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

221–230 of 375 posts

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#221

Post by sien »

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…

Sleeping Rough and not affording homes are related. The Bay Area definitely needs to build more houses.

However, in San Fransicko and in other places it is pointed out that New York City, that also has astronomical housing prices and also doesn't build enough, has a fraction of the people sleeping rough that SF does.

NYC has lots of temporary shelter for people who are homeless. SF doesn't have enough.

From https://medium.com/@josefow/new-york-decided-to-end-street-h...

"New York has an extensive shelter network with over 748 locations that house more than 62,000 individuals and families experiencing homelessness every night. This extensive network means New York has an unsheltered homeless rate of 45 per 100,000 residents¹. San Francisco’s rate is 492 per 100,000 residents², almost 11 times as high."

"San Francisco, despite a shelter waiting list of more than 1,000 people, has fewer shelter beds than it did in 2004."

I'm most of the way through San Fransicko and would thoroughly recommend the book. It also does mention NIMBYs and YIMBYs but the focus is on the way that SF and other West Coast US cities have dealt very poorly with homeless people while NYC and other cities in the East have dealt much better with the problem.

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#222

Post by admash »

refurb wrote: post #201
nuerow wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I believe he is trying to say that 1) drawing conclusions from the one-time observations of a single individual is unlikely to be accurately representative of the actual situation, and is at great risk of all sorts of selection, recall, and confirmation biases. 2) in that context, ignoring all the other managerial responsibilities of a mayoral position so you can engage in a relatively non-scientific attempt at information gathering when you have people you can consult who are experts on the topic and have spent years studying and collecting data, is quite rightly a poor use of time.

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#223

Post by swearwolf »

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…

I live in Portland. Last year the voters in Oregon voted to decriminalize all drugs when in user level quantities. No one bats an eye when someone shoots up, smokes meth, etc on the streets. There are needle exchanges available. I’d say that’s fairly accepting, and the legal risk has been removed for the user. And yet the problem has gotten much, much worse. Why? Because people who are out of their heads on meth or nodded out on the street can have no meaningful interaction with the rest of society without disrupting it. Meth, at least in its current form, makes people confused, paranoid, and violent. No support system short of full on institutionalization can cope with that, and there is a mountain of case law that makes involuntary commitment extraordinarily difficult in this country.

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#224

Post by remarkEon »

moneycantbuy wrote: post #50
squabble wrote: post #26

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

landlords

Landlords want to keep people homeless ...

Landlords ... who make money from people paying to rent their units, want to deliberately keep would-be customers from handing over their money.

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#225

Post by camgunz »

refurb wrote: post #201
nuerow wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I think you two might be talking past each other here. There's nothing wrong with a politician (i.e. an elected leader) getting first hand experience with an issue. Many leaders do this all the time and get depressingly little press for it--and others do it purely for a PR win unmindful of the cynicism they're generating. I think this mayor was sincere in his intent, and also I think it's a good habit to assume positive intent (to be super corporate about it).

What I think people are taking issue with is the Mayor's seeming dismissal of some homeless as irredeemable, and his failure to acknowledge that homelessness is more than an issue of mental illness, substance abuse, and personal responsibility. That plays into the common stereotype of unhomed people, and as many pointed out, that makes the problem worse because it justifies doing little to solve the problem.

So while I believe the Mayor's intent was good, I also think he was misguided and a little arrogant. I'd be pretty peeved if my non-technical boss did a coding boot camp and came back all "huh I did that camp and I was right, your job isn't hard at all!"

It's also worth saying you don't need to go urban camping for a week to figure out how to solve homelessness. It's probably more effective to just go to endhomelessness.org.

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#226

Post by camgunz »

robbyt wrote: post #204
tayo42 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because no one should be expected to solve a societal problem personally.

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#227

Post by Splatter »

s5300 wrote: post #161
baby wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I listened to the Joe Rogan’s podcast and the solution seemed to be housing and treatment first, punishment later.

Coming to conclusions about solutions via Joe Rogan's podcast is only contributing to the problem, friend.

Wouldn't it be better to argue why what was heard on Rogan's podcast is wrong, rather than implicitly arguing that all solutions heard on Rogan's podcast are wrong. To me, your response seems like the bigger problem.

Information (including dis- and mis-) is all around us. Arguing that information from sources you dislike is wrong because you dislike the source is illogical. Respectfully, you should address exactly why what was heard on Joe Rogan's podcast is wrong.

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#228

Post by profeatur »

Whenever this topic comes up the conversation always centers around money or housing or other brute physical facts. It should be obvious by now that this problem is not about material resources but is something deeper and much more intractable.

American society has died. Many here will reply that that’s a good thing, and then continue complaining about the wealth divide or housing or whatever else fits their political agenda.

The world is a dark place and we are fragile creatures. Through technological hubris and the idea of “progress” we’ve destroyed the balance our ancestors maintained. The System has tried for over 100 years to take on more and more of the family’s roles, and even though it’s incapable of providing us with what we really need, it’s strong-armed us all into believing it’s been a success, and that this is what progress looks like, and that this progress is the greatest good.

Society proceeds from the family. The family is the center of a human’s life, and we’ve destroyed it. Divorce, broken homes, a lack of tribal cohesion, a lack of god, a total lack of all autonomy unless you’re one of the lucky few who have the ability to find it within abstractions. In this new anomic landscape parents become shadows. They have nothing to provide us because they are also confused. The filament that once held families together through generations has been snipped and there’s no way we can reconnect it now. We look away from our families and attach ourselves to a reactionary “culture” that’s completely fabricated out of the whims of the moment rather than being a mesh work that develops over time. We identity ourselves with our own coping mechanisms. We forsake the past because our ancestors were strong but it’s a kind of strength we’ve been taught to deny, because that kind of strength is dangerous to the System.

The only thing connecting us now is our sickness.

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#229

Post by lodovic »

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…

I think you are simplifying things. Try to live in a tent in a homeless camp for a week and I promise you will have more insight into all the dynamics there than any outside observer will ever have.

Re: A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

#230

Post by stjohnswarts »

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…

As long as California is willing to pay market value for said house, then sure. Otherwise, they have no more right to my property than anyone else. The USA isn't a communist country or a dictatorship, and property rights dominate except in the most dire circumstances. So it really isn't a “solved problem”. What would work is shutting the NIMBY's down and letting housing get rezoned by developers for multi-home units.
Post reply on HN