Live data from Hacker News

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

sfchronicle.com

111–120 of 222 posts

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

#111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worse than the people outside your windows screaming, having fights, r*ping each other, being abused, assaulting others? Is very easy to judge when you don't live the consequences.

Anecdotally, I have SF colleagues who surprisingly often have to interrupt phone calls to check on disturbances outside. Filing a police report does nothing even for battery. I'm still amazed by this Greater LA story where a vagrant has holed up on a woman's front porch, and the police won't do anything. [0] https://abc7.com/van-nuys-los-angeles-homeless-man-porch-tak...

Yup, and the police let them out again[1]

1- https://www.amren.com/news/2022/02/seattle-homeless-man-crac...

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

#112
post #14

'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.

But it's not "not politically correct" it's just plain "not correct". Every homeless population in every city has its share of drug-addicted and mentally ill people. What most cities don't have is SF's insane expensive rental market. Follow the money.

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

#113
post #21

The worst thing about this is it is extremely unlikely to help with homelessness, but it will almost certainly earn big bucks for lawyers involved in the homeless industrial complex. The level of perverse corruption here is phenomenal.

> homeless industrial complex First time I’m hearing of such a complex that sounds oxymoronic. How big is this complex? Who are the players? How do they make so much money to become a complex industry?

See motel owners getting paid $100k and even $250k+ per key by the government:

https://mynorthwest.com/2744155/seattles-two-new-hotel-homel...

The motels would be worth nowhere near that much if sold as a motel, and it is happening all up and down west coast cities. I know one property that sold for $150k per key, which would have sold for half that to a non government buyer, and the kicker is that it sits empty except for housing 2 guests that were already living there when the government bought it in summer 2021.

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

#114

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.

The advantage is that you save money by not needing to pay rent.

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

#115
https://twitter.com/chezpim/status/1574824441854324736 : reading this thread, I found out that it’s possible to buy stun guns. What does the law in CA say about using stun guns for self defense? And where does one buy them?

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

#116
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This or build massive drug cities in the desert, where people can go and live their drug-addicted lives away from everyone else.

If the drug addicted were capable of operating their own cities, they already would be. They obviously need a non drug addicted population to support them.

Certainly - and said drug cities would have billions poured into them, and outside assistance.

Still cheaper than prisons.

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

#117
As to the drug-addicted or mentally unwell folks, we are going to have to figure out some other method than asylums, in neighborhood group homes, or the streets. All of these had major scandals and disfavor from the communities affected.

Its going to have to be an involuntary solution (yes, incarceration), and its probably going to involve moving people to a ranch-like area away from the city with a much different housing setup than some cells or apartments, maybe something with individual shelters with outside spaces. I expect its going to be a commitment of years or forever for some of these people. Working on people's mental health and addiction is not some 30 day process. Just the dentist bill alone will be scary, but its not going to get better in a tent in SF.

Society cannot last with this level of filth and crime in major cities.

The homeless because of cost folks, well, move to somewhere else or we are going to need a wave of mini-apartments approved at some point, but SF doesn't like such things.

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

#118
post #51

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…

Quoted post unavailable.

First of all, we should be providing enough of a safety net that no one ever becomes homeless. But given how bad we are at that as a culture...

The fact of the matter is, there are two populations of homeless, and while they are not defined the presence or absence of drug use and mental illness, there is a correlation. These populations are those that will accept housing and shelter, and those that won't.

The former population is easy to deal with. Give them housing until they are able to obtain it on their own.

But what do you do about people who would rather stay on the streets? Let's split this "unwilling" population once more. There are the unwilling that are unobtrusive, don't bother anyone or hurt anything. Not a problem. But what about the unwilling that are a public nuisance? Erratic, violent, etc.?

What, realistically, do you do about them? They won't go, but they can't stay. Define "long-term public support" for a population of people that is dangerous to the public and unwilling not to be. Eventually they will hurt someone or damage property and end up in prison anyway. Should we not address a clear public safety hazard preemptively?

Yes yes, slippery slope. Care will need to be taken, people will fall through the cracks anyway. Every system has cracks, but god knows the current one has big gaping gashes. We are already failing these people. I don't know that incarceration would fail them worse.

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

#119

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…

> Proposed solutions that don't involve incarceration should be ignored as unserious and unrealistic. Incarceration has been our primary approach for dealing with drug addiction and mental illness over the last 42 years. It is extremely expensive, with cost-per-inmate figures ranging from $15K-64K depending on the state, with California being the most expensive. I don't know of any public policy experts, regardless o…

No worries! We'll just build more prisons! Perhaps a second "inflation reduction act" could be passed to print some more money to pay for it and also to make sure there are more dollars out there to help pay for these rising prices.

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

#120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 add…

Good for you. The closest I've come to homelessness is renting a room so shitty that sleeping in the lab at my university was preferable. And I hated even that. I'd never be voluntarily homeless.
Post reply on HN