These Major Cities Are At Risk Of Crashing

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

You can't wipe the phone without the credentials. The phone is useless to another person unless they somehow break the security features. Petty criminals usually aren't that sophisticated. Unless your average San Francisco based "apple picker" has the capabilities of a government spy agency, I would be curious why San Francisco's thieves are still engaged in the activity. Like I said, it's so five years ago.

It's happening anyway.

This from Nextdoor for a neighborhood near mine:

Drive By Grab and Go
I was recently attacked at the corner of Eddy and Hyde (Friday, Nov. 15 - 1:30PM) by two women that attacked me while I had my phone in hand. They were hitting me while one grabbed my wallet from my back pocket and jumped in a vehicle that drove by with a third female suspect. They eventually snatched my phone from my hands a they drove off.

This comment may explain it:

I heard that people stealing cell phones are motivated foreign countries that want to break into the phone and get your information - as well as resell the phone! Believe a cell store in the South Bay was busted by the FBI recently and they tracked the phones to a foreign country.

And this is happening too:

Man dies after chasing laptop thief in Oakland’s Montclair neighborhood
Dec. 31, 2019
He was using it at Starbuck's.

But your nitpicking is all beside the point which is that these west coast cities are becoming more and more anarchic and unpleasant and eventually it is going to drive away business and people and kill the goose that laid the golden egg which has been the desirability of living here.

THIS particular thread went on for page after page--we all see it every day:

What do you do when you see people shooting up?
I’ve lived in SF for a while and have seen a lot of crazy things but I’ll never get used to seeing people shooting up in public, which I see A LOT. I’m seeing it more, and in more locations, than ever before and I’ve reached my breaking point. What do you guys do? Ignore it? Call the non-emergency police number? Is it worth doing so?

https://nextdoor.com/news_feed/?post...ment=319382011

Pretty much all the responses were along of lines of "I don't do anything--nobody cares and nobody will do anything about it."

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by love sosa

Not true.

What's "not true"? Pretty much everything I said is known to be true by everybody who lives in SF. I don't know about the other cities from personal experience but there are certainly plenty of reports suggesting things are similar, if not quite as bad, in them.

And who are you actually? Your one and only post is this cryptic nonsense?

[homebucket]

Unfortunately, what Paedestrian says is true. As a long time resident of San Francisco, I can also attest that while violent crime is probably at an all time low, property crime is at an all time high. People have stopped stealing cell phones in other US cities for the past 5 years? That's news to me.

[tablemtn]

San Francisco seems to specifically attract residents with a high tolerance for crime (hence, the fact that they actually voted for Chesa in the first place), so, I doubt crime will pose much of a problem for the city economically.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by tablemtn

San Francisco seems to specifically attract residents with a high tolerance for crime (hence, the fact that they actually voted for Chesa in the first place), so, I doubt crime will pose much of a problem for the city economically.

Or perhaps there are macro factors that outweigh petty crime concerns. Yeah, SF probably has uniquely bad quality of life issues, but it has uniquely good career opportunities. The city appears to be thriving in spite of said concerns.

[ChiSpy]

If he plays around on nextdoor, that might be the problem.

That place is toxic. Nothing but soccer moms.

[montréaliste]

I have to say, it's a bit of a relief to hear that some cities are about to crash in on themselves. It certainly deviates from the narratives we have been fed about meteorites, earthquakes, and hurricanes from hell that come down on cities of doom for like, ever.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by ChiSpy

If he plays around on nextdoor, that might be the problem.

That place is toxic. Nothing but soccer moms.

What is "toxic" about soccer moms?

[mthd]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Or perhaps there are macro factors that outweigh petty crime concerns. Yeah, SF probably has uniquely bad quality of life issues, but it has uniquely good career opportunities. The city appears to be thriving in spite of said concerns.

bad, surely. uniquely bad? almost definitely not compared to other mild-weather cities with progressive politics.

and petty is exactly what these crimes are. they are quality of life issues, frustrating and saddening, but not in any way a threat to life and liberty. as i've mentioned several times, my family and i (2, 8, 40something, 40something) live and work in san francisco and it hasn't changed nearly as much as the flaming media would have you believe. we walk or take transit or scoot/lyft pretty much everywhere and there has not been a single time when one of us has been threatened or in any way the subject of a crime by the city's homeless or unfortunate. i go to CVS or walgreens every couple days, and have never seen anyone brazenly steal something as suggested a few comments up. we don't wander around the tenderloin all day but certainly pass through it, visit restaurants and bars there, etc.

what *has* changed is the amount of serious, violent crime. homicides are at a 56 year low, despite an increasing population, with just 41 in 2019, down from an already low 2018. violent crime overall was down 8%.

you don't hear these pearl-clutching complaints about, say, houston, where you are several times more likely to be murdered than in san francisco.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by mthd

bad, surely. uniquely bad? almost definitely not compared to other mild-weather cities with progressive politics.

I think most would agree that compared to the more desirable U.S. city centers, SF has a uniquely challenging set of quality of life issues. Yeah, all the West Coast cities have issues with homeless and petty street crime, but SF takes the cake. And SF is unique in that you're paying $1.5 million for a decent apartment in a good neighborhood, and you still have that crap on your doorstep.

