San Francisco Torn as Some See “Street Behavior” Worsen
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
But I also want to live in a city where I don't need to worry about my car getting broken into. Where I don't have to worry about being mugged late at night. Where the police department is adequately staffed to minimize crime, and those who do commit crimes are punished for doing so.
And call me an elitist, but I'd be very happy if my kids could grow up in a city where the streets are clean and don't smell of piss.
I don't see why any of those desires should be in conflict with my progressive ideals, but apparently in SF, that makes me a heartless capitalist pig. Whatever. Water under the bridge now. Best wishes to you SF. I'll just continue living here in my new home where people are willing to face up to real problems with practical solutions.
A lot of the balancing comes from development. It's rare for e.g. a city block to come together to demand better policies. When they do, it's often a NIMBYist backlash against productive policy. Developers, on the other hand, care about the impact of policies on their aggregate holdings. Since they're typically developing a pipeline, their NIMBYist instincts tend to be relatively dulled.
Everything seems to point in the same direction. Cities which refuse to grow, instead transferring the fruits of growth to a land-owning elite, fail.
Japan is one of the most crime-free countries in the world, because serious crime is monopolised by the criminals (and penalties for cutting their lunch are pretty heavy, which is common amongst most Asian gangs) and "respect" or "honour" is considered sacred. They don't romanticise or make "being an asshole" look fun or positive (ala "Wolf of Wall Street" is a perfect example).
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/the-mira...
tldr: the twin cities tax businesses and put the money into low income communities to prevent crime, and in the 70s and 80s, 70% of subsidized units were built in the wealthiest white districts, to prevent ghettos from forming.
And SF's particular flavor of idealism is carried to a remarkable extreme in the public arena.
The homeless (and others who are considered "marginal") get the benefit of the doubt from the police and society in general, even when they're pissing in the street.
This is a special kind of thinking which is specific to SF (and perhaps Berkeley and a small number of other cities). I don't believe such thinking is part of progressivism in general.
I was wrong.
I don't understand this attitude -- policing crime and taking actions to reduce the number of victims isn't "against" those in poverty. If you're poor and committing non-trivial crimes, it's your personal choices working against you, not society.
Maybe I'm too "east coast," but I'm also not comfortable with the idea that criminal acts should be excused if the perpetrator is under some income threshold or got himself/herself hooked on drugs.
For those "voting down", please explain to me how my worldview is disagreeable. I'm not against changing my mind based on solid arguments.
Say, loitering, because maybe you have no home or a crowded one, so it's better to spend more time of the day on the street. Or petty theft, for people who're really poor. If you're a druggie and need money for a fix. Or say you're in the country illegally.
And I am sure we could come up with more. The point is none of these behaviors (well, except loitering, I don't get why that should be criminalized) are desirable for society as a whole, but it's not correct to pretend that the laws applies to all citizens equally, when there a forces that prod some people towards classes of crimes. That goes the other way too, for example considering tax evasion.
The question becomes then how to we manage these behaviors, and I'm not sure that an increased pressure by the state to enforce existing laws on a vulnerable population, actually solves anything.
Yeah you might have some moral ideas about whether "getting yourself hooked on drugs" is a good idea, from a policy standpoint that's irrelevant, what matters is to manage the fallout that this has on society right now and how to deal with it in the future.
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the
poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."In Europe currently they're housing many refugees in very crowded shelters, where by the sheer concentration of people, arguments and violent conflict are more likely to break out. This has has little to do with what kind of people you put in this housing, and a lot more with, among other things, the absence of any space for people to retreat back to.
The problem there isn't one of personal character, which you are trying to make it, but living conditions.
My argument is, that similar dynamics are at play at a larger scale. And you won't be able to fix those problems by trying to stay blind to that and just try to look at people individually.
We're talking about policing crime in San Francisco, USA and not the living conditions and behaviors of economic migrants and refugees in Europe.
I hope you have a crime-free day.
I wish you the best as well.
So what you end up punishing is (personal factors) x (structural factors), but we don't get to know how much each weigh. If we're using punishment or removal of a human from society as a way of getting rid of bad social phenomena rooted in bad personal factors, then it's in our interest to punish uniquely bad personal factors, or else common personal factors interacting with a bad situation will continue to output bad social phenomena.
Additionally, structural fixes seem to me like lower-hanging policy fruit than throwing a person in jail and subjecting them to severe financial disadvantage. Society's fixes for individual behavior are crude, and quality human resources are extremely finite and being spent elsewhere. But for our emotional sense of justice we look for the high-hanging fruits first.
And let's say among the bad personal factors population there are gradients of badness. Why do we seek to irritate that badness by exacerbating structural factors of crime, i.e., by throwing them into an awfully managed and abusive system where they don't get real sustained access to professionals, and why do we financially impair them?
