunity which causes stores to close.

The facts posted above that prove that San Fran is safer and more economically sound than much of Red America, rural or urban. Your attempts to find fault with anything related to Democrats is obvious. You are just another partisan nut job that denies facts and data. Have you even been to San Fran?

I'm laughing. For someone to really believe this!

Sure, SF has the economic edge with jobs and access. But to claim that it's safer than "red America" is a weird form of denial and distorting data to fit a narrative. I'd much rather live in SF than most of rural America and the sticks hold no appeal for me, but small towns are unquestionably safer and have less crime and violence than places like parts of San Francisco or DC or Baltimore or Detroit or NYC. The sticks have their own problems and weirdo voters with a fetish for banning abortion but personal safety is not one of them. I spend a fair amount of time in MAGAland and put it this way, they're not shutting down stores because of massive shoplifting or prosecutors refusing to prosecute or the police refusing to report to crime scenes.

I literally posted the proof above. You have refuted nothing about the data at all. You have nothing but innuendo and anecdotes.

Let me show you one more time. Facts. Numbers ya know?

Deaths from selected external causes* per 100K population, 2020
Big Horn county, MT: 168.4
Calhoun County, MS: 161.5
Phillips County, AR: 138.7

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much of San Francisco’s housing problem was caused by unregulated foreign money in real estate. We need to stop selling our country to other countries and non-citizens.

Do you really think that a passed-out drug addict lying on the sidewalk would be all that much better off with a roof over his head? Any apartment you put him in would be a filthy wreck within a month. SF has a drug and crime problem that dwarfs other issues like a housing shortage.

But San Francisco actually has a far lower crime rate than many other cities - same with residents with substance abuse problems.

San Francisco has many problems to be solved - but one issue it does NOT have is being a uniquely unsafe city when it comes to crime rates. That doesn't mean that San Francisco shouldn't address the crime in the city that his harming residents - but it's false to suggest that San Francisco's problems are 'because of crime'.

There's also foreign purchasing in San Fran that probably is driving up housing costs - but you can say the same about NYC, LA, Miami, and Chicago. And if this is your grievance - what level of government do you propose will solve it...and what is the constituency of politicians who will support solving it>

When you stop arresting people that commit crime (e.g. people who walk into walgreens take a whole bunch of stuff and simply walk out), of course your rate of crime appears to be 'lower'. There are many ways to manipulate crime stats. But the fact that whole foods had to close in my not like a year due to outrageous levels of theft and safety issues speaks volumes. Now residents are left with a food desert.

Wrong. You can’t hide statistical death rates by not arresting people. Death rates are far higher in rural right wing areas.

Death rates are only one indicator of crime.

The crime you’re ignoring are things like theft and car break ins. They have become rampant in SF, and they are not victimless crimes. The police don’t even bother to come out, so they go severely underreported on any official statistics.

This is the day to day stuff that contributes to the sense of lawlessness.

Look at how the conservatives contort themselves to argue their BS! Move those goalposts!

I thought we were discussing actual crime but now it’s all about a “sense of lawlessness” that is the main problem? Facts be damned! How can anyone define or measure your vague “sense” in the first place? Yep, you may die a violent death in Montana but we should really be focused on San Fran and the fuzzy gut feelings of random internet person who hates democrats. They can’t prove it or show any evidence but they are certain that it’s happening because their friend told them. Or Tucker.

Contort what facts?

Clearly you chose to ignore the article, which discussed the dire straits the city is now in with an $800M budget shortfall. A lot of the shortfall stems from the fact the city is seeing a lot less revenue from property transfer taxes and because there are now huge amounts of vacant office space. Gee, who'd have ever guessed that WFH has liberated people from having to live in SF when they're not required to be there for stupid office culture. People now are now less interested in buying property in SF and no one wants to open up offices/businesses in the city because of crime, homelessness, and open drug use. SF is now one of the worst markets in terms of price correction now that WFH is here. If the doom loop keeps happening, it is only going to get worse. No one wants to live in a city where you have to dodge poop, needles, and have food/pharmacy deserts because criminals re allowed to steal with impunity which causes stores to close.

