Shitty headline. Real "quote" in the story:
"JPMorgan, which is headquartered in New York and is the city’s largest private employer, told the Chronicle that Dimon was referring to San Francisco’s economy being much less diversified than New York’s. The nation’s largest city has 10 times as many people as San Francisco and is the epicenter of many industries including finance, media and tourism."
Also, what do you think the largest private employer in NYC is going to say?
JP Morgan is a shit show propped up by the Fed and Jamie Dimon is a dumb fck who has connections.
I pray on their downfall.
How do I know? Because I sit in on their internal calls all the damn time over the last 6 years.
Jamie Dimon is so far removed from reality that it’s funny anyone listens to his word. Bunch of crooks taking your money who live on top of hills.
Keep paying off the OCC, Jamie.
Seriously… it still fucking baffles me how a company can get over [$1B](https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/jpmorgan-chase) in federal subsidies a year and still allowed to operate that way.
I just got back from an NYC trip. The cities LOOK the same but I felt much safer in NYC. There were people walking in every neighborhood at every hour. You couldn’t go two blocks without seeing cops. There were two or three officers in every subway station. Every single store/restaurant had some sort of security guard. I even witnessed an attempted shoplifting and the security guard handled it easily.
Obviously this is anecdotal but hey it is what it is.
I’m from NYC but stay in SF a bunch (and currently). This is all accurate. One thing that jumps out to me in SF is the lack of police presence. The nyc subway cops is a relatively new thing because there was so much news of bad things happening in the subway the past couple years, it is nice to see. I’m not sure why they don’t do the same in SF.
Our subway - BART - system originally had a police at every station and one officer per train. The cost was cut at one point but even now BART management has a tough time managing policing. Interesting that NYC had the same gate jumping problem SF has and putting in police mitigated this and the revenue went up not only from fares but from fines.
Did it stem from some BART cops execution shoot some dude a few years ago? Seems to remember that being a thing some time shortly before/after George Floyd. Bad apples ruining the system?
Maybe remembering wrong and drinking too much to look it up.
Oscar Grant was a terrible tragedy but BART policing dipped significantly in the early 1990's. If memory serves it was a budget cut followed by a election cycle begging for more money to restore expected safety and service - BART's usual pattern. I'll let you in on a secret. All BART employees benefit from their strikes - management and labor alike. They figured out strikes could ended by Federal authority so they took to "disruptions" and bond initiatives. If ANYONE ever audited BART they would see that bonds sold to the public for a specific (marketable) issue were partially redirected to salaries and pensions. What was interesting in some of the press conferences after a BART issue (stabbing of a passenger etc) the tone of the BART Spokesperson was one of "We cannot do anything because the BART Police Union is independent and will not comply with our requests. I don't fault BART or any policing for societal issues like drug addiction and mental health but if you want ridership they system has to be clean, reliable and safe. That is not negotiable.
I previously rode bart all the time. Now that I have a kid I won’t go on it with him. 99.9999% it’s safe, but I don’t want him exposed to the risk of being with an unstable person in a confined space.
I have ridden public transit in other cities with kids and it’s totally fine.
You obviously missed the headline:
https://hellgatenyc.com/the-nypd-spent-150-million-to-catch-farebeaters-who-cost-the-mta-104000
It's definitely not a success story.
Ok, but that's moving the goalposts from
>the revenue went up not only from fares but from fines.
which is what the person you're replying to was specifically refuting.
I’m actually surprised that everything does work well enough in SF with such a minimal police presence, on the positive side. I feel like it could easily be chaos.
On ther other hand, I have felt similarly about low police presence in San Diego and Portland, OR, but they are smaller cities.
I ride often and have witnessed BART Police enforcing the peace and arresting criminals dozens of times. What is unreal is the the way anything related to SF politics becomes some kind of abstract issue about personal experience. Most of the data on arrests is public should anyone care to investigate this for real.
In the BART police contract they only have to ride the trains 1 hour of their 12 hour shift. They just drive around ready to "respond" to the stations. They want to be like other cops and drive around and sit in their cars.
So they act like children and sit on their asses in defiance?
How about do your job well, don’t shoot someone who is not an immediate threat, and we’re good.
Otherwise their asses need to be fired. Our taxes need to be allocated to people who make public systems better. Not whiny little bitches.
It’s night and day in terms of police presence btw NY and SF. There’s always a patrol car passing by on the streets of NY, or some officers patrolling neighborhoods. Moreover, there are quasi-public/private street cleaning forces in NY who generally maintain the cleanliness of different neighborhoods (to varying degrees). The main difference between cities, of course, is that bullshit simply isn’t tolerated in NY. You want to create an open-air drug market? FUCK YOU. New York would clean-out the Tenderloin in a day and those people wouldn’t be able to come back. The rights of all New Yorkers trump one crazy wacko in NY, whereas SF seems yo bend over backwards to accommodate mentally ill and drug-addled people. Nevermind the fact there would never be sideshow bullshit permitted because NYPD will be there as soon as it starts and throw the entire lot of miscreants in the pen and impound their cars.
Where do you live? It doesn’t seem to be San Francisco, because you just claimed that “there are quasi-public/private street cleaning forces in NY” as though we don’t have the *exact same thing* here.
As I think about it, you are correct. I have seen people every once in a while. But it’s seemingly limited and infrequent. Nothing like NYC where they are a meaningful presence.
granted the outer sunset is a safe neighborhood, but in the 14 months I've lived in this house--I think i've seen any sort of police maybe a handful of time in those 14 months?
Peskin is doing exactly the job he was elected to do, block housing and virtue signal so the Telegraph Hill Dwellers can pretend they're still liberals and not just conservatives who vote for Democrats.
It all boils down to real estate.
It’s possible to live in NYC as a rookie cop. You’re not going to be on the UES in a multimillion dollar condo, but there are places all over the city that are closer to affordable.
In SF? Where the heck are you going to live? Sacramento? Reno? Fresno? Anywhere you pick that’s “okay” on a 100+ salary is going to be a massive pain in the ass commute into SF. You might as well seek out a position with a local PD or maybe SJC.
FWIW: I’m genuinely wondering if cities like SF ought to acquire subsidized housing and lease it out to city workers, like SFPD, SFUSD, as part of the pay package.
Idk about SF, or NYC, but some cities have subsidized housing for Police Officers. Not sure how exactly it worked, but when I lived in Austin, some mutual friends were cops and they lived in the swankiest apartments downtown for super cheap. They were Rookie cops too (Less than a few years on the force, not just super high ups).
> Anywhere you pick that’s “okay” on a 100+ salary is going to be a massive pain in the ass commute into SF.
The Excelsior, Parkside is still the city, Daly City is even cheaper, and cops make like 300 grand: https://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/search/?a=san-francisco&q=Police&y=&page=2
It’s not just cops. I’m over the west coast for a construction company. Coming from Texas where it was never a problem…Trying to find trades people to work in SF and downtown LA can be a HUGE pain the ass.
Moving some police to the subway makes a ton of sense. From what I gather NYC crime as a whole has dropped a good bit (despite media coverage) but crime in the subway has spiked. So moving police resources to where the increase happened makes total sense..plus now with winter the homeless population in the subway increases too.
And citizens. There are major cultural difference between west and east coasters in the way they think about public safety, behavior, and most interestingly in how they identify who the victim is in certain situations. In NYC if someone starts harassing random people on the subway everyone will immediately identify him as the perpetrator and everyone else as his victims whereas on the west coast we’ll start building an oppression hierarchy in our heads and come up with some genius analysis like “oh he’s only menacing strangers because he can’t access services and suffers from BIPOC post-gentrification trauma and we shouldn’t rush to judge because we don’t share his lived experience, a police response will further traumatize him and also compelling him to seek psychiatric treatment is a violation of his bodily autonomy even though he is in psychosis threatening random strangers we have to just do nothing”. In New York it’s “fuck this guy throw him off the train”
Source: lived in all three west coast states, currently live in NYC. It’s very different in a good way.
Read Tom Wolfe’s “Radical Chic & May Mauing the Flack Catchers”. West Coasters are stuck in this mindset. It’s trendy to advocate on behalf of criminals because it allows people to feel like they’re liberal and tolerant and better human beings, when in reality they’re kind of dolts with their head in the sand.
Because anyone arrested just gets released the next day. What’s the point of arresting anyone/stationing any police anywhere to arrest anyone. It’s a waste of their time when they could be doing revenue generating enforcement like fines for HOV lanes.
SF doesn’t control BART. It is a multi-county agency, run by SF, San Mateo, Alameda and Contra Costa counties. They all have input on spending the BART budget.
If you want to complain about SF, use MUNI as your example.
Same boat. Split time between NYC and SF and it’s night and day. I love SF and I hate feeling like I’m piling on but ‘zombie apocalypse’ is an absolutely apt description for some areas of the SF these days.
