Hacker News Reader

Comment by blunte | Hacker News Reader

I just don't understand why throwing trash on the ground is tolerated. There is virtually no argument for why someone should need or be allowed to throw or leave their trash on the ground.

Most of us manage to get clothes on before we leave the house each day, and that's a lot more complicated than just putting trash into a bin (or god forbid, carrying it until you reach a destination which has a trash bin). So there is no excuse for littering.

I would impose very strict penalties for littering - namely forcing the one who is caught littering to spend two hours every day for a week, or even a month, walking the streets (and beaches or riverbanks or parks) and collecting trash.

If an alternative punishment must be provided, they could instead sit on the spot where they littered for a day, holding a sign which says "I'm a poorly trained human, and I throw my trash on the ground."

View on HN

People are shitting in the streets, shooting drugs in the open and shoplifting with no consequences and you think SF is willing to impose severe penalties on littering?

If only we had littering laws SF would be such a beautiful place…

> I just don't understand why throwing trash on the ground is tolerated. There is virtually no argument for why someone should need or be allowed to throw or leave their trash on the ground.

It comes back to the policies around law enforcement adopted by SF. Since it is effectively the epicenter of progressive politics in the world, there are a lot of radical policies in play. One of them is "restorative justice", which claims to make criminals / law breakers less stigmatized and more able to constructively reintegrate into society. Personally, I feel the motivations are sincere and have good intentions behind them.

However in practice, that framework of restorative justice has been warped into something more like an us versus them narrative, where those who break the law are viewed as helpless victims while those who seek to enforce the law are viewed as oppressors. I think this is partly because of the divisive nature of American politics in general, and partly because of the extremist language used by some activists who support these policies.

While I agree there is no excuse for this, and it shouldn't be tolerated (alongside open drug abuse, shoplifting, defecating on the street, assault, armed robberies, burglaries, and so on), the reality is that the politicians elected in SF and people like Chesa Boudin (the District Attorney) are very much all-in on restorative justice. In effect, they've decriminalized most crimes. And unfortunately it is a two-tier justice system where law abiding taxpayers are subject to the penalties of the law, while criminals are somehow not subject to penalties.

As far as I can tell, the only practical way out for SF is for constituents to wholesale reject fringe progressive politics and return to moderate politics that is closer to the Clinton or Obama era left. However, I don't view that as being very likely despite all the complaints, simply because the voice of activists is louder and more feared than other voices.

> simply because the voice of activists is louder and more feared than other voices

Maybe it is more persuasive and appealing. If it doesn't appeal to you, that doesn't mean the only explanation for everyone is volume and fear.

Lot of people with serious mental health and substance abuse issues on the streets of SF, at least when I lived there (moved away about 6 months ago).

Beyond trash, the streets actually had a lot of shit and piss on them, too. I think it's hard to really understand just how bad it was unless you go there. I'd watch movies and they didn't seem real to me because the streets were too clean.

To me it seems like an obvious failure of the government, but perhaps it does reflect a popular sentiment of the dominant culture, that people's individual right to live a life of misery in squalor on the street trumps any other concern. I dunno.

How law and punishment works: You can put death penalty for littering, but if you know you can get away with it because nobody is watching (and you don't care about it), you will continue doing it. The opposite a smaller fine but with good monitoring (where you know that you will get caught) is better.

Even better is getting the idea inside people's brain. "I don't litter, because this is how I am". There is a book titled "Made to stick" where they expose the case of Texas and the problem they had with littering. A campaign was made "Don't mess with Texas", basically everyone should police anyone who doesn't comply with this don't litter attitude. This was done by appealing to the ideal of what a Texan should be, through clever advertising and marketing. Never been to Texas btw :)

> throwing trash on the ground

This is only part of the issue. I've been picking up trash for years while walking or hiking in the outdoors and have observed a lot of different situations and setups that are really common:

- Pocket design on clothing isn't designed to allow easy litter insertion, exactly. A lot falls out of coats, jogging pouches when people think it's secure. Open wrappers from things like candy or granola bars have this banana-peel splaying effect that can help them to practically leap out of pockets while being stuffed in.

- Animals like local corvidae can spread litter like crazy.

- Wind, especially on garbage collection day, or around outdoor events

- Some hilarious amount of litter is meant to stay there because someone really does intend to come back and get it later. From water bottles left by runners to legit trash left by well-meaning people who really will be back soon, and then feel angry and confused about how they are perceived when they find that another do-gooder picked it up

- Vehicles, from garbage trucks to other work vehicles headed from site to site...man, some of the trash vortices I've seen :D

The inexcusable people you mentioned, I guess, are easy to spot and often easy to clean up after because they'll put their trash in the bag before hucking it out the car window, so you can use their bag to hold other trash as well. Or at least it's thrown in the same general area, and amounts to a couple bottles.

If they are drunk/high you can often get their names and stuff really easy too. Starbucks cup, receipt...wallet...oops they forgot that lol. Stage a gentle community intervention if so inclined, nobody necessarily needs the police involved.

But emotionally if someone has just had it with rules and abuse of rule systems for control purposes, if they perceive that they have been unfairly treated by society, I find that those are the litter bugs people worry about. But I can also sympathize...

The animals thing is huge. I have a backyard with 8 foot fences and clean out 3-4 pieces of food wrapping every day from my backyard, hauled in by various animals.

> So there is no excuse for littering.

The real question isn't the obvious, but what we find when, discovering that the obvious isn't working, we dig deeper.

Do you live in a community with these problems? Try speaking to the people there; you may learn a lot. They aren't fools who have never considered the issue; they are intelligent, mostly well-meaning human beings who nevertheless find themselves in this situation.

I'm not talking about the obvious, so please avoid pinning on me the anti-obvious ('I support litter!'). The obvious in this case is an obstacle, preventing us from seeing and addressing the reality.

> I just don't understand why throwing trash on the ground is tolerated.

Tolerated? Come around some neighborhoods and not tolerate it. Who said the problem is our toleration?

> I would impose very strict penalties

This is an understandable reaction to bad behavior, but it doesn't work. Humans aren't so easily pushed around and it becomes a tool for harassing innocent people (e.g., minor drug possession offenses).

Singapore generally has very clean streets, but the price is very high fines.

I like the idea of a $1000 fine or community service spent cleaning up trash.

I'm not convinced that a fine is going to change someone's behavior. It may put them in a regretful financial bind, but it's really a short-term pain. Spending a week cleaning trash is definitely something they will remember! (and for sure they will complain to friends and family who will then maybe be less likely to litter themselves)

I feel like a $1000 fee would be something most people would remember and complain about to friends and family...

Singapore has plenty of people littering. They also have a massive army that is constantly cleaning.

Yes, if caught (unlikely) you will be severely punished. But that’s not the reason Singapore is so clean.

So when the person you tell to do community service says, "No", then what?

SF has no willingness to actually punish crime. The cops won't show up to stop shoplifting, bike theft, or any number of other crimes, and now you think there's going to be a trash patrol that is going to actually do something?

Are the people littering mostly civilians or drug addicts?

what an odd question.

the real hardcore street addicts really don't do or buy anything but sit in a heap on the sidewalk for hours at at time.

do you mean that casual users just get so ... crazy .. that they feel compelled to throw trash on the street just for the thrill?

the homeless (often drug using) do certainly contribute to th e problem since they do go through the trash and gather stuff they think they might be able to sell or use.

but somehow I don't think that's what you're asking

Are drug addicts not 'civilian'? Are they citizens?

> Are the people littering mostly civilians or drug addicts?

Mostly civilians who are not also drug addicts (“civilians” and “drug addicts” are, of course, overlapping sets.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com