Hacker News Reader

Comment by yupper32 | Hacker News Reader

> This was my third time in SF.

> Also, I've always refused to move to Silicon Valley

> The author is in denial.

> it is a really expensive shithole

I'm always amazed by people who have visited a place a few times as a tourist and think "I'm qualified to shit on people who choose to live here". What makes you think you have any say in the situation?

SF has massive neighborhood diversity as far as living situations go. Yeah, the downtown and tourist areas suck. So what? That's the case in a ton of cities. I've lived in a neighborhood here for 7 years that has low crime, no shit on the streets, and is generally a great place to live.

Yeah, we've got a shit DA right now which hurts the city with increased petty crimes. We'll turn it around eventually.

View on HN

>What makes you think you have any say in the situation?

He doesn't have a say, but that doesn't mean he can't have valid opinions as an outsider with a more unbiased perspective.

To be clear I've lived in SF Bay Area for 10+ years and I've also traveled extensively/lived in other world class cities.

SF really is a more expensive shithole. It doesn't mean there aren't any charms but anyone who doesn't acknowledge SF's shortfalls vs. other top cities is in complete denial.

Being an outsider has nothing to do with being unbiased. Those are entirely orthogonal. And frankly, that commenters bias was pretty evident, regardless.

Because we walk around our own cities for YEARS and see less of this then we do on a random walk on a single day.

SF is a very densely populated place, so that shouldn't be a surprise (if you live in NYC, I don't believe you).

Lots of people have visited SF as well as more densely populated places both in the US and elsewhere.

So have I - and downtown SF is worse (in terms of littering, human excrement, aggressive panhandling, street crime) than the problematic parts of NYC, DC, Philly and Baltimore, worse than densely populated capitals in Latin America or East Asia or Eastern Europe. It's better than Indian cities but that is a very low bar for one of the world's richest cities.

I sort of doubt that you've spent much time in the most problematic parts of DC/Philly/Baltimore. Their peers are Chicago, New Orleans, and St. Louis. Not remotely SF.

Ive lived in SF for years. It’s exactly like this

It’s not just downtown, It’s not like this in any cities at all

Get out more, and stop living in denial.

Just curious, what are you doing to turn it around? I don't think it's fair to use the collective "we" in this case unless you're actively working to solve these problems. Otherwise it comes off as incredibly dismissive.

Voting, contributing to campaigns, some volunteering around prop times. Though I'll admit I haven't done much around the recall of our DA outside of donating. I should be doing more there.

I'm also active in my neighborhood in my own way, trying to get people together for events (think trivia, bar game tournaments, etc). Though of course this has limited during covid.

I think your comment is kinda rude, though. Even if all I was doing was voting, I think I'd still qualify to talk on the issues. Anything more is gatekeeping.

Have the candidates you voted for won any of the elections? Or would your candidates have done differently than the currently elected officials?

Many people blame government but think their own representation is fine.

California has huge problems with affordable housing and homelessness but their left-leaning residents and politicians seem ineffective against the problem. One would think that left-leaning governments would solve these problems more effectively.

For example, why is the governor of California issuing refunds of a surplus budget when throes of mentally ill and drug addicted citizens swarm the streets with no effective assistance or clean area to defecate? It is appalling to say the least.

Some of my candidates I've supported have won. Some I've liked once in office, some I haven't. Some I've voted for again, some I've voted out. Can't win them all. Just have to keep trying.

Sorry my efforts aren't good enough, I guess?

I simply asked, didn't suggest you weren't doing things. Please read my comment carefully--I specifically tried to be careful not to imply anything. I asked because I think participating locally is the only real answer, so kudos.

> SF has massive neighborhood diversity as far as living situations go. Yeah, the downtown and tourist areas suck.

The fact that you needed to say that says a lot. While describing most cities of the world, most third world country cities of the world, you would never even mention the word feces, much less defend its presence on the streets.

"The fact that you needed to say that says a lot. While describing most cities of the world, most third world country cities of the world, you would never even mention the word feces, much less defend its presence on the streets."

Actually, you might ... I distinctly remember the unaddressed stray dog problem in Buenos Aires (circa 2006) which was not confined to any particular neighborhood or area and resulted in a more feces per block than I have ever seen in San Francisco.

I remember a similar but less pronounced problem in Granada (Spain) where I lived for several months in 2008.

And in most cities I haven't had to bribe a cop, like the one time I went to Mexico.

And in most cities I haven't heard the result of an acid attack outside of my hotel lobby, like one of the times I've visited London.

I'd take feces over those examples any day. And yet, I'm not going to shit on those places, because I was a tourist. I get that some places, especially some tourist and downtown areas, are more dangerous than others. And I get that my tourist experience doesn't necessarily reflect the day-to-day of normal residents.

Comparing acid attacks in London to San Francisco's problems is like comparing plane crashes to car crashes. The former is worse per occurrence and gets more attention, but the latter is much, much more common and so worse overall.

You've missed my point entirely.

My point is that just because I heard an acid attack outside my hotel in London, it does not make me qualified to criticize London or those who choose to live there.

Just as someone who visited SF a few times and saw some feces (etc) is not qualified to criticize SF or those who choose to live here.

Right, but if you heard an acid attack outside of your hotel three visits in a row, it’d be a different story.

I’ve spent six years in the Bay (SF and Berkeley), and the unfortunate truth is that the feces, homelessness, and public drug use have become prominent features of today’s SF.

Yes but then you ask people you know whether xyz thing is common, and it turns out the tent cities are permanent, and in fact everyone runs into people who need psychological help each day.

Nobody will tell you that London has an acid attack problem. I've lived here for years and heard about it maybe once on the news. Everyone will tell you SF has an issue with homelessness/mental health, and they've seen it with their own eyes.

> My point is that just because I heard an acid attack outside my hotel in London, it does not make me qualified to criticize London or those who choose to live there.

Yes it does. People are allowed to have opinions and express them. I've never been to SF, but I can just tell from what I've seen on sites like this that I would hate it. You can feel otherwise and that's fine, but other people will judge SF for their inaction on issues like ubiquitous homelessness.

I lived in San Francisco for 15 years, and it’s getting pretty nasty in some places. When ever I meet someone who’s visited San Francisco, almost without exception, they comment on the homeless problem. The problem is SF is so bad you can’t help but comment on it because you’ve likely never experienced anything like it elsewhere in the USA. Who wants to visit a city where the first thing you experience is aggressive panhandling and streets covered in poop?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com