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.
I know lots of normally functioning adults who cannot afford rent in San Francisco. Many of them have bigger, nicer houses than my apartment - elsewhere than San Francisco.
That's dope. Are any of them employed in SF, grew up in SF, and have no social supports outside of SF?
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.
If you're crashing on a friend's couch, you're not homeless. Everyone cohabitates with family and friends at some point in life. It's very different than sleeping on the street.
When you live on the street and sometimes can crash on a friend's couch, you are homeless.
'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…
Is this an intuitive take or a data take? My understanding is that much of the data disagrees with the idea that homelessness is driven by drug abuse. Things like the strong association between homelessness and housing costs + just survey data implying most homeless people don't move to SF as homeless people, all sort of implies that. Worth noting though, unsheltered isn't the same as homeless. Many homeless people a…
> the strong association between homelessness and housing costs
I'd be careful with this. High housing costs are also likely highly correlated with areas that provide a lot of services to the homeless which might be the cause of homelessness.
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.
yet this part of their statement is still true, let's focus on solving 70% of the problem and then we can debate the rest > 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 street…
I agree. Most people who are homeless at any given time are not homeless due to chronic drug abuse.
This is a grotesque mischaracterization of conservatives. Just because a group of people do not agree with you does not make them violence-obsessed brutes.
And yet the conservatives' elected leader, Donald Trump, is banned from Twitter because he's unable to stop publicly obsessing over violence.
Trump was banned from Twitter because the people running it absolutely hated him and everything he stood for, and being on his way out of office they figured it was time to make the move that they had been wanting to make for years.
I know lots of normally functioning adults who cannot afford rent in San Francisco. Many of them have bigger, nicer houses than my apartment - elsewhere than San Francisco.
That's dope. Are any of them employed in SF, grew up in SF, and have no social supports outside of SF?
I can think of more people who switched languages and continents than who still live in the city where they grew up. Establishing yourself in a new place where you don't know anyone isn't easy or painless, but compared to literally sleeping under a bridge? Come on.
Rent should be Anyone who is chronically homeless should be offered jobs and paid housing. If that doesn't work, then they become a ward of the state and treated as a child. [1] https://www.chase.com/personal/banking/education/budgeting-s... .
That’s going to be most of them, as most are drug addicts. And no I don’t have any stats for you, frankly just walk around SF or Portland, it’s obvious.
Most homeless are effectively hiding from you. The ones you see are the ones who don't care about being seen, the mental/addicted.
This suit is the kick-it-down-the-road and make someone else pay for it answer. Most of these homeless are not from SF or nearby. Moreover, their salvation isn't going to be sitting in an open drug camp. People are acting like SF is pulling people out of hospital beds or something when they actually try to help. The correct answer is what Portugal does. Detain and imprison drug users for three to five years in a non-…
The reports linkedin in this thread said 62% of SF homeless had a place to live in the city for at least a year before becoming homeless. It's not as simple as "all the homeless here are transplants who are here to mooch off our goodwill", although there is certainly a sizable population that is true for.
Is this an intuitive take or a data take? My understanding is that much of the data disagrees with the idea that homelessness is driven by drug abuse. Things like the strong association between homelessness and housing costs + just survey data implying most homeless people don't move to SF as homeless people, all sort of implies that. Worth noting though, unsheltered isn't the same as homeless. Many homeless people a…
> the strong association between homelessness and housing costs I'd be careful with this. High housing costs are also likely highly correlated with areas that provide a lot of services to the homeless which might be the cause of homelessness.
For sure, there's a reason I just said association, but in the absence of evidence that the cause is something else just trying to spin an argument from first principles is dangerous. For a story to sound good it need not be true and any story that sees the bad things that happen to people in the world as somehow their own fault is bound to be attractive, though weirdly also a story that removes all personal responsibility so I must admit it goes a bit both ways.