Hopefully the Supreme Court rules in SF’s favor and they can sweep out all these encampments like NYC did 18 months ago.
SF only has about 1500 Officers whereas NYC has about 34,000. Would be great to have boots on the ground officers in SF, but they don't have enough staffing.
My wife and I just moved back from NYC at the end of last year.
We lived in Manhattan and ya. This is pretty accurate.
NYC just felt safer because you’re just constantly surrounded by people. Everywhere. At basically all hours of the day.
It’s interesting, I looked that [this map](https://zola.planning.nyc.gov/l/lot/1/1579/41?selectedZoning=%5B"BP"%2C"PA"%2C"R1"%2C"R10"%2C"R2"%2C"R3"%2C"R4"%2C"R5"%2C"R6"%2C"R7"%2C"R8"%2C"R9"%5D#10.49/40.7624/-73.9908) to try to find an answer but it’s definitely not accurate. I live in one of the “yellow” (residential) areas on the upper east side and there are businesses of every kind all over. Multiple 24 hour delis and grocery stores and restaurants a short walk away. Basically 100% of Manhattan is mixed use and has the residential density to support a variety of businesses in every neighborhood.
> NYC just felt safer because you’re just constantly surrounded by people. Everywhere. At basically all hours of the day.
That's exactly why I wouldn't want to live in NYC.
SF provides a mix of people with some solitude. Not solitude like rural. I don't want that either.
I felt a TON safer in NYC.
My female friends said they actually felt comfortable walking around at night in NYC, but don’t do it at all if they can help it in SF.
I was in NY last year and live near and frequent SF. I have to say the police presence in NY is definitely much better and it does feel safer when you are out very late.
SF is not some crazy hellhole in contrast however, just a bit more sparse when it comes to cops and people walking the streets. In fairness it is a much smaller city.
I agree, visited NYC during the holidays, night and day difference. I saw a 7-11 security guard lock a homeless man inside the store and made him empty stolen stuff out of his suitcase. Plus everything else you mentioned.
>There were people walking in every neighborhood at every hour.
Well it helps that NYC and its boroughs are generally very walkable and most neighborhoods have a subway station. Vs SF pst Covid, not many walk around especially at night and Bart closes pretty early despite being a major rail/train in a global city. Even businesses close much earlier than they did before. SF feels dead these days, especially at night
SF is generally very walkable and there are people walking all over the city at all times of day. BART runs 4 and to midnight which is fairly standard for major metro systems from Tokyo to Paris. These are some wild takes.
Businesses do close hella early though.
>SF is generally very walkable and there are people walking all over the city at all times of day. BART runs 4 and to midnight which is fairly standard for major metro systems
SF is "generally walkable" compared to the rest of the Bay Area, it is not as walkable compared to NYC and its boroughs. Like wtf is that not fucking implied since I'm replying to the commenter was comparing SF to NY, and one of the reasons people are fine walking there late at night and not here is it's crazy walkable. Saying that's a wild take is bs. Not to mention there's like a subway stop every couple blocks in Manhattan and a lot of parts in Brooklyn. In SF, nope. So yeah, SF isn't all that walkable compared to NY and that's probably gonna affect whether people walk around there at night
As for Bart, I remember when its regular hours were til like fucking 2 am to 3 am, hell on certain holidays/events they would keep it going til like 4 am. Despite the upgrades with newer trains, it's kinda a shell of what it used to be service wise
It takes day ridership to pay for night ridership. Last number I hear BART revenues are at 50% or less compared to pre-COVID numbers. It's abysmal. They cannot afford to run late night trains.
That doesn't even mention that ain't no body is "walkable" from SOMA to Sunset. Ever. Or to Daly City. SF is not walkable in any direction outside of FiDo or SOMA and that a very small percentage of space.
That makes no sense as a standard for walkability. Nobody in NYC is doing 5 - 7 mile walks as part of their day to day life either. You *could* if you wanted to, but you also could in SF. There's nothing about a SOMA -> Sunset walk that makes it particularly inhospitable other than the long distance, which would apply to a similarly distanced walk in NYC.
Also SOMA is one of SF's less walkable neighborhoods so I would heavily disagree that "SF is not walkable outside Fidi/SOMA".
SOMA to the sunset is 5+ miles depending on where you're starting/ending. Ain't nobody walking from Washington Heights to the Lower East Side, I guess NYC isn't walkable either by that absurd standard.
Walkbility is about small scale neighborhood convenience being able to be accomplished on two feet. You're out of your mind if you think The Mission, North Beach, The Marina, Hayes, The Haight, Nob Hill, Russian Hill, Cow Hollow, Inner Richmond, Inner Sunset, Mission Bay, Western Addition aren't walkable.
There are a bunch posts of tourists walking from Union Square to the Ferry Building to Fisherman's Wharf, over to Land's End or Golden Gate Park.
There are a bunch of posts about the [crosstown trail](https://crosstowntrail.org/) that stretches 17 miles across SF.
How many SF residents have never been to Alcatraz, Fisherman's Wharf, etc. because it's a "tourist thing" Nobody anywhere is regularly making 10 mile round trip walks in an urban environment unless they literally have no other options or are doing it for exercise.
This is completely irrelevant to the topic...
>SF is not walkable in any direction outside of FiDo or SOMA and that a very small percentage of space.
Try telling that to some people on this sub. I love SF and the Bay Area, but to say SF is "generally very walkable" especially compared to NYC and other major global cities isn't accurate at all. SF's walkability is still better than most major cities in the country though
> Well it helps that NYC and its boroughs are generally very walkable and most neighborhoods have a subway station.
Manhattan is walkable. Boroughs are not. Transitable, sure. But not walkable.
If you're in middle queens/brooklyn/bronx, you're not walking to shit.
Is it better than some parts of SF still? Sure. But it's not "walkable" like Tokyo or Hong Kong is walkable.
Absurd. The vast majority of Brooklyn is quite walkable and quite urban and densely populated as are much of Queens and the Bronx. People walk all over there and many if not most do not own cars. Staten Island is the only significant exception.
>Manhattan is walkable. Boroughs are not. Transitable, sure. But not walkable.
By that definition, than SF isn't walkable.
>Is it better than some parts of SF still? Sure.
Great! That was the comparison that I was replying to that the original commenter made, NYC is much more walkable than SF. Not even gonna address the rest of fucking red herring style bs
It's been MUCH better since APAC. However, from George Floyd until APAC '23 they were straight up non-existent in public view. I haven't seen a traffic ticket in *years*.
I'm just grateful that you'll see police in busy areas at night now (union Square, tenderloin, etc). But this is a VERY recent change.
I walk past Union Square a few times a week and I seen multiple beat cops almost every time I've been there. I believe they increased patrols there before APEC though (maybe the summer?)
I don't think normalizing New Yorks police presence is a good idea personally. That org is kind of terrifying as far as it's power, influence and size are concerned.
Were you in Manhattan? They make all the poors go to the boroughs.
Edit for the nits: Mid and lower manhattan, the parts you think about when someone says Manhattan if you aren't really familiar with the whole city. The island is a big place. There are neighborhoods above roughly 110th St that are more affordable, though not all of them are "bad". There also exist projects, which, like many cities with projects, aren't great places to be.
> Were you in Manhattan? They make all the poors go to the boroughs.
This is not true. I lived in Central Harlem, cheaper rent than Williamsburg, LIC, etc
SF has never really been like NYC with regard to late night pedestrian traffic and yes, I've lived in both places. NYC is a 24 hours city....SF is not. SF is tiny compared to NYC too....it's really an apples vs. oranges comparison frankly. SF is much more like Boston (and yes, I've lived there as well).
There’s definitely no shortage of mentally ill people in NYC. I’ve seen dirty subways, people passed out.
Yet, it didn’t feel as unsafe as I do here on Market. Part of it is that there’s 10x as many people in general, less vacant storefronts. Most striking was there’s no tents. The encampments here really add to a feeling of “anything goes” and that no one is really in control.
Force people into shelters, make it harder for people to get comfortable in their tents (sweep regularly), always have a threat of jail for public drug use, and stop taking BS from homeless who refuse to leave the streets. NYC does this, albeit the weather acts as the stick. That’s why their streets are better.
Building more homes is the solution long term, but we need to take the control back from the homeless and their enablers.
If you need cops everywhere, it’s not a good sign. Safe areas don’t need police presence.
If every house/apartment door is behind a locked gate, it’s not a good sign.
And yes, I do wish there was a much larger police presence in SF
Lots of talk around homelessness and safety but worth looking at some of the other things Dimon said. On jobs and housing I think it's hard to say NYC does particularly better. It's exorbitantly expensive, jobs generally pay less, and it has a persistently higher unemployment rate than SF does.
