Leaving the cities

[LWYRUP]

  While working and bike commuting in Munich I was stuck by the very large number of bikes in the downtown area that were not locked. Like, almost all of them. I'm sure bike theft exists there, but apparently not enough of a problem for most people to bother with a lock. I don't think this is because German prisons are exceptionally hard or sentences exceptionally long. On the contrary, it seems prisons are more humane and sentences shorter (to fit the crime) along with well funded wrap-around services, yet there are still actual consequences for things like theft. And beyond law enforcement, German (and European in general) society as a whole is not shy about correcting you if you do something contrary to accepted norms, which happened to me on occasion and for which I was thankful. 

I think what happens in the US is that you can actually go along committing crimes for years with no or little consequences and then all of a sudden you are in the wrong place in the wrong time or get the wrong judge or get too many strikes and then BAM  you get a ridiculously long sentence.

It would be good to increase certainty of punishment and decrease length of punishment, as well as working to make sure the prison system does a better job at rehabilitation and life skills training (in addition to punishment).  So more people getting thrown in the local jail for a week or a month or a few months and fewer people getting locked away for 15 years, etc.

I'm not an expert in the field but that's my read on one possible solution.  As well as there are a lot of cultural and economic issues that we need to work on.   

[John Galt incarnate!]

Man, if a little poop bothers you, you definitely don't wanna live in a rural area.  At least not a rural farming community in the spring when they fertilize.  :P

I've driven by many farms and dairies (where manure is collected for methane production) so I know exactly what you're talking about.

[FINate]

  While working and bike commuting in Munich I was stuck by the very large number of bikes in the downtown area that were not locked. Like, almost all of them. I'm sure bike theft exists there, but apparently not enough of a problem for most people to bother with a lock. I don't think this is because German prisons are exceptionally hard or sentences exceptionally long. On the contrary, it seems prisons are more humane and sentences shorter (to fit the crime) along with well funded wrap-around services, yet there are still actual consequences for things like theft. And beyond law enforcement, German (and European in general) society as a whole is not shy about correcting you if you do something contrary to accepted norms, which happened to me on occasion and for which I was thankful. 

I think what happens in the US is that you can actually go along committing crimes for years with no or little consequences and then all of a sudden you are in the wrong place in the wrong time or get the wrong judge or get too many strikes and then BAM  you get a ridiculously long sentence.

It would be good to increase certainty of punishment and decrease length of punishment, as well as working to make sure the prison system does a better job at rehabilitation and life skills training (in addition to punishment).  So more people getting thrown in the local jail for a week or a month or a few months and fewer people getting locked away for 15 years, etc.

I'm not an expert in the field but that's my read on one possible solution.  As well as there are a lot of cultural and economic issues that we need to work on.

Agreed.

And would add that access to criminal records needs to be far more granular and on a need-to-know basis. The way a conviction follows people around for life is unjust, and mostly due to employers being lazy or overly picky.

Of course there's a bona fide need to keep sex offenders from being employed in places like schools and childcare and so on. Or a financial institution needing to know if someone has a history of financial crimes. Give these places full access to the records.

But many professions, construction, and so many other jobs? Many shouldn't have access to most criminal records unless they are relevant. Let people get on with life after making a mistake.

[BicycleB]

It would be good to increase certainty of punishment and decrease length of punishment, as well as working to make sure the prison system does a better job at rehabilitation and life skills training (in addition to punishment).

That would be wonderful!

Add in a support system for the mentally ill that doesn't leave hundreds of thousands living on the street (and getting criminalized for it), I think a lot of these "cesspools" would turn into the shining cities on a hill we always them to be.

I guess we'd also need a system that doesn't criminalize a lot of minorities for things that other people get a "pass" for. As a consequence, we'd also stop blocking them from legitimate employment.

The mentally ill piece we somewhat achieved in the past, we just stopped paying for it; we could go back to what worked before, perhaps with improvements. Treatment of minorities is harder (shouldn't be, but it is). I still think it's achievable.

Maybe all of these things can be accomplished in concert, reinforcing each other.

In the meantime, plenty of small towns are wonderful places to live. OP, if you do move, best wishes.

[Metalcat]

I'm not shaming anyone, I'm genuinely interested as to what the differences are and what the perceptions are.

Here are some differences.

In some cities some sidewalks are cesspools.

For instance, in  some places in San Francisco there are used hypodermic needles and human urine/feces  on the sidewalks and right by entrances to buildings.

San Francisco is ~150 miles from my home that is located on rural, woodsy acreage.

On my property    coyotes, deer, and  foxes  are the source of  urine/feces on the ground.

The only needles are pine needles that dropped from pine trees.

There's almost no violent crime in my county and NO human urine/feces or used hypodermic needles on ANY sidewalk.

Follow up question, is this the same type of cesspool OP is referring to? Is there a rising violent crime problem in SF coinciding with the increased homelessness problem?

Interestingly there are no needles on my streets despite addicts in the street being plentiful, but that's because we have a robust safe injection and methadone programs and needle disposal boxes (look like mail boxes) on most corners.

cess·pool
/ˈsesˌpo͞ol/

noun
an underground container for the temporary storage of liquid waste and sewage.
a disgusting or corrupt place.

"they should clean out their own political cesspool"

cesspool - Urban Dictionarywww.urbandictionary.com › define › term=cesspool
Back. Loading... Top definition. cesspool. synonym for shithole, dump, trash, and hell. can be used to describe a neighborhood or a city. For a real life example of a ..

I  do not think OP used "cesspool" for its literal meaning that defines an underground  container that stores sewage.

I think OP used "cesspool"  for its other definitions listed above.

I earnestly  expect that  no one would argue that discarded needles and excreta on some city sidewalks are not  a manifestation of  a deteriorated quality of life.

IDK about current, violent  crime statistics in San Francisco.

What makes you think I was arguing that.
I wasn't arguing anything, I was asking if your example was relatable to the example given in the OP or if you were leveling a different charge against cities.

Literally just asking questions because I'm interested in why I hear so many Americans recently malign cities. I've been to very few of them, and the cities in my country sound very different.

I'm trying to understand if the cities are fundamentally different or if the perception of cities is different or both, and how much of each.

Incidentally, having the dictionary quoted at me will always, always make me laugh.

[waltworks]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/many-americans-are-convinced-crime-is-rising-in-the-u-s-theyre-wrong/

Cities, and everywhere else in the US, are shining beacons of safety as compared to any other time in history. BLM protests aren't the end of the world.

Now, if you don't like the politics in the city, you can move, of course. But not liking the politics is IMO kind of a silly reason to move.

-W

[LWYRUP]

Add in a support system for the mentally ill that doesn't leave hundreds of thousands living on the street (and getting criminalized for it), I think a lot of these "cesspools" would turn into the shining cities on a hill we always them to be. 

"A chronically homeless person costs the taxpayer an average of $35,578 per year. This study shows how costs on average are reduced by 49.5% when they are placed in supportive housing. Supportive housing costs on average $12,800, making the net savings roughly $4,800 per year."  (https://endhomelessness.org/resource/ending-chronic-homelessness-saves-taxpayers-money-2/#:~:text=A%20chronically%20homeless%20person%20costs,savings%20roughly%20%244%2C800%20per%20year.

