Leftist logic: San Francisco attempts to buy and close down McD's to reduce crime.

[spin]

Lets see, work on the homeless problem, patrol more because I'm sorry, when a criminal commits a crime they should be arrested.

Your idea to fuck the tax payers over into buying a business and putting people out of work is absolutely asinine.

Work on the homeless problem how? If you're going to critize, give an actual answer.

All your other crap I already addressed in my first post.

The cop pay in San Francisco is at least 83 thousand a year, so 170,000 annual for 2 policemen for this block, payed for by the taxpayers you claim are getting fucked. I don't know ehat the property value plus the tear down and build up is, so without it who's to say which is the more cost efficient option.

Again, arrests are not convictions. As a matter of fact, even when you do get conviction, incarcerations also cost taxpayers.

So the whole taxpayers are getting fucked over line, is really just you covering for the fact you have no better idea.

 

[panamaican]

I really don't see the problem with this. The city wants to redevelop the land to change the character of the neighborhood. That's normal. So long as they properly apply eminent domain, it's fine with me.

I'm pretty sure this didn't happen without them running through a variety of other options first, such as increased police presence. I guess some people are going to complain just because it's San Francisco?

I guess if they were doing it so some developer could throw up condos for personal enrichment, it would get less backlash.

 

[IIIIIIII]

yeah, that's the upper-haight. it has always been like that. only that specific area is really ghetto. the area around there as a whole is very nice and SUPER expensive. if you live in that area, you really can't bitch about it. shit has been going down in that area since the 60's. buying up that mcdonald's won't make that much of a difference, i don't think. the bums and hooligans will find other areas to congregate in.

 

[mjmj]

Work on the homeless problem how? If you're going to critize, give an actual answer.

All your other crap I already addressed in my first post.

The cop pay in San Francisco is at least 83 thousand a year, so 170,000 annual for 2 policemen for this block, payed for by the taxpayers you claim are getting fucked. I don't know ehat the property value plus the tear down and build up is, so without it who's to say which is the more cost efficient option.

Again, arrests are not convictions. As a matter of fact, even when you do get conviction, incarcerations also cost taxpayers.

So the whole taxpayers are getting fucked over line, is really just you covering for the fact you have no better idea.

The fact there aren't a lot of better ideas being thrown around doesn't make this a good idea. I see what they're going for, and short term will probably help. But it'll for sure be short lived if it's the only thing done. Not being familiar with the area, I don't think anyone could offer a good idea.

 

[IIIIIIII]

I really don't see the problem with this. The city wants to redevelop the land to change the character of the neighborhood. That's normal. So long as they properly apply eminent domain, it's fine with me.

I'm pretty sure this didn't happen without them running through a variety of other options first, such as increased police presence. I guess some people are going to complain just because it's San Francisco?

I guess if they were doing it so some developer could through up condos for personal enrichment, it would get less backlash.

i think if there were an increase in police presence, it could potentially backlash as the locals would complain that san francisco is turning into a police state, or something similar. that's just a guess. part of the problem, at least in my opinion, is that the city as whole, especially that area, prides itself on being, "free" with drugs and other stuff. i know that i see people smoking joints all the time around there, and there are plenty of shady activities taking place. and people see it as being progressive, in a way. the whole, "live and let live" mantra.

 

[LostSoul]

What was your better solution again?

Arrests don't help without convictions.

Additional policemail stationed there specifically is also paid for by taskpayers, at great risk to the lives of those policemen.

So again, what is your solution?

This isn't a solution. You don't think that criminals will simply gravitate to the next closest establishment? Here is a step in the right direction. San Francisco could quit being a pro-crime sanctuary city for starters. Yes, arrests are not convictions. How do you get a potential conviction without a charge and an arrest? A lack of convictions and light sentences are usually attributed to weak bleeding heart liberal judges and juries. It's the idea that law enforcement and the judicial system is inherently racist and oppressive. The idea that we should ignore high recidivism rates and focus on rehabilitation instead.

Many liberals tend to view criminals as victims, and actual victims as being at fault. We hear this all of the time with victims of Islam. It's somehow our fault for not understanding and respecting their radical culture. Even if it directly opposes our traditional western values and principles. We are expected to accommodate their interests rather than demanding that they assimilate in to our society. Then we act surprised when Muslim no go zones spring up everywhere as they have in Sweden. It's a recipe for disaster.

