San Francisco commissioner resigns in scathing letter to Mayor Breed after exposing city's squalid conditions
The ex-land use commissioner said rampant drug use and business closures could destroy city
Linkage
San Francisco commissioner resigns in scathing letter to Mayor Breed after exposing city's squalid conditions
The ex-land use commissioner said rampant drug use and business closures could destroy city
Linkage
seeya
dan
I'm just one stomach flu away from my goal weight.
Mission district restaurant closing after 14 years: https://www.foxnews.com/media/crime-...e-run-business
There's just too much evidence here, from too many people who otherwise are very vested in San Francisco and thus should have if anything a bias to underreport issues.
It's bad, it's getting worse, getting worse fast, and it's completely due to California's and San Francisco's policy agendas. Effectively decriminalizing lots of small theft and crime has, with absolutely ZERO surprises for anyone thinking logically, led to a BIG increase in crime. Uh, duh. Was this news to anyone? Apparently news to a lot of people who supported it, including politicians in cities in CA now saying it's a huge mistake. Well, yeah.
You cannot let people steal with no penalty, put up with rampant drug use, and then expect your streets to be safe. Does that really need to be spelled out to people?
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
But, but, but is it equitable behavior toward the poor, downtrodden, crazy people. It allows them to have things that they need to survive and feel equal to others in that society. Not fair to those street people to lock them up and force them to live without their preferred drugs and right to poop on the floor.You cannot let people steal with no penalty, put up with rampant drug use, and then expect your streets to be safe. Does that really need to be spelled out to people?
seeya
dan
I'm just one stomach flu away from my goal weight.
It doesn't.Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
I know it is easy to just buy into a narrative that liberals and even liberal politicians have put these policies in place that have led to this. That is partially true but not in the way many think.
Specific to SF....right now it is a Federal Judge that has caused so much of this. Newsom (no E....just fyi) has been fighting this cause for over a year now. He knows the homeless encampments are a black eye on the city of SF. Again, SOME of his/their policies in the past are to blame.
But, the Mayor of SF and Newsom began cleaning those up and a Federal Judge last December banned them from doing so. Newsom called the Judge's ruling, "preposterous and inhumane".
He/they are actively trying to undo the damage that it has caused the city (and again, yes, some of that is their own policies but at least they are recognizing that).
But they can't defy a Federal Judges order that says they cannot do it.
https://gazette.com/news/wex/gavin-n...066b73127.html
~Puma~
Puma,
First, I'm not in any way directing that at "liberals". I am careful to distinguish between "liberals", and what I call "Leftists", who are extreme ideologues who don't listen to reason or consider the facts. The same is also true on the Right, between conservatives and whatever name you want to give to the zealots on that side.
As for the case law, yes, I'm well aware, and in fact it goes back a ways, to 2018 and Martin v. Boise. That was a ruling by the 9th Circuit that basically said that it was cruel and unusual punishment to demand an end to "camping" (moving the homeless on) if they do not have enough beds to accept those displaced from that space in some kind of government or whatever facility.
No coincidence from that time we see a rise in this problem.
I will note that there is not yet conflicting case law on this, as many cities outside the 9th have just gone along with this ruling without challenging it in other districts. that also means SCOTUS has not been called upon to rule on it b/c so far no one is appealing it or generating the conflicting case law that generally would motivate them to rule on the matter.
In fact the ruling was only by the three judge panel, not the full bench.
So it's not REALLY the law of the land at this point, though yes it obviously ties the hands of cities in the 9th.
I will however somewhat disagree that this is not the fault of "liberal" policies, and in this case also liberal judges. I think it's safe to say this is very much the fault of liberal policies and judges, going back not just to Martin but way back to the 1980s and various groups like the ACLU suing in ways that yes were at times needed, but also done without any alternatives put in place to deal with drug abusers, the mentally ill, etc.
