SF tech bro: ‘I shouldn’t have to see the pain, struggle, despair of homeless’

Post by ctlby » Thu, Feb 18, 2016, 3:38 PM UTC

StavrosK wrote: post #22

Afforess wrote: post #9

To play devil's advocate, he's right. He shouldn't have to see the pain, struggle, and despair of homeless - the city government should be providing affordable housing and shelters for the homeless. That it hasn't is a failure of the local government, and should be addressed. Much of the reason that affordable housing is out of reach of many in San Francisco is due to government regulation, not market capitalism. Ext…

I visited SF a few times, and I was always horrified to see how such a wealthy city leaves its homeless people to wander around, sleep in the cold and generally live in inhuman conditions. I won't claim I know enough about the city from two visits to propose any solutions, but I know that the fact that there are hundreds or thousands of people living like that is inexcusable. I've never seen this before to such exten…

Post by Practicality » Thu, Feb 18, 2016, 3:39 PM UTC

k-mcgrady wrote: post #110

toxican wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, what on earth are the limits for a millennial? My late-20s self, a 9th grader and a man in his 30s should not all be classified the same...

Seems to me it should be people who grew up with the internet. So late 90's/early 2000's onwards. As someone who was born in 1990 and had exposure to the world pre-internet it seems like there's a clear divide between my culture/outlook and those who have only ever known a world with internet.

Post by themartorana » Thu, Feb 18, 2016, 3:40 PM UTC

mabbo wrote: post #121

citizensixteen wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A lot of them prefer this "lifestyle" I used to also think that many homeless "preferred the lifestyle of homelessness" but I recently learned of a town in Canada (Medicine Hat) that found it more cost effective to house the homeless. This myth that people prefer to be homeless was shattered and this town found that nearly all homeless were able to reintegrated back into having their own places. The mayor was skepti…

Our super-Conservative government for the last decade (now replaced by a young, hip, Liberal one) was actually really big behind the 'housing-first' method of helping the homeless (you get an apartment, no questions asked, then we work on your drug problems, etc later), and put a lot of money towards it. At first, this seems very socially liberal and at odds with a Conservative party kind of thing until you look at t…

Post by ktRolster » Thu, Feb 18, 2016, 3:42 PM UTC

marbletiles wrote: post #69

StavrosK wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GP didn't say the letter meant it that way, he said the letter is right in that there shouldn't be homeless people living in the streets, they should be taken care of by a stronger safety net.

I'm going to be pedantic, but only because I think that's how the letter guy is going to try and get out of this too. The letter did not say that "there shouldn't be homeless people living in the streets". Both it and GP said he shouldn't have to see homeless people. The letter writer certainly wouldn't care if the homeless people were still homeless, so long as they were bussed somewhere he didn't have to gaze upon…

   > so long as they were bussed somewhere he didn't have to gaze upon their poor faces.

Post by jimmytucson » Thu, Feb 18, 2016, 3:42 PM UTC

Afforess wrote: post #9

To play devil's advocate, he's right. He shouldn't have to see the pain, struggle, and despair of homeless - the city government should be providing affordable housing and shelters for the homeless. That it hasn't is a failure of the local government, and should be addressed. Much of the reason that affordable housing is out of reach of many in San Francisco is due to government regulation, not market capitalism. Ext…

    > To play devil's advocate, he's right.