Discussion in 'Politics and Current Events' started by calvin farquhar, Apr 23, 2019.
Would that qualify as a “****hole”? Asking for a friend....
A progressive run **** hole.
I get that SF is overwhelmingly progressive, but you'd think they'd care about basic governance like keeping the city sanitary.
It's Trump's fault.
Look at Austin. San Antonio is headed the same way. I think you know the common denominator, besides idiots voting.
I included this phenomenon in my recent screed to my local council member .
At least you take the time to screed. Most are too lazy and just prefer to bitch on the interwebs.
Yep. I was at Congress and Ben White yesterday. The overpass was covered in trash. Couple of tents pitched right next to it.
Look under 35 and Airport.
There was a 35 overpass close to where I used to live in Austin. The cops/sanitation dept came one day and cleaned it out ... the stuff that they removed was amazing, to say the least.
The bad news? The former overpass residents settled in the 40+ acre park/nature zone owned by my neighborhood's HOA for the benefit of said sub-division homeowners. The pristine natural area with a small stream-fed lake was soon a squalid shanty-town --- neighborhood residents were routinely threatened when using the walking trails.
I sold my house and moved 100 miles away.
I believe you had an option, if they were trespassing.
My wife was on the HOA board and is a real estate lawyer. The vote was 4-1 against having them removed.
I assume/hope people were raising hell with the HOA?
Then they get what they deserve and I hope the homeowners eventually voted the three off the board.
Many were ... though not as many as I would have expected.
I stopped caring when I signed the closing papers on my house.
It seems the cost of clean up is at $70 million plus and growing. Great use of taxpayer money.
I just assume when @Scipio Tex hasn’t written anything in a while it’s because he’s squatting and decorating SF like a high-end cake maker.
Seattle. Holy ****ing ****.
The progressive model in action!
5 minutes in the people are complaining to the city council and one of them is sitting their laughing at her. Pathetic.
Not a coincidence, but Seattle has more property crimes per 100,000 citizens (per this video) than every other city in the country except San Francisco. What do they have in common. Idiot progressives in charge.
Facebook page titled-Seattle looks like ****. Its' not supposed to be funny but I laughed.
The Rhode Island M.A.T. program looks promising.
When I lived in Kirkland (across Lake Washington from Seattle) in the late 1970s, Seattle was the cleanest, most beautiful city I had ever seen.
What a pity.
Funny, in an ironic way, that you say that, because in the video Duke posted about Seattle, the list of cities that have the highest property crimes per 100,000 residents, San Antonio was somewhere around 3rd on the list behind SF, Seattle. Austin was also on the list.
The dynamics at play in San Francisco are very interesting (I'm assuming they are similar in Seattle). There are two general meta approaches to dealing with homelessness.
1) The authoritarian/ law-and-order approach which involves arresting or fining homeless people, using police and city resources to roust them out of tent cities with the goal of eventually driving them elsewhere
2) The holistic approach which tries to provide housing and support services to homeless people to get them off the streets and generally treats homelessness more as a public health issue than a criminal issue.
Both approaches have a consistent internal logic and have proven effectiveness.
In San Francisco, the average voter is very progressive (as so many in this thread have pointed out) which makes them squeamish about approach #1. However they also live in one of the wealthiest cities in the United States and so are also mostly very rich and very interested in maintaining the values of their homes and neighborhoods which makes a lot of the necessary conditions of #2 difficult to implement. For instance, residents of North Beach are currently throwing a fit because the city wants to build a 200 bed homeless shelter down the street from them. Housing prices continue to rise and rise which makes providing housing more and more difficult for the city.
So, caught without the stomach to do #1, and without the heart or wallet to do #2, we're stuck with approach #3 which is that we all turn uncomfortably away from the tent cities in the middle of the richest city in the richest country in the world, and we learn to watch where we step.
Other than that it's a great place to live!
SF is flyover country for me.
No kidding. No place where you have to dodge human **** and used drug needles is a great place to live. Was a great place to live maybe.
I won't go there. No way I spend my money in SF or Cali for that matter.
California is ****ing awesome.
It is a ****hole stopover between Houston and Tokyo, Shanghai, or Seoul.
Oh, a literal flyover.
I've been several times but that was before it became today's california. I have no interest. There are plenty of other places I can go.
Polaris Lounge in SFO has all the charm of an Indianapolis strip club.
Well, it looks the poop problem is creeping its way into the bay.
San Francisco's homeless are running out of room in the city, so they're gradually moving out on to the bay, constructing makeshift boats and barges and forming floating tent cities, the Wall Street Journal reports.
The city has always had a small population of people living on self-constructed houseboats, WSJ says, but recently, the cost of housing, and San Francisco's ensuing homelessness boom, has driven more of the city's transient population to consider living on the city's famous bay.
Between 100 and 200 "barges, sailboats, and other mostly decrepit vessels" now litter the landscape.
These makeshift barges, however, aren't technically houseboats. They don't pay to moor at a dock or sit anchored in a marina, and they aren't specially constructed for year-round living (most have no heat, electricity, or sanitary facilities). They do, however, exist in a gray area in San Francisco's laws; technically, boats anchored off-shore in areas of the bay restricted for recreational boating are legal, they just aren't supposed to stay anchored for more than a few hours.
Boats that moor off the San Francisco coast run the risk of disturbing shipping routes or worse, getting caught in a battle for space with a much larger boat.
There's also the concern of pollution. Most of the makeshift vessels aren't equipped with toilets, showers, or laundry facilities, so human waste is being dumped directly into the water, just off-shore of (arguably) the nation's most eco-friendly city. San Francisco already has a problem with poop on its sidewalks, and the city fears it may, someday soon, have issues with poop in its water.
Welcome to Hong Kong and Macao.....
Separate names with a comma.