Hacker News Reader

Comment by adkadskhj | Hacker News Reader

I was in SF a couple times for work and i was absolutely shocked at how disgusting it was. Granted, i'm not a city person.. insanely so - i hate cities.. but this was a new level for me. The amount of raw sewage alone that i smelt blew my mind.

I'm shocked how much people put up with there.

View on HN

I spent nearly every other week in SF from 2011 until COVID hit in February. Went to NY for a conference last year and immediately thought 'holy shit this city is CLEAN'.

>Went to NY for a conference last year and immediately thought 'holy shit this city is CLEAN'

Heh, and here I am in Chicago thinking "holy shit this city is filthy!" when I go to New York. I haven't been to San Francisco in awhile, it must have deteriorated.

The harsh winters alone send Chicago's homeless places like SF.

The city's municipal workers used to wash down the surviving homeless encampments hiding from the cold on Lower Wacker with bleach and a fire hose without notice. You could differentiate Chicago's genuine homeless from the career panhandlers downtown by the bleach-stained clothes.

Not sure if they still use this practice, but it wouldn't surprise me.

It's easy to criticize SF for its negligence, but the homeless challenges are real and the affordable solutions tend to be severely lacking empathy. And SF lacks a rude force of nature doing most of the work every winter. Damp and chilly, sure, but still relatively comfortable. Chicago has it easy in this department, and its occupants aren't exactly the most empathetic towards the homeless either.

No its politics. NYC if anyone sets up a tent you can report and it'll get dumped the same day. https://portal.311.nyc.gov/article/?kanumber=KA-02253

> NYC if anyone sets up a tent you can report and it'll get dumped the same day.

Are you implying that's the right thing to do to someone living on the streets with nothing more than a tent for shelter?

Yes its better for the rest of the people who live there and probably better for the homeless guy too.

> its occupants aren't exactly the most empathetic towards the homeless either.

It's .. interesting, since i generally have no clue what to do here. I'm a super .. socialist _(or w/e)_ in that i believe in tons of government programs, but homelessness is something i almost don't believe in. It feels either a problem of:

1. Social safety nets to support working individuals experiencing tough times (i support tons of safety programs).

2. Or.. more controversially, mental health issues that shouldn't be allowed to exist in this state. Ie, if we had #1 then "no one" would be homeless - and those that are despite that, are too mentally unwell to be allowed the freedom to make such a decision.

Though, i know nothing on the subject - and advertise as much. Nevertheless, i feel far less supportive of the homeless as a result - i split it mentally as either people i want to support via social nets - or mentally unwell people needing of hospitalization. A bit off topic perhaps, but i'm always interested in peoples opinion on the subject.

I've been following the SF homeless situation pretty closely.

The numbers are that of the $300-350 million/year SF budget for homeless, 60% goes to permanent rent subsidies (low-income long-term residents.)

That leaves $120-140 million/year for actual street homeless of the reported 5,000 people. $30 million/year is given out as $500/month vouchers, leaving $90 million-$110 million unaccounted for (ie. likely social workers and bureaucrats.)

Other cities have reported:

- 100% of street homeless are on substances

- 50% of street homeless are mentally ill

That means 50% could still be treated/rehabilitated/re-employed with inexpensive programs (mailing address, internet access, showers, transitional housing.)

SF has a couple problems though:

- homeless migrate here, so it's really a federal problem

- SF rents are so high that there will be a surging tide of homeless from the city residents post-2020. The lower-middle class individuals really need to emigrate in an orderly fashion beforehand.

FYI you're shadow banned, basically all your comments are currently defaulting to [dead] and you're talking to yourself and HNers like me with showdead=yes. The comments stay that way until someone like me comes along, reads your invisible text, and vouches for it - which I've done in this case.

You must have angered the mods.

I don't (think?) i have that setting - but i read the persons message. Does it work different if it's a directly reply?

Could be, if you view their comments through their profile though you'll see what I'm referring to.