It still comes down to a person's choice to commit those crimes. However, I do agree with your comment about police harassment and then like.
>If you're a druggie and need money for a fix.
How is that your or my problem? You get yourself addicted to drugs. If someone mugs my girlfriend and trades her phone for some heroin, I don't understand why I'm supposed to shrug it off, feel sympathy for the criminal, and let that junkie make someone else live in fear so they can get high.
>there a forces that prod some people towards classes of crimes. That goes the other way too, for example considering tax evasion.
Muggings, rapes, and violent crime have drastically different effects on people than the taxman putting a lower number in a ledger. Trying to conflate crimes that happen to a person with financial loopholes is apologetics for violent criminals.
>Or say you're in the country illegally.
Then don't come to the country illegally if you're going to do destructive things against the people that you want to help you.
I am not conflating these different types of crimes; what I am saying is that "crime" is really just a tool to deal with behavior that is detrimental to a societal good. And maybe that it's possible to deal with these problems in more appropriate ways then just trying to enforce laws with higher pressure.
And while you're right, that tax evasion is different from mugging someone on the street, don't pretend that white-collar crime is a victimless crime. And again, increased pressure to enforce existing laws, might not be the best answer there either.
And again: If I am a druggie and need a fix, then it's more likely that this problem has a better solution that just throw me in jail. It makes a whole lot more sense to treat a serious drug addiction as an illness. But that needs a little bit more empathy than your approach of "You knew the risk when you went out skiing, don't complain to me that you're on the ground with a broken leg now" - sure there is some truth to it, but that doesn't help anyone.
The issue of treating drug addiction as a health issue instead of a crime is a tangential topic, but enforcing the law when a drug addict commits a crime is not (e.g. mugging, theft, assault).
I said "increasing enforcement of existing laws, might not be good policy for the people who will suffer from this enforcement as well as not resulting in the decrease in crime rates that you might think"
But at this point we're talking past each other.
Have a good day.
To me it's not tangential, but rather the core of the issue.
Let's take the druggie. I agree with you that 'removing consequences' of crime committed to acquire more drugs is a terrible idea. Justice to the people affected is important.
However, if this consequence is jail time, a criminal record, or any other form of punishment that doesn't benefit both the addict and those affected by him, we're only sweeping the problem under the rug, and we're not acknowledging the complexities of addiction and the dignity of the human behind the 'druggie'. Furthermore, it's likely that said addict will become a worse problem for society down the road. It's lose-lose.
There are plenty of solutions where the addict's crime have consequences other than simply punishing them that are more effective, less dehumanizing, and ultimately better for society as a whole.
On a more... ethical level, I feel that where we fundamentally go wrong in these situations is that we forget that being poor, being an addict, and even to a degree being a criminal is not just a simple matter of choice. I've personally known many addicts, criminals and poor people, and I can say with full conviction that the vast majority of them were good people who made mistakes that were not 100% their responsibility. Instead of bickering over how much responsible they are, accepting this reality and trying to approach it with compassion for all sides should already improve many things. Hell, if more people would just go a bit below 100% it'd be a good start.
I think I'm a pretty good person, but putting myself in the position of my addict, poor, or criminal friends, with the same environment, parents, friends, and choices available, all of them mostly out of their control, well, I'd likely make those same choices.
And applying everything I've learned about willpower, group dynamics (groupthink), peer pressure, and whatnot, makes me even more convinced that punishment is not only a solution that doesn't work, but morally wrong and detrimental to society as a whole.
More contentiously, there's always a sob story that can be spun for any given criminal, but ultimately, I believe it dangerous to hand-wave away the role of personal agency. Being born poor is obviously not a personal choice, but actions taken along the way (having a child when young), taking the risk with illegal and highly addictive drugs, committing violent crime, are conscious acts that unsurprisingly make it harder to get out of poverty. The consequences of those actions is likely particularly known in lower income areas.
You're thinking about this from the position of a logical person who cares about the welfare of others. Decriminalizing assault and theft is asking victims to take part in a system in which they pay money to support people who are causing harm.
I was raised with the same belief, however I have learned through broader experience that people from varying backgrounds have vastly different ways of perceiving and evaluating the information in front of them. I do not mean this to indicate, for example, that people in poverty are inferior and incapable of logically assessing the consequences of a teen pregnancy.
Rather, I would suggest that you and I were likely privy to a myriad of small, incremental and beneficial teachings and experiences that led to our view of teen pregnancy. As a result I believe it unwise to judge others, who did not have the privilege of those same teachings, based on the assumption that they knew the "unsurprising" "consequences" of their actions.