I've been to every corner of NYC, and almost everywhere in the prime parts of Boston, DC, Philly, Chicago, Seattle, LA, and there's nowhere remotely as shocking as Tenderloin-Mid Market area. And there's a general culture of lawlessness, where you see petty shoplifting, fare evasion, etc. to a greater degree than other cities. But the job advantages, natural beauty and weather seem to outweigh the issues of disorder.

Originally Posted by mthd

you don't hear these pearl-clutching complaints about, say, houston, where you are several times more likely to be murdered than in san francisco.

Houston isn't urban or walkable, so not comparable. No one moves to Houston to ditch their car, and people with money aren't taking the bus or strolling around, in constant contact with homeless. And I've never heard anyone wary of SF due to homicides. I wouldn't even be wary of New Orleans because of homicides, given the extreme odds and narrow set of victims. Raving lunatic bums tend not to discriminate, so anyone walking around SF has decent odds of uncomfortable experiences.

And of course SF doesn't have bombed out ghettos, economic dead zones, and other urban maladies. It's generally a raging success. But I don't think anyone can stroll west/south of Union Square and not notice unique challenges.

[bossabreezes]

All of the San Francisco commentary is 100% valid. It's a city of huge contrasts in small areas, but even with the quality of life issues and crime problems, you're unlikely to ever have a city as successful as it in the US, aside from New York or maybe Los Angeles.

The career opportunities there blow every other city in the country out of the water. It's also the epicenter of the global innovative community, which is only growing each day.

I'm well aware of the issues but even with them, I'm highly considering relocating there in 2021 or 2022.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by bossabreezes

I'm well aware of the issues but even with them, I'm highly considering relocating there in 2021 or 2022.

Well, technically, the "issues" in SF shouldn't prevent anyone from accessing tech opportunities in the Bay Area. The hub of Bay Area innovation is nowhere near SF; the problem is Silicon Valley is boring sprawl.

But I don't think anyone would consider Palo Alto or Cupertino to have quality of life concerns. You only need to live in SF if you want an urban, walkable environment, and if you're working for one of the biggest tech firms, it actually makes little sense to live in SF, as the commute is hell. There are plenty of tech firms in downtown SF too, of course, and there's Genetech and big bio firms close to SF proper. And obviously SF has most of the traditional law, banking, consulting jobs, but those exist in city centers everywhere.

But I would be more worried about a global downturn trouncing tech than some idiot stealing a soda from a CVS. And I bet you SF fares better than SV once the downturn hits. Places like Cupertino will get killed, because the only reason someone is paying $1.5 million for a crapbox home is Apple.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by tablemtn

San Francisco seems to specifically attract residents with a high tolerance for crime (hence, the fact that they actually voted for Chesa in the first place), so, I doubt crime will pose much of a problem for the city economically.

The bay area job market and gdp is so full steam ahead literally its ridiculous. We need a breather but after looking at some data I estimate there's a very good chance the local CSA economy will grow by a whopping $115B in 2019.

[mthd]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I think most would agree that compared to the more desirable U.S. city centers, SF has a uniquely challenging set of quality of life issues. Yeah, all the West Coast cities have issues with homeless and petty street crime, but SF takes the cake. And SF is unique in that you're paying $1.5 million for a decent apartment in a good neighborhood, and you still have that crap on your doorstep.

...

i’ll say it again. no, you do not have that crap on your doorstep. if you live in the tenderloin, yes. select parts of SOMA and the mission, for sure. the other 90% of the city? no. homeless people gather where they are allowed to, where there’s little other activity, in commercial strips where they can panhandle in the daytime, or where supportive services exist. they don’t randomly spread through the city.

it is a huge, tragic problem that affects people in the city, but for the vast majority that effect is simply seeing it on their way between one place and another. the tenderloin or the worst parts of SOMA have nothing on downtown LA’s skid row, with 5,000 homeless people on the streets in a very small area.

[SFBruin]

San Francisco is not on the verge of crashing.

It has the greatest concentration of wealth and intellectual capacity of any city that I have ever been to (at least on a per person basis).

[JManc]

Everyone that i know that's been to SF says it's absolutely breathtaking but also dirty and over run homeless. Always same response. Granted, they are tourists or on business and see the sights and then probably tuned into the bum pinching a loaf in front of a Starbucks.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I truly do worry about west coast cities with extreme Progressive politics. San Francisco, where I live, used to be a place most residents loved and we were known for a snobbish attitude about the place. But no more. Not only does the media--especially the conservative media but not exclusively them--constantly deride the homelessness and crime, but residents themselves are now up in arms about it.

SF, while it still has a fairly low violent crime rate, supposedly has the highest property crime rate in the US and I can believe it. Shop-lifting is rampant--virtually every time I go into a Walgreen's or CVS I witness it: People literally filling shopping bags with merchandise off shelves and walking out without paying. And the store staff just shrug when told about it (I'm sure the store adds the cost of this "shrinkage" as its known in the business to their overhead and thus the prices they charge paying customers). And one can no longer park on the street without expecting a car window to be broken, even if there's nothing inside to steal; nor can one walk down the street holding (or sit in a cafe using) an electronic device without a real risk someone will grab it (it has a name: "Apple picking").

