A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco • Hacker News Board

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#171

Post by nuerow » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 4:56 AM UTC

refurb wrote: post #162

nuerow wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.…

> 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 (...)

Sorry, it actually is.

You have a guy who decided to live in a tent for a week as a publicity stunt, and that is supposed to make him an insightful expert on the nature and causes of the problem, in total contrast with the observations and experience of every single person that ever did any serious work on homelessness?

The "goes and talks to a group of homeless" take sounds an awful lot like an attempt to go on the confirmation bias path, intended to fabricate a justification to continue to not address the root causes, than an honest and objective approach to understand issues.

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#172

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 4:57 AM UTC

tayo42 wrote: post #163

ProjectArcturis wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

[deleted]

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#173

Post by _game_of_life » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 4:59 AM UTC

rkk3 wrote: post #84

ajmurmann wrote: post #71

The [recent Econtalk episode with Sam Quinoas]( https://www.econtalk.org/sam-quinones-on-meth-fentanyl-and-t... ) really changed my understanding of the homelessness crisis. The efforts to make it harder to make meth has resulted in the process and ingredients of making meth changing. This results in slightly different meth that has much worse effects. Meth junkies become less socially functioning and have stronger d…

Second that EconTalk episode. Alternatively recent Atlantic article that is adapted from his book the least of us https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/11/the-new...

>"Perhaps the best defense against epidemics like this one lies in choosing to look more closely and more sympathetically at the people in those hoods—to put a higher priority on community than we’ve done in recent years. America has made itself more vulnerable to scourges, even as those scourges grow more potent. But scourges are also an opportunity: They call on us to reexamine how we live. Until we begin to look out for the most vulnerable among us, there’s no reason to expect them to abate."

That's a great quote. When I worked at a harm reduction site (pre pandemic), I also noticed the meth users seemed to be deteriorating more rapidly than usual, and this was in Canada.

Whatever the solution to this problem is, I worry something has become broken in our societies. You can even see it in this thread, with people quoting a goddamned podcaster (Joe Rogan) and spreading a ton of misinformation about addiction (eg. disputing that addiction is strongly linked to socio-economic status).

Google scholar exists and this crowd is supposed to be educated. This quote from the article says it better than I could:

>"Crystal meth is in some ways a metaphor for our times—times of anomie and isolation, of paranoia and delusion, of communities coming apart. Meth is not responsible for these much wider social problems, of course. But the meth epidemic is symptomatic of them, and also contributes to them."

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#174

Post by endominus » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 4:59 AM UTC

Tiktaalik wrote: post #87

moneywoes wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Live in Vancouver and don't we spend around 360 million a year on the DTES?

Is [big sounding number] supposed to mean anything? Either we're spending enough money that people can afford to live indoors or not. $375/month is obviously not enough money for anyone to afford to rent anything anywhere. Accordingly, the real cost of solving homelessness is more.

That's not a sound argument though. It applies no matter how much you spend. The "real cost" of solving homelessness could be much less, and that could just be a particularly expensive and ineffective solution. Structural, endemic problems likely require structural, foundational solutions.

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#175

Post by truffdog » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 5:00 AM UTC

austincheney wrote: post #128

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…

> We have a nationwide shortage of housing. First, you must understand that the population of San Francisco is growing, but slowly. Over the last decade San Francisco grew by just under 10%, which sounds like a lot, but it really isn't when looking at a larger data set compared to many other metropolitan areas. San Francisco is now the 17th largest city in the US, which I believe is unchanged from a decade ago. Looki…

> Why is it then that housing supply is a major issue in San Francisco, but not in these other cities that are growing so much faster?

There's the actual rate of growth vs demand- and the demand for h I using in SF was quite high in the 2010s compared to other metros.

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#176

Post by lsiebert » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 5:02 AM UTC

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…

A large number of homeless in San Francisco were previous SF residents.

When folks live paycheck to paycheck almost anything can lead to them becoming homeless.

That said, there are more then enough homes for everyone, in the form of vacant homes. https://sf.curbed.com/2019/12/3/20993251/san-francisco-bay-a...

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#177

Post by robbyt » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 5:03 AM UTC

tayo42 wrote: post #163

ProjectArcturis wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

z

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#178

Post by nomel » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 5:03 AM UTC

tayo42 wrote: post #163

ProjectArcturis wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

They don’t have proper sanitation or garbage services. There are basically no public restrooms in SF. The vast majority are drug abusers that need money to pay for their addictions. They don’t have jobs, but they still get that money. How they get that money is the problem.

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#179

Post by tayo42 » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 5:07 AM UTC

robbyt wrote: post #177

tayo42 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

z

So being homeless isnt the problem, mudering isnt exclusive to homeless people. Drugs and prostitution aren't problems. Cities not having adequate public serivces like bathrooms is a problem.

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#180

Post by nuerow » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 5:07 AM UTC

jmspring wrote: post #167

seehafer wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 overla…

> Their insincerity becomes very obvious when you start pushing for accountability - like status reports / reports on progress and effectiveness - when entities get public funds.

I'm not sure what point you tried to make. I mean, this discussion is about identifying the root causes of a problem in order to actually fix it, but your comment focuses exclusively in organizations which, at worse, only work to mitigate it's impact while the problem is perpetuated.

Let's put it this way: homeless shelters do not fabricate homeless people out of thin air, nor do they spend their budget hiring extras or crisis actors to pretend there are homeless people in the city. At most, you're putting up a strawman to attack organizations that exist to take the edge off this problem.

What exactly do you believe would happen if suddenly all homeless shelters disappeared from the face of the earth? Do you believe homelessness would go away with that too?