Having grown up in a town where the high school graduation rate was below 80%, I can assure you that it's not unfair to expect people from low-income families to know the consequences of their actions.
This is pretty far from my statement of not excusing or ignoring crimes committed by those in poverty, especially violent crimes.
This is way too close to home... Was in SF for GDC 2016 about a month ago when my crews vehicle window was smashed (in the Moscone Center Parking Lot) and 5 backpacks full of MacBook Pros, iPads, cash and an expensive digital SLR with even more expensive lenses were swiped in the blink of an eye. We had dropped our stuff there and grabbed a bite to eat when we came back to the horrific site of our rental vehicles window shattered all over the ground.
Just the night before we were noting how incredibly quiet SF was at night after 9:30pm. Apparently a quiet city is NOT a crime free one.
The security guard and guys in the booth at the parking garage were less than helpful despite there being a variety of security camera screens/cameras. When we called the cops they said we could wait there for an officer but it might be hours so we best just go to the nearest station and file a report. A month out and we've heard nothing on the case despite there being about $20k of belongings grabbed. We didn't really expect to hear much based on their response.
Yes I realize it was incredibly stupid to leave that amount of valuables in a vehicle in the city. Lesson learned there. In our city (Boise) you can practically leave your keys in the ignition without any concerns. Thankfully we paid for the no hassle insurance on the vehicle and our company insurance covered most of our stolen goods. It was still a big loss though and a major hassle. I'll never be so naive again. Hopefully someone reading this can learn from our mistake as well.
It took me a while to get used to the level of crime in SF too… it's so different from even North San Jose or Mountain View.
I'd go further than that. If you leave anything in your car, you can count on it being broken into. A jacket on the floor is enough for them to smash a window to see if there is anything valuable hiding underneath.
What seems to make SF pretty unique is that even in the wealthy areas it lacks effective law enforcement.
Also, poverty in Mumbai isn't quite the same as poverty in the rest of India. Significant portions of Mumbai approach US-"poor" levels of income (about $15-20k/year, PPP adjusted) which is considered quite wealthy over here.
Where I live thieves are often beaten to death. And the rate of theft is still high. I could point you to some studies about punishment not being an effective crime deterrent, but not sure it would change your mind. It's a complicated problem and law enforcement is a band-aid at best.
Fundamentally I think law enforcement is just one piece of the puzzle. Intrinsic factors (culture, biology, economics, psychology) also play a major role - all else held equal, the US is likely to be more violent than India (important exception being sexual violence). But law enforcement does matter - how else to explain how clean little India is in Singapore and Kuala Lumpur?
I'll certainly look at your studies.
Eventually I just sold it.
Then we moved to Bellevue, thought we got away from the problems of the city. My wife leased a new car and the same night someone smashed the rear window out with rocks, apparently just for kicks as nothing was taken from the car.
At trailheads for hiking routes, I often see smashed glass all over the ground. In a city the probability of crime may be higher, but it seems like that kind of stuff could happen anywhere.
I've seen stores leave tills empty and opened after they close, presumably for the same reason.
Being able to see both sides is an interesting perspective and unfortunately it doesn't give me much hope. The rhetoric on one side is dismissive and bordering on authoritarian, the rhetoric on the other side is growing hateful and violent. Whereas living in Stockton (where I am from, as well as those I know living there) could be compared to living in Cleveland or Detroit, the only parallel I see in San Francisco is Paris circa the 1780s. Which is kinda scary.
Paris circa the 1780s is exactly right. I hope the homeless of SF build a guillotine very soon.
Underlying this sentiment is the idea that the poor are a monolith. That someone stealing from cars or someone with mental problems who can't maintain a job or relationships is a good representation of "the poor".
The guy in the article who had his BMW broken into can afford to be blasé about the incident - he's insured, whatever was stolen he can replace without blinking an eye. The poor person who is robbed can't just replace whatever was stolen. "Poor people" aren't just perpetrators, they are also disproportionately victims (unless SF is different, which it probably is because it's so weird) - and I think they yearn for safety and stability MORE than wealthy people, they just can't do much about it. We mistake the complacency - which is the natural and probably healthy reaction when you don't feel you can affect social change - for a comfort with all aspects of the urban environment.
> Why don't you think about the people who are trying to put a shelter above their heads and not just about the homeless?
Which I think is a more honest representation of your view.
San Francisco has become a dog-eat-dog city because of the new arrivals, because of the massive wealth streaming in to the city.
It has become a very different place than it was in the eras that it welcomed the beatniks, the hippies, the gay community. Those people came to put a roof above their heads. They came to find a home. The newest arrivals have mostly come to line their pockets.
