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

S.F. sued over homeless camp sweeps: city charged with criminalizing unsheltered

sfchronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 222 posts

Re: S.F. sued over homeless camp sweeps: city charged with criminalizing unsheltered

#41

Post by colpabar »

crhulls wrote: post #14
olivermarks wrote: post #10

'Unsheltered' is a propaganda word and a fig leaf for the very sad reality that we have a chronic opioid and meth crisis which tips many people over into serious mental illness. Giving these individuals expensive housing is not going to solve anything. California is a magnet for substance abuse casualties and as then SF mayor Newsom found at the end of his grandiose plan to 'end homelessness' ever more people arrived…

Why is this comment getting downvoted? I understand in progressive circles this statement maybe controversial, but I've always admired hacker news for being slightly more sensible when it comes to shunning people for statements that are not politically correct.

Before you jump to comment on downvotes, just give it some time. The comment is 13 minutes old as I type this, things can change.

Also, commenting on downvoting is generally frowned upon here. Discuss the article and the comments themselves instead.

Re: S.F. sued over homeless camp sweeps: city charged with criminalizing unsheltered

#42

Post by m0llusk »

ska wrote: post #7
bergenty wrote: post #4

Screw that, clean the homeless up. Can’t believe we have let the problem get so bad.

> clean the homeless up I'm curious - what do you imagine that looks like?

One potential foundation is the tradition of reading the Riot Act. Normally citizens are allowed to move freely and gather. This is suspended during a riot for public safety. Homeless in general and encampments specifically can be seen as also a menace to public health and safety. Observe and record incidents of disruptive behavior, public drug use and pooping, and calls to responders and at certain level issue a warning then take action. These problem cases can cost communities hundreds of thousands. At some point something has to be done.

Re: S.F. sued over homeless camp sweeps: city charged with criminalizing unsheltered

#43

Post by jl6 »

mancerayder wrote: post #23

"The ultimate goal of the lawsuit is to push the city to instead spend billions on affordable housing to provide shelter for everyone and fix its homelessness crisis, which the lawsuit says is a result of decades of failed policies and underinvestment." .. "Mayor London Breed has touted her effort to expand shelter beds and permanent supportive housing. Still, officials estimate 20,000 people will be homeless in San…

Is there data showing a migration of homeless people towards SF? Presumably we would see a reduction in homelessness elsewhere if SF was acting as a magnet?

Re: S.F. sued over homeless camp sweeps: city charged with criminalizing unsheltered

#44

Post by hezralig »

twblalock wrote: post #31
olivermarks wrote: post #10

'Unsheltered' is a propaganda word and a fig leaf for the very sad reality that we have a chronic opioid and meth crisis which tips many people over into serious mental illness. Giving these individuals expensive housing is not going to solve anything. California is a magnet for substance abuse casualties and as then SF mayor Newsom found at the end of his grandiose plan to 'end homelessness' ever more people arrived…

Realistically, the only way we can solve this is with incarceration. This has little to do with the availability of housing, or the cost of housing. Some people will simply refuse to live in the housing that is provided. Many are so mentally ill and addicted to drugs that no amount of money we give them, either directly or indirectly, will get them off the streets. Proposed solutions that don't involve incarceration…

I know plenty of homeless people in San Francisco without drug issues. The reason they are on the street or living in their cars or crashing on a friends couch in between either other spot? They cannot afford rent. Both friends I am currently in contact with are also CURRENTLY employed.

Re: S.F. sued over homeless camp sweeps: city charged with criminalizing unsheltered

#45

Post by convolvatron »

gamblor956 wrote: post #18

California has enough shelter space and housing for the true (involuntary) homeless, meaning those who are homeless because they can't afford housing, or because they have a mental illness and can't maintain housing on their own. Almost all of our shelters are sober facilities, meaning no drugs or alcohol, which is what led to the formation of homeless camps: drug addicts don't have to get rid of their drugs if they…

ignoring the plight of the homeless for a second.

these camps are a serious problem for the rest of us in SF that are trying to lead quasi-normal lives. it just cant be acceptable to have dogs trained to harass and attack people running around free on the streets.

i'm hardly a law and order kind of person, but methheads arguing outside your window every night is real problem. it really hard to run a retail business when there are 5-6 seriously messed up people living right outside you door who have reluctantly agreed to keep a tiny path free.

it really sucks to have to pick up their biological waste because they cant be bothered.

as a society, not just the city of SF, we should really wonder what we're trying to accomplish here and how this situation came to exist instead of wondering if there is another rug we can push this all under.