To add to that, sometimes people get in an endless loop where they can't get a job because they don't have an address, and they can't get an address because they don't have a job, etc.  Everyone in the U.S. really suffers because of how we treat our poor, it's quite irrational. 

Even if you don't care about poor people one bit, replacing our weird patchwork with a more stable social safety net (basically, basic level housing and basic level healthcare for all, even if it's just spartan studios and walk-in clinics, etc.) would improve the quality of life for our poor so much, and would in turn have positive knock on effects that would improve life for everyone else. 

Not to veer too far off topic, but we also have 800 military bases in 70 countries around the world.  Just as a suggestion for where we could look for a way to do this in a revenue neutral manner... 

[GuitarStv]

Add in a support system for the mentally ill that doesn't leave hundreds of thousands living on the street (and getting criminalized for it), I think a lot of these "cesspools" would turn into the shining cities on a hill we always them to be. 

"A chronically homeless person costs the taxpayer an average of $35,578 per year. This study shows how costs on average are reduced by 49.5% when they are placed in supportive housing. Supportive housing costs on average $12,800, making the net savings roughly $4,800 per year."  (https://endhomelessness.org/resource/ending-chronic-homelessness-saves-taxpayers-money-2/#:~:text=A%20chronically%20homeless%20person%20costs,savings%20roughly%20%244%2C800%20per%20year.

To add to that, sometimes people get in an endless loop where they can't get a job because they don't have an address, and they can't get an address because they don't have a job, etc.  Everyone in the U.S. really suffers because of how we treat our poor, it's quite irrational. 

Even if you don't care about poor people one bit, replacing our weird patchwork with a more stable social safety net (basically, basic level housing and basic level healthcare for all, even if it's just spartan studios and walk-in clinics, etc.) would improve the quality of life for our poor so much, and would in turn have positive knock on effects that would improve life for everyone else. 

Not to veer too far off topic, but we also have 800 military bases in 70 countries around the world.  Just as a suggestion for where we could look for a way to do this in a revenue neutral manner...

This is true for a great many things on the liberal side of the liberal/conservative split.  Net reduction of costs to society by improving social safety nets.  It's actually more fiscally conservative to be fiscally liberal sometimes.

[BicycleB]

Literally just asking questions because I'm interested in why I hear so many Americans recently malign cities. I've been to very few of them, and the cities in my country sound very different.

I'm trying to understand if the cities are fundamentally different or if the perception of cities is different or both, and how much of each.

I think part of it's the recent uptick in the Black Lives Matter movement, and the President's focus on painting protesters as criminals, and many US media's aggressive publicizing of "criminality" images.

I respect that some of the matters discussed upthread are personal experience, but I suspect the "recently" thing among a wider range of commenters is partly a perception matter related to the social/political moment.

[dividendman]

We just moved from the city to about two hours away, mostly because pre-covid traffic was terrible and yes, crime was rising (many of us have had at least our car broken into). It is also just better financially to not live in an expensive area if you can.

On being "tough on crime", we could always do like Louisiana and put people in jail for life for stealing hedge-clippers: https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/06/us/louisiana-supreme-court-trnd/index.html

[Metalcat]

Literally just asking questions because I'm interested in why I hear so many Americans recently malign cities. I've been to very few of them, and the cities in my country sound very different.

I'm trying to understand if the cities are fundamentally different or if the perception of cities is different or both, and how much of each.

I think part of it's the recent uptick in the Black Lives Matter movement, and the President's focus on painting protesters as criminals, and many US media's aggressive publicizing of "criminality" images.

I respect that some of the matters discussed upthread are personal experience, but I suspect the "recently" thing among a wider range of commenters is partly a perception matter related to the social/political moment.

We had a similar thing happen with people talking about Montreal going to shit in 2012. We had 7 straight months of protests, which the government made so much worse by passing an emergency bill to curb their right to protest.

Oy, the government turned it into such a cluster fuck. Thousands and thousands of protesters flooded the main street I lived on every single day, night time was chaos, vandalism was rampant, protesters marched naked, and there were a few Molotov cocktails thrown for sure.

Some people thought that the city had irreversibly descended into hell and that civilized society was crumbling.

It was a very, very different social issue though, and the vast majority of the people supported the protesters and swiftly voted out the party that caused it (they voted in an evil monster.instead, but that's a whole other political mess).

[Steeze]

Since moving to NYC I had my car broken into 3 times and my bikes stolen. Police always respond “nothing we can do” - OK - so I move to a better part of the city, problem solved (so far).

I look around and half the shops are closed and boarded up, makes the place look like a blighted wasteland.

A new group of homeless men have made the bench on the corner their hang out recently. They are always drunk or drugged up - common to see them having thrown up or pissed them selves etc. they have also been shitting in the tree beds. Pissing on the side of the building in the middle of the day. Since when is whipping your dick out down the street from a school OK?

The bank across the street now houses a couple homeless women most nights in the ATM lobby.

I don’t know - if I saw a big uptick in crime in my neighborhood I would probably leave for sure. Why wouldn’t I? If the police are actually defunded to the point that they stop patrolling and enforcing basic laws then I’m out. Law and order make a city livable. My current neighborhood is livable because it’s safe at night and I don’t have to worry about my car getting broken into - but is that starting to change?

Fact is I have no reason to live in a neighborhood (or city) where there are drug addicts on the street doing drugs, prostitution, tons of homelessness, filth, theft, etc. - I never liked the idea of a huge police state, didn’t trust the police, was getting in trouble a lot in those days - but now that I own a house, a car, got married and have a child on the way... bring on the police! Love the police.

Hopefully all of this settles down - the defund the police movement is incredibly short sighted without major investment in other infrastructure - the actual defunding should only happen AFTER that other infrastructure has proven to be effective in replacing the responsibilities of the police.

^^ I’ll take the pine needles, fertilizer, and trees any day over heroine needles, human feces, and blight. There are too many beautiful places to live to subject yourself to such negative imagery everyday.

[FINate]

Now, if you don't like the politics in the city, you can move, of course. But not liking the politics is IMO kind of a silly reason to move.

Politics==policy, i.e. the nitty-gritty on the ground details of what makes a city run. If a city isn't managed well, that is, the policies are bad, then attempting to affect change is one option. Moving, aka voting with your feet, is another option.

Of course, if by "politics" you mean "partisanship" then yes, that's a silly reason to move.

[Metalcat]

Since moving to NYC I had my car broken into 3 times and my bikes stolen. Police always respond “nothing we can do” - OK - so I move to a better part of the city, problem solved (so far).

I look around and half the shops are closed and boarded up, makes the place look like a blighted wasteland.

A new group of homeless men have made the bench on the corner their hang out recently. They are always drunk or drugged up - common to see them having thrown up or pissed them selves etc. they have also been shitting in the tree beds. Pissing on the side of the building in the middle of the day. Since when is whipping your dick out down the street from a school OK?

The bank across the street now houses a couple homeless women most nights in the ATM lobby.

I don’t know - if I saw a big uptick in crime in my neighborhood I would probably leave for sure. Why wouldn’t I? If the police are actually defunded to the point that they stop patrolling and enforcing basic laws then I’m out. Law and order make a city livable. My current neighborhood is livable because it’s safe at night and I don’t have to worry about my car getting broken into - but is that starting to change?

