i have lived in sf for about a decade, and i love this place - interpol lyrics aside. but recently i have observed the city through a darker lens. what was once overwhelming civic pride yields more these days to detachment and unrest.
crime is a reality in san francisco like any city. according to 2006 government statistics on violent crime: sf rates below nyc but well above detroit. looking at sf stats over time: there has been an increase in violent crime since 2000, but rates remain low relative to the late 80's and early 90's. it is difficult to find updated and comprehensive trend data, but it feels to me that sf has deteriorated significantly over the past 18 months.
i met a friend for dinner the other day. she chose a restaurant in a familiar neighborhood, but a neighborhood that i generally bypass to avoid hipsters and crime.
as i waited a few minutes outside the 'upscale' establishment, a violent crime did take place. a decent sized fellow was blindly and brutally attacked - apparently for his wallet and phone. it was 8p, and the street was crowded. i made eye contact with the attacker as he ran off. he appeared unconcerned, like some square with a cube job might usually look during business hours.
at dinner i was shaken and unable to forget the scene. an ambulance was called to assist the victim. the flashing lights from the street reflected through the window. i attempted small talk with my friend and her friends with whom i had just been introduced. my thoughts were as they are now though: focused on the state of our society, culture and city.
when you live here long enough, you are likely to confront violent crime in some way. i have been fortunate personally, but good friends have been robbed, beaten and threatened with lethal force in a fairly broad range of settings.
the concept of social contract underlies my recent mood toward sf. it is a concept that seems lost upon this city, ironically, as we tend to view ourselves as socially 'progressive'. sf is a city of 'tolerance'.
when it comes to gay marriage or mj, i am all for tolerance. there is nothing tolerable or progressive about severely beating someone for his wallet and phone.
most crime in this city results from our collective lack of will to stop it.
one of the strangers at the dinner challenged me on this issue. i will not rehash the argument as it lacked a foundation in logic and not worth the keystrokes. my other friends are thinking about getting married, career progression and so forth.
the city is filled with people of privilege. some employ privilege to distort philosophy to accommodate and even celebrate incorrect social behavior. some employ privilege to avoid consideration of social contract altogether. i am personally guilty of both. nonetheless, these attitudes sicken me.
our politicians demonstrate the behaviors perfectly, even comically.
speaker pelosi is concerned with her political future and not much affected by crime given her wealth and place in society. she wants to spearhead healthcare reform. what about preventing some guy from getting his ass beat for a wallet? will that reduce healthcare costs? or is it the insurance industry's fault that we refuse to prevent common and violent crime in sf?
or take chris daly, a city politician from suburban maryland who tirelessly defends the poor from intolerance and crime prevention - a radical who represents some high crime districts in sf. it is true that he moved his wife and kids to the suburbs, but who could expose his family to the violent crime that results from poorly constructed social philosophy?
a good friend was beaten and robbed on the street near his home in daly's district a couple years ago. he had opportunity to confront daly about this event. the supervisor responded with harsh criticism and accusation of prejudice, reminding me of the gentleman in black at dinner.
a few weeks ago i turned right on a red in daly's district. i did not come to a complete stop. no one was in danger of any kind, but sfpd were on the scene to enforce the law. i have since noticed sfpd camping out at the same intersection [3rd and folsom]. the ticket was $450. still though, it is good to know that some laws are enforced in this city.
when it comes to gay marriage or mj, i am all for tolerance. there is nothing tolerable or progressive about severely beating someone for his wallet and phone.
most crime in this city results from our collective lack of will to stop it.
one of the strangers at the dinner challenged me on this issue. i will not rehash the argument as it lacked a foundation in logic and not worth the keystrokes. my other friends are thinking about getting married, career progression and so forth.
the city is filled with people of privilege. some employ privilege to distort philosophy to accommodate and even celebrate incorrect social behavior. some employ privilege to avoid consideration of social contract altogether. i am personally guilty of both. nonetheless, these attitudes sicken me.
our politicians demonstrate the behaviors perfectly, even comically.
speaker pelosi is concerned with her political future and not much affected by crime given her wealth and place in society. she wants to spearhead healthcare reform. what about preventing some guy from getting his ass beat for a wallet? will that reduce healthcare costs? or is it the insurance industry's fault that we refuse to prevent common and violent crime in sf?
or take chris daly, a city politician from suburban maryland who tirelessly defends the poor from intolerance and crime prevention - a radical who represents some high crime districts in sf. it is true that he moved his wife and kids to the suburbs, but who could expose his family to the violent crime that results from poorly constructed social philosophy?
a good friend was beaten and robbed on the street near his home in daly's district a couple years ago. he had opportunity to confront daly about this event. the supervisor responded with harsh criticism and accusation of prejudice, reminding me of the gentleman in black at dinner.
a few weeks ago i turned right on a red in daly's district. i did not come to a complete stop. no one was in danger of any kind, but sfpd were on the scene to enforce the law. i have since noticed sfpd camping out at the same intersection [3rd and folsom]. the ticket was $450. still though, it is good to know that some laws are enforced in this city.
Posts
Interesting commentary on law enforcement. Although I think it is human nature to try to avoid crime when privileged enough to do so. Don't be so hard on people who look away when others breach the social contract. We are none of us perfect, or near perfect. I hate the sight of blood.
ReplyDeletethose are barely my points. the issue is that we have a collective obligation to abide by certain rules [the social contract]. every one of us is responsible to act and enforce in accordance with these simple rules of coexistence. sf priorities and logic are in the clouds
ReplyDeleteSan Francisco progressives live in an ideological bubble of their own construction. If enough of them stopped believing, it would dissolve. I try to undermine that belief system on my blog.
ReplyDeleteMy awakening came over the homeless issue. I was shocked when I returned to the city in 1995 to realize that city progressives had no intention of launching any initiative to deal with the city's growing homeless problem. The implication/assumption was that the homeless were simply poor people who couldn't pay the rent, even though it was obvious to anyone with eyes that these people were clearly mentally ill or had serious substance abuse problems---or both. Gavin Newsom may be an unreliable lightweight politically, but he took a bold stand on homelessness with Care Not Cash, when city progressives were paralyzed on the issue. They've never forgiven Newsom for showing everyone what phoneys they are on the homeless issue.
Then there was our aggressively pro-development Planning Dept., with luxury highrise condos rationalized as a "progressive" housing policy.
And the bicycle fantasy: the notion that if we make driving in the city as difficult as possible, people will turn in significant numbers to riding bikes instead of driving cars in our increasingly gentrified city.
On crime: I'm hoping our new police chief will make a big difference. Note that already city progs are grumbling about how his Tenderloin crackdown is nothing but a war on the poor!
good points - people should check out Rob's blog for a much more comprehensive look at some of the issues in the post.
ReplyDeleteit is funny that you mention the high rise condo/progressive 'policy'. i almost included it in my original post. apparently the city does not know what to do with the money and are seeking proposals [i am working on one]. for those who are not familiar: the city charges developers of high rise buildings in soma under the auspices of progressive policy.
from the article:
"""
The advisory committee will decide who receives the funding, and has set limits of up to $75,000 and up to $150,000 for a partnership. SoMa fund director Claudine del Rosario said it’s unclear if the committee will decide to allocate all of the money.
“It really depends on what kind of proposals we get,” she said.
The advisory committee’s decisions require approval by the Board of Supervisors. The Board could vote on the funding plan as early as November.
"""
readers with interest in sf politics should read this exchange between chris daly and another sf resident.
ReplyDeletemy feelings are as stated above; but this provides a window into the animosity and illogical opposition confronting social reform in this city.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete