[1] http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/05/san_franciscos_to...
0: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Human-waste-shuts-down...
Can you to cite a source for both of those claims? AFAIK, NYC is the only city that does stop and frisk, and it has been proven to be a program to 1) be heavily skewed towards frisking minorities, and 2) resulting in a 1.9% "success rate" in finding a weapon after having frisked the entire African American population once over in NYC (source: http://occupydesign.org/uncategorized/stop-frisk-infographic... )
It's also unconstitutional, but as long as you aren't the one being frisked, it's no problem, right?
5.4% of stops between 2004 and 2009 resulted in arrests. That's actually a really high number, contrary to the characterization of the article. That's tens of thousands of instances of actual wrongdoing being caught.
Stop and frisk does skew towards stopping minorities. That is not in and of itself necessarily problematic. Race, socioeconomic status, and crime are deeply correlated in the big cities. The unfortunate fact is that most crime in New York, Chicago, and LA are committed by blacks and hispanics, and in fact usually both the victims and the perpetrators are minorities. See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/06/nypd-report-details....
Stop and frisk is not unconstitutional. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio. Playing armchair Supreme Court Justice when it comes to the 4th amendment is fraught with peril, for the simple reason that the founders explicitly left it open to judicial interpretation by using the wiggle word "unreasonable."
But NYC is accused of going far past the Terry authorization; the NYPD has been sued for demanding that people turn out their pockets, and for arresting people for drug possession.
If you read the general orders for a large police department (I've read Chicago's, but not NYC's), they're clear on this point: you can't reach into someone's pockets without having either consent or an arrest.
Consider that "Stop & Frisk" may be marketed as a systematic application of Terry v Ohio, but might instead be emblematic of something broader.
(It's also worth remembering that NYPD statistics are controversial; look up "CompStat". I read some Chicago police blogs and get the sense that NYPD's statistic accountability is basically loathed outside of NYC --- which doesn't make the Chicago police right!)
Maybe tighter gun control makes cities safer? It's supposed to be rare for a SF resident to successfully obtain a concealed carry permit, and a local ordinance requiring weapons at home to be locked up was upheld just a few days ago. (http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/crime-law/federal-judge-uphold...)
Not sure how many people know this, but in 1993 there was a mass shooting at 101 California street, resulting in tougher gun laws. (http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/10-YEARS-AFTER-101-Califo...)
Also, as a city, Caracas comes to mind. A city with heavy police presence but intolerable crime statistics.
Do we really want or feel that more people in sf is a good thing? Why not live down the peninsula or the east bay where there's an unlimited amount of space.
As for whether building up and having more people is a good thing that really depends on the people, the culture and the management of the city. Personally Tokyo an awesome place to live with all kinds of activity, culture, etc and it has a population density much higher than SF so it's certainly true that an SF that grows up could be a great place.
But Tokyo's average building height is lower than San Francisco's already. Tokyo did not grow "up."
Tokyo has double the density of SF by having much, much less parking and much narrower streets. Eighty-five percent of street miles -- or kilometers -- in Tokyo are single lane streets, not single lane each way or single with a parking lane but true single lane. Tokyo also has no truck with SF's absurd excess of easy, cheap, and free parking.
Building up harms quality of life. If you want more density, and you do, then you need to eliminate parking and turn it into housing.
This is very interesting. I did not actually know this. However, the city will never go for this. They make a ton of money through parking fees, citations etc to turn this city into a car free zone. Also, although SF has a large number of exceptions, most Americans have a love affair with cars.
Proof? There is no shortage of demand for housing in Manhattan, despite massive "building up" there.
San Francisco has a love affair with beat-up 100 year old victorian houses and outrageously high prices. If I owned one of those houses I also wouldn't want to let any new real estate developers into my Cool Kids Club.
As far as I know none of the existing tall buildings are having trouble finding people to rent them
Nevertheless, all the skyscrapers stand up to earthquakes just fine in Mexico City.
No, it doesn't. I live in the Haight (which is a key cultural mecca of the city). While, there certainly are gorgeous Victorian era houses (The Painted Ladies), most of the buildings are look like cute, unstable, four - five floor buildings which were probably built in the fifties or the sixties (Or certainly look like it). IMO, this place could do with a few shiny high rises. I am convinced that it should be possible to design a place that doesn't offend the aesthetic sensibilities of a neighborhood whilst helping organic growth.
> Do we really want or feel that more people in sf is a good thing? Why not live down the peninsula or the east bay where there's an unlimited amount of space.
This is not going to solve the problem. I used to ponder about why Austin which has roughly the same size and population as SF is not as packed or doesn't have as shitty a public transport system. I think there is a reason for that: It is because San Francisco acts like a cultural magnet for the rest of the bay, which means that irrespective of who actually lives/works here in the city, the presence of unlimited amount of space or job opportunities in the rest of the bay is not going to depress demand. I know people living in South/East bay, who keep looking for places. All these requests are driving up our rents and that hasn't been affected by the space constraints outside the city.