Fact is I have no reason to live in a neighborhood (or city) where there are drug addicts on the street doing drugs, prostitution, tons of homelessness, filth, theft, etc. - I never liked the idea of a huge police state, didn’t trust the police, was getting in trouble a lot in those days - but now that I own a house, a car, got married and have a child on the way... bring on the police! Love the police.

Hopefully all of this settles down - the defund the police movement is incredibly short sighted without major investment in other infrastructure - the actual defunding should only happen AFTER that other infrastructure has proven to be effective in replacing the responsibilities of the police.

^^ I’ll take the pine needles, fertilizer, and trees any day over heroine needles, human feces, and blight. There are too many beautiful places to live to subject yourself to such negative imagery everyday.

Well, to be fair, the argument for defunding the police (beyond the obvious fact that certain populations are not made to feel safe by the presence of police) is to spend a lot more on services that would ostensibly make you safer, so that there would be no homeless people living on the streets or in the banks, and addicts would get appropriate support and treatment to keep them from being desperate for money for their drugs, and therefore not breaking into your car.

Where the police see petty crime and vagrancy as not worth their time, a not overworked and well funded social worker may find the petty criminals and vagrants themselves worth their time.

Likewise, the thinking is that police themselves would be more effective if they were freed up from all of the nonsense that they currently have to deal with. I wouldn't want to see our regular patrol cops gone, but when I had a fender bender and had to go to.the special car accident station to tell my fender bender story and have photos taken of my.car, did a dozen highly paid professionals who are extensively trained in deadly force need to be staffing the entirely adminstrative role of taking reports, determining fault, and taking photos?

That's all a very idealistic notion of it, but the underlying logic of defunding is to make your community much safer, not less safe.

Our city police are in deep.shit right now, and the fixer they brought in to clean up the mess is actually pretty supportive of partially reallocating the police budget to other services.

However, the whole house of cards rests on a public will to invest tax dollars in programs that benefit criminals, addicts, and the unemployed. That's a tall order when those are the first programs to be targeted when someone wants to campaign on tax cuts.

[Michael in ABQ]

Add in a support system for the mentally ill that doesn't leave hundreds of thousands living on the street (and getting criminalized for it), I think a lot of these "cesspools" would turn into the shining cities on a hill we always them to be. 

"A chronically homeless person costs the taxpayer an average of $35,578 per year. This study shows how costs on average are reduced by 49.5% when they are placed in supportive housing. Supportive housing costs on average $12,800, making the net savings roughly $4,800 per year."  (https://endhomelessness.org/resource/ending-chronic-homelessness-saves-taxpayers-money-2/#:~:text=A%20chronically%20homeless%20person%20costs,savings%20roughly%20%244%2C800%20per%20year.

To add to that, sometimes people get in an endless loop where they can't get a job because they don't have an address, and they can't get an address because they don't have a job, etc.  Everyone in the U.S. really suffers because of how we treat our poor, it's quite irrational. 

Even if you don't care about poor people one bit, replacing our weird patchwork with a more stable social safety net (basically, basic level housing and basic level healthcare for all, even if it's just spartan studios and walk-in clinics, etc.) would improve the quality of life for our poor so much, and would in turn have positive knock on effects that would improve life for everyone else. 

Not to veer too far off topic, but we also have 800 military bases in 70 countries around the world.  Just as a suggestion for where we could look for a way to do this in a revenue neutral manner...

There is a percentage of the chronically homeless that will not live in a normal housing situation - whether that's 10%, 50%, or 90% I couldn't say. I have a relative who's been homeless in San Francisco for years. She's bipolar and doesn't want to take the medication to treat that. Despite years of family and friends trying to help, including bringing her to live with them, inevitably she goes back to the streets. She gets a small amount of money every day through some government program and uses it to buy meth and food. A couple generations ago she probably would have been living in an institutional setting. The $10 a day or so she gets plus various other public and private support systems is enough to keep her alive but she's not going to live too many more years with that lifestyle. It's sad but she doesn't want to change.

[FINate]

Add in a support system for the mentally ill that doesn't leave hundreds of thousands living on the street (and getting criminalized for it), I think a lot of these "cesspools" would turn into the shining cities on a hill we always them to be. 

"A chronically homeless person costs the taxpayer an average of $35,578 per year. This study shows how costs on average are reduced by 49.5% when they are placed in supportive housing. Supportive housing costs on average $12,800, making the net savings roughly $4,800 per year."  (https://endhomelessness.org/resource/ending-chronic-homelessness-saves-taxpayers-money-2/#:~:text=A%20chronically%20homeless%20person%20costs,savings%20roughly%20%244%2C800%20per%20year.

To add to that, sometimes people get in an endless loop where they can't get a job because they don't have an address, and they can't get an address because they don't have a job, etc.  Everyone in the U.S. really suffers because of how we treat our poor, it's quite irrational. 

Even if you don't care about poor people one bit, replacing our weird patchwork with a more stable social safety net (basically, basic level housing and basic level healthcare for all, even if it's just spartan studios and walk-in clinics, etc.) would improve the quality of life for our poor so much, and would in turn have positive knock on effects that would improve life for everyone else. 

Not to veer too far off topic, but we also have 800 military bases in 70 countries around the world.  Just as a suggestion for where we could look for a waypro to do this in a revenue neutral manner...

There is a percentage of the chronically homeless that will not live in a normal housing situation - whether that's 10%, 50%, or 90% I couldn't say. I have a relative who's been homeless in San Francisco for years. She's bipolar and doesn't want to take the medication to treat that. Despite years of family and friends trying to help, including bringing her to live with them, inevitably she goes back to the streets. She gets a small amount of money every day through some government program and uses it to buy meth and food. A couple generations ago she probably would have been living in an institutional setting. The $10 a day or so she gets plus various other public and private support systems is enough to keep her alive but she's not going to live too many more years with that lifestyle. It's sad but she doesn't want to change.

You're almost exactly describing a cousin of mine. Super sad. Family has done what they can, but cannot force her to take her meds or otherwise seek treatment.

Most people agree (I hope) that mental illness and addiction are real illnesses. That is, many struggling with these cannot be expected to pull themselves up by their bootstraps as the sickness is something that controls them. They need to be stabilized via treatment before clarity of mind returns. Allowing people to kill themselves on the street when they are incapable of caring for themselves is terribly cruel.

Not saying we should go back to the failed institutions of the 20th century. But we need a middle ground between doing nothing and incarceration. Something like conservatorship + residential treatment facilities, but more widely utilized and funded by the state. Though as others have pointed out, this would be expensive and getting people to pay for it is a tough sell, even in places like progressive California.

[iris lily]

The explanation is really simple.

1.  There is a lot more really violent crime in the USA and Canada.  [edit: whoops, I meant "in the USA than Canada."]

2.  Some people temperamentally have a greater aversion to crime than others.  (While I think some people are perhaps more worried than is overly necessary, most people would be really disturbed if someone who lives near them had their throat slit, gang member or not.)

3.  Some people may be personally be willing to live in an area with a certain amount of violent crime when single in their 20s-30s, but then not want that environment when raising kids or later when older and frail (60+). 

I don't think that anyone should feel guilty or ashamed for not wanting to be a victim of violent crime.  My neighborhood is very old school in many ways, and it's a place where I see kids as a young as six walking dogs or riding bikes alone and supervised.  (That's a little young for me, but when our daughter is seven we will probably let her walk to a friends house.)  We live in a suburb of a very big city, and there are occasionally people that come at night and rifle through cars.  But violent crime in the daytime?  I'm willing to guess it literally hasn't happened ever since the neighborhood was built in the late 1950s.

