• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Big Convention Pulls Out Of San Francisco, Citing Unsafe Streets

zimmer

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
24,380
Reaction score
7,805
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
A major medical association has pulled its $40 million convention out of San Francisco over the state of the streets.

“The convention felt that the streets of San Francisco are not a place that a lot of their delegates wanted to come to,” says Alessandro.

The medical group is not alone.

“A number of groups are concerned about the streets of San Francisco,” says Alessandro. “They say ‘we don’t know if the streets are safe, we don’t know if we want to meet here.’”

San Francisco spends over $300 million each year on housing and homeless programs, but you wouldn’t know it walking down Market Street.

“You can smell it,” says one tourist.

“I come from a third world county and it is not as bad as this,” says another.

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2...ulls-out-san-francisco-citing-unsafe-streets/
Click to expand...
Democrats... bringing the 3rd World to America.

Odd... why is he pushing the car with his pants down?
4DE0A45A-835A-4A42-BCB6-B3FA033EC5FB.jpg
 
Karl Malden is probably turning over in his grave.
 
Lefties destroy everything they touch.
 
Well, SF is prone to earthquakes, which, do indeed affect the streets there...enough that I was unwilling to live in the SF area (my wife wanted us to move to The Heights, Sausalito or Mill Valley) because of the quakes.
 
Xelor said:
Well, SF is prone to earthquakes, which, do indeed affect the streets there...enough that I was unwilling to live in the SF area (my wife wanted us to move to The Heights, Sausalito or Mill Valley) because of the quakes.
Click to expand...

I don't think the article is about the physical condition of the asphalt/concrete, but rather the "aesthetic" condition, such as the streets being filled with homeless and fraught with crime.
 
Xelor said:
Well, SF is prone to earthquakes, which, do indeed affect the streets there...enough that I was unwilling to live in the SF area (my wife wanted us to move to The Heights, Sausalito or Mill Valley) because of the quakes.
Click to expand...

Earthquakes leave hypodermic needles and feces on the street, break out your car windows, and rip off your stereo system?
 
Xelor said:
Well, SF is prone to earthquakes, which, do indeed affect the streets there...enough that I was unwilling to live in the SF area (my wife wanted us to move to The Heights, Sausalito or Mill Valley) because of the quakes.
Click to expand...

I will take an earthquake every twenty or so years over a tornado three times a year any day.
 
Mason66 said:
I will take an earthquake every twenty or so years over a tornado three times a year any day.
Click to expand...

The lesser of two evils is still evil....I also don't live in "tornado alley," or whatever be the D.C. area analogue of it, and neither would I consider doing so.
 
HowardBThiname said:
I don't think the article is about the physical condition of the asphalt/concrete, but rather the "aesthetic" condition, such as the streets being filled with homeless and fraught with crime.
Click to expand...

You're almost certainly correct.

And, yes, I know the sarcasm in my post wasn't blatant.
 
Xelor said:
The lesser of two evils is still evil....I also don't live in "tornado alley," or whatever be the D.C. area analogue of it, and neither would I consider doing so.
Click to expand...

Something happens wherever you are.
 
If you look at violent crime, San Francisco is a safe city by American standards. In the context of American cities this is an image problem and not a safety problem.

San Francisco is one of the most expensive cities in the world, so that is a huge factor in its homeless problem. But the whole west coast has a homeless problem that has ballooned the past several years due to increasing housing costs. In large part, this is due to the outward migration from rural areas.

The economic situation in rural America has been so bad for so long that it is placing an enormous strain on city infrastructures as they adjust to the influx of rural immigrants. When young people realize they don't have a future in their small town, they go to a bigger city in search of high paying and interesting jobs. So many people are moving to west coast cities that the competition for limited housing in turn puts downward pressure on the mentally ill, handicapped, elderly and others who can have problems finding good or any employment at all no matter how good the economy is. Social security and disability payments are only going to go so far in a city where a one bedroom goes for $3600/month.

In addition to that, people who simply don't have high wage skills live very marginally in SF - renting a room or a closet with others in tiny apartments and going paycheck to paycheck. It only takes a few bad events to make somebody homeless on those margins.

Trump, in large part, did well because he recognized how bad things have been for rural America. Manufacturing jobs are gone and rural jobs are limited to just a few industries like service, hospitals and education. So if Trump really can save rural America, maybe SF's homeless levels will go back down to early 2000's levels.

So, yeah go ahead and disparage San Francisco, (because one dimensional partisanship is your only response to human misery?) but the fact is, more people would rather live in liberal cities than Trump voting counties. Think about that before you make fun of the consequences of the decline of rural America.
 
Polar Bum said:
Umm....I don't think he is "pushing" that car.....at least, not the way you might think.... ;)
Click to expand...

It the latest "kink" in San Francisco... "Exhaust pipe sex"!

Mason66 said:
I will take an earthquake every twenty or so years over a tornado three times a year any day.
Click to expand...

Do you let people sleep in your doorway and crap on your front porch while having a metaphysical discussion with your daffodils?
 
zimmer said:
Democrats... bringing the 3rd World to America.

Odd... why is he pushing the car with his pants down?
View attachment 67235583
Click to expand...

My first thought was -- how in the world can a city spend $300M a year on homeless, AND have the situation that bad. You could build a lot of group homes and provide an army of therapists, every year, for that.

Then I looked up the San Francisco budget, and it is incredible. Nearly 11 BILLION dollars a year. That's $12,600 per resident. Incredible. No wonder people can't afford to live there. I'm amazed that the citizens allow their officials to spend that much money, and have a city in that bad of condition.
 
Mason66 said:
Something happens wherever you are.
Click to expand...


giphy.gif
 
exoplanet said:
If you look at violent crime, San Francisco is a safe city by American standards. In the context of American cities this is an image problem and not a safety problem.