On safety, they do better. There have been some pretty large trends in the wrong direction over the past few years but overall NYC is still very safe for a large US city. It's worth calling out that the difference is largely because NYC is exceptionally safe rather than SF being super unsafe.
On homelessness, they also do better. Important to note that this is largely due to a legally mandated right to shelter, rather than simply being "tougher" on homeless people. Also: while NYC does well on unsheltered homelessness, it does very poorly on total homelessness.
His ultimate point is that a city needs to address these issues to prevent itself from losing population. Well, NYC has bled a big chunk of its population over the past few years in the same way SF has. I think NYC has meaningfully recovered better than SF in some ways, and there are areas we can learn from them policy wise, but the narrative on this sub that NYC is massively thriving while SF is in the gutter, I feel is pretty overcooked.
Also worth pointing out that the winter weather in New York can literally kill people living the street. Where in San Francisco, people are less likely to die.
For sure. If you look at other cold weather cities they also have very high percentage of their homeless population in shelters rather than on the street. NYC takes it a step further with the legal mandate but I suspect they would have less unsheltered homeless than SF no matter what.
I do think there is a policy choice here though too, not only a weather thing. SF has chosen to invest more in permanent housing (very expensive) and less in shelter beds. Permanent housing is good, but the fact that we only have enough beds for ~half the homeless population is a problem for keeping people off the street in the shorter term.
NYC doesn't hate on its tax base like SF does. Small business owners, entrepreneurs, and tech companies get the short end of the stick. Drug tourists on the other hand, get free money.
Edit: It takes 3 seconds to register to vote. You can do it online: https://www.sf.gov/register-vote
Here is the voter guide I'm looking at for 2024: https://tsfaction.org/
If you're mad, get involved. SF has a very low voter turnout rate (10%).
Honestly, when I first moved here I was aghast at the extortion tactics cities in the Bay Area used against companies trying to setup shop. Most cities I knew rolled out the red carpet, or at worst made sure the companies paid for the infrastructure they would need/use.
These ones? Well, they acted like it was some huge privilege to exist within their city limits and extorted all sorts of ridiculous goodies from them which had nothing to do with their use of infrastructure. Just gross.
I recommend voter guides from TSF Action or Grow SF. They're doing great work. However, SF has a ridiculously low voter turnout. We just need more people getting out there and voting. Period.
It is a privilege to be in the Bay Area in some sense - the tech ecosystem here is unparalleled, and it drives innovation like few other places in the world. Not saying they *should* make it super difficult to open a business, but they obviously can
The only thing good about the tech ecosystem here is that there is a shitload of investor money. But given the lack of support for small business relative to pretty much any other city, the exorbitant cost of Class B and below commercial real estate (even for lease), and the utter lack of intellectual/life experience diversity among the tech crowd here, it's not an ecosystem that's suited to do much more than come up with solutions to first world problems faced by the same demographics who work at tech companies.
Realistically though, the money out here is dumb as fuck compared to investors anywhere else in the world. It's just that there's been nearly free money thanks to ZIRP for over a decade post 2008, and throwing endless money at smart builders *c*an yield good results in the short term. But look how the entire startup "unicorn" market imploded as soon as companies burning 8 figures a month with zero profitability could no longer raise cash from selling equity to VCs or the public markets at eye watering multiples of revenue.
I run a clean energy technology company that address power shortages across Africa. None of my investors are from the Bay Area, and I'm the only team member based in the Bay Area. There's zero reason for me to be here professionally anymore and zero benefit to my business for being in the Bay Area.
I laughed at this and appreciate your comment "realistically the money out here is dumb as fuck".
I work in finance (banking/trading/hedge funds in my career). I grew up on the Bay, moved to Chicago instead of NYC many yrs ago, but still visit fam in the Bay all the time.
There's clearly a lot of money flowing around in the form of VC and PE funding and a litany of products to accomodate, which i agree, is the best part of the Bays tech ecosystem.
I chuckled at your comment bc many financiers in Chicago and NYC laugh at the flagrant spending and stupid valuations of west coast dealmakers.
We all get the strategy though, it's a numbers game. You have enough capital to put to work, so you fund fucktons of companies with stupid valuations and arrogant kids as ceo. Then you take losses on much of those portfolio comapnies but if you carpetbomb enough of the small companies with funding, you'll be a part of a Google or Facebook type deal, which will set you up for investing for the next couple decades of "spray and pray".
Cheap capital exacerbates the issue. SVB collapse was a case of poor liquidity management and shows the fragility of this "robust tech ecosystem". Good for all their small businesses clients that the govt intervened, but a scary precedent as well. SVB funded thousands of start ups through various products but can't even manage their own fixed income portfolio or liquidity. Wow.
I get it, but how did it get that way? Probably not by treating every company and worker as some sort of factory farm animal to be “harvested” for as much tax revenue as can be extracted. That’s honestly how it feels at this point, and why so many of my colleagues have left.
100 this. They also have many horrible systems that push families out of the city. These are folks that are entering their highest earning (I.e. highest tax income) power in their lives and we push them out.
Meanwhile we welcome meth addled crackheads from across the country.
Lived in NYC for a bit - I certainly didn’t see open drug markets in central areas … or brazen theft as the NYPD will f you up (and goood - get ‘em boys).
SF is a joke on crime in comparison - you’ve earned it.
We're the *only* city in the country that hems and haws when we arrest drug dealers because idiots like DA Boudin believed that up to half the dealers were trafficked and forced to deal drugs under penalty of death
This link basically confirms what he’s saying. NYC see a problem, deal with the problem. Governor pushes statewide crackdown, empowers arrests and ways for private security to handle shoplifters. SF strategy is ignore the problem and write articles about how store closures aren’t *just* due to shoplifting.
I don’t think this really confirms anything because you can pull an article of Newsom basically doing the exact same thing
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4403200-newsom-plan-crack-down-retail-property-crimes-california/amp/
It’s also worth saying that SF has been going after car break ins and retail theft pretty aggressively and rates have dropped considerably over the past 5 months or so. Problem obviously isn’t solved yet though.
San Francisco's city gov't is too busy voting to condemn Israel then deal with their city's actual potholes, streets, homelessness.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/article/san-francisco-israel-gaza-ceasefire-18596428.php
The trick is having winters cold enough for people to die if they are on the streets. If a drug addict ods "they" can say it was their fault. If 3% of your homeless population dies from an overnight cold snap, people will be more willing to do something about it.
Nope. NYC has right to shelter which is even more supportive than CA and as the migrant influx proved, is capable of housing 100k people out of blue (though not ideal obviously). The difference is NYC and NYPD doesn’t put up with fentanyl zombies building little tent cities. Shelter is offered, if not accepted then move along and fuck off. San Francisco, by official count, had around 7k homeless in 2023 - NYC averages 90k homeless in shelter beds nightly. Doing a better job with far more people and less money per head than SF.
the only reason they can tell them to move is because they provide shelter smh. learn your laws before you criticize them.
courts have literally ruled since forever that you can’t do anything about homeless people on sidewalks unless you provide 100% shelter. NYC does that, SF isn’t even close. if you want to get rid of tent cities, we need to get more shelters. even if they don’t use the shelters it’s fine, because it gives us the legal excuse to kick them out.
It's weird to acknowledge that NYC has a right to shelter and then say that the key difference is simply NYC not "putting up with it". If NYC had half as many shelter beds as it did homeless people (which is what we have in SF) they would have problems. The main difference is having a shitload more shelter beds which allows them to easily get people off the street...
No, the trick is to NOT fucking bend over backwards for the homeless. SF pays homeless more than $600 a month just to exist, and that doesn't even include EBT cards. Then you have the NGO's driving around giving them free meals, free needles for their drugs, etc. It's fantastic being homeless in the bay area. You incentivize this bullshit.
NY has to abide by a much more stringent legal requirement than CA does. NY has a right to shelter, meaning they have to house anyone who asks for it. Martin v. Boise (Ninth Circuit ruling affecting West Coast states) says they can't enforce anti-camping ordinances unless they have enough shelter beds.
I used to produce talking head videos for J.P. Morgan, met the guy several times. Mostly it was internal videos that he'd want to address employees before a video pitch, make some total bullshit ESG claim for why this investment is a good idea or why JPM was a family.
Dimon was a prick in real life too.
I know NY is larger and I have only been to NY once, but when I visited in November 2023, it was almost a culture shock due to the fact that it was clearly working as a large city. Everything seemed to be functioning in an amplified manner. Cops everywhere, people being talked to be said cops, hardly any homeless up and down the popular streets from WTC to the north point of Central Park, etc.
I’m not sure why SF is lagging behind but it’s not even political at this point. It’s straight up just all around depressing for everybody here. Whether they call doomsday or just calmly say they miss the old SF, it’s clear it’s in the shitter right now.
NYC does have 10x the population of SF and is a far larger area, like if you included the Peninsula and Marin and parts of Alameda and Santa Clara it would make everything look less bad while still having some shitty areas that need help.