This is good. One’s perception of crime and one’s actual potential of being a victim can be two separate things. I live in the murder capital of the U.SA. and my ZIP code sees  more gun crimes than most of you here can understand. I offer my credentials only to establish that I know crime and what it does to neighborhoods. I’m the one who walks around nearby neighborhoods at night, The ones less safe than my own,and my friends say “oh you shouldn’t do that. Are you safe? You wouldn’t catch me doing that!”

While  I agree that my actions probably aren’t smart, I’m not “afraid “. That’s because that’s simply not my temperament.

What I’m seeing is a sea change in perception of what we need to tolerate in my neighborhood. We used to move disturbances and those who create them along and out of our neighborhood. Now, there is a cacophony of voices that cry “don’t call the police! They will badger and harass the shit disturber! Why don’t we talk to the shit disturber! Why don’t we find out what that shit disturber needs!? “

That’s all fine but I ain’t got time for that, and I have even less interest. But I am fine if my neighbors take action and do it. The key here is take action. They don’t. They sit in their  houses or offices and make comments via social media.

[iris lily]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/many-americans-are-convinced-crime-is-rising-in-the-u-s-theyre-wrong/

Cities, and everywhere else in the US, are shining beacons of safety as compared to any other time in history. BLM protests aren't the end of the world.

Now, if you don't like the politics in the city, you can move, of course. But not liking the politics is IMO kind of a silly reason to move.

-W

No actually, I think it’s an excellent reason to move.

The thread has useful discussion.

What may be happening, borne out by comments on the thread, is that values of city leaders are changing. That is OK, and those values may be reflecting a new breed of city resident or changing ideas of city residents.  That is all OK! I mean that sincerely.

Those values may not be entirely shared in specifics and in strength by me.It’s up to me to find a place that’s best for me to live.

[iris lily]

Women are harassed by men at any time of day and in any place. The police generally don't do anything about it, and that has absolutely nothing to do with COVID.

Wheeeeeew, there's the point flying right over your head.


ETA - this was a bunch of shitbags trying to run her off the road. Not some asshole catcalling her ;)





Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Well, since you didn’t give the details in your previous post, whose fault is it that I missed the point?Details matter.

Your friend’s experience absolutely sucks, but my point still stands. This shit happens to women regardless of time of day and geographic location. There are a lot of shitbags out there.

I’ve seen two instances within the past three months of Nextdoor residents taking to task those who call Police on people who harassed women on the street.

The new paradigm is “don’t call Police! They will just hurt the victimizer!“

It’s ridiculous that now it’s OK to harass women because there a greater injustice is potentially happening to the victimizer.

Fortunately, that attitude seem to be expressed by only a minority of the many people who posted on these Nextdoor threads.

[OtherJen]

Women are harassed by men at any time of day and in any place. The police generally don't do anything about it, and that has absolutely nothing to do with COVID.

Wheeeeeew, there's the point flying right over your head.


ETA - this was a bunch of shitbags trying to run her off the road. Not some asshole catcalling her ;)





Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Well, since you didn’t give the details in your previous post, whose fault is it that I missed the point?Details matter.

Your friend’s experience absolutely sucks, but my point still stands. This shit happens to women regardless of time of day and geographic location. There are a lot of shitbags out there.

I’ve seen two instances within the past three months of Nextdoor residents taking to task those who call Police on people who harassed women.

The new paradigm is “don’t call Police! They will just hurt the victimizer!“

It’s ridiculous that now it’s OK to harass women because there is a greater injustice potentially happening to the victimizer.

Fortunately, that attitude seem to be expressed by only I minority of the many people who posted on these Nextdoor threads.

And you completely missed my point. Harassment/abuse of women is never okay, but it is 1) not new, 2) not restricted to urban areas, and 3) largely ignored by police.

[stoaX]

Ain't that the truth.  I think your last sentence could be used in a thousand other threads in this forum.

[iris lily]

Women are harassed by men at any time of day and in any place. The police generally don't do anything about it, and that has absolutely nothing to do with COVID.

Wheeeeeew, there's the point flying right over your head.


ETA - this was a bunch of shitbags trying to run her off the road. Not some asshole catcalling her ;)





Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Well, since you didn’t give the details in your previous post, whose fault is it that I missed the point?Details matter.

Your friend’s experience absolutely sucks, but my point still stands. This shit happens to women regardless of time of day and geographic location. There are a lot of shitbags out there.

I’ve seen two instances within the past three months of Nextdoor residents taking to task those who call Police on people who harassed women.

The new paradigm is “don’t call Police! They will just hurt the victimizer!“

It’s ridiculous that now it’s OK to harass women because there is a greater injustice potentially happening to the victimizer.

Fortunately, that attitude seem to be expressed by only I minority of the many people who posted on these Nextdoor threads.

And you completely missed my point. Harassment/abuse of women is never okay, but it is 1) not new, 2) not restricted to urban areas, and 3) largely ignored by police.

Victimizers are not largely ignored here, although they [were] often treated to little more than “move along buddy” actions by police. A pattern of victimization might be treated differently, but still they [were] out on the street soon after any jail time.

It takes a lot of citizen input, monitoring, and reporting to convey a pattern of unacceptable behavior from one trouble maker.

My Nextdoor cohorts, by failing to participate, give tacit support to lack of prosecutorial action.

[John Galt incarnate!]

I'm not shaming anyone, I'm genuinely interested as to what the differences are and what the perceptions are.

Here are some differences.

In some cities some sidewalks are cesspools.

For instance, in  some places in San Francisco there are used hypodermic needles and human urine/feces  on the sidewalks and right by entrances to buildings.

San Francisco is ~150 miles from my home that is located on rural, woodsy acreage.

On my property    coyotes, deer, and  foxes  are the source of  urine/feces on the ground.

The only needles are pine needles that dropped from pine trees.

There's almost no violent crime in my county and NO human urine/feces or used hypodermic needles on ANY sidewalk.

Follow up question, is this the same type of cesspool OP is referring to? Is there a rising violent crime problem in SF coinciding with the increased homelessness problem?

Interestingly there are no needles on my streets despite addicts in the street being plentiful, but that's because we have a robust safe injection and methadone programs and needle disposal boxes (look like mail boxes) on most corners.

cess·pool
/ˈsesˌpo͞ol/

noun
an underground container for the temporary storage of liquid waste and sewage.
a disgusting or corrupt place.

"they should clean out their own political cesspool"

cesspool - Urban Dictionarywww.urbandictionary.com › define › term=cesspool
Back. Loading... Top definition. cesspool. synonym for shithole, dump, trash, and hell. can be used to describe a neighborhood or a city. For a real life example of a ..

I  do not think OP used "cesspool" for its literal meaning that defines an underground  container that stores sewage.

I think OP used "cesspool"  for its other definitions listed above.

I earnestly  expect that  no one would argue that discarded needles and excreta on some city sidewalks are not  a manifestation of  a deteriorated quality of life.

IDK about current, violent  crime statistics in San Francisco.

What makes you think I was arguing that.

I didn't think you were.