These homeless people didn't represent themselves. Those groups who file these lawsuits and lobby on behalf of their "rights" are funded by various leftist groups including George Soros. The fact they win in court with liberal judges who are also sympathetic to these causes doesn't absolve the liberal ideology of all blame in this debacle.
Further, it is not just the restrictions on acting on the homeless that are at fault here, but a number of other liberal, not Leftist, policies that have largely sprung from California:
- Proposition 47, passed in 2014 with broad liberal support. While not eliminating prosecutions under $950 in value, it made such crimes misdemeanors, and was the first step towards what, with Soros style DAs, has become a decriminalization of theft, largely retail.
- Reinforcing negative stereotypes of law enforcement. Long a liberal mantra, the basic lack of respect for law enforcement and now the lack of funding for law enforcement, is directly correlated with not just rising crime but even rising homelessness as of course drug use is largely now ignored.
- Liberalization of drug laws and unwillingness to prosecute and sentence. This is one I know you feel personally, so I include this with all due respect. I can now walk places in Lexington and see homeless people shoot up, and cops drive by and do nothing. There might as well not be any on the books.
That's just a quick survey of a few parts of what you and I both know is leading to a vast problem that has little to do with rising home costs and a TON to do with drug use, mental illness, and inability of the government to properly enforce basic laws of our social contract.
At the end of the day our nation is allowing a very small number of people, both homeless and criminal, to drag down the vast majority. It needs to stop, and it will take enough "liberals" turning away from some of their ideology and voting for the people who will nominate and approve the judges and pursue the issues in the courts so we can take control back from these few individuals who clearly need the rule of law enforced upon them.
Your friend needs to be brought before a judge, ruled a danger to himself and others, and placed forcibly in rehab. I think you'll agree with that. He should remain there until he is absolutely clean and sober, and has shown an ability to start rebuilding his life, and more generically, shown he can be a contributing member of society and comply with our social contract.
That doesn't mean he should be in jail, or treated horribly, but if we really care about these people, as "liberals" certainly claim to do (and Leftists claim it at the top of their lungs), then join with those who want to be good parents and practice the tough love needed to actually help them.
These Soros funded groups suing to allow homeless drug addicts to remain on the streets are not helping anyone. They are harming these people at a shocking level, all while applauding themselves for protecting their "rights". They have a right to be strung out victims of routine crime, commit crimes to survive, and be wards of the drug cartels? That's a right now in America?
No, if we really care we need tough love. We need the politicians and judges willing to write and enforce the laws to allow us to arrest these people, have them committed to the appropriate facility, and try to help them for real. Help them become human beings again, instead of drug addled animals.
Liberalism, as borne of the 1960s, is a great ideal, and a very lousy policy plan if you really care about poverty or homelessness. It has done nothing but rip apart families, doom more people to generational poverty than ever, and in its current incarnation effectively allow those people to become drug addicted petty thieves praying on the majority of Americans.
It's time to care about them so much it actually hurts, the same way it hurts a parent to spank the child they love. Time to embrace law enforcement again, embrace requiring people to live up to a basic standard of behavior, and embrace doing what it takes to make those changes happen.
I have many liberal friends, more than conservatives probably, but I think it's time for them to find some commonality on these issues with those of us who are so often accused of having no compassion.
I think I have more compassion when I want the heroin addict arrested and drug by force to rehab than the person who thinks he has a right to sit at the street corner and shoot up.
In short, Come to the Dark Side. We Have Cookies!
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
Ha. Oh, I definitely agree that it’s due to liberal and leftist policies over the years.
I’m just trying to point out a fact that probably doesn’t get mentioned a lot. Newsom is fighting the ruling and called it awful.
He wants to remove these encampments as much as anyone.
Call him what you want but he’s a decent politician. And he knows the tide on this has turned.
That is a good thing imo. Once more cities start to see it as a loser politically they won’t be so “gracious” to homeless people and crime.
Several Ca cities have already elected more moderate mayors for this very reason.
