Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Residents of San Francisco have not been in my experience shy about drinking in public, or, for that matter, shooting fentanyl or defecating. These are rather everyday occurrences in the city, so I imagine people can handle some outdoor dining in restaurants too.


A good point, though many on HN aren't so happy about those outdoor activities.


Alas, they get worst of both worlds: the city government is doing little about those shooting heroin on the sidewalk, because it is too busy focusing on the scourge of urban life, that is, restaurants offering sidewalk dining.


The talking points are endlessly repeated, but does that make them true? What makes this true?


This is true, because the restaurants and other businesses actually have something to lose when they defy the petty tyranny of the city planning bureau. The bureau knows this, and it doesn’t like the idea of losing the power it has, so it comes down hard to punish those who do not kowtow to it.

On the other hand, the heroin addicts don’t really have anything to lose, other than freedom to roam around the city. Since city is not interested in depriving them of that freedom (as jailing the homeless addicts for disorderly conduct would be inhumane, according to San Franciscans), it has no tools to actually incentivize different behavior — it has no punishments left, and so it’s left powerless.


> The bureau knows this, and it doesn’t like the idea of losing the power it has,

I don't think government-bureaucracy-as-a-person-with-desires is a useful way to think or talk about this stuff.


Alas, the bureau is the people running it.


How about the law, their superiors, the politics, institutional culture, etc. No CEO has the power you ascribe to these people.




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: