In truth it’s more than just the grocery store’s problem. It’s a problem for people in the neighborhood when the only grocery store closes down and they suddenly find themselves in a food desert. And even if there are other stores, it’s one fewer option for them. And living in this kind of atmosphere is a drag as it drives customers and businesses away and it isn’t a picnic for people living there either. It’s no fun living someplace where you’re in constant fear of waking up one morning to find you car’s window smashed in or something on your property vandalized.
Of course I don’t blame this on any progressive policies. Like @DavidNRockies said, it’s nearly impossible to control for all the variables and come to any meaningful conclusion about whose fault it is. I just wanted to point out that it’s a problem for more than just the business.
In concert with brutal policies towards homeless people in other cities, yes. But I don’t understand why this is notable. It’s like saying “the death penalty for jaywalking reduces jaywalking”. Why is that notable or interesting? Overall homelessness isn’t helped by brutal policies towards the homeless - it just moves them somewhere else.
One other point that the conservatives pushing this agenda conveniently overlook is that in politics and in life there are always tradeoffs. For a lot of people with liberal or progressive politics, supporting our values is a reasonable tradeoff for some of the issues that we face. Of course, the conservatives don’t see this, because our values are meaningless to them, so they don’t even enter into the equation.
When I hear about a place where abortion is banned, or drag shows are banned, or teaching children that all people are special and loved, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity is banned, I put that place on a list of place that I could never live, and probably don’t ever want to visit.
I wish we could figure out a way to resolve the problems of homelessness, drug use and petty crime in my city. But I never think, “Oh no! There are homeless people living here! I can’t stay!”
Checking in from Canada, where our far-right politicians would probably still be considered filthy communists by US standards. I live in a city of about 80,000 and this city has homeless people. While I would say that my city leans progressive, there are no shortage of people who fall into the “I don’t care where they go but they can’t stay here” camp.
Now perhaps things are different in the US but one thing in particular comes to mind as regards this problem: in my city, the Mayor does not build housing. The city council does not deliver mental health services nor do they have any input on the administration of justice. So here, all they can do is bylaw enforcement, cleanups (the camp where a vigilante got himself shot by a homeless person was just dismantled last week) and appeals to senior levels of government to do something. But as for fixing the problem themselves, they have no options. No matter how liberal or conservative any mayor/city council might lean, they do not have any jurisdiction to actually address these issues.
Yes, this is an important point. I mentioned earlier in this thread that I went to a concert in SF last night. It was a fabulous band from overseas. SF attracts superstars from all around the world to perform. That’s really important to me, and well worth the well-known downsides such as the homelessness and the dirt, which I admit is pretty bad.
One thing I don’t understand is why San Francisco’s government tolerates the human-feces problem. You’d think that not-wanting-to-step-on-poop would be one of the very few things that liberals and conservatives could be bipartisan and in mutual agreement on. Neither side likes poop, or ought to.
I’ve heard that places run by conservatives have even worse crime, but that never gets reported. My cite is the same as yours. Please provide some actual statistics rather than going by what you overhear.
So there was a big increase in 2020, and small decreases in the following two years, such that the total increase for 3 years is 4.4%. And you call that defunding the police.
Here are some questions you are failing to ask, in order to establish context: How did other departments fare in those two years? Do you think something going on at the time, like maybe Covid, might have had an influence on these changes? What is the city’s 5-year budget plan vis-a-vis the police department?
There is clearly no basis for discussion of your claims until you can support them, which you have failed to do.
The thing is, that problem is much less severe than portrayed in the media. I’m in San Francisco a lot, and while the homelessness and general dirt is awful in some areas, I haven’t seen much feces myself.
Cite that CA or those cities have defunded the police?
The states with the highest crime rates are- NM, LA, CO, SC, AR, & OK, All RED except NM.
Yes, people are leaving CA- due to the high cost of owning a home. Most are retirees. CA actually has the most available jobs.