I agree there puma. Newsome and others have realized this has blown up in their political faces. Read a piece on a local official, may have even been San Diego but can't remember, saying he supported Prop 47, etc. and saying he was wrong. Some of that may be an awakening, a lot of it realizing this will cost votes.
I think this crime/homeless situation and the reaction I've by many who consider themselves liberal (articles and interviews out of Portland, Seattle, Cali, etc.) prove the maxim:
A liberal is just a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
To me, this is what is crazy about the current Presidential election and direction of the Republican party (from my POV).
I am a liberal Democrat for several reasons. None of which will change if I am mugged. But, I care more about a handful of issues than I do others. I think (know) there are many others like me.
And it is baffling to me that the Republican party is now the party that overturned Roe v Wade. That is just political suicide in so many ways.
Take the Presidential election. I will never, ever vote for any candidate that is opposed to Roe v Wade. Ever. Never. Under any circumstances. And imo, there are millions like me.
And for the life of me, I cannot understand why Trump decided to take that issue on. And I will never understand why Desantis has made it a large part of his platform.
They will simply never win the vote of so many moderate voters because of that single issue alone. And it earns them ZERO votes. Because the people who are passionate about that topic were very likely voting for them anyways.
And they spent a year or two telling everyone that would listen they would never overturn it. And then they did.
And now, I know so many people that feel gay marriage is next. And it doesn't really matter whether it is....they feel like it is. And that matters.
It cost them in 2022 and it will cost them again in 2024 imo.
Yes....the crime and homelessness issues are loser topics for Democrats. And hopefully more and more of them make the shift that Newsom has made.
But, the Republicans will not win many votes of independents based on those two issues simply because there are others that I believe are as important or more important to them.
Mayorly? Maybe. But likely not Nationally.
I think the Senate map favors Republicans this go around but only slightly. The House will be a true toss up. And I think the Presidency will go Democratic if Trump is the nominee.
But my point is that I think Republicans could have easily swept all 3 if they had not championed against Roe the way they did.
~Puma~
I disagree in that I don't think it was about Roe v Wade. They lost IMO, because many took the no exception stance, no so much Roe v Wade. Just my 2 cents...
But, I'll say this. I'm as pro-life as it gets. But being 100% pro-life is killing babies. Because, as you pointed to, it is political suicide, and will never pass in most states. Compromise is the only solution.
That is why Haley is so scary to Dems. She is pro-life but at least speaks about it in a moderate way. She would pull some of those independent voters in swing states needed to win.
With all of the noise, it is easy to forget that about 1 million voters in 3 states will decide the election. That's it. Not either base. Not the crowds. A tiny fraction of the country.
Trump (if he's not in prison) will ensure that huge numbers from both sides will come out and vote (which would be the other way Republicans could win....low turnout). So it really just comes down to a few states and a handful of independents. And we will hear a TON about these issues when the national debates begin next year.
~Puma~
And sorry to jump back and forth between topics but I wanted to mention one more thought on the retail crime aspect. This isn't a California issue. This is happening everywhere. In fact, in California, retail crime is actually down this year (again, not something you will hear on the news or Tik Tok).
Yes, prosecutors absolutely need to get harsher and charge these peeps and put them away. I spoke about that several posts ago.
But, this notion that these more recent viral "flash mob" crimes are because of the California law about $950 or less being a misdemeanor, etc is hogwash.
First, what is being stolen in most of these videos is WAY more than $950. This has nothing to do with that.
Second, the amount doesn't matter if it is a group of people. That is a felony no matter what as it's considered an organized crime.
These videos simply go viral because people film them and post them.
But they are happening everywhere. And will continue to.
These are very organized and the items are then turned into a warehouse where they are sold. People doing it are not keeping the items (in most cases). They are recruited and paid cash to go do it.
It's just a very sad reality of where people are and the kinds of things they are willing to do. It's quick cash for people. And they are convinced that it doesn't matter because "insurance will pay for what is stolen".
