Something else to point out is that outdoor dining has positive externalities as well. Streets with lots of people on them sitting, watching, instagramming, are safer and better observed than empty streets or streets with just cars. The permitting process is so focused on preventing the negative that there is no advocate of the positive.

Why security again? Fresh air would do it. People being afraid constantly are in need of some serious punching, they can be afraid of that for all I care. Policies of the last decades were constantly focused to cater to schizophrenic needs.

Security isn't advocating something positive since it implies that you would need it.

Which would you rather walk down as a single woman, a street empty other than a single man or a street full of sidewalk cafes and people? While the safety could be argued to be more perceived than real, (though I doubt that, it’s city street smarts 101 not to walk down dark empty alleys in the middle of the night), that increase in people’s comfort leads to the positives, healthy vibrant street life, pleasant utilization of public space, and walkability.

Depends on location and country but I don't want to further the notion that it is unsafe for women to walk down a street alone because it is not the reality in most modern societies.

Trying to accommodate irrational fears is often not helpful, it can even be abusive because you validate these fears. This is even a common mechanism to isolate people in abusive relationships. Don't go outside, there is danger in every dark alley!

Some other women might just try emphasize their vulnerability to fish for a protector. How evil of them, but hard to be angry about that.

If you always accommodate people for their comfort, you refuse them growth. As I said, it depends on the location. The locations that don't have the problem did not solve it by arbitrary security mechanisms.

> The permitting process is so focused on preventing the negative that there is no advocate of the positive.

How does it work?

It works that way because we have encoded agreed upon negatives into law and/or regulations. By contrast, the positives are still highly subjective and not broadly agreed upon.

So the actual process is dominated by "Does the project avoid X?", "Does the project ensure that Y cannot happen?", "Will the project ever exceed limit Z?" rather than "Does the project bring <positive-good> to its location?", because people have not yet agreed upon a clear definition of <positive-good> things. In contrast, the stuff to avoid makes itself known, and the stuff we can mostly agree on becomes part of our civic codes.

Related, the law usually compensates for government "takings" but doesn't work in reverse, except in a few places:

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

Residents of San Francisco have not been in my experience shy about drinking in public, or, for that matter, shooting fentanyl or defecating. These are rather everyday occurrences in the city, so I imagine people can handle some outdoor dining in restaurants too.

A good point, though many on HN aren't so happy about those outdoor activities.

Alas, they get worst of both worlds: the city government is doing little about those shooting heroin on the sidewalk, because it is too busy focusing on the scourge of urban life, that is, restaurants offering sidewalk dining.

The talking points are endlessly repeated, but does that make them true? What makes this true?

This is true, because the restaurants and other businesses actually have something to lose when they defy the petty tyranny of the city planning bureau. The bureau knows this, and it doesn’t like the idea of losing the power it has, so it comes down hard to punish those who do not kowtow to it.

On the other hand, the heroin addicts don’t really have anything to lose, other than freedom to roam around the city. Since city is not interested in depriving them of that freedom (as jailing the homeless addicts for disorderly conduct would be inhumane, according to San Franciscans), it has no tools to actually incentivize different behavior — it has no punishments left, and so it’s left powerless.

> The bureau knows this, and it doesn’t like the idea of losing the power it has,

I don't think government-bureaucracy-as-a-person-with-desires is a useful way to think or talk about this stuff.

Alas, the bureau is the people running it.

How about the law, their superiors, the politics, institutional culture, etc. No CEO has the power you ascribe to these people.

As the article hints at alcohol is likely the distinction between the two. It specifically calls out that liquor licenses are the beaucratic hurdle that is hardest to overcome.