Live data from Hacker News

Wealthy San Francisco tech investors bankroll bid to ban homeless camps

theguardian.com

131–140 of 153 posts

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

#131

Forgive my crass naïveté, for I live in a chilly northeastern college town where homelessness = death for half the year, but why are people so concerned about keeping the poorest of the poor living at the tiny tip of the wealthiest peninsula in America? Homelessness and the situations that create it are great tragedies. But to me it seems completely absurd that this problem is dealt with a municipal level. Homeless s…

There's plenty of space; the problem is that it's illegal to use it to build the kind and amount of housing necessary. With the right density levels and zoning regulations, you can basically build apartments for $200k/each at arbitrarily high land values.

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

#132
post #118

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…

> over 70% -- were living in San Francisco at the time they became homeless People should be very, very careful with this number. The criterion used to measure it consider someone who has spent 30+ years in SF to be identical to someone who got off a bus from Nevada, spent a month in a subsidized SRO, and is now in a tent. Which is to say 48hills is playing a little fast and loose with the truth, but you probably alr…

This is a quote from the source, the 2015 San Francisco Housing Count Report:

"Seventy-one percent (71%) of respondents reported they were living in San Francisco at the time they most recently became homeless, an increase from 61% in 2013. Of those, nearly half (49%) had lived in San Francisco for 10 years or more. Eleven percent (11%) had lived in San Francisco for less than one year. "

http://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/default/files/2015%20San%20Franc...

So, no it's not "fast and loose," they actually did make a distinction between short- and long-term residents.

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

#133

Something similar was actually tried already in the Soviet Union and in other Communist/Socialist countries with regards to Gypsies. (it didn't target them specifically and instead all homeless, but policy makers had this group in mind) Laws were implemented that would force them to live in (free) government assigned apartments and accept government assigned jobs. This policy failed because you can't force someone to…

I find it more plausible that tech billionaires are just more likely, as a group, to believe in technocrat rule, etc. than are people who are not tech billionaires. Being an immigrant from Communist countries or a child of such immigrants is just as likely or more likely to make one despise top-down solutions as it is to make one favor them. People with such backgrounds have direct experience of the sorts of problems that arise from heavy-handed government involvement in society. Based on what I've seen, I speculate that financially successful immigrants from Communist countries actually tend, as a group, to favor hands-off government.

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

#134
post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not what I think.

I can only read posts, not minds.

And even your ability to read posts is questionable, given that ~Camillo didn't write any of the words you're putting into their mouth.

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

#135
post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> over 70% -- were living in San Francisco at the time they became homeless People should be very, very careful with this number. The criterion used to measure it consider someone who has spent 30+ years in SF to be identical to someone who got off a bus from Nevada, spent a month in a subsidized SRO, and is now in a tent. Which is to say 48hills is playing a little fast and loose with the truth, but you probably alr…

This is a quote from the source, the 2015 San Francisco Housing Count Report: "Seventy-one percent (71%) of respondents reported they were living in San Francisco at the time they most recently became homeless, an increase from 61% in 2013. Of those, nearly half (49%) had lived in San Francisco for 10 years or more. Eleven percent (11%) had lived in San Francisco for less than one year. " http://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/…

You're absolutely, completely, 100% correct in your statements. The 2015 San Francisco Homeless Count Report makes precisely that distinction! They do so because it matters.

Should you choose to check it, you will find that the 48hills page you linked to does not make any such distinction. In fact, it omits the 49% figure altogether and states "That means seven out of ten homeless people used to be your neighbors – before the tech boom and the eviction epidemic".

I think some reasonable people might choose to describe this phrasing as perhaps potentially slightly misleading.

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

#136
post #127
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?

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 prete…

Would you put them on trains to get to these camps? Tatoo a handy identification number on them?

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

#137
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?

> Your last paragraph suggests that you have solutions to the problem. What are they? Right? I read that word soup and walked away with the paraphrase, "I'd tell you how to fix it, but I'm afraid you just aren't smart enough to understand."

I walked away with something different. Homelessness is supposed to be a complicated problem if you don't get into details. The key is not to treat the mass of the homeless people as a whole but to understand and consider each of the factors that lead to people ending up living on the streets. To address this requires work of course, but for some reason it seems more convenient to be left as a perpetual problem.

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

#138
post #127
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?

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 prete…

"I suggest state-run work-camps or mini-work-cities for the sane and able-bodied."

My take is that you failed to understand how chronic homelessness works. Excluding the mentally ill, most of the said "able-bodied" individuals (including drug addicts) are there by choice. They managed to limit their needs and wants to a minimal levels and cover those with almost no work at all. As far as I could understand the way homeless people think, there are only small windows of opportunity for some external motivation to reach them, and that's in the times when they can't cover their basic needs, like shelter in a really cold weather, or water in a really dry day. Even these are looked at as nice-to-have not a must-have, so the effect of leverage is weak, as many of them will rather try to suffer and endure it through at the first sign of required work from their part.

"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."

I think you again fail at understanding what's the deal with criminals and homeless and why the society works to rehabilitate the criminals but not the homeless. (Actually the homeless that can be rehabilitated are actually worked on, as in the homeless that themselves work on their condition are helped.) The imprisoned criminals are a group of people that for some reason were considered dangerous to be left active in the society. So not necessarily the punishment for their crimes but the threat they continuously pose is the primary reason for their temporary or permanent disposal from the rest of society. Rehabilitation comes as a natural step for these active people, as they are active and potentially still useful for society. The homeless, on the other hand, don't pose much threat to society, and the main problem with any assumed social program involving them is that most of these are not active. There isn't much drive to change anything, neither from society (unless there is something political about it), nor from the homeless themselves.

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

#139

I'm so glad I left that horrible place called the bay area. These inhumane rich jerks just don't want to see poor people. What a disgusting culture.

Oh yeah - what if there is a homeless colony right next to your current house? Would you say the same thing then?

Yes.

I still live in a place where there are homeless people all around me. The difference is that I try and look for systematic policy solutions and not just move the problem somewhere else. It's not easy, I really don't like it, but I'm not going to shirk from reality or my duty to society.

I also identify as a socialist so we're probably just not on the same page. I don't victim blame homeless people, and I don't try to sweep society's problems under the carpet.

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

#140
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…

Theres a number of initiatives to end homelessness and how much of the public cost and burden is lowered by ending homelessness first.

The housing first principle is an interesting thing to look into -- has been successful in some areas at greatly reducing issues and helping people improve their position in life.

http://homelesshub.ca/gallery/housing-first-principles

Post reply on HN