I believe this building is one of many commissionned under the GSA's design excellence program, which has produced a really adventurous range of buildings by American architects across the country: https://www.gsa.gov/real-estate/design-and-construction/desi...
Finally, the building was designed by the lead architect named Thom Mayne. Of his other work, Id also recommend the Caltrans district headquarters in LA: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caltrans_District_7_Headquar... Love it or hate it, I think all can agree that this is stimulating architecture compared to most office buildings.
A few months ago the Supreme Court forced CA counties to begin issuing concealed carry weapon permits: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/legal-alert-oag-2022-0.... Previously it was up to the discretion of the county's sheriff to issue them, which meant only well-connected people had them.
More armed citizens isn't the ultimate solution (people need mental and financial help) but it's better than the current situation.
There's one study that showed that carrying made things worse for yourself:
> Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05).
And every county is slow walking the actual issuance. I would be surprised if there has been any material increase in CCW issuance in the last 180 days.
Allowing law-abiding citizens to have guns to defend themselves against crimes that the government refuses to prevent, yes.
If the governments would do their basic job, the vast majority of law-abiding citizens would not need guns for self-defense. But our current governments are sadly unwilling to do their basic job.
You need to read the fine print. Although the graphic you linked to claims that these things "may increase" violent crime, when you click through to the "supporting evidence", it turns out the evidence for that is "limited".
Also, the pages talk about "homicide", but that term, at least as it's usually used in such general studies, includes justified self-defense homicides. So if total homicides do in fact go up as a result of these laws, that could be because criminals who would have gotten away with their crimes before the laws were passed were instead killed by their intended victims in self defense. That's not a problem, it's exactly what the laws are for.
If the government not only is not willing to do its duty to enforce the laws against crime, but even has the gall to claim that that's not the government's job, then all the more reason why law-abiding citizens will be motivated to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.
It may work well in certain European countries, but in certain others (i.e. Spain) the police will actually take the side of the criminal that's stolen your house and all your property within it as long as they can claim to have "resided" longer than 24 hours (a pizza delivery receipt is fine). You then have to sue, wait for up to 3 years to get a court order to "evict" the new occupiers, and be ok with losing everything you once owned. This is the result of going soft on criminals. Now there are organized crime syndicates that steal houses wholesale and "resell" the new keys for 1000 euros
Should we take them away from the cops as well, so only criminals can have them? Or should we allow law abiding citizens to defend themselves, so you have an option other than becoming a victim?
What laws are worth if they aren't protecting me? I might be unable to protect myself, right? A strong young man may have a physical force advantage over an old disabled woman, right? So the idea is that the police should enforce laws which say it's illegal to harm me, which we're calling "police protecting me"?
Law protects "order". That mostly means "protects the interests of the rich". Sure, avoiding rampant crime to the point that it's an obstruction to commerce is the cops job. Stopping the mugger/killer/rapist that's attacking you personally isn't.
If the cops have a choice of stopping 2 crimes or the crime happening to you, they're going to choose the 2 crimes. Presumably you and definitely I would choose to prevent the crimes happening to ourselves. Thus, self defense.
They are a paramilitary force lacking the civilian supreme command that, in the US, the actual military has, empowered by but not obligated to act to enforce the law, an independent and centralized power center.
No. We should eliminate the cops (who have actively contributed to the current problem as a political protest to lobby for more control) and rebuild SF law enforcement as a non-monolithic function distributed in domain-specific units throughout local government (that component of the solution is not specific to SF, but SF is more accutely problematic than most places.)
Probably less of the total manpower directed to enforcing the law should be armed with firearms, an armed paramilitary force is not a universal solution, but there still should be armed enforcement.
Had to double check where this was. I saw a man kick a pigeon to death right in front of the Federal building. Definitely one of the more depraved things I've seen in my years.
The article states the above as the title. Unfortunately, this is too long for HN so I truncated the unnecessary words and made a post with the actual title per the style guides. That said, your point is well taken in that I would hope inside the building would be safer.
