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

San Francisco library turning off WiFi at night to keep homeless from using it

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 184 posts

Re: San Francisco library turning off WiFi at night to keep homeless from using it

#31

Post by derefr »

notaustinpowers wrote: post #12

Every day I start to believe more and more that people won't stop with homelessness until every homeless person is dead. "Emergency housing is a drain on taxpayer dollars." "Job placement is taking jobs away from locals." "Soup kitchens are another drain on taxpayer money." "Homeless services are a waste of money." It makes me sick how people can act when it comes to the homeless population when so many of us are jus…

The problem is that unlike people with homes (who are generally stuck in one place — wherever their home is), homeless people have nothing holding them to places inhospitable to their presence. So the homeless diffuse around countries, drifting from place to place, until they settle in an "attractor" city — a local optimum for homeless hospitable-ness (with more social-welfare programs for them; less police suppression of homelessness; milder climate; more walkability; etc.)

These attractor cities then experience undue burden of having to fight basically an entire country's homeless problem using only municipal (rather than state or federal) tax dollars; where every social welfare program they add, creates "induced demand" by making them into more of an attractor city for surrounding homeless populations.

The homed people living in these attractor cities, experience a reality where they can choose to vote in progressive parties that throw however-much money at the problem of homelessness — adding public housing, shelters, food programs, jobs programs, etc. — with the only result being ever more homeless people showing up in the city. Which causes these homed people in these attractor cities to get burned out on the idea of solving homelessness.

(An aphorism: "the river sees more water than the lakebed.")

AFAICT, the only way out of the problem, is to

1. set aside federal funding for solving homelessness (which could be done easily enough in the US if anyone without a permanent residence in a particular state, were interpreted by federal law as not being "of" any state, but still a US national, and therefore a person the federal government has a duty to take care of directly — basically the same as how the federal government does insurance, postal delivery, etc. for actively-serving members of the military); and then

2. use that funding to start offering social-welfare programs for homeless people in places that don't already have large homeless populations, with the aim of creating more, smaller attractors, dispersing the homeless population, so that it's not all having to be dealt with by just the one or two natural attractor cities per country.

Yes, both of these things are big political lifts. I see it as something like the federal highway system, or for that matter, like military bases: cases where it's in all our best interests to relinquish local NIMBYesque control, in favor of top-down eminent-domain use of land for serving the needs of the country as a whole.

Re: San Francisco library turning off WiFi at night to keep homeless from using it

#32

Post by droopyEyelids »

notaustinpowers wrote: post #12

Every day I start to believe more and more that people won't stop with homelessness until every homeless person is dead. "Emergency housing is a drain on taxpayer dollars." "Job placement is taking jobs away from locals." "Soup kitchens are another drain on taxpayer money." "Homeless services are a waste of money." It makes me sick how people can act when it comes to the homeless population when so many of us are jus…

Part of the problem is the overloaded definition of the term 'homeless'

Look at all the different things it covers:

1. Chronic homelessness: This refers to individuals who have experienced homelessness for long periods or repeatedly over time. They often struggle with complex issues such as mental health problems, substance abuse, or disabilities, which make it difficult for them to maintain stable housing.

2. Episodic homelessness: Individuals experiencing episodic homelessness go through multiple episodes of homelessness throughout their lives. They may face challenges like unstable employment, lack of affordable housing, or inadequate social support systems.

3. Transitional homelessness: This type of homelessness is temporary and occurs when an individual or family faces a crisis or life transition, such as job loss, eviction, or escaping domestic violence. With proper support, people in this category can usually regain stable housing.

4. Hidden homelessness: Hidden homelessness refers to individuals who do not have a permanent residence but are not visibly homeless. They may be temporarily staying with friends or family, living in overcrowded conditions, or residing in places not meant for habitation, such as cars or abandoned buildings.

5. Youth homelessness: Young people who have left or been forced out of their homes, often due to family conflict, abuse, or neglect, experience youth homelessness. They may face unique challenges such as lack of life skills, education, or employment opportunities.

I think the fact that there are habitually antisocial people in the first category (chronic homeless) sours the voting populace against the whole idea of 'homelessness' because there isn't enough distinction in the term. And that is a shame because while the chronic homeless may be the most visible and difficult to address, the majority of homeless people fall into the other categories, and they (and we!) reap huge benefits from social programs.

Re: San Francisco library turning off WiFi at night to keep homeless from using it

#33

Post by ng12 »

AnotherGoodName wrote: post #20
notaustinpowers wrote: post #12

Every day I start to believe more and more that people won't stop with homelessness until every homeless person is dead. "Emergency housing is a drain on taxpayer dollars." "Job placement is taking jobs away from locals." "Soup kitchens are another drain on taxpayer money." "Homeless services are a waste of money." It makes me sick how people can act when it comes to the homeless population when so many of us are jus…

They'll complain about lack of workers while doing this too. Put people into a hopeless unemployable situation and don't allow them a way out and meanwhile complain that no one wants to work. We could fix the one of the biggest economic issues right now by enacting a program to get people back on their feet but apparently the real solution is for them to die.

A very large chunk of homeless people are either:

1. Employed but unable to afford the COL of the area.

2. Too mentally unwell to hold down a job, possibly due to a history of hard drug addiction.

I agree that some homeless people can be meaningfully helped through drug addiction treatment and/or employment programs, but it won't solve the whole problem.

Re: San Francisco library turning off WiFi at night to keep homeless from using it

#34

Post by bombcar »

renewiltord wrote: post #23

The funny thing is that Chris Sacca was going to get SF city-wide WiFi, but the supervisors stopped him because they're razor focused on what matters for them: their career. It makes sense that local residents would do this. Internet Access is to us humans like light to a moth. But we could have been moths that were forever lit.