Re: S.F. sued over homeless camp sweeps: city charged with criminalizing unsheltered

#47

Post by km3r »

ska wrote: post #15
bergenty wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moving them to the shelters and telling them to stay off the street. If there’s no room in the shelter, providing them housing outside the city. If you have a shelter/provided housing it’s a crime to sleep on the streets. Alternatively start up workhouses and sanitariums again. Government work in exchange for a safe, clean place to sleep and food for the day. Mental sanitariums for those people that are too far gone.…

So, a form of incarceration? An observation: most of the "simple answer" approaches to this seem to have failed badly in practice when/where they are attempted. There has to be some complexity, no?

And the current approach of leaving them to the streets is failing much much worse in practice. Of the politically and economically viable options, kicking them off the street and sending them to shelter (which they can refuse, but they can't stay on the street) is the best option I have seen. Long term we absolutely need to address the issues that cause homelessness, and I think we are overall heading that direction, but the problems of today need to be addressed with solutions for today.

Re: S.F. sued over homeless camp sweeps: city charged with criminalizing unsheltered

#48

Post by alsetmusic »

twblalock wrote: post #31
olivermarks wrote: post #10

'Unsheltered' is a propaganda word and a fig leaf for the very sad reality that we have a chronic opioid and meth crisis which tips many people over into serious mental illness. Giving these individuals expensive housing is not going to solve anything. California is a magnet for substance abuse casualties and as then SF mayor Newsom found at the end of his grandiose plan to 'end homelessness' ever more people arrived…

Realistically, the only way we can solve this is with incarceration. This has little to do with the availability of housing, or the cost of housing. Some people will simply refuse to live in the housing that is provided. Many are so mentally ill and addicted to drugs that no amount of money we give them, either directly or indirectly, will get them off the streets. Proposed solutions that don't involve incarceration…

This is the most cynical and heartless response I’ve seen in perhaps ever.

Re: S.F. sued over homeless camp sweeps: city charged with criminalizing unsheltered

#49

Post by notch656a »

twblalock wrote: post #31
olivermarks wrote: post #10

'Unsheltered' is a propaganda word and a fig leaf for the very sad reality that we have a chronic opioid and meth crisis which tips many people over into serious mental illness. Giving these individuals expensive housing is not going to solve anything. California is a magnet for substance abuse casualties and as then SF mayor Newsom found at the end of his grandiose plan to 'end homelessness' ever more people arrived…

Realistically, the only way we can solve this is with incarceration. This has little to do with the availability of housing, or the cost of housing. Some people will simply refuse to live in the housing that is provided. Many are so mentally ill and addicted to drugs that no amount of money we give them, either directly or indirectly, will get them off the streets. Proposed solutions that don't involve incarceration…

I've been homeless without using drugs and without being mentally ill. Honestly I don't see the big deal if you sleep in a tent and use appropriate sanitation. I was always careful to pack in pack out, to respect the community, to not become intoxicated, and to dispose of waste appropriately.

IMO the homeless issue is San Francisco is because they've practically incentivized being homeless by subsidizing the homeless and also making any defense against the crimes of homeless toothless (misdemeanor theft is barely enforced, it is illegal to use violent self defense to defend property, and weapons laws are among the most restrictive in the nation.)

You don't even have to incarcerate them. Just make city policies such that there's no advantage to being homeless in SF, other than maybe the weather.

Re: S.F. sued over homeless camp sweeps: city charged with criminalizing unsheltered

#50

Post by jelliclesfarm »

jwlstn wrote: post #38
olivermarks wrote: post #10

'Unsheltered' is a propaganda word and a fig leaf for the very sad reality that we have a chronic opioid and meth crisis which tips many people over into serious mental illness. Giving these individuals expensive housing is not going to solve anything. California is a magnet for substance abuse casualties and as then SF mayor Newsom found at the end of his grandiose plan to 'end homelessness' ever more people arrived…

If this were true why are the giant homeless populations almost exclusively in insanely expensive housing markets like SF, LA, NYC? Drug addiction is far worse in WV yet they don't have a major homeless problem. Explain this discrepency please if it's all because of drugs

It seems like they are literally bussing in homeless into San Francisco because of the services and money. It has become a drug distribution hub that is supported by the govt and tax money. There is little to no consequence for peddling drugs on the streets right under the nose of law enforcement.
Post reply on HN