Is it something specific to SF and the policies made there? Clearly this doesn’t happen in all states, so what are they doing right that doesn’t lead to this type of degeneracy?
They're not enforcing the laws. I lived there for many years before the pandemic and it became clear the police and the city were prioritizing the drug addicts and criminals on the streets over tax paying citizens. My theory is that those in power acquired a certain perspective of human nature that says that people are inherently good and only commit violent crime because of the economic system that we have (plus other grievances). As a result it becomes unjust and cruel to punish anyone and put them in prison or removing them from society, even if they committed acts of violence repeatedly.
Do cities in Western Europe and Nordic countries also have this issue? I frequently hear they have excellent social support that prevents this. But, I haven't seen data either way.
I don't know the full extent of the issue in San Francisco.
But there is an increase across not just Western Europe but Australia, Canada etc. And not just homelessness and drug use but upstream factors like inequality, poverty, cost of living etc.
So many people have been living on the poverty line that it doesn't take much to push people over.
Advanced Asian cities which combine rapid zero tolerance policing with the resulting social conformity don’t have these issues. There has been a rise in drug abuse but it tends to stay out of the public view, again due to policing.
I remember visiting nyc and seeing people shooting up in the street while the police were watching. Obviously the problem is lack of enforcement- and if petty crimes aren’t enforced even with just small punishments, then more serious crimes accelerate.
I think he's pointing out that people who commit serious crimes usually have a prior history of smaller, petty crimes that they were not given meaningful punishment for.
The data certainly supports this observation, and I can dig out supporting evidence if it's in doubt (at least in NYC, Dublin, and London. I'm not familiar with SF).
No, don’t be ridiculous. The obvious solution is to move to another state and continue to vote for the same policies that made you leave in the first place.
I've walked through the downtown of most major cities in the US, day and night, and the only one I've ever genuinely felt unsafe in is SF.
Being "street smart" and constantly aware of your surroundings/situation will get you through most cities just fine but there is something utterly unpredictable about the street scene in SF that makes this strategy unworkable. It's basically one step above total Mad Max Anarchy.
Ok. She and her liberal cohorts in SF, in Sacramento, in DC, and on Sand Hill Road opened the floodgates to an ocean of money pouring into and through the city, got rich doing it, and ruined the city. The only thing to say in their favor is that it had not much to do with them being liberal
I dunno, but it's certainly higher than a bald assertion about something that is a factual matter. And move the goalposts? You made specific claims about Nanci Pelosi and the liberal establishment. Plus I think it's interesting that you claim liberals opened a spigot of money without mentioning the Federal Reserve's zero rate interest policy of more than a decades standing under both Obama and Trump appointed Fed Chairs. That might have had something to do with junky startups getting funding, and why the funding dried up and a lot of startups went south when the interest rates went up.
Why do you find it interesting that I didn't mention Trump? Do you somehow think I'm painting a target on Nancy's back because she's a Democrat, or a liberal? If you do then I find it interesting you overlooked the part where I said it hasn't got much to do with being a liberal.
Anyway, when you figure out what your rubric is for judging evidence so that you're able to say someone more than "I dunno" then that's when you'll get your citations, and not a minute before.
I asked why you didn't mention the effect of the zero rate interest policy which had bipartisan support as evidenced by appointment of Fed Governors who voted for that policy over a decade and I asserted that policy was the main driver for that investment. I didn't ask about Trump or Obama.
My rubric would be any evidence that Nancy Pelosi had a significant impact on investment in San Francisco. As gifted a politician as she is, I think there isn't any. Or if there was such an impact I think it was relatively small compared to the amounts of VC investment from say 2012 to 2022 in San Francisco based startups which were driven primarily by other factors.
