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

Wealthy San Francisco tech investors bankroll bid to ban homeless camps

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 153 posts

Re: Wealthy San Francisco tech investors bankroll bid to ban homeless camps

#11

Post by JoeAltmaier »

mattnewton wrote: post #9
forthefuture wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “I strongly believe that it is not compassionate to allow human beings to live on our city streets,” wrote the measure’s author, supervisor Mark Farrell, in an op-ed. “Let’s help get the homeless into housing, not tents.” I guess this would be the other side.

I think these guys are smart enough to know that people aren't setting up tents despite alternatives. How can it be compassion if what this article says is true; that the measure apparently provides no other kind of relief for them, just criminalizes their existence?

The good people of my town do this all the time. They campaign to close trailer parks or tear down low-income housing. The excuse is always "nobody should live like that".

But never do they create alternatives. Giving one the cynical feeling that its really all about rich people protecting their property values.

Re: Wealthy San Francisco tech investors bankroll bid to ban homeless camps

#12

Post by xg15 »

forthefuture wrote: post #3
mattnewton wrote: post #2

This looks really bad. Any chance anyone has another side to the story?

> “I strongly believe that it is not compassionate to allow human beings to live on our city streets,” wrote the measure’s author, supervisor Mark Farrell, in an op-ed. “Let’s help get the homeless into housing, not tents.” I guess this would be the other side.

No one can disagree with that statement. But from the article, this seems to be a typical "ban status quo, promise something better" bill where 90% of the proposal is mysteriously only concerned with the "ban status quo" part:

"Opponents of the measure point out that the proposed law does not include any funding for additional housing or shelters, and the city’s existing shelters have long waiting lists for beds."

Re: Wealthy San Francisco tech investors bankroll bid to ban homeless camps

#13

Post by swiftisthebest »

mattnewton wrote: post #9
forthefuture wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “I strongly believe that it is not compassionate to allow human beings to live on our city streets,” wrote the measure’s author, supervisor Mark Farrell, in an op-ed. “Let’s help get the homeless into housing, not tents.” I guess this would be the other side.

I think these guys are smart enough to know that people aren't setting up tents despite alternatives. How can it be compassion if what this article says is true; that the measure apparently provides no other kind of relief for them, just criminalizes their existence?

They'll go somewhere.

Re: Wealthy San Francisco tech investors bankroll bid to ban homeless camps

#14

Post by venomsnake »

forthefuture wrote: post #3
mattnewton wrote: post #2

This looks really bad. Any chance anyone has another side to the story?

> “I strongly believe that it is not compassionate to allow human beings to live on our city streets,” wrote the measure’s author, supervisor Mark Farrell, in an op-ed. “Let’s help get the homeless into housing, not tents.” I guess this would be the other side.

Unless those houses are already built ... that is pure uncut bullshit.

But with current rents in SF any permanent residence for a homeless will be seen as the city paying him 1000$ monthly. So giving homeless people housing is no starter.

Re: Wealthy San Francisco tech investors bankroll bid to ban homeless camps

#15

Post by aliston »

inetsee wrote: post #5
forthefuture wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “I strongly believe that it is not compassionate to allow human beings to live on our city streets,” wrote the measure’s author, supervisor Mark Farrell, in an op-ed. “Let’s help get the homeless into housing, not tents.” I guess this would be the other side.

However, the article also points out that the measure doesn't provide any additional funding to pay for the housing that would be needed.

San Francisco spends roughly 35k/year per homeless person. Funding is not the issue. There are all sorts of issues around mental health, drugs, tolerance in certain neighborhoods, political corruption, inefficiencies in government etc. that contribute to the situation we have today. I guarantee you, though, that if a bunch of homeless people started camping out in Pac Heights, the issue would get "resolved" pretty quickly.

Re: Wealthy San Francisco tech investors bankroll bid to ban homeless camps

#16

Post by voidingw »

xg15 wrote: post #12
forthefuture wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “I strongly believe that it is not compassionate to allow human beings to live on our city streets,” wrote the measure’s author, supervisor Mark Farrell, in an op-ed. “Let’s help get the homeless into housing, not tents.” I guess this would be the other side.

No one can disagree with that statement. But from the article, this seems to be a typical "ban status quo, promise something better" bill where 90% of the proposal is mysteriously only concerned with the "ban status quo" part: "Opponents of the measure point out that the proposed law does not include any funding for additional housing or shelters, and the city’s existing shelters have long waiting lists for beds."

I agree, tents don't preclude housing. Let's help the homeless get into housing, but let's not force them out of tents.

Re: Wealthy San Francisco tech investors bankroll bid to ban homeless camps

#17

Post by kldaace »

Two big problems with just moving people into shelters:

1. Homeless shelters are horribly funded and have long waiting lists for beds. This proposal provides no additional funding. My guess is most people will be forced to take the bus ticket option.

2. Shelter beds themselves are poorly maintained, unsanitary, and often have bed bugs. It sounds counter-intuitive but a lot of homeless people are _choosing_ the streets over homeless shelters.

To be honest, I think the people bankrolling this bid know that moving people into shelters is unfeasible, and they're cynically hoping to just bus the homeless out of San Francisco.

Re: Wealthy San Francisco tech investors bankroll bid to ban homeless camps

#18

Post by LesZedCB »

Meanwhile, unused homes outnumber the homeless 6-1 [1], and in Detroit, they bulldoze unused homes because it is more profitable to destroy and rebuild homes that are palatable for 'civilized' people than to let people live in them.[2]

[1] http://www.mintpressnews.com/empty-homes-outnumber-the-homel...

[2] http://www.businessinsider.com/the-mayor-of-detroits-radical...

Re: Wealthy San Francisco tech investors bankroll bid to ban homeless camps

#19

Post by andlarry »

CPLX wrote: post #4

To an outsider, San Fransisco's policy towards the homeless seems literally insane. Despite the negative frame of the headline, is this obviously a bad idea? It does mention requiring that people be offered a shelter bed.Or if this is a horrible/insensitive/bad idea as stated, what's the smart, thoughtful, and progressive way to change the status quo?

San Francisco spends $241 million[0] of it's $8.9 billion budget[1] on programs to help the homeless and to help folks avoid becoming homeless (through housing assistance, etc). The 2015 count of homeless people in San Francisco is 7,539[2].

This measure doesn't increase spending on the homeless issue but, honestly, the San Francisco govt has shown the ability to absorb funding increases without noticeable impact in services. This is especially true of homeless services.

My impression is that this measure is born of frustration with the governmental inaction on the homeless problem in SF.

[0] http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record... [1] http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-budget-increase-aim... [2] http://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/default/files/2015%20San%20Franc...

Post reply on HN