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

161–170 of 184 posts

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#161

Post by zdragnar »

RC_ITR wrote: post #49
zdragnar wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes SF unable to have enough shelter space? Why is their homeless population unusually large? Is it a spiral of consequences that feed each other? https://www.sfhsa.org/services/financial-assistance/county-a... . Do cash payments help or hurt? Clearly, there are more than just federal policies at play. They have job and home placement programs, mental health and so forth. Are they understaffed or with limited…

The biggest propaganda win of the century has been the following: In a country with complete freedom of movement (and relatively cheap long-distance transportation), the mainstream has been convinced that homelessness is only caused by the communities where those people live. It's the Federal government's historical role to serves as a social safety net, not mid-sized cities with 'live outside year round' weather. Li…

> Federal government's historical role to serves as a social safety net

This is not true. Medicare, section 8 housing and social security are (relatively) new inventions, and Medicaid is run by individual states, with some funding from the federal government.

By volume, most social programs are either state or county run, from job training to mental health and food assistance and so on.

As for what SF can do, it can designate emergency shelter space sufficient to get out from under the federal regulations preventing them from breaking up permanent camps. They can make cash payments contingent on going through some service which pushes people towards getting mental health care, addiction treatment, housing / job assistance, etc.

So long as they are paying people to be homeless, and managing themselves into a corner where they can't stop illegal camping, some people will choose to stay that way for one reason or another, and they will choose to do so in SF.

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#162

Post by hypeit »

buzzert wrote: post #160
hypeit wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you might be replying to the wrong comment. I didn't say anything about taxes. I said that billionaires could help with homelessness if they chose to.

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#163

Post by fragmede »

evancox100 wrote: post #54
tedivm wrote: post #30

I think it's important to note a couple of things. > The city of San Francisco released data last week showing that 55% of homeless individuals rejected shelter when offered it I think it's very important to understand why people turn down the beds. There are several reasons- * Shelters have very restricted hours, so if someone has a job that includes nights they likely can't use a shelter. A large number of homeless…

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…

Taking the dog away and putting it up for adoption, while better than shooting it in front of the owner, is still not something the person wants to do. They have an emotional sentimental attachment to the animal and sometimes it is literally the only thing keeping them from killing themselves. And you want them to give it up? In exchange for a warm bed? 3 months from now when they've been kicked out for whatever reason, they won't have a warm bed anymore, and worse, they won't have their pet. Better just to keep the pet and be homeless.

Yes, if we took the pet away from them it would be more convenient for the rest of us. It would also be more convenient if they did not exist at all. Unfortunately that's not the reality we live in. We really like giving people agency in their own lives, and taking it away isn't something most of us are huge fans of. We can debate whether or not that's a good thing, but for now, people have agency, even temporarily unhoused people, and they don't want to give up their pets, their lifetime companion, in exchange for a few days of warmth.

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#164

Post by [deleted] »

_blz2 wrote: post #101

another thread where 'more housing', 'we must do more', 'politicians aren't doing enough' is the proposed solution. Lol. The simplest explanation is the love for drugs, and the lax laws against crime, and the removal of ability of people to defend themselves (ban on open carry). Whether HN likes it or not, it is progressive politics (voted in by the residents) which led to this. Which makes it really an SF problem an…

[deleted]

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#165

Post by buzzert »

hypeit wrote: post #162
buzzert wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you might be replying to the wrong comment. I didn't say anything about taxes. I said that billionaires could help with homelessness if they chose to.

Imagine I take half of your income, and I tell you that it's supposed to go towards helping the poor. Instead, the poor become poorer, all city services get worse, and nobody really seems to be getting helped. You are then expected to take even more of your income AND now time as well trying to solve this issue for which there are hundreds (thousands?) of city/state employees who are supposed to be doing this as their full time job?

It makes perfect sense to me why they aren't doing anything. Maybe it would be better if we didn't collect taxes?

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#166

Post by hypeit »

buzzert wrote: post #165
hypeit wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you might be replying to the wrong comment. I didn't say anything about taxes. I said that billionaires could help with homelessness if they chose to.

Imagine I take half of your income, and I tell you that it's supposed to go towards helping the poor. Instead, the poor become poorer, all city services get worse, and nobody really seems to be getting helped. You are then expected to take even more of your income AND now time as well trying to solve this issue for which there are hundreds (thousands?) of city/state employees who are supposed to be doing this as thei…

Again, I have no idea why you're talking about taxes. Most wealthy people only pay capital gains tax which is hardly onerous.

If you have billions of dollars and you have some sort of problem, it's absolutely within your means to do something about it (other than whine on twitter).

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#167

Post by fragmede »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #44
kevingadd wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This strategy has in fact been tried in a few places and while it's not a cure-all, it seems to work pretty good.

Low income housing projects have been tried in the US too with mixed outcomes. My guess is that the Baseline social behavior and expectation is just lower in the US than in places like Taiwan or Singapore, where it is incredibly successful

What's frustrating is "mixed outcomes" leads to "oh, the whole idea is bad" which then leads to "let's not do that, or try anything remotely resembling that". Low income housing projects are the answer, there's just a lot of cultural changes and reframing and winning hearts and minds; a lot of that sort of work to be done before housing projects are politically viable.

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#168

Post by fragmede »

evancox100 wrote: post #121
evancox100 wrote: post #20

What I don’t understand is that if making it illegal to build whatever living structure you want on public land is “cruel and unusual punishment”, why is it still illegal to build the living structure of your choice on private land that you own? Isn’t such a law even more restrictive? How have we willingly ceded so much authority to bureaucratic busybodys who have nothing better to do than micromanage the size, shape…

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?

https://dignitymoves.org/ is such a project, with city support. They are at the end of Gough st, and have built a bunch of small livable housing units as interim supportive housing for people.

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#169

Post by s1artibartfast »

fragmede wrote: post #167
s1artibartfast wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Low income housing projects have been tried in the US too with mixed outcomes. My guess is that the Baseline social behavior and expectation is just lower in the US than in places like Taiwan or Singapore, where it is incredibly successful

What's frustrating is "mixed outcomes" leads to "oh, the whole idea is bad" which then leads to "let's not do that, or try anything remotely resembling that". Low income housing projects are the answer, there's just a lot of cultural changes and reframing and winning hearts and minds; a lot of that sort of work to be done before housing projects are politically viable.

Yeah, it works in some contexts.

I think it would be an interesting experiment to try a planned project with high support, high requirements, and zero tolerance for crime. Instead of expecting the worst from people expect the best and hold them to a high standard.

Imagine a Gated community where everyone is expected to be in rehab, education, or employment and you get kicked out if you fail to follow through or commit crimes.

The point wouldn't be to a provide a catch-all support for everyone, but provide a safe space and support for those working to improve themselves.

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#170

Post by chrismcb »

evancox100 wrote: post #54
tedivm wrote: post #30

I think it's important to note a couple of things. > The city of San Francisco released data last week showing that 55% of homeless individuals rejected shelter when offered it I think it's very important to understand why people turn down the beds. There are several reasons- * Shelters have very restricted hours, so if someone has a job that includes nights they likely can't use a shelter. A large number of homeless…

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 my Hobson choice was giving up my dog, out sleeping in a bed. I'm sleeping outside with my dog (unless it was freezing) asking (it rather forcing) someone to give up their dog is cruel. Cruel to both the person and the dog.
Post reply on HN