Very true actually, I agree wholeheartedly.
Things would be much better if SF (and more of America) would vote for progressive left-wing parties and politicians. But with the two party system and two right wing majority parties, I think chances are quite low that you'll get what you want. Shame.
I ask because left-to-right isn't really a one-dimensional scale. California has legalized recreational weed, for instance, and that's not a thing in Germany or Scandinavia (or even the Netherlands, technically). Those countries have much nicer prison conditions, but there's also no way anyone there - from the voters to the police to the government - would tolerate the sort of crime that the justice system in SF tolerates.
In general, I suspect on many axes San Francisco/California politics are to the left of European social democracies, while being to the right on others. It'd be helpful to understand what specific ways it needs to move left to solve these problems, and why you believe that'd help. Of course you might just say "SF should be at or to the left of the Scandanavia on all axes", but I don't think that's a very substantive critique.
(I'll add, with the caveat that I suspect these are apples-to-oranges comparisons: some quick Googling suggests that the district of Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg - which spends more than anywhere else in Berlin - puts around 2.5EUR per resident per year towards homeless programs, whereas apparently SF spends more like $600 per person per year. I don't know what the apple-to-apple numbers are and couldn't find them at a glance, but I do have a hunch that spending in SF vastly outstripes that of anywhere in the EU, another way SF would be further to the left.)
The things you’ve listed aren’t income inequality, they are a social safety net. Having access to healthcare doesn’t put you much closer to a billionaire in terms of wealth. Perhaps a weak social safety net is to blame, but given that SF has some of the most extensive social services of any city in the US, that also seems unlikely.
If I had the money I made in the us then I could have maybe put them in a private hospital. You’re only as free as how much money you have in your pocket, nothing else matters.
[0]: https://healthysanfrancisco.org/ [1]: https://www.medi-cal.ca.gov/
My understanding is that the worst difficulties (bankruptcy, avoiding care, crippling premiums, large out of pocket) are in fact experienced by middle income people who don't qualify for Medicaid/Medicare. There is none of that in the Netherlands.
It's hard to directly compare policies when the systems are so much different. But I gather a great deal of SF criminality is due to people that are not from California and do not reside there legally. Those would not be able to live in any European country like that, they would be forced to leave. That's one example.
[1] - https://www.hoover.org/research/despite-spending-11-billion-...
The current Democratic Vice President of the United States is a San Francisco politician.
The Democrat who has been engaging in national political media battles with the second-ranked contender for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2024 is a San Francisco politician (also, Governor of California.)
There may be some reason to see a connection between San Francisco politicians and the Democratic Party at the national level.
>The current Democratic Vice President of the United States is a San Francisco politician.
No on both counts. Nancy Pelosi has had nothing to do with San Francisco politics for the last 40 years.
“Federal politician who lives in San Francisco” != “San Francisco politician”.
For Americans, that looks like communism I guess. For the rest of us, it's milquetoast centrism and performative virtue signaling to further protect capital interests.
SF politicians vaguely discussed defunding the police in order to virtue signal as the only valid "progressive" option in a city that might elect actual leftists if they don't perform well enough. Then they increased the budget as per usual, and London breed called the cops on a homeless person laying on a bench. Performative.
SF is allegedly a progressive capital in America, but lets units stay empty while there are homeless. In the rest of the world, a progressive policy system would make it punishingly expensive to leave units empty, or even restrict ownership to property you live in. There would be dense state housing. There would be well funded programs to help homeless people get into housing and find work.
If sf was progressive it wouldn't do half measures of rehabilitative justice that simply feed conservative blood cult rhetoric baying for the lives of young poc that stole bread once (an actual thing happening in this very thread). Not charging someone with a felony for stealing food, thus guaranteeing their lifelong status as a criminal? That's great. Not doing any work then to figure out why food was stolen? Not great. See: Norway. The system works. They have the lowest rate of recidivism in the world. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilitation_(penology)
If sf was progressive it would understand that economic disparity strongly correlates with crime and do a better job of distributing its incredible wealth to those that need it. Allegedly, sf spends up to 100k a year on each homeless person, cycling them in and out of jail and whatever else. A progressive policy would simply give homeless people that money, or spend it on an apartment for them.
