I can create a film about Houston or Texas being a Dystopian waste land. I can spin the narrative anyway I want. Not that hard.
I suppose my point was that San Francisco is a target for particular scrutiny because it's held up as an exemplar if a liberal, progressive way of doing things. So there is a bit of an accusation of hypocrisy that goes along with the criticisms of failure. Using East Texas as a counter-example feels like a strawman because there's no arrogance to kick the legs out from under. What I would think is more fair is a California vs. Texas thing. One, the archtype of progressivism, and the other for conservative free marketeers. One a tech giant, the other an energy giant. Which one does better by it's citizenry, the activist government in Cali or the laissez-faire government of Texas? Fox could make hit pieces to criticize the homelessness in California, while MSNBC can make ones about environmental destruction and cancer in Texas. It wouldn't be fair to either state of course, but at least it'd be on a level playing field instead of picking on communities that lost the geography lottery.
Homeless folks are easy to deal with. Put on headphones and walk fast. That was my trick when I used to catch the park and ride downtown. Bob your head like you got a good jam going even if you don't. Works like a charm. I actually suggest turning the music down or off so you can hear and be aware of your surroundings. A loud jam, can lead to getting run over by a bus that trailed through a light.
Make no mistake. This is Tucker's way of making a point about Nancy. It's a right talking point originated from earlier Trump tweets about her and SF. The media on both sides are becoming increasingly easier to see through. It's a joke.
A starting engineer there make more than a director level position in Houston. After a few years it's not even close.
Who is holding SF as some sort of progressive utopia, other than Fox? It’s always been an unruly mess, from the 1850s to the 1960s to now, including all points in between. Jim Jones and many others say hi. yes, it is pretty and truly innovative in this area, but I don’t think people who live here think it’s a utopia. As with many dense cities, at least half the residents fantasize about leaving.
The cost of living in San Francisco is incredibly high. It is a good place for the super wealthy, those born in that area or bought a home there decades ago. It is FAR easier to support and raise and provide for a family in Houston. Years ago when we were making efforts to increase housing (of any sort) the projections we had from experts were that San Francisco would be 3-4 times it's current size population wise if there were sufficient housing options. The powers that be in San Francisco (many who claimed they were Democrats) did not want ANY increase in housing options and fought it extremely hard. They owned land in the area, and knew that they could charge 2-3 times the actual value with limited housing. They wanted to keep the middle class out. It was their little oasis (and it is very nice). The housing and zoning restrictions keep large areas looking similar and prevent large scale housing communities.
It is a wonder place if you have a lot (and I mean a lot) of money. If I had more money and was not married, it would be in my top 5 places to consider living. Although, I suspect that I would away eventually as a hardline John Birch society member.
Please give my brother-in-law a call and tell him to stop telling me how I need to move to SF. Probably your perspective is different because you're in the city and hear all the local complaining. And it's not that the rest of the country is fed some unadulterated pollyanna bs either. But, much of the narrative about California and San Francisco is that that's the vanguard. They are the early movers they cut the path the rest of the states will follow in a couple of decades. They have the tech industry making the next generation of products. They have the policymakers setting the new standards and frameworks for environmentalism, for fair labor, for corporate governance, etc. They are the locus for the social movements that define generations. It's economically and politically very powerful, maybe the single most powerful state in the union. And it's a draw for people from all over the country who love the climate and the natural beauty and the lifestyle. So, sure it's a mess. But it holds a special place in the psychic landscape of the US.
There are different types of dystopias. SF isn't a Max Max type dystopia because it has money, tons of money. I would compare it more to a Demolition Man type dystopia where you have a ruling elite class that is completely out of touch with the working poor. Yes there are homeless people, drug addicts, and the mentally unstable in every large city. What makes SF different is to have so many of them despite being the wealthiest city in the country. Where else is it normal to homeless people camping in front of multi-million dollar luxury condos? Where else do you see homeless people eating out scraps next to $300/meal Michelin starred restaurants? Sure the violent crime rate is fine but the property crime rate (aka theft) is one of the highest, if not the highest in the nation. SF is a example of a dystopian society where capitalism runs unchecked, which is why I left and moved to LA where I don't have to stress about parking on the street for fear of getting my car broken into. SF Resident 2009 - 2016, Family still lives in SF/Bay Area (Also had my car stolen in SF in 2015)
I think it's the image of the Berkley Liberal that Fox is trying to stir. There are a lot of well intentioned policies that the city is proud of, but housing and homelessness are tough nuts to crack not only there but in California in general.
It's an island and the homeless most likely don't have transportation. But that's not the real reason. The homeless do not move out of Houston or any other metro area either. The reason is they don't have the means to move and the majority have resigned themselves to live on the streets. I see the same guy every day with a sign saying him and his wife are stranded and from Louisiana. After months of seeing this dude, you'd think they'd panhandled enough money to make it via bus back to Louisiana. I can't imagine being in that hopeless of a situation.
Well, okay, I acknowledge that some people in NoCal are too proud, but what you describe is pretty ubiquitous. I have relatives telling me to move back to TX all the time, with many stories about how great X & Y are now, etc. Fair points. California is an easy state to resent, in other words.
Admittedly I haven't been in about 10 years. The most distopian thing about SF is all the assholes driving 100 mph on their motorcycles weaving in and out of traffic in the mountains south of the city. That is some real Mad Max ****. Those guys are crazy and kind of feral and remind me of the bad guys in the first Road Warrior.
I haven’t done a lot of research on how California and other places implement no-cash bonds, but I can understand the argument against cash bonds. I know that some people will easily be able to afford even a high-ish bond when we don’t want them back in the streets. Conversely I know some low-income folks won’t be able to come up with even a modest bond for awhile for a non-violent crime. So we have to disregard those feelings and tie it to the offense, their criminal history, and above all their chance of being a flight risk. Losing out on cash is obviously an incentive to stick around. My impression is that some jurisdictions are just saying “the charge either merits a release until trial because we trust you. But if you don’t appear we’ll issue a warrant and hold you until then. Or, we don’t trust you and you have to stay locked up.” Seems problematic because there are very limited circumstances where I’m from in which we can deny a chance at bond altogether. So from our standards you would be released anything short of committing capital murder. Again, not sure how they do it in California so I need to study up on it. As far as other trends...I practice in Arkansas so we’re not exactly cutting edge, but I know some towns in northwest Arkansas stopped charging people for mar1juana possession altogether. I’ll say that I’m in favor of universal legalization of mar1juana.
