Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck Idle

San Francisco Transit Center Criticized over Restaurant's Plans for Expensive NFT-Based Private Club (sfgate.com) 166

Last month an SFGate.com columnist explored plans for San Francisco's first NFT-based restaurant, an "ostentatious Japanese-themed restaurant and private club" featuring a members-only Sho Club Sky Lounge. What's more galling than the repeated use of the terms "immersive" and "experiential" to describe an actual restaurant is the fact that, as the group's website proudly proclaims, the astronomically expensive and exclusive eatery "is the only rooftop restaurant located on the Salesforce Transit Center's roof." As downtown San Francisco suffers through soaring homelessness, vacant storefronts and a deadly fentanyl epidemic, the idea of its newest public space only providing food for those willing to spend exorbitant sums is brazen. In a terrifying J.G. Ballard-like dystopian metaphor come to life, the private lounge, which will charge a top-tier membership fee of $300,000 a pop... will be situated 70 feet above surrounding homeless encampments. [The cheapest membership tier is available for a one-time fee of $7,500.]

In maybe a projection of the venture's deficits, the most common word used in interviews and marketing blurbs surrounding the decidedly exclusionary club is "community." The word, adored in the crypto world, is used relentlessly in all of Sho marketing materials, as though if said enough times this ultra-bourgeois establishment under the bright lights of Salesforce Tower's beaming helmet will somehow magically help the working man under Sauron's gaze.... Outside of the private members lounge, the restaurant will be open to the public. Sho told SFGATE over email that the number of seats and tables available to the public is not available at this time....

It's a smug celebration of the widening chasm of wealth disparity, planted in a time and a city that needs just the opposite.

Marketing materials note that paid memberships "will be minted on the Ethereum blockchain. As an NFT, the SHO Club membership will be an asset to the holder, publicly verifiable, and can later be sold or transferred on the secondary market."

So Friday SFGate.com paid another visit to "the empty husk of the building that will, if all goes smoothly, soon sell NFT memberships between $7,500 and $300,000 to join a hospitality club at a yet-to-be-constructed Japanese fine-dining restaurant in the middle of Salesforce Park." (Predicted grand opening date: September/October 2023.) The public will have allocated reservations too, [CEO Joshua] Sigel said, without revealing numbers. "Then what's the selling point for a membership?" a reporter interjected. There will be special events, a monthly membership dinner for certain tiers, and concierge service, among other benefits, Sigel said... Sigel said there's "fantastic" interest in Sho Club memberships, that they've had thousands of sign-ups on their website, and they anticipate rolling out a private NFT sale next week, followed by a public sale in mid- to late September....

Inevitably came web3 talk. Once the 3,275 NFTs memberships are sold, that's it, no more. If you want to become a member after that, you'll have to obtain a Sho Group NFT on OpenSea, a secondary market for NFTs.... Sho Group will get a 10% kickback on any secondary market sales of NFTs. A reporter astutely asked how the restaurant will keep tabs on who its new members are, once the NFTs start exchanging hands. In other words: What happens when a genuine piece of s — t snags a secondary market membership? Sigel assured us the restaurant will have a terms and conditions agreement to deal with unruly forces....

Someone abruptly asked Sigel if he'll be helping the homeless, a non sequitur of epic proportions that does, in fairness, loom over everything related to this fancy restaurant located in an ostensibly public park. "Great question," he started, announcing that in the next few weeks, his group will be rolling out a foundation of some kind. "For those who know Sho and I well, giving back and supporting the community is a very big thing for us. You specifically asked about the homeless — I have a family member who's homeless. It's near and dear to my heart, in terms of serving not only the unhoused, but also those who are in need of food."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

San Francisco Transit Center Criticized over Restaurant's Plans for Expensive NFT-Based Private Club

Comments Filter:
  • Mind blown (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BladeMelbourne ( 518866 ) on Monday August 22, 2022 @07:42AM (#62810553)

    What kind of super-wealthy person can spend that kind of money on food/entertainment, literally overlooking those that have nothing - and not do anything - or even question whether doing nothing is moral?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      [CEO Joshua] Sigel ... "I have a family member who's homeless. It's near and dear to my heart, in terms of serving not only the unhoused, but also those who are in need of food."

      You said you **have** a family member who is homeless, not **had**. So, you have a family member who is homeless and you are doing nothing to help them.