> The numbers are that of the $300-350 million/year SF budget for homeless, 60% goes to permanent rent subsidies (low-income long-term residents.)

Any idea how much effort goes into converting these individuals to productive members? Ie, getting jobs/education/etc to then exit this system?

It depends heavily on where in the city you are. There are parts of SF that definitely makes me very uncomfortable (I've lived in Hong Kong and know my way around NYC) but SF is kind of interesting in it almost feels like a collection of small cities. Union Square is very, very different from Sea Cliff and because SF is relatively small physically, it doesn't take long to go from one part to another. I think people who live here tend to get used to seeing these things and also know to avoid spending too much time in some parts of the city.

Nobody is questioning that there are good neighborhoods. Every city has good neighborhoods. What has people scratching their heads is that the worst parts of lot of cities are still a lot better than the bad parts of SF. When the comparison is between Bangalore or Sao Paulo and Zurich it's easy to write off the difference as simply wealth. But when the American "shithole cities" like Detroit, Buffalo, Gary, Reno, etc that the people of SF like to sneer at are in fact better in their worst parts than the crown jewel of "muh fifth largest economy" it really makes people wonder what the heck went so wrong.

I really don't know anyone in SF who thinks Detroit, Buffalo, etc in that way. They just tended to think of employment, amenities and available services lacking in those other cities.

If work is remote (unsure if this will remain after vaccine allows us to work in offices again) then it opens up a lot of doors.

For 98% of Californians, "muh fifth largest economy" has actually been a profound net-negative. I'm amazed people who pay $3k/month to rent to one-bedroom apt still trot this out as a brag point. "Fifth largest economy" has worked out well for the 1%, people who bought homes forever ago, and really no one else.

If WFH really gains long term traction then the SV salaries are not going to hold up either. There are really smart people in eastern europe, south america, southeast asia, etc. who will work for a fraction of the salary that a locally-domicled worker would require.

5th largest economy is the one employing all the people that are coming here in droves so not sure your argument holds up. No one would be coming here if the jobs were in Montana. $3K/mo is pennies when you're getting offers to move here to make half a million.

>But when the American "shithole cities" like Detroit

The majority of Detroit is shitty. Sure, downtown and surrounding branches (Corktown) have come back, but Detroit itself is physically huge, and can house Boston, the island of Manhattan, and San Fransisco within its borders[0]. If you don't believe me, use Streetview on Google Maps and click you way around the city. It's eyeopening.

[0] https://detroitography.com/2015/04/10/map-can-detroit-really...

Honestly laughed out loud reading GP compare the shittyness of San Francisco to how unbelievably awful and abandoned parts of Detroit are.

> when the American "shithole cities" like Detroit,

Detroit is shitty in a way that SF is not shitty. Have you ever been to the parts of Detroit that are just straight up abandoned?

Just an absurd comment altogether.

SF is the greatest city in the world in the same way that the USA is the greatest country of the world. Both of them have insanely wealthy people in extremely nice enclaves, surrounded by plenty of sub-3rd-world filth. When you put together a glossy spread of greatest places to live, you can cherrypick the wealthy parts and gloss over the folks barely eking out a subsistence living. In the meantime tons of people will be attracted to the idea of "making it" into the upper 0.1%, thus fueling the economic strength that builds those fortunes.

Selection bias is the greatest force known to man. Things get publicized by their best case, not by their average case.

The income distribution, housing ownership, education, etc. stats for the USA would seem to disagree. The 3rd world level dilapidation surrounding rich enclaves is very specific to liberal-run cities as far as I can tell (my favorite quote from a Nob Hill condo owner - "It's only nice here because the homeless are too lazy to walk uphill").

Even super depressed places I've been to, like Spokane, WA, or rural Illinois by Kentucky border, look far more orderly, safe and well-run. Clearly you've never been to the actual 3rd world ;)

A quick google search about Spokane turned up this[1] and this[2]. Maybe the only difference between SF and Spokane is that the real estate prices means it is easier to hide the problems from public view.

