Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem is the attitude about drug use in general in SF
There are plenty of people who use all sorts of drugs and hold down stable jobs and lead productive lives in SF. It would be hypocritical and inconvenient for them to rally against drug use and make it harder to get the drugs they enjoy by taking a hard line on the issue.
While execs and white collar workers enjoy their coke/acid/heroin/whatever binges in their apartments, not really bothering anyone, they see those on the street in the TL as misguided or unfortunate, and either either ignore them or give them a dollar or a bite to eat.
Personally, I think all drugs should be decriminalized and the money being spent on the war against drugs would be better served in rehab/education programs.
^That. The biggest lie perpetuated in this country is that drugs are the crutch of the poor... in reality they're just the ones who aren't rich enough to stay out of jail when they get caught using them. The legal system in this country really is rigged... they either need to have a mandatory punishment for anyone caught with drugs a la Singapore or we need to decriminalize them for everyone (they already are for the rich), enough of this my-money-is-holier-than-yours justice system we currently have in our country.
Thank you. My point being... most large cities chose to close down their open-air drug markets over the last decade or two. San Francisco has not. My question is: why not?
Politics, mostly. The anti-gentrification crowd got laws passed in the 70s making it illegal to convert residential hotels in SF into normal tourist hotels (luxury hotels had at that time started creeping into the tenderloin from Union Square: the Hilton, etc), and which imposed a 9-story height limit in the tenderloin (which made it infeasible to build a luxury hotel there, as the $$ return vs. cost of construction and operation wouldn't be high enough on the lot sizes available). And then heroin and crack became big in the 70s and 80s, and places like the tenderloin got way worse, the effects of which are still felt today. And on top of this, the city also concentrates many of its social services in the tenderloin (so there are even more homeless, and even more addicts than those already attracted to the area by the drugs), and it's been widely speculated for decades that the SFPD treats the tenderloin as a "containment zone", where they let small time crime go on relatively unchecked (the same deal is rumored to be true for the mission district, with crime being more tolerated east of Valencia street than west of it).
San Francisco has had too few low income neighborhoods for decades now, so it's a tough issue where many people don't want yet another one to be gentrified, even if gentrification means less crime. I mean, it's not like gentrification would mean a better life for current residents anyways, it would just mean they get pushed out due to increased prices, and have to move somewhere else that's also poor and likely high-crime. It's kind of sad that in America gentrification is often the only way to improve an area. So the area gets improved for the new residents who can now afford it, but the old residents who were marginalized for decades now have to leave, and usually just end up in the same type of neighborhood, but somewhere else.
Some things that would GREATLY help the TL, and most other high-crime/poor hoods in the US, without gentrification being necessary, would be a better social safety net, cheaper higher education, and less "otherization" of the poor at the hands of the rest of society, especially at the hands of the police. Ending the war on drugs, and reforms of police culture and procedure, so that it's less "us vs. the enemy combatants" and more "public servant helping the neighborhood" would do a great deal in helping. But those things don't exactly fly with your average "bootstraps" and "just world" American ideology.
As others have mentioned, I guess maybe it is true that San Franciscans generally have a live-and-let live mentality, and many are pretty liberal about drugs. And that may contribute to the TL's current state, but i don't think that's the main reason for the tenderloin being what it is. Most San Franciscans also hate crime (and hate the tenderloin) for example.
^That. The biggest lie perpetuated in this country is that drugs are the crutch of the poor... in reality they're just the ones who aren't rich enough to stay out of jail when they get caught using them. The legal system in this country really is rigged... they either need to have a mandatory punishment for anyone caught with drugs a la Singapore or we need to decriminalize them for everyone (they already are for the rich), enough of this my-money-is-holier-than-yours justice system we currently have in our country.
Or perhaps the reality is they, the "poor" or whoever, can't handle their drug use and shouldn't be doing them in the first place. If you have the money, are a productive citizen, and can handle your drug use whether it be weed, coke, excatsy, etc.. then go ahead and do your thing . Those crackheads in the TL shouldn't be treated the same as middle class or wealthier drug users who can hold down and lead relatively normal lives imo. There are different classes of drug users and those that committ crimes and degrade the quality of life for the public aren't the same as some white collar worker who loves coke on the weekend imo. Even if you decrinimalized all drugs these low-life drug users will still be the same crackhead willing to do anything for their next fix.
Politics, mostly. The anti-gentrification crowd got laws passed in the 70s making it illegal to convert residential hotels in SF into normal tourist hotels (luxury hotels had at that time started creeping into the tenderloin from Union Square: the Hilton, etc), and which imposed a 9-story height limit in the tenderloin (which made it infeasible to build a luxury hotel there, as the $$ return vs. cost of construction and operation wouldn't be high enough on the lot sizes available). And then heroin and crack became big in the 70s and 80s, and places like the tenderloin got way worse, the effects of which are still felt today. And on top of this, the city also concentrates many of its social services in the tenderloin (so there are even more homeless, and even more addicts than those already attracted to the area by the drugs), and it's been widely speculated for decades that the SFPD treats the tenderloin as a "containment zone", where they let small time crime go on relatively unchecked (the same deal is rumored to be true for the mission district, with crime being more tolerated east of Valencia street than west of it).