      Or, you're just lying.

      • Re:Mind blown (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22, 2022 @08:23AM (#62810651)

        What do you suppose the easy fix is for a homeless family member? Most of the long-term homeless have other chronic problems that contribute to being unhoused. They're mentally ill, or addicted to drugs, or both. They don't want to hold a job, and would rather live rough than line up to the kind of commitments that most people make. How will you "solve"what they see as trade-off rather than a problem?

        • Re: Mind blown (Score:2, Insightful)

          by saloomy ( 2817221 )
          Simple. Make the cost of those trade-offs more expensive, not less. If they are addicted to drugs, make the drugs practically unpurchasable. If they are mentally ill, put them in mental hospitals. Stop giving people perfectly capable of working free stuff, and maybe they will work for it.
          • addicted to drugs, debilitating mental illness, perfectly capable of working. Huh.
            • addicted to drugs, debilitating mental illness, perfectly capable of working. Huh.

              California has a per capita homelessness rate ten times that of Mississippi.

              Homelessness rate by state [statista.com]

              There is no reason to believe California has higher rates of mental illness, drug addiction, or inherent laziness.

              The most plausible explanation for the ten-fold difference is California's sky-high housing costs and barriers to ad-hoc housing.

              Want to put a camper trailer in your backyard for your brother-in-law to live? No problem in Mississippi. Illegal in California.

              • by DarkOx ( 621550 )

                There is no reason to believe California has higher rates of mental illness, drug addiction, or inherent laziness.

                Mental illness - often the result of family structure and probably education.

                drug addiction - CA is coastal and has major import/shipping facilities there is a whole array of drugs available there that are hard to get ahold of in MS or a lot cheaper.

                inherent laziness - inherent maybe not but learned absolutely.

                • by Zak3056 ( 69287 )

                  drug addiction - CA is coastal and has major import/shipping facilities there is a whole array of drugs available there that are hard to get ahold of in MS or a lot cheaper.

                  Death rate from drug overdose in California is 21.8 per 100,000. In Mississippi it's 21.1 per 100,000. So, while I'm sure there are things that you can get in California that you can't get in Mississippi, and "death rate from overdose" isn't a direct proxy for "prevalence of drug addiction," I'd suggest it doesn't seem to make much of a difference.

              • My comment:

                addicted to drugs, debilitating mental illness, perfectly capable of working. Huh.

                Your response:

                California has a per capita homelessness rate ten times that of Mississippi.

                Huh?

              • Drug use in California is not much higher than in Mississippi but homelessness is. Housing is much more expensive in California. In cheaper locales one can often find a way to stay housed even with addiction. In California, one cannot.
                • Drug use in California is not much higher than in Mississippi but homelessness is. Housing is much more expensive in California. In cheaper locales one can often find a way to stay housed even with addiction. In California, one cannot.

                  Exactly. If "drug abuse" or "mental illness" was the main cause of homelessness, all states would have similar rates.

                  But that is not AT ALL the reality. Homelessness is much, much worse (by a factor of ten) where housing is expensive.

          • Re: Mind blown (Score:5, Interesting)

            by unimind ( 743130 ) on Monday August 22, 2022 @09:58AM (#62810867)

            If they are addicted to drugs, make the drugs practically unpurchasable.

            Brilliant. Why hasn't anyone thought of this before? Oh wait, someone did: the War on Drugs [wikipedia.org]

            Important note from that article: "In June 2011, the Global Commission on Drug Policy released a critical report on the War on Drugs, declaring: "The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world."

            If they are mentally ill, put them in mental hospitals.

            This has been tried, too, with somewhat less than stellar results: Conservatorships Keep the Homeless in Psychiatric Wards Too Long: Study [usnews.com]

            TFA: "It is difficult, if not impossible, to stabilize mental illness for individuals who do not have their basic needs met, including housing."

            Simple.

            Turns out this problem isn't so simple to solve afterall...

            • Brilliant. Why hasn't anyone thought of this before? Oh wait, someone did: the War on Drugs [wikipedia.org]

              Ok, so, incarcerate them WITH the goal of taking them off drugs.

              Maybe not cold turkey, but with medical program 30-60 days maybe....that gets them off drugs.

              And, once out of that program, transport them somewhere else away from their local area they are used to getting drugs and away from the people they're doing drugs with and buying from....