The facts posted above that prove that San Fran is safer and more economically sound than much of Red America, rural or urban. Your attempts to find fault with anything related to Democrats is obvious. You are just another partisan nut job that denies facts and data. Have you even been to San Fran?

I'm laughing. For someone to really believe this!

Sure, SF has the economic edge with jobs and access. But to claim that it's safer than "red America" is a weird form of denial and distorting data to fit a narrative. I'd much rather live in SF than most of rural America and the sticks hold no appeal for me, but small towns are unquestionably safer and have less crime and violence than places like parts of San Francisco or DC or Baltimore or Detroit or NYC. The sticks have their own problems and weirdo voters with a fetish for banning abortion but personal safety is not one of them. I spend a fair amount of time in MAGAland and put it this way, they're not shutting down stores because of massive shoplifting or prosecutors refusing to prosecute or the police refusing to report to crime scenes.

I literally posted the proof above. You have refuted nothing about the data at all. You have nothing but innuendo and anecdotes.

Let me show you one more time. Facts. Numbers ya know?

Deaths from selected external causes* per 100K population, 2020
Big Horn county, MT: 168.4
Calhoun County, MS: 161.5
Phillips County, AR: 138.7

San Francisco-Oakland Metropolitan Area: 16.9

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much of San Francisco’s housing problem was caused by unregulated foreign money in real estate. We need to stop selling our country to other countries and non-citizens.

Do you really think that a passed-out drug addict lying on the sidewalk would be all that much better off with a roof over his head? Any apartment you put him in would be a filthy wreck within a month. SF has a drug and crime problem that dwarfs other issues like a housing shortage.

But San Francisco actually has a far lower crime rate than many other cities - same with residents with substance abuse problems.

San Francisco has many problems to be solved - but one issue it does NOT have is being a uniquely unsafe city when it comes to crime rates. That doesn't mean that San Francisco shouldn't address the crime in the city that his harming residents - but it's false to suggest that San Francisco's problems are 'because of crime'.

There's also foreign purchasing in San Fran that probably is driving up housing costs - but you can say the same about NYC, LA, Miami, and Chicago. And if this is your grievance - what level of government do you propose will solve it...and what is the constituency of politicians who will support solving it>

When you stop arresting people that commit crime (e.g. people who walk into walgreens take a whole bunch of stuff and simply walk out), of course your rate of crime appears to be 'lower'. There are many ways to manipulate crime stats. But the fact that whole foods had to close in my not like a year due to outrageous levels of theft and safety issues speaks volumes. Now residents are left with a food desert.

Wrong. You can’t hide statistical death rates by not arresting people. Death rates are far higher in rural right wing areas.

Death rates are only one indicator of crime.

The crime you’re ignoring are things like theft and car break ins. They have become rampant in SF, and they are not victimless crimes. The police don’t even bother to come out, so they go severely underreported on any official statistics.

This is the day to day stuff that contributes to the sense of lawlessness.

Look at how the conservatives contort themselves to argue their BS! Move those goalposts!

I thought we were discussing actual crime but now it’s all about a “sense of lawlessness” that is the main problem? Facts be damned! How can anyone define or measure your vague “sense” in the first place? Yep, you may die a violent death in Montana but we should really be focused on San Fran and the fuzzy gut feelings of random internet person who hates democrats. They can’t prove it or show any evidence but they are certain that it’s happening because their friend told them. Or Tucker.

Contort what facts?

Clearly you chose to ignore the article, which discussed the dire straits the city is now in with an $800M budget shortfall. A lot of the shortfall stems from the fact the city is seeing a lot less revenue from property transfer taxes and because there are now huge amounts of vacant office space. Gee, who'd have ever guessed that WFH has liberated people from having to live in SF when they're not required to be there for stupid office culture. People now are now less interested in buying property in SF and no one wants to open up offices/businesses in the city because of crime, homelessness, and open drug use. SF is now one of the worst markets in terms of price correction now that WFH is here. If the doom loop keeps happening, it is only going to get worse. No one wants to live in a city where you have to dodge poop, needles, and have food/pharmacy deserts because criminals re allowed to steal with impunity which causes stores to close.

The facts posted above that prove that San Fran is safer and more economically sound than much of Red America, rural or urban. Your attempts to find fault with anything related to Democrats is obvious. You are just another partisan nut job that denies facts and data. Have you even been to San Fran?

