The first time I saw human feces on the sidewalk surprised me. It's like the city is turning into Manhattan, but with a crazy mental illness problem on the streets.
Yeah Manhattan is nothing like that for at least 25 years. SF is like what NYC was in like 1975 only worse. I have no idea how the whole tech industry wants to be out there.
That was also my thought, people didn't really want to believe it though when I said "the shit on the street is quite likely not from an animal...".
After a walk around SoMa, I lost what the appeal of working there was to be honest. The touristy parts of the city are great, but you hear all this talk about the offices and startup culture around that area, but one block over from Twitter HQ and there's a rampant homeless issue with people doing all kinds of stuff in full daylight.
I used to love SF. Now I'm not sure how much of it is the city is going downhill, versus being older and bothered by different things. Then again, in the 90s people said the new crowd in the Marina were taking things downhill.
Yes. Perhaps this is what SF has to go through? I'm generally not a fan of trickle-down economics, but does the city have to go through such a long stretch of prosperity for there to be enough wealth to pay for everyone? If so, advocates for UBI may need to wait a while.
Is SF unique in such a large % of the population being mentally ill or addicts?
The difference in NYC (really, mostly Manhattan) wasn't really spending although the city had financial issues as well in the 80s. It was mostly a change in attitude. What some people now decry as "Disneyfication" for example was the political will to clean up areas like 42nd Street. Rudy Giuliani was nicknamed the proctor of New York for a reason.
The city already spends a ton of money on the issue - clearly the government just isn't great at putting that cash to use. So I don't think throwing more money at the problem will help. Truthfully the answers to the problem may make the situation worse before it gets better. You should look up an article by Nick Buckley, who runs an outreach service for homeless people in Manchester UK. It's obviously a different situation than SF but it piqued my interest because it's an angle you really never hear.
but does the city have to go through such a long stretch of prosperity for there to be enough wealth to pay for everyone?
Does SF get prosperous? Serious question; I don't know how SF's taxes work. Does SF get a piece of everyone's income, such that as the people make more money the city gets more money? What actually puts more money into SF's pocket when people in SF get richer?
NYC of the 70s-90s was considerably different from today: much less safe, bankrupt, gritty, dirty...while you might have seen and smelled some trash, it's not at all like it used to be.
The areas of Manhattan you'd be likely to visit are very dense and there are generally no back alleys so, even with the system working as intended, there can be a lot of trash that ends up on the sidewalk waiting to be collected. Yes, in the summer especially, Manhattan gets hot and smelly. There's a reason that a "house in the Hamptons" is something of a meme for wealthy New Yorkers.
When I lived in Manhattan one summer, during a time when the city was "rougher around the edges" than today, I was definitely ready to get out of town on a number of weekends.
> there can be a lot of trash that ends up on the sidewalk waiting to be collected.
Correct my if I'm wrong, but they still put bags of trash out don't they? Those things also attract rats who can easily chew through the bags or they can not be tied up properly in the first place, allowing he smell to escape. Why don't they use tidier, less smelly wheelie bins: https://duckduckgo.com/?t=chakra&q=wheelie+bins&iax=images&i...
I live in Brooklyn and a homeless person keeps pooping on the steps at my subway stop, but compared to what I saw in SF a month ago, it's not the worst that can happen