              Hell, make a nice homeless camp nearer the desert, and g

              • by keltor ( 99721 ) *
                Even decades after being clean, many addicts still feel the urge to go back.
                • Even decades after being clean, many addicts still feel the urge to go back.

                  You can't save the world you know?

                  Give'em a chance...and if they blow it, will ship them somewhere away from polite society and let nature run its course with them.

                  No one forced a needle into their arms you know.

              • Re: Mind blown (Score:4, Insightful)

                by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Monday August 22, 2022 @10:48AM (#62811051)

                Ok, so, incarcerate them WITH the goal of taking them off drugs.

                Wow! You are brilliant! Nobody ever thought of incarcerating drug users before. I am sure that will solve the problem in no time.

                Hell, make a nice homeless camp nearer the desert

                Another great idea: Put all the drug users together in a boring miserable sh*thole. Why would anyone use drugs in a place like that?

                • Another great idea: Put all the drug users together in a boring miserable sh*thole. Why would anyone use drugs in a place like that?

                  Who said there would be drugs available in the desert shit hole?

                  At some point, you just gotta give up on people that won't help themselves...no one forced that needle into their arms.

                  At some point, let nature run its course...and you needn't do THAT in polite society where they are in the way, costing money, shitting on streets, etc.

                  Sweep them up and move them out....perhap

              • Unfortunately, in US jails, the guards make extra money smuggling drugs in. Corruption in the US is too high for such a thing, sadly.
              • You're getting flamed for this response, but the reality is that the people who are disputing what you posted aren't acknowledging the most important important factor: addicts are terrible, horrible human beings that are a net-negative on society. I know; I've personally lived next to a few. Everything about them is awful: they lie, they scream bloody murder at the top of their lungs at 3 AM, they steal, they destroy property, they shit everywhere, they commit violent crimes. They attract and hang out wi

                • A society that breeds these kinds of people should be held responsible for the outcomes.
                  • EVERY society has addicts - even the socialist Scandinavian countries so idolized by the American left. But those countries don't allow their junkies to live on the streets shitting everywhere, stealing anything that isn't nailed down, committing violent crime, etc.

                    But hey, if California wants to not only allow that horrible behavior but pay for it too, that's their business. No wonder the state is losing population.

                • > addicts are terrible ... know; I've personally lived next to a few. Everything about them is awful: they lie, they scream bloody murder at the top of their lungs at 3 AM, they steal ...

                  Some addicts are high functioning on whatever metric you choose, and some 'normal' people are awful, so it's not being an addict per se that's leading to the dysfunctional behavior.

                  > horrible human beings that are a net-negative on society.

                  I don't think that's possible, well as a general rule anyway. In a socio-cooper

                  • Some addicts are high functioning on whatever metric you choose, and some 'normal' people are awful, so it's not being an addict per se that's leading to the dysfunctional behavior.

                    I'm obviously not talking about highly functioning addicts because they're not the ones living on the street, committing crimes, and generally being anti-social cunts. And sure, if a "normal" person is acting awful in the manner of non-functioning addict, feel free to group them in there too -- though such a person is likely

          • The beatings will continue until morale improves.
          • by Zak3056 ( 69287 )

            If they are addicted to drugs, make the drugs practically unpurchasable.

            It's been fifty years since the start of the current "war on drugs" in the Nixon administration, and drugs are far from "unpurchaseable." In fact, you can easily buy them--even, as noted up thread, in fucking prison (the one place where you should have every expectation for such a thing to be impossible).

            "For every complex problem there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong."

        • The answer is in the name, they lack a home, give them a home.

          Once they have a stable living situation that they know they can rely upon you can tackle the problems from there. If the person is generally ok but just in hard times having a place to live will generally give them the foundation to get back into working lige. If the person has a drug problem, they are in a position to get them help. If they genuinely have a debilitating mental illness then now they are off the street and in a situation where

          • Are you going to let a homeless addict with mental health problems live in a property that you own? I own some rental properties and I can tell you that I'm not accepting such a person as a tenant. I don't accept section 8 either. If you want to live in my property you'd better have a good employment history, credit score, and be able to put down first last and security. And you'd better have a high enough net worth that if there are damages in excess of the security deposit that I will be able to actua
            • Did I prescribe this as something private property owners should partake in or be forced upon them? Cmon Ed, I know you are better than this, that's the most bad faith interpretation you could take from what I said. T

              This is a public problem that requires a public solution, I think you know I meant that. Homelessness has negative knock on effects for everyone in a town not just the homeless themselves.