Performative liberal half measures are why sf is the way it is. Others say "what republicans are there in sf to prevent progressive policy? Who are you blaming?" Which demonstrates the blinders people wear in American politics, where apparently only republicans can be conservatives and only democrats can be progressives, and by the way all those democrats are somehow actually socialists. In reality sf politics maintained the American Overton window and simply elects moderate and conservative politicians under the democrat party banner. One time they elected a semi-progressive in the form of Chesa Boudin, but then they got cold feet and recalled him (which notably seems to correlate with a rise in crime, huh).
Most cities others are touting in this thread as beacons of whatever reactionary talking point they're reaching for, like "having strong police" or "being racially homogenous," are in reality just progressive, or exist in progressive countries. Singapore has state housing. Taiwan and Japan have universal healthcare. Where is San Francisco's universal healthcare? Where is its state housing? Where is its strong labor protections, guaranteed 3 weeks vacation for all workers, minimum wage adjusted for cost of living in the city? Where is the legal system that doesn't optimize for plea bargains, that doesn't to this day result in people being turned into felons and thus forever made unproductive members of society?
San Francisco is not progressive.
Let's turn it to you. Evidence bears out that progressive social policies and justice systems have better long term results. The data is in favor of what you call progressivism. But I guess the "common sense" ideas of retributive justice just kinda... feels better or something? Elsewhere in this thread people are essentially arguing for lopping off the hands of thieves. Given that the data supports progressive policies such as restorative justice and tackling income inequality as a means to drive down crime, why do you think so many people so stubbornly hold outdated, conservative ideas of how justice systems should work?
> Take a breath from American politics for a second and it's abundantly clear that SF politicians, and policies, are peak Liberal America.
> For Americans, that looks like communism I guess. For the rest of us, it's milquetoast centrism and performative virtue signaling to further protect capital interests.
I'm not American. I've lived the majority of my life in Canada, and about 8 years in America now. It doesn't look like communism. Being "progressive" does mean enacting communism, though if that's your bar, yeah I agree San Francisco isn't communist. You're kind of all over the map here, but your general claim seems to be that because San Francisco is not successful at achieving the desirable outcomes of progressive policies (low incarceration, safety, material needs met, low income inequality), it's not progressive. And cause they have empty houses? That's just... bizarre. Everyone knows it's a failed city. That doesn't make it "milquetoast liberal". You know it's a city right? It has to operate within the constraints of the nation it's a part of. Comparing to to sovereign nations that have the full autonomy of the state to enact their policies (Norway, Singapore, Japan) makes no sense.
I'll try to zero in on a few well known progressive policies in San Francisco.
- open air drug markets have been allowed to operate with impunity, drug laws are generally not enforced
- harm reduction programs for drug addicts, here's a list of needle exchange places in San Francisco for example https://endhepcsf.org/san-francisco-needle-exchange-schedule...
- they do provide low cost, and even free, housing for homeless people, addicts etc. I'm not going to link this for you but it's easy to find
- they have long been a sanctuary city and do not aid in enforcement of the immigration policies of the federal government
- here is their universal healthcare - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_San_Francisco it's been around for 15 years
- they elected Chesa Boudin. the "cold feet" they got was cause people aren't safe in San Francisco. people prefer not to be robbed or killed, even progressive ones
The American Overton Window is irrelevant. San Francisco's policies are progressive on an international scale.
Then you want to "turn it to me" and actually put stuff in quotes I've never said lol. Who are you arguing with? I never said anything about restorative justice (I'm actually fairly sympathetic to it). I said San Francisco has enacted a significant number of progressive policies. It has. That's really it.
> but your general claim seems to be that because San Francisco is not successful... it is not progressive
No, the person clearly said the measures were *half measures* and that's the problem with them. And they did give a *specific* example about someone stealing and not being prosecuted for it, but social services/etc. not following up to see why someone may be stealing. You might disagree and argue that not prosecuting people for non-violent crimes (so they don't get permanent records that might affect their employment, housing opportunities etc. forever) should be enough, but it's a bad faith argument to say that the previous commenter simply thinks SF is not progressive because their progressive policies aren't successful. Your logic doesn't follow.
> And cause they have empty houses?
No, because they have empty houses and skyrocketing housing/rent prices and have so much homelessness at the same time.
> Comparing to to sovereign nations that have the full autonomy of the state to enact their policies (Norway, Singapore, Japan) makes no sense.