It is true that LA City and county has the most homeless, but also the most populous.
NYC has the 2nd highest.
In other words, the higher the population, generally the higher the homeless. But it is also a factor of weather. You’d die in Dallas without AC. Portland has great weather, never too cold or too hot (comparably that is)
Phoenix has a surprisingly high homeless population.
Since when is a 4.4% INCREASE = "defunding??
Yep. Housing not taxes- except for retirees.
Exactly. Sure, rampant petty crime, less violent crime. That is a pretty nice trade-off to me.
No, violent crime is the important measure, not non-violent petty crime.
And do we really need our tax dollars to fund a cop to chase a bread thief for years as in les Miz ?
The cost of that is too high and the budget is not high enough. It is a cost saving measure. Why spend $50K of taxpayer funds on a $500 theft? Taxpayers r loudly about higher taxes. And they another $50K to lock them up for half a year?
Who says? And the answer- no they are not. Lower Violent crime is a Good Thing.
Good Point.
The 12 largest cities all have Dem mayors. Of the 30 largest only two are R.
Unprofitable grocery stores are not unprofitable because who shoplift potentially face 6 months in prison and/or a fine. Its:
In context: “its a problem” that the grocery store is responsible for fixing, not “its not a problem for the community when a grocery store closes down.”
As to the homeless issue The Atlantic had a recent article that largely blamed land use policies.
Which ring true to me, after 30+ years studying the real estate market.
But that seems more of a NIMBY issue, than any particular wider political ideology
I don’t have much faith in this analysis. I think the problem is fundamentally a lack of a social safety-net, of unaffordable healthcare, the industrial prison complex. “Land use policies” are of course important and relevant: but it wouldn’t do anything to help either of the two people I quoted from the article. You don’t start at the end.
You’ve got to start with the safety net. People shouldn’t be losing their houses because they had to go to the hospital. You shouldn’t be throwing people in jail at industrial levels.
The real estate market is fucked up. But by making this the “problem that needs fixing” that allows you to ignore the real societal issues that are forcing people into homelessness in the first place.
You don’t need a “well-functioning, well-funded homelessness apparatus.” You need a well-functioning, well-funded social safety net. Which, ironically, are progressive policies, and as we’ve learned from this thread progressives in the United States have almost no real political power.
What we learn from San Francisco, from Los Angeles, IMHO, is that the real problem is what the OP describes as “the general Democratic ideals.” And those general Democratic ideals will always prioritize business interests, the establishment, corporations, the police, over most anything else.
OMG. That’s beyond horrible. Heartless! How could someone do that, even if they were told to? The people responsible for this should be held accountable and never be allowed to work in patient care again when they get out of jail.
…the people responsible will never be held accountable, will never be jailed, and the only people that will end up “not working in patient care again” will be the people who raise the alarm and “blow the whistle”, which was exactly what happened in the story.
This is the system. And when progressives fight to change the system, the moderates and the right fight to bring it back to the status quo.
Progress is bad, obviously. We all need to just keep sitting here in the grass, because if we get up, everyone will see the grass stains that show how long we have been just sitting here in the grass, which would be embarrassing, so we need to keep on sitting here, to hide that.
This isn’t getting enough attention, so I’m reviving it, with an additional comment:
Does anyone think that if any of these “problem cities” – e.g. San Francisco or LA – were, say, in the middle of Sweden, that they would have all the same problems?
The difference in Europe and indeed throughout the industrialized world is the national socioeconomic context in which their cities exist. They are NOT wealth-seeking tax-avoiding plutocracies with inadequate social support for the disadvantaged, inadequate housing, inadequate health care (with patients being dumped on the streets as noted in the post above), and pressures that drive some of the disadvantaged to criminality. So in a socioeconomic environment that creates an underclass and brutalizes it, it’s understandable that such underclass will tend to migrate to where they are brutalized less. Don’t blame progressivism in individual cities for what is essentially a national problem.