              • No, you didn't prescribe this as something private property owners should partake in. The problem is that the vast majority of housing solutions that we have in the US do require private property owners to be involved. There are federal and state housing projects. Unfortunately those are places that very few people would want to live. There are some private property owners who love to take section 8 tenants. Those owners want to get rich at government expense and treat their tenants poorly and don't ma
                • Those all sound like solvable problems. There's no reason state or federal housing has to be terrible (it isn't in some towns and in other countries), no reason section 8 landlords necessaily have to be nefarious or standards of living can't be enforced, especially when in my lifetime at least no real attempt at these solutions has been attempted in most cities and where it has been tried the results have generally been positive for the people.

                  I also have yet to hear a better plan to deal with a very real

        • Most of the long-term homeless have other chronic problems that contribute to being unhoused.

          Absolutely. And one of those chronic problems is that some of them don't want to live indoors and are content to live on the streets. Years ago, my sister worked as a grocery checker in Santa Monica and some of her regular customers lived on the street. It was clear from the amount of cash that they had with them that they could have afforded an inexpensive apartment, but all of them were street sleepers. Put
      • by nomadic ( 141991 )

        What's he going to do? He just runs a mom-and-pop venture capital firm.

      • I don't know anything about this CEO or his brother and I can barely read TFS since I'm not a cryto-bro. A rich person should help provide housing to a brother if that's what's needed. However, much of homelessness is driven by mental health issues and addiction. I'm not saying anything about these particular people. But if somebody has mental health and addiction problems and won't get help, there is often no way to provide housing they wont' get kicked out of. However, this "restaurant" seems nothing
    • Implicit bias (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Latent Heat ( 558884 ) on Monday August 22, 2022 @08:28AM (#62810663)

      Are you want of those Trumpist anti-immigrationists who has something against our fellow Korean-Armenian-Iranian-Russian Mafia-Americans?

      Seriously, San Francisco has been "about" a whole constellation of policies resulting in stark contrast between haves and have-nots you speak of, and if one has created a real-life version of Ridley Scott's Blade Runner, this restaurant serving the officers of Tyrell Industries is just the Maraschino cherry on top of the extravagant dessert.

      So you are complaining about the cherry on top with no mention of the mounds of whipped cream, over-sweetened sauce and scoops of ice cream underneath?

      • by skam240 ( 789197 )

        Seriously, San Francisco has been "about" a whole constellation of policies resulting in stark contrast between haves and have-nots you speak of, and if one has created a real-life version of Ridley Scott's Blade Runner, this restaurant serving the officers of Tyrell Industries is just the Maraschino cherry on top of the extravagant dessert.

        No, just one policy, their and the surrounding communities policy on housing growth. Income inequality was doing quite well in Leftist California until large numbers of communities just stopped building anywhere near enough housing to support demand.

        Also, these people did not just invent the concept of "ridiculously expensive playground for the affluent". While the NFT angle is new there are plenty of exclusive clubs with massive membership fees in every major American city. This one's only difference is th

        • No, what is different about this one is that it is on the roof of a bus station. A nice roof, mind you... but it is still a bus station.

          • A public bus station. It's one thing to do something like this in private property but this is a whole new level (bad pun not intended but then I decided I liked it)
    • by znrt ( 2424692 )

      on the upside: when this opens you got some of the nastiest people in the area all together in a precariously suspended structure ...

    • Re: Mind blown (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NagrothAgain ( 4130865 ) on Monday August 22, 2022 @09:25AM (#62810775)
      Look, if some grifter wants to seperate the wealthy from their cash and happens to do it in view of the homeless, I don't see what the problem is.
    • I don't think this is real. If I'm wealthy enough to pay for access to an exclusive club in SF, it better have a gorgeous view of the Bay and the Golden Gate and Marin headlands etc., not a bunch of tents and junkies shitting on the sidewalk whilst reenacting Bum Fights. Something stinks about this story.
  • "ultra-bourgeois" (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Zak3056 ( 69287 ) on Monday August 22, 2022 @08:20AM (#62810645) Journal

    The minute you use language like "ultra-bourgeois" you've lost any credible claim to being a journalist--you're an activist (and a poorly educated one at that, if you think a club where memberships cost up to $300k is "bourgeois"). You'd also be a liar, claiming that said establishment is "the only place providing food" when there are other restaurants being built at the same time as this one.

