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

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#211

Post by dandotway » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 6:06 AM UTC

pseudalopex wrote: post #123

dandotway wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’ve rarely seen a normal able-bodied able-minded non-drug-using homeless person who’s just down on their luck This right here. Nearly all homeless I've worked with were non-neuronormative and/or drug abusers. They're almost never just normal folks who have fallen on hard times. The reason they aren't rooming with a family member or friend is because their behavioral outbursts and/or stealing things to buy drugs ha…

Worked with in what capacity?

Became friends with a number of homeless, bought them meals, gave them money, gave them clothing, heard their life stories in their own words, etc. There used to be a lot near where I used to live.

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#212

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 6:08 AM UTC

baby wrote: post #104

squabble wrote: post #26

I wonder if this situation is intentionally maintained. Does anyone benefit from it?

I too want to believe in a deeper conspiracy around this shitshow, but occam's razor says that it's probably a mix of: * it's a hard problem to solve * nobody wants to solve that problem * it's a national crisis, not just an SF crisis * people are incompetent and governments are slow to move (and rarely make use of data correctly) * things generally tend to get better only after they get worse

[deleted]

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#213

Post by jmspring » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 6:11 AM UTC

nuerow wrote: post #203

jmspring wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

There is more than just "homeless shelters" when it comes to working with the homeless. Also, it is usually the job of counties (due to having the office of County Health) to spearhead handling the issues around homelessness. However, there are cities like Santa Cruz (the county seat, but the city government) that take it upon themselves to try and handle things without coordination at the county level.

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#214

Post by mrobot » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 6:11 AM UTC

paisawalla wrote: post #159

mrobot wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have it. My brother is a paranoid schizophrenic who lived in public housing and got care. He was and is an addict and many of the people around him were addicts, but not all of them. I visited quite a bit. Anyway, he stayed alive and was ok because of the care he got, he left everyone alone and didn't ever hurt anyone but himself.

I'm glad for you and your brother. There are a lot of people who don't want help and won't take housing, or other assistance, if it's contingent on getting clean.

Because i know how addicts think, i know that will never work. I used to get all ragey about the way they think and they constantly trying to get stuff through social tricks from whoever is around (usually are very bad at it), but i've gotten over it. The contingency is not a good plan. They crave what they want and it is the most important thing in the world, it gets like hardwired into the brain, but they are still people and they can still get over it or get somewhat normal. Cages don't help the psyche. Street doesn't help the psyche. It's like punishment and the negative reinforcement is not helpful. Housing gives a base and yes, there is gonna be plenty of abuse of the system by them. They will continue to try to get drugs and do them, etc. I am imagining there's tons of corruption and wasted money that goes on in the organizations that handle things right now, and that needs to be handled. But the bills being proposed by the Republicans in the state governments across the country have teeth on them that go too far, because it's all really centered around using policing and punishment to enforce something that can be helped with assistance.

The 'left' solution is gonna continue to annoy republicans, who don't want their country to be seen as having a huge poverty problem next to China who is researching it and actively alleviating it. But their fixes are gonna cause a lot of human suffering that is out of sight, out of mind. When Joe Biden was talking about the border patrol's mistreatment of Haitians, everything he said was really just about perception. He wants the effect of the enforcement, he just doesn't want it to be seen in the light of what it truly is. The homeless thing and the release of this propaganda book we are discussing is a coordinated effort to "solve" the problem. The people passing these bills don't research poverty and they don't have a real plan besides violence.

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#215

Post by lostmsu » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 6:18 AM UTC

tayo42 wrote: post #202

swearwolf wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pe…

There's a huge difference between styrofoam litter and used needles in terms of health hazard.

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#216

Post by rajup » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 6:22 AM UTC

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…

You characterize it as a publicity stunt which is a dismissive way to put it, and then go on to say since in your opinion it was a publicity stunt none of what he says really matters. Not sure I agree with that.

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#217

Post by Aloha » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 6:23 AM UTC

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…

I have my own experiences interacting with the homeless in seattle. They're a bunch of overlapping groups.

Around 1/4 are short term homeless, just folks at the margins of society who fell off the page, and now cannot make ends meet. Alot of these folks do find their way off the streets of their own, but this is the group that we need to most urgently help.

