The San Francisco Trash/Needles/Poop in the Streets Containment Thread (crimes, credit card)
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.
If I go to the opera in NYC or DC (Kennedy Center), I do not have to step over excrement to do so. (By the way, I am not an opera fan. BUT, it can be a fun evening with the right friends in tow).
If I go to the (actually better than, but for the sake of argument) equivalent of SFMOMA in DC, the Hirshhorn, say, or the Phillips Collection, I do not have to dodge drug addicts on the way.
If I go to the theatre--Broadway, say--in NY, I do not have to tiptoe through the tent village.
WHY live in a world class city, and avoid ALL of the amenities that make the place different from Poughkeepsie, Hoboken, or Podunk? YES, there are neighborhoods outside of downtown--that's a requirement for it to be a metropolis, if all it had was downtown it would be only a county seat, not a world class city. NO ONE denies there are places outside of downtown. But why is this fact some kind of explanation of how it is still WONDERFUL to live in SF? I can get "non-world-class, but clean" neighborhoods in dozens of cities large and small, with every climate this planet offers, with mountains, oceans, rivers, seas, whatever. The reason to be HERE is not "I can get a postage-stamp house in a clean neighborhood." Reasons to be here include "I can live in a beautiful place and have world class amenities, like top arts, exciting theatre, great music, world-class performers, good food, and so on." Living here and avoiding all those things is FINE--everyone gets to choose. But acting like the avoidance of those things is a SOLUTION to the declining quality of life of an allegedly world-class city is not fine.
We are becoming accustomed to removing every aspect of the city and area that makes it a pleasure to be here, because those things can be exploited in destructive ways by people who need very different and more extensive help than we are supplying by enabling responses. Examples?
We shut-off the fountain in Justin Herman Plaza (I think that's the name) at the Embarcadero about 10-15(?) years ago. Why? Because homeless people with serious problems were using it as a receptacle for urine and feces. That was a nice fountain. Now its junk.
We can't have municipal bathrooms on the street. Why not? Because they become shooting galleries and sex dens for homeless prostitutes.
We can't have trash cans downtown. Why? Because the trash in them gets pulled out and left lying around by people looking for stuff.
That's a partial list, because, one-by-one the thin layer of public amenities (for example, public bathrooms--a necessity, not an "amenity") world-class cities routinely provide are being dismantled, locked, closed, destroyed, in response to abuses and being overwhelmed by people who NEED OUR HELP. How long will we allow the extremists on both sides (the enablers and the genociders) to define our options? We can do better than those options. But the first step is admitting there's a problem, and the second step is regarding avoidant responses as individual answers fine for individuals but INSUFFICIENT for a truly compassionate and non-dysfunctional society.
Huge shortage of houses, sky high housing costs, No section 8 available, Social Services stretched to the Max, Schools trying to teach kids who are illiterate and speak no English.
I don't understand why CA and cities like San Francisco welcome in more illiterate 3rd world illegals when they can't take care of the people who are already in the city.
Why is that?
Been here for 35 years. Still can’t figure it out.
If I go to the opera in NYC or DC(Kennedy Center), I do not have to step over excrement to do so.(By the way, I am not an opera fan. BUT, it can be a fun evening with the right friends in tow).
If I go to the(actually better than, but for the sake of argument)equivalent of SFMOMA in DC, the Hirshhorn, say, or the Phillips Collection, I do not have to dodge drug addicts on the way.
If I go to the theatre--Broadway, say--in NY, I do not have to tiptoe through the tent village.
WHY live in a world class city, and avoid ALL of the amenities that make the place different from Poughkeepsie, Hoboken, or Podunk? YES, there are neighborhoods outside of downtown--that's a requirement for it to be a metropolis, if all it had was downtown it would be only a county seat, not a world class city. NO ONE denies there are places outside of downtown. But why is this fact some kind of explanation of how it is still WONDERFUL to live in SF?
I can get "non-world-class, but clean" neighborhoods in dozens of cities large and small, with every climate this planet offers, with mountains, oceans, rivers, seas, whatever. The reason to be HERE is not "I can get a postage-stamp house in a clean neighborhood." Reasons to be here include "I can live in a beautiful place and have world class amenities, like top arts, exciting theatre, great music, world-class performers, good food, and so on." Living here and avoiding all those things is FINE--everyone gets to choose. But acting like the avoidance of those things is a SOLUTION to the declining quality of life of an allegedly world-class city is not fine.
We are becoming accustomed to removing every aspect of the city and area that makes it a pleasure to be here, because those things can be exploited in destructive ways by people who need very different and more extensive help than we are supplying by enabling responses. Examples?
We shut-off the fountain in Justin Herman Plaza (I think that's the name) at the Embarcadero about 10-15(?) years ago. Why? Because homeless people with serious problems were using it as a receptacle for urine and feces. That was a nice fountain. Now its junk.
We can't have municipal bathrooms on the street. Why not? Because they become shooting galleries and sex dens for homeless prostitutes.
We can't have trash cans downtown. Why? Because the trash in them gets pulled out and left lying around by people looking for stuff.
That's a partial list, because, one-by-one the thin layer of public amenities (for example, public bathrooms--a necessity, not an "amenity") world-class cities routinely provide are being dismantled, locked, closed, destroyed, in response to abuses and being overwhelmed by people who NEED OUR HELP. How long will we allow the extremists on both sides (the enablers and the genociders) to define our options? We can do better than those options. But the first step is admitting there's a problem, and the second step is regarding avoidant responses as individual answers fine for individuals but INSUFFICIENT for a truly compassionate and non-dysfunctional society.
