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

A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 375 posts

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#161

Post by s5300 »

baby wrote: post #101
Tiktaalik wrote: post #16

> He blames San Francisco’s woes on a culture of permissive lawlessness and a mistaken view of what constitutes moral policymaking. A frequent critique of those that want to solve the homeless problem by sending in the police to crack heads and send everyone to prison. The main goal here of course being to ensure that the homeless "go away" somewhere out of view. In reality most of the "crimes" that people are wringi…

I listened to the Joe Rogan’s podcast and the solution seemed to be housing and treatment first, punishment later.

Coming to conclusions about solutions via Joe Rogan's podcast is only contributing to the problem, friend.

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#162

Post by refurb »

nuerow wrote: post #158
refurb wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you’re saying his own experiences should be dismissed because he didn’t gather information through “official” channels?

> So you’re saying his own experiences should be dismissed because he didn’t gather information through “official” channels? That's a rather disingenuous take. Isn't it plausible that taking anecdotal evidence at face value doesn't actually add insight to not only the root causes but also the prevalence of some of it's different categories? I mean, spending a week living in a tent isn't exactly a way to gather proper…

No it's not a disingenuous take. I read the article. You have a politician who actually goes and talks to a group of homeless - which is more than 99% would ever do - then come back with his observations.

Sure, you can say "that doesn't represent all homeless", but I don't think the mayor was saying that. Here is a direct quote:

"We can clearly do more to help people and move them on to stable housing," Coffman said. "What isn’t working is spending more money on it without changing behaviors. People are never going to [move] forward with their lives. You don’t want to be in a situation with public policy where you’re enabling really bad, destructive behavior."

What is so terrible about those conclusions?

And the gatekeeping by homeless advocates is really stark in that article. Their attitude is literally "You want to know about homelessness, you talk to me, don't go out there talking to these people on your own".

How in the hell is that anything close to a reasonable take?

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#163

Post by tayo42 »

ProjectArcturis wrote: post #56
no_butterscotch wrote: post #39

The book's author was recently on Joe Rogan where they discussed the book and many of the policies in SF. They discussed: de-criminalization, the "Portugal approach", progressive policies, policing, etc. Also the use of language such as "homeless camps" which envisages a camp of homeless people just trying to live. Versus the reality which when social workers and mayors (mayor of Denver) went into these camps underco…

So what should we do? Locking everyone up seems like it would be even more expensive with even worse long-term results.

Why do we need to do anything? Whats the problem with people being homeless and keeping to them selves?

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#164

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

mrobot wrote: post #22

I think the article is implying the answer to the failed 'left' policies is to replace them with more 'right-wing' policies. I've seen bills popping up that involve criminalizing the homeless or making camping illegal except in designated areas [1], [2]. These are really just 'out of sight, out of mind bills'. Homeless will not respond to criminalization of being homeless just as addicted people don't respond to legi…

SF is simply too expensive for 10k homeless people (~1% of the population). You could care for a quarter of the homeless population in the US (~145k) for just the shelter-cost of 10k homeless people in SF.

Why should the ones in SF get such special treatment and massive sums of money spent on them over other homeless people? The majority of homeless people in SF aren't from SF, and >30% of the homeless population in SF moved to SF already homeless.

Why should SF residents pay exorbitant amounts of money to house them when it's the most expensive city for housing in the US?

SF already spends > $100 PER month PER resident - ~$300 PER month PER taxpayer on homelessness. The budget has swelled since 2018 - and yet the problem has almost doubled in the same period.

It's almost as if pouring money on the problem doesn't solve it.

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#165

Post by [deleted] »

mgummelt wrote: post #52
DoreenMichele wrote: post #3

("in San Francisco") From 2005 to 2020 the estimated number of unsheltered homeless people nearly doubled, even as homelessness declined nationwide. One possible explanation: California has become the dumping ground for the nation's homeless population. We have a nationwide shortage of housing. Both in person and online, I continue to hear homeless people plan to move someplace relatively warm and dry while stuck on…

The author argues that housing prices are not a significant factor: "Throughout it, they emphasized that the homeless were just like you and me, just poorer. Today, many of California’s leading homelessness advocates insist that the current crisis is due mostly to the housing shortage. Homelessness experts and advocates disagree. 'I’ve rarely seen a normal able-bodied able-minded non-drug-using homeless person who’s…

[deleted]

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#166

Post by tayo42 »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #24
DoreenMichele wrote: post #3

