Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wealthy San Francisco tech investors bankroll bid to ban homeless camps

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 153 posts

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

#41

Post by JoeAltmaier »

Grishnakh wrote: post #40
DominikR wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, he's not saying that at all. He's asking why this problem should be addressed at the municipal level, and why it isn't being addressed at the state level or federal level instead. It's a valid question: the State of California has a lot more resources to deal with a problem like this than any single municipality within the state, and the Federal government even moreso. Given how much of a problem homelessness is…

Why not address it locally? Its easy to say "somebody else's problem" when dealing with your poor, dirty homeless neighbors. And its a problem all over - the reciprocal argument "the State can't fix everything for everybody" is valid too.

The real hangup in all this comes when temporary fixes (tents) are pulled out from under people, and ephemeral future fixes by indeterminate somebody are waved around. People have to be sheltered every day. Starting today.

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

#42

Post by ryandrake »

heymijo wrote: post #35
andlarry wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

San Francisco spends $241 million[0] of it's $8.9 billion budget[1] on programs to help the homeless and to help folks avoid becoming homeless (through housing assistance, etc). The 2015 count of homeless people in San Francisco is 7,539[2]. This measure doesn't increase spending on the homeless issue but, honestly, the San Francisco govt has shown the ability to absorb funding increases without noticeable impact in…

From your [0] link. "Eight city departments oversee at least 400 contracts to 76 private organizations" That says a lot about how spending $31,967.10 for every homeless person can amount to, well, no one seems to know. I'm curious what happened in New Orleans and the other places referenced that have seen success helping their homeless populations. Knowing even a little bit about systems, layering more complexity (an…

> That says a lot about how spending $31,967.10 for every homeless person can amount to, well, no one seems to know.

The "76 private organizations" that all this money is being funneled toward probably know.

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

#43

Post by John23832 »

product50 wrote: post #26
AndyMcConachie wrote: post #20

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?

The answer to that question isn't "Lets move the homeless colony", it's "Lets work to reduce poverty."

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

#44

Post by odonnellryan »

andlarry wrote: post #19
CPLX wrote: 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?

San Francisco spends $241 million[0] of it's $8.9 billion budget[1] on programs to help the homeless and to help folks avoid becoming homeless (through housing assistance, etc). The 2015 count of homeless people in San Francisco is 7,539[2]. This measure doesn't increase spending on the homeless issue but, honestly, the San Francisco govt has shown the ability to absorb funding increases without noticeable impact in…

Proportionally (to population), I'd say it's less than or around the NYC numbers.

Something really interesting: "Hawaii has the highest homeless rate per capita in the nation, according to federal statistics."

Hawaii the state spends something around 40m a year on the homeless.

But a lot of Hawaii homeless live in tents on the beach!

Just some interesting numbers. I know a lot of the homeless kids in Hawaii also get picked up by school buses as well.

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

#45

Post by jsprogrammer »

fatdog wrote: post #39

Why do homeless people camp on sidewalks? Because it works. The question becomes, "works for what?" The proposition appears to mean to make camping "not work," by imposing risk and cost on campers. It's responding to a symptom, but it's like treating cancer with crutches. What does the street provide an alley or park doesn't? I've said before, the perceived security from non-underclass people walking by. Police prote…

Could you please expand on the argument that governments were originally chartered to remove tent cities?

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

#46

Post by rm_-rf_slash »

Grishnakh wrote: post #40
DominikR wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, he's not saying that at all. He's asking why this problem should be addressed at the municipal level, and why it isn't being addressed at the state level or federal level instead. It's a valid question: the State of California has a lot more resources to deal with a problem like this than any single municipality within the state, and the Federal government even moreso. Given how much of a problem homelessness is…

It's more like this: San Francisco is very expensive. It is also a nice place to live.

Why not put shelters and programs to get people back on their feet in less expensive places so that eventually the formerly homeless can live in San Francisco by paying rent with the money they earn by working?

Just like everybody else.

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

#47

Post by andlarry »

heymijo wrote: post #35
andlarry wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

San Francisco spends $241 million[0] of it's $8.9 billion budget[1] on programs to help the homeless and to help folks avoid becoming homeless (through housing assistance, etc). The 2015 count of homeless people in San Francisco is 7,539[2]. This measure doesn't increase spending on the homeless issue but, honestly, the San Francisco govt has shown the ability to absorb funding increases without noticeable impact in…

From your [0] link. "Eight city departments oversee at least 400 contracts to 76 private organizations" That says a lot about how spending $31,967.10 for every homeless person can amount to, well, no one seems to know. I'm curious what happened in New Orleans and the other places referenced that have seen success helping their homeless populations. Knowing even a little bit about systems, layering more complexity (an…

Yeah, and those private organizations (mostly non-profits) are very effective at lobbying, so it's hard to terminate contracts to consolidate services.

One thing to clarify is that, because some (~$60 Million in 2015 [3]) goes to housing assistance. The people helped by the budget includes more than 7,539 represented by the point in time count, so the $31K/person number is a bit high.

That said, SF spends a lot of money on homeless and the homeless population hasn't significantly decreased in over a decade.

[3] http://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/FileCenter/Documents/56... page 6

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

#48

Post by odonnellryan »

product50 wrote: post #26
AndyMcConachie wrote: post #20

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?

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

So, there is actually one near me. Not next to my house, but near me: http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/04/01/shantytown-in-hoboken...

Weird, right? This is in Hoboken...extremely (bay-area-levels) rich area.

SF median household income: $65,519.00 Hoboken: $105,710 (population difference between Hoboken and SF is an order of magnitude, fyi)

Weird stuff. Anyway... it's definitely not "a good feeling" to see homeless people around. I donate and try to help, but I definitely get a big pang when asked for some cash for food, and the conversation goes like this:

"I don't have any cash on me, can I buy you something from this pizza place with my card?"

"No I don't want pizza."

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

#49

Post by kordless »

AndyMcConachie wrote: post #20

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.

This is where the "this is a blaming comment speaking for others" button would come in handy to downvote this comment to oblivion. It matters not if the rationale for this comment is sensible or not - making statements that are non-provable and overarching is not a way to discuss something that is as important as a fellow human's health and well being. Rich people or not, tent cities are a less than ideal way for people to live. We can do better...together.

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

#50

Post by fucking_tragedy »

aliston wrote: post #15
inetsee wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

However, the article also points out that the measure doesn't provide any additional funding to pay for the housing that would be needed.

San Francisco spends roughly 35k/year per homeless person. Funding is not the issue. There are all sorts of issues around mental health, drugs, tolerance in certain neighborhoods, political corruption, inefficiencies in government etc. that contribute to the situation we have today. I guarantee you, though, that if a bunch of homeless people started camping out in Pac Heights, the issue would get "resolved" pretty qu…

Funding is the issue, because

> There are all sorts of issues around mental health, drugs, tolerance in certain neighborhoods, political corruption, inefficiencies in government etc. that contribute to the situation we have today.

Can be addressed with funding.

Funding is the issue when it comes to a lack of housing, social and mental health services for the homeless.

Post reply on HN