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

S.F. sued over homeless camp sweeps: city charged with criminalizing unsheltered

sfchronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 222 posts

Re: S.F. sued over homeless camp sweeps: city charged with criminalizing unsheltered

#141

Post by maerF0x0 »

runarberg wrote: post #122
maerF0x0 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but if they were issued citations, they couldn't pay, and still don't have any way to get rid of their trash... I would think that using public money to haul away trash would have a pretty good return on investment for everyone concerned. One of the points of the justice system is to ensure that people are sufficiently disincentivized from doing things that society has decided shouldnt be done. We shouldnt consider…

If that is the point of the justice system, then we really need to reconsider in light of how actual humans behave. It has been shown multiple time over in experimental settings that punishment is a pretty poor means of modifying behavior. The deterrence of punishment is marginal at best. For punishment to work consistently you need to apply it consistently and immediately, law enforcement does neither. There are oth…

> It has been shown multiple time over in experimental settings that punishment is a pretty poor means of modifying behavior. The deterrence of punishment is marginal at best. For punishment to work consistently you need to apply it consistently and immediately, law enforcement does neither

That's much more reasonable of a point than other peer comments. To which I mostly would suggest that rehabilitation is definitely an important part (and I'd agree with you if you claimed the USA is bad at rehabilitation... but lets improve that than bandaid something else)

Re: S.F. sued over homeless camp sweeps: city charged with criminalizing unsheltered

#142

Post by [deleted] »

triceratops wrote: post #107
closeparen wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good weather, good services, no law enforcement harassment.

You're saying mentally ill, drug addicted people are capable of making rational decisions such as this. But in another thread, you also claimed that regular people who "would be successful and housed" in cheaper places don't make the seemingly rational decision to move away. How?

[deleted]

Re: S.F. sued over homeless camp sweeps: city charged with criminalizing unsheltered

#143

Post by twblalock »

cpuguy83 wrote: post #83
twblalock wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Realistically, the only way we can solve this is with incarceration. This has little to do with the availability of housing, or the cost of housing. Some people will simply refuse to live in the housing that is provided. Many are so mentally ill and addicted to drugs that no amount of money we give them, either directly or indirectly, will get them off the streets. Proposed solutions that don't involve incarceration…

This is absolutely appalling. Considering we've historically incarcerated these people and it didn't fix anything, I don't see how you can blame "progressive" attempts to solve the crisis. Do more people come to these cities that have such policies? Probably... but that's not an indictment of the policy. We have a national crisis. We have some cities/states who literally pay for 1-way bus tickets out (as an alternati…

> This solves nothing. Having more people in jail solves nothing.

Yes it does. It gets them off the streets. It is the only thing that will do it.

The problem in the past is that we only incarcerated homeless people overnight. Jail was a revolving door, and people went right back onto the streets after being released, over and over again.

The problem is that we released them before they had recovered from the problems that made them homeless! We put them right back on the streets! It was a stupid policy that achieved nothing.

We need to be willing, as a society, to incarcerate people, and keep them incarcerated, until we have a good reason to believe they will not be homeless when released. This will require massive commitment and expenditure.

The problem has become so great that nothing else will work. There are no other possible solutions. Plus, if you see the way these people currently live, you'd realize that being institutionalized is better than the hell that is currently their daily lives.

Re: S.F. sued over homeless camp sweeps: city charged with criminalizing unsheltered

#144

Post by nostromo »

deathanatos wrote: post #28
nostromo wrote: post #9

> The lawsuit alleges that the city violates state and federal laws, its own policies and homeless individuals’ rights by “punishing residents who have nowhere to go,” They have shelter beds available. People need to stop repeating falsehoods from activists and well-meaning people who keep saying this. Some homeless people prefer not to use them for a variety of reasons -- usually because shelters tend to be drug- an…

> officials estimate 20,000 people will be homeless in San Francisco over the course of this year and demand can’t keep up despite the city having 13,299 supportive housing units and 3,571 shelter spots as of last week.

There are beds available. That's all you need to know. When police go to an illegal camp and say, you need to go to a shelter, it's not accurate to say they have nowhere to go. They do have somewhere to go.

Handwaving this away and saying, well, maybe according to some estimate we may run out of beds in the future -- when we haven't run out of beds and never do, is not a serious argument.

Re: S.F. sued over homeless camp sweeps: city charged with criminalizing unsheltered

#145

Post by runarberg »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #139
nerb wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that "[point] of the justice system" only works if you consider everyone in a vacuum and have the false notion everyone has equal access to resources. parent already outlined why people living on the street don't have the means to throw away trash in the right place, but you're focused on it "enabl[ing] bad behavior" and (i assume) in support of giving people that have no money fines (which also unfairly impact poore…

> eryone has equal access to resources No false notions required -- all living people have a risk of loss of freedoms, which is why prison works. > why can't there be more public garbage cans I suppose this mostly makes sense until we start to have local businesses using them for free trash disposal. Why would I be more in favor of public trash cans you ask? (so you dont have to continue presuming...) Because it's en…

> I suppose this mostly makes sense until we start to have local businesses using them for free trash disposal.

If you really cared about this, then you would simply impose a simple tax on local businesses and give them garbage service in return. Or you’d enforce proper garbage disposal on the businesses not the unhoused. It is a lot easier to monitor and enforce the garbage disposal of businesses then that of the unhoused.