San Francisco is one of the most expensive cities in the world, so that is a huge factor in its homeless problem. But the whole west coast has a homeless problem that has ballooned the past several years due to increasing housing costs. In large part, this is due to the outward migration from rural areas.

The economic situation in rural America has been so bad for so long that it is placing an enormous strain on city infrastructures as they adjust to the influx of rural immigrants. When young people realize they don't have a future in their small town, they go to a bigger city in search of high paying and interesting jobs. So many people are moving to west coast cities that the competition for limited housing in turn puts downward pressure on the mentally ill, handicapped, elderly and others who can have problems finding good or any employment at all no matter how good the economy is. Social security and disability payments are only going to go so far in a city where a one bedroom goes for $3600/month.

In addition to that, people who simply don't have high wage skills live very marginally in SF - renting a room or a closet with others in tiny apartments and going paycheck to paycheck. It only takes a few bad events to make somebody homeless on those margins.

Trump, in large part, did well because he recognized how bad things have been for rural America. Manufacturing jobs are gone and rural jobs are limited to just a few industries like service, hospitals and education. So if Trump really can save rural America, maybe SF's homeless levels will go back down to early 2000's levels.

So, yeah go ahead and disparage San Francisco, (because one dimensional partisanship is your only response to human misery?) but the fact is, more people would rather live in liberal cities than Trump voting counties. Think about that before you make fun of the consequences of the decline of rural America.
Click to expand...

...And as fate would have it, an industry having the potential to employ many people and do so by creating jobs in rural areas is an industry that Trump thinks was born of a conspiratorial hoax.
 
exoplanet said:
If a one bedroom apartment costs 3600/month how much do you think it costs to run a homeless shelter? There's no way to house these people cheaply inside city limits.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to solve their problem for them, but can recognize that they are burning through an astronomical amount of money. Housing costs are another issue the city should address.

Assuming $3600 per month though, they could rent 2500 apartments out, have two homeless people per apartment, house all 5000 homeless people in nice apartments, and still have $200M left over. Or they could give each person their own and have $100M left over. Since there's 1100 waiting for shelter beds, it seems like you could build a few more shelters for much less than that.

Of course, housing isn't the only issue these people have, but San Francisco is using a lot of money and not effectively addressing the problem.
 
dcsports said:
I'm not trying to solve their problem for them, but can recognize that they are burning through an astronomical amount of money. Housing costs are another issue the city should address.

Assuming $3600 per month though, they could rent 2500 apartments out, have two homeless people per apartment, house all 5000 homeless people in nice apartments, and still have $200M left over. Or they could give each person their own and have $100M left over. Since there's 1100 waiting for shelter beds, it seems like you could build a few more shelters for much less than that.

Of course, housing isn't the only issue these people have, but San Francisco is using a lot of money and not effectively addressing the problem.
Click to expand...

Housing costs are a factor of people in the city not wanting to have single family homes replaced by high rise condo's. Until that occurs housing prices in San Fran will remain higher than much of the rest of the US. It does not have land to expand its limits.

As for the homeless. Those that are not suffering from mental issues or drug addiction could be served well by your plan. A hand up to get back on their feet and off the streets. But as I expect the people who are longer term homeless have mental issues, and or addiction issues just giving them money or a place to live in would not help them or the community. I also expect due to the environment, the way the city is designed and the help it provides, it attracts homeless from much of the rest of the US (including from other cities busing them in. The cheapest solution for San Fran would be to bus the homeless to say Kentucky and give them $10 000. But that just moves the issue from one area to another.
 
itsforthekids said:
Lefties destroy everything they touch.
Click to expand...

More hyperbole

Your hatred of the left drips in every post, and detracts from the occasional intelligent post you make.
 
California is crazy. We recently returned from a vacation to San Francisco and we could deal with all the homeless. You just avoid some areas, like the Tenderloin district. But we had our own car, and driving on the freeway way a nightmare. Apparently, California is the only state that allows motorcycle lane splitting. That's where motorcycles race at 80 miles an hour between the car lanes. We would have motorcycles splitting lanes constantly, sometimes a dozen bikes at a time. Drove my wife nuts. We won't be going back to California any time soon.

FYI; I don't think I helped her much by pretending to open my door every time one of those crotch rockets flew by........ HeHe....
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Housing costs are a factor of people in the city not wanting to have single family homes replaced by high rise condo's. Until that occurs housing prices in San Fran will remain higher than much of the rest of the US. It does not have land to expand its limits.

As for the homeless. Those that are not suffering from mental issues or drug addiction could be served well by your plan. A hand up to get back on their feet and off the streets. But as I expect the people who are longer term homeless have mental issues, and or addiction issues just giving them money or a place to live in would not help them or the community. I also expect due to the environment, the way the city is designed and the help it provides, it attracts homeless from much of the rest of the US (including from other cities busing them in. The cheapest solution for San Fran would be to bus the homeless to say Kentucky and give them $10 000. But that just moves the issue from one area to another.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, it's not my plan - just playing with the Math. Absolutely, there are underlying issues there that go beyond simply not being able to afford housing. In fact, I'd bet that most people who can work and function normally, but can't afford to live in San Francisco, move elsewhere.

I just find it amazing that the city throws that much money at the issue, and it's getting worse. Money won't solve all the problems, but 60,000 per homeless person per year should do SOMETHING to help the issue.
 
yankintx said:
More hyperbole

Your hatred of the left drips in every post, and detracts from the occasional intelligent post you make.
Click to expand...

There is absolutely NOTHING to like about today's lefties. The have ****ed up every city and town, program and law in which they are involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom