Live data from Hacker News

Wealthy San Francisco tech investors bankroll bid to ban homeless camps

theguardian.com

21–30 of 153 posts

Re: Wealthy San Francisco tech investors bankroll bid to ban homeless camps

#21
post #4

To an outsider, San Fransisco's policy towards the homeless seems literally insane. Despite the negative frame of the headline, is this obviously a bad idea? It does mention requiring that people be offered a shelter bed.Or if this is a horrible/insensitive/bad idea as stated, what's the smart, thoughtful, and progressive way to change the status quo?

Homelessness is an industry in SF. Lots of livelihoods seem to rely on there being a problem:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/sidewalks-san-francisco-133...

Re: Wealthy San Francisco tech investors bankroll bid to ban homeless camps

#22
post #4

To an outsider, San Fransisco's policy towards the homeless seems literally insane. Despite the negative frame of the headline, is this obviously a bad idea? It does mention requiring that people be offered a shelter bed.Or if this is a horrible/insensitive/bad idea as stated, what's the smart, thoughtful, and progressive way to change the status quo?

There's an explicit 24h limit before they get kicked out and the entirety of their assets gets confiscated. On the flip side there's no timeline for providing shelter beds and a one-way bus ticket is deemed equivalent.

This is inhumane.

This feels like wealthy people wanting to erase the daily reminders about inequality so that they don't have to think about it.

If the supporters of this measure really cared about homelessness, there would be provisions for actual reintegration into society instead of just a stick. But that costs money and effort.

Re: Wealthy San Francisco tech investors bankroll bid to ban homeless camps

#23
Forgive my crass naïveté, for I live in a chilly northeastern college town where homelessness = death for half the year, but why are people so concerned about keeping the poorest of the poor living at the tiny tip of the wealthiest peninsula in America?

Homelessness and the situations that create it are great tragedies. But to me it seems completely absurd that this problem is dealt with a municipal level. Homeless shelters are good to have but there is so little space in the city of San Francisco for the working people, let alone the tech workers forking over several thousands of dollars each month in rent.

San Francisco is a tiny city. California is a very big state. I don't understand this problem at all.

Re: Wealthy San Francisco tech investors bankroll bid to ban homeless camps

#24
Something similar was actually tried already in the Soviet Union and in other Communist/Socialist countries with regards to Gypsies. (it didn't target them specifically and instead all homeless, but policy makers had this group in mind)

Laws were implemented that would force them to live in (free) government assigned apartments and accept government assigned jobs.

This policy failed because you can't force someone to like or accept a lifestyle they don't want. They just run away at the first opportunity. You can offer them different opportunities and some might accept it, but as far as I know this is already being done.

What is funny though about this article is that many of the SF tech billionaires are themselves immigrants from former Communist countries or children of these immigrants. Many of their statements seem to indicate that they believe in technocrat rule and some kind of artificial betterment of people that can be achieved through education and policy. (which often translates into propaganda and use of force if you ask me)

It's interesting how values can persist throughout generations, even if you move to a different continent.

Re: Wealthy San Francisco tech investors bankroll bid to ban homeless camps

#26

I'm so glad I left that horrible place called the bay area. These inhumane rich jerks just don't want to see poor people. What a disgusting culture.

Oh yeah - what if there is a homeless colony right next to your current house? Would you say the same thing then?

Re: Wealthy San Francisco tech investors bankroll bid to ban homeless camps

#27

Meanwhile, unused homes outnumber the homeless 6-1 [1], and in Detroit, they bulldoze unused homes because it is more profitable to destroy and rebuild homes that are palatable for 'civilized' people than to let people live in them.[2] [1] http://www.mintpressnews.com/empty-homes-outnumber-the-homel... [2] http://www.businessinsider.com/the-mayor-of-detroits-radical...

Yes Detroit has demolished thousands of buildings over the last decade. Other than that your entire take on the situation is a simplification of a much larger problem which will not be solved by just applying the idea of "let people live in them".

An "unused" home does not simply sit in pristine condition waiting for the next person to come live in it. The abandoned homes in Detroit slated for demolition were built during a period which used lead paint and asbestos, abatement programs are expensive. As the homes sat unused they fell victim to scrappers who pull the copper pipe and wire from the wall, strip all of the architectual details, rip the aluminum siding from the outside, or knock down the brick facade, before the house eventually falls victim to an arsonist who may be doing their neighbors a favor. Most of the homes lie in isolated neighborhoods where burnt out buildings outnumber humans. When the homes are bulldozed they're not rebuilt, rather whole neighborhoods are set to be depopulated so city services can be better concentrated. This isn't a simple "profit" play, it is a coordinated downsizing to deal with reality

Re: Wealthy San Francisco tech investors bankroll bid to ban homeless camps

#28
post #4

To an outsider, San Fransisco's policy towards the homeless seems literally insane. Despite the negative frame of the headline, is this obviously a bad idea? It does mention requiring that people be offered a shelter bed.Or if this is a horrible/insensitive/bad idea as stated, what's the smart, thoughtful, and progressive way to change the status quo?

[deleted]

Re: Wealthy San Francisco tech investors bankroll bid to ban homeless camps

#29

Forgive my crass naïveté, for I live in a chilly northeastern college town where homelessness = death for half the year, but why are people so concerned about keeping the poorest of the poor living at the tiny tip of the wealthiest peninsula in America? Homelessness and the situations that create it are great tragedies. But to me it seems completely absurd that this problem is dealt with a municipal level. Homeless s…

I don't like having homeless people on the streets but even the homeless have freedoms and the same rights that you and I enjoy.

What you are saying is that SF is only for certain people, all others should be made to go.

Re: Wealthy San Francisco tech investors bankroll bid to ban homeless camps

#30
I want to point out that this measure does not take effect until there is actual open housing in which to send homeless folks. They cannot be told to leave otherwise. Since there is no funding for new housing in this measure, there is some chance the removal measures outlined here will never get to be used. This means shelter will be guaranteed to anyone who is told to leave.

That said, my political club voted against this measure because the 24 hour time frame is way too short and does not meet federal standards for managing homeless population. It takes more time to engage with a homeless person and negotiate what sort of help would be best for them.

Post reply on HN