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

201–210 of 375 posts

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#201

Post by refurb »

nuerow wrote: post #196
DiggyJohnson wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ll bite, but I think you ought to know that I cannot so far understand you’re reasoning. Who, then, is qualified to speak on these issues? Is only aggregate data through official channels, and not individual experience, relevant to the discussion?

> Who, then, is qualified to speak on these issues? For starters, can we agree that a publicity stunt like spending a week in a tent as a live action roleplay is no way to get any insight on a deep-rooted social and economic problem? Specially given the clear preexisting bias and political motivation to ignore the problem, avoid accountability, and continue doing absolutely nothing? > Is only aggregate data through o…

So you’re saying any attempt by a politician to go and talk to homeless people in person - not to get to the root of the cause, but just to listen to them and observe - should be avoided as it’s just a publicity stunt?

And what do you mean “ignore the problem”? I directly quoted his conclusion which included “we should do more to house them”. Can you point to a conclusion of his where he actively sought to ignore the problem?

I’m struggling to wrap my head around your rationale. If the situation were different - let’s say a lack of childcare options - would you also tell politicians not to talk directly to parents looking for childcare? Only talk to advocacy organizations because such a “stunt” doesn’t get to the “deep seated social issues at hand”?

And what do you mean “waste a week”? Since when is having leaders directly engage people a problem? What angle are you coming at this from? I’m trying to understand your motivations when you’re actively rejecting efforts to find solutions.

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#202

Post by tayo42 »

swearwolf wrote: post #200
tayo42 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Drugs create big livability problems for the neighborhood residents who aren’t using them. For example, despite the presence of needle exchanges throughout my city, it’s not uncommon to find a used needle on the ground. Or, people who are high on meth do all sorts of disruptive and disturbing things, like having screaming matches with themselves in the middle of the street. So yeah, drugs are, in fact, a problem.

The problems around drugs exist because theyre illegal.If we were more accepting, legalized use, and had real support systems in place for people struggling these problems would go away.

We have littering rules, we as a society don't find it important. Why is styrofoam or cans OK. If you thinks drugs are a problem because they are a source of litter you should also think take out and portable food and other things people litter with are a problem?

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#203

Post by nuerow »

jmspring wrote: post #188
nuerow wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

If you are taking public money and come back the following year wanting more, there should be a plan and data showing why you deserve money. Specifically the effectiveness of what you are trying to do. Most of them want money without any accountability. Most times when you apply for a grant, there is a proposal with a plan and expected outcome.

> If you are taking public money and come back the following year wanting more, there should be a plan and data showing why you deserve money. Specifically the effectiveness of what you are trying to do.

Do you understand that you are talking about funding homeless shelters?

The job of a homeless shelter is to provide homeless people with temporary shelter instead of having them living on the streets. It is not in their job description or responsibilities or power to mitigate or eliminate the socio-economic problems that lead people to become homeless. That requires local government to put in place policies that addresses the root causes, such as ensuring housing is affordable, or those struggling with mental problems can receive help.

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#204

Post by robbyt »

tayo42 wrote: post #199
robbyt wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you'll host a camp in your backyard then?

I think you should take a step back from this topic if it's making your responses that emotional or elaborate more. Nothing you said is a rational response. That was 100% flame bait.

Seriously, if homeless camps aren't a problem then why aren't you hosting one?

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#205

Post by [deleted] »

nuerow wrote: post #171
refurb wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 di…

[deleted]

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#206

Post by user_named »

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…

A week of lived experience is qualia, information which can never be captured through statistics. It is definitely useful.

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#207

Post by skyyler »

oh_sigh wrote: post #137
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…

Homeless people want to move somewhere warm and dry year-round. For homed people, that is less of an issue. And maybe I'm wrong, but I really doubt housing prices are the reason. You can have adequate shelter for very cheap with roommates, if you don't want to live downtown. That certainly beats the pants off sharing under a bridge with 10 strangers and their tents.

To be real with you, a housing situation where you’re 5+ people in a 4 bedroom house isn’t a solution.

“Very cheap” is relative.

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#208

Post by rented_mule »

I often hear treatment promoted, but it's interesting that I rarely hear a topic right next to this come up in such discussions: a for-profit healthcare system that not-only leaves these people behind, but helps to put many of them there in the first place. I can't find anything in this thread about health insurance, universal access to healthcare, etc.

I have excellent health insurance by US standards (the most expensive plan offered by a big tech company in SF). I've been battling mental illness for the last two years (more like two decades, but getting treatment for two years after it became untenable), resulting in months of medical leave from work on the advice of multiple doctors. Even with "excellent" insurance, I'm approaching $50K out of pocket over the last two years. It was more than that before my insurance company decided to cover my illness and reimbursed some of what I had previously paid (after 18 months of me, my doctor, and HR fighting them). What if I wasn't lucky enough to have "excellent" health insurance and sufficient savings from years of high paying jobs? If I wasn't so lucky and ended up homeless, what chance would I have of recovering from my condition? I've avoided alcohol and drugs my entire life because I know I'm prone to addictive behavior - I'm guessing one cold night on the street would be all it would take for the first drink. It's scary to think about where it would go from there.

Healthcare for homeless people tends to be emergency rooms and under-resourced free clinics. Given my experience being treated for mental illness, I can't conceive of making any progress in free clinics or ERs. So why wouldn't I be a permanent resident of the streets?

I see talk here of homelessness being less of an issue in Europe and China... in my opinion, access to healthcare is a key difference. Treatment for homeless people is great, but how sane is a system that pushes people off a health/financial cliff before they can get such treatment? Financially feasible access to treatment long before we get there is crucial.

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#209

Post by swearwolf »

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?

This is completely anecdotal, but contemporary accounts of the Haight Ashbury following the Summer of Love tell the story of a movement that started out on acid, moved on to speed, and became far more violent and filled with squalor because of it. Much like what is happening today.

“[1] Even among drug-using Haight-Ashbury subcultures, the high-dose methamphetamine abuser was marginalized, but became increasingly visible and unavoidable because of violence associated with dealing methamphetamine and because of the users' hyperactivity and paranoia.”

1.https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02791072.2011.58...

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#210

Post by [deleted] »

richiezc wrote: post #189
door103 wrote: post #55

"A culture of permissive lawlessness"? A studio apartment in San Francisco starts at what, $2k? > Mr Shellenberger thinks they are on the streets in part because of a “housing-first” approach, which holds out for permanent, individual homes at the expense of building enough temporary accommodation. So his approach is that San Francisco should have third world-style slums? The solutions are simple: rent control and pu…

Are you aware that starting in 2020 CA has enacted rent control on everything more than 15 years old: https://sfrb.org/article/summary-ab-1482-california-tenant-p...

[deleted]
Post reply on HN