[yonran]

The top part of Joe Eskenazi’s earlier article https://missionlocal.org/2023/04/bob-lee-crazy-bob-mobilecoi... was good (where he reported evidence that the Bob Lee killing was not a robbery), but I agree with Garry Tan that the bottom part of the article (where he makes a broader commentary on whether San Francisco is “safe” unrelated to Bob Lee) is gaslighting and reductionist. It makes many claims and implications that are questionable: e.g., that rampant property crime does not make you unsafe (despite the fact that many thieves are armed), that festering drug addiction does not make you unsafe (which may have been a contributing factor to the car not stopping for the victim), that the problem with crime is “feelings” rather than real risk, and that those who are concerned about crime must have come from sheltered “suburbs”. And there’s no mention of anti-Asian robberies that got the previous DA recalled.

Eskenazi is a well-connected journalist, but he is also arrogant and often presents only one side of issues. For example, virtually nothing that he wrote in this article (anonymously sourced from disgruntled politicians) about the magnet school Lowell High school ended up being true (magnet schools do not violate state code as claimed, and the school did return to test-based admission which he claimed would not happen) https://missionlocal.org/2022/02/lowells-old-merit-based-adm.... So while his reporting is mostly good, you have to be aware of his bias.

[Pils]

I think you are trying to pigeonhole Eskenazi's argument into the standard "progressives don't care about crime" punditry that's popular on the right. I would suggest re-reading the column with a more open mind. His argument is that feeling safe is as important, if not more important from a policymaking perspective, as empirical measures of safety ("real risk") such as violent crime rate. He is in fact arguing the exact opposite of what you are characterizing him as arguing ("rampant property crime does not make you unsafe", "festering drug addiction does not make you unsafe"), and seems to have advised politicians to ignore these issues at their own peril.

The problem is that just like violent crime rates don't fully explain feelings of safety, things that make one feel unsafe don't fully explain all violent crime. Since Bob Lee's murder did not seem to be a result of either drug-induced psychosis or a mugging gone wrong, Joe made the correct call that the murder was likely unrelated to either of those issues.

That all being said, it appears that you have issues with him based on unrelated reporting on an issue you seem to care deeply about. A good of a time as any to examine any potential biases you might have when receiving new information so you don't accidentally embarrass yourself on Twitter!

[throwaway292939]

> I think you are trying to pigeonhole Eskenazi's argument into the standard "progressives don't care about crime" punditry that's popular on the right. I would suggest re-reading the column with a more open mind. His argument is that feeling safe is as important, if not more important from a policymaking perspective, as empirical measures of safety ("real risk") such as violent crime rate.

From the article:

> But the city’s violent crime rate is at a near-historic low, and is lower than most mid-to-large-sized cities.

> Lee’s death, however, was packaged in the media and on social media into a highlight reel of recent San Francisco misfortunes and crimes: large groups of young people brawling at Stonestown; the abrupt closure of the mid-market Whole Foods, leaving San Franciscans just eight other Whole Foods within city limits; the severe beating of former fire commissioner Don Carmignani in the Marina District, allegedly by belligerent homeless people — it all adds up to a feeling of a city coming undone.

> This manner of coverage, however, does not capture the actual lived experience of the vast majority of San Franciscans.

I'm reading his article again.. where is his argument that feeling safe is important?

He states that violent crime is low, and that newspapers shouldn't be cherry-picking and sensationalizing how bad it is, and that he knows this is not the actual experience for the vast majority of San Franciscans.

[yonran]

> His argument is that feeling safe is as important, if not more important from a policymaking perspective

I’ll set aside his smear that opponents of crime come from suburbs and his strawman that those who oppose crime only want “more cops, stiffer sentences and a return to the Gov. Reagan-era incarceration of the mentally ill”.

His main argument is that by “objective” measures, San Francisco is safe and any increase in danger is only subjective “feelings”, but that “feelings” still affect tourism and politics. The first part (which is the same party line we have seen in the SF Chronicle) is the gaslighting. I want to distinguish between psychological feelings, and risk which can be real but not fully measurable. I hypothesize that for many residents, actual risk of injury, not just feelings, has increased over the past 5 years. There are many mechanisms by which risk may not show up in the citywide violence statistics. Crimes may shift from one neighborhood to another (e.g. to touristy places) or from one demographic to another (e.g. against Asians) while staying steady citywide. Armed robbers may primarily target wealthier people who give them what they want, but victims who have less to lose and resist are more likely to be attacked. Underage thieves may injure you through reckless driving instead of attacks. With fewer pedestrians commuting after COVID-19, a street that is more dangerous may get fewer violent incidents. Or victims may underreport crimes. The point is, when there are so many changes in behavior among commuters, thieves, and addicts, I don’t believe a couple citywide metrics give the whole picture.

> you have issues with him based on unrelated reporting on an issue you seem to care deeply about

That’s just the most egregious example. I learned to read Eskenazi’s articles skeptically because I often read him pushing one lazy narrative but not getting the details right or not getting the other side of the argument. Another example is this article on Proposition 22 https://missionlocal.org/2020/09/prop-22-chronicle-uber-lyft.... In it, he claims that “Airbnb and its ilk skirted paying hotel taxes for years… And they kept their money”, which is not true; Airbnb settled with the city to pay all the 15% hotel back taxes which exceeded their own 6% revenue during that time. And notice how overtly one-sided that article is; it makes no attempt to get the other side of the delivery issue and whether paying drivers who are are waiting at home with their app open makes any business sense for Uber or for taxi dispatch companies for that matter. Another example I recall is the reporting on HubHaus https://missionlocal.org/2019/08/san-francisco-rental-platfo... which claimed without evidence that the room share company was “exacerbating the already onerous cost of housing” and showed very little interest in what it would take to actually follow the definition of family, and whether the definition of family itself is what is exacerbating the housing crisis. He is good at ferreting out a certain kind of bureaucratic corruption (e.g. DBI), but he turns a blind eye to other kinds of corrupt rules that benefit incumbents that politicians like Arron Peskin (coincidentally one of his favorite sources) specialize in. In other words, he’s biased, and you often get only one side from his articles.