Pretty much every city and state, liberal or conservative, has a fair share of population that is struggling with drug addiction, mental health issues, and poverty. The difference between SF and other areas, is we have higher real estate prices and better weather, so these issues are much more visible than else where.

[1] https://www.safewise.com/blog/most-dangerous-cities/ [2] https://www.reddit.com/r/Spokane/comments/bchlna/how_ghetto_...

I guess Spokane went downhill, I've last been there several years ago and the comments also seem to say the last couple of years homeless population exploded. Still, they seem to be describing abandoned parts of a shrinking city, not the entire place. In SF it's all over (I've lived in SOMA and Inner Richmond, and worked near Union Square). I'd expect the fact that SF is swimming in money (compared to Spokane) would have an opposite effect. So I don't think it's that "every city has problems". Even the cities on the same train line as SF don't have the same problems, nor do better run cities with less money with good weather (Texas, Utah, Florida). Same deal with Seattle, quickly going downhill with increasingly progressive City Council and major, while less-progressive cities across the bridge are doing just fine; and even stereo-typically poorer cities to the North and South don't look nearly as bad.

The supreme levels of wealth is largely specific to liberal-run cities as well. Home cities of the top 10 billionaires in the U.S. are Seattle, Bay Area, Seattle, Bay Area, Omaha, Bay Area, Seattle, Bay Area, Bay Area, Bentonville. The list of metro areas by per capita income is DC, San Jose, Seattle, San Francisco, Boston.

I think you may have causality backwards: liberal policies are enacted as a way to paper over the huge income disparities that are generated by having a dominant global industry. Regional wealth and inequality cause liberal policies, liberal policies don't cause wealth & inequality.

I don't think so; the 3rd-world-like situation is limited mostly to SF, many other cities in the same area are not as progressive and doing better. Ditto for Seattle - the East Side has greater wealth, more expensive housing, is less progressive, and is doing much better. Tacoma has far less wealth, is less progressive and is doing better anyway. There's a common pattern here...

There's a grain of truth in what you say in terms of progressive policies used to "paper over" stuff - some places prevent the problem via non-progressive policies, and those stupid enough to use progressive ones are left with the 3rd world conditions in need of papering over.

I have a pet theory... I think compassion is the worst basis for policy, proven by study after study to be irrational, scope insensitive, biased in many ways. The 2nd worst basis for policy are slogans. However, most people are compassionate and are fired up by slogans, so they vote for compassionate simple policies. That predictably causes horrible results, at which point the smarter/richer people become a bit more likely to leave, and the less smart/less rich people stay, or are not able to leave financially; that causes more compassionate and slogan-based policies; rinse, repeat.

The fact that rich places also have a corresponding rise in poverty is not a new problem, and it's one people have thought about and "solved" over a 100 years ago. See Progress and Poverty [0] by Henry George, named to capture the idea that poverty often follows progress. The core idea is that as a society's productivity increases, this just gets captured by higher land values and rents, leaving labour having to pay even more rent to just survive.

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_and_Poverty

The worst parts of LA, Chicago, Detroit, etc. are just as bad as the Tenderloin. The only weird thing about SF is that the office/financial district is the worst part of the city. In Chicago, a white collar worker can live their entire life without going to Englewood, but in SF, you're actually forced to see it (which is... maybe a good thing?)

> are just as bad as

And much larger than

> It depends heavily on where in the city you are.

I suspect this is the case in nearly every city in the world: some nice areas, some dirty areas, some dangerous areas, etc. What always struck me as unusual in SF is that the bad areas are finely interlaced with or even overlapping with the "nice" commercial/dining/shopping areas. It's not like "oh, avoid this dark corner of town," but instead it's like "there's some nice high-end shopping here with naked bleeding people injecting drugs literally in front of the door."

Yes! But, you can basically avoid that by avoiding Soma and the Tenderloin. There are no naked bleeding people in Dogpatch, Potrero Hill, the Sunset and Richmond, the Marina, etc. etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com