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

91–100 of 184 posts

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#91

Post by soco »

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?

I'm surprised how a certain part of this site's audience have no problem in proposing the use of force in guiding people's lives, and then at the same time claim it is in the name of "liberty". In this particular case I'm sure they would see no problem in killing that dog (and call it euthanasia or some other fancy name) and please don't let me go on the obvious slippery slope from there.

(EDIT: 5 minutes after and the killing was advocated. I rest my case.)

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#92

Post by kevingadd »

pixelatedindex wrote: post #77
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 su…

The lack of a robust asylum system is a huge part of the problem here, at least if you ask anyone in law enforcement. Not all homeless people are mentally ill - I would argue that most aren't - but the chronically homeless and "troublesome" homeless that people complain about are often struggling with untreated issues and there is quite literally nowhere for them to go and nowhere to send them. They won't get treatment in jail, they won't get treatment in shelters, and the emergency room will stabilize them and discharge them (with a medical bill to be paid by the taxpayer).

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#93

Post by archagon »

evancox100 wrote: post #79
vidanay wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is fucked up.

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#94

Post by evancox100 »

kevingadd wrote: post #74
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…

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 traumatize…

I think what’s incredibly cruel is blocking people from building additional housing on their own private land that could help affordably house people at ZERO cost to the state.

> 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.

Im sorry but pets die, it’s a part of life. It can be traumatic no matter what the circumstances. But so is living unhoused on the street, I’d imagine.

And this is exactly the attitude I mean. You, a well intentioned liberal, like to think that we can regulate society and enforce laws without causing any trauma to anyone involved.

Sometimes you have to take away a pet from a family in the name of the greater good for society as a whole, for instance if that pet is a danger to others.

And I did not say that forcing people into shelters will fix everything. There are a lot of other problems including drug addiction and mental illness. It’s incredibly sad how far we’ve allowed the situation to degrade, and the climb out of here will be difficult.

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#95

Post by dontmobile »

evancox100 wrote: post #71
dontmobile wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

Agreed. Though the 20 story apartment building is something I don't see happening tbh. The momentum is definitely here but I don't see it reaching that ideal. As with the highspeed rail it will likely hit some sort of deadlock compromise.

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#96

Post by NovemberWhiskey »

evancox100 wrote: post #32
slifin wrote: post #5

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

One of the problems is that homelessness is a flow problem, not a stock one. If there are X homeless people in a year, then next year something like 50% * X will be newly homeless. So you could house everybody currently homeless, but you’d be back to square one shortly. Nevertheless, the current strategy does not seem particularly effective.

Right - transient homelessness caused by unexpected and temporary loss of a living situation is the most common form. A large proportion of people in homeless shelters are employed, and will quickly leave the shelter.

i.e. there's a big difference in sensible remedy for a family that's in a shelter for a few nights after fleeing domestic abuse vs. chronically unsheltered, mentally ill

Most of the negative interactions people have are with the unsheltered (i.e. someone street sleeping) rather than the homeless, and it is often unclear even how cities would/should spend money to address those people - that's what Mayor Breed is really complaining about.

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#97

Post by bloopernova »

tech_ken wrote: post #57

This article makes a number of statements which run counter to empirical research I've seen on this topic, and doesn't cite anything to support these claims. My understanding is that the majority of CA homeless are in fact from CA, and few people are "professional vagrants". Some Ezra Klein episode I listened to last week brought up a number of highly detailed surveys from which I'm drawing these conclusions. I see l…

It's truthiness. It sounds right to the biases that people hold dear. No one wants to think "there but for the grace of whatever, go I."

A part of American capitalism uses people up and spits them out when they stumble and fall. Broken bodies and broken minds look for some sort of balm to try to numb the pain. It's just that many people don't realize that they do it too, with addictions to alcohol, games, social media, pornography, or hatred.

We're blindly rushing headlong into a massive crisis of environment, society, government, and people. Homelessness, mass murder, harmful drug use, and fascism are all symptoms of this and no one wants to think about it.

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#98

Post by anononaut »

goodpoint wrote: post #80
nemo44x wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people that earn it. Cut taxes and put that money back in the people’s hands.

Yay for even higher inequality!

A serfdom supported by taxation (theft) isn't exactly the definition of equality. We should be aiming for individual liberty. Equality is a false god.

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#99

Post by scarmig »

soco wrote: post #91
vidanay wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm surprised how a certain part of this site's audience have no problem in proposing the use of force in guiding people's lives, and then at the same time claim it is in the name of "liberty". In this particular case I'm sure they would see no problem in killing that dog (and call it euthanasia or some other fancy name) and please don't let me go on the obvious slippery slope from there. (EDIT: 5 minutes after and t…

Out of curiosity, are you vegetarian? Is it simply that meat animals don't matter while pet animals do?

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#100

Post by tomjen3 »

It doesn't make sense to have shelters in SF. It is the most expensive (or close to it) real estate in the US. You can get the homeless a private room in some places for the cost of a single shelter.

Now if someone has a job, you can't move them, that much is clear, but if you move out the rest, you will have more shelter space for the rest.

And while you are at it, nobody wants to be in an unsafe or unclean shelter - a shelter is not an appropriate place for a mentally ill person, who is not properly medicated.

Of course none of this matters, because nobody is listening to a bunch of people on a messaging board, even though we are smarter than they are.

Post reply on HN