I saw that Atlantic article and I think it’s only partially correct. Land use (zoning) is one factor out of many. Another factor is the way homes, condos, and apartment buildings are acquired at mass scale by large global investors, whose goal is to extract maximum value by removing “low value tenants”, usually by jacking up the rent or evicting them on various pretexts.
This means, practically, that the only people in the rental business are slumlords. The tenants in turn organize and fight back with rent strikes and other tactics. This is what I saw in Oakland and San Francisco, for years.
On the other side of that… if you live in a “nice” neighborhood where everyone expresses the same social norms, mixing a new group in there who does not share those norms – not a recipe for success.
Perhaps this has been done to death by now, but I’d really like to see the reason Saint_Cad posted this. Was it just a guess? A rhetorical device? Or have they totally bought into the propaganda that tells naked lies about what the “dastardly left” is doing?
I can’t speak to Saint_Cad’s motives, but after reading about the conservative move to a law and order platform, I’m beginning to understand what they are doing with their San Francisco agenda. They have realized that they can’t win over the undecideds with their culture war rhetoric. Americans aren’t really looking to ban abortion, gay people or people of color. So they are pivoting to attacking progressives for being pro-crime, hoping that everyone will forget about the real progressive goals and just see them as being against law and order. It’s not a terrible strategy, and certainly more effective than another anti-trans push. And if San Francisco is damaged in the process, I guess that’s just a bonus.
I was only assuming the hypothetical to make a point. For both cities I wouldn’t call their problems a result of progressive policies, their problems are the result of poor governance.
In that hypothetical, I doubt that there would the same total of 10,000 homeless people before and after. Some of the homeless in Omelas would pursue other options to avoid the negative consequences of being homeless. For instance, some of them might stay in a motel, stay with friends, get housing assistance, get a job, etc. Some of the 1,000 homeless reduction in Omelas would likely be from people getting off the streets. They may be homeless because that’s that’s the best option of their available options rather than it being their only option.
For instance, if someone has $50, they might make the choice to sleep in a park and keep all $50 rather than chipping in $30 on a motel with a few others. If there is no consequence to sleeping in the park, then it’s a reasonable decision to sleep there for free and keep that $30. But if they knew there was a good chance of getting arrested in the park, then they might figure out a way to make that $30/night so they would be able to sleep in the motel.
…I asked for a cite that “the police aren’t arresting people because “no charges are being filed”. When you can provide that cite, then maybe we can talk. There is no need to “back anything up.”
Are you seriously not aware of the general trend towards decarceration and “no bail” procedures being advocated in numerous cities around the US? This is not news.
“That’s not happening, and it’s good that it is!” ?
It’s not a contentious issue with regard to whether it is happening. If the DA will not charge, the cops won’t bother to arrest. They’ll go through the motions, play tourist in blue, take a nap somewhere. Arrests don’t matter without convictions, etc etc.
Are the jails being emptied? Court dockets cleared because the DA is not charging criminals?
If you read deeper into these issues you can see the problems of a massively overloaded criminal system and incredible injustice that comes with it.
So, DAs need to prioritize some things more than others. Beyond more courts and more jails (and the taxes it costs to do all of that very expensive stuff) what is the solution?
And I can say, personally, if I don’t do my job I am fired regardless if I think I have a good reason not to do it. Cops need to do the job they are paid to do.
…the United States locks up more people per capita than almost anywhere else in the world. And as I’ve shown to you already, most of those people haven’t actually been convicted of a crime.
I wish there was a “general trend towards decarceration.” Unfortunately the general trend appears to be maintaining the status quo. If you suddenly released half of all the prisoners in custody in America right now, you would still have just under twice as many locked up as they do in Australia. Unless Americans are uniquely more likely to be criminals, there really shouldn’t be any reason why so many people are locked up.
Its called bail reform. And in San Francisco, one of the places this thread is all about, the push-back against bail-reform by people including the establishment Democrats was so strong they recalled the DA.
But bail-reform is important. Here’s why:
My question to you would be: why would you not want to reform this system? What good does it do? How much crime does it actually prevent? What purpose does it serve?
And neither of these things were what I asked for. I asked for a cite that “the police aren’t arresting people because “no charges are being filed”.
It certainly seems to be, considering your refusal to produce any evidence that it’s happening.
Cite that the DA’s are not charging?
No, its the Politics and Elections sub-forum at the Straight Dope.
This is the fundamental problem. A lot of Americans think that other Americans are uniquely more likely to be criminals — far more likely. So they are probably happy that we lock so many people up.
Here is the thing, though: every person inhabiting a jail or prison cell is an economic liability. It costs us money (taxes) to keep people in stir, for minimal benefit to society (it could be argued that it is broadly a net negative). So, not chasing down every shoplifter is a good thing. Sometimes you have to measure the cost/benefit of policing.
In the end, it is worth revisiting causes. Is that person stealing stuff due to a personal moral failing? Or is there something else we could work on that would tend to reduce the desire/need some people have to steal stuff? Are you sure we have adequately addressed who the criminals actually are, and that midaeval “correction” techniques are appropriate for a stable modern society?
…people coming to me complaining about “decarceration” and ““no bail procedures” and I’m like: yes! Lets decacerate! Lets reform bail! Lets eliminate plea-bargins! Open the doors! If they aren’t an immediate danger and haven’t been convicted then let them out.
That would halve the prison population. And there would still be enough people still in jail that America would still be world-leaders. You would then be locking up as many people (per capita) as South Africa. Still be nearly twice as many per capita as New Zealand. At half the prison population, you would still four times as many people per capita incarcerated as Germany.
Number 1: El Salvador @ 1086 per 100,000
Number 5: United States @ 531 per 100,000
Number 45 South Africa @ 250 per 100,000
Number 100 New Zealand @ 162 per 100,000
Number 177 Germany @ 67 per 100,000
And therein lies the problem. We have a post about why progressivism is ruining cities instead of a post about why progressivism isn’t more widely embraced.
