Harm reduction and low/no barrier housing are why Seattle and San Francisco and other like minded cities are the hell holes they are today. Some things are just not okay, like defecating in public or pitching your tent next to an elementary school while you pursue your drug-addicted "freedom" to live however you want. I wouldn't wish the…
Harm reduction and low/no barrier housing are why Seattle and San Francisco and other like minded cities are the hell holes they are today. Some things are just not okay, like defecating in public or pitching your tent next to an elementary school while you pursue your drug-addicted "freedom" to live however you want. I wouldn't wish the life of an addict in one of these 'caring' cities on my worst enemy. If we really cared, we'd say no. No we won't affirm your throwing away the one precious life you have. No we won't watch you rot out your body and soul while you slowly die right in front of us. Harm reduction doesn't save lives, all it does is extend a miserable existence for a few more days or months or years. By the way, Vancouver BC, a pioneer in harm reduction, had the most ever overdose deaths in the first 9 months of 2022.
Your claim that San Francisco is a hell hole doesn’t pass the smell test and makes all your comments suspect. It remains a city with one of the highest qualities of life in America.
It's great if your quality of life depends only on dining, night life, friendliness (whatever that means), and environmental initiatives. It sucks if your quality of life includes things like safe streets, good schools, sidewalks free of human feces and used needles and if you don't mind mentally ill drug addicted homeless people living in your parks and on your sidewalks. San Francisco itself doesn't pass the smell test, in a manner of speaking, unless you enjoy the smell of urine. Same goes for Seattle.
San Francisco does indeed have dirty streets, though human feces and needles are exceedingly rare in at least 75% if the neighborhoods.
If by “good” schools you mean white majority schools, you would have to move to Orinda or a similar suburb, or send your kids to private schools.
If by “good” you mean schools that are performing well academically, with high standards and a student body that attends college, San Francisco has them. The plurality of students in San Francisco schools are Asian and Westside schools are excellent. Like any public city school there are pockets of schools with discipline problems, but the six largest public high schools, which educate in aggregate 2/3 of the students, rank in the top 15% by US News and World Report and other similar ranking agencies. If your children have an academic bent, they can attend Lowell, which is one of the highest ranked public schools in the country. If they are more artistic, there is the Ruth Asawa School of The Arts, which is also academically rigorous. Both are selective though, so there is no guarantee of admission.
San Francisco has a large but stable homeless population. It has lagged in building new housing, prices are expensive and many have been priced out. The West Coast cities all have a similar problem and no city in America is immune. If seeing poor people disturbs you, then a more income segregated place would probably provide more comfort to you.
Violent crime is lower than average for an American city and had been declining for decades. It’s not Palo Alto, so if suburban living is more your thing, then it’s probably a bad choice, though there are some surprisingly suburban neighborhoods in the fog belt on the west side of the city.
Are you aware that you sound like you’re describing the local deer population?
It’s grotesque. This on top of your glib & breezy lack of concern over the outright depravity & exploitation that Leighton is trying to shed light on - is so alien and sinister to me that I find you highly threatening in the extreme.
You know what's obscene? The fact that you want to criminalize poverty, throw millions of people in jail for getting high and ruin their lives forever with a criminal record. That's grotesque.
If you actually cared about poor people, you would advocate for more housing and more services but your only solution is more cops, more jails and more abuse.
Oh my bad - I see you’re a scripted mouthpiece using canned phrasing & scripted rebuttals that I’ve seen many times before.
The person who’s words you are parroting is still grotesque - you yourself on the other hand - who knows- you probably just don’t know any better and with different leadership would be perfectly capable of doing great public service
Harm reduction and low/no barrier housing are why Seattle and San Francisco and other like minded cities are the hell holes they are today. Some things are just not okay, like defecating in public or pitching your tent next to an elementary school while you pursue your drug-addicted "freedom" to live however you want. I wouldn't wish the life of an addict in one of these 'caring' cities on my worst enemy. If we really cared, we'd say no. No we won't affirm your throwing away the one precious life you have. No we won't watch you rot out your body and soul while you slowly die right in front of us. Harm reduction doesn't save lives, all it does is extend a miserable existence for a few more days or months or years. By the way, Vancouver BC, a pioneer in harm reduction, had the most ever overdose deaths in the first 9 months of 2022.
Your claim that San Francisco is a hell hole doesn’t pass the smell test and makes all your comments suspect. It remains a city with one of the highest qualities of life in America.
https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/san-francisco-crowned-the-worlds-best-city-to-live-survey/
It's great if your quality of life depends only on dining, night life, friendliness (whatever that means), and environmental initiatives. It sucks if your quality of life includes things like safe streets, good schools, sidewalks free of human feces and used needles and if you don't mind mentally ill drug addicted homeless people living in your parks and on your sidewalks. San Francisco itself doesn't pass the smell test, in a manner of speaking, unless you enjoy the smell of urine. Same goes for Seattle.
San Francisco does indeed have dirty streets, though human feces and needles are exceedingly rare in at least 75% if the neighborhoods.
If by “good” schools you mean white majority schools, you would have to move to Orinda or a similar suburb, or send your kids to private schools.
If by “good” you mean schools that are performing well academically, with high standards and a student body that attends college, San Francisco has them. The plurality of students in San Francisco schools are Asian and Westside schools are excellent. Like any public city school there are pockets of schools with discipline problems, but the six largest public high schools, which educate in aggregate 2/3 of the students, rank in the top 15% by US News and World Report and other similar ranking agencies. If your children have an academic bent, they can attend Lowell, which is one of the highest ranked public schools in the country. If they are more artistic, there is the Ruth Asawa School of The Arts, which is also academically rigorous. Both are selective though, so there is no guarantee of admission.
San Francisco has a large but stable homeless population. It has lagged in building new housing, prices are expensive and many have been priced out. The West Coast cities all have a similar problem and no city in America is immune. If seeing poor people disturbs you, then a more income segregated place would probably provide more comfort to you.
Violent crime is lower than average for an American city and had been declining for decades. It’s not Palo Alto, so if suburban living is more your thing, then it’s probably a bad choice, though there are some surprisingly suburban neighborhoods in the fog belt on the west side of the city.
“Large but stable”
Are you aware that you sound like you’re describing the local deer population?
It’s grotesque. This on top of your glib & breezy lack of concern over the outright depravity & exploitation that Leighton is trying to shed light on - is so alien and sinister to me that I find you highly threatening in the extreme.
You know what's obscene? The fact that you want to criminalize poverty, throw millions of people in jail for getting high and ruin their lives forever with a criminal record. That's grotesque.
If you actually cared about poor people, you would advocate for more housing and more services but your only solution is more cops, more jails and more abuse.
Oh my bad - I see you’re a scripted mouthpiece using canned phrasing & scripted rebuttals that I’ve seen many times before.
The person who’s words you are parroting is still grotesque - you yourself on the other hand - who knows- you probably just don’t know any better and with different leadership would be perfectly capable of doing great public service
So you are in favor of arresting and incarcerating drug users? Which drugs?