I'm laughing. For someone to really believe this!

Sure, SF has the economic edge with jobs and access. But to claim that it's safer than "red America" is a weird form of denial and distorting data to fit a narrative. I'd much rather live in SF than most of rural America and the sticks hold no appeal for me, but small towns are unquestionably safer and have less crime and violence than places like parts of San Francisco or DC or Baltimore or Detroit or NYC. The sticks have their own problems and weirdo voters with a fetish for banning abortion but personal safety is not one of them. I spend a fair amount of time in MAGAland and put it this way, they're not shutting down stores because of massive shoplifting or prosecutors refusing to prosecute or the police refusing to report to crime scenes.

I literally posted the proof above. You have refuted nothing about the data at all. You have nothing but innuendo and anecdotes.

Let me show you one more time. Facts. Numbers ya know?

Deaths from selected external causes* per 100K population, 2020
Big Horn county, MT: 168.4
Calhoun County, MS: 161.5
Phillips County, AR: 138.7

What a ridiculously stupid post.

Your comparisons suffer from scaling bias. Lol, Big Horn county has less than 15,000 people while SF has about 800k.

If Big Horn has 30 deaths, OMG it = over 180+ murders per 100k!

Meanwhile, if SF has 10x more total murders (I.e. 300), SF 'isnt that bad because it = only 37.5 murders per 100k!'.

The stupid assumption you have to make is that murders would automatically scale proportionally in Big Horn MT if they somehow magically grew 40 fold in population to reach the size of SF. That's a pretty stupid assumption, and I bet a large fraction of the murders in an area like Big Horn are passion or revenge related while you get much more random murders in SF.

Also, murders don't even cover all of the shop lifting, car break-ins, property damage, and violent assaults on Asians in SF, which all contribute a ton to the decrease in quality of life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much of San Francisco’s housing problem was caused by unregulated foreign money in real estate. We need to stop selling our country to other countries and non-citizens.

Do you really think that a passed-out drug addict lying on the sidewalk would be all that much better off with a roof over his head? Any apartment you put him in would be a filthy wreck within a month. SF has a drug and crime problem that dwarfs other issues like a housing shortage.

But San Francisco actually has a far lower crime rate than many other cities - same with residents with substance abuse problems.

San Francisco has many problems to be solved - but one issue it does NOT have is being a uniquely unsafe city when it comes to crime rates. That doesn't mean that San Francisco shouldn't address the crime in the city that his harming residents - but it's false to suggest that San Francisco's problems are 'because of crime'.

There's also foreign purchasing in San Fran that probably is driving up housing costs - but you can say the same about NYC, LA, Miami, and Chicago. And if this is your grievance - what level of government do you propose will solve it...and what is the constituency of politicians who will support solving it>

When you stop arresting people that commit crime (e.g. people who walk into walgreens take a whole bunch of stuff and simply walk out), of course your rate of crime appears to be 'lower'. There are many ways to manipulate crime stats. But the fact that whole foods had to close in my not like a year due to outrageous levels of theft and safety issues speaks volumes. Now residents are left with a food desert.

Wrong. You can’t hide statistical death rates by not arresting people. Death rates are far higher in rural right wing areas.

Death rates are only one indicator of crime.

The crime you’re ignoring are things like theft and car break ins. They have become rampant in SF, and they are not victimless crimes. The police don’t even bother to come out, so they go severely underreported on any official statistics.

This is the day to day stuff that contributes to the sense of lawlessness.

Look at how the conservatives contort themselves to argue their BS! Move those goalposts!

I thought we were discussing actual crime but now it’s all about a “sense of lawlessness” that is the main problem? Facts be damned! How can anyone define or measure your vague “sense” in the first place? Yep, you may die a violent death in Montana but we should really be focused on San Fran and the fuzzy gut feelings of random internet person who hates democrats. They can’t prove it or show any evidence but they are certain that it’s happening because their friend told them. Or Tucker.

Contort what facts?