    How does anyone read shit like this, much less write it, with a straight face?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by TigerPlish ( 174064 )

      Any writing with the words "Bourgeoisie" or "Bougie" or "Equity" or "Inclusion" or "Diversity" raise red flags.

      They are the tools of class warfare, as taught by Marx and Lenin, to divide and conquer a people.

      And so many in the US, UK and EU praise this kind of language. It's sickening, absolutely sickening.

      It's also heart-breaking when I see all the baby bolsheviks in slashdot embrace this kind of language and the thinking behind it.

      When will you all accept you're wrong, that you've been brainwashed by tho

      • When will you all accept you're wrong, that you've been brainwashed by those in power over you? When will that day come? When the roads are awash in blood? Is that the day you'll all accept you've chosen to back the wrong faction?

        If the roads are awash with blood, and they have the time to wonder about such things, the chances are that they have not in fact backed the wrong faction.

    • by skam240 ( 789197 )

      The minute you use language like "ultra-bourgeois" you've lost any credible claim to being a journalist--you're an activist (and a poorly educated one at that, if you think a club where memberships cost up to $300k is "bourgeois").

      You must be new to reading news from 21st century American news sources. Every major news source I can think of nowadays show levels of bias far exceeding what you're pointing out here and on a daily basis.

    • Re:"ultra-bourgeois" (Score:5, Informative)

      by skam240 ( 789197 ) on Monday August 22, 2022 @08:43AM (#62810699)

      (and a poorly educated one at that, if you think a club where memberships cost up to $300k is "bourgeois")

      Sorry for the second post but I just thought I'd mention that I suspect you're trying to discredit the wording there with an old definition.

      From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
      "since the 19th century, the term "bourgeoisie" usually is politically and sociologically synonymous with the ruling upper class of a capitalist society."

      So while the term is certainly ideologically loaded its use here is not the result of the "poorly educated"

    • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

      by nomadic ( 141991 )

      "You'd also be a liar, claiming that said establishment is "the only place providing food" when there are other restaurants being built at the same time as this one."

      Nowhere in the article does the author claim that it's "the only place providing food."

      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        by Zak3056 ( 69287 )

        "You'd also be a liar, claiming that said establishment is "the only place providing food" when there are other restaurants being built at the same time as this one."

        Nowhere in the article does the author claim that it's "the only place providing food."

        FTFS: "As downtown San Francisco suffers through soaring homelessness, vacant storefronts and a deadly fentanyl epidemic, the idea of its newest public space only providing food for those willing to spend exorbitant sums is brazen."

        • by nomadic ( 141991 )

          "newest public space." They're not saying that it's the only restaurant being built in SF.

          • by Zak3056 ( 69287 )

            "newest public space." They're not saying that it's the only restaurant being built in SF.

            I did not claim such. "Newest public space" is presumably the transit center in question, where more restaurants than just this one are being built.

    • Outrage machine (Score:5, Informative)

      by JBMcB ( 73720 ) on Monday August 22, 2022 @09:25AM (#62810773)

      If you can drum up outrage against one group or another, as a journalist, you win clicks and money.

    • by fermion ( 181285 )
      It seems a lot of pearl clutching and fact compassion. I canâ(TM)t afford to eat at the restaurant so it is unfair to exist and I will use the homeless, who I do not really care about, to justify my anger.

      One of the only things representative Ron Paul, father of Rand Paul, did in congress was give his constituents one million dollars to build a transit center in the middle of nowhere. I bring this up because these structures are expensive. It was needed to provide a nice connection to encourage peop

      • In many locales, maybe. In San Francisco, you can have a few million at home and still need to take a long bus ride to get to work!
  • "As an NFT, the SHO Club membership will be an asset to the holder, publicly verifiable, and can later be sold or transferred on the secondary market."

    My gym does the same, I can loan or give the membership card to anybody, as long the the money continues, they don't care.

  • by stevenm86 ( 780116 ) on Monday August 22, 2022 @08:40AM (#62810685)
    How much you wanna bet the people behind this fully know that this is 100% vaporware, and are simply pulling an extreme stunt to milk some investors?
  • by Tom ( 822 ) on Monday August 22, 2022 @08:50AM (#62810705) Homepage Journal

    "Then what's the selling point for a membership?"