I wasn't arguing anything, I was asking if your example was relatable to the example given in the OP or if you were leveling a different charge against cities.

Since they are unpleasant and unhealthy conditions I think they are relatable


Incidentally, having the dictionary quoted at me will always, always make me laugh.

Having read most of your lengthy, pellucid posts I know you are no stranger to a dictionary. I was just being lazy.

[iris lily]

Pellucid is a lovely word! I had to look it up and then, you know, dictionary.

[Davnasty]

Likewise, the thinking is that police themselves would be more effective if they were freed up from all of the nonsense that they currently have to deal with. I wouldn't want to see our regular patrol cops gone, but when I had a fender bender and had to go to.the special car accident station to tell my fender bender story and have photos taken of my.car, did a dozen highly paid professionals who are extensively trained in deadly force need to be staffing the entirely adminstrative role of taking reports, determining fault, and taking photos?

I once had 6 officers on the scene to answer the question "Is the towing company required to accept $225 in loose change because it's legal tender?" It took about 2 hours from the time the first car arrived to get an answer.

To be fair, they may have just been showing up to get a good laugh out of the situation.

[dividendman]

Likewise, the thinking is that police themselves would be more effective if they were freed up from all of the nonsense that they currently have to deal with. I wouldn't want to see our regular patrol cops gone, but when I had a fender bender and had to go to.the special car accident station to tell my fender bender story and have photos taken of my.car, did a dozen highly paid professionals who are extensively trained in deadly force need to be staffing the entirely adminstrative role of taking reports, determining fault, and taking photos?

I once had 6 officers on the scene to answer the question "Is the towing company required to accept $225 in loose change because it's legal tender?" It took about 2 hours from the time the first car arrived to get an answer.

To be fair, they may have just been showing up to get a good laugh out of the situation.

Well, don't leave us hanging, did they accept the money?

[GuitarStv]

Likewise, the thinking is that police themselves would be more effective if they were freed up from all of the nonsense that they currently have to deal with. I wouldn't want to see our regular patrol cops gone, but when I had a fender bender and had to go to.the special car accident station to tell my fender bender story and have photos taken of my.car, did a dozen highly paid professionals who are extensively trained in deadly force need to be staffing the entirely adminstrative role of taking reports, determining fault, and taking photos?

I once had 6 officers on the scene to answer the question "Is the towing company required to accept $225 in loose change because it's legal tender?" It took about 2 hours from the time the first car arrived to get an answer.

To be fair, they may have just been showing up to get a good laugh out of the situation.

Well, don't leave us hanging, did they accept the money?

My understanding has always been that private businesses or people are not required to accept currency they don't want for payment - even if it's legal tender.  (If you try to pay for a car in pennies for example, the dealer can tell you to take a hike.)

[Davnasty]

Likewise, the thinking is that police themselves would be more effective if they were freed up from all of the nonsense that they currently have to deal with. I wouldn't want to see our regular patrol cops gone, but when I had a fender bender and had to go to.the special car accident station to tell my fender bender story and have photos taken of my.car, did a dozen highly paid professionals who are extensively trained in deadly force need to be staffing the entirely adminstrative role of taking reports, determining fault, and taking photos?

I once had 6 officers on the scene to answer the question "Is the towing company required to accept $225 in loose change because it's legal tender?" It took about 2 hours from the time the first car arrived to get an answer.

To be fair, they may have just been showing up to get a good laugh out of the situation.

Well, don't leave us hanging, did they accept the money?

My understanding has always been that private businesses or people are not required to accept currency they don't want for payment - even if it's legal tender.  (If you try to pay for a car in pennies for example, the dealer can tell you to take a hike.)

My bad :) Yes, they were required to take the money.

I think the difference is that they had already towed my vehicle so I owed them a debt.

[bacchi]

Zillow did not analyze small town (beyond those acting as bedroom communities) or rural markets but there is no large movement to the 'burbs.

https://www.zillow.com/research/2020-urb-suburb-market-report-27712/

...suburban housing markets have not strengthened at a disproportionately rapid pace compared to urban markets.

Further, the mass exodus from Seattle due to CHAZ has not occurred (yet?). Listings in SF nearly doubled, perhaps reflecting the VHCOL and more lenient WFH policies of tech companies.

Metro-level discrepancies exist as well, especially in San Francisco and New York, showing that not all urban cores are keeping pace with hot suburban markets.
...
[However] this divergence of active inventory is not evident in cities like Miami, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and Seattle.

Rents did fall more in urban areas.

[Steeze]

Zillow did not analyze small town (beyond those acting as bedroom communities) or rural markets but there is no large movement to the 'burbs.

https://www.zillow.com/research/2020-urb-suburb-market-report-27712/

...suburban housing markets have not strengthened at a disproportionately rapid pace compared to urban markets.

Further, the mass exodus from Seattle due to CHAZ has not occurred (yet?). Listings in SF nearly doubled, perhaps reflecting the VHCOL and more lenient WFH policies of tech companies.

Metro-level discrepancies exist as well, especially in San Francisco and New York, showing that not all urban cores are keeping pace with hot suburban markets.
...
[However] this divergence of active inventory is not evident in cities like Miami, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and Seattle.

Rents did fall more in urban areas.

Read an article that said NYC is at a 14 year high in rental vacancy and is also seeing a record rent drop. Tons of new inventor still hitting the market from the building boom.

Also had a client who was going to develop a large apartment building here (100+ units) have their funding pulled last minute. Now they can’t find another lender to step in. Project is shelved indefinitely.

[LWYRUP]

It does not surprise me to see that NYC and SF may be suffering more.

I think the protests / riots may grab the headlines, but the pandemic and rise of remote work may actually have a bigger long term impact.  In particular, NY and SF are extremely high cost areas, so much so that I know many people who have left them for OTHER high cost areas.  I steered clear of NYC out of law school and chose a different (also high cost but less so) city in the northeast for this reason. 

So it's not someone from SF buying a compound in Wyoming, but that person deciding to move to Austin because they still want to be in a relatively urban area with a tech community but don't feel compelled to be in SF anymore given remote work trends and high cost of living.  Thus strengthening a trend that was already existing before the pandemic.

Time will tell whether the increase in crime is temporary or permanent and whether it causes a shift or not.  If it is temporary, the impact will be small.  If it is permanent, the impact will be larger.  If I had to guess, I'd say that some cities will be impacted but others won't.  The impact might also be small, such as prices increasing in Minneapolis by 5% over the next 5 years but by 25% in the suburbs if police defunding is actually done on a mass scale. 

I am seeing, anecdotally and in scraps of data, that apartment rents are declining while home prices (even in urban areas) are rising.  So for example in DC I am not aware of any drop in PRICES for SFH or townhomes, even in the city, but there has been a modest decline in rents.  Which is standard in recessions anyways, but in some cities that decline in rents seems to be marked and beyond just some recession type softness.

In residential, these are just trends and patterns and not likely to be cataclysmic for anyone that's not highly leveraged.  For retail though, oompf.  I think it's going to be a long while before landlords can charge commercial tenants in NY / LA / Chicago the prices they were previously paying after 2020 has turned out to be a total loss -- pandemic, looting, Amazon offering same-day shipping?  That's going to be a tough hill to climb.  Many of the stores in NYC were loss-leaders anyways even before all this, and I think the appetite for urban loss leading commercial retail has probably waned substantially over the last six months.  Prices will need to correct, substantially. 

