Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California’s Biggest Cities Confront a ‘Defecation Crisis’

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 170 posts

Re: California’s Biggest Cities Confront a ‘Defecation Crisis’

#151

Post by masklinn »

lobotryas wrote: post #150
weeksie wrote: post #14

Build. More. Homeless. Shelters. California is so damned NIMBY'd up that they refuse to build shelters and act surprised when homeless people sleep outside. Then they throw their hands up in the air like "uh, it must be the weather" It's stupid. In New York we have more homeless per capita and in absolute numbers but we have nothing like the street issues that west coast cities have. It's because we actually house th…

What do you do for people who refuse to go to a shelter for any number of reasons and just want to continue doing what they’ve been doing for years now? Not trying to put you on the spot with a “if you don’t have a solution...” trope, it’s just something I’ve always wondered.

> What do you do for people who refuse to go to a shelter for any number of reasons and just want to continue doing what they’ve been doing for years now?

How about you start with the part where there aren't enough shelter spaces right now? Once you get to have only people who don't want to stay outside shelters, you can start asking them why they don't shelter.

NYC has ~95% sheltering rates, Bay Area is at 33%, GP literally quoted that in their comment. Bay Area homeless folks are not so different than NYC's that they'd magically be 3 times less likely to get into a shelter. Hell, you click the link, you know that Chicago's at 74% sheltering, Denver's 84 and DC's 85.

Meanwhile LA's sitting pretty at a good looking 25% sheltering rate.

Re: California’s Biggest Cities Confront a ‘Defecation Crisis’

#152

Post by Gibbon1 »

lobotryas wrote: post #150
weeksie wrote: post #14

Build. More. Homeless. Shelters. California is so damned NIMBY'd up that they refuse to build shelters and act surprised when homeless people sleep outside. Then they throw their hands up in the air like "uh, it must be the weather" It's stupid. In New York we have more homeless per capita and in absolute numbers but we have nothing like the street issues that west coast cities have. It's because we actually house th…

What do you do for people who refuse to go to a shelter for any number of reasons and just want to continue doing what they’ve been doing for years now? Not trying to put you on the spot with a “if you don’t have a solution...” trope, it’s just something I’ve always wondered.

I've never stayed in a shelter but I know people that have. A lot of homeless will sleep in a makeshift shelter in the winter rather than a shelter because shelters are ass in every way.

Re: California’s Biggest Cities Confront a ‘Defecation Crisis’

#153

Post by cameldrv »

pmoriarty wrote: post #149
cameldrv wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ADA thing is relatively new. If you go anywhere in California, not just areas with a large homeless population, you'll find most businesses do not have a public restroom. This is different than every other state I've been to. This is because California has the Unruh Civil Rights Act, which makes each ADA violation subject to $4000 statutory damages, regardless of the actual damages. Thousands of these cases are f…

"If there is no deterrent to pooping on the street, and the alternative is difficult, people are going to poop on the street." So what is the alternative when there are no public bathrooms around? To me it doesn't sound like there is one. So why arrest people when they have no choice?

As I said, I was being descriptive, not proscriptive. Obviously in a civilized society, everyone has access to a bathroom. Also obviously in a civilized society, people use the facilities provided and clean up after themselves.

Those that are incapable or unwilling to do this either go into drug treatment, get mental healthcare, or if they are unwilling to do either of these and insist on being a public nuisance, they go to jail.

SF is failing to accomplish any of these things despite a gigantic budget.

Re: California’s Biggest Cities Confront a ‘Defecation Crisis’

#154

Post by pmoriarty »

cameldrv wrote: post #153
pmoriarty wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If there is no deterrent to pooping on the street, and the alternative is difficult, people are going to poop on the street." So what is the alternative when there are no public bathrooms around? To me it doesn't sound like there is one. So why arrest people when they have no choice?

As I said, I was being descriptive, not proscriptive. Obviously in a civilized society, everyone has access to a bathroom. Also obviously in a civilized society, people use the facilities provided and clean up after themselves. Those that are incapable or unwilling to do this either go into drug treatment, get mental healthcare, or if they are unwilling to do either of these and insist on being a public nuisance, the…

"As I said, I was being descriptive, not proscriptive. Obviously in a civilized society, everyone has access to a bathroom."

I don't know which civilized society you were describing, but it's not San Francisco.

I would agree that that would be ideal, though.

"Also obviously in a civilized society, people use the facilities provided and clean up after themselves. Those that are incapable or unwilling to do this either go into drug treatment, get mental healthcare, or if they are unwilling to do either of these and insist on being a public nuisance, they go to jail."

Except society's problems are not solved by sending people to jail. Quite often they just get worse.

First, the punishment of sending someone who shits on a sidewalk to a jail where they are likely to be raped, beaten, or killed is far out of proportion to the crime they've committed. Few would agree that rape or death was an appropriate punishment for shitting on a sidewalk, yet that's precisely what many people send to US jails face. Hopefully you'd agree that in the very civilized society you speak of, spending time in jail for shitting on a sidewalk would have little probability of bodily harm, rape, or death to the perpetrator. But we don't live in that society.

Second, many people who are sent to jail get out worse than they came in. They are more likely to commit crimes, and are often denied job opportunities or places to live because they've been convicted of crimes. Now, that might not matter as much for homeless people, except that if they're ever to have a hope of being integrated back in to society they shouldn't have the extra stigma of having been incarcerated (especially not for something they couldn't help, like simply going to the bathroom when there were no bathrooms around).