    That you have something the unwashed masses can't afford.

    It helps you forget that under all the gold and diamonds and bullshit bingo, you're just a meatsack and will in the end be eaten by the same worms as everyone else.

  • by DrXym ( 126579 ) on Monday August 22, 2022 @09:00AM (#62810741)
    NFTs are still the solution in search of a problem. Private members clubs & restaurants have existed for hundreds of years. The club maintains a list of members and members pay their dues. But apparently that's too straightforward so let's complicate it with NFTs. Not just complicate it, but fail to cover other problems clubs need to solve such as requiring references, maintaining waiting lists etc.

    And that's assuming it isn't a scam like most NFTs - attempting to sell a bunch of NFTs and then pulling the rug and running. Good luck owning a worthless NFT if the development stops or the restaurant turns out to be awful.

  • by jovetoo ( 629494 ) on Monday August 22, 2022 @10:02AM (#62810871) Journal
    Ah yes, the ultra wealthy property developper spends his money on a big exclusive restaurant while a family member is homeless. Great family. Perhaps you can use one of those membership fees to buy your family member a house...
  • by Moridineas ( 213502 ) on Monday August 22, 2022 @10:09AM (#62810891) Journal

    I was there a few months ago. Really awesome place. Bizarre, as San Francisco is. The ground level around the center is full of mentally ill and probably drugged out homeless. There is literaly shit and piss on the streets. Passed out people to step over. Tents all over the sidewalk. The Walgreens had every single fucking item in the store behind glass. Right next to that, the top of this transit center is a lawn, playground, several different gardens themed from around the world, etc. Below one floor was a members-only gym. Anyone can go up, easily, yet I didn't see any homeless around.

    Many of the restaurant / storefronts in the transit center were shuttered when I was there. Coming from a southern state whose economy is sizzling and covid closures haven't been a thing in many months, San Francisco was pretty shocking. I've always enjoyed visiting, but for at least the last decode every time I have visited it's gotten worse and worse. This trip, there was literally a fistfight between several homless people just feet from the entrance to my hotel (several blocks from the Sales Force Transit Center).

    Pretty sad.

  • Playboy Club (Score:5, Interesting)

    by awwshit ( 6214476 ) on Monday August 22, 2022 @10:11AM (#62810901)

    My Dad had a Playboy Club key. This seems like a modern version with some buzzword bingo mixed in.

  • I'll pass thanks. The local yakitori joint around the corner is lightyears better than any "Japanese" restaurant in the USA .

    • by skam240 ( 789197 )

      To be fair that's true of most food taken out of its country of origin. It's only rarely done as well.

      I've seen some truly baffling "American food" in other countries while traveling that make me wonder if the restaurant owner had ever been here and / or if they actually have taste buds.

  • They have the burn bright part down.

    What a waste. Oh well, "a fool and his money will soon be separated."

  • OK /.

    I'm about to open up some eyes here. Not too long ago in my area, a "charity" got $25m in the form of a county grant.

    The CEO of livemoves (Bruce Ives) pays himself $270k@year. In total the C level folks get a combined total of around $2m a year. [propublica.org]

    Bruce Ives has donated over $6000 to one of the county supervisors that voted for that $25m grant. [opensecrets.org]

    This likely isn't all of the money. I've found opensecrets doesn't always catch everything. There is a transparency portal for Santa Clara County where I could d

    • by skam240 ( 789197 )

      You're blaming California's homeless problem on corrupt non profits? That's absurd. It's like saying you got cancer because your doctor cheated getting his degree.

      California's housing crisis is the reason for our homeless problem. Turns out when a commodity like housing becomes scarce its price goes up (Who knew!?) When that pushes the state's housing costs to twice the national average you get increased homelessness.

      A corrupt regional non profit doesnt help but it would hardly be the first instance of that

      • by t0qer ( 230538 )

        There isn't a housing shortage per se, there's plenty of cheap housing. It's just not in the bay area or other major cities. Why does it need to be in expensive areas? If I'm homeless, do I have a right to live in Malibu or Beverly Hills?

