Hacker News Reader

Comment by don-code | Hacker News Reader

As a Bostonian myself, I'm getting used to the idea that we're the exception, rather than the rule. I typically _do_ see these things when I travel within the country. But I'm increasingly seeing it as a "Boston success" rather than a "San Francisco problem" or "Austin problem" or "Seattle problem", because it seems more like a default state, given the current way of things.

That said, I'm not sure what to attribute that to. It could be the broad availability of drug rehab and housing services. It could be that the climate is inhospitable to living on the street for the majority of the year. For all I know, it could be an aftershock of the city's love affair with redlining, effectively putting me away from where I would see it.

View on HN

It's just a mix of climate and policy. In Milwaukee you can see some serious blight but they don't even allow overnight parking on the streets without a permit, let alone overnight pooping.

Personally can't recall ever seeing needles or human feces in or around Austin. Some areas/alleyways around 4th-7th can get pretty urine-y on the weekends.

Generally speaking, one is more likely to run into horse manure around Austin.

Was this down voted because the horse manure comment?

To clarify, I meant that quite literally. Horses are considered a legal vehicle. It is not uncommon to see people riding horses (small groups, solo, & APD mounted patrol) along the shoulder of a road or along the creek and river trails in central/south/southeast/east Austin, especially on the weekends. Probably other places too, but those are the areas I am familiar with.

It is certainly more common to see horse manure in the city than it is to see the human feces or needles that was alluded to in the comment I replied too. At least, in my personal experience spanning decades.

It's more a US culture thing IMO. Go travel to other cities in other developed nations and you see this kind of crap SIGNIFICANTLY LESS, if at all.

It is sort of shocking that an objectively rich city like San Francisco has considerably worse homelessness problem than, say, Uzhhorod in Ukraine. (With average income perhaps 10 per cent of SF one, if not less.)

Just guessing, but could it be because the homeless in Uzhhorod starve to death or freeze in winter, while the homeless in San Francisco survive?

It's mostly because the political culture of SF is trying to solve a mental health issue in compromising way, because the real solution set is not a local level thing, but a state and federal level thing. It's same with the current DA, trying to activist create an alternative to arrest vs. using social workers, while such a solution needs more than the power of the DA's office to properly implement. So you get half-assed solutions that don't actually solve anything much.

Also pure corruption. You'll notice there are a bunch of regions where the homeless roam, and bunch where they do not, and there are very good reasons as to why that is the case.

Most of Europe has homeless shelters, including the poorer countries, it is not as if modern countries just let them drop dead like bugs.

> the homeless in Uzhhorod starve to death or freeze in winter

I doubt it. Housing is one of those problems that is quite easy to solve and the fact that poorer countries can do it while the US can't must be because of nefarious. The same shit is said about developing countries having a lower COVID death rate than the US, "they must be hiding a lot of bodies." In fact, it is quite hard to hide a lot of bodies.

The fact is the US does poorly on a lot of metrics and we have the capability not to.

Also a Bostonian, but have been in NYC metro for 10 years. I'm back in Boston enough to say this with clarity: Boston is very clean.

DTX is regressing in the last 5-10 years. Not to combat zone levels, but certainly not the calmer place it was becoming

even the wealthier areas? southlake, prosper, parks, celina?

Sorry, by DTX I meant Downtown Crossing in Boston :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com