"What Happened to San Francisco, Really?" (Bayview: sale, hotel)

[tikkasf]

Originally Posted by john3232

I was in SF with my wife this year to visit friends who live in the Bay Area. (I grew up in SF.)

We stayed in the Marina and on a Sunday walked to the Presidio to visit the Walt Disney Museum. The grassy area in front of the museum was very clean and packed with young families. After visiting the museum, we walked to Chestnut Street. The cafes and restaurants were also packed with a younger crowd.

Now, walk to Van Ness, take a bus to Market Street and you're in another world. Start walking downtown and the area only get worse.

But if you've got serious bucks - the Marina has perfect weather and the water – right there.

That is sort of what I see in SF. Some neighborhoods that seem to be doing well and some others that are not looking too good. I was in the general area of the 16th St BART station this afternoon. It's never been a great area.....seems to have worsened now though.

[Ultrarunner]

With SF set to be front and center on the world stage this month I wonder what comments and observations will follow?

Some have said this is the most significant event since the 1940's and the founding of the UN

Public Safety is out in force I the effort to show the city in the best light and security is Paramount with a variety of agencies from all levels of government...

Lanes of the Bay Bridge to be closed as a security measure... never heard of this before.

Hope all goes well as the potential stakes are high.

[blameyourself]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

With SF set to be front and center on the world stage this month I wonder what comments and observations will follow?

Some have said this is the most significant event since the 1940's and the founding of the UN

Public Safety is out in force I the effort to show the city in the best light and security is Paramount with a variety of agencies from all levels of government...

Lanes of the Bay Bridge to be closed as a security measure... never heard of this before.

Hope all goes well as the potential stakes are high.

Makes sense. However the focus is probably much more on the possibility of hate crimes than it is cleaning up a very small area that most in the city never experience, but tends to be the subject of much hyperbole.

[blameyourself]

Originally Posted by xray731

That one thinks he knows it all from what he's read in the liberal media. I keep referring people to check out the videos on youtube that show what really is happening. My cousin left after living there 40 yrs - he couldn't take it anymore.

Yes, because YouTube is where it's at on the credibility scale. Wow, just wow.

Nothing better than a short clip through a viewfinder seeing only what the person behind the lens wants you to see. It's downright scary the way people allow themselves to be brainwashed. Maybe I should do a YouTube video next month.

[blameyourself]

Originally Posted by RDNZL

Boy are you in for a surprise next time you visit!

Yes, I'm sure it'll be much different than the other two trips this year. But do keep your stories coming as they're quite entertaining. I'll be back in the heart of it a month from now and doubt much has changed in a few months. Most people that have lived in San Francisco for any length of time are able to compare and contrast, versus those coming to the city for the first time clutching their pearls. I worked in the heart of it for years. Got to know some of the homeless, waved hi every morning. But apparently I was supposed to be robbed and assaulted by them. Go figure. But yeah I should believe you and the other character over my own eyes.

DW

[moguldreamer]

Shoddy journalism.

"San Francisco invested in lush, landscaped parks, tree-lined boulevards, and world-class museums where there had been none. It grew rich..."

No, it did not invest. Those items are not investments; they are expenditures. The author implies San Francisco grew rich because of parks & trees & museums. Econ 101 failure.

[moguldreamer]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

2-earner families in the Bay Area make more money than anywhere else in the country.

The Bay Area is not San Francisco, and San Francisco is not the Bay Area. Most people in the Bay Area rarely if ever go to San Francisco.

[RDNZL]

Originally Posted by blameyourself

Makes sense. However the focus is probably much more on the possibility of hate crimes than it is cleaning up a very small area that most in the city never experience, but tends to be the subject of much hyperbole.

Have you ever been to San Francisco?

[mattja]

Originally Posted by moguldreamer

Shoddy journalism.

"San Francisco invested in lush, landscaped parks, tree-lined boulevards, and world-class museums where there had been none. It grew rich..."

No, it did not invest. Those items are not investments; they are expenditures. The author implies San Francisco grew rich because of parks & trees & museums. Econ 101 failure.

Like most Bay Area cities, they probably floated a bond for those "investments," and now the people are on the hook for $200 million for three parks over 30 years. That's how the Bay Area works. And for all their education (some of them), that's how stupid people here really are.

[Lodestar]

Prosperity statistics are no indicator of honesty, or law-abiding, unfortunately. People in the helping professions know they have as many addicts, violence, and dishonesty as other populations. They are just able to hide it better. People who understand white-collar crime can explain this better than I can.

Another misfortune is that we all have to speak on conjecture based on observation currently because there has been a staggeringly low performance by law enforcement on the reporting of crime since the quarantine. When President Obama was in office he had begun measures to change the way certain crime statistics were gathered and labeled. I remember expressing a concern about this and that it would make some serious crime invisible to the masses. I got the usual discounting replies.

There are a number of reasons why crime is not reported. A large one now in MN is because nothing is going to be done about it. No bail, sometimes serious offenders are brought in for questioning and released without even an overnight in jail. Perpetrators are back on the streets within hours to reoffend. People give up calling for help.

Another is that in some cities there is such a shortage of law enforcement and such a high number of calls that there is no legal response at all to the call. Or a late call response after the perpetrators have dispersed. No police report means no crime. Overworked and discouraged responders sometimes don't bother with reports they know aren't going to be sent to court anyway. No sense risking your life for nothing.

These are all things I have been told by working law enforcement people. Generally they don't share this with the news for fear of losing more jobs than they already have. And no department wants to be known as a high crime area. It's bad for their reputation in efficiency.

But most egregious of all, and besides the usual partisan arguments, is the confusion which has been created by the FBi submitting incomplete crime statistics for the last year. How many know that? Does it make you wonder why they wouldn't want to publicize as they always have?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ng-experts-fbi