Federal agency tells SF workers to work from home due to unsafe conditions
sfist.com
sfist.com
Here's an initial review: https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/new-federal-building-...
And a reappraisal: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/10-years-later-f...
I believe this building is one of many commissionned under the GSA's design excellence program, which has produced a really adventurous range of buildings by American architects across the country: https://www.gsa.gov/real-estate/design-and-construction/desi...
Finally, the building was designed by the lead architect named Thom Mayne. Of his other work, Id also recommend the Caltrans district headquarters in LA: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caltrans_District_7_Headquar... Love it or hate it, I think all can agree that this is stimulating architecture compared to most office buildings.
More armed citizens isn't the ultimate solution (people need mental and financial help) but it's better than the current situation.
How does that work at locations like post offices or the VA, where it's illegal to carry just in the parking lot?
[edit] A better situation would be if they cleaned this disaster zone up.
Getting a CCW is something you as a citizen can do now. Personally, I'm in favor of having an option other than being a victim.
Just because the city won't do the right thing - doesn't mean you doing the wrong thing makes the situation any better.
It just makes it different.
[1] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/do-guns-m...
[2] https://www.thetrace.org/2020/04/gun-safety-research-coronav...
[3] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-...
[4] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-thr...
> Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05).
Do you carry pepper gel or spray? A taser?
I think you may be replying to someone else, because I said no such thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
If the governments would do their basic job, the vast majority of law-abiding citizens would not need guns for self-defense. But our current governments are sadly unwilling to do their basic job.
If the government not only is not willing to do its duty to enforce the laws against crime, but even has the gall to claim that that's not the government's job, then all the more reason why law-abiding citizens will be motivated to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.
Except that stand-your-ground laws and easy concealed-carry look to make things worse:
Also, the pages talk about "homicide", but that term, at least as it's usually used in such general studies, includes justified self-defense homicides. So if total homicides do in fact go up as a result of these laws, that could be because criminals who would have gotten away with their crimes before the laws were passed were instead killed by their intended victims in self defense. That's not a problem, it's exactly what the laws are for.
No. We should eliminate the cops (who have actively contributed to the current problem as a political protest to lobby for more control) and rebuild SF law enforcement as a non-monolithic function distributed in domain-specific units throughout local government (that component of the solution is not specific to SF, but SF is more accutely problematic than most places.)
Probably less of the total manpower directed to enforcing the law should be armed with firearms, an armed paramilitary force is not a universal solution, but there still should be armed enforcement.
Regardless of what happens with the police, again, law abiding citizens should have the option to defend themselves, especially since the police have no obligation to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
No, that's not their duty, either.
They are a paramilitary force lacking the civilian supreme command that, in the US, the actual military has, empowered by but not obligated to act to enforce the law, an independent and centralized power center.
If the cops have a choice of stopping 2 crimes or the crime happening to you, they're going to choose the 2 crimes. Presumably you and definitely I would choose to prevent the crimes happening to ourselves. Thus, self defense.
https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/king-county-courtho...
Not sure if it's still going on today.
Good luck to everyone who still lives in SF.
So whilst SF has its own issues it is far from unique.
The rise in global inflation, decreasing home affordability and stagnant wages has resulted in more people struggling.
But there is an increase across not just Western Europe but Australia, Canada etc. And not just homelessness and drug use but upstream factors like inequality, poverty, cost of living etc.
So many people have been living on the poverty line that it doesn't take much to push people over.
I remember visiting nyc and seeing people shooting up in the street while the police were watching. Obviously the problem is lack of enforcement- and if petty crimes aren’t enforced even with just small punishments, then more serious crimes accelerate.
For readers who run across this, this is referred to as the Broken window theory:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory
And despite the commenter stating it as fact, both here and elsewhere, the idea is very much controversial, and far from proven.
I think he's pointing out that people who commit serious crimes usually have a prior history of smaller, petty crimes that they were not given meaningful punishment for.
The data certainly supports this observation, and I can dig out supporting evidence if it's in doubt (at least in NYC, Dublin, and London. I'm not familiar with SF).
No, I'm not. He specifically mentioned broken window theory elsewhere.
> The data certainly supports this observation,
There are multiple interpretations of the data, and the Wikipedia page I cited goes through the many possibilities.
Nowadays there are state run drug consumption rooms:
https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/topics/pods/drug-consumption-ro... https://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2018/nov/21/...
Step 1 to fixing your problems is to admitting they exist, and that they're your fault.
> Step 1 to fixing your problems is to admitting they exist, and that they're your fault.
The (situational) irony.
Or was it brilliant?
Being "street smart" and constantly aware of your surroundings/situation will get you through most cities just fine but there is something utterly unpredictable about the street scene in SF that makes this strategy unworkable. It's basically one step above total Mad Max Anarchy.
But I know HN isn't a great forum for emotional topics like that.
Any suggestions for where I can have that kind of discussion online?
Hn is a great forum for it though, all things considered.
This place has some pretty frustrating opinions.
Maybe write something up in substack and push it on twitter. @mention Shellenberger and others?
But instead follow people who are involved in policy decisions, social workers, psychologists, housing advocates etc. As you will get a more nuanced look at some of the issues.
Drug use and homelessness are two of the most complex problems in society to solve and usually require multi-faceted approaches across a wide array of disciplines to solve.
Homelessness is not a complex problem to substantially ameliorate: https://seliger.com/2022/06/29/homelessness-is-a-housing-pro.... Northern California has tried absolutely everything to reduce homelessness except building more housing: https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/i-will-do-anything-to-en....
Places in London that built large scale apartment complexes for social housing saw them turned into slums with rampant drug use, violence and criminal activity.
And it can be harder to get smaller-medium density housing to work because you're constantly fighting against local governments and NIMBY types.
...some places were just badly designed and encouraged the slum aspect (and associated problems).
If building slums eliminates homelessness, that's a net win. No need to let "perfect" get in the way of "better".
> Any forum which is against diverse but calmly-presented views backed with data is not a good forum.
but I do think it over-simplifies things.
For example, I find HN to be a good forum for back-and-forth discussions about technical topics. But IMHO discussions involving ideology are far more likely to go off the rails.
Speak your mind.
Heck, even my question, above is currently rated (at most) -2, for reasons I can't fathom.