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

Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 184 posts

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#131

Post by evancox100 »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #128
evancox100 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For real though, if you are reading this, are a YIMBY, and are a person of means, why not try to generate a test case for this? Have someone set up a tent encampment on their own private lot and force the case. How can it possibly be legal to set up a tent in a public right of way, and not on your own property?

Yeah, I think it's a really interesting thought experiment and social commentary. It's illegal to build a 20 room cinder block dormitory on a private parcel, while legal to build a Shantytown fire hazard in the sidewalk down the street. You could easily build a SRO sized fireproof, cinderblock room (e.g. 10x10ft) for less than $5,000 per unit in materials.

Yes, someone should do it and be a legend.

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#132

Post by aogaili »

evancox100 wrote: post #126
enterprise_cog wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Always amusing to me when people like you say things like that. Treat the trauma like it’s nothing. I’d love to see you get forced into a traumatic situation by the government and keep that same attitude. Just an utter lack of empathy. People like you should have no say in how a society is run.

You're making a lot of assumptions about what traumatic situations I may or may not have been in. Maybe it is because I have been through some shit that I realize sometimes we have to do "mean" things to people, sometimes for their own good but often for the good of those around them.

Killing their dog and giving them a temporary bed is stupid and cruel solution.

And stupid cruel people with power make others suffer and some of them will end up homeless.

The homeless needs a lot of nurturing to get back on their feet.

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#133

Post by Feuilles_Mortes »

agorabinary wrote: post #118

Medical intervention. You cannot expect the severely mentally ill to "voluntarily" seek medical help - this is the current prerequisite for medical intervention in SF. If a child runs into the street, you don't ask for consent before moving them out of the way of oncoming traffic. The severely ill in this city have less mental capacity than a child and yet we expect them to consent like any other adult. If you truly…

you assume the causal arrow necessarily goes from mental illness -> homelessness and not the other way around

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#134

Post by AlbertCory »

RC_ITR wrote: post #130
AlbertCory wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read that. You didn't answer the question.

I am not implying the strawman hypothetical you proposed. I think the confusion might be that the strawman doesn't even follow logic, TBH. Were did the Sacramento Democrats comment come in? I simply stated that the article highlighted federal decisions and blamed other governments for the consequences of those decisions. In that set of circumstances, Sacramento Democrats are equal to SF progressives, as they are both…

You're "simply" trying to spread blame around. That's all you're simply doing.

SF has all the resources they need. They just need to use them.

"plagued every society ever" -- no, it hasn't, not to anywhere near the scale of SF. Even large cities within the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit, like San Diego, Fresno, Spokane. San Jose.

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#135

Post by evancox100 »

aogaili wrote: post #132
evancox100 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're making a lot of assumptions about what traumatic situations I may or may not have been in. Maybe it is because I have been through some shit that I realize sometimes we have to do "mean" things to people, sometimes for their own good but often for the good of those around them.

Killing their dog and giving them a temporary bed is stupid and cruel solution. And stupid cruel people with power make others suffer and some of them will end up homeless. The homeless needs a lot of nurturing to get back on their feet.

I am anti-cruelty and suffering, but it is not always cruel to force someone to do something they don't want to do, and it is not always kind to give them what they want.

If the choice is between them getting back on their feet but having to put the dog up for adoption (which is what I meant, not executing the dog on the spot), vs being stuck indefinitely homeless, I know which one I'm picking.

And again, I don't think "dogs" are the main impediment to homeless rehabilitation, the whole discussion is a sideshow. It was an illustrative example about well meaning intentions gone awry.

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#136

Post by tedivm »

scarmig wrote: post #86
tedivm wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing the point. The reason they don't give things up is because the shelter is temporary, but they results of using it aren't. If you tell a homeless person you're going to shelter them for six months, the vast majority will take the shelter. If you tell them they have to move and you'll give them a bed for a night then many of them will see that as a shitty deal (which it is). As for the legal stuff, you'l…

You're missing the point: requiring the government to provide permanent housing that has storage units and allows pets (and alcohol, and drugs, and...) before it can take action on homelessness is not an effective approach. Temporary housing is useful, even though it might mean having to give up a dog. The fact that most of those remaining on the streets don't want it has no bearing on whether the government should b…

Say what you really mean.

> before it can take action on homelessness

Building the shelters is taking action. Without the shelters what exactly are you proposing to do? If there literally are no beds available, where are the homeless supposed to go in your system?

That's what the supreme court pointed out. They said that if there is no place for the homeless to go, if the city hasn't done it's job, then it has no right to tell people they can't sleep on public spaces.

What action would you take?

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#137

Post by tedivm »

evancox100 wrote: post #116
archagon wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How utterly cruel. Imagine a homeless life where not only do you not have any friends or relatives to lean on, but everyone who passes you by on the street either ignores you or outright loathes you. A dog that loves you unconditionally would quite literally be a life-saver.

Imagine not letting someone build cheap housing that could keep someone sheltered with a roof over their head because of your own idiosyncratic opinions on housing style. I think letting people build the housing that people need would be 1000x the life saver compared to letting them have a dog once they're already out on the street . This is like the "let them eat cake" of homelessness policy.

Yeah but should we punish the homeless people, who are a completely different population than the people who caused the housing shortage?

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#138

Post by ProfessorLayton »

archagon wrote: post #93
evancox100 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may have to euthanize that animal if no one wants to adopt it. Sorry, but there are worse things in the world than putting down animals. And don’t even try to come at me if you eat meat! Every one of us who eats factory farmed meat (y.t. included) is participating in far worse atrocities than a shelter humanely euthanizing a relative handful of dogs.

That is fucked up.

It is fucked up. Pigs are just as intelligent as dogs, yet they still end up as a McRib.

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#139

Post by anotherhue »

tomjen3 wrote: post #102
evancox100 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think well meaning liberals want to believe that all of society’s problems can be solved without any form of coercion, and that is simply not the case. If someone is homeless and has a dog, and there is a shelter bed for them, you may just need to force them to give up their dog and move to the shelter (or else face arrest). There are overriding concerns greater than letting people keep their pets. I recognize the…

If you institute that rule, every tabloid in the US will immediately feed pictures of people being separated from their dogs. You will have a lynch mob on your hands in five minutes flat and anyone who supports you will have the same. It's a complete non-starter politically.

Maybe flip it around then, offer shelter for homeless dogs with a human sized bed attached. Everyone gets to feel morally righteous and hopefully the job still gets done.

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#140

Post by jpcfl »

mikestew wrote: post #112
jpcfl wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law mentioned four sentences prior to that sentence (Prop. 47).

Thanks. I even skimmed the article a 2nd time to give WSJ the benefit of the doubt, but somehow missed that. (I would also argue the lede is a bit buried down in the penultimate paragraph, but it's still my misreading.)

Sure thing.

So, I don't think that was the most important part of the article--he's not claiming SF is a Homeless Mecca because of Prop. 47. He was just asking a rhetorical question to point out that the dysfunctional Democrat-lead government will throw billions of dollars at a problem before repealing a soft-on-crime law that obviously contributes to the problem.

By the way, before anybody calls me out as some right-wing troll for saying the Democrat-led government is dysfunctional: I moved to SF as a D-registered liberal, and still am a liberal in the traditional sense (not a D anymore). But the left wing extremism has caused me to reassess my stance on many issues, especially as I start a family. I am absolutely appalled by the conditions in the city, especially in the Tenderloin, which many don't realize has the highest number of children per capita.

Post reply on HN