No, it’s not. I frequently walk though downtown Little Rock during lunch, well, I did before I started working from home, and broken glass is not a common sight. At least not broken glass from automobile windows.
Is this a “failure of progressive policy,” though? The article notes that these were people who ended up homeless because of covid, not as a result of any policy instituted by the government of San Francisco. I’m curious why they went with a tent city instead of hotels, but “people should live in tents” isn’t a progressive policy, so I assume the problem here was logistical, not ideological. And a tent city with restrooms, showers, and security sounds a lot better than a tent city without those things.
It’s certainly not as pretty to have homeless people camping out in front of the civic center, as opposed to hiding them under overpasses or down subway tunnels, but it seems a lot more humane.
I wonder how much of the hate for San Francisco originates from the fact that it’s being overrun by nouveau-riche techbro millionaires who aren’t accustomed to brushing elbows with real life. They think “I paid 7 figures to live here, why would there be homeless people in a place like this?” Why, indeed…
Fine, it’s not a common sight in Oxnard either (population 200,000 like Little Rock). But Little Rock and San Francisco are apples and oranges comparisons.
Do you think that frequently finding evidence of automobiles having had their windows smashed out just might be indicative of a problem? I’m not picking on San Francisco here, I had my car broken into 3 times while living in Little Rock at my house and I sure as hell thought it was a problem. Thankfully only one of those involved smashing my window.
I think the fact that you’re asking these loaded questions while refusing to present any evidence that shows that San Francisco actually has a higher incidence of these problems than other comparable cities is indicative of a problem.
I don’t know if it’s a “failure of progressive policy” - but I kind of suspect it might be. What I know is that pre-COVID , the city of San Francisco had people living in tents on the sidewalks and banned sidewalk tents and moved and then they are setting up encampments and the only reason I saw for not renting the hotel rooms was one that I find to be bogus - one article ( that I can’t find now) said the hotels were not feasible because workers would have to be hired and trained - which doesn’t sound to me like the workers they are talking about were the same ones who would have been working at the hotels pre-COVID.
I don’t know what’s humane at this point - because those people living in the subway tunnels do not have to live in the subway tunnels. Which is something I think people miss sometimes - NYC is very possibly the only city in the entire US that is legally obligated to shelter every homeless person seeking shelter while their eligibility is determined. And you will be eligible if you lived in Westchester county or New Jersey up until yesterday and now have nowhere to live - although the reverse certainly is not true.
And that kind of gets to why I think the homeless encampments in San Francisco might be a progressive policy. There’s a certain type of progressive (not nearly all of them) who starts from the point of people should be able to do what they want - which is fine, and which I totally agree with up to that point. It’s the next part that I don’t agree with - which is something along the lines of “regardless of the effect on other people as long as they aren’t physically injured”. And that’s how you get people advocating allowing homeless people to live in subway tunnels , or sleeping on park benches even though shelters are available - because they shouldn’t be forced into shelters when they don’t want to be there and it’s irrelevant if they are taking up all the benches in the park discouraging others from using the park. It’s OK for freegans to rummage through the grocery store dumpster to find food, even if they can afford to buy their food - it doesn’t matter that it costs the grocery store to clean up the mess or that people don’t want to shop there because of the mess left by dumpster diving.
Some people for a variety of reasons prefer living on the street to living in a shelter * but there is no way to force them to live in a shelter , so when people ( not necessarily Miller) talk about people who are voluntarily living in subway tunnels not being humane , I’m not quite sure what they expect society/ the government to do - but I suspect that there is a non-zero number of people who think simultaneously believe
- people shouldn’t be forced into shelters/hotels
- it’s inhumane for people to live on the sidewalk in tents without toilet/shower access
- even though it’s inhumane for them to be living on the sidewalk, their tents and belongings should not be moved, regardless of how difficult it becomes for pedestrians to use the sidewalk.
and it would not surprise me if a group of them decided that therefore the only sensible solution is to set up tent cities with toilets and showers because some/most of the population would refuse the hotel rooms.
* And yes, one of them is a fear of crime, but I doubt it’s less dangerous on the street. Not to mention that people with criminal histories cannot be denied shelter. Another reason is not wanting to follow the rules at a shelter
Also, doesn’t Little Rock have like a top 5 crime rate?
Sounds more like libertarianism than progressivism to me. “The government is obligated to find housing for all its citizens,” is more of a progressive ideal than, “People should be allowed to sleep on the street if they want.” Progressives do tend to object to rousting out homeless encampments when there’s no where else for the homeless to go, but it’s not progressive policies to blame for a lack of viable alternatives.
…I mean, yes? It will be an effective talking point for the Republicans? In fact, it already is?
Yes. The Republicans are going to point and say, “This is what the Democrats want to bring to your city.” This is what they do. They’ve always done it. They will continue to do it.
