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

A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 375 posts

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#11

Post by emodendroket »

mc32 wrote: post #6
DoreenMichele wrote: post #3

("in San Francisco") From 2005 to 2020 the estimated number of unsheltered homeless people nearly doubled, even as homelessness declined nationwide. One possible explanation: California has become the dumping ground for the nation's homeless population. We have a nationwide shortage of housing. Both in person and online, I continue to hear homeless people plan to move someplace relatively warm and dry while stuck on…

>One possible explanation: California has become the dumping ground for the nation's homeless population. >I think the nation as a whole needs substantially more affordable housing. And San Francisco will never be a place with affordable housing. Modesto, ok. Manteca, ok. Not SF. No one ever thinks, I'm homeless, lemme go to SF and see if I can find something there. It's political. Otherwise you'd see more homeless i…

Isn't San Francisco also much more expensive? It stands to reason that the number of people no longer able to afford their rents would contribute to the problem.

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#12

Post by TedShiller »

I have some bad news for "housing advocates": More housing will never be the solution to the homeless problem. You want to see a lot of drug users and homeless people? You'll find them in areas of dense housing.

Secondly, there is no "housing shortage". You're just looking in the wrong place. That's like saying there is a shortage of air in outer space.

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#13

Post by mrandish »

bryan0 wrote: post #7

Since I moved out of SF I’ve wondered if there will ever be some public epiphany that with their well-intentioned policies they’ve reinforced what they most wanted to destroy: a society of the haves and have-nots.

> with their well-intentioned policies they’ve reinforced what they most wanted to destroy: a society of the haves and have-nots.

As a newly-former SF resident and worker, what I witnessed over the past decade confirms your sad summary. The unintended consequences of misguided yet well-intentioned political policies.

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#14

Post by whimsicalism »

bryan0 wrote: post #7

Since I moved out of SF I’ve wondered if there will ever be some public epiphany that with their well-intentioned policies they’ve reinforced what they most wanted to destroy: a society of the haves and have-nots.

Much better when the have-nots are out of sight

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#15

Post by bsder »

mc32 wrote: post #6
DoreenMichele wrote: post #3

("in San Francisco") From 2005 to 2020 the estimated number of unsheltered homeless people nearly doubled, even as homelessness declined nationwide. One possible explanation: California has become the dumping ground for the nation's homeless population. We have a nationwide shortage of housing. Both in person and online, I continue to hear homeless people plan to move someplace relatively warm and dry while stuck on…

>One possible explanation: California has become the dumping ground for the nation's homeless population. >I think the nation as a whole needs substantially more affordable housing. And San Francisco will never be a place with affordable housing. Modesto, ok. Manteca, ok. Not SF. No one ever thinks, I'm homeless, lemme go to SF and see if I can find something there. It's political. Otherwise you'd see more homeless i…

San Diego does have quite a lot of homeless, but it isn't as concentrated geographically.

I'd argue that part of the issue with San Francisco is the concentration of the homeless into a small area. You don't see homeless in Atherton, for example. The wealthy enclaves in the Bay Area have zero problem with pushing the homeless out of their areas into somewhere else. In the Bay Area, there aren't that many "somewhere else" left so the ones that remain get overloaded.

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#16

Post by Tiktaalik »

> He blames San Francisco’s woes on a culture of permissive lawlessness and a mistaken view of what constitutes moral policymaking.

A frequent critique of those that want to solve the homeless problem by sending in the police to crack heads and send everyone to prison. The main goal here of course being to ensure that the homeless "go away" somewhere out of view.

In reality most of the "crimes" that people are wringing their hands about are things like petty theft, drug use (a medical issue) and loitering which are so incredibly and hilariously minor that any judge will laugh in your face at the notion of sending one to prison for such abuses as this would obviously be a cruel and unusual punishment and not at all reasonable. The legal system will never send such offenders to prison.

It never occurs to those venturing mass imprisonment of the homeless that um, simply building housing for the homeless is a dramatically more affordable solution.

Therein lies the answer to the posed question:

> How can a place brimming with resources and good intentions fail so flagrantly to meet the basic needs of the population?

Despite our incredible wealth we simply do not provide in any way reasonable incomes and housing for those that are (for many reasons) unable to work, and so of course the problem festers. Why would we expect any change to magically happen?

In my home town of Vancouver BC, which has very similar chronic homelessness problems as SF, our minimum income assistance is $935 a month. Of this sum, the shelter allowance is $375. There is of course virtually nowhere in Vancouver where one can rent anything for $375 a month, thus ensuring systemic, state sponsored homelessness, poverty and misery and people camping outside in parks.

Why is there such poverty and homelessness? Well with $375 a month for housing good grief why wouldn't there be?

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#17

Post by alanlammiman »

invalidname wrote: post #9

This is mostly a BS article that picks up a few facts to come to a conclusion while ignoring other facts like the gentrification of a very small area that triggers a lot of those problems. San Francisco has a lot of problems but it seems the article was written with the conclusion then went out hunting for facts to match that conclusion.

it's not an article. It's a book review.

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#18

Post by systemvoltage »

azinman2 wrote: post #5
andbberger wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[citation needed]

https://hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/FINAL-PIT-R... is full of a lot of good data.

The data does not support GP's assertion:

70% from San Francisco

22% from rest of California

8% from out of state

Also, the data disagrees with the general sentiment of "Mental Health" issues amongst Homeless people. Only 5% were homeless because of mental health problems. Most of them, almost a quarter are homeless because they lost their job.

Basically, many things in this report goes against the general opinion of people of the Bay Area. Misinformed public leads to misinformed decision making and policies.

Responding to GP:

> I don't think the mess in San Francisco is entirely due to local policies. I think the nation as a whole needs substantially more affordable housing.

This is wrong. It is precisely due to the policies of SF city. The sooner people realize and accept the faults of San Francisco city's governance, the better it will be for the city. Same lessons can be applied to Portland (used to be ranked 3rd in the nation according to Oregonian, now it is ranked a whopping 66th out of 80), Seattle, and Los Angeles.

To OP - thank you for the link, it's illuminating.

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#19

Post by jdavis703 »

TedShiller wrote: post #12

I have some bad news for "housing advocates": More housing will never be the solution to the homeless problem. You want to see a lot of drug users and homeless people? You'll find them in areas of dense housing. Secondly, there is no "housing shortage". You're just looking in the wrong place. That's like saying there is a shortage of air in outer space.

> You'll find them in areas of dense housing.

Correlation is not causation. Perhaps homelessness is discouraged in low-density areas. Try putting up a tent up in front of nice homes in a single family neighborhood and the cops will quickly tell the camper to move on. But setting up camp under a downtown highway? One can probably last at least a few weeks before public works sweeps out the camp.

Post reply on HN