Live data from Hacker News

Wealthy San Francisco tech investors bankroll bid to ban homeless camps

theguardian.com

101–110 of 153 posts

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

#101
post #5

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.

I expect the property owners in the vicinity of any such proposed homeless shelter/housing would block its construction.

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

#102
post #76
post #39

Why do homeless people camp on sidewalks? Because it works. The question becomes, "works for what?" The proposition appears to mean to make camping "not work," by imposing risk and cost on campers. It's responding to a symptom, but it's like treating cancer with crutches. What does the street provide an alley or park doesn't? I've said before, the perceived security from non-underclass people walking by. Police prote…

... without any sense of responsibility ... ones who take advantage ... people who don't learn to get along ... All this sounds like you're blaming the homeless. Your last paragraph suggests that you have solutions to the problem. What are they?

Call me crazy, but I think it's pretty obvious that the only solution to homelessness is homes.

Of course that's the compassionate solution, but compassion holds little weight in the libertarian idealist sociopathy of Silicon Valley. But even from a cost perspective housing is the only solution.

You can make homelessness illegal, but then you're just housing the homeless in prisons. If you're going to house people anyway, there are cheaper ways to do it than with a prison.

You can bus the homeless somewhere else, but there's a long history of other places bussing people back to SF. Given the homeless want to be in SF because of climate, opportunities, etc., the average is that they're more likely to end up there.

Unless there's something else I haven't thought of, that really only leaves housing.

Existing programs are intended to get people into a position where they can obtain housing, but these de facto don't work very well, because they attempt to get them other things before housing. Housing before a job works better than a job before housing. Housing before addiction treatment works better than addiction treatment before housing. None of the existing solutions are sustainable as long as the person isn't housed. It's unrealistic to expect someone to hold down a job or kick their addiction while living on the streets. Without housing, no auxiliary solution is sustainable.

So not only is the only solution to homelessness housing, but it's housing first.

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

#103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Oh yeah - what if there is a homeless colony right next to your current house? Would you say the same thing then? So, there is actually one near me. Not next to my house, but near me: http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/04/01/shantytown-in-hoboken... Weird, right? This is in Hoboken...extremely (bay-area-levels) rich area. SF median household income: $65,519.00 Hoboken: $105,710 (population difference between Hoboken…

I live in a similar situation in Brooklyn, in an area ripe for shantytown-living. The commenters who are disgusted at the lack of compassion, while on the morally-correct side of the equation, fail to consider the practical aspects of streets saturated with homeless people. It's at best 'tolerable', often 'kinda scary' and very often 'downright dangerous'[1]. Seeing this every morning and every night, in a walking ci…

The answer is engagement. Vancouver's safe injection site has an amazing record of 1) reducing the transmission of expensive diseases like HIV and Hep, 2) reducing crime (the Vancouver police are 100% behind the site), and getting users into rehab and having them be clean a year later. Basically, it's a public policy win all around--it more than pays for itself in reduced health care and police spending.

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

#104

CTRL+F "Minimum wage" yields no results in either the OP, or the comments. That tells me that SF is going to have a homelessness problem for loooong time. CA has told everyone that they CANNOT work if their time is not worth at least $21/hour. $15 for minimum wage, and ~$7 for taxes on the business to provide that employment. Of course you are going to have these problems. Downvote me if you like. But you cannot igno…

I didn't see a need for the downvotes. But you're definitely conflating two very different issues.

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

#105
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From your [0] link. "Eight city departments oversee at least 400 contracts to 76 private organizations" That says a lot about how spending $31,967.10 for every homeless person can amount to, well, no one seems to know. I'm curious what happened in New Orleans and the other places referenced that have seen success helping their homeless populations. Knowing even a little bit about systems, layering more complexity (an…

Yeah, and those private organizations (mostly non-profits) are very effective at lobbying, so it's hard to terminate contracts to consolidate services. One thing to clarify is that, because some (~$60 Million in 2015 [3]) goes to housing assistance. The people helped by the budget includes more than 7,539 represented by the point in time count, so the $31K/person number is a bit high. That said, SF spends a lot of mo…

That's a good clarification on the number of people the funds are going to help. Thanks.

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

#106
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Funding is not the issue. There are all sorts of issues around mental health, drugs, tolerance in certain neighborhoods, political corruption, inefficiencies in government Ho-hum. People become homeless because they don't have money. I've worked alongside more than one tech who has been homeless at some period in their lives. Some slept in their cars, some slept on park benches. Jim Carrey talks about how he was ho…

Long term homelessness is generally not just a result of lack of money. Healthy individuals can usually get out of homelessness with a bit of help. People suffering from severe mental illness or severe substance abuse have a much more difficult time escaping homelessness because they often have no support network and no way to rebuild one, and they have difficulty retaining any sort of employment.

... and the police are their de facto social workers / case workers.

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

#108

This article addresses a lot of the myths of homelessness which get repeated in any discussion about SF homeless (with supporting citation). http://48hills.org/2016/02/16/five-myths-about-the-homeless-... Key point in my mind when it comes to talking about these tent cities, is that most of SF's homeless -- over 70% -- were living in San Francisco at the time they became homeless. And as much as 50% of the homeless h…

The increased cost of housing makes dealing with the problem more difficult (expensive). But just because someone used to live in SF doesn't mean the reason they became homeless was the price of housing. The report shows that over 10 years, the homeless population has only increased by 468 people, which does show any strong correlation to the huge increase in the price of housing over that period. High prices have made the problem marginally worse, but the major underlying problems are the same as 10 years ago: drug abuse, mental illness, disability. It is pretty obvious walking around SF that the problem isn't just that rents are too high. These are people who need other kinds of help, and housing pricing talk distracts from the more difficult issues to deal with.

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

#109

This article addresses a lot of the myths of homelessness which get repeated in any discussion about SF homeless (with supporting citation). http://48hills.org/2016/02/16/five-myths-about-the-homeless-... Key point in my mind when it comes to talking about these tent cities, is that most of SF's homeless -- over 70% -- were living in San Francisco at the time they became homeless. And as much as 50% of the homeless h…

The increased cost of housing makes dealing with the problem more difficult (expensive). But just because someone used to live in SF doesn't mean the reason they became homeless was the price of housing. The report shows that over 10 years, the homeless population has only increased by 468 people, which does show any strong correlation to the huge increase in the price of housing over that period. High prices have ma…

The price of housing not only affects incentives for landlords to evict; it affects it affects the cost of shelters and temporary housing; it affects the cost of running clinics and social services facilities, and so on.

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

#110
post #60
post #17

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 street…

The biggest issue with shelters is also that they're incredibly unsafe, much of the time. Rape, robbery, and assault are commonplace.

   Y: "There are too many homeless here, it feels unsafe."
   A: "How dare you! Those are human beings!"
   Y: "Why can't they stay in shelters?"
   A: "They feel unsafe, there are too many homeless there."
It would be funny if it weren't tragic.
Post reply on HN