[Michael in ABQ]

Zillow did not analyze small town (beyond those acting as bedroom communities) or rural markets but there is no large movement to the 'burbs.

https://www.zillow.com/research/2020-urb-suburb-market-report-27712/

...suburban housing markets have not strengthened at a disproportionately rapid pace compared to urban markets.

Further, the mass exodus from Seattle due to CHAZ has not occurred (yet?). Listings in SF nearly doubled, perhaps reflecting the VHCOL and more lenient WFH policies of tech companies.

Metro-level discrepancies exist as well, especially in San Francisco and New York, showing that not all urban cores are keeping pace with hot suburban markets.
...
[However] this divergence of active inventory is not evident in cities like Miami, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and Seattle.

Rents did fall more in urban areas.

I think it's too early to see any significant shift.

Long term though, working from home should result in lower demand in some HCOL areas which in turn should mean lower prices. A friend of mine lives just outside San Francisco and is an executive for a large tech company and has been working from home for months. No reason to pay $4-5k a month in rent when he can do the same thing living in a cheaper city.

There's a lot of uncertainty right now. I don't think many people are going to be making the huge decision to buy or sell a home and move until things stabilize. A year or two from now we'll probably see some more clear market trends.

[Paper Chaser]

The nice thing about money is that it gives you options. If you're not using it to improve your life, then what good is it?
I think many people with enough money to have options are looking around and wondering why they're paying so much to live in a place that's no longer appealing to them. People change, and so do neighborhoods. If it's time to go, then Godspeed. If your life is better in a city (even with the potential drawbacks) than it would be elsewhere, then carry on.

Personally, I'm flabbergasted to hear really wealthy people talk about how they're completely ok regularly dealing with junkies, petty crime, sex workers, and the occasional slit throat in their neighborhood. There must be some incredible benefits to living there if you're willing to pay sky high prices for housing, higher taxes, etc and also deal with the "cesspool" stuff on top of it all.

[bacchi]

The nice thing about money is that it gives you options. If you're not using it to improve your life, then what good is it?
I think many people with enough money to have options are looking around and wondering why they're paying so much to live in a place that's no longer appealing to them. People change, and so do neighborhoods. If it's time to go, then Godspeed. If your life is better in a city (even with the potential drawbacks) than it would be elsewhere, then carry on.

Personally, I'm flabbergasted to hear really wealthy people talk about how they're completely ok regularly dealing with junkies, petty crime, sex workers, and the occasional slit throat in their neighborhood. There must be some incredible benefits to living there if you're willing to pay sky high prices for housing, higher taxes, etc and also deal with the "cesspool" stuff on top of it all.

Yeah, ok.

[Metalcat]

The nice thing about money is that it gives you options. If you're not using it to improve your life, then what good is it?
I think many people with enough money to have options are looking around and wondering why they're paying so much to live in a place that's no longer appealing to them. People change, and so do neighborhoods. If it's time to go, then Godspeed. If your life is better in a city (even with the potential drawbacks) than it would be elsewhere, then carry on.

Personally, I'm flabbergasted to hear really wealthy people talk about how they're completely ok regularly dealing with junkies, petty crime, sex workers, and the occasional slit throat in their neighborhood. There must be some incredible benefits to living there if you're willing to pay sky high prices for housing, higher taxes, etc and also deal with the "cesspool" stuff on top of it all.

As the specific person you are referring to, I happen to really like my diverse, humble, and extremely supportive community, because I see the people who live here, not the occasional crimes that occur that really don't affect me.

I'd rather live in a multi ethnic community that works together, fights really hard when it matters, and is deeply engaged in community issues, housing first initiatives, supporting indigenous services, etc, than live among a bunch of NIMBY fucks who just don't want shit to be their problem.

[Kris]

Personally, I would a million times rather live in the city/neighborhood I live in, with any/all its intendant problems, than the stultifying boredom and narrow-mindedness of the smaller communities and rural areas I grew up in. To me, that’s the real cesspool.

Different strokes.

[GuitarStv]

The nice thing about money is that it gives you options. If you're not using it to improve your life, then what good is it?
I think many people with enough money to have options are looking around and wondering why they're paying so much to live in a place that's no longer appealing to them. People change, and so do neighborhoods. If it's time to go, then Godspeed. If your life is better in a city (even with the potential drawbacks) than it would be elsewhere, then carry on.

Personally, I'm flabbergasted to hear really wealthy people talk about how they're completely ok regularly dealing with junkies, petty crime, sex workers, and the occasional slit throat in their neighborhood. There must be some incredible benefits to living there if you're willing to pay sky high prices for housing, higher taxes, etc and also deal with the "cesspool" stuff on top of it all.

I currently live in a gigantic city in an area that's OK crime-wise, but that borders an area that's pretty bad crime-wise.  Occasionally the bad stuff leaks over . . . which is why we had a double handgun murder a couple blocks over from my house several years back.  There are occasional loud ghetto style parties with hundreds of people in a house.  Generally, my neighbours are good folks who look after one another.  Junkies and prostitutes probably exist, but I've never seen them . . . so they're not very open.

I contrast this with the town I grew up in . . . which was a rural northern Ontario town of about 1700 people next to a native reservation of about 300.  In the 16 years that I lived there as a kid, there were twenty deaths from overdose and two murders.  Certainly a few prostitutes extsted (and we all knew who they were).  Generally though, my neighbours were good folks who looked after one another.

In neither case have I ever really felt unsafe.  I've been free to walk around unhassled by criminal activity, made good friends, and been able to live a happy life.  But living in a city vs rural area . . . crime is maybe more visible in the city (and you get scarier/more sensational news reports about it), but if you aren't aware of an awful lot of crime in the rural area you live in . . . I suspect you just don't know the area very well.

[ministashy]

Speaking as someone who grew up in an extremely rural and small town environment, and now happily lives in a suburb city, with all the attendant perks and hassles:

When you move to rural or small town areas, then you'd better conform to whatever culture that town has.  Have weird hobbies?  Different political ideas, beliefs, manner of dress, or anything else (including ethnicity) from the majority of your neighbors?  You can expect to be politely shunned at best, and outright ostracized/mocked/turned into the town joke at worst.  The alcoholism is there, the petty vandalism and other crimes are there, the teenage delinquency (and pregnancies) sure as heck is there (because what the heck else are they going to do except get drunk and fool around?)

And yes, before anyone states the obvious--yes, there are towns that are more diverse or accepting, there are kids that don't get into trouble, hashtag #notalltowns, etc. etc.  But I've seen far more of the other kind in my lived experience.

Big cities?  Big cities don't care.  And I mean that in a positive way.  Big cities are huge and diverse and if I don't like the people who live around me, that's fine, I don't have to interact with them, I can find friends elsewhere.  I can find events and groups who embrace my weird hobbies, where I can talk philosophy and politics and astronomy and whatever else.  I can literally make my own community, and encourage the things that I value, such as diversity, environmentalism, social justice, etcetera. 

Yes, big cities=more people=more crime.  But speaking as someone who has lived both in and next to a city for the last two decades, one that conservatives love to label as a 'liberal cesspool' and gleefully predict its imminent collapse--you couldn't pay me enough to leave this 'liberal cesspool' for the conservative, narrow-minded, gossipy small towns like the ones I grew up with.