Around 1/2 are long term chronic homeless, often they were just short term homeless folks, but now have fallen into the trap of the homelessness. They want out, but cant figure out how to navigate their way there.

Around 1/4 are willingly homeless, as in they do not want help.

And of those who are homeless, they seem to have the same common problems:

Around 1/3rd do have some measure of substance abuse issues (more prevalent in long term chronic homeless).

Around 1/3rd have moderate issues with excessive alcohol consumption (more prevalent in long term chronic homeless).

Another 1/2 have untreated mental health issues of some sort (seen in all groups).

The most common reasons the interventions for homelessness seem to fail:

1. Requires giving up too much personal freedom/dignity - can't come and go as you please/its treated as a pseudo-probation, have to go listen to a preacher, cant bring your pet (usually a dog).

2. too many prerequisites/hurdles to get help (must be sober/clean, must have kids/not have kids.

3. shelters feel less safe than being on the street (your stuff gets stolen, you'll get gay bashed).

4. requires you to give up too much of your SSI or other benefits to get it.

5. long waiting periods for help or not enough bed slots.

It's why I believe in a housing-first approach, housing without hurdles or prerequisites, its much easier to provide services to a sedentary population than it is a mobile one with no fixed address.

I think the case that every homeless person is a drug addict is wildly overstated, but I think the solution that SF and Seattle is doing wildly ineffective in actually solving homelessness, if anything, it makes the problem worse, while also reducing quality of life for folks who do have homes and live there.

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#218

Post by dud6eyrc » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 6:27 AM UTC

RobLach wrote: post #191

Homelessness is a solved problem. SF residents don't want the solution. Real estate is the primary wealth building asset class of long-term residents who bought property ages ago or inherited it. In California property taxes as assessed at time of sale, so you hold onto properties realistically valued at multiple millions while paying taxes at rate appropriate to tens of thousands. Bulldozing a single family home to…

Homelessness in the US has virtually nothing to do with housing supply. While I'm sure it happens, as a population these are not San Fransiscans who couldn't afford rent and now live in the street.

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#219

Post by remarkEon » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 6:30 AM UTC

crooked-v wrote: post #195

b9a2cab5 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Refusing to put thieves in jail leads to thieves not caring if they get caught. Which leads us back to modern day SF. There is a big difference between petty theft as you'd think petty would mean (<$30 of small stuff) and what the law defines it as (<$950 of stuff).

You're also making the implicit assumption here that people who commit petty theft would actually care about the marginally higher chance of suffering consequences from it in a context where there isn't anything to mitigate the reasons they're committing petty theft in the first place.

And I think you're making the implicit assumption here that people who are the victims of petty theft just had their stuff stolen, and weren't assaulted, brutalized, terrified, or otherwise demeaned in a way that will change how they function or view their lives in society. There's a larger "cost" to petty theft than just the stuff that gets stolen.

The reason we have laws, and punishment associated with breaking those laws, around petty theft isn't just about incentivizing would-be thieves to not do it.

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#220

Post by freyir » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 6:33 AM UTC

RobLach wrote: post #191

Homelessness is a solved problem. SF residents don't want the solution. Real estate is the primary wealth building asset class of long-term residents who bought property ages ago or inherited it. In California property taxes as assessed at time of sale, so you hold onto properties realistically valued at multiple millions while paying taxes at rate appropriate to tens of thousands. Bulldozing a single family home to…

San Francisco already has among the highest number of people placed in supportive housing per capita of any city in the country. How many more people need to be placed in supportive housing in San Francisco before this problem is solved?

If homes are abundant in Charlotte, why do so many homeless people live on the streets in San Francisco instead, where there’s not even sufficient housing to support working middle class families?

When Newsom tried this approach as mayor, his conclusion was that for every homeless person they put into housing, two more would show up the street. And over 90% of the chronically homeless placed in supportive housing there never move out. So what percentage of the nation’s chronically homeless population can be housed indefinitely at taxpayer expense on a tiny landlocked peninsula where seemingly everyone wants to live? This has become a statewide/nationwide problem and it needs solutions on a bigger scale than one city in isolation can provide.