If it doesn't (your assumption seems to be that a city doesn't have enough political power to enact certain legislation/measures), then you are proving the point you are replying to: that these measures SF has, no matter how progressive they look, can only be half-measures. It doesn't matter what the intentions of people enacting them are, by your reasons (if, again, we take your assumption that SF doesn't have enough political autonomy to do much) can only be milquetoast half measures.
> open air drug markets have been allowed to operate with impunity, drug laws are generally not enforced
ok sure, you kind of have a point. Obviously there are a ton of stuff to be said, but I'll let you have it.
> harm reduction programs for drug addicts, here's a list of needle exchange places in San Francisco for example
Obvious straw man. By definition, these programs try to reduce things like HIV among people who use drugs. If you provided data that showed incidence of HIV increasing among homeless and drug using populations after needle exchanges were introduced, that would be one thing. What does this program have anything to do with anything about the root issues behind homelessness/drug addiction?
> they do provide low cost, and even free, housing for homeless people, addicts etc. I'm not going to link this for you but it's easy to find
No they don't, and you can't link it because it doesn't exist! And no, shelters don't count. If you research a little bit, you will see that a lot of homeless don't like shelters because the communal living situation makes them vulnerable to many other sorts of threats. Long-term, affordable, adequate housing. Find me the link for that.
> they have long been a sanctuary city and do not aid in enforcement of the immigration policies of the federal government
Again, nothing to do with the main point, unless the perpetrator was an undocumented immigrant (and even then, N=1, so what is your point?).
> here is their universal healthcare - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_San_Francisco it's been around for 15 years
Ok, this is good, you take this.
Anyways, you might disagree, but don't just ignore actual points made.
Regarding Healthy San Francisco, it's certainly an incredible program and a fantastic way for a city to try to address the clown show that is the American healthcare system, but it's not universal healthcare. It's missing the universal. You can be someone whose life would be dramatically improved by universal healthcare (aka a person one surgery away from bankruptcy aka the majority of Americans) and be ineligible for Healthy San Francisco.
I will however grant that it is likely the most progressive policy in the city. Even still it falls short of the most basic standards of human rights by other industrialized nations (that being access to healthcare).
> I simply can't get good, data-based positions from those that are here to cry for the blood of those they label criminals.
That's the nature of it, unfortunately. The people who freak out the most about murder are the most excited to call for additional murder, and the mental gymnastics needed to resolve that cognitive dissonance means you're not going to get a good faith argument. They don't even necessarily believe what they're saying in many cases, it's just lashing out after getting riled up thinking they're being targeted somehow. There seems to be a lot of that here in this thread especially, since the victim was a techie.
I try to remind myself that it's not about convincing the person you're responding to, it's about reaching who else might be reading.
I mean, check out how much the comments calling for level heads, or simply linking to contradicting evidence, are getting downvoted. It's wild, and disappointing. These are supposed to be some pretty smart people on this forum.
I dunno what your N=1 point is supposed to mean. Being a sanctuary city is a progressive policy. And calling needle exchange a straw man is odd. How is it a straw man? A straw man means I'm setting up a fake version of my opponent's argument and arguing with that. It's an example of a progressive policy that exists. You seem to be saying it's not progressive because it doesn't solve the root causes. So the only cities that get to be considered progressive have to SOLVE drug addiction? I don't buy into that definition of progressivism. A harm-reduction drug program is a hallmark of progressive cities all over the world.
Here is SF's free and subsidized housing policy. It does exist. https://hsh.sfgov.org/services/the-homelessness-response-sys...
They have 12,000 units. You as a resident will pay between $25 per month and up to 30% of your income (if you have one). I don't believe any of these are shelters. You confidently claim something doesn't exist that a two second google search brings up. Private residence, long-term, extremely subsidized housing does exist in San Francisco. I'm not saying it's adequate, perfect, or solves the homeless problem, but it exists.
My points follow a simple premise. I think SF has sufficient policies to be considered a "progressive" city, and I gave examples of progressive policies. I am not going to do the HN thing where you go back and forth snip-quoting each other's points, that misses the forest for the trees. But if SF is not progressive, then no city in North America is.