The tl;dr is that, as expected, SF crime is centralized in the Tenderloin, with 16th St Mission being a close second. However, as the years progressed, crime has become relatively less centralized around those areas. (there wasn't much activity on Lombard Street, though.)
I have to say though, the Mission has never felt as dangerous as the 'Loin did 15 years ago, when I used to wait for the 21 at Jones.
Eventually I moved to just take the 5 which was safer. I have to say, either I'm lucky or something, but I've not had any issues with crime in S.F. in the 16 years that I've lived here. Philadelphia for example has always felt much more dangerous at night.
No, but we should criminalize people if they commit crimes. Laws exist for a reason, and they must be enforced to be effective.
As Anatole France said, "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread."
I just had my bike stolen out of my back yard here in the Mission two days ago. I'm still mad. But odds are that it was some homeless addict, and enforcing the law and putting him in jail for a few weeks will be no more effective in solving the problem of petty theft than not enforcing the law.
I would certainly like to see the cops arrest the people up the stolen goods chain, the people who actually have something to lose. Crime shouldn't pay. But the way to stop people stealing to survive is to help them find some more productive way to survive.
I agree with this completely – ultimately, you have to find a better and more sustainable solution.
But right now, some people know they can commit crime in San Francisco, and see it through with relatively few consequences, causing a concentration of crime in the city. It provides an incentive to crime… and ultimately, ignoring it won't make it go away either.
Those are the kind of people stealing bikes, and they deserve judicial action:
https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/4fcy9y/sparks...
Christ, I have personally chased down a bike thief to help a friend get her bike back. I saw the guy up close. I saw the scabby meth face. I felt the addict skinniness under my hand when I grabbed him.
Yes, I know that professional bike thief rings also operate in my city. But they aren't the ones stealing 8-year-old bikes out of back yards, bikes that were worth $500 new. They are stealing things with resale value.
“Police are barred by city ordinance from installing surveillance cameras in San Francisco”
This just seems bonkers to me - every few days hoodline is reporting a stabbing / shooting in the TL and they never seem to have any leads, I guess this is why. There should be security cameras on every cross street in the TL.
How would you feel if the city wanted to install video cameras all over your neighborhood, keeping track of everyone's comings and goings?
I believe the practical reality is that, in most places where video security cameras are ubiquitous (e.g. London), the vast majority of the recorded footage is never viewed by anyone and is not archived. There's too much of it and it's too boring.
But even so, there's a legitimate policy debate to be had about the value of such a DB vis a vis its riskiness to individual privacy. Unfortunately, that's the difficult world we live in. Medical records have been hacked. Voter records have been hacked. And yet, somehow, societies have continued to compile and update them.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Man-stabbed-to-death-in-S...
[0] http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/the-geog...
In SF, that probability is 0.122, or 12.2%… extremely high relative to the rest of the country. Atlanta is 0.045, and even New York City is only 0.105.
It's California-wide, but it would be interesting if an increase in crime happened after it was passed.
Am I really witnessing such petty censorship?
The thief was finally caught, he wore a leather holster and was called the cowboy bandit by the police and robbed 40 other people. At trial, one particular gentleman had been beaten and facially disfigured after handing over his phone because the thief noticed he was gay.
My old boss had his car smashed and valuables removed.
And a popular travel blogger who reviews national parks in her RV which she lives in and is herself rather poor, stopped in SF overnight and had all of her possessions stolen from her trailer.
Can't wait until my lease is up (another 5 months to go) so I can gtfo.
This is precisely the origin of the problem.
The good stuff that has happened to poor people since 1945 mostly comes about through private innovation.
The thought that reducing safety nets could result in better outcomes for both their intended beneficiaries and those who fund the government is scary, perhaps. But not at all beyond the realm of civil discussion.
Would really like a citation on that.
> This is precisely the origin of the problem.
And, WHY, exactly is this the origin of the problem? The poster said they'd be willing to pay drastically higher taxes to fund the programs that should benefit many people forced onto the streets and also wants a city appropriately staffed to handle criminals and those still on the street causing problems (i.e. mentally ill).
The parent comment didn't suggest rounding them up and getting rid of them or to act in any way that was discompassionate. How's this conflict with progressive ideals?
It's not progressive to have a shit filled city that's so poorly staffed it can't keep its streets cleaned and safe to an acceptable level.
Since you seem to know where the problem starts, what's your solution?
It's not a lack of money that causes all of SF's problems, it's how the city is run.
One issue is that the City is basically run by a single party. I'm proud that the City has ranked voting now, which should support third parties, but that hasn't translated into that yet...
The fact that we hold elections in off years, means that there is lower voter turnout and increases the chances that party faithful will elect the same people each year. The election rules encourage the current political situation in the City.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11562004 and marked it off-topic.