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

Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 184 posts

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#71

Post by evancox100 »

dontmobile wrote: post #46
evancox100 wrote: post #20

What I don’t understand is that if making it illegal to build whatever living structure you want on public land is “cruel and unusual punishment”, why is it still illegal to build the living structure of your choice on private land that you own? Isn’t such a law even more restrictive? How have we willingly ceded so much authority to bureaucratic busybodys who have nothing better to do than micromanage the size, shape…

Deregulation has been getting introduced. ADUs have been approved and you can now do something called SB9 which if deployed to the maximum extent allows you to take a single property split it into two parcels and build two duplexes on each parcel. That 4xs the amount of dwelling spaces per property in theory. But of course the capital and will for a Californian who owns property to go through with it is a different s…

CA’s deregulatory moves have been great steps in the right direction, and progress is usually incremental. But realistically the whole Bay Area should be at “if you want to build a 10 or 20 story apartment building on your own land, go for it.”

Allowing duplexes on smaller lots is great, but doesn’t go far enough. I actually think the momentum is in CA’s favor and they will be in a better position than, for instance, TX in 10-20 years, as it relates to housing affordability.

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#72

Post by goodpoint »

kevingadd wrote: post #48
nostromo wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You missed the most common reason: * Drugs and alcohol are not allowed

Even if this is the most common reason, unless "most common" means 99%, there are still a bunch of people who can't take advantage of shelters through no fault of their own.

Just like most people are homeless through no fault of their own.

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#73

Post by fieldcny »

xvector wrote: post #4

Man, I did not sign up to subsidize the homeless of the entire western US, and neither did my fellow Californians. We definitely need to reduce the social programs and put that $20bn somewhere else. No matter how you slice it, $609,000/yr per homeless person is simply absurd.

You did and do by living there

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#74

Post by kevingadd »

evancox100 wrote: post #54
tedivm wrote: post #30

I think it's important to note a couple of things. > The city of San Francisco released data last week showing that 55% of homeless individuals rejected shelter when offered it I think it's very important to understand why people turn down the beds. There are several reasons- * Shelters have very restricted hours, so if someone has a job that includes nights they likely can't use a shelter. A large number of homeless…

I think well meaning liberals want to believe that all of society’s problems can be solved without any form of coercion, and that is simply not the case. If someone is homeless and has a dog, and there is a shelter bed for them, you may just need to force them to give up their dog and move to the shelter (or else face arrest). There are overriding concerns greater than letting people keep their pets. I recognize the…

While objectively correct, the policy you describe is incredibly cruel. People often end up homeless through no fault of their own, and more importantly, temporarily homeless. Should someone lose all their pets just because they end up homeless for a couple days or a week? Do we want to fill the animal shelters up even further and send more animals off to be euthanized?

Imagine being a young child, already traumatized by ending up homeless, and now the pet you've been growing up with gets dragged off by the authorities to be executed.

It's absolutely the case that difficult problems can require the state to exert force to solve them, but I'm also just not convinced that forcing people into shelters is going to fix everything. Especially in this case where we know the area does not have enough beds for everyone, and the constraints enforced to get a bed are onerous (throw out your belongings, get rid of your pets, etc)

Some of the people who reject housing also cannot realistically be in a shelter because they will just cause trouble for everyone else if you force them to go. My brother used to work in law enforcement and this was an issue with the most troublesome homeless people in the area - as a law enforcement officer he really didn't have any workable tools. If you take them to a shelter they'll get kicked out because they're troubled, and if you take them to jail their condition will not improve (only deteriorate) and then they end up back on the street again once they're discharged.

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#75

Post by colechristensen »

slifin wrote: post #5

600k per year per person? With that amount of funding you may as well buy every homeless person a house

There are places where you could buy folks many houses for 600k.

What you need are a sort of anti-vagrancy law where the "punishment" is confinement in a very minimal security home where your basic needs are met, folks are nice and caring to you, and you're gently compelled to take whatever steps you need to put your life back together. Some people will stay indefinitely, be allowed to, and choose to.

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#76

Post by dragonwriter »

pastor_bob wrote: post #29

> Mayor London Breed threw her hands up in response. “We can’t force people to accept or stay in shelters and we’re unable to prevent people from setting up an encampment in an area that was just cleaned. This is the situation we are in,” she tweeted Wednesday. > She’s right. San Francisco is under a federal injunction that bars officials from enforcing laws against camping or sleeping in public spaces as long as its…

Well, maybe they need to deal with the problems of (1) why people are afraid of shelters, and/or, even more importantly, (2) people not having homes, rather than whining that they can’t force people into terrible shelters or force them into jails for trying to survive outside of terrible shelters.

But, even so:

> Even after southern states have sent 100,000 penniless migrants to NYC, they still are able to find beds for people.

NYC is ~10 times the size of SF.

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#77

Post by pixelatedindex »

xvector wrote: post #4

Man, I did not sign up to subsidize the homeless of the entire western US, and neither did my fellow Californians. We definitely need to reduce the social programs and put that $20bn somewhere else. No matter how you slice it, $609,000/yr per homeless person is simply absurd.

It’s a result of voting for Reagan and his dismantling of any support for asylums. Sure, it was cruel but the voters decided to throw the baby with the bath water instead of any kind of nuance.

Additionally, the NIMBY crowd goes against building anything, even with the new “builders remedy” in place. With a majority of homeless being from CA, this has affected everyone - homeowners can’t sell and “upgrade” because supply is too low, which doesn’t help mobility in the lower classes.

The other issue is the toothless law enforcement when it comes to actual crime. That I hope will change when residents of SF get tired of the shenanigans.

I’m against reducing social programs. We need it, especially if the income inequality gap keeps getting wider. We just need to be smarter about how we spend it.

It’s also important to remember that WSJ, and particularly their opinion pieces, are very much a right-wing mouthpiece and loves to dunk on SF and the “poors”.

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#79

Post by evancox100 »

vidanay wrote: post #63
evancox100 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think well meaning liberals want to believe that all of society’s problems can be solved without any form of coercion, and that is simply not the case. If someone is homeless and has a dog, and there is a shelter bed for them, you may just need to force them to give up their dog and move to the shelter (or else face arrest). There are overriding concerns greater than letting people keep their pets. I recognize the…

And what, exactly, is your plan for the animal after you forcible make the person give them up?

You may have to euthanize that animal if no one wants to adopt it.

Sorry, but there are worse things in the world than putting down animals.

And don’t even try to come at me if you eat meat! Every one of us who eats factory farmed meat (y.t. included) is participating in far worse atrocities than a shelter humanely euthanizing a relative handful of dogs.

Post reply on HN