31–40 of 128 posts
It may happen sometimes, but a recent survey showed that over 70pct of the homeless people in SF previously had homes in SF [0]. So it's mostly a home grown problem.
[0]: http://sfist.com/2016/02/11/71_of_sf_homeless_once_had_homes...
Since the article starts with someone in SF (although he's leaving), I want to proactively dispel the myth that it's common for homeless people to be dropped into SF by other cities because we have good weather and liberal govt. It may happen sometimes, but a recent survey showed that over 70pct of the homeless people in SF previously had homes in SF [0]. So it's mostly a home grown problem. [0]: http://sfist.com/201…
I lived in San Francisco from 2011 - 2016 then moved to Pittsburgh, PA for a job opportunity. This past August, I went back to SF for a team building activity and I was blown away by how many fewer homeless people there were on the streets (excluding Tenderloin). When I lived in SF, there were blocks that I would place money on being a homeless person there, and it seemed like most of them were relocated. Tons of fam…
They seem to just be relocating to other parts of the city as formerly homeless-heavy areas like parts of SOMA and the mission "gentrify." I walk through the loin twice a day on my way to my office on market st near the post-apocalyptic parts of SOMA and see a higher concentration of homeless in those areas than I used to. Perhaps you're revisiting the parts they've left or my un-scientific observations are wrong.
this is the Nash Equilibrium type problem that exists with US federalism and extreme poverty. Cities just ship people around hoping to reduce their share of cost, while the homeless just become more physically sick or addicted, and mentally traumatized, so they become more costly to care for in aggregate over a lifetime. Everyone is worse off. It would be so much simpler, cheaper if society just got people back on th…
I think everyone can agree that it would greatly benefit society to get "people back on their feet".
But how? There's a virtually unlimited stream of drugs coming into this country. There are many people who have mental illness. In many places, The Rent Is Too Damn High.
IMO solving this problem is by no means "simple". How expensive is it to do "focused care"? Has it been tried, and what's its track record?
While they should definitely consider serving up a more static version for mobile (couldn't scroll on Firefox Android), the experience of reading this article on my desktop was truly awesome. I absolutely loved the graphics, cinemagraphs, and entire experience, and really do think it added immensely to the story itself. Is there a name for this style of article? Do they use some existing JS library or is it all hand…
Scrolling even on desktop was janky for me, and it was hard to center the paragraphs that were supposed to overlay the maps.
Worked perfectly on Firefox Developer Edition / Windows 10. Was smooth and I didn't notice a single issue, FWIW.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, keep in mind the agency here. This isn't the city 'moving' anyone, these are people who are choosing to move themselves. I don't see why the city ought even have the responsibility to ensure they have somewhere to stay. Let them go where they want.
I hope you realize the inverse of the problem you posit here: Why should other cities be forced to bear the burden of homeless people being shipped to them? The end result of your logic would essentially lead to caravans of homeless people because it would be cheaper to give them a bus pass and a pat on the back rather than take care of their own responsibilities. The idea that they have agency in this case is a faca…
Ultimately it landed in needing more data, immense respect for that type of data driven journalism.
Really love the visuals added as well!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, there are jobs in every city, but in major cities there is difficulty in finding housing and transportation. The cost of living is also high, so it's easy to get into debt. Whereas in smaller cities, it's typically easier to get on your feet because housing is more accessible, transportation is better, and the general CoL is a lot lower.
True, but this combined with brain drain creates a lot of perverse incentives and drives a further wealth divide. For example, many low tax base areas accumulate a population with more problems that have higher tax rates, insurance rates, etc (and a more strained social net) than a rich city. It is important to make sure rich areas are at least paying some of the costs they create in selectively pushing people out or…
Since the article starts with someone in SF (although he's leaving), I want to proactively dispel the myth that it's common for homeless people to be dropped into SF by other cities because we have good weather and liberal govt. It may happen sometimes, but a recent survey showed that over 70pct of the homeless people in SF previously had homes in SF [0]. So it's mostly a home grown problem. [0]: http://sfist.com/201…
Residency usually just based on any bill with city address within last 30 days.
I can easy imagine case when someone moved to SF with hope that things will work out in big city, spent savings on few months of rent and with nowhere else to go and no established income ended up on the streets. While it's a sad situation it fits that previous SF residency narrative and in the same time not exactly part of some native san franciscans ending up on streets due to yet another gentrification cycle everybody so keen to bring up whenever homeless origin is being mentioned.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hope you realize the inverse of the problem you posit here: Why should other cities be forced to bear the burden of homeless people being shipped to them? The end result of your logic would essentially lead to caravans of homeless people because it would be cheaper to give them a bus pass and a pat on the back rather than take care of their own responsibilities. The idea that they have agency in this case is a faca…
Nobody is denying them care. Their choices are being strictly expanded here, not restricted. You think they would be better off if they did not have the option of these tickets?
The city that they reside in is effectively denying them care. The tickets are an excuse to push them out of the city so that they don't actually have to give them proper care. If they weren't being denied care for whatever reasons, then there wouldn't be a reason to bus them out to other cities, now would there?
This is EXACTLY what happened when Nevada gave discharged patients from a mental health hospital one-way bus tickets out of town. They were given bus tickets and advised to seek health care elsewhere and were sued because of this program. So let's not ignore the fact that this actually occurs.