My wife and I run a logistics company and we are at the front lines of this. We have had two trucks hijacked in the past 6 months. And that has never happened to us in the years we've been doing this. Criminals are getting very very good at what they do.
And those didn't happen in California. They happened in Florida.
In one case, the guy held the container hostage and we had to negotiate with him for over a week and pay him thousands to get the product back (long story why we didn't involve the authorities....but it was cheaper just to pay them off).
In the other case, it was similar to what I mentioned above. The container was driven across country to a warehouse in California (where the truck was supposed to drive anyways). And the CHP raided the warehouse before we were contacted for a ransom (which we would have been). The warehouse was completely full of containers that had been stolen. Millions of dollars in product. Ours was worth over $100K (pistachios for crying out loud) and worthless because the seal had been broken on the truck...and because it was a food item it cannot be sold.
This is just the new age of crime. Very organized. Very thought out. Very profitable.
I could go on and on in the trucking world. I'm sure Trucker could tell some stories as well. But these criminals will put a LOT of companies out of business. And who gets hurt the most? The mom and pop truck drivers. They are often the ones who's insurance gets hit to pay for the product. And there is an ugly world of "fake brokers" out there who are using drivers for the crime without them ever knowing it. And they never get paid. Ugly, ugly stuff.
Last edited by ukpumacat; 09-07-2023 at 02:37 PM.
~Puma~
Similar to KentuckyWildcat, I am a Pro Lifer and have been for more than 50 years, and had to live with the federal law surrounding the Roe v Wade case. When the recent decision to remove the national ruling in favor of Roe v Wade was made and to place decision to allow or not allow abortion on a state by state basis, I truly felt like that was the proper decision and is the one that should have been made 49 years earlier.
I had not let the SCOTUS decision in 1973 be the overriding issue that led me to vote for one presidential candidate or the other, and it will not be the one guiding issue that decides on where my vote goes. If it were that important to me and I lived in a state that allowed abortions, especially late term abortion, then I would move to a state that had lawmakers more to my liking.
Even though laws affecting abortion are very important to me, I can offer a list of other things that affect everyone in the country regardless of their state of residence, and those issues will decide where my vote goes.
seeya
dan
I'm just one stomach flu away from my goal weight.
Exactly this for me. Let the states handle most issues. Gives the voters more power and influence at a local level. It also gives you freedom to move as you desire. I would like to see a federal ban on late term abortions. To me, this is how it how it should work. Let federal govt be the guardrails, and give states freedom to work within those guardrails.
My favorite of the bunch!
I have often found (and not saying this of anyone here) that people are all about state's rights when it agrees with their opinions/belief and all about a federal law when it doesn't.
Burgum did a great job pointing out this hypocrisy in the debate. To no avail as Desantis and others kept calling for a Federal ban on late term abortions in spite of it.
I also find it a fascinating dilemma for Republicans who are constantly touting personal freedom. And constantly telling the government to stay out of their business, home and personal life.
And yet, when it is something they care about....are all about the government (whether it be state or federal) staying very involved in other people's lives and telling them what to do or not do.
"Don't tell me I can't use a plastic straw but do tell her she must carry full term and give birth".
"Don't tell me I can't have an AK-47 but do tell the gays they can't get married".
"Don't tell me I can't drive a Hummer but do tell them they can't have conversion medicine."
And none of that even speaks of the hypocrisy of the droves of politicians who are against something publicly (like abortion) but have paid for that very thing privately when it benefitted them.
No one party has the market on freedom. We all simply use it when it mirrors our personal beliefs.
~Puma~
Not me, I'm consistent
For me, I want less government at the top. More at the state and local levels. It just better reflects the people living there. If those people don't like it, they can move. If they do, then good for them.
