Pearsall is one tough SOB. Any athlete who plays a predominantly black position is always tough as nails. The brothers don’t want you playing receiver, running back, point guard etc so they don’t make it easy on you.
Maybe it’s cleaned up a bit since the recent Supreme Court decision which Newson claims as his inspiration for attending to the homelessness problem in CA, but Union Square and the surrounding area are now dangerous as hell. I was there about 6 months ago and it was round the clock noise, drugs, protesters, psychosis and the occasional tourist hanging from a streetcar photographing it all. Still some nice upscale stores left but most require being let in by a guard with a Glock strapped to his hip. Felt relieved and happy to get the hell out. Be careful there.
"...since the recent Supreme Court decision which Newson claims as his inspiration for attending to the homelessness problem in CA."
I live in Portland, OR and have followed the evolution of the homeless problem here, and by extension, all left-leaning urban jurisdictions in the 9th Circuit.
As all know by now, the 9th Circuit issued two decisions, one regarding Boise, the other Grants Pass, OR, that in essence made it risky for civil authorities to enforce anti-camping laws--homeless advocacy groups quickly brought suit under these 2 decisions.
Concurrently, in Portland (and maybe the other progressive centers), there was reflexive voter sympathy for the "plight of the unhoused"--they were, after all, clear underdogs, and we're living in an era in which being an underdog demands popular support and sympathy. This also made the elected officials nervous because this supportive electorate was large enough to swing elections.
Now, everyone was frightened/disgusted by the homeless whenever they directly experience an interface with the homeless, yet when safe in their homes still expressed support, even if the support had worn very thin over the last 10 years of seeing the homeless incursions grow dramatically. So the political leadership, to cover all bases, enacted fairly stiff measures against the homeless, claiming in effect, "*This* is what we *would* do, but out hands are tied."
Meanwhile, support for the homeless, by the local jurisdictions, in the form of tents, tarps, services continued, so that the sensitive voter population would feel that "we" still cared about the homeless and their problems, while those voters who wanted the homeless situation reduced generally accepted that the authorities *would* come down hard on the homeless, if they could, but they couldn't due to the 9th Circuit rulings.
Essentially, all parties got used to it, the homeless numbers continued to grow, and all voters were concerned, but both groups--pro-clean-up/anti-cleanup--seemed to accept that there was nothing else to be done.
Then SCOTUS ruled that, in fact, local jurisdictions could indeed create punitive laws for illegal camping and so all those local measures that had made loud noises against the homeless were no longer challengeable, and they could be enforced.
This puts the local leaders, who had passed these measures with the idea that they could not enforce them and hence offend the ultra-progressive voters, now has to find ways to appear to enforce these measures or look like they are impotent daycare providers for the homeless.
It's parallel to the Dobbs decision putting the ultimate responsibility for how to handle abortion back on the local leadership, which is quite uncomfortable with this. In both cases, local leadership wants to make stern noises, but wants to be restrained from action because such action will have political consequences.
City is way too large an area to gauge how afraid of homicide one should be. Worst parts of Chicago are really bad, but I’d have to go way out of my way to put myself at risk there.
Yes. This is a phenomenon that allows significant parts of a local electorate to ignore outrageous conditions requiring stern countermeasures, simply because these unaffected residents don't want to feel socially insensitive or in the case of the crime rates in Chicago, e.g., racist.
Note that I'm not saying this applies to you, personally, but I can see this at play where I live, also. I could fairly easily ignore the homeless situation here in Portland, OR, but it simply rubs me the wrong way so much that I can't succeed in ignoring it.
Plus, the homeless are overwhelmingly white, so I can't be a racist... ;^)
WaPoo once published a map of DC homicides during a year of the crack wars. Most were concentrated in 2-3 very small areas in SE and NE. I believe there was one in all of NW. At the time, suburban Fairfax Co VA had twice DC's population and 5-6 murders a year.
Crime avoidability matters more than overall crime rates.
When my American wife moved with me to London, I was surprised that it made her feel unsafe. On paper, her US home town (Louisville) had a homicide rate 15x that of London.
The key factor was that, back in Louisville, almost all the crime seems to contained to one section of the town, leaving suburban families like her’s free to potter the streets at night and leave their doors unlocked.
Almost every US town I’ve been to has had a version of Louisville’s dynamic – you’re safe, so long as you don’t cross X Street.
Despite much lower levels of crime, London’s deeply integrated social/private housing meant that upsetting incidents (like a white 9-year-old being beaten up by Jamaicans at the end of our road) were never far away.
I’d be interested to see US cities plotted on a ‘crime avoidability’ scale, from London to Louisville.