No, I am not saying that policy is not progressive, I am saying that that particular policy is irrelevant to housing/homelessness itself. Electric car mandates can be considered progressive. It doesn't mean anything for homelessness. It is a strawman, because needle exchange programs don't claim to reduce addiction, not to mention homelessness. They claim to reduce harm from addiction. By your logic, why not list every single progressive policy that SF has? I am sure SF has a lot of bike lanes, which is also a hallmark of progressive cities. Why didn't you bring that up? There is a drag queen ban in Tennessee for example. By your definition, not banning drag queens is progressive, so that could be a policy you could list.
It is a strawman, because a) you brought it up because it is tangentially related to homelessness and addiction so it "feels" relevant b) it is something that you can use to construct your premise that SF can be considered a progressive city (which sure why not) and c) nobody is arguing with you about if SF is progressive by common definition or if a particular policy is progressive. The argument is that these policies don't try (not solve, not be successful, just try/address) the root causes of homelessness, and are thus half measures, so it doesn't matter what other progressive policies the city has. This is not an argument about semantics.
The broader argument that the person you were responding to (I don't want to speak for them, but just my interpretation) is that these policies are just there to give the appearance of progressiveness without doing anything to change the material conditions, on which I agree. And you don't need to go that far and seize anything, just give universal healthcare and a better social safety net like most EU member countries and that would suffice for now. It is not a binary choice here.
> Here is SF's free and subsidized housing policy. It does exist. https://hsh.sfgov.org/services/the-homelessness-response-sys...
I stand corrected. You are right. But you do say yourself that it is not enough and solves the problem, just exists. And before you say "well does it have to be enough to be progressive", no, that's not what I am saying. This is a progressive policy. But it doesn't change the material reality that housing prices are skyrocketing and clearly there aren't enough of these units to house everyone that is on the streets. So let's assume there is a sudden change of heart and everyone in bay area starts voting conservative. These two policies being the progressive policies they are, are rolled back. Besides straight up throwing people in the jail for being homeless (which, coincidentally, Tennessee just passed a law for), how would the roll-back of these two policies change the situation in SF for the better? I'll tell you: it wouldn't. It would a) cause more harm by spreading blood-borne diseases among the addicted population b) increase the number of homeless people.
Your points don't follow a simple premise. Your flow of thought seems to be:
SF has progressive policies that are, while not enough, and some of which are not even related to the issue at hand, progressive -> SF is a progressive city -> SF has homelessness -> SF is a failed city because it is progressive -> Progressive cities = bad because SF is progressive and homelessness isn't solved, so progressive policies can't solve homelessness. -> progressive policies broadly = bad
But this is just playing with semantics. The OP's point is that these policies are there to give an appearance of being progressive. It is not the standard argument to anything. It just doesn't solve the problem, that's it. Let's assume the OP and I want to be considered a different category called progressive+, the policy definition of which is anything that fully tries to solve a given social problem like homelessness. If we think that progressive policies, which is a strict subset of progressive+ policies, don't try to solve the problem, then we are done. That's it. Notice that they are a subset of policies of progressive+, so they give a semblance of it, but they are not progressive+. If the OP believes that unless you try policies in progessive+, you are doomed to fail, then your argument doesn't make sense, because it doesn't matter what direction the half measures are, because they don't try to address the problem. Being half-measures, they try to give the appearance of a sincere effort.
On the other hand, let's do a thought experiment. If every big city in every red state where it is mandatory to drive the biggest most polluting cars possible and it is a crime to now own a gun or whatever, and using alcoholic mouthwash is considered drinking, and anybody that speaks Spanish needs to report for a daily check in with customs (for reasons longer than we should get into, cities don't tend to vote for conservatives usually) decide to provide permanent adequate housing and healthcare to every resident in their state. That's a great policy, and while I would have a lot of other issues with such a state/city, I would really like that policy. That policy would be in the subset of policies that progressive+ policies have that the progressive subset doesn't. You are playing with semantics, because I don't care if a particular city is considered progressive or not. A city's reputation is irrelevant. The other policies (while draconian in this example) are not relevant.
It seems to me that rising crime in the western world is a general pattern. The biggest port city in my (European) country (still pretty small compared to big US cities, granted) switched to a right-wing nationalist government about a decade ago, after literal decades of unbroken social democrat rule. And gang violence has only gone up since then.
I'm not blaming the current mayor for that, because other nearby cities are suffering from the same problem, including those run by social democrats. But the policies that the right wing have been shouting would definitely work to keep crime down haven't been working here, demonstrably.