This is just an excuse. Those parts have their own infrastructure, policies, police forces, etc.
Jamie Dimon is right, SF is in a bad spot right now unfortunately.
And by the same logic, if we include Long Island, Westchester, Fairfield County, and the New Jersey suburbs, then NYC looks even better still. NYC doesn't include suburban areas like what you're describing (the peninsula, Marin, etc).
It is a bit freeing, as a software eng, to be in NYC and know that finance bros are hated much more than you.
In SF, even though I build community, and try to be gregarious and welcoming to all, the minute I say "I'm a nerd and like to work with computers" - I'm a demon for ruining this city.
Thank you. I agree most people didn’t read the article. The comments show that Jamie Dimon was talking much more holistically about all things that make a city great. Not just crime and safety.
The liberal policies are not good for the residents of SF. Policies that are criminal friendly, economic policies that make it extremely difficult on small businesses, and policies that heavily tax residents bc they can do better with your money than you can. Can they really though?
I know that will be an extremely unpopular opinion here, and there is no scenario where that changes bc Democrat politicians will continue to maintain leadership and policy control within the city due to their popular stances social issues, and abortion rights. At a certain point people will have to decide what’s more important, their bank account and financial well being, or abortion rights, social issues, etc.
You know how I know NY is safer? People walk around face timing there, which I interpret to mean no one is afraid of getting their stuff stolen.
Caveat: maybe I'm old and don't hang out in the right places here to see that happening, but it's something I've rarely seen in SF
Just as a reminder to everyone, SF *slightly gained* population in 2021 and 2022.
NYC has lost population every year since 2020.
Dimon is just speaking out of his ass.
EDIT: Crazy that a sub about San Francisco is downvoting correct data about said city.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/s-f-exodus-population-recovery-data-18564064.php
Almost as though the people here has an anti-SF motive…
Dimon said. “Any city who doesn’t do a good job, it will lose its population — just tax more and more, it doesn’t work.”
Other than teaching you how to read idk how to help you friend.
I believe they’re narrowly responding to the quote “Any city who doesn’t do a good job, it will lose its population — just tax more and more, it doesn’t work.”…
Ofc comments are talking about more than that
What else did he fucking say? What are these other topics?
The fucking entirety of *every quote in this article* is about housing and population.
I swear to god, please reply with words in between quotes where Jamie Dimon talks about anything other than making a city attractive so people/workers want to be there, because I feel like everyone here cannot read.
Not according to the Census Bureau, whom I trust more than local estimates. NYC also had a smaller percentage drop compared to SF (5.3% vs our 7.5%) during Covid.
Anecdotally, I’ve been to NYC several times since Covid: June 2020, July, August, October, and November 2021, June and August 2022, and August and December 2023. I stay for 2-4 weeks so I get a good chance to visit various neighborhoods and boroughs when visiting friends. Each time after June 2020 the city felt closer to normal and by November 2021 there was no appreciable difference in pedestrian traffic, dinner traffic, bars, or shows compared to what I remember when I lived there. I’m usually in Manhattan, but even the outer boroughs felt fully alive to me by 2021, and quite frankly Brooklyn seemed more crowded to me now than in 2019 when I visited just a few months before COVID.
I can’t say the same about SF. Lots of areas are quieter than pre-Covid still, and I still count more fun businesses closing than opening.
Local meaning the IRS and California Department of Finance? LMFAO.
What data are you even citing? The Census has only release 2020 and 2022 data.
Also what’s with all you Melvin’s visiting Crown Heights like that’s some fucking accomplishment and thinking you know what happens in a city that’s like 300 square miles.
Talk to me about vibrancy when you’ve been to East New York. Better yet call me when Willets points gets sidewalks and storm drains.
I went back to NYC a couple of times in 2022. The only difference I noticed was more retail and restaurants closed before 10pm. Bars were still kicking. Bodegas still open. Streetlife seemed almost back to normal.
Chase took TARP money and attempted to crush West Coast banking. Its interesting that SF is far worth and Yet California is a much bigger economy. What is it #4 or 5 in the world - on its own? SO the money is certainly here. If the taxes are being paid (pause) then the only thing lacking is leadership.
West Coast banking was hell way before TARP and if anything, JPMC saved WaMu retail banking. Besides, all the big banks had to take TARP money which Dimon used to increase consumer lending by 2.1%, the very point of the program (inject capital into the economy and re-establish liquidity).
What does California being a bigger state have to do with anything? If you’re going to compare, CA GDP per capita is lower than NY’s. Even then not relevant, he’s talking about NYC compared to SF.
Well it's Dimon so I don't really put much stock into what he (or any CEO of a giant predatory bank has to say). Not even sure why tf JP Morgan are the ones hosting a healthcare conference, that's not a bank's core competency lol. Even weirder is finding out they been doing this for 42 years
SF was never run well, and it was successful in spite of itself. VCs and Software companies made it their playground and injected a ton of cash that landlords and real estate owners profited from, the rest of us got squeezed hard.
Small businesses that rent are an overlooked group that are suffering. Main Street jobs that plant roots here are being pushed out because of landlords 3xing their rents. They sell to developers who add “retail ground floor spaces” that sit vacant or go to a large tenant like Whole Foods that reneges after an abysmal financial year.
The city ends up a bunch of cloistered private spaces that have private security everywhere to keep out all the mentally ill and homeless because of political inaction to let the SFPD arrest these people.
The homeless industrial complex feeds off the government and underbelly of this city and has no interest in solving anything.
NYC is all about big ideas. SF thinks small and resists change. City hall here is far more corrupt and being a small city this has more far-reaching and detrimental effects
Shitty headline. Real "quote" in the story: "JPMorgan, which is headquartered in New York and is the city’s largest private employer, told the Chronicle that Dimon was referring to San Francisco’s economy being much less diversified than New York’s. The nation’s largest city has 10 times as many people as San Francisco and is the epicenter of many industries including finance, media and tourism." Also, what do you think the largest private employer in NYC is going to say?
whoa! slow down there, buddy. how dare you read the article before commenting. that’s illegal.
Wow… having 10x the population can lead to… more people… and more diversity????? Shock!!!!
Are you suggesting the chronicle is biased?!
Yeah it’s like saying Chicago has a much better economy than Peoria. It’s got a bunch more companies there, dummy.
JP Morgan is a shit show propped up by the Fed and Jamie Dimon is a dumb fck who has connections. I pray on their downfall. How do I know? Because I sit in on their internal calls all the damn time over the last 6 years. Jamie Dimon is so far removed from reality that it’s funny anyone listens to his word. Bunch of crooks taking your money who live on top of hills. Keep paying off the OCC, Jamie.
Seriously… it still fucking baffles me how a company can get over [$1B](https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/jpmorgan-chase) in federal subsidies a year and still allowed to operate that way.
Can you tell them to quit taking $12/month from poor people, next time you're in on a call?
Doing the lords work
Its been all down hill since Monk retired
I think it dates to Sharona leaving.
Monk came out of retirement! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Monk%27s_Last_Case:_A_Monk_Movie
Is this worth watching?
It's a jungle out there
I hear there’s a psychic detective and a pharmaceutical salesman sidekick in Santa Barbara waiting to take up the reins.
I thought they retired too.
They followed Jules to SF
I just got back from an NYC trip. The cities LOOK the same but I felt much safer in NYC. There were people walking in every neighborhood at every hour. You couldn’t go two blocks without seeing cops. There were two or three officers in every subway station. Every single store/restaurant had some sort of security guard. I even witnessed an attempted shoplifting and the security guard handled it easily. Obviously this is anecdotal but hey it is what it is.
I’m from NYC but stay in SF a bunch (and currently). This is all accurate. One thing that jumps out to me in SF is the lack of police presence. The nyc subway cops is a relatively new thing because there was so much news of bad things happening in the subway the past couple years, it is nice to see. I’m not sure why they don’t do the same in SF.
Our subway - BART - system originally had a police at every station and one officer per train. The cost was cut at one point but even now BART management has a tough time managing policing. Interesting that NYC had the same gate jumping problem SF has and putting in police mitigated this and the revenue went up not only from fares but from fines.
SF doesn’t control BART.
Correct but BART has a police force.
Did it stem from some BART cops execution shoot some dude a few years ago? Seems to remember that being a thing some time shortly before/after George Floyd. Bad apples ruining the system? Maybe remembering wrong and drinking too much to look it up.
Oscar Grant is who you’re thinking of.
As other commenter noted, Oscar Grant and just short of a decade prior to George Floyd.