Pearsall is one tough SOB. Any athlete who plays a predominantly black position is always tough as nails. The brothers don’t want you playing receiver, running back, point guard etc so they don’t make it easy on you.
Maybe it’s cleaned up a bit since the recent Supreme Court decision which Newson claims as his inspiration for attending to the homelessness problem in CA, but Union Square and the surrounding area are now dangerous as hell. I was there about 6 months ago and it was round the clock noise, drugs, protesters, psychosis and the occasional tourist hanging from a streetcar photographing it all. Still some nice upscale stores left but most require being let in by a guard with a Glock strapped to his hip. Felt relieved and happy to get the hell out. Be careful there.
"...since the recent Supreme Court decision which Newson claims as his inspiration for attending to the homelessness problem in CA."
I live in Portland, OR and have followed the evolution of the homeless problem here, and by extension, all left-leaning urban jurisdictions in the 9th Circuit.
As all know by now, the 9th Circuit issued two decisions, one regarding Boise, the other Grants Pass, OR, that in essence made it risky for civil authorities to enforce anti-camping laws--homeless advocacy groups quickly brought suit under these 2 decisions.
Concurrently, in Portland (and maybe the other progressive centers), there was reflexive voter sympathy for the "plight of the unhoused"--they were, after all, clear underdogs, and we're living in an era in which being an underdog demands popular support and sympathy. This also made the elected officials nervous because this supportive electorate was large enough to swing elections.
Now, everyone was frightened/disgusted by the homeless whenever they directly experience an interface with the homeless, yet when safe in their homes still expressed support, even if the support had worn very thin over the last 10 years of seeing the homeless incursions grow dramatically. So the political leadership, to cover all bases, enacted fairly stiff measures against the homeless, claiming in effect, "*This* is what we *would* do, but out hands are tied."
Meanwhile, support for the homeless, by the local jurisdictions, in the form of tents, tarps, services continued, so that the sensitive voter population would feel that "we" still cared about the homeless and their problems, while those voters who wanted the homeless situation reduced generally accepted that the authorities *would* come down hard on the homeless, if they could, but they couldn't due to the 9th Circuit rulings.
Essentially, all parties got used to it, the homeless numbers continued to grow, and all voters were concerned, but both groups--pro-clean-up/anti-cleanup--seemed to accept that there was nothing else to be done.
Then SCOTUS ruled that, in fact, local jurisdictions could indeed create punitive laws for illegal camping and so all those local measures that had made loud noises against the homeless were no longer challengeable, and they could be enforced.
This puts the local leaders, who had passed these measures with the idea that they could not enforce them and hence offend the ultra-progressive voters, now has to find ways to appear to enforce these measures or look like they are impotent daycare providers for the homeless.
It's parallel to the Dobbs decision putting the ultimate responsibility for how to handle abortion back on the local leadership, which is quite uncomfortable with this. In both cases, local leadership wants to make stern noises, but wants to be restrained from action because such action will have political consequences.
One reason NYC has a dangerous reputation; the national media is based there, so they tend to report local news as national trends.
City is way too large an area to gauge how afraid of homicide one should be. Worst parts of Chicago are really bad, but I’d have to go way out of my way to put myself at risk there.
Yes. This is a phenomenon that allows significant parts of a local electorate to ignore outrageous conditions requiring stern countermeasures, simply because these unaffected residents don't want to feel socially insensitive or in the case of the crime rates in Chicago, e.g., racist.
Note that I'm not saying this applies to you, personally, but I can see this at play where I live, also. I could fairly easily ignore the homeless situation here in Portland, OR, but it simply rubs me the wrong way so much that I can't succeed in ignoring it.
Plus, the homeless are overwhelmingly white, so I can't be a racist... ;^)
WaPoo once published a map of DC homicides during a year of the crack wars. Most were concentrated in 2-3 very small areas in SE and NE. I believe there was one in all of NW. At the time, suburban Fairfax Co VA had twice DC's population and 5-6 murders a year.
Steve, you might look into how tough it is to take on Samoans. I have some experience.
Thanks!
Crime avoidability matters more than overall crime rates.
When my American wife moved with me to London, I was surprised that it made her feel unsafe. On paper, her US home town (Louisville) had a homicide rate 15x that of London.
The key factor was that, back in Louisville, almost all the crime seems to contained to one section of the town, leaving suburban families like her’s free to potter the streets at night and leave their doors unlocked.
Almost every US town I’ve been to has had a version of Louisville’s dynamic – you’re safe, so long as you don’t cross X Street.
Despite much lower levels of crime, London’s deeply integrated social/private housing meant that upsetting incidents (like a white 9-year-old being beaten up by Jamaicans at the end of our road) were never far away.
I’d be interested to see US cities plotted on a ‘crime avoidability’ scale, from London to Louisville.