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

121–130 of 153 posts

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

#121

Post by zlynx »

kafkaesq wrote: post #70

“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.” By passing a measure that bans the tents -- but doesn't actually do anything to help get these people into housing. Or for that matter, any meaningful promise of a safe place to sleep at night (beca…

Isn't San Francisco the same city that used made-up housing code to reject all attempts to build cheap "tiny houses" for the homeless? I seem to recall a tech multi-millionaire offering to build them FOR FREE and being denied.

You would think that a fully functional tiny house with plumbing and everything needed for one person would be far better than living on the street. But nooooo, it has to be full size houses or nothing I guess.

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

#122

Post by rm_-rf_slash »

autognosis wrote: post #97
bm1362 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying that a high minimum wage prevents homeless people from getting jobs? That opinion seems overly simplistic -- I'm inclined to believe homelessness isn't a result of the lack of opportunity.

Yes, that is a fact. Minimum wage increases unemployment. Ispso facto. No job ---> no self-reliance. Homelessness is only a short leap from that point. Simple does not imply over simplification.

Minimum wages also correlate with higher economic growth, as higher wages mean more people can buy more stuff, and so more people are employed to sell those people that stuff.

Also you leave out mental illness and addiction which are impossible-to-ignore factors when comparing homelessness to impoverishment.

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

#123

Post by boona »

kafkaesq wrote: post #104
autognosis wrote: post #83

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.

Actually the issues are closely linked. For example, look at the Davis-Bacon Act which according to the National Center for Policy Analysis "the 1931 Davis-Bacon Act, requiring ‘prevailing’ wages on federally assisted construction projects, was supported by the idea that it would keep contractors from using ‘cheap colored labor’ to underbid contractors using white labor.". Similarly in 1925 British Columbia passed the Hours of Work Act to stop "Oriental labour" from competing with whites. Minimum wage (or Basic wage) was enacted in Australia for the same reason.

It was also praised by progressives at the time. Harvard’s Arthur Holcombe said that these laws “protect the white Australian’s standard of living from the invidious competition of the colored races, particularly of the Chinese.” Florence Kelley said that the laws were “redeeming the sweated trades” by preventing the “unbridled competition” of the unemployable, the “women, children, and Chinese were reducing all the employees to starvation”.

There was a time where we understood the economic impacts of so called minimum wage. We knew that it made it illegal for low skilled workers to be employed. Fast forward to today, if a homeless person cannot produce at a rate of $13.00, which is San Francisco minimum wage, they are not allowed to work. It's against the law! So though it might not solve every case, it would surely help if it were legal for them to hold a job.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/carriesheffield/2014/04/29/on-th...

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-claim-that-minimum-wage-laws-ha...

http://halifax.mediacoop.ca/blog/theuncivilized/31240

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

#125

Post by rm_-rf_slash »

allsystemsgo wrote: post #86
ng12 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is SF doesn't have a skid row like like San Diego and LA do. I lived in SD for years and almost never saw any homeless because I spent most of my time in the northern parts. The "sketchy" parts of SF where these camps are (SOMA, TL, parts of the Mission) are only a stones-throw from the hot tech companies and million dollar condos.

Ah, makes sense. I personally have never been to SF. I have this idealized vision of what it's like just from knowing that all the major tech firms are there but, I'm sure that vision is not entirely accurate.

I have to say it is rather jarring to see homeless people in SF living in tents and cardboard boxes on streets lined with skyscrapers and around pristine parks and plazas.

So while the city does have a ritzy tech feel in the right parts, it is disconcerting to know that amidst so much concentrated wealth there are a lot more homeless people than you would expect. Really, a lot.

Unfortunately it's not as if these are all down-on-their-luck folks in between attempts at The American Dream. A lot of homeless people - in SF and in general - have mental illnesses and addiction problems and they do need help.

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

#126

Post by kafkaesq »

boona wrote: post #123
kafkaesq wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Actually the issues are closely linked. For example, look at the Davis-Bacon Act which according to the National Center for Policy Analysis "the 1931 Davis-Bacon Act, requiring ‘prevailing’ wages on federally assisted construction projects, was supported by the idea that it would keep contractors from using ‘cheap colored labor’ to underbid contractors using white labor.". Similarly in 1925 British Columbia passed th…

Well, they're overlapping for sure. But you have to keep in mind that the root causes behind homelessness are quite complex, and fairly stated, many of these people wouldn't be employable at any wage -- even if there were jobs for them, which are by no means guaranteed, or even likely to appear if we suddenly raised the minimum wage to a viable level (which I happen to be in favor of).

Or stated alternatively -- yes, over generations, the gradual lowering of the minimal wage (combined with the evisceration of middle class wages, and the decimation of affordable housing stock) has certainly been a major driving force behind the crisis we find ourselves in today. But simply raising the minimum wage isn't going to (quickly) reverse that tide.

So that's why the two issues seem to be (while overlapping) basically different kettles of fish.

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

#127

Post by zo1 »

pavlov wrote: post #76
fatdog wrote: 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?

Not the OP, but I suggest state-run work-camps or mini-work-cities for the sane and able-bodied. The rest get taken to either psychiatric facilities, or to dedicated facilities for the physically-disabled.

The able-bodied and sane get put to work in work camps. It need not be back-breaking labour. It can be absolutely anything. The point behind it is to ease them back into a normal functioning life. Give them a pretend-life that is safe. A bank account with fake-money, or real-money but limit the things they can spend it on. I.e. shops at the work-camp, entertainment, furniture stores for their temporary fake living accommodation. If it's real money, tell them that they can keep it once they've demonstrated that they are ready to go back into society.

We claim to "rehabilitate" criminals, so I fail to see why we can't do something on a similar effort-level for the really needy individuals in our society. Giving them money, free-food, and packing them into people-warehouses does not really help them. It just drags the problem along.

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

#128

Post by ng12 »

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #125
allsystemsgo wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, makes sense. I personally have never been to SF. I have this idealized vision of what it's like just from knowing that all the major tech firms are there but, I'm sure that vision is not entirely accurate.

I have to say it is rather jarring to see homeless people in SF living in tents and cardboard boxes on streets lined with skyscrapers and around pristine parks and plazas. So while the city does have a ritzy tech feel in the right parts, it is disconcerting to know that amidst so much concentrated wealth there are a lot more homeless people than you would expect. Really, a lot. Unfortunately it's not as if these are…

There's also the third group -- the guys who hang out around Cesar Chavez and run a chop shop for stolen bikes in their tent city. Unfortunately they suck away a lot of the goodwill for the first two groups.

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

#129

Post by murbard2 »

imagist wrote: post #102
pavlov wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... 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 an…

> You can make homelessness illegal, but then you're just housing the homeless in prisons.

Not if you resort to corporal punishment which doesn't impose a cost on the taxpayer and can still act as a deterrent on the most destitute. (N.B. not an endorsement)

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

#130

Post by kafkaesq »

heymijo wrote: post #35
andlarry wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

That says a lot about how spending $31,967.10 for every homeless person can amount to, well, no one seems to know.

"As Randy Shaw points out (in an article that has other problems, but gets this absolutely right), almost half the money that the Chron identifies as “homeless” spending is actually money spend on people who are in supportive housing. That’s housing money, not homeless money."

http://48hills.org/2016/02/16/five-myths-about-the-homeless-...

Post reply on HN