If you're insinuating that progressive politics per se somehow inevitably lead to crime and urban decay, have a look north of the border.
What passes for centrist politics up here in Canada's major cities would make Berkley look like a conservative stronghold (at least in terms of economic policy... maybe we lag behind in biodynamic freegan wine co-ops). Yet Toronto and Montreal are by far the safest large cities on the continent. We absolutely have the same kinds of problems — homelessness, poverty, inequality — but our "socialist" welfare safety net and public healthcare have so far kept us out of the dystopian mess that seems to be unfolding in the US.
> but our "socialist" welfare safety net and public healthcare have so far kept us out of the dystopian mess
I've been to Vancouver a while ago and that's the first time I've seen open drug market and homeless camp taking over a city block. SF didn't feature such sights by then yet, that came later. Haven't visited since then - maybe something changed, but certainly the same dystopian mess could be found in Canada back then.
One thing to note: Toronto's police annual budget is about the same as SFPD's, even though Toronto has more than 3X as many people. In other words, SF has much worse pre-capita crime than Toronto, even though they spend 3X as much on policing per capita.
I know SF already spends 100k/yr per homeless resident, but we really need to push that up."
This whole line of thought is absurd, you're in a bubble.
Yes, they definitely have made your life better.
If there were no ads, people would judge based on the quality of products, instead of being manipulated to buy things.
I obviously block ads. I understand that lots of things would cost money that currently are free, but many things would still be free. The old internet consisted mainly of free things and was not infested with ads.
Please, tell me one positive effect that ads have on society as a whole. (So not for you personally, because I know they make money)
Having loads of money isn't just about generating value. It's about extracting value.
It might lag a bit, but almost exactly. That's the whole idea. Real household incomes in the US from 1950 to 2000 very nearly doubled, and purchasing power increased even more. The 'rich get richer' is irrelevant if everyone else is, too.
> By your metric Bell Labs should be worth more than any other company in existence.
The fact that they aren't means that no, they shouldn't be. It's the capitalism equivalent of "the guy with a great idea for an app". If you aren't actually delivering that value to people that need it, you aren't getting paid for it.
> Having loads of money isn't just about generating value. It's about extracting value.
Generating and extracting value are the same thing, ignoring the connotation.
If you create a device where, with one press of a big red button, you can cure cancer/world hunger/war/disease, but you never actually press that button? You haven't actually created any value. You haven't done anything.
> If you create a device where, with one press of a big red button, you can cure cancer/world hunger/war/disease, but you never actually press that button?
What if you create such a device and decide to publicly share the design, with no plans to monopolize it? You'd probably be the lose financially, but did you not create the most value?
Have Linux or Git created no real value except for the companies that can build service models around them?
As for bubbles, I would hazard that your accusation is a confession.
To think the 3rd most significant source of value in your life is cheap microcontrollers is.. wild.
Indoor plumbing? Refrigeration? A health department that ensures you aren't eating food fried in gutter oil?
You are taking these entirely for granted, because everyone has those, right? This is a great example of what privilege actually is.
Let's make this simpler for you.
Your original proposal is that, of course, the wealthy (read: anyone that makes more than you) have too much, the homeless have too little. So, like a child faced with this problem, you surmise we should take things from the wealthy and give them to the poor.
SF spends $100,000 per year, per homeless resident, on 'fixing homelessness'. Exactly how much more should they be spending, and why would that change anything?
Had someone like this tell me Venezuelans should be supporting Democratic candidates...like what. A country whose people are so poor a lot of them wonder what they're going to eat next should be focusing on another country's politicians?
Next will be the inevitable fallout of destroying ~45 trillion in wealth. The consequences of which, bluntly, I can't even really fathom at the moment.
I'm assuming you'll be planning to tax more to give the effected some sort of UBI? Please confirm and I'll explain how that will also blow up in your face.
> conceptually the solution is pretty simple
It is if you don't actually think about it. At all.
your arrogance is surpassed only by your foolishness.
Don't you think you would have a stronger argument without resorting to this kind of thing?
See, this is what I mean. This sort of 'solution' is advocated by people that have never bothered to contemplate the second order effects.
Try to imagine what would happen if we implemented this. Anyone that is homeless gets permanent, free housing. You pat yourself on the back.