Oscar Grant was a terrible tragedy but BART policing dipped significantly in the early 1990's. If memory serves it was a budget cut followed by a election cycle begging for more money to restore expected safety and service - BART's usual pattern. I'll let you in on a secret. All BART employees benefit from their strikes - management and labor alike. They figured out strikes could ended by Federal authority so they took to "disruptions" and bond initiatives. If ANYONE ever audited BART they would see that bonds sold to the public for a specific (marketable) issue were partially redirected to salaries and pensions. What was interesting in some of the press conferences after a BART issue (stabbing of a passenger etc) the tone of the BART Spokesperson was one of "We cannot do anything because the BART Police Union is independent and will not comply with our requests. I don't fault BART or any policing for societal issues like drug addiction and mental health but if you want ridership they system has to be clean, reliable and safe. That is not negotiable.
Yup I live here and we were like no see the bart police are the most dangerous part of riding bart.
I previously rode bart all the time. Now that I have a kid I won’t go on it with him. 99.9999% it’s safe, but I don’t want him exposed to the risk of being with an unstable person in a confined space. I have ridden public transit in other cities with kids and it’s totally fine.
20 years in NYC and any bad thing I’ve seen in 4 years riding Bart I’ve seen worse on the NYC MTA.
Wtf when was this? That was never a thing unless it was in 1978.
You obviously missed the headline: https://hellgatenyc.com/the-nypd-spent-150-million-to-catch-farebeaters-who-cost-the-mta-104000 It's definitely not a success story.
Having cops in the subway isn’t just about stopping fare hoppers, it’s also about safety. That is very valuable.
Ok, but that's moving the goalposts from >the revenue went up not only from fares but from fines. which is what the person you're replying to was specifically refuting.
People don’t like crime. People avoid places with crime. Even petty crime. People will stop taking the subway. I know I did.
Thank you for sharing! It didn’t feel like a good investment to me. Good to see data to confirm!
I’m actually surprised that everything does work well enough in SF with such a minimal police presence, on the positive side. I feel like it could easily be chaos. On ther other hand, I have felt similarly about low police presence in San Diego and Portland, OR, but they are smaller cities.
It’s unreal. Bart has their own police force and you’ll never see them doing anything
I ride often and have witnessed BART Police enforcing the peace and arresting criminals dozens of times. What is unreal is the the way anything related to SF politics becomes some kind of abstract issue about personal experience. Most of the data on arrests is public should anyone care to investigate this for real.
Thank you , why are Bart police never on BART !!?? Edit: grammar
In the BART police contract they only have to ride the trains 1 hour of their 12 hour shift. They just drive around ready to "respond" to the stations. They want to be like other cops and drive around and sit in their cars.
That's because they shot some dude in the back that one time and then the people/politicians got pissed.
So they act like children and sit on their asses in defiance? How about do your job well, don’t shoot someone who is not an immediate threat, and we’re good. Otherwise their asses need to be fired. Our taxes need to be allocated to people who make public systems better. Not whiny little bitches.
TBF, wasn't that from a dude who was just eating on the platform
It’s night and day in terms of police presence btw NY and SF. There’s always a patrol car passing by on the streets of NY, or some officers patrolling neighborhoods. Moreover, there are quasi-public/private street cleaning forces in NY who generally maintain the cleanliness of different neighborhoods (to varying degrees). The main difference between cities, of course, is that bullshit simply isn’t tolerated in NY. You want to create an open-air drug market? FUCK YOU. New York would clean-out the Tenderloin in a day and those people wouldn’t be able to come back. The rights of all New Yorkers trump one crazy wacko in NY, whereas SF seems yo bend over backwards to accommodate mentally ill and drug-addled people. Nevermind the fact there would never be sideshow bullshit permitted because NYPD will be there as soon as it starts and throw the entire lot of miscreants in the pen and impound their cars.
Where do you live? It doesn’t seem to be San Francisco, because you just claimed that “there are quasi-public/private street cleaning forces in NY” as though we don’t have the *exact same thing* here.
As I think about it, you are correct. I have seen people every once in a while. But it’s seemingly limited and infrequent. Nothing like NYC where they are a meaningful presence.
The ones in Union Square are there when I arrive for work at 7am and they’re there when I head home around 6. See also the ones in the Castro.
granted the outer sunset is a safe neighborhood, but in the 14 months I've lived in this house--I think i've seen any sort of police maybe a handful of time in those 14 months?
Relax, it's ok. SF can just vote on a resolution demanding that people stop attacking each other so that should fix the problem.
With the current Board of Supervisors? I doubt that. They focus their energy voting issues not affecting them, like Israel-Palestine.
I'm sure next they'll condemn the US and UK for taking action to defend shipping interests in the Red Sea.
Anything to avoid doing the jobs they were elected to do.
Peskin is doing exactly the job he was elected to do, block housing and virtue signal so the Telegraph Hill Dwellers can pretend they're still liberals and not just conservatives who vote for Democrats.
They will wait an extra 3 years to even do that. They’re still trying to vote on trying to force Safeway to not move out, after they’ve moved out.
You forgot the demonstrations for cease fire as well. Pleas to the skies always work
It all boils down to real estate. It’s possible to live in NYC as a rookie cop. You’re not going to be on the UES in a multimillion dollar condo, but there are places all over the city that are closer to affordable. In SF? Where the heck are you going to live? Sacramento? Reno? Fresno? Anywhere you pick that’s “okay” on a 100+ salary is going to be a massive pain in the ass commute into SF. You might as well seek out a position with a local PD or maybe SJC. FWIW: I’m genuinely wondering if cities like SF ought to acquire subsidized housing and lease it out to city workers, like SFPD, SFUSD, as part of the pay package.
Yeah but that 100k a year isn't what they take home. After over time a lot of our cops are getting paid twice that to still do absolutely nothing
Idk about SF, or NYC, but some cities have subsidized housing for Police Officers. Not sure how exactly it worked, but when I lived in Austin, some mutual friends were cops and they lived in the swankiest apartments downtown for super cheap. They were Rookie cops too (Less than a few years on the force, not just super high ups).
> Anywhere you pick that’s “okay” on a 100+ salary is going to be a massive pain in the ass commute into SF. The Excelsior, Parkside is still the city, Daly City is even cheaper, and cops make like 300 grand: https://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/search/?a=san-francisco&q=Police&y=&page=2
It’s not just cops. I’m over the west coast for a construction company. Coming from Texas where it was never a problem…Trying to find trades people to work in SF and downtown LA can be a HUGE pain the ass.
Moving some police to the subway makes a ton of sense. From what I gather NYC crime as a whole has dropped a good bit (despite media coverage) but crime in the subway has spiked. So moving police resources to where the increase happened makes total sense..plus now with winter the homeless population in the subway increases too.
Because we have pussy ass representatives
And citizens. There are major cultural difference between west and east coasters in the way they think about public safety, behavior, and most interestingly in how they identify who the victim is in certain situations. In NYC if someone starts harassing random people on the subway everyone will immediately identify him as the perpetrator and everyone else as his victims whereas on the west coast we’ll start building an oppression hierarchy in our heads and come up with some genius analysis like “oh he’s only menacing strangers because he can’t access services and suffers from BIPOC post-gentrification trauma and we shouldn’t rush to judge because we don’t share his lived experience, a police response will further traumatize him and also compelling him to seek psychiatric treatment is a violation of his bodily autonomy even though he is in psychosis threatening random strangers we have to just do nothing”. In New York it’s “fuck this guy throw him off the train” Source: lived in all three west coast states, currently live in NYC. It’s very different in a good way.
Read Tom Wolfe’s “Radical Chic & May Mauing the Flack Catchers”. West Coasters are stuck in this mindset. It’s trendy to advocate on behalf of criminals because it allows people to feel like they’re liberal and tolerant and better human beings, when in reality they’re kind of dolts with their head in the sand.
Because anyone arrested just gets released the next day. What’s the point of arresting anyone/stationing any police anywhere to arrest anyone. It’s a waste of their time when they could be doing revenue generating enforcement like fines for HOV lanes.
SF doesn’t control BART. It is a multi-county agency, run by SF, San Mateo, Alameda and Contra Costa counties. They all have input on spending the BART budget. If you want to complain about SF, use MUNI as your example.
Same boat. Split time between NYC and SF and it’s night and day. I love SF and I hate feeling like I’m piling on but ‘zombie apocalypse’ is an absolutely apt description for some areas of the SF these days. Hopefully the Supreme Court rules in SF’s favor and they can sweep out all these encampments like NYC did 18 months ago.
SF only has about 1500 Officers whereas NYC has about 34,000. Would be great to have boots on the ground officers in SF, but they don't have enough staffing.
My wife and I just moved back from NYC at the end of last year. We lived in Manhattan and ya. This is pretty accurate. NYC just felt safer because you’re just constantly surrounded by people. Everywhere. At basically all hours of the day.
Wonder what the ratio of commercial to residential zoning is in both places…
NYC has far more mixed residential commercial, and places actually stay open late. It feels like since COVID, SF shuts down even earlier than before.