You seem to be dangerously close to advocating that we do not enforce the law. That is the liberal mind set. A hedonistic anything goes permissive society. Why even have a police force in California? Secede from the US and adopt a policy of complete lawlessness and anarchy. That seems to be the end game for the lunatic left.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...nduct-to-prevent-future-assault-a6798186.html

Cologne New Year gang assaults: Mayor says women should have code of conduct to prevent future assault
Mayor Henriette Reker enraged people by focusing on women’s actions instead of the men who carried out the assault


http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2...-early-under-obama-plan-murders-woman-2-kids/
Crack Dealer Freed Early Under Obama Plan Murders Woman, 2 Kids

 

[IIIIIIII]

Work on the homeless problem how? If you're going to critize, give an actual answer.

All your other crap I already addressed in my first post.

The cop pay in San Francisco is at least 83 thousand a year, so 170,000 annual for 2 policemen for this block, payed for by the taxpayers you claim are getting fucked. I don't know ehat the property value plus the tear down and build up is, so without it who's to say which is the more cost efficient option.

Again, arrests are not convictions. As a matter of fact, even when you do get conviction, incarcerations also cost taxpayers.

So the whole taxpayers are getting fucked over line, is really just you covering for the fact you have no better idea.

the mcdonald's is at the very end of upper-haight, where golden gate park begins. in other words, it is PRIME real estate.

 

[lts5025]

Why don't they just lock up the criminals?

 

[LostSoul]

Why don't they just lock up the criminals?

In California that is considered racist and oppressive. Criminals are never at fault for their own actions. Instead climate change, racist institutions, and Trump are to blame.

 

[BEER]

I'll admit that I'm not a criminal justice major or anything, but how the fuck does McDonald's perpetuate a cycle of crime?

If the area is dangerous, move in more police units. Bulldozing a McDonald's gets rid of a hub, and the criminal element will migrate. Problem isn't solved, it's just moved.

Just create Hamsterdam and get it over with.

 

[Pied Piper]

lol I know the mcDonald's they are referring to. its located near golden gate park and thugs do hangout by there often. its really the park that attracts the crime. the mcdonalds is right next to it so they go there for cheap food

 

[Rational Poster]

lol I know the mcDonald's they are referring to. its located near golden gate park and thugs do hangout by there often. its really the park that attracts the crime. the mcdonalds is right next to it so they go there for cheap food

I bet if the government takes all the food it will solve all the crime because everyone will starve to death.

There will be a short term spike in crime, but it will ultimately plummet due to malnutrition.

 

[Pied Piper]

I bet if the government takes all the food it will solve all the crime because everyone will starve to death.

Tbh its the rich doing this. San francisco has become a playground for extremely wealthy liberals. They even paid so the cities could install sprinklers to ward off the homeless

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

They even paid so the cities could install sprinklers to ward off the homeless

 

[lifelessheap]

If it is the McD's I think it is, then I've seen literal streams of urine flowing from the homeless. It reeks.

 

[LostSoul]

I really don't see the problem with this. The city wants to redevelop the land to change the character of the neighborhood. That's normal. So long as they properly apply eminent domain, it's fine with me.

I'm pretty sure this didn't happen without them running through a variety of other options first, such as increased police presence. I guess some people are going to complain just because it's San Francisco?

I guess if they were doing it so some developer could through up condos for personal enrichment, it would get less backlash.

What about all of the criminals who are still there? I guess they will be forced to loiter in front of the Wendy's across the street instead from now on. Is the answer to continue closing stores as the problem spreads like a virus from one location to another? This action does absolutely nothing to to make the neighborhood safer for the community. I see it as an act of surrender. The same way that San Fran-sicko has surrendered its sovereignty to illegal immigrants and gang members as a sanctuary city. I guess it's easier to give in to the occupying forces? Thank God we don't fight wars this way. Then again, how do you fight wars without guns? Liberals hand out whistles.

 

[panamaican]

What about all of the criminals who are still there? I guess they will be forced to loiter in front of the Wendy's across the street instead from now on. Is the answer to continue closing stores as the problem spreads like a virus from one location to another? This action does absolutely nothing to to make the neighborhood safer for the community. I see it as an act of surrender. The same way that San Fran-sicko has surrendered its sovereignty to illegal immigrants and gang members as a sanctuary city. I guess it's easier to give in to the occupying forces? Thank God we don't fight wars this way. Then again, how do you fight wars without guns? Liberals hand out whistles.

 

[LostSoul]

It shouldn't have been that difficult to comprehend.

 

[ineverpost]

They want to eliminate places that could employ minimum wage. They are at the center of the wage debate because of their astronomical RE prices.

 

[panamaican]

It shouldn't have been that difficult to comprehend.

Oh, comprehension wasn't the problem. It simply didn't make much sense except as angry rambling. It lacked direction, didn't have a underlying theme and wasn't persuasive.