That's the real solution to something like this - blanket the whole city so there's no reason to congregate near the library.

Or explicitly put up free wi-fi where you want the homeless to congregate.

Re: San Francisco library turning off WiFi at night to keep homeless from using it

#35

Post by warent »

aeternum wrote: post #17
warent wrote: post #7

This is such a lazy approach to social issues. Being poor and homeless is so hard. The system is built with countless chicken-egg problems that make it almost impossible to climb out of poverty. On top of this, elitists who are so disconnected are arbitrarily enforcing this kind of amoral depraved nonsense. Should we just keep stripping the needy of more and more resources until eventually maybe they'll just disappea…

The city is just so inept. It is such a nonsensical policy to allow encampments but lock the bathrooms and turn off the internet. The city policies force them to defecate in the street/bushes and god forbid they use the internet to search for potential employment or other services.

Meanwhile people say "But the homeless people will just use public wifi for porn!"

Like... okay, and what are you using your wifi for?

Regardless, removing this would just make them more stressed and irratic. There are worse things than legal porn on public wifi. If this tradeoff means 1% of them feel relaxed enough to actually do a job search afterward, and get motivated to get money for a more comfortable, more private place, then it's worth it.

But this is all a red-herring and not the real issue.

The lack of a panacea--a silver bullet solution to homelessness--does not mean all our resources are just a suboptimal waste. These incremental improvements are worthwhile when the cost tradeoff is so tiny (e.g. an internet modem with a properly configured firewall basically runs itself)

Re: San Francisco library turning off WiFi at night to keep homeless from using it

#36

Post by Sparkyte »

The problem is that we decriminalized drug use. We have a heavily funded homeless system now and it works great but there is one little itsy bitsy problem... drug users and mental health folk.

Rather than change the criminalization model, decriminalized drugs makes it more accessible than ever. Makes it so much harder to treat. What should happen is that we change our criminalization model to come health and safety first. Treat the crime almost as a juvenile offense, keep it as a different record non-impactful. The lack of broadening our criminalization system is the problem.

For those with mental health you obviously can not criminalize this. You would want to move toward a home where people live and manage together.

Standard and normal homeless would then get exactly what is needed. Treating every problem as if it was the same is how we wound up with so many people on the streets. Every problem needs a human solution and not a one fits all category.

Re: San Francisco library turning off WiFi at night to keep homeless from using it

#37

Post by droopyEyelids »

criddell wrote: post #21
joenot443 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In NYC the DHS intakes and beds 60,000 homeless people _every single night_. To say that there aren't solutions in place is incorrect. At least in NYC, the folks you see sleeping on sidewalks have broadly chosen that position over a bed in a shelter. It's a point of pride for many New Yorkers that if you're homeless and willing to get clean, the city will provide a bed for you every night. https://www.nyc.gov/assets/…

Are there similar services for people who won't or can't get clean?

There are very few shelters that take people who are actively using drugs. That's partially because drug use among the homeless is a proxy for antisocial behavior. It's definitely not a perfect metric, but it's the best that people providing care have to keep their operations running.

Re: San Francisco library turning off WiFi at night to keep homeless from using it

#38

Post by Hermitian909 »

notaustinpowers wrote: post #12

Every day I start to believe more and more that people won't stop with homelessness until every homeless person is dead. "Emergency housing is a drain on taxpayer dollars." "Job placement is taking jobs away from locals." "Soup kitchens are another drain on taxpayer money." "Homeless services are a waste of money." It makes me sick how people can act when it comes to the homeless population when so many of us are jus…

As someone who volunteers with the homeless a lot I mostly agree, but I will take the other side for a moment:

It's very hard to a voter base who feel financially squeezed that their taxes should be going to people who, usually, are not holding down a job. They're "doing everything right" and feel the government is robbing Peter to pay Paul as it were.

There are a lot of sophisticated answers we can give as to why the above line of reasoning is wrong (multiple analyses show that, basically, if you're unwilling to literally murder people for being homeless it's cheaper to help them) but it's a hard sell.

Re: San Francisco library turning off WiFi at night to keep homeless from using it

#39

Post by generalizations »

derefr wrote: post #31
notaustinpowers wrote: post #12

Every day I start to believe more and more that people won't stop with homelessness until every homeless person is dead. "Emergency housing is a drain on taxpayer dollars." "Job placement is taking jobs away from locals." "Soup kitchens are another drain on taxpayer money." "Homeless services are a waste of money." It makes me sick how people can act when it comes to the homeless population when so many of us are jus…

The problem is that unlike people with homes (who are generally stuck in one place — wherever their home is), homeless people have nothing holding them to places inhospitable to their presence. So the homeless diffuse around countries, drifting from place to place, until they settle in an "attractor" city — a local optimum for homeless hospitable-ness (with more social-welfare programs for them; less police suppressi…

All you do then is turn the entire country into an "attractor country" - faced with the 'homeless problem' of the rest of the world. Which is, ironically, one of the issues raised against open borders.

Re: San Francisco library turning off WiFi at night to keep homeless from using it

#40

Post by abeppu »

nubb wrote: post #25

everyone acting so shocked here probably hasn’t had your home robbed, your car windows broken, or been assaulted and/or robbed by a drugged out bum. at some point enough is enough and they gotta go. i think it’s a juvenile attitude to look down your nose at the endless victims and tell them to just be more understanding of the hardships the homeless face.

This doesn't get anyone off the street, it just nudges them away from this specific building. What's juvenile is people trying to displace the problem into just slightly different part of the same neighborhood and imagining that it's accomplished anything.
Post reply on HN