[throwaway292939]

> I think you are trying to pigeonhole Eskenazi's argument into the standard "progressives don't care about crime" punditry that's popular on the right. I would suggest re-reading the column with a more open mind. His argument is that feeling safe is as important, if not more important from a policymaking perspective, as empirical measures of safety ("real risk") such as violent crime rate.

From the article:

> But the city’s violent crime rate is at a near-historic low, and is lower than most mid-to-large-sized cities.

> Lee’s death, however, was packaged in the media and on social media into a highlight reel of recent San Francisco misfortunes and crimes: large groups of young people brawling at Stonestown; the abrupt closure of the mid-market Whole Foods, leaving San Franciscans just eight other Whole Foods within city limits; the severe beating of former fire commissioner Don Carmignani in the Marina District, allegedly by belligerent homeless people — it all adds up to a feeling of a city coming undone.

> This manner of coverage, however, does not capture the actual lived experience of the vast majority of San Franciscans.

I'm reading his article again.. where is his argument that feeling safe is important?

He states that violent crime is low, and that newspapers shouldn't be cherry-picking and sensationalizing how bad it is, and that he knows this is not the actual experience for the vast majority of San Franciscans.