My guard rail example again. And this is just a quick example I have not thought through. Federal govt should say, every state has to allow citizens to own firearms. Let the states determine what kind. If Illinois, says single shot rifles only, I don't have a problem with that. But I also wouldn't be moving there.
California bill decriminalizing personal use of psychedelics, magic mushrooms heads to Newsom's desk
Gov. Gavin Newsom has until October to sign the decriminalization of psychedelics into law
The pro-psychedelic measure would also require the California Health and Human Services Agency to study the therapeutic use of psychedelics and submit a report to the Legislature with recommendations, the bill says.
California Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher strongly opposed the bill by arguing that legalizing psychedelics will worsen the crime and homelessness ravaging the Golden State.
"Crime and homelessness are out of control in California. If Democrats don’t think this will make things worse, they’re hallucinating - no mushrooms needed," Gallagher said
Democrat State Assemblyman Scott Wiener, who introduced the bill, argued that veterans and first responders struggling with PTSD, depression, and addiction "deserve access to these promising plant medicines."
Wiener argued that psychedelics are not addictive and that the U.S. needs to stop criminalizing people who use them.
"We know these substances are not addictive, and they show tremendous promise in treating many of the most intractable conditions driving our nation’s mental health crisis," Wiener said in a news release. "It’s time to stop criminalizing people who use psychedelics for healing or personal well-being."
Linkiage
seeya
dan
I'm just one stomach flu away from my goal weight.
Not San Francisco but Berkeley just across the Bay and north of Oakland
https://youtu.be/Lv89eQqZ_6Q?feature=shared
This guys channel shows a good bit of the retail urban decay in the Bay Area
It's a bit extreme to compare plastic straws to abortion.
I can't put voters in the same boxes as politicians. It is crazy to vote for a politician based on a particular position taken. And most people don't. Even in deeply "conservative" Alabama I know no one who fits your description of a conservative. Most don't care what people do in their personal lives. Churches breaking up over gay or gender issues are suffering declining attendance. Gays have significant exposure in state Republican politics. Even Conservative Fox News has three or four openly gay contributors and several more still in the closet. Generalizations about people are tearing the country apart. I frequently work at my polling place. It is surprising what you hear. Many people want to talk about how they are voting or why. It is surprising the thought processes most people use. It's not what you see on TV. As far as generalizations about race and politics, there are a lot of black conservative Republicans in my neighborhood.
When you look at polling data on an individual issue basis there is little correlation between Voters' position on issues and the candidate or party leading in the polls. If I vote Republican, I get Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene. If I vote Democrat I get California's own Kamela Harris and AOC. None of them is competent. None match my views on the issues. But one way or another I have to vote and either way I get a lot of baggage.
Last edited by MickintheHam; 09-26-2023 at 08:46 AM.
Real Fan since 1958
[QUOTE=MickintheHam;842270]
When you look at polling data on an individual issue basis there is little correlation between Voters' position on issues and the candidate or party leading in the polls. If I vote Republican, I get Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene. If I vote Democrat I get California's own Kamela Harris and AOC. None of them is competent. None match my views on the issues. But one way or another I have to vote and either way I get a lot of baggage.[/QUOTe
I vote republican because I am not a
Communist.
San Fran Mayor Breed, appears to be making a good, positive choice for the doppers and for the city.
Democrat San Francisco mayor announces plan to require drug testing, treatment to receive homeless services.
seeya
dan
I'm just one stomach flu away from my goal weight.
This IMO is step one.
Step two is to arrest and commit those who are strung out addicts to a rehab facility. They are a danger to themselves and others.
That two pronged approach, help for those who want it, and intolerance of those who won't do what it takes to get it, that's the answer to this problem.
Which, of course, is exactly how we used to do things.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
San Fran Sicko by Michael Shellenberger is a book about the breakdown of order in traditionally Democrat controlled big cities.
Hope he debates Cali's head sicko in their race for King of the realm on national TV
seeya
dan
I'm just one stomach flu away from my goal weight.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks