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

151–160 of 184 posts

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#151

Post by evancox100 »

vidarh wrote: post #147
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.

Trying to justify arguing for doing harm to others with allusions to your own trauma does not make arguing for doing harm to others any better.

? I was just responding to the immediate reply that I wouldn't feel the same if the government had done something traumatic to me, when actually they have and I do. My past trauma is not justifying anything, but it does inform my thinking.

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#152

Post by [deleted] »

colechristensen wrote: post #75
slifin wrote: post #5

600k per year per person? With that amount of funding you may as well buy every homeless person a house

There are places where you could buy folks many houses for 600k. What you need are a sort of anti-vagrancy law where the "punishment" is confinement in a very minimal security home where your basic needs are met, folks are nice and caring to you, and you're gently compelled to take whatever steps you need to put your life back together. Some people will stay indefinitely, be allowed to, and choose to.

[deleted]

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#153

Post by junlo »

Let's correct this false notion: "Shelters have very restricted hours, so if someone has a job that includes nights they likely can't use a shelter."

This is flat out wrong. MANY shelters will alter their curfew hours based around a person's employment status. Talk to the actual shelters about this policy and you will realize most are more than willing to adapt hours around a person's legitimate employment status.

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#154

Post by evancox100 »

pseudalopex wrote: post #150
evancox100 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd think you'd be surprised, the prevailing elite opinion in progressive circles seems to be that application of coercive force (which is what makes a government a government) must be avoided at any and all cost. I don't think this is the opinion of most people, but it seems to be where many policy makers and "thought leaders" (:eye-roll:) are at. AND, the current law in place is that ZERO coercion/force can be appl…

> I'd think you'd be surprised, the prevailing elite opinion in progressive circles seems to be that application of coercive force (which is what makes a government a government) must be avoided at any and all cost. Most who rail against progressive elites make the opposite claim.

That may be the case, but just as an example, elite progressive opinion seems to have shifted to a nonsensical "pro-gun control, anti-arresting people for gun crimes".

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#155

Post by 6D794163636F756 »

scarmig wrote: post #141
tedivm wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 rig…

The point is that there are shelter beds available: many are empty. The fact that if every single homeless person decided to take a bed there wouldn't be enough is irrelevant, because they don't want to. If N is the number of beds needed to house absolutely every homeless person, going from N-1 to N wouldn't result in a single additional homeless person in a bed, because right now there are empty beds available that…

It is relevant because taking a bed means giving up means of survival without anything to replace it. You also seem to be forgetting that these are people with agency and not just numbers on a spreadsheet so yes, people will argue that they deserve the respect needed to improve their own conditions.

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#156

Post by tedivm »

scarmig wrote: post #141
tedivm wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 rig…

The point is that there are shelter beds available: many are empty. The fact that if every single homeless person decided to take a bed there wouldn't be enough is irrelevant, because they don't want to. If N is the number of beds needed to house absolutely every homeless person, going from N-1 to N wouldn't result in a single additional homeless person in a bed, because right now there are empty beds available that…

I have personally spent hours trying to find people beds at the homeless shelters in SF- they are at full capacity. If someone refuses a bed someone else steps up to take it. This idea that there are a bunch of empty shelter beds is pure fiction.

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#157

Post by buzzert »

otikik wrote: post #104

This is an opinion piece, not an article. Still, citing some sources would have helped. > Many homeless prefer to live on the streets where they can freely use drugs Says who? When I was there what I saw was (majorly) people with untreated mental health issues. > San Francisco’s homeless epidemic is a result in large part of the familiar problems of drug addiction and mental illness. Again, according to whom? If half…

> That's because putting someone in jail for stealing less than $950 worth of goods is bonkers.

I really can't believe you still think that way. Have you been to a Walgreens/CVS in the city lately? Where everything's locked up, and security guards are shooting people on their own now? And you think it was "bonkers" before all of that started happening, wow.

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#158

Post by buzzert »

hypeit wrote: post #15

Because the bay area is home to many extremely rich people who give absolutely nothing back to their communities, encourage rampant gentrification and generally despise poor people and advocate for anti-worker policies. Take a scroll through the likes of some of the famous VCs who constantly complain about SF's homelessness and crime. They tend to be more mask off far-right in their likes vs tweets (some will straigh…

> extremely rich people who give absolutely nothing back to their communities

+

> encourage rampant gentrification

Something tells me any attempt to give back to their community would be unwelcome, and labeled as "rampant gentrification". I certainly see it in the Mission, where any attempt at renovating old decrepit buildings is stopped in the name of gentrification. Now there's rats in the ceilings of public schools: https://missionlocal.org/2019/06/rat-droppings-crumbling-cei...

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#159

Post by hypeit »

buzzert wrote: post #158
hypeit wrote: post #15

Because the bay area is home to many extremely rich people who give absolutely nothing back to their communities, encourage rampant gentrification and generally despise poor people and advocate for anti-worker policies. Take a scroll through the likes of some of the famous VCs who constantly complain about SF's homelessness and crime. They tend to be more mask off far-right in their likes vs tweets (some will straigh…

> extremely rich people who give absolutely nothing back to their communities + > encourage rampant gentrification Something tells me any attempt to give back to their community would be unwelcome, and labeled as "rampant gentrification". I certainly see it in the Mission, where any attempt at renovating old decrepit buildings is stopped in the name of gentrification. Now there's rats in the ceilings of public school…

There's nothing in that link that suggests either billionaires paying to repair that school or people objecting to it.

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#160

Post by buzzert »

hypeit wrote: post #159
buzzert wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> extremely rich people who give absolutely nothing back to their communities + > encourage rampant gentrification Something tells me any attempt to give back to their community would be unwelcome, and labeled as "rampant gentrification". I certainly see it in the Mission, where any attempt at renovating old decrepit buildings is stopped in the name of gentrification. Now there's rats in the ceilings of public school…

There's nothing in that link that suggests either billionaires paying to repair that school or people objecting to it.

I think that's supposed to come from the extremely high taxes that they already pay. Which, in the context of the original article posted here, is all apparently wasted. I certainly wouldn't want to give any more money to an organization that clearly wastes all of their income currently taken by force.
Post reply on HN