This answer is completely BRILLIANT, but apparently too common sense for so many San Franciscans?
The "La la la la la I'm sticking my fingers in my ears and I can't hear you" attitude seems to be the default whenever anyone says things in SF are not right.
And the response that if people would just stay in the better areas, then they won't notice the deterioration is . . . crazy.
Last edited by Shooting Stars; 05-04-2018 at 08:45 PM..
WHERE do YOU expect homeless people to go to the bathroom?
There should be porta-potties and hand-washing stations on every block of every city.
Really? Who will pay for that? And Who wants to spend $2+ million on a house with a porta potty outside the front door? I don't think the rich folks in the city are going to agree to that. Nor should they.
What do I expect? I expect my city to not be covered in homeless people and drug addicts. Is that really too much to ask?
This is what happens when liberals run everything........
Not true. I am from Massachusetts. It is arguably the most liberal state in the country and it works very well. But there is a balance. I just can't take the winter weather anymore. Also, Vermont super liberal and is great as well... even worse weather in the winter.
"Liberal" has a spectrum. California is on the far end of the spectrum. All by itself.
I've lived in both Massachusetts (Boston and Somerville) and California (Bay area, lotsa places). Both are "liberal," (or Progressive or Leftist) and equally so. But they are DIFFERENT kinds of Left. And that makes all the difference in the world.
Massachusetts is a material Left--they prioritize economic equality. California is a cultural left--they prioritize cultural equality.
Economic equality is possible because you offer people opportunity and some basic floor, and free them to do what they want within the law. The floor allows them to take risks (e.g., try to start a business, go back to school). You allow wealth, but you try not to allow crushing poverty. People are free to act, but you don't tolerate acts that destroy the public good. And you can identify the public good as those things that aid economic equality. For example, a public library aids economic equality by bringing opportunities for knowledge to everyone. If someone, say a homeless person, wants to use the library to sleep, that's sad, but no--they have to go someplace designed for that. If you allowed them to do that then the spaces in the library would become places to sleep, and where would (especially poor) people have free access to books and knowledge resources if you allowed that to happen? So, the goal of reducing economic inequality gives you something for which to aim, and criteria for assessing policies. Thus, economic equality--or, rather, a floor beneath which no one is allowed to fall--is possible and feasible, EVEN IN A DIVERSE SOCIETY.
Cultural equality, however, is impossible because whatever you do, there is always some way that someone somewhere will be "different enough" to call into question the entire effort to create equality. Hold a meeting using English and offer simultaneous Spanish? Great! But someone speaks Japanese. So, add Japanese translation. Great! Someone else speaks Vietnamese. Add Vietnamese. Great! Someone else speaks German. Add German? Okay! What about Czech? Add Czech! And on and on and on and on. Even if you had a translator for every single human language, you'd fail. Why? Well, why have the meeting in English? Why privilege the language of the dominant group!?! Hold the meeting in French! Or Esperanto, and translate from that for everyone! Or use sign language as the language of record. And on and on and on again. NOTE: EVERY SINGLE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION OF "WHY USE ENGLISH?" IS EQUALLY VALID. THAT'S WHY THERE IS NO WAY TO EVER PRODUCE CULTURAL EQUALITY--TO PROCEED, YOU JUST HAVE TO ACT, AND ANY ACT IS CONTESTABLE ON VALID "CULTURAL EXCLUSION" GROUNDS. So, you are right back at cultural inequality--but because you appeared to be committed to cultural equality, people feel even worse when the decision is made that "excludes" them compared to the other groups you included before you decided to stop. And because they feel worse, they are less likely to join in to what was decided, even if what was decided is directly in line with their economic interests. By pursuing cultural equality, all you've done is heighten cultural identities in a way that undermines the ability of people to form coalitions based on their common economic interests.
Faced with someone who cannot speak the language in which a meeting will be held, Massachusetts is more likely to say, look, show up, bring someone who can help you understand the proceedings and speak on your behalf if you have anything to say. And they'll say it pretty much just like that--no begging people to attend, no apologies for not having a translator. California, however, would call such a statement exclusionary and "aggressive."
Massachusetts focuses on economic justice. People should have health care. People should get equal pay for equal work. Unions should be allowed so workers can bargain as equal partners in the economy. California is still debating health care. Silicon Valley is built on low wages for most and stock options as a promise, i.e., a "windfall promise" economy. California has a central valley and southern California that is, when it comes to economic opportunity, basically just as red as Georgia. No such vehemence in Massachusetts.
Lumping MA and CA in the same category, therefore, is a mistake. MA prioritizes economic equality and thus has feasible leftist goals. CA prioritizes cultural equality and thus has impossible "leftist" goals. Both can be seen as left, but MA has a working Left and CA does not.
... Massachusetts is a material Left--they prioritize economic equality. California is a cultural left--they prioritize cultural equality.
...
Interesting post. I'm trying to understand, though, what this means practically. In my all years of living in California and Portland before that, which I would assume be lumped together with liberal California, never has it occurred to me that I'm prioritizing cultural equality. I'm really curious how and when I'm doing it. In other words, through what actions or inactions of everyday people does "California prioritize cultural equality"?
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.