Clearly you chose to ignore the article, which discussed the dire straits the city is now in with an $800M budget shortfall. A lot of the shortfall stems from the fact the city is seeing a lot less revenue from property transfer taxes and because there are now huge amounts of vacant office space. Gee, who'd have ever guessed that WFH has liberated people from having to live in SF when they're not required to be there for stupid office culture. People now are now less interested in buying property in SF and no one wants to open up offices/businesses in the city because of crime, homelessness, and open drug use. SF is now one of the worst markets in terms of price correction now that WFH is here. If the doom loop keeps happening, it is only going to get worse. No one wants to live in a city where you have to dodge poop, needles, and have food/pharmacy deserts because criminals re allowed to steal with impunity which causes stores to close.

The facts posted above that prove that San Fran is safer and more economically sound than much of Red America, rural or urban. Your attempts to find fault with anything related to Democrats is obvious. You are just another partisan nut job that denies facts and data. Have you even been to San Fran?

I'm laughing. For someone to really believe this!

Sure, SF has the economic edge with jobs and access. But to claim that it's safer than "red America" is a weird form of denial and distorting data to fit a narrative. I'd much rather live in SF than most of rural America and the sticks hold no appeal for me, but small towns are unquestionably safer and have less crime and violence than places like parts of San Francisco or DC or Baltimore or Detroit or NYC. The sticks have their own problems and weirdo voters with a fetish for banning abortion but personal safety is not one of them. I spend a fair amount of time in MAGAland and put it this way, they're not shutting down stores because of massive shoplifting or prosecutors refusing to prosecute or the police refusing to report to crime scenes.

This may have been the case at one time, but there is a huge problem of drugs in small towns, not just opiods but meth that is causing a lot of crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much of San Francisco’s housing problem was caused by unregulated foreign money in real estate. We need to stop selling our country to other countries and non-citizens.

Do you really think that a passed-out drug addict lying on the sidewalk would be all that much better off with a roof over his head? Any apartment you put him in would be a filthy wreck within a month. SF has a drug and crime problem that dwarfs other issues like a housing shortage.

But San Francisco actually has a far lower crime rate than many other cities - same with residents with substance abuse problems.

San Francisco has many problems to be solved - but one issue it does NOT have is being a uniquely unsafe city when it comes to crime rates. That doesn't mean that San Francisco shouldn't address the crime in the city that his harming residents - but it's false to suggest that San Francisco's problems are 'because of crime'.

There's also foreign purchasing in San Fran that probably is driving up housing costs - but you can say the same about NYC, LA, Miami, and Chicago. And if this is your grievance - what level of government do you propose will solve it...and what is the constituency of politicians who will support solving it>

When you stop arresting people that commit crime (e.g. people who walk into walgreens take a whole bunch of stuff and simply walk out), of course your rate of crime appears to be 'lower'. There are many ways to manipulate crime stats. But the fact that whole foods had to close in my not like a year due to outrageous levels of theft and safety issues speaks volumes. Now residents are left with a food desert.

Wrong. You can’t hide statistical death rates by not arresting people. Death rates are far higher in rural right wing areas.

Death rates are only one indicator of crime.

The crime you’re ignoring are things like theft and car break ins. They have become rampant in SF, and they are not victimless crimes. The police don’t even bother to come out, so they go severely underreported on any official statistics.

This is the day to day stuff that contributes to the sense of lawlessness.

Look at how the conservatives contort themselves to argue their BS! Move those goalposts!

I thought we were discussing actual crime but now it’s all about a “sense of lawlessness” that is the main problem? Facts be damned! How can anyone define or measure your vague “sense” in the first place? Yep, you may die a violent death in Montana but we should really be focused on San Fran and the fuzzy gut feelings of random internet person who hates democrats. They can’t prove it or show any evidence but they are certain that it’s happening because their friend told them. Or Tucker.

Contort what facts?

Clearly you chose to ignore the article, which discussed the dire straits the city is now in with an $800M budget shortfall. A lot of the shortfall stems from the fact the city is seeing a lot less revenue from property transfer taxes and because there are now huge amounts of vacant office space. Gee, who'd have ever guessed that WFH has liberated people from having to live in SF when they're not required to be there for stupid office culture. People now are now less interested in buying property in SF and no one wants to open up offices/businesses in the city because of crime, homelessness, and open drug use. SF is now one of the worst markets in terms of price correction now that WFH is here. If the doom loop keeps happening, it is only going to get worse. No one wants to live in a city where you have to dodge poop, needles, and have food/pharmacy deserts because criminals re allowed to steal with impunity which causes stores to close.

