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

Downtown San Francisco is at a tipping-point

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 206 posts

Re: Downtown San Francisco is at a tipping-point

#111

Post by seanmcdirmid »

Mizoguchi wrote: post #33
spaniard89277 wrote: post #26

Make housing affordable with denser mixed-use zoning: You solved 50% of the problem. Make public transport convenient. You solved another 30%. People needs to be able to stay frugal in rough times and socialize. It feels to me that many US cities make this impossible. If you had Spain levels of unemployment I have no idea how would you do.

Let's ignore that almost 100% of the homeless population in America is addicted to drugs. Having experienced drug abuse myself I know for a fact affordable housing is not going to do anything for these folks. They need treatment, and that unfortunately doesn't happen voluntarily when you are sick.

100% of the visible homeless problem maybe, but there is also a homelessness problem that involve people who lack homes but aren’t ranting and pooping in the street, so they aren’t noticed (you might not even realize they are homeless if you see them in person).

But this is an important point: there is a real homelessness problem in the USA, but there is also a mental illness/drug addiction problem that often co-exists with homelessness (some say that being homeless causes one to become an addict eventually, but that is controversial).

Re: Downtown San Francisco is at a tipping-point

#112

Post by mschuster91 »

PaulHoule wrote: post #110
mschuster91 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that the entire US has zero idea what to do with homeless and mentally ill people, other than "dispersing" them or locking them up. As a result, some (particulary Republican) regions give them one way bus tickets to other (particularly Democrat) regions or deport them outright in sometimes very public stunts - out of sight, out of mind and if it deters others all the better, seems to be the general con…

We've got zero idea how to repair broken brains. People with severe mental illness are hard to live with. When I was growing up there was a homeless man who spent all day at the public library that people called "The Professor" who was said to be unable to live indoors because he'd wake up screaming every night. We took in a friend who I think had schizoaffective disorder in and she threatened my wife with a knife af…

Dispersal of any kind doesn't work unless you confine the affected to a specific region which raises serious ethical questions on its own, not to mention it makes life significantly harder for them.

And for a lot of people, giving them a roof and a room of their own is enough to help them out of the worst. Yes, you'll still have a sizable population of hardened homeless, but hey - if you manage to get the 80% low hanging fruit off the street, it still reduces the amount of homeless by a significant degree. And don't forget an awful lot of homeless are people actually having fulltime jobs but unable to afford a place on their own!

Re: Downtown San Francisco is at a tipping-point

#113

Post by rhaway84773 »

riffraff wrote: post #71
truckerbill wrote: post #42

Housing shouldn't be an investment vehicle. It seems pretty obvious but no-one wants to give up their imaginary number. (Imaginary because most people have 1 or fewer houses and will always need to live somewhere, so they can't spend the paper value of their home). The cost of rent feeds into everything, its such a clear drain on everyone's resources (apart from landlords). If you have time to give, please think abou…

The number is not imaginary if you have kids, the idea of leaving your children some of your wealth is dear to many people, and most often they will have acquired their own place by the time you die. It is arguable that inheritance taxes should prevent accumulation of wealth, but point is, real estate survives you.

Almost every investment survives you. Bonus, most other safe investments cannot be destroyed by a fire, floods, storm, etc.

Re: Downtown San Francisco is at a tipping-point

#114

Post by whythre »

idlewords wrote: post #29
paxys wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

San Francisco spends more on homeless services than most cities its size spend on everything . And the homeless problem is getting worse every year.

At the same time, there is a large municipality right next to San Francisco (Colma) that consists entirely of graveyards. Homelessness in SF is not just a housing problem, but the housing crisis amplifies it and could be instantly ameliorated by just building the hell out of things.

Building ‘the hell out of things’ doesn’t fix drug induced psychosis.

Re: Downtown San Francisco is at a tipping-point

#115

Post by seanmcdirmid »

panarchy wrote: post #106
phpisthebest wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

anyone that has any depth of knowelege of the homeless knows there are generally 2 types of homeless population. Transitory economic homeless, these homeless can be assisted by affordable housing, housing first, and other programs. Often these homeless of covered pretty well by current homeless programs, as they are the type of homeless people most easily identify with, and engineer programs to solve. Then there are…

It's almost like the second group has been deeply traumatized over time by a society whose only response to their mental health issues was a "fuck you" to the point that their mental health just keeps deteriorating and they become completely anti-social and actively avoid help, because fuck it why contribute back to a system that won't contribute to you. Many view the assistance as just being a pathway to get them ba…

We could always do what Finland does: admit that these people will never be productive members of society again and get them into housing with social workers on staff. Yes, it’s a constant drain, but Finland says it actually saves money doing it that way, since the services people use on the street turn out to be even more expensive.

The big issue is that the USA doesn’t have a national strategy for dealing with homelessness. So any city offering programs that provide housing will become popular very quickly, with predictable results.

Re: Downtown San Francisco is at a tipping-point

#116

Post by atchoo »

bombcar wrote: post #48
Mizoguchi wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's ignore that almost 100% of the homeless population in America is addicted to drugs. Having experienced drug abuse myself I know for a fact affordable housing is not going to do anything for these folks. They need treatment, and that unfortunately doesn't happen voluntarily when you are sick.