Except, now I sell my house. And I come to you and tell you that I'm homeless. Are you going to give me permanent, free housing too?
Because if you do, you have now created the economic catastrophe that I described.
And if you don't, because I don't deserve it on the basis of XYZ, you've just recreated section 8.
yes. it probably won't be as nice as something you, a wealthy person, could afford to buy, and it probably won't be exactly where you want to live, but everyone could be guaranteed safe and stable housing without complicated means testing.
> you've just recreated Section 8.
Section 8 disqualifies people for all kinds of "character" issues associated with drug use, mental illness, etc. That's a big reason there are so many homeless on the street. I am against means testing, but even that system could be a lot better than it is now.
Perhaps you can explain why taxation is so anathema to you. Are you one of the nutcases who consider it theft?
No, because despite the mixed-bag that a single payer system would bring, it is not actually destroying healthcare. Unless you intend to force them to provide their services for no pay.
> Perhaps the costs of allowing a deleterious institution to continue existing dwarf the costs of reforming them, on occasion.
Absolutely. Private property is not one of those institutions.
> Family formation is down, bankruptcy is up, and somehow I imagine that you have not figured in the trillions in lost value from these and the like realities that are extant because the 3rd most basic human need is unaffordable in this country.
It is substantially less than destroying the entire real market, unquestionably. That doesn't mean that it's not a problem that should be addressed. But free, permanent housing to everyone is not, in any way, a practical solution.
> Perhaps you can explain why taxation is so anathema to you. Are you one of the nutcases who consider it theft?
I'm not. I've got no problem at all paying my taxes. I have no interest in those taxes being wasted.
Welfare spending is the least of your concerns, then.
>it is not actually destroying healthcare.
I didn't say it would. "Healthcare" is not the same as "the healthcare industry as it currently exists".
>Absolutely. Private property is not one of those institutions.
Ironically: despite the mixed bag that crashing the value of real estate by implementing a housing guarantee (or even simply increasing construction velocity) would bring, it would not actually destroy the concept of "private property", legally or otherwise.
>But free, permanent housing to everyone is not, in any way, a practical solution.
Again, that's not what I said. You seem to have a problem with this. It would be interesting to see you actually argue against something other than a strawman. Are you capable of that?
EDIT: Going out on a limb here, but are you perchance a real estate agent? Because that would be the most hilarious of conflicts of interest.
Yep. In fact, I specifically asked you for your proposal, and you chose to rant about identity politics instead of policy. Which is on brand, I guess.
> Going out on a limb here, but are you perchance a real estate agent? Because that would be the most hilarious of conflicts of interest.
Nope. The current system for performing real estate transactions is wildly inefficient, rent-seeking, insecure, and I'd love to see it destroyed.
As for the gadgets which you alluded to as contemporary society's savior just a few replies ago, I tend to attribute their existence to the basic research and, yes, cheap microcontrollers that made them possible, rather than the glorified middlemen who repackaged them as high-margin luxuries and sold them with spyware.
> So, like a child faced with this problem, you surmise we should take things from the wealthy and give them to the poor.
Also, like a concerned and informed adult, but yes.
>Exactly how much more should they be spending,
However much it would cost to house them permanently (and reduce housing insecurity in general), bounded by tax revenues, of course.
>and why would that change anything?
Well, generally-speaking, when a homeless person has housing, they cease to be homeless.
>Let's make this simpler for you.
I'd like you to stop projecting your own insecurities on me.
Even if you solve housing (NIMBYism, slow permitting process, low-density zoning) crime won't solve itself. (Because organized crime fits in its niche, and doesn't want to give it up. And it'd require changes of federal law to move it.)
This is an interesting wrinkle. I would hope that addressing the corruption that enables NIMBYism would also affect the viability of organized crime.
I disagree that law enforcement is underfunded. Public services which would reduce the prevalence of crime are absolutely underfunded; law enforcement is not one of those services, as it currently receives enough funding (and more) to carry out its part in crime-lowering efforts. Fixing its mismanagement means funding separate institutions dedicated to oversight, for example.
At this point, I'm fairly certain that it's a pipe dream to assume that it's possible to "fix it" without serious sustained effort (which costs some money obviously) and without also drastically improving the adjacent systems (as you said also). Sure, we can call it social services, but the goal is to really reduce both crime and police brutality.