> My rubric would be any evidence that Nancy Pelosi had a significant impact on investment in San Francisco
The word "significant" is your out here. Only you know what you mean by that. You're free to raise the stakes so that nothing I offer passes your test for significance. But, that's life. Anyone else who reads this thread is also free to make up their own mind. FWIW, things like this are what I had in mind:
> Plus I think it's interesting that you claim liberals opened a spigot of money without mentioning the Federal Reserve's zero rate interest policy of more than a decades standing under both Obama and Trump appointed Fed Chairs
Thanks for your answer. I'll look at the links. I'm not sure how asking about the impact of the Fed's zero interest rate policy is primarily about Trump or Obama, liberal or conservative, but you seem a little gunshy.
Let's try not to make this personal by saying how we seem to each other, shall we?
As for how asking about how the impact of the Fed's policy is primarily about Obama or Trump, liberal or conservative, maybe it isn't. You tell me since you brought it up. If it's not about Obama or Trump, liberal or conservative, then perhaps you brought it up to say that other people besides Pelosi contributed to the ocean of money that poured into SF. If that's why you brought it up, then I wonder why you want to make that point. After all, I never said Pelosi deserves all the blame. I never said she deserves the largest share of the blame. A challenge was made at the top of thread, if I recall, to make an argument as to why Pelosi deserves some of the blame, ANY of the blame. I took up that challenge as I saw it. If it's your objective to argue that she deserves none of the blame, then I'd like to see that argument.
My gut feeling is the reference to Pelosi was due to the name of the building. Or because she is from that area and represented it for so many years. Regardless, the irony is amusing to some of us.
Sorry; you are correct. Her title is, however, "Speaker Emerita" given her impending retirement from the House. I had seen mention of same earlier and that stuck in my head.
So is the Pope, who also does not set policy in the municipality of San Francisco. To reply to your question: the mayor and city council (which is a group of humans, a species which is famously given to disagreement between individual members) of San Francisco have some power to improve the situation, but even they have precious few examples of cities to have attracted and generated tremendous wealth without also having tremendous poverty and depravity, frequently sited literally across the street from said wealth. What US cities have done so humanely?
> but even they have precious few examples of cities to have attracted and generated tremendous wealth without also having tremendous poverty and depravity
Have you considered the possibility that the poverty is a consequence of the wealth?
I believe half of that. In the early 70s, Times Square was a complete mess. A few years of law-and-order politics turned things around, it returned to prosperity.
I believe San Francisco's rich heritage, great weather and beautiful scenery will save it in the end. But there needs to be a huge political change first.
Essentially you stop spending money to maintain the city. You no longer pay out any government workers, you stop paying for police, roads, etc. Just nothing. Let the people fend for themselves and reclaim the city how they see fit.
The city will ultimately be ruled by despots with gangs that might actually end up doing something to solve the homeless and drug addiction issues once and for all.
Let me guess. You already don't spend any money here. You don't actually live here, vote here, or pay taxes here. Tell you what: you throw your city to the wolves if it suits you. Meanwhile I'll do what little I can to keep my city functioning, if it's alright by you.
I did live there. I lived in SoMA for several years. I walked to my office everyday. I left in 2016, right before shit started getting really bad. I used to think it was a decent city, now I hate San Francisco. I would never move back. It was what it was.
Well then you don't live here anymore and evidently you never will. In which case, why should anyone who does live here ever take instruction from you, who does not, on how to live our lives?
If someone else who doesn't live where you do and wouldn't have to face the consequences prescribed tough medicine with serious side effects for your city, and those side effects could even prove fatal, would you subject yourself and your city to their ministrations? What do you say, Doc?
If you’re choosing to live in such a city, it is likely because you have some vested interest you are trying to protect, and thus makes you a biased opinion. NIMBYism.
You chose to live in YOUR city. By your logic, you also have some vested interest to protect. Evidently, thus makes your opinion biased as well. It's NIMBYism all around!
Skid Row 2.0? Except a few years ago this had the potential to become the tech capital of the world. What a crazy downturn, and yet I don't see enough outrage from the people who are in the middle of it.
Any and all policies that made SF a comfortable and welcoming place for the homeless to live, specifically chronically homeless people who have no desire to sincerely receive help that might lead to a job and a normal life. Oakland and Berkeley across the bay have similar problems.
