zlacker

>>NaOH+(OP)
The title let me down; I was hoping this would be an article about a trebuchet. [edit: I see the post title has changed, the original one was something like "park ranger uses extraordinary methods to remove homeless from SF parks"]

I lived next to the park for several years and grew to loathe the dynamic where the lives of people sleeping rough in Golden Gate Park or Civic Center merit months of one-on-on outreach, while the lives of all of those who can't walk through the park in safety, can't send their kids there to play, and can't sit on the grass for fear of stepping on a used needle or a pile of human excrement, don't seem to matter.

I would like to see the city adopt a compassionate approach that doesn't at the same time enable years of lawbreaking by people who make nominally public spaces off-limits to the law-abiding. I'd like to see a San Francisco where there can be at least one clean, safe, working public toilet.

>>idlewo+L9
Clearly the local electorate has decided such desires and aspirations are not worthwhile enough to change their voting behaviour…

So the question is how do you plan to change that?

Trying to convince random HN readers seems pointless if that’s your goal.

>>Michae+Fc
This isn't true btw. In San Francisco the constant homeless and drug and crime issues have led to voting changes.

>>aprilt+Zf
Since when did changes in one electoral cycle automatically equate to changes in long term voting behaviour?

e.g. Swing states are a well known concept, so it’s unclear how you could confuse that.

It has to be credibly sustained and durable for a few cycles, at the very least.

>>Michae+rm
It has been durable for a few cycles. There was the Boudin recall and now the recent election