[six-car-habit]

[/quote]
And would add that access to criminal records needs to be far more granular and on a need-to-know basis. The way a conviction follows people around for life is unjust, and mostly due to employers being lazy or overly picky.

Of course there's a bona fide need to keep sex offenders from being employed in places like schools and childcare and so on. Or a financial institution needing to know if someone has a history of financial crimes. Give these places full access to the records.

But many professions, construction, and so many other jobs? Many shouldn't have access to most criminal records unless they are relevant. Let people get on with life after making a mistake.
[/quote]

 Should people be aware of the previous arrests/ convictions- like the reporter was able to find out about-  concerning the Boulder Creek fellow with 20 arrests that you linked the article to earlier ?   If you owned a Construction firm, would you not want to be able to find out about that guy's criminal history before you hired him, and gave him keys to the tool boxes , or let him drive the F-250 to pick up some materials...


Other thoughts - not related to FiNate's writings -

Maybe USA's reverence of guns and military veterans and alcohol, has something to do with the easy release terms for the fellow unloading his ARrifle at the police, in the story referenced earlier by Mike in ABQ

 If a person lives in the capital city of a country, don't they expect more protests / rioting / marches / demonstrations / etc.   , than is going to be found in most other cities in that same country. People protest harder, longer, and more often in the cities that concentrate gov't functions - such as WA-DC, or Moscow, or Paris .  Why would someone not consider that quirk of mankind when deciding what city to live or work in, if they have an aversion to such gatherings / demonstrations / coups / etc ....History anyone ?

 

[FINate]

Should people be aware of the previous arrests/ convictions- like the reporter was able to find out about-  concerning the Boulder Creek fellow with 20 arrests that you linked the article to earlier ?   If you owned a Construction firm, would you not want to be able to find out about that guy's criminal history before you hired him, and gave him keys to the tool boxes , or let him drive the F-250 to pick up some materials...

If it's unsafe for a person be behind the wheel then their driver's license should be suspended. Otherwise, as this example shows, they are still dangerous driving regardless of employment status. And don't force employers to make such determinations. Once employers have to do this it often perpetuates systemic racism since employers make what they believe are safety decisions but are really influenced more by unconscious bias.

And if someone is a danger to society in general, such committing lots of crime over a short period of time, then they should be in custody. Not as punishment, but as a grown-up timeout to both protect the general public, but also to stabilize and provide wrap-around services.

[Paper Chaser]

The nice thing about money is that it gives you options. If you're not using it to improve your life, then what good is it?
I think many people with enough money to have options are looking around and wondering why they're paying so much to live in a place that's no longer appealing to them. People change, and so do neighborhoods. If it's time to go, then Godspeed. If your life is better in a city (even with the potential drawbacks) than it would be elsewhere, then carry on.

Personally, I'm flabbergasted to hear really wealthy people talk about how they're completely ok regularly dealing with junkies, petty crime, sex workers, and the occasional slit throat in their neighborhood. There must be some incredible benefits to living there if you're willing to pay sky high prices for housing, higher taxes, etc and also deal with the "cesspool" stuff on top of it all.

As the specific person you are referring to, I happen to really like my diverse, humble, and extremely supportive community, because I see the people who live here, not the occasional crimes that occur that really don't affect me.

I'd rather live in a multi ethnic community that works together, fights really hard when it matters, and is deeply engaged in community issues, housing first initiatives, supporting indigenous services, etc, than live among a bunch of NIMBY fucks who just don't want shit to be their problem.

It's not as if there are only two choices right? It's not either/or between a cool urban neighborhood with a decent amount of crime, or living "among a bunch of NIMBY fucks who just don't want shit to be their problem." You don't have to tolerate either one. I'm not condemning your choice (or anyone else's), just surprised by the casual acceptance of the various negative things, some of which are pretty damn serious. Clearly you must put a lot of value on other attributes of your neighborhood in order to downplay the crime nearby. I hope you continue to enjoy living there and enacting positive change for a long time.

I grew up in what most would consider to be a not great neighborhood where I was a minority. Our house was vandalized, broken into/robbed, I was jumped by a group of older kids, and one day came home to find two bullets lodged in the wall of my bedroom. We lived there because we couldn't afford anything better (just like the people being assholes). That probably had a profound impact on my worldview and how I view wealth. So for me to hear much wealthier people more or less blow off stuff that I was desperate to escape was a shock. So because of my personal history, I prioritize personal safety over a cool zip code or trendy neighborhood. I want my kids to grow up without being jumped, having their toys stolen while we're out grocery shopping or finding bullets in their bedrooms. That's just my choice, and I understand that some may find it just as perplexing as I found yours. As has been said, different strokes for different folks.

[Metalcat]

The nice thing about money is that it gives you options. If you're not using it to improve your life, then what good is it?
I think many people with enough money to have options are looking around and wondering why they're paying so much to live in a place that's no longer appealing to them. People change, and so do neighborhoods. If it's time to go, then Godspeed. If your life is better in a city (even with the potential drawbacks) than it would be elsewhere, then carry on.

Personally, I'm flabbergasted to hear really wealthy people talk about how they're completely ok regularly dealing with junkies, petty crime, sex workers, and the occasional slit throat in their neighborhood. There must be some incredible benefits to living there if you're willing to pay sky high prices for housing, higher taxes, etc and also deal with the "cesspool" stuff on top of it all.

As the specific person you are referring to, I happen to really like my diverse, humble, and extremely supportive community, because I see the people who live here, not the occasional crimes that occur that really don't affect me.

I'd rather live in a multi ethnic community that works together, fights really hard when it matters, and is deeply engaged in community issues, housing first initiatives, supporting indigenous services, etc, than live among a bunch of NIMBY fucks who just don't want shit to be their problem.

It's not as if there are only two choices right? It's not either/or between a cool urban neighborhood with a decent amount of crime, or living "among a bunch of NIMBY fucks who just don't want shit to be their problem." You don't have to tolerate either one. I'm not condemning your choice (or anyone else's), just surprised by the casual acceptance of the various negative things, some of which are pretty damn serious. Clearly you must put a lot of value on other attributes of your neighborhood in order to be so casual about the crime nearby. I hope you continue to enjoy living there and enacting positive change for a long time.

I grew up in a borderline not great neighborhood where I was a minority. Our house was vandalized, broken into/robbed, I was jumped by a group of older kids, and one day came home to find two bullets lodged in the wall of my bedroom. We lived there because we couldn't afford anything better (just like the people being assholes). That probably had a profound impact on my worldview and how I view wealth. So for me to hear much wealthier people more or less blow off stuff that I was desperate to escape was a shock. So because of my personal history, I prioritize personal safety over a cool zip code or trendy neighborhood. I want my kids to grow up without being jumped, having their toys stolen while we're out grocery shopping or finding bullets in their bedrooms. That's just my choice, and I understand that some may find it just as perplexing as I found yours. As has been said, different strokes for different folks.

This post comes off as much less insulting than your last one and helps me understand your perspective. Thanks for that.

