> My biggest problem with SF was simply not feeling physically safe while walking down the street or sitting in a train. SF has a pretty low violent crime rate, at least by US standards, so I wasn’t worried about getting shot or robbed or anything like that.
> Instead, the problem was that SF had (and still has today), thousands of people wandering around who are suffering from untreated substance abuse and/or severe mental illness. The vast majority of these folks were completely harmless, but a small percentage were hostile, threatening, and, in some cases, violent.
> In multiple cases over the last few years, I was followed, screamed at, and threatened in broad daylight. Thankfully, nothing physically happened to me, but it’s a really jarring experience to have this happen. Each time I reported these incidents to the police, they never responded. I got the sense that as long as no one was physically harmed, they didn’t really care. Thus, there were no mechanisms in place to control, contain, or treat this behavior.
That’s not a location specific effect to it doesn’t really affect the relative statistics much. Comparing SF to actually dangerous US cities shows stark differences.
What hurts SF is a perfect environment for people to be homeless, and thus all the associated problems from homelessness. Rather than murder, rape, home invasion, etc it’s a host of lesser but still unpleasant things.
The pocket which OP lives in is pretty much an encampment. I don't particularly understand OP's attachment to that area; I've also lived in SF for 10 years, and downtown SF is easily the most uninteresting part of SF to me; but I can understand feeling unsafe in that area even if it is statistically safe.
have you ever lived in a major city that didn't have dangerous neighborhoods? at any time in the history of the united states? i'm a minority who has been harassed and assaulted in certain parts of the united states (hint: in rural areas). what's your advice for me and what prescriptions do you have to quell rural violence?
Yes. I lived in Warsaw for 20 years. Warsaw has zero dangerous neighborhoods and has a population of 1.86 million.
My recommendation for you to stay safe as a minority in America who feels threatened is to obtain a concealed carry permit, a Glock 43 with holster, and a cell phone you can use to call 911. When shit hits the fan try to run away and call 911 but if you can't run away you can leave the phone off the hook with the 911 operator on the other end. If you can't talk your encounter is recorded even if you aren't able to engage with the operator immediately. The 911 recording can clear up any self-defense issues.
the people who were doing the harassing and assaulting included law enforcement. Philando Castile was famously killed when he revealed to the officer that he had a (legally) concealed weapon. do you have any other suggestions?
my point here is that there are places in the US that are not safe for various subgroups. in major cities, this is (unfortunately) a common issue but that doesn't mean that it's magically going to go away - the alternative is to be prepared when moving to literally the most dangerous part of the city.
Could you post some citations? ADT's crime statistics seem pretty damning with 10x the national crime rate in some areas of downtown San Francisco. Even if the statistics indicate a decreasing crime rate, they would seem defiant of the most common kind of testimonials of the quarter-million-plus people who have left the area.
Traditionally, SF has bad property crime (lots of rich people to steal from) and low violent crime (too busy stealing things from rich people to shoot/hurt people).
> they would seem defiant of the most common kind of testimonials of the quarter-million-plus people who have left the area.
Most people leave because it is too full/expensive. The city (and Bay Area) cycles in and out people, it always has. But an equilibrium is always reached where it is still expensive but not expensive enough to lose population.
The statistics are the result of the DAs refusing to prosecute crime. At the beginning of the BLM era everyone said that what is going to happen is police officers are no longer going to do arrests because they fear becoming the next major incident, at the same time the DAs started refusing to prosecute people, so they'd end up back on the street.
The result was no one was investigating or prosecuting crimes anymore. Everyone predicted what would happen next is that the pundits, the news media, and the politicians would point to "see crime is actually trending downwards the numbers are going down." when in reality police were no longer as responsive, at the same time people would stop calling the police because the wait times would be too long and they know nothing would happen.
This is what's happening, and I will not be convinced otherwise. 2+2=4
Having your own little private universe of beliefs that can't be falsified is pretty dumb. There is a city dashboard that shows the disposition of cases presented to the SF DA and the rates of various outcomes have been basically flat for decades. The thing that has changed is the cops have figured out they will still get paid even if they do nothing, or don't even show up. In the decade from 2012 to 2022 the number of cases the SFPD presented fell by half. This has nothing to do with the rate at which the DA brought charges. https://www.sfdistrictattorney.org/policy/data-dashboards/
Why would you show up to or do a job where one small mistake under stress could have you convicted of murder of a special protected class which virtually guarantees you will be thrown under the bus by the politicians and harassed endlessly by the angry mob? You have to be insane to take the job in that kind of work environment.
The people downvoting you are the ones also likely voting for these politicians. There’s a real problem in this country and the trend needs to be reversed or our problems will grow exponentially.
There is no meaningful political opposition. The republicans party is a joke and the democrat party is a massive operation which touches nearly all civil servants and owners of major businesses. You stand no chance of being elected unless you are affiliated with realistically the bigger one of the two mobs. And as a prospective political candidate, if you don't pledge allegiance to Israel in writing you will be privately blacklisted by political campaign donors, nobody will invite you to social events anymore, and any support you had will dry up. We are subjects of a one party totalitarian government where we get to pick among puppets which all pledge to execute the will of the broader party. If you research any of your candidates in your local elections you will see that the only people that win are those affiliated with the broader party and their agenda. The broader party has a basket of initiatives that each lemming chooses to identify with to create the illusion of choice. Over time the broader agenda is always fulfilled. This is the way that the powers that be have managed to solidify their rule despite giving the people the right to vote.
it's only a national problem insofar as these people are going to leave the charred remains of their city, destroyed by the people they elected, move somewhere else, and continue their exact same election habits there instead, expecting a different result somehow—if you don't live somewhere that's likely to receive an influx of CA expats, then it's not really a concern.
Also
“
Then, a few years ago, the city made a conscious decision to stop nearly all traffic enforcement. As a result, the behavior of some drivers got terrible, to the point of being dangerous.
“
It's not data problems per se. It's the lack of willingness of authorities to take reports. They will do anything possible to throw the crime reports out on a technicality. And even if the crime is crystal clear, the DA won't prosecute. All charges dropped, all the time. Maybe it's their idea of reparations. I think its blockbusting being done on a massive scale.
As a thought experiment what would be the best way to seize the assets of downtown building owners or at least buy them in a metaphorical fire sale? Blockbusting! The background and history of the term is left as an exercise to the reader.
“
Each time I reported these incidents to the police, they never responded. I got the sense that as long as no one was physically harmed, they didn’t really care.
“
> My biggest problem with SF was simply not feeling physically safe while walking down the street or sitting in a train. SF has a pretty low violent crime rate, at least by US standards, so I wasn’t worried about getting shot or robbed or anything like that.
> Instead, the problem was that SF had (and still has today), thousands of people wandering around who are suffering from untreated substance abuse and/or severe mental illness. The vast majority of these folks were completely harmless, but a small percentage were hostile, threatening, and, in some cases, violent.
> In multiple cases over the last few years, I was followed, screamed at, and threatened in broad daylight. Thankfully, nothing physically happened to me, but it’s a really jarring experience to have this happen. Each time I reported these incidents to the police, they never responded. I got the sense that as long as no one was physically harmed, they didn’t really care. Thus, there were no mechanisms in place to control, contain, or treat this behavior.