I wonder what the total cost of building drug cities in the middle of nowhere and just paying to have the hopelessly drugged far away.

Use the proper term, concentration camps. Y'all need some fences less they make their way back to civilisation. Some guards too. Once you've seen the costs y'all start debating attrition vs. euthanasia for these lost causes. Makes sense right? The losers of American capitalism have proven themselves unworthy to live along side us. No better than vermin. Extermination is the only humane act right?

Fascism visibly pulsates under the skin of these dehumanising HN discussions.

Re: Downtown San Francisco is at a tipping-point

#117

Post by VWWHFSfQ »

mschuster91 wrote: post #92
PaulHoule wrote: post #76

As anathema as it may seem to some people I think the real answer has to involve dispersing the homeless population in SF. The SF chronicle did a series on the efforts to house people in shelters and one major problems was that a person who wanted to get clean from opioids is just surrounded by temptation and is just one dose of Fentanyl away from death. Thus these people are more dangerous to each other than they ar…

The problem is that the entire US has zero idea what to do with homeless and mentally ill people, other than "dispersing" them or locking them up. As a result, some (particulary Republican) regions give them one way bus tickets to other (particularly Democrat) regions or deport them outright in sometimes very public stunts - out of sight, out of mind and if it deters others all the better, seems to be the general con…

> As a result, some (particulary Republican) regions give them one way bus tickets to other (particularly Democrat) regions

Seattle, Portland, Denver, San Francisco and many other "blue" cities all have "Homeward Bound" one-way bus ticket programs to incentivize homeless people to leave their city. In fact, the City of San Francisco invented the entire concept 15 years ago. This is a primarily liberal strategy to deal with the overwhelming collapse of their public welfare systems.

Re: Downtown San Francisco is at a tipping-point

#118

Post by hotpotamus »

atchoo wrote: post #116
bombcar wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder what the total cost of building drug cities in the middle of nowhere and just paying to have the hopelessly drugged far away.

Use the proper term, concentration camps. Y'all need some fences less they make their way back to civilisation. Some guards too. Once you've seen the costs y'all start debating attrition vs. euthanasia for these lost causes. Makes sense right? The losers of American capitalism have proven themselves unworthy to live along side us. No better than vermin. Extermination is the only humane act right? Fascism visibly puls…

I assume if you keep providing free drugs, you don't need fences, and the metaphorical irony of that is almost beautiful. I think for branding purposes, I'd try out the term "party camps", but yes, they are quite obviously concentration camps.

Re: Downtown San Francisco is at a tipping-point

#119

Post by seanmcdirmid »

VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #117
mschuster91 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that the entire US has zero idea what to do with homeless and mentally ill people, other than "dispersing" them or locking them up. As a result, some (particulary Republican) regions give them one way bus tickets to other (particularly Democrat) regions or deport them outright in sometimes very public stunts - out of sight, out of mind and if it deters others all the better, seems to be the general con…

> As a result, some (particulary Republican) regions give them one way bus tickets to other (particularly Democrat) regions Seattle, Portland, Denver, San Francisco and many other "blue" cities all have "Homeward Bound" one-way bus ticket programs to incentivize homeless people to leave their city. In fact, the City of San Francisco invented the entire concept 15 years ago. This is a primarily liberal strategy to dea…

These programs are always privately run, with the idea that some homeless people are only homeless because they are in the wrong city and they actually have housing available to them somewhere else. But the program has been abused by many who just want a free bus ticket, and don’t have family willing to take them in at the other end.

Private programs in conservative states do this as well. Prisons in Texas will give prisoners on release an open bus ticket if they have no one picking them up. That’s how many people without options wind up in fairer west coast cities in the first place. If you look at “popular greyhound bus destinations”, west coast cities are at the top of that for reasons. Homeless don’t even need a ticket given to them, they can also scrounge the cash they need for one in a pinch.

Re: Downtown San Francisco is at a tipping-point

#120

Post by jl2718 »

papito wrote: post #10

What amazes me is that the Valley gazillionaires are not spending their fortunes to fix their own habitat. They can just BUY the city government they want. Instead, they are shoving mountains of cash to turn the United States into some perverted libertarian fantasy, where the government is weak, paralyzed, ineffectual, and out of their way OH WAIT.

Such statements confuse me. Let’s go point by point on this:

1. How does one “buy” a government? With bond purchases? With campaign contributions? With voter fraud? And in the chosen case, what powers would they gain to “fix their habitat”?

2. Which valley “gazillionaire” is actively spending money in any way that doesn’t align with progressive politics and larger stronger less-accountable government? For the purposes of this question, anybody invested in Palantir is ineligible.

3. What “their way” would a strong government be “in”? What specific harm to whom are you suggesting?

4. If they have infinite power over government, why do you think they would be happy to have it “out of their way” versus active assistance?

5. If we observe that “the government” is quite powerful at the present moment, then how do you resolve the contradiction. Are they wasting their money?

Post reply on HN