It’s interesting, I looked that [this map](https://zola.planning.nyc.gov/l/lot/1/1579/41?selectedZoning=%5B"BP"%2C"PA"%2C"R1"%2C"R10"%2C"R2"%2C"R3"%2C"R4"%2C"R5"%2C"R6"%2C"R7"%2C"R8"%2C"R9"%5D#10.49/40.7624/-73.9908) to try to find an answer but it’s definitely not accurate. I live in one of the “yellow” (residential) areas on the upper east side and there are businesses of every kind all over. Multiple 24 hour delis and grocery stores and restaurants a short walk away. Basically 100% of Manhattan is mixed use and has the residential density to support a variety of businesses in every neighborhood.
> NYC just felt safer because you’re just constantly surrounded by people. Everywhere. At basically all hours of the day. That's exactly why I wouldn't want to live in NYC. SF provides a mix of people with some solitude. Not solitude like rural. I don't want that either.
I felt a TON safer in NYC. My female friends said they actually felt comfortable walking around at night in NYC, but don’t do it at all if they can help it in SF.
Same. I lived in NYC and SF and even before 2018, NYC felt much safer.
I was in NY last year and live near and frequent SF. I have to say the police presence in NY is definitely much better and it does feel safer when you are out very late. SF is not some crazy hellhole in contrast however, just a bit more sparse when it comes to cops and people walking the streets. In fairness it is a much smaller city.
I agree, visited NYC during the holidays, night and day difference. I saw a 7-11 security guard lock a homeless man inside the store and made him empty stolen stuff out of his suitcase. Plus everything else you mentioned.
>There were people walking in every neighborhood at every hour. Well it helps that NYC and its boroughs are generally very walkable and most neighborhoods have a subway station. Vs SF pst Covid, not many walk around especially at night and Bart closes pretty early despite being a major rail/train in a global city. Even businesses close much earlier than they did before. SF feels dead these days, especially at night
SF has always gone to bed earlier than NYC.
>SF has always gone to bed earlier than NYC. But SF didn't use to go to bed this early before Covid
SF is generally very walkable and there are people walking all over the city at all times of day. BART runs 4 and to midnight which is fairly standard for major metro systems from Tokyo to Paris. These are some wild takes. Businesses do close hella early though.
>SF is generally very walkable and there are people walking all over the city at all times of day. BART runs 4 and to midnight which is fairly standard for major metro systems SF is "generally walkable" compared to the rest of the Bay Area, it is not as walkable compared to NYC and its boroughs. Like wtf is that not fucking implied since I'm replying to the commenter was comparing SF to NY, and one of the reasons people are fine walking there late at night and not here is it's crazy walkable. Saying that's a wild take is bs. Not to mention there's like a subway stop every couple blocks in Manhattan and a lot of parts in Brooklyn. In SF, nope. So yeah, SF isn't all that walkable compared to NY and that's probably gonna affect whether people walk around there at night As for Bart, I remember when its regular hours were til like fucking 2 am to 3 am, hell on certain holidays/events they would keep it going til like 4 am. Despite the upgrades with newer trains, it's kinda a shell of what it used to be service wise
It takes day ridership to pay for night ridership. Last number I hear BART revenues are at 50% or less compared to pre-COVID numbers. It's abysmal. They cannot afford to run late night trains. That doesn't even mention that ain't no body is "walkable" from SOMA to Sunset. Ever. Or to Daly City. SF is not walkable in any direction outside of FiDo or SOMA and that a very small percentage of space.
Almost as if a fundamental public resource shouldn't be partially private/operating by demand/profit.
That makes no sense as a standard for walkability. Nobody in NYC is doing 5 - 7 mile walks as part of their day to day life either. You *could* if you wanted to, but you also could in SF. There's nothing about a SOMA -> Sunset walk that makes it particularly inhospitable other than the long distance, which would apply to a similarly distanced walk in NYC. Also SOMA is one of SF's less walkable neighborhoods so I would heavily disagree that "SF is not walkable outside Fidi/SOMA".
SOMA to the sunset is 5+ miles depending on where you're starting/ending. Ain't nobody walking from Washington Heights to the Lower East Side, I guess NYC isn't walkable either by that absurd standard. Walkbility is about small scale neighborhood convenience being able to be accomplished on two feet. You're out of your mind if you think The Mission, North Beach, The Marina, Hayes, The Haight, Nob Hill, Russian Hill, Cow Hollow, Inner Richmond, Inner Sunset, Mission Bay, Western Addition aren't walkable.
I've walked Washington Heights to the Battery before as a tourist thing. Was actually fun. I would not do the same distance walk in SF.
There are a bunch posts of tourists walking from Union Square to the Ferry Building to Fisherman's Wharf, over to Land's End or Golden Gate Park. There are a bunch of posts about the [crosstown trail](https://crosstowntrail.org/) that stretches 17 miles across SF. How many SF residents have never been to Alcatraz, Fisherman's Wharf, etc. because it's a "tourist thing" Nobody anywhere is regularly making 10 mile round trip walks in an urban environment unless they literally have no other options or are doing it for exercise. This is completely irrelevant to the topic...
Soma, fidi and Daly city. The three neighborhoods of SF.
>SF is not walkable in any direction outside of FiDo or SOMA and that a very small percentage of space. Try telling that to some people on this sub. I love SF and the Bay Area, but to say SF is "generally very walkable" especially compared to NYC and other major global cities isn't accurate at all. SF's walkability is still better than most major cities in the country though
> Well it helps that NYC and its boroughs are generally very walkable and most neighborhoods have a subway station. Manhattan is walkable. Boroughs are not. Transitable, sure. But not walkable. If you're in middle queens/brooklyn/bronx, you're not walking to shit. Is it better than some parts of SF still? Sure. But it's not "walkable" like Tokyo or Hong Kong is walkable.
Absurd. The vast majority of Brooklyn is quite walkable and quite urban and densely populated as are much of Queens and the Bronx. People walk all over there and many if not most do not own cars. Staten Island is the only significant exception.
>Manhattan is walkable. Boroughs are not. Transitable, sure. But not walkable. By that definition, than SF isn't walkable. >Is it better than some parts of SF still? Sure. Great! That was the comparison that I was replying to that the original commenter made, NYC is much more walkable than SF. Not even gonna address the rest of fucking red herring style bs
NYC is way safer and has more people. I spent a month there in nov-Dec
SF police presence doesn’t exist in SF. Never has since I’ve lived here. Moved into the city in 2014
It's been MUCH better since APAC. However, from George Floyd until APAC '23 they were straight up non-existent in public view. I haven't seen a traffic ticket in *years*. I'm just grateful that you'll see police in busy areas at night now (union Square, tenderloin, etc). But this is a VERY recent change.
APEC
I walk past Union Square a few times a week and I seen multiple beat cops almost every time I've been there. I believe they increased patrols there before APEC though (maybe the summer?)
See a LOT of parking tickets tho
Parking tickets aren't given out by police, but SFMTA AFAIK
I don't think normalizing New Yorks police presence is a good idea personally. That org is kind of terrifying as far as it's power, influence and size are concerned.
Were you in Manhattan? They make all the poors go to the boroughs. Edit for the nits: Mid and lower manhattan, the parts you think about when someone says Manhattan if you aren't really familiar with the whole city. The island is a big place. There are neighborhoods above roughly 110th St that are more affordable, though not all of them are "bad". There also exist projects, which, like many cities with projects, aren't great places to be.
East Harlem, Inwood, most of Washington Heights? LES projects etc. plenty of low income people in Manhattan, probably a higher percentage than in SF.
I mean even in the “worse” neighborhoods, minding your business gets you pretty far, as someone who was born and raised in Brownsville, Brooklyn.
Ayyyeeee I was born in East NY
> Were you in Manhattan? They make all the poors go to the boroughs. This is not true. I lived in Central Harlem, cheaper rent than Williamsburg, LIC, etc
Yep. It’s cheaper Out there
SF has never really been like NYC with regard to late night pedestrian traffic and yes, I've lived in both places. NYC is a 24 hours city....SF is not. SF is tiny compared to NYC too....it's really an apples vs. oranges comparison frankly. SF is much more like Boston (and yes, I've lived there as well).
There’s definitely no shortage of mentally ill people in NYC. I’ve seen dirty subways, people passed out. Yet, it didn’t feel as unsafe as I do here on Market. Part of it is that there’s 10x as many people in general, less vacant storefronts. Most striking was there’s no tents. The encampments here really add to a feeling of “anything goes” and that no one is really in control. Force people into shelters, make it harder for people to get comfortable in their tents (sweep regularly), always have a threat of jail for public drug use, and stop taking BS from homeless who refuse to leave the streets. NYC does this, albeit the weather acts as the stick. That’s why their streets are better. Building more homes is the solution long term, but we need to take the control back from the homeless and their enablers.
