S.F. sued over homeless camp sweeps: city charged with criminalizing unsheltered • Hacker News Board

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

#81

Post by nerb » Wed, Sep 28, 2022, 5:56 PM UTC

maerF0x0 wrote: post #22

blacksmith_tb wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the problem there is that simply being homeless isn't a crime (which I will say seems to me to be reasonable - the alternative is things like the Victorian Poorhouses). Throwing trash all over the place (since there are no public trash services to speak of in most cities, and homeless people don't have service from trash haulers) is a crime, but if they were issued citations, they couldn't pay, and still don't…

> but if they were issued citations, they couldn't pay, and still don't have any way to get rid of their trash... I would think that using public money to haul away trash would have a pretty good return on investment for everyone concerned. One of the points of the justice system is to ensure that people are sufficiently disincentivized from doing things that society has decided shouldnt be done. We shouldnt consider…

that "[point] of the justice system" only works if you consider everyone in a vacuum and have the false notion everyone has equal access to resources. parent already outlined why people living on the street don't have the means to throw away trash in the right place, but you're focused on it "enabl[ing] bad behavior" and (i assume) in support of giving people that have no money fines (which also unfairly impact poorer people, but i'm sure that's lost on you as well). we have immense resources to provide public utilities like roads, why can't there be more public garbage cans (which benefit everyone; last time i visited SF it was a pain carrying trash everywhere)

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

#82

Post by triceratops » Wed, Sep 28, 2022, 5:56 PM UTC

twblalock wrote: post #74

triceratops wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This has little to do with the availability of housing, or the cost of housing. This is a startlingly ignorant take. Shelter is among the basic human needs. If people were starving to death, would you blame mental illness or food prices? > Progressive attempts to solve this problem have all failed Yes. Because they don't focus on creating more housing. Not "affordable" housing, just housing. They're called "progres…

If there were a million empty houses in San Francisco that were available free of charge, there would still be a massive homelessness problem because the real issue is not lack of housing, it's drug addiction and mental illness.

Why do you think so? What makes SF have so many more drug addicted or mentally ill people, compared to cities with sane housing prices?

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

#83

Post by cpuguy83 » Wed, Sep 28, 2022, 5:56 PM UTC

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 absolutely appalling. Considering we've historically incarcerated these people and it didn't fix anything, I don't see how you can blame "progressive" attempts to solve the crisis.

Do more people come to these cities that have such policies? Probably... but that's not an indictment of the policy. We have a national crisis. We have some cities/states who literally pay for 1-way bus tickets out (as an alternative to jail).

This solves nothing. Having more people in jail solves nothing.

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

#84

Post by Bud » Wed, Sep 28, 2022, 5:57 PM UTC

triceratops wrote: post #68

twblalock wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 has little to do with the availability of housing, or the cost of housing. This is a startlingly ignorant take. Shelter is among the basic human needs. If people were starving to death, would you blame mental illness or food prices? > Progressive attempts to solve this problem have all failed Yes. Because they don't focus on creating more housing. Not "affordable" housing, just housing. They're called "progres…

Any serious examination of the overall homeless problem also needs to take into account that for decades now, Republican governors in other states have been allowed to export their own social problems and homeless issues by busing the homeless to San Francisco and other liberal enclaves.

Should this be allowed? It's morally complex. For instance, if those people were in Nevada or Arizona, they'd likely die of exposure. San Francisco is a uniquely good place to survive being homeless, at least climate-wise.

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

#85

Post by masterof0 » Wed, Sep 28, 2022, 5:57 PM UTC

LawTalkingGuy wrote: post #75

alsetmusic wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You want to leave drugs users, on the most potent substances ever created, in open-air drug camps full of violence, rape, filth, more drugs, etc? Do you expect them to one day pull the fentanyl out of their arm and walk over to the Apple store to get a job? The drugs, and the camps, kill people . If they don't have the wherewithal to move then we need to do it for them. They can't get better while living in filth and…

Yup, I would love to see all this people contributing to solve the problem, or actually taking a homeless person to live with them, etc...

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

#86

Post by runarberg » Wed, Sep 28, 2022, 5:59 PM UTC

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…

Just imagine living on the streets for an extended period, while also dealing with substance abuse and/or other mental illnesses. The state has failed you, there is no denying that. Indeed the state has repeatedly failed you. Every time you’ve tried to improve your living conditions has failed. Everytime you’ve tried to fix your substance abuse problem has failed, and every time you’ve found shelter, you’ve lost it for some reason. This has happened multiple times over.

Do you honestly believe that after all that, people are still rational and blindly accept help from the state? No, they’ve failed so for, you might as well just accept that things are as good as they’ll get.

When tackling this problem, we don’t only have to deal with the current situations, we also have to consider past failure, because people remember them, and they do affect current behavior.

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

#87

Post by notch656a » Wed, Sep 28, 2022, 5:59 PM UTC

triceratops wrote: post #76

notch656a wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Just make city policies such that there's no advantage to being homeless in SF I don't see any advantage to being homeless. Literally every human being without mental issues would prefer having a roof over their head. This is a market failure.

>I don't see any advantage to being homeless

You missed the "in SF" part of the sentence. In a sense you're correct, it is in part a market failure in SF for subsidizing homelessness.

>Literally every human being without mental issues would prefer having a roof over their head

I have a few times, on purpose. Not being responsible for a house can be liberating, depending on your life circumstances -- if you're not addicted, you're healthy and able bodied, and not mentally ill. It can be like an adventure where you see where you like to go, can get all the money you need for a week in only a day of day labor (which is trivial to get if you're able bodied and have an ID). Homelessness with serious personal problems is awful, but otherwise it can be an enjoyable lifestyle.

I would probably choose periodic homelessness still today were it not I have a child, whom CPS would probably take away if I enjoyed some of the liberties of my youth.

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

#88

Post by lotsofpulp » Wed, Sep 28, 2022, 5:59 PM UTC

at-fates-hands wrote: post #25

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…

>> Giving these individuals expensive housing is not going to solve anything. They tried this in Minneapolis during COVID to try and get a bunch of homeless people off the street in a nearby hotel that had been emptied due to COVID. It didn't turn out very well: A report of a drug overdose led to the eviction Tuesday of more than 200 homeless people from a hotel in south Minneapolis that had become a refuge during pr…

This would have been known to anyone who has operated a motel for even a couple months. There is a reason any half decent motel requires credit card security deposits with matching government issued photo ID.

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

#89

Post by twblalock » Wed, Sep 28, 2022, 5:59 PM UTC

triceratops wrote: post #76

notch656a wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Just make city policies such that there's no advantage to being homeless in SF I don't see any advantage to being homeless. Literally every human being without mental issues would prefer having a roof over their head. This is a market failure.

> Literally every human being without mental issues

That's the problem right there.

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

#90

Post by nerb » Wed, Sep 28, 2022, 6:00 PM UTC

m0llusk wrote: post #42

ska wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 war…

> These problem cases can cost communities hundreds of thousands

so let's continue to spend more on incarcerating them as a bandage rather than fixing the issues :)

> incidents of... pooping...

i'm sure they just do this outside for preference rather than utter lack of access to public facilities. why couldn't they be like me during my trip to SF where i could just patronize a business to use their bathroom when i needed to go?

> menace to public health and safety

love to see the intentional split between "public" and whatever group you'd put houseless people in (those "menaces"!)