        Back when the fed ran mental health, facilities were usually located outside of major cities, out in the backwoods where property was cheap. Since government had to account for where the money was going, they spent responsibly and as low cost as they could. The former Su

        • by skam240 ( 789197 )

          The only places with actual, naturally cheap housing are in remote and depressed areas of the state. In other words, places most people would have a hard time finding a job in.

          Something similar could be re-built someplace close, but outside the immediate bay area. Hollister comes to mind, as does Salinas or maybe further south in King City or San Aldo to house these folks and get them treatment.

          Right, California cant get its cities to build enough housing but you're going to convince a bunch of cities to build a shit ton of housing and fill it all exclusively with the homeless. Don't get me wrong, the homeless need housing but no city council is ever going to approve that.

          • by t0qer ( 230538 )

            >The only places with actual, naturally cheap housing are in remote and depressed areas of the state. In other words, places most people would have a hard time finding a job in.

            That was the system that was in place before. Santa Clara would have been considered economically depressed by todays standards when Agnews was built in 1906.

            You're not going to solve the issue of people who shit on the streets, shoot up in broad daylight, and run bicycle chop shops in the open by giving these folks apartments ne

    • by istartedi ( 132515 ) on Monday August 22, 2022 @12:12PM (#62811381) Journal

      If they really wanted people off the streets, they could bring back "flop houses" for people that are poor but capable of functioning in society, and mental institutions for people that aren't.

      That was how things were 100 years ago, and homeless or "bums" were relatively few.

      We won't do this because NIMBY stops flops, and mental institutions were expensive if done right, and inhumane snake pits if done cheaply.

      I think we're slow-walking towards something like the informal settlements that other countries have. A lot of these "slums" or "favelas" are un-titled properties with no building codes, "policed" by gangs. But hey, at least you're not "homeless".

      In many such places, residents live under the same threat of being rousted that US homeless do, it's just that the settlements are so established that it becomes more politically difficult to do. I've seen pictures of illegal structures in places built of actual brick and mortar. Such was the confidence of the residents that the government would not evict them.

      Seems kind of "full circle" too. At one time, many Californians were squatting land that belonged to Mexico.

  • So.. basically the same as the rest of the city.
  • Curious, that (Score:5, Interesting)

    by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Monday August 22, 2022 @11:39AM (#62811235) Journal

    Is it just me or is it curious that the most socialist, aggressively woke city in North America (ok Portland is a contender) but seems to be the worst example of both grossly wealthy capitalists (I mean, we're talking the 1% of the 1% crazy wealth) simultaneous with swarming plague of transients shitting on the sidewalk?

    I mean, for a place built on Leveller principles, they're like the worst examples of BOTH ends of the economic bell curve, and both ends of the spectrum (cost, and squalor) are making the place literally unlivable for middle class Americans?

    Are their policies effect, or cause?

    • The streets of San Francisco are named after many of the founding fathers who made their fortunes by being complete bastards. SF may not be as mainstream as middle America, but don't get carried away with the hype. For every socialist/libertarian/pastafarian there's someone from an old wealthy family quietly going about their day making money the old school way -- by exploiting something/someone.
  • If only there were some mechanism by which people could freely decide what to spend the fruits of their labor on!
  • by King_TJ ( 85913 ) on Monday August 22, 2022 @12:50PM (#62811519) Journal

    Honestly, I get it. It seems like a terrible idea to have some expensive new restaurant overlooking homeless encampments. But you know, something like this *could* be a huge help for them if it turns out they decide to donate a decent portion of each purchase to assisting the homeless in the area.

    Either way though, it just doesn't change anything tangible to build this restaurant there or not to build it there. The wealthy will still spend this kind of money on dining and entertainment *someplace*. It's not like they'll just decide that because this new, exclusive Japanese place isn't on that one rooftop, they'll resign themselves to giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to the homeless crowd of San Francisco instead.

    It seems like some people are far more disturbed seeing income disparity up close, vs hiding it by letting the poor live far enough from the wealthy so neither sees each other?

  • They are putting the NFTs up for sale prior to any material work being done on the restaurant, does that sound like anything else?

    What stops these folks from selling out their 3,275 NFTs and doing the proverbial "take the money and run"?

    They are obviously using the NFT sale as a means to "finance" the restaurant, if not planning an outright rug pull. What better way to hype the NFT sale than to get a bunch of left leaning reporters in SF to write scathing articles about your questionable plan?

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Working...