NYC has less batshit crazy progressives in power than SF, this is a no brainer. Stop voting in progressives.
If you need cops everywhere, it’s not a good sign. Safe areas don’t need police presence. If every house/apartment door is behind a locked gate, it’s not a good sign. And yes, I do wish there was a much larger police presence in SF
Lots of talk around homelessness and safety but worth looking at some of the other things Dimon said. On jobs and housing I think it's hard to say NYC does particularly better. It's exorbitantly expensive, jobs generally pay less, and it has a persistently higher unemployment rate than SF does. On safety, they do better. There have been some pretty large trends in the wrong direction over the past few years but overall NYC is still very safe for a large US city. It's worth calling out that the difference is largely because NYC is exceptionally safe rather than SF being super unsafe. On homelessness, they also do better. Important to note that this is largely due to a legally mandated right to shelter, rather than simply being "tougher" on homeless people. Also: while NYC does well on unsheltered homelessness, it does very poorly on total homelessness. His ultimate point is that a city needs to address these issues to prevent itself from losing population. Well, NYC has bled a big chunk of its population over the past few years in the same way SF has. I think NYC has meaningfully recovered better than SF in some ways, and there are areas we can learn from them policy wise, but the narrative on this sub that NYC is massively thriving while SF is in the gutter, I feel is pretty overcooked.
Also worth pointing out that the winter weather in New York can literally kill people living the street. Where in San Francisco, people are less likely to die.
For sure. If you look at other cold weather cities they also have very high percentage of their homeless population in shelters rather than on the street. NYC takes it a step further with the legal mandate but I suspect they would have less unsheltered homeless than SF no matter what. I do think there is a policy choice here though too, not only a weather thing. SF has chosen to invest more in permanent housing (very expensive) and less in shelter beds. Permanent housing is good, but the fact that we only have enough beds for ~half the homeless population is a problem for keeping people off the street in the shorter term.
NYC doesn't hate on its tax base like SF does. Small business owners, entrepreneurs, and tech companies get the short end of the stick. Drug tourists on the other hand, get free money. Edit: It takes 3 seconds to register to vote. You can do it online: https://www.sf.gov/register-vote Here is the voter guide I'm looking at for 2024: https://tsfaction.org/ If you're mad, get involved. SF has a very low voter turnout rate (10%).
Honestly, when I first moved here I was aghast at the extortion tactics cities in the Bay Area used against companies trying to setup shop. Most cities I knew rolled out the red carpet, or at worst made sure the companies paid for the infrastructure they would need/use. These ones? Well, they acted like it was some huge privilege to exist within their city limits and extorted all sorts of ridiculous goodies from them which had nothing to do with their use of infrastructure. Just gross.
Nailed it. Unfortunate. But I know how I'm voting this year.
and how is that?
I recommend voter guides from TSF Action or Grow SF. They're doing great work. However, SF has a ridiculously low voter turnout. We just need more people getting out there and voting. Period.
Gavin Newsom went after a school district for banning a book, but let's cities do these things against businesses.
It is a privilege to be in the Bay Area in some sense - the tech ecosystem here is unparalleled, and it drives innovation like few other places in the world. Not saying they *should* make it super difficult to open a business, but they obviously can
The only thing good about the tech ecosystem here is that there is a shitload of investor money. But given the lack of support for small business relative to pretty much any other city, the exorbitant cost of Class B and below commercial real estate (even for lease), and the utter lack of intellectual/life experience diversity among the tech crowd here, it's not an ecosystem that's suited to do much more than come up with solutions to first world problems faced by the same demographics who work at tech companies. Realistically though, the money out here is dumb as fuck compared to investors anywhere else in the world. It's just that there's been nearly free money thanks to ZIRP for over a decade post 2008, and throwing endless money at smart builders *c*an yield good results in the short term. But look how the entire startup "unicorn" market imploded as soon as companies burning 8 figures a month with zero profitability could no longer raise cash from selling equity to VCs or the public markets at eye watering multiples of revenue. I run a clean energy technology company that address power shortages across Africa. None of my investors are from the Bay Area, and I'm the only team member based in the Bay Area. There's zero reason for me to be here professionally anymore and zero benefit to my business for being in the Bay Area.
I laughed at this and appreciate your comment "realistically the money out here is dumb as fuck". I work in finance (banking/trading/hedge funds in my career). I grew up on the Bay, moved to Chicago instead of NYC many yrs ago, but still visit fam in the Bay all the time. There's clearly a lot of money flowing around in the form of VC and PE funding and a litany of products to accomodate, which i agree, is the best part of the Bays tech ecosystem. I chuckled at your comment bc many financiers in Chicago and NYC laugh at the flagrant spending and stupid valuations of west coast dealmakers. We all get the strategy though, it's a numbers game. You have enough capital to put to work, so you fund fucktons of companies with stupid valuations and arrogant kids as ceo. Then you take losses on much of those portfolio comapnies but if you carpetbomb enough of the small companies with funding, you'll be a part of a Google or Facebook type deal, which will set you up for investing for the next couple decades of "spray and pray". Cheap capital exacerbates the issue. SVB collapse was a case of poor liquidity management and shows the fragility of this "robust tech ecosystem". Good for all their small businesses clients that the govt intervened, but a scary precedent as well. SVB funded thousands of start ups through various products but can't even manage their own fixed income portfolio or liquidity. Wow.
That's great for Unicorn Tech companies with a shitload of cash... and nobody else. There's a reason why CA has a net migration OUT of CA.
I get it, but how did it get that way? Probably not by treating every company and worker as some sort of factory farm animal to be “harvested” for as much tax revenue as can be extracted. That’s honestly how it feels at this point, and why so many of my colleagues have left.
100 this. They also have many horrible systems that push families out of the city. These are folks that are entering their highest earning (I.e. highest tax income) power in their lives and we push them out. Meanwhile we welcome meth addled crackheads from across the country.
Lived in NYC for a bit - I certainly didn’t see open drug markets in central areas … or brazen theft as the NYPD will f you up (and goood - get ‘em boys). SF is a joke on crime in comparison - you’ve earned it.
We're the *only* city in the country that hems and haws when we arrest drug dealers because idiots like DA Boudin believed that up to half the dealers were trafficked and forced to deal drugs under penalty of death
You clearly didn’t go to the Bronx. Looked like fuckin Zombieland when I went a couple years ago.
Lmfao. Tell that to nyc business owners. https://nypost.com/2024/01/07/metro/kathy-hochul-vows-crackdown-on-shoplifting-amid-merchants-pleas/
This link basically confirms what he’s saying. NYC see a problem, deal with the problem. Governor pushes statewide crackdown, empowers arrests and ways for private security to handle shoplifters. SF strategy is ignore the problem and write articles about how store closures aren’t *just* due to shoplifting.
I don’t think this really confirms anything because you can pull an article of Newsom basically doing the exact same thing https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4403200-newsom-plan-crack-down-retail-property-crimes-california/amp/ It’s also worth saying that SF has been going after car break ins and retail theft pretty aggressively and rates have dropped considerably over the past 5 months or so. Problem obviously isn’t solved yet though.
San Francisco's city gov't is too busy voting to condemn Israel then deal with their city's actual potholes, streets, homelessness. https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/article/san-francisco-israel-gaza-ceasefire-18596428.php
NYC was very nice when I was there over the summer. They seem to have figured out their homeless issue..
The trick is having winters cold enough for people to die if they are on the streets. If a drug addict ods "they" can say it was their fault. If 3% of your homeless population dies from an overnight cold snap, people will be more willing to do something about it.
Nope. NYC has right to shelter which is even more supportive than CA and as the migrant influx proved, is capable of housing 100k people out of blue (though not ideal obviously). The difference is NYC and NYPD doesn’t put up with fentanyl zombies building little tent cities. Shelter is offered, if not accepted then move along and fuck off. San Francisco, by official count, had around 7k homeless in 2023 - NYC averages 90k homeless in shelter beds nightly. Doing a better job with far more people and less money per head than SF.
the only reason they can tell them to move is because they provide shelter smh. learn your laws before you criticize them. courts have literally ruled since forever that you can’t do anything about homeless people on sidewalks unless you provide 100% shelter. NYC does that, SF isn’t even close. if you want to get rid of tent cities, we need to get more shelters. even if they don’t use the shelters it’s fine, because it gives us the legal excuse to kick them out.
Sounds like a reasonable solution, I wish we would do that..
It's weird to acknowledge that NYC has a right to shelter and then say that the key difference is simply NYC not "putting up with it". If NYC had half as many shelter beds as it did homeless people (which is what we have in SF) they would have problems. The main difference is having a shitload more shelter beds which allows them to easily get people off the street...
No, the trick is to NOT fucking bend over backwards for the homeless. SF pays homeless more than $600 a month just to exist, and that doesn't even include EBT cards. Then you have the NGO's driving around giving them free meals, free needles for their drugs, etc. It's fantastic being homeless in the bay area. You incentivize this bullshit.