The facts posted above that prove that San Fran is safer and more economically sound than much of Red America, rural or urban. Your attempts to find fault with anything related to Democrats is obvious. You are just another partisan nut job that denies facts and data. Have you even been to San Fran?

I'm laughing. For someone to really believe this!

Sure, SF has the economic edge with jobs and access. But to claim that it's safer than "red America" is a weird form of denial and distorting data to fit a narrative. I'd much rather live in SF than most of rural America and the sticks hold no appeal for me, but small towns are unquestionably safer and have less crime and violence than places like parts of San Francisco or DC or Baltimore or Detroit or NYC. The sticks have their own problems and weirdo voters with a fetish for banning abortion but personal safety is not one of them. I spend a fair amount of time in MAGAland and put it this way, they're not shutting down stores because of massive shoplifting or prosecutors refusing to prosecute or the police refusing to report to crime scenes.

I literally posted the proof above. You have refuted nothing about the data at all. You have nothing but innuendo and anecdotes.

Let me show you one more time. Facts. Numbers ya know?

Deaths from selected external causes* per 100K population, 2020
Big Horn county, MT: 168.4
Calhoun County, MS: 161.5
Phillips County, AR: 138.7

What a ridiculously stupid post.

Your comparisons suffer from scaling bias. Lol, Big Horn county has less than 15,000 people while SF has about 800k.

If Big Horn has 30 deaths, OMG it = over 180+ murders per 100k!

Meanwhile, if SF has 10x more total murders (I.e. 300), SF 'isnt that bad because it = only 37.5 murders per 100k!'.

The stupid assumption you have to make is that murders would automatically scale proportionally in Big Horn MT if they somehow magically grew 40 fold in population to reach the size of SF. That's a pretty stupid assumption, and I bet a large fraction of the murders in an area like Big Horn are passion or revenge related while you get much more random murders in SF.

Also, murders don't even cover all of the shop lifting, car break-ins, property damage, and violent assaults on Asians in SF, which all contribute a ton to the decrease in quality of life.

If there were 30 murders in a town of 15000, that would be pretty significant. A lot of places that size have 0 or 1 murders per year.
However, I think there is something in this data comes from CDC and not DOJ, so it is not murders. It says no self harm, but do overdoses count?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much of San Francisco’s housing problem was caused by unregulated foreign money in real estate. We need to stop selling our country to other countries and non-citizens.

Do you really think that a passed-out drug addict lying on the sidewalk would be all that much better off with a roof over his head? Any apartment you put him in would be a filthy wreck within a month. SF has a drug and crime problem that dwarfs other issues like a housing shortage.

But San Francisco actually has a far lower crime rate than many other cities - same with residents with substance abuse problems.

San Francisco has many problems to be solved - but one issue it does NOT have is being a uniquely unsafe city when it comes to crime rates. That doesn't mean that San Francisco shouldn't address the crime in the city that his harming residents - but it's false to suggest that San Francisco's problems are 'because of crime'.

There's also foreign purchasing in San Fran that probably is driving up housing costs - but you can say the same about NYC, LA, Miami, and Chicago. And if this is your grievance - what level of government do you propose will solve it...and what is the constituency of politicians who will support solving it>

When you stop arresting people that commit crime (e.g. people who walk into walgreens take a whole bunch of stuff and simply walk out), of course your rate of crime appears to be 'lower'. There are many ways to manipulate crime stats. But the fact that whole foods had to close in my not like a year due to outrageous levels of theft and safety issues speaks volumes. Now residents are left with a food desert.

The state legislature of California (with a blue supermajority) voted years back to “de-criminalize” a wide range of crimes, including minor theft, possession of stolen property under $1,000, possession of heroin, psychedelic drugs, etc.

Add to that the various “defund the police” initiatives such as no-pursuit policies, and add on top repeal of laws against “urban camping” (allowed anywhere now) and laws against aggressive pan-handling, public urination and defecation, and you get:

- crime ridden San Francisco.

Elections have consequences.