I’m a rather progressive individual but I recognize that violence is the ultimate authority in this world.
SF is what happens when individuals are encouraged to not defend themselves or their property.
Edit: I’m not sure why I’m being downvoted.
Leverage is the most important thing in this world and in our society. And there is no greater leverage than violence or threats of violence. I don’t like it, but that’s the way it is.
It isn't so much people can't defend themselves as much as not enforcing the laws, which in part happens because those in power hold a certain perspective of human nature. It seems they think humans are inherently good and that violent crime happens because of the consequences of our economic system.
> those in power hold a certain perspective of human nature
If those people in power are too stupid to be poor, then it becomes even more important for the store owners to hire private armed security agencies to prevent all. Local communities too should arm themselves and make examples out of few people.
One does not have to go on a rampage. Couple of tiktok teens trying to rob GUCCI need to be shot. Everyone else then quickly finds good in their heart.
Seems like it resolved the immediate issue.
Store owner did not lose thousands of $ for which he said he was not insured.
Perp. was not killed and was able to walk away. Optimally he learned his lesson, especially regarding threatening people with a knife (real or not).
Proper resolution should have been the perp. arrest, conviction and incarceration but thats hard to get in SF.
It was in Stockton. The city initially mulled over charging the store owner but some of us stepped in and made it very clear that the store owner will have the best defense team money and can buy and wide coverage. The city then complete backed off.
But instead follow people who are involved in policy decisions, social workers, psychologists, housing advocates etc. As you will get a more nuanced look at some of the issues.
Drug use and homelessness are two of the most complex problems in society to solve and usually require multi-faceted approaches across a wide array of disciplines to solve.
Social housing does work but can be hard to do well.
Places in London that built large scale apartment complexes for social housing saw them turned into slums with rampant drug use, violence and criminal activity.
And it can be harder to get smaller-medium density housing to work because you're constantly fighting against local governments and NIMBY types.
Slums are a substantial step up from people sleeping on the street. It localizes the issues, such that social services can be provided centrally, it keeps the more problematic elements away from the rest of society, and at the end of the day having an address and shelter is a huge step up from having neither.
If building slums eliminates homelessness, that's a net win. No need to let "perfect" get in the way of "better".
>Places in London that built large scale apartment complexes for social housing saw them turned into slums with rampant drug use, violence and criminal activity.
...some places were just badly designed and encouraged the slum aspect (and associated problems).
While the environment in which a person lives may dictate their value of their surroundings the real problem is a lack of hope. To further compound the lack of hope the local government has proven itself inept at solving the problems it is responsible to solve let alone the problems it is not responsible to resolve. That said it makes applying a "broken window" theory next to impossible.
I do hope and pray they figure it out. For the sake of those on the street and the honest person that travels through there daily.
> Any forum which is against diverse but calmly-presented views backed with data is not a good forum.
but I do think it over-simplifies things.
For example, I find HN to be a good forum for back-and-forth discussions about technical topics. But IMHO discussions involving ideology are far more likely to go off the rails.
Hence why i wish there was less politics here. They're bait for annoying comments, mine included. Me & u would both be happier if we didn't have to be frustrated by eachother
Well I find great joy and fascination in what happened in the last 3 messages of this conversation.....it feels rather novel. Is the inverse of frustration fascination?
I disagree. I've always found HN to be a great place to discuss things like this. In fact, HN sometimes feels like one of the only places I can discuss things like this without being downvoted to hell and back.
Here's an initial review: https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/new-federal-building-...
And a reappraisal: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/10-years-later-f...
I believe this building is one of many commissionned under the GSA's design excellence program, which has produced a really adventurous range of buildings by American architects across the country: https://www.gsa.gov/real-estate/design-and-construction/desi...
Finally, the building was designed by the lead architect named Thom Mayne. Of his other work, Id also recommend the Caltrans district headquarters in LA: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caltrans_District_7_Headquar... Love it or hate it, I think all can agree that this is stimulating architecture compared to most office buildings.