Re: S.F. sued over homeless camp sweeps: city charged with criminalizing unsheltered

#146

Post by nerb »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #139
nerb wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that "[point] of the justice system" only works if you consider everyone in a vacuum and have the false notion everyone has equal access to resources. parent already outlined why people living on the street don't have the means to throw away trash in the right place, but you're focused on it "enabl[ing] bad behavior" and (i assume) in support of giving people that have no money fines (which also unfairly impact poore…

> eryone has equal access to resources No false notions required -- all living people have a risk of loss of freedoms, which is why prison works. > why can't there be more public garbage cans I suppose this mostly makes sense until we start to have local businesses using them for free trash disposal. Why would I be more in favor of public trash cans you ask? (so you dont have to continue presuming...) Because it's en…

> all living people have a risk of loss of freedoms

you realize that the justice system doesn't equally impact everyone, right? people with more wealth, more access are demonstrably treated better and have better outcomes with regard to the justice system, so no, all living people do not have the same risk of losing freedoms.

> ... which is why prison works

ah, there it is

i'm glad you agree with more access to public trash cans; however, i think it should be called out

> local businesses using them for free trash disposal

is already done in homeless encampments. i can find some, but there are many reports of businesses dumping in encampments because there's little risk of getting caught and no one bats an eye at trash-ridden encampments.

Re: S.F. sued over homeless camp sweeps: city charged with criminalizing unsheltered

#147

Post by conductr »

hezralig wrote: post #44
twblalock wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Realistically, the only way we can solve this is with incarceration. This has little to do with the availability of housing, or the cost of housing. Some people will simply refuse to live in the housing that is provided. Many are so mentally ill and addicted to drugs that no amount of money we give them, either directly or indirectly, will get them off the streets. Proposed solutions that don't involve incarceration…

I know plenty of homeless people in San Francisco without drug issues. The reason they are on the street or living in their cars or crashing on a friends couch in between either other spot? They cannot afford rent. Both friends I am currently in contact with are also CURRENTLY employed.

yet this part of their statement is still true, let's focus on solving 70% of the problem and then we can debate the rest

> This has little to do with the availability of housing, or the cost of housing. Some people will simply refuse to live in the housing that is provided. Many are so mentally ill and addicted to drugs that no amount of money we give them, either directly or indirectly, will get them off the streets.

Re: S.F. sued over homeless camp sweeps: city charged with criminalizing unsheltered

#148

Post by nostromo »

hezralig wrote: post #44
twblalock wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Realistically, the only way we can solve this is with incarceration. This has little to do with the availability of housing, or the cost of housing. Some people will simply refuse to live in the housing that is provided. Many are so mentally ill and addicted to drugs that no amount of money we give them, either directly or indirectly, will get them off the streets. Proposed solutions that don't involve incarceration…

I know plenty of homeless people in San Francisco without drug issues. The reason they are on the street or living in their cars or crashing on a friends couch in between either other spot? They cannot afford rent. Both friends I am currently in contact with are also CURRENTLY employed.

If you're crashing on a friend's couch, you're not homeless.

Everyone cohabitates with family and friends at some point in life. It's very different than sleeping on the street.

Re: S.F. sued over homeless camp sweeps: city charged with criminalizing unsheltered

#149

Post by olivermarks »

notch656a wrote: post #49
twblalock wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Realistically, the only way we can solve this is with incarceration. This has little to do with the availability of housing, or the cost of housing. Some people will simply refuse to live in the housing that is provided. Many are so mentally ill and addicted to drugs that no amount of money we give them, either directly or indirectly, will get them off the streets. Proposed solutions that don't involve incarceration…

I've been homeless without using drugs and without being mentally ill. Honestly I don't see the big deal if you sleep in a tent and use appropriate sanitation. I was always careful to pack in pack out, to respect the community, to not become intoxicated, and to dispose of waste appropriately. IMO the homeless issue is San Francisco is because they've practically incentivized being homeless by subsidizing the homeless…

I know a guy who is currently homeless again. He works at Whole Foods and doesn't use alcohol or drugs, doesn't have a car and has a years rent in the bank.

He is one of the people I am very keen to help because he is literally sleeping in the park with screaming, violent drug addicts. He's told me he can't get section 8 housing or any other help as he has money. He has told me if he was an addict he knows he would be getting state payouts and 'help'.

He has lived in rented rooms in the past and I think a boarding house model for clean, sober low income workers is essential.

I was the first post on this thread. I feel we have to be extremely aggressive with the Honduran cartels who run the drugs into SF and sell them, and to triage people on the streets into appropriate facilities, including rural substance abuse recovery incarceration centers with appropriate services.

Once drugs have rewired your brain you are turned into a zombie that has been reprogrammed to do whatever it takes to keep the flow of your addiction coming. We have to break this cycle.

Re: S.F. sued over homeless camp sweeps: city charged with criminalizing unsheltered

#150

Post by twblalock »

alsetmusic wrote: post #48
twblalock wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Realistically, the only way we can solve this is with incarceration. This has little to do with the availability of housing, or the cost of housing. Some people will simply refuse to live in the housing that is provided. Many are so mentally ill and addicted to drugs that no amount of money we give them, either directly or indirectly, will get them off the streets. Proposed solutions that don't involve incarceration…

This is the most cynical and heartless response I’ve seen in perhaps ever.

Responding with feelings, rather than objective logical solutions, is why the homelessness problem got so bad in the first place.
Post reply on HN