It's a complex problem, but very simply the funding issue is that militarization was cheap (because military handed off a lot of things for cheap/free), and any and all social service thing got more expensive simply due to big "external" factors like the Baumol effect (human labor is relatively getting more expensive compared to anything that benefits from capital investment, ie. industrialization, mass production, technological progress), the Southern Strategy culminated, War on Drugs revved up, social polarization increased, inequality shoot up, these all led to more crime, more tough-on-crime programs, more people in the criminal justice system, and that's a lot more expensive. And of course reintegration and related social programs got worse for the same reasons.
See also https://www.slowboring.com/p/fixing-the-police-will-take-mor...
The author here confesses his disconnect with the majority of people in San Francisco. This assessment is correct - the author and his views are disconnected from those of the majority of working people in San Francisco.
The magnitude of the wealth disparity in San Francisco is almost hard to comprehend. Many in this thread have advocated militarizing the city, and cleaning it out of poor people so that it can be some kind of elite utopia for tech bros and VCs. The people of San Francisco do not share this view. That they do not share this view is not in my opinion (although it is) - but in the opinion of the parent poster. As those from more equitable European cities have said in this thread - Europeans don't have these kinds of problems where they live.
The US already has one and a half million people incarcerated, which does not count all those on probation or parole. It has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, although I think Rwanda has more, no large or industrialized country has a higher incarceration rate. Not sure increasing the incarceration rate even more is the solution.
Name another country just as free and open with fewer incarcerated. Not Switzerland for sure.
Also the incarcerated population is 1500k not 500k.
You take those 1500k and put them into some other country and have them do the same thing they did that got them incarcerated in US prison, and unless they are friends with somebody important in the government there they'll get incarcerated there too. Furthermore, in lots of countries selling / smuggling drugs is an executable offense. Furthermore, many of these 1500k would not even be admitted to enter many Euro countries with the low incarceration rates that you envy.
Umm... European cities do have high wealth disparity. Checkout an ethnic ghetto the next time your in Manchester or Paris, for example... there are areas of these cities that get scary AF after dark.
Homelessness is not a crime... but the homeless and drug addicted commit a lot of crimes. And they (particularly the drug addicted) frequently have very little to lose and very severe motivators to rob, mug, etc. As others have said, not policing crime is recipe for disaster, chaos, and tragedy. And it is a human tragedy: for the people who are suffering homelessness, drug addiction; the people within those domains who are victims of violent crime, and for society at large.
A lot of homeless people in CA were not born in CA... and a lot of them didn't hit the street in CA... they migrated to the west coast. Drug addicted homeless people flock to SF and LA because (1) the weather is better than many places in the country, (2) the extremely lax policing, (3) availability of drugs, and (4) the social support system: food, shelter, clothes, money. Indulging depravity is not a solution.
SF needs to double/triple police presence, prosecute crime, and significantly increase drug and mental health services.
I was born in SF, lived there off and on for many years, and have family who still live in the Bay Area... parts of SF are just disgusting now (human feces and trash all over place)... parts of Oakland and Berkeley are no better. Parts of Oakland have so much broken safety glass on the street it's a glass/gravel road.
I used walk around SF late at night as little as 10 years ago; now, there are so many places in SF that I would not walk around in after dark unless I had no other choice. This is coming from a white dude who used to play basketball at playgrounds in South Central LA on saturday nights in the late 90's (because the pick-up basketball was that good).
Until you live somewhere else, you may not understand just how bad and crazy the situation in SF, Oakland, Berkeley, Los Angeles really is. Where I live now, I can leave thousands of dollars of stuff in my car in pain sight and nothing gets stolen... ever. My neighbors' kids leave their bikes on their front lawn overnight and they are still there days later.
I once saw a person break into a Telsa on Piedmont Ave. in Oakland at 2pm on Saturday in front of about 50 people to snatch a backpack. WTF?
Lots of places have poverty, not all of them have the level of crime that SF has
I went to the local walgreens in SF and was trying to buy a tube of toothpaste, apparently the theft is so bad I had to have a person who works there open the case, and while I was waiting in line to buy it a homeless person ran out with merchandise.
There are thousands and thousands of similar stories from others but until residents in SF start voting different I see things getting even worse than they are now. I know that may be hard to believe but we have been experiencing a boom economy, once that changes and things go south expect crime to surge to levels unimaginable.