San Francisco has had too few low income neighborhoods for decades now, so it's a tough issue where many people don't want yet another one to be gentrified, even if gentrification means less crime. I mean, it's not like gentrification would mean a better life for current residents anyways, it would just mean they get pushed out due to increased prices, and have to move somewhere else that's also poor and likely high-crime. It's kind of sad that in America gentrification is often the only way to improve an area. So the area gets improved for the new residents who can now afford it, but the old residents who were marginalized for decades now have to leave, and usually just end up in the same type of neighborhood, but somewhere else.
As others have mentioned, I guess maybe it is true that San Franciscans generally have a live-and-let live mentality, and many are pretty liberal about drugs. And that may contribute, but i don't think that's the main reason for the tenderloin being what it is. Most San Franciscans also hate crime (and hate the tenderloin) for example.
IMO the reason why the Tenderloin still exists is because it serves more than just the down and out... I don't think it's pure coincidence that they allow the Tenderloin to exist next to the FiDi if you catch my drift.
IMO the reason why the Tenderloin still exists is because it serves more than just the down and out... I don't think it's pure coincidence that they allow the Tenderloin to exist next to the FiDi if you catch my drift.
Haha, could be true as well. Those bankers need their nose candy, hookers, and pills too!
Or perhaps the reality is they, the "poor" or whoever, can't handle their drug use and shouldn't be doing them in the first place. If you have the money, are a productive citizen, and can handle your drug use whether it be weed, coke, excatsy, etc.. then go ahead and do your thing . Those crackheads in the TL shouldn't be treated the same as middle class or wealthier drug users who can hold down and lead relatively normal lives imo. There are different classes of drug users and those that committ crimes and degrade the quality of life for the public aren't the same as some white collar worker who loves coke on the weekend.
How do you end up in the position where you're committing crimes to finance your drug use? How many employers will actually hire you if you have a record of crack/heroin/meth arrests? A lot of those "crackheads" as you call them had steady blue collar jobs before their jobs got shipped overseas or were wiped out entirely. You're absolutely right, there are different classes of drug users... white collar drug users and everyone else.
IMO the reason why the Tenderloin still exists is because it serves more than just the down and out... I don't think it's pure coincidence that they allow the Tenderloin to exist next to the FiDi if you catch my drift.
Haha. Right, of course! Like Kabukicho in Tokyo. Though Tokyo seems to be in the process of shutting it down.
How do you end up in the position where you're committing crimes to finance your drug use? How many employers will actually hire you if you have a record of crack/heroin/meth arrests? A lot of those "crackheads" as you call them had steady blue collar jobs before their jobs got shipped overseas or were wiped out entirely. You're absolutely right, there are different classes of drug users... white collar drug users and everyone else.
That seems like a pretty broad generalization that I'm not exactly sure what you're basing that off of, either way it just kind of sounds like an excuse to condone low-life behavoir. Some of these people were likely never productive citizens to begin with and some of course might have been. I'm sure there are plenty of employed blue collar workers that do drugs and hold down normal, productive lives too along with white collar workers. I just don't think a lot of this trash you see in the TL is being treated unfairly compared to other productive citizens that are able to hold down their lives and do drugs.
And if you're a white collar worker having to buy drugs off some random person on the street, you got a problem imo and might want to lay off whatever you're doing.
Politics, mostly. The anti-gentrification crowd got laws passed in the 70s making it illegal to convert residential hotels in SF into normal tourist hotels
I just wanted to comment on the above for a minute.
In trying to find a hostel to stay at in SF, I was disappointed to find that mostly all of the five I called had rates that NEVER stayed the same. The prices differed vastly from what was on their website. I had the downtown hostel straight out tell me that they make up rates as they go along. I never, ever heard of this for a hostel as the rates in other cities tend to be EXACTLY as you see them on the website. Not for SF.
Which leads me to trying to book a weekly spot at one of residential hotels in Mission. I got the name of the hotel from this forum. Their website says $205 weekly, but when I called them to book a stay, the guy had the NERVE to tell me it was $265 for the week!!
I said your website says $205 per week and he said that they've been having "problems" with their website and those rates are no longer valid. I then proceeded to ask him if you still had to SHARE the bathroom with the other residents. He said yes and I hung up the phone.
The hostels wanted $39 to $45 a day to share several beds and this fool above wanted $265 with no a/c, room service and no indoor bathroom. SF is on the scam tip now I see.
I could rent a REAL hotel room for those rates and cheaper! Ridiculous.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