Third, it costs a great deal of money to keep someone in jail, the money would be better spent on bathrooms, housing, and mental health care.

"SF is failing to accomplish any of these things despite a gigantic budget."

If there really is plenty of money, it's clearly being misspent. At least we can agree on that, though I have a feeling that if we looked at the details there'd be plenty to disagree about over which money is being misspent, how to spend it, which programs to cut, and which to fund.

Re: California’s Biggest Cities Confront a ‘Defecation Crisis’

#155

Post by hristov »

chucksmash wrote: post #92
hristov wrote: post #56

This is very much a problem but it is incorrectly stated as California's problem. This America’s problem. It just so happens that because California is relatively rich, tends to have some of the most tolerable year round weather and the people are relatively compassionate a large percentage of the homeless of all of America are moving to California. How many times have you heard some politician or just an ordinary pe…

> How many times have you heard some politician or just an ordinary person from the south or the midwest say something to the effect “we have a great homelessness policy, we buy each homeless person a bus ticket to California and send them on their way!” They usually say this with pride or with a laugh instead of being embarrassed as they should be. In fact if i remember correctly this was part of the plot of a south…

Here is an example of nevada giving homeless people with mental problems bus tickets to california instead of treating them.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/10/nevada-settles-...

This is article about bloomberg himself defending his program to send homeless to california: https://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/mayor-defends-...

The quote you have from the guardian is about cities that attract homeless trying to reverse the process by sending the homeless (willingly) back where they come from. These programs attempt to be more responsible because they will only give a free ticket if they can make sure that the homeless person will not be homeless at the end of their destination. This does not always work out as intended as the guardian article explains but at least conceptually it is the right idea.

Re: California’s Biggest Cities Confront a ‘Defecation Crisis’

#156

Post by cbHXBY1D »

henryl wrote: post #24

“Seattle Is Dying” is a great investigative report about the problems and potential solutions to homelessness. Also applicable to SF. https://youtu.be/bpAi70WWBlw

I've seen this video and it's a Sinclair hit piece. Not worth the time of anyone who wants to engage in an informed discussion.

It's 2019 and this propaganda piece (yes, it's propaganda) is arguing mass incarceration is the solution.

Re: California’s Biggest Cities Confront a ‘Defecation Crisis’

#157

Post by cameldrv »

pmoriarty wrote: post #154
cameldrv wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I said, I was being descriptive, not proscriptive. Obviously in a civilized society, everyone has access to a bathroom. Also obviously in a civilized society, people use the facilities provided and clean up after themselves. Those that are incapable or unwilling to do this either go into drug treatment, get mental healthcare, or if they are unwilling to do either of these and insist on being a public nuisance, the…

"As I said, I was being descriptive, not proscriptive. Obviously in a civilized society, everyone has access to a bathroom." I don't know which civilized society you were describing, but it's not San Francisco. I would agree that that would be ideal, though. "Also obviously in a civilized society, people use the facilities provided and clean up after themselves. Those that are incapable or unwilling to do this either…

My intent is not coming through correctly here. What I'm saying is that to the extent that we have a bunch of people that don't have anywhere to use the bathroom, SF is not civilized. Now it's also not true that there is literally nowhere to use the bathroom, but various policies have made it more difficult to find a place and many homeless people who may also be high, drunk, or crazy, don't make the effort.

As for jail, jail is a nasty place. It is certainly a destructive form of punishment. We don't have many other forms of punishment though in our legal system. In SF, it has been decided that because jail is a bad punishment, that not punishing at all is superior. This gets you rampant car break-ins, shoplifting, and people being assaulted on the street. The purpose of jail is not to put people in jail, it's to convince people to not commit crimes because they fear it. For drug addicts, a stint in jail often is what forces them to kick the habit. Unfortunately the SF city jail is full of drugs.

I'd be all for alternate methods of punishment that are less destructive. Make the street pooper clean up the street for a couple of days, say.

Budget-wise, SF spends almost $300 million a year on the homeless. I can't tell you where it all goes, but that is a lot of money to spend for the result SF is getting.

Re: California’s Biggest Cities Confront a ‘Defecation Crisis’

#159

Post by RickJWagner »

ceejayoz wrote: post #71
mdorazio wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not quite that simple. The West Coast has seen a huge influx of homeless people (ex. [1] - 12% YoY increase in LA) while the nation overall has seen a drop [2]. If your homeless population is steady or falling it's easier to build enough services for them than if thousands more arrive every year. Also, I agree that more shelters and services need to be built, but it would be nice if the Federal government pitche…

California's also exporting their homeless problems. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/dec/...

Crazy.

Other places send homeless to California. California sends them back.

Not many advantages to being homeless, but maybe cost of travel isn't one of them.

Re: California’s Biggest Cities Confront a ‘Defecation Crisis’

#160

Post by wumpus »

ribeyes wrote: post #125
throebd wrote: post #10

It is a ban of plastic bags from supermarkets. People have some decency, but with ban there is no way to dispose excrements.

Also, banning plastic bags and straws has no positive impact on the environment. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/04/09/711181385/are-...

"That said, these bans do reduce nonbiodegradable litter."
Post reply on HN