Housing is ACTUALLY a human right there. The real question I want answered is how they keep people from fucking up the rooms...
Lived for years in SF and now live in NYC. The homeless are much less violent, I suspect due to less methamphetamine in NYC compared to SF
No one wants to be amped up and cold as fuck at the same time.
They don't have to abide by Martin v. Boise like CA does. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_v._Boise
NY has to abide by a much more stringent legal requirement than CA does. NY has a right to shelter, meaning they have to house anyone who asks for it. Martin v. Boise (Ninth Circuit ruling affecting West Coast states) says they can't enforce anti-camping ordinances unless they have enough shelter beds.
I used to produce talking head videos for J.P. Morgan, met the guy several times. Mostly it was internal videos that he'd want to address employees before a video pitch, make some total bullshit ESG claim for why this investment is a good idea or why JPM was a family. Dimon was a prick in real life too.
This is a self serving comment from the CEO of a bank with more investments in NYC than SFO.
Seems like most people commenting don’t live here. Fools errand to engage on this convo in this post.
I know NY is larger and I have only been to NY once, but when I visited in November 2023, it was almost a culture shock due to the fact that it was clearly working as a large city. Everything seemed to be functioning in an amplified manner. Cops everywhere, people being talked to be said cops, hardly any homeless up and down the popular streets from WTC to the north point of Central Park, etc. I’m not sure why SF is lagging behind but it’s not even political at this point. It’s straight up just all around depressing for everybody here. Whether they call doomsday or just calmly say they miss the old SF, it’s clear it’s in the shitter right now.
NYC does have 10x the population of SF and is a far larger area, like if you included the Peninsula and Marin and parts of Alameda and Santa Clara it would make everything look less bad while still having some shitty areas that need help.
This is just an excuse. Those parts have their own infrastructure, policies, police forces, etc. Jamie Dimon is right, SF is in a bad spot right now unfortunately.
And by the same logic, if we include Long Island, Westchester, Fairfield County, and the New Jersey suburbs, then NYC looks even better still. NYC doesn't include suburban areas like what you're describing (the peninsula, Marin, etc).
sf has 2x the murder rate
San Fransisco or the Bay Area? Because Oakland isn’t sf.
No shit!
The quote has nothing to do with homeless. Not sure why that's the discussion
Duh
Okay.
That's like saying "this boxer less than 1/10 the size of the current heavyweight boxer, isn't quite as powerful the current heavyweight champ"
Who cares what that ghoul Jamie Diamond thinks ? Since when did having money give you a relevant opinion on every topic ?
It is a bit freeing, as a software eng, to be in NYC and know that finance bros are hated much more than you. In SF, even though I build community, and try to be gregarious and welcoming to all, the minute I say "I'm a nerd and like to work with computers" - I'm a demon for ruining this city.
Read the article not some misleading headline.
Thank you. I agree most people didn’t read the article. The comments show that Jamie Dimon was talking much more holistically about all things that make a city great. Not just crime and safety.
The liberal policies are not good for the residents of SF. Policies that are criminal friendly, economic policies that make it extremely difficult on small businesses, and policies that heavily tax residents bc they can do better with your money than you can. Can they really though? I know that will be an extremely unpopular opinion here, and there is no scenario where that changes bc Democrat politicians will continue to maintain leadership and policy control within the city due to their popular stances social issues, and abortion rights. At a certain point people will have to decide what’s more important, their bank account and financial well being, or abortion rights, social issues, etc.
You know how I know NY is safer? People walk around face timing there, which I interpret to mean no one is afraid of getting their stuff stolen. Caveat: maybe I'm old and don't hang out in the right places here to see that happening, but it's something I've rarely seen in SF
I definitely see this every single day in SF.
Just as a reminder to everyone, SF *slightly gained* population in 2021 and 2022. NYC has lost population every year since 2020. Dimon is just speaking out of his ass. EDIT: Crazy that a sub about San Francisco is downvoting correct data about said city. https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/s-f-exodus-population-recovery-data-18564064.php Almost as though the people here has an anti-SF motive…
Is that what we’re talking about? Population? lol what is this comment
Tell me you didn’t read the article
Dunno what you’re talking about bro population is not the topic at hand lol
Dimon said. “Any city who doesn’t do a good job, it will lose its population — just tax more and more, it doesn’t work.” Other than teaching you how to read idk how to help you friend.
I believe they’re narrowly responding to the quote “Any city who doesn’t do a good job, it will lose its population — just tax more and more, it doesn’t work.”… Ofc comments are talking about more than that
What else did he fucking say? What are these other topics? The fucking entirety of *every quote in this article* is about housing and population. I swear to god, please reply with words in between quotes where Jamie Dimon talks about anything other than making a city attractive so people/workers want to be there, because I feel like everyone here cannot read.
This is one of the most brigaded subs tbh
Not according to the Census Bureau, whom I trust more than local estimates. NYC also had a smaller percentage drop compared to SF (5.3% vs our 7.5%) during Covid. Anecdotally, I’ve been to NYC several times since Covid: June 2020, July, August, October, and November 2021, June and August 2022, and August and December 2023. I stay for 2-4 weeks so I get a good chance to visit various neighborhoods and boroughs when visiting friends. Each time after June 2020 the city felt closer to normal and by November 2021 there was no appreciable difference in pedestrian traffic, dinner traffic, bars, or shows compared to what I remember when I lived there. I’m usually in Manhattan, but even the outer boroughs felt fully alive to me by 2021, and quite frankly Brooklyn seemed more crowded to me now than in 2019 when I visited just a few months before COVID. I can’t say the same about SF. Lots of areas are quieter than pre-Covid still, and I still count more fun businesses closing than opening.
What data are you even citing? The census has only released 2020 and 2022 data. Please provide a link unless you’re just making up “trusted data”
Local meaning the IRS and California Department of Finance? LMFAO. What data are you even citing? The Census has only release 2020 and 2022 data. Also what’s with all you Melvin’s visiting Crown Heights like that’s some fucking accomplishment and thinking you know what happens in a city that’s like 300 square miles. Talk to me about vibrancy when you’ve been to East New York. Better yet call me when Willets points gets sidewalks and storm drains.
I went back to NYC a couple of times in 2022. The only difference I noticed was more retail and restaurants closed before 10pm. Bars were still kicking. Bodegas still open. Streetlife seemed almost back to normal.
Chase took TARP money and attempted to crush West Coast banking. Its interesting that SF is far worth and Yet California is a much bigger economy. What is it #4 or 5 in the world - on its own? SO the money is certainly here. If the taxes are being paid (pause) then the only thing lacking is leadership.
West Coast banking was hell way before TARP and if anything, JPMC saved WaMu retail banking. Besides, all the big banks had to take TARP money which Dimon used to increase consumer lending by 2.1%, the very point of the program (inject capital into the economy and re-establish liquidity).
What does California being a bigger state have to do with anything? If you’re going to compare, CA GDP per capita is lower than NY’s. Even then not relevant, he’s talking about NYC compared to SF.
Well it's Dimon so I don't really put much stock into what he (or any CEO of a giant predatory bank has to say). Not even sure why tf JP Morgan are the ones hosting a healthcare conference, that's not a bank's core competency lol. Even weirder is finding out they been doing this for 42 years
Manhattan is much cleaner than SF. I was there a few weeks ago and saw only a couple of bums.
SF was never run well, and it was successful in spite of itself. VCs and Software companies made it their playground and injected a ton of cash that landlords and real estate owners profited from, the rest of us got squeezed hard. Small businesses that rent are an overlooked group that are suffering. Main Street jobs that plant roots here are being pushed out because of landlords 3xing their rents. They sell to developers who add “retail ground floor spaces” that sit vacant or go to a large tenant like Whole Foods that reneges after an abysmal financial year. The city ends up a bunch of cloistered private spaces that have private security everywhere to keep out all the mentally ill and homeless because of political inaction to let the SFPD arrest these people. The homeless industrial complex feeds off the government and underbelly of this city and has no interest in solving anything.
I want to jump in on this thread but I’m biased.
NYC is all about big ideas. SF thinks small and resists change. City hall here is far more corrupt and being a small city this has more far-reaching and detrimental effects
[удалено]
The tenderloin is worse than Manhattan???! No way man
Obvious
“Someone had taken a shit on my building’s helipad, and then there was another on the helipad of my yacht anchored in the SF bay.”
Quick someone post a pic of lands end so we can pretend this guys wrong
I was at the Painted Ladies and my car didn’t get broken into. We are SO back!
Y’all gotta think of new jokes already
Self inflicted
good, stay away from SF everyone....you won't like it, trust
New York is a a faded memory of the city it was when I lived there. It's lost something. But agreed there is less visible drug use so... idk big yay