("in San Francisco") From 2005 to 2020 the estimated number of unsheltered homeless people nearly doubled, even as homelessness declined nationwide. One possible explanation: California has become the dumping ground for the nation's homeless population. We have a nationwide shortage of housing. Both in person and online, I continue to hear homeless people plan to move someplace relatively warm and dry while stuck on…

Exactly. While I think there is an argument to be made that many of SF's/California's policies are counterproductive (e.g. treating all theft The same thing is happening in Austin. As a liberal city in Texas with relatively homeless-friendly policies, it was been well-documented that many rural areas in Texas are giving their homeless one-way bus tickets to Austin. So we're left with the dilemma that relatively liber…

> Without a national or at least comprehensive state-wide solution for homelessness, this will be a difficult problem to solve.

I wish more people realized this. Every city seems to be having people complain about homelessness. The three cities ive lived in in the last 6 years has. Idk why it is on a city of 60,000 people to try to fix homelessness. Especially when a ton are homeless veterans. The national goverment is dumping their problem on places to small and unorganized to deal with it.

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#167

Post by jmspring »

seehafer wrote: post #126
StanislavPetrov wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>He didn’t work with any organization or ask about the problem. If you want to find out what a situation is like, why would asking someone about it be more informative than actually going there and witnessing it yourself? The self proclaimed "experts" are the ones responsible for the policies that have turned San Fransisco into what it is today.

The Homeless Industrial Complex is as responsible for maintaining the conditions in SF as Chesa and his hands-off enforcement policies are. A lot of strife in our society today can be attributed to non-profits being incentivized to keep their raison d'être continuing in perpetuity.

I spent many years involved in politics at the city level in Santa Cruz. The Homeless Industrial Complex is a thing. There isn’t a desire to make things better as that will lead to lost jobs.

Their insincerity becomes very obvious when you start pushing for accountability - like status reports / reports on progress and effectiveness - when entities get public funds. Another fun one is asking for a reduction in overlap when you have 2, 3, and 4 entities doing the same thing and all of them want public funds.

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#168

Post by nuerow »

b9a2cab5 wrote: post #135
deanCommie wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's good that people investigate homelessness and go one level deeper. But why do they stop at drug addiction? Or worse, decide that drug addiction is the underlying root cause that now needs to be treated with rehab, detox, or what have you. Drug addiction is not the cause of poverty. Poverty is the cause of drug addiction. The stories of the people who get into drugs recreationally, then descend into addiction, an…

No, it's the result of policies that tolerate and support people refusing to engage with society. Why don't you try going to Chinese slums and seeing if there's homeless? China is equally as capitalistic and has more wealth inequality than the US. And the same problems in housing costs. Homelessness is an American (West Coast liberal) problem. Funny how East Coast cities don't have these problems.

> Homelessness is an American (West Coast liberal) problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_California

Also, considering the deep-rooted socio-economic problems in the Appalachia region, I wouldn't claim that the root cause of this problem is a "West coast liberal" problem, unless you don't find families living in third-world conditions without any possibility of escape as not being a problem as they are out of sight.

https://fahe.org/appalachian-poverty/

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#169

Post by truffdog »

refurb wrote: post #143
s1artibartfast wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Author and journalist Sam Quinones hypotesizes in his book, The Least of Us , that a significant part of the increase in homelessness is due to a change in methamphetamine quality. Prior to about 2010, meth was manufactured in Mexico using high quality precursors. The government cracked down on imports, and cartels started using a much more dirty P2P manufacturing methods, which is anecdotally associated with vastly…

It’s an interesting theory but P2P meth was the standard meth prior to ephedrine being used in the 90’s. Did we see the same level of homelessness back then?

In this telling, there's also a huge increase in supply since then- 1980s biker meth was relatively artisinal, but the current situation involves large and professional factories in Mexico.

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#170

Post by YeBanKo »

bryan0 wrote: post #7

Since I moved out of SF I’ve wondered if there will ever be some public epiphany that with their well-intentioned policies they’ve reinforced what they most wanted to destroy: a society of the haves and have-nots.

Why do you think, that this policy is well intended? Honestly, a lot funds end in private pockets right away. Even recent homeless relocation to hotels benefited hotels mostly. They would be sitting idle otherwise, and even all the damage caused to the hotels is covered by the city. There is a whole economy around it in San Francisco and Los Angeles that many feed on. I think the intention is keep it going.
Post reply on HN