California Exit Interview: Fleeing $17 salads and 'general lawlessness'

SF has a unified city/county government so the sheriff shows up in their budgets, as well as the courts and the rest of it. The whole category had a 2019-2020 budget of 1.72 billion. The SFPD alone was 692 million, so I don't know where the Chronicle came up with 606.

The number of households in San Francisco, according to the census, was 346k.

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/04/26/11/22FFD9CC000005... https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-0fe4637f8d1b1f981c7786...

You'll see them at busy places like stations, shopping centres, airports, busy public squares etc. At least in London - perhaps not so much elsewhere. I guess half of it is deterrent & reassurance, and the other half if to stop any "active shooter" type things before they happen.

There is also SO15 which are the sort of para-military dedicated anti-terror type people who don't patrol but are stationed around the place and use motorbikes to cut through traffic and down pedestrian areas, e.g.:

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/09/28/10/44C62468000005...

I think the main difference in the UK is, when the situation deteriorates enough to require police with guns turn up, the guns aren't there for show to try and subdue/persuade you. They'll usually shoot to kill from what I've seen/read/heard.

If that's true, and SF prices are moderate, that's good. But that's very different from the original statement "Nobody is forcing this guy to buy a $17 salad either."

> If you’re worried about prices, take the two minutes to check a menu online first.

The point is that some people want to enjoy life, not worry about prices.

The question is what's the median price of a salad. If median is 17, it is relatively expensive, even if it is possible to compile a list of cheaper cafes and restaurants.

Or put it another way: if you have to check for restaurant prices, that city is too expensive for you, even cheaper places exist.

> if you want to judge a city only on it's higher priced places or whatever, that's on you

I'm not saying is bad. If you want to live on Manhattan, prepare to spend a lot on everything, from rent to salad.

I think the author is saying: SF is expensive, and they cannot afford it. And that's good reason to leave. And that's good reason for other people to avoid moving to SF.

> TL;dr- "17 dollar salads" aren't a problem unless you're trying to write a disparaging blog about a city you moved away from.

Well, if for 17 dollars salad you could buy low crime and low poverty, that would be OK. But these things combined are enough reasons to write a blog.

Anyway, not going to defend SF or criticise SF, just triggered by arrogant statement "Nobody is forcing this guy to buy a $17 salad", which is not far from "if you don't have bread, eat cake".

The people in the mid-Market BART stations have the support of other homeless in the community. The most disheveled are generally end-stage drug users. Their methadone clinic (if that's their poison) and many support shelters are within two blocks. If they're passed out and nodded off there it's because they chose to be incapacitated in a (very relatively) safe spot, where they're not exposed to the elements and relatively out of the way of the walking path. They probably know the other homeless, and people in a bad way will be checked on. Missionaries and street outreach folks will sometimes come by with food or clean blankets. Of course, they'll also have to deal with robbers and random assaults. Life on the street is tough.

This guy was obviously not an end-stage drug user. He was dressed nicely, in a crisp white shirt and clean black pants. He was sprawled against a news stand on the corner, his legs squarely in the sidewalk, which as you know is not so wide in midtown Manhattan at 6:15pm. And he was utterly ignored.

I know the numbers, and I too used to argue them, but the apathy and coldness in "safe" New York was undeniable.

It is probably not accurate to extrapolate the author's experience in SF to what life is like in all of the other parts of the Bay, much less CA as a whole.

I left anyway after 3+ decades but not because of SF. I just wanted more for less. SF is and always has been a special pocket of gross. Some people love it and others, like me, avoided it at all costs. We're not all the same.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._metropolitan_ar...

I mean if someone said "would you rather move to a city with a 1% violent crime rate where you know someone who's part of that 1% or a different city with a 7% violent crime rate but nobody you know has been affected", you can do whatever you want but I'll take the first option.

(inb4 "different neighborhoods", "crime rates aren't the same across all demographics", etc)

In most years, the Valley barely sees any disruption from forest fires (although people who live on the periphery will disagree with me here).

Last year's fires have definitely cast a shadow over what the future holds, particularly for folks who have chosen to live in the Santa Cruz Mountains. The biggest disadvantage for SC people was a mildly inconvenient and somewhat dangerous drive down Highway 17 for access to SV proper, versus the advantage of beach access and housing that was a shade more reasonable in its cost. That equation has now changed, perhaps irrevocably, because of the fires of last year.

You linked the entire DA's bio (the good & bad), and a news story about a specific meeting that was dysfunctional. Going from that to SF being a "sad story of bad governance" is a bit of an unexplored jump.

I invite a post actually explaining what you're trying to say.