The question really is do you let the Republicans dictate what your policies are, in fear that they are gonna do what they are always gonna do? Do you abandon progressive policy planks like bail reform just because the Republicans might point their fingers at you and scream “you are soft on crime!”?
The answer, according to the centrists, appears to be yes.
The stories in the original article are cherry picked, the evidence provided is gish-gallop. Nellie Bowles is not a neutral observer, she has an agenda, and it worked.
Dive deeper into the article and you will find that it never ever actually shows what progressive policies are at issue, and how those specific policies caused this alleged “failed city.” Or how a person elected in January 2020, (less than two years ago! ) managed to have such a dramatic impact on the city. We can’t just pretend that the pandemic didn’t happen. We can’t pretend that the SF Police are doing their job.
And we can’t pretend that the elimination of cash bail and the reduction of pretrial incarceration (the things that Boudin actually did) are bad things, in any civilised society.
We can’t ignore that the “progressive policies” that Boudin championed are seen in other countries as fundamental human rights. It’s what is so maddening about this entire thing. America has more people locked up per capita than anywhere else in the world. And the people opposed to “progressive policies” appear to be just fine with that.
The endgame for people like Nellie Bowles isn’t to help out the homeless. It’s to put them out-of-sight-and-out-of-mind, whether that be in jail or in an institution. There are “good guys” and “bad guys” in this story: and Boudin isn’t the bad guy.
But sure. The Republicans might use this as a talking point. That’s the real issue here.
That goes back to my earlier point about cause versus effect. Are these policies, whatever they are, the cause of the city’s problems, or are they simply an attempt to address extant issues? Two reasons for the seemingly excessive number of homeless in SF as well as LA is a more favorable climate for living outdoors as compared to harsher climates, and insane housing costs. The policies enacted to deal specifically with the homeless are irrelevant to those other factors.
It’s like the typical conservative talking point that Chicago/Illinois has some of the strictest gun control in the country while also having a disproportionately high rate of gun violence. It’s spun to suggest that gun control measures increase gun violence while ignoring the possibility that those rates might be even worse without the control measures. It also ignores that a place suffering from excessive gun violence is more likely to enact legislation in response to it, so there’s a correlation/causation fallacy at play.
Oh, yeah. There’s a reason I moved out, and I’m sure as hell not arguing it’s better here than it is in the Paris of the west.
Me personally? No. I abandoned the GOP in 2016 with the hope that they would return to sanity at some point in the future, and abandoned them for good in the aftermath of January 6, 2021. Until the GOP acknowledges the traitorous factions within their party that sought to thwart the will of the American people, I will continue to vote Democrat regardless of any other issue.
…this wasn’t the question I asked.
The question really is, do you let the Republicans dictate what your policies are?
Because if you worry about what the next Republican talking point will be, and if you actively change policy, even going so far as to vote to recall somebody like Boudin, then you are buying into their rhetoric.
But here is a breakdown of why much of that rhetoric is misleading.
Read from the beginning.
The article from Nellie Bowles is propaganda. Almost everything you hear about “rising crime” anywhere, even here, is propaganda. It’s an age-old tactic that works.
Does anyone else think so?
…what do you think?
I think that because instead of pointing me to other people who think she’s alt-right you just give a smarmy non-answer, that saying she’s alt-right is your personal opinion presented as a statement of fact.
…I’m sorry, I thought you were asking other people on the boards if they “agreed with me”, not if there was a consensus on what is or what isn’t “alt-right.”
Obviously “she is alt-right” was a statement of my opinion. You obviously didn’t take it as a “statement of fact.” I would posit that nobody else did either.
So what do you think?
My apologies. Okay, what do I think? From what little I know of her I’d say that she’s “liberal with some caveats” or maybe “slightly to the left of dead center”.
…she’s literally married to Bari Weiss who has been carrying the candle for the alt-right for years. They nicely package themselves as “liberal with some caveats”. But there is nothing liberal about opposing bail reforms. There is nothing “slightly to the left of dead center” about linking “cancel culture” with “antisemitism.”
Bowles writes lengthy diatribes with a gish-gallop of facts to obscure her agenda. And it clearly worked here. But her agenda, if you dive deep enough, is clear.
Yeah, at least from where I sit, there does seem to be a marked emphasis/focus on the actor by the progressive viewpoint, rather than on everyone else who is doing what they should.
I mean, I don’t think a homeless person’s “right” to do what they want trumps everyone else’s right to not having to smell them, deal with their litter, not be harassed at streetcorners for money, deal with them talking to themselves, yelling at trash cans, or whatever, regardless if it’s not actually hurting anyone.
They should be expected to conform to the same social norms that everyone else in that public space conforms to- not stinking, not being disruptive, paying fares, etc… Why they can’t isn’t the issue here- that’s a different problem to solve.