[BicycleB]

I grew up in what most would consider to be a not great neighborhood where I was a minority. Our house was vandalized, broken into/robbed, I was jumped by a group of older kids, and one day came home to find two bullets lodged in the wall of my bedroom. We lived there because we couldn't afford anything better (just like the people being assholes). That probably had a profound impact on my worldview and how I view wealth. So for me to hear much wealthier people more or less blow off stuff that I was desperate to escape was a shock. So because of my personal history, I prioritize personal safety over a cool zip code or trendy neighborhood. I want my kids to grow up without being jumped, having their toys stolen while we're out grocery shopping or finding bullets in their bedrooms. That's just my choice, and I understand that some may find it just as perplexing as I found yours. As has been said, different strokes for different folks.

@Paper Chaser, glad you made it out, so to speak.

[Paper Chaser]

The nice thing about money is that it gives you options. If you're not using it to improve your life, then what good is it?
I think many people with enough money to have options are looking around and wondering why they're paying so much to live in a place that's no longer appealing to them. People change, and so do neighborhoods. If it's time to go, then Godspeed. If your life is better in a city (even with the potential drawbacks) than it would be elsewhere, then carry on.

Personally, I'm flabbergasted to hear really wealthy people talk about how they're completely ok regularly dealing with junkies, petty crime, sex workers, and the occasional slit throat in their neighborhood. There must be some incredible benefits to living there if you're willing to pay sky high prices for housing, higher taxes, etc and also deal with the "cesspool" stuff on top of it all.

As the specific person you are referring to, I happen to really like my diverse, humble, and extremely supportive community, because I see the people who live here, not the occasional crimes that occur that really don't affect me.

I'd rather live in a multi ethnic community that works together, fights really hard when it matters, and is deeply engaged in community issues, housing first initiatives, supporting indigenous services, etc, than live among a bunch of NIMBY fucks who just don't want shit to be their problem.

It's not as if there are only two choices right? It's not either/or between a cool urban neighborhood with a decent amount of crime, or living "among a bunch of NIMBY fucks who just don't want shit to be their problem." You don't have to tolerate either one. I'm not condemning your choice (or anyone else's), just surprised by the casual acceptance of the various negative things, some of which are pretty damn serious. Clearly you must put a lot of value on other attributes of your neighborhood in order to be so casual about the crime nearby. I hope you continue to enjoy living there and enacting positive change for a long time.

I grew up in a borderline not great neighborhood where I was a minority. Our house was vandalized, broken into/robbed, I was jumped by a group of older kids, and one day came home to find two bullets lodged in the wall of my bedroom. We lived there because we couldn't afford anything better (just like the people being assholes). That probably had a profound impact on my worldview and how I view wealth. So for me to hear much wealthier people more or less blow off stuff that I was desperate to escape was a shock. So because of my personal history, I prioritize personal safety over a cool zip code or trendy neighborhood. I want my kids to grow up without being jumped, having their toys stolen while we're out grocery shopping or finding bullets in their bedrooms. That's just my choice, and I understand that some may find it just as perplexing as I found yours. As has been said, different strokes for different folks.

This post comes off as much less insulting than your last one and helps me understand your perspective. Thanks for that.

Also want to say that I hope you can always remain unaffected by the crime around you as you have been thus far. My experiences were all just petty crime, but a school sports teammate of mine became a pastor and was shot to death outside of his church by a mentally ill homeless person that he was trying to help. Even with the best of intentions, it only takes being in the wrong place at the wrong time once before your life is wrecked. Being in a place with gang on gang violence seems rife with the potential to "be in the wrong place at the wrong time."

[Poundwise]

@iris lily , I'm sorry that a cause that you poured yourself into was literally torched. If I understand correctly, you hoped that you could leave your mark by making the city a little better. You are rightly disgusted to find that so much you worked for over years was casually destroyed so quickly. 

I don't like the attitude of the guy who wrote that article. Sure he paid taxes, shopped, ate and drank, and tipped, but... giving the community this amount of money is the minimum, not what is needed.  Not saying that he could have stopped social injustice all on his own, but could he have done his part by caring more about people, and caring less about property?

I mean, if I never bothered to be kind to my kids, and paid a nanny to care for them without oversight or regard to whether she was qualified or good, would I be right to rant on about how it shouldn't happen because I pay the bills in my house? So what if I tip the nanny generously, if she favored some children and beat the others, should I be surprised to see some grow up unruly and destructive, and others foolish and self satisfied?  What would it matter if my home were beautifully decorated? The human element is also important, not just money.

On the subject of defunding police, I don't agree they should be abolished.  But they do more harm than good by turning to violence too quickly... there is clearly something very wrong about the way Americans have been doing things, and change is needed.  It's not right that some Americans should fear for their lives from those who are supposed to protect.  And that when the hurt happens, that there is no justice.  I don't comprehend the mind of a looter or vandal, but it seems that people who have hope of gain in a system will not destroy it.

[my POV is as somebody who loved and left the Bronx several years ago]

[BicycleB]

@iris lily , I'm sorry that a cause that you poured yourself into was literally torched. If I understand correctly, you hoped that you could leave your mark by making the city a little better.

I agree.

@iris lily, is there any reconstruction plan yet for your treasured building?

[iris lily]

@iris lily , I'm sorry that a cause that you poured yourself into was literally torched. If I understand correctly, you hoped that you could leave your mark by making the city a little better.

I agree.

@iris lily, is there any reconstruction plan yet for your treasured building?

The fire damaged only the new addition, and it seems to be minor damage. Fkg rioters were not only slime balls, they were incompetent as well in their intent. Managed to burn the nearby 7/11 to the ground tho, so good for them?

This house, an original Victorian home full of original family furnishings, could not be replicated in a re-build. The reason why Campbell House is special is because it is locked down in time. The boys in the family lived in it for decades after their parents died. Then the Campbell House society took it over to preserve, with citizens in the region contributing back family possessions that had been sold after the boys died.

Sure you can always rebuild a structure (tho cost prohibitive!) but the pristine time capsule could never be recovered. A pox on rioters who destroy wonderful old buildings.

[waltworks]

Wait, did something historic *happen* there? Or is it just old?

I'd hate to think someone would want to preserve my home and all it's crap in 100 years just because it's old.

But it's still stupid to burn it down.

-W

[iris lily]

Wait, did something historic *happen* there? Or is it just old?

I'd hate to think someone would want to preserve my home and all it's crap in 100 years just because it's old.

But it's still stupid to burn it down.

-W

The historic thing that happened was that a prominent businessman raise a family, entertained important people, Bought the finest and take some furniture., Exercise influence in his community.

“Just old” Isn’t something you value Waltworks. And that’s fine. See, that’s the beauty of America. We can hold different values and give import to that which we favor, and coexist amicably.

You’re not somebody I would want living in my Victorian neighborhood. But you wouldn’t wanna be here anyway so see how that works? Win/win

[waltworks]

I guess we disagree on the meaning of "historic" then. To me, if nothing of interest to a casual observer happened there, it's not historic. That doesn't mean it's not interesting, but it's not historic any more than my house will be in 100 years.

Again, I agree that it's stupid to burn things down for no reason.

But man, if I was poor, it sure would smart to see rich people spending their money on a museum dedicated to some obscure rich guy and his *furniture and possessions*. From that perspective, I could see wanting to burn it down just out of spite. That's money that could put foster kids in a good home, educate people, provide healthcare, etc, etc. What do you think the businessman himself would think of the whole situation? If he was the kind of person who gave a lot to the community as you describe, I think he'd probably be ashamed.

-W