This, along with the general high cost of living, is driving people, and now businesses, away. After years, Oracle decided this year to hold their annual convention elsewhere (Las Vegas). Charles Schwab and McKesson are leaving (as a result of mergers but still . . . .). A number of tech companies have thrown in the towel in the edgier parts of town and moved to relatively better ones but relative is really a marginal difference.

On the good side, we still have an extremely low office vacancy rate and about the highest commercial rents in the country. So we aren't yet "crashing". But if the young techies whose desire to be in the city lures the companies that need them or that, in many cases, they found decide it's no longer a place they want to live, we could be in real trouble.

It's something we need to worry about and pay attention to, and developments like the recent election of an extreme Progressive DA--the child of a pair of 1960s cop killers in the "Weather Underground"--who calls most of the issues I mentioned "quality of life" matters he's not interested in prosecuting doesn't help (I keep hoping somebody will snatch HIS laptop with a lot of irreplaceable work on it). Also, CA has decriminalized the theft of anything worth less than approximately $900 so the cops aren't even interested in such as the shop-lifting I described above. It's now a "just take what you want" society.

San Francisco may be the most extreme example of all this--I don't know, rumors are Portland is close--but as near as I can tell almost every West Coast city has related issues: LA, Portland, Seattle, Vancouver and maybe some smaller ones too.

Shoplifting is rampant everywhere. Costco tries to deter it by planting receipt checkers at the exits. Maybe that will deter it. As long as the stores don't care or the police don't care, shoplifting will proliferate. And the costs ARE passed on to the paying customers. I would estimate we pay 15-20% more on average.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by mthd

i’ll say it again. no, you do not have that crap on your doorstep. if you live in the tenderloin, yes. select parts of SOMA and the mission, for sure. the other 90% of the city? no. homeless people gather where they are allowed to, where there’s little other activity, in commercial strips where they can panhandle in the daytime, or where supportive services exist. they don’t randomly spread through the city.

it is a huge, tragic problem that affects people in the city, but for the vast majority that effect is simply seeing it on their way between one place and another. the tenderloin or the worst parts of SOMA have nothing on downtown LA’s skid row, with 5,000 homeless people on the streets in a very small area.

When you start seeing poop and tents on the sidewalks in Pacific Heights and Mill Valley and Beverly Hills and La Jolla, that is when the sh*t hits the fan. That is when the wealthy will tax themselves to provide more housing for the homeless, or (more likely) erect barriers and walls and security to keep the homeless out of their private paradise. They can afford it. They spend $50,000,000 for some piece of crap "art" or tasteless McMansion. If Warren or Saunders wins, the rich will get the bill. Even Buffet and Gates admit they are grossly undertaxed and are willing to pay more. The wealth distribution gap is the widest since the 1920s.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

San Francisco is not on the verge of crashing.

It has the greatest concentration of wealth and intellectual capacity of any city that I have ever been to (at least on a per person basis).

That seems a bit smug. There are pockets and concentrations of intelligence and wealth in practically every large city, and across the land. San Francisco has no monopoly on brains or wealth. New York and L.A. and Chicago and Boston and Washington and London and Tokyo to name a few examples have equal claims. SF was fortunate to emphasize tech at the right time, in the early '70s, and it took off. Xerox Park and HP and Stanford were early catalysts, as were wealthy tech "angels" who invested in new ventures. But continued supremacy is not assured. SF & Silicon Valley were even more smug in 1999, on the eve of the "tech wreck". What happened before can happen again. How many tech companies are built on promises that will never pan out (like the internet bubble companies of 1999 or the Theranos debacle more recently), or worse, allow foreign manipulation in our elections? The bloom may be off the tech rose. The bohemian and artistic element that made San Francisco interesting is to a large extent being priced out. Will a city of wealthy tech nerds be as appealing? The same concerns apply to other west coast cities.

[bossabreezes]

^^
San Francisco will always have the privilege of being one of the most strikingly beautiful cities in the US, due to its physical situation. This will keep it's appeal higher than, say, Austin (another Tech city) if things were to go horribly wrong in the tech world. Also, ''Tech Bros'' get a very bad wrap and are in general, no different than any other professional. To say they've ruined San Francisco would be like saying Finance ruined New York.

Population cycles change and the population base can change as well. Nobody knows exactly what will happen, but periods of boom and bust are a certainty for all successful cities. New York was a harrowing hell hole in the 70s and 80s, but now it's pretty much considered at least one of the world's capital cities. This doesn't mean it will happen in SF or NY again, but it's not impossible.

I do think the West Coast cities are heading in a strange dystopian direction, however. The left side of the country definitely has an edginess that I've never seen before in the US. Interestingly enough, San Francisco reminds me of a ''Rio de Janeiro lite'', my hometown, with all of its problems and beauty. Just a smaller version.