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

San Francisco Orders Homeless to Leave Tent Camp

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 64 posts

Re: San Francisco Orders Homeless to Leave Tent Camp

#51

Post by jpindar »

SeoxyS wrote: post #36
jpindar wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get your point, but Detroit is a really bad example. Who would want to live with undrinkable water and the highest murder rate in the country, with essentially no municipal services, in a house so run down that it'd be condemned in any other city?

You must be thinking of St. Louis and Flint, MI… That, plus I hear Detroit is bouncing back a bit. The homeless would probably become jobless, there. A slight improvement, I guess.

Oops, yeah the contaminated water thing is in Flint. But Detroit does have high crime, even if the exact rankings vary slightly from year to year.

Re: San Francisco Orders Homeless to Leave Tent Camp

#52

Post by iamnothere »

20years wrote: post #40
iamnothere wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is directly contrary to what has been found to work in practice. Mental illness and drug addiction can take years to treat successfully, and it's impossible to treat people who don't live in a fixed location. "Housing first" policies treat housing as the first priority, necessary for even gaining access to help people with other problems. Without housing, many of these people gradually become worse off and event…

"we need to provide shelter along with drug rehab services"

Yes, but treatment should be sought voluntarily, not imposed as a condition of housing.

*edit: Treatment should be readily available and highly encouraged, obviously.

Re: San Francisco Orders Homeless to Leave Tent Camp

#53

Post by 20years »

iamnothere wrote: post #52
20years wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"we need to provide shelter along with drug rehab services"

Yes, but treatment should be sought voluntarily, not imposed as a condition of housing. *edit: Treatment should be readily available and highly encouraged, obviously.

I am curious why you feel it should be voluntarily?

If we are doing our part by providing resources and money for shelter/food/rehab, shouldn't they be doing their part to get & stay clean?

We need to be accountable in providing shelter, food, rehab. They need to be accountable for staying clean.

Otherwise, I fear it will not work. It should be a 2 way street.

Re: San Francisco Orders Homeless to Leave Tent Camp

#54

Post by justifier »

1024core wrote: post #3

Every time the topic comes up, people from across the country start commenting on SF's homelessness woes. I live in SF, and consider our homeless situation unique. There are lots of mentally ill people, who have been hanging around for many years, thanks to good weather and generous people (and the easy availability of some drugs). Most of these people are NOT your typical "lost my job, lost my apartment, and hence a…

i'm sorry but 'institutions' hardly seem like the solution when those places are where a number of people are coming directly from(o)

i think we need to acknowledge shelter as a basic right and determine a minimum for meeting that right's demands, then offer it to everyone with autonomy, only regulated by the respect for the rights of others

(o) http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/09/11/2602391/san-franc...

Re: San Francisco Orders Homeless to Leave Tent Camp

#55

Post by adwf »

20years wrote: post #44
adwf wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we want to solve this problem, we need to provide shelter along with drug rehab services & require weekly clean drug tests as a requirement to keep the shelter. Yes and no. The question is, are people becoming homeless because they're drug addicts or becoming drug addicts because they are homeless? If it's the former then yes, clean drug tests - as a requirement to compel them to get better - might help. If it's…

"I venture to say that most drug addicts don't actually want to be that way" I agree with this which is why I think we should offer the support they need to get better. I also feel that people need to be held accountable. If you are not held accountable for staying clean when you are provided the support you need, it will be easy to go right back into it.

That might be fine for the mental addiction side of it, but is absolutely not for the physical side. It's why addiction is such a serious problem. People seriously cannot just will themselves clean.

Re: San Francisco Orders Homeless to Leave Tent Camp

#56

Post by iamnothere »

20years wrote: post #53
iamnothere wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but treatment should be sought voluntarily, not imposed as a condition of housing. *edit: Treatment should be readily available and highly encouraged, obviously.

I am curious why you feel it should be voluntarily? If we are doing our part by providing resources and money for shelter/food/rehab, shouldn't they be doing their part to get & stay clean? We need to be accountable in providing shelter, food, rehab. They need to be accountable for staying clean. Otherwise, I fear it will not work. It should be a 2 way street.

People need a home before any kind of treatment would be effective. Unfortunately, treatments for both mental illness and drug and alcohol abuse require a long time to work, and relapses are extremely common. Further, these treatments aren't usually effective unless the recipient feels that any needed lifestyle changes are made of their own volition; if they feel "forced" into it, treatment won't work long-term.

This "housing first" approach, when implemented properly, has proven effective in many areas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First

Re: San Francisco Orders Homeless to Leave Tent Camp

#57

Post by maerF0x0 »

1024core wrote: post #30
jacobolus wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many homeless people have you talked to? In my (anecdotal) experience just chatting with people, there are plenty of “lost my job and now I’m homeless” folks in SF. These tend to be a bit less visible than the mentally ill though. More generally, many homeless people become mentally unstable or take up mind-altering substances after a while living on the street. It’s a really stressful, socially alientating situa…

> How many homeless people have you talked to? Quite a few. Maybe close to 50 over the years, a decent sized sample. Some of them I got to know very closely. One of them did get an SRO room (I was really close to him), I helped him get settled in. Of course, about 2 years later he was back on the streets, because he wrecked his room.

> Of course, about 2 years later he was back on the streets, because he wrecked his room.

Do you have any insight as to why he would do that? This is a complaint I've heard many times and never understood why someone would wreck their own place they live.

Re: San Francisco Orders Homeless to Leave Tent Camp

#58

Post by maerF0x0 »

pjlegato wrote: post #43
martinshen wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most visible homeless and those we consider "the problem" certainly may be those who "cannot take care of themselves". However, the majority do not fit this category. I may be naive but I think we should be tackling the homeless with mental problems first. While I certainly have more empathy to those who have "lost my job, lost my apartment, and hence am homeless", I am unconfident that traditional support servic…

There is no need for scare quotes around "the problem." When people regularly walk up to you on the street and start ranting obscenities at you for no particular reason, that is a problem, full stop, no scare quotes. Source: it happened to me yesterday in downtown San Francisco. It's happened numerous times before. It's a problem.

I agree. I am a decent sized person, so feel comfortable in my ability to defend myself in need, at least enough to get away more or less unscathed, but I do feel for smaller people, women, children. They shouldnt have to be toeing a line of "Do I walk awkwardly to add a safe distance between people who look odd" and "Do I walk normal and maybe get attacked/accosted".

Re: San Francisco Orders Homeless to Leave Tent Camp

#59

Post by maerF0x0 »

jkyle wrote: post #37
martinshen wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most visible homeless and those we consider "the problem" certainly may be those who "cannot take care of themselves". However, the majority do not fit this category. I may be naive but I think we should be tackling the homeless with mental problems first. While I certainly have more empathy to those who have "lost my job, lost my apartment, and hence am homeless", I am unconfident that traditional support servic…

Most severely mentally ill are not violent nor a danger to anyone, except perhaps themselves through neglect. > A widespread belief that the afflicted are violent contributes to the stigma of mental illness and as such may interfere with their seeking and obtaining appropriate assistance. Debunking this misconception will likely lead to progress in helping troubled individuals [...] [1] 1. http://www.scientificameric…

Being yelled at, scared, (wrongfully) guilted, manipulated and lied to are violent and dangerous (in the negative effects on my life sense).

IMO it's violence and IMO the danger isnt in getting bruised/battered, but in losing the ability to carry out normal life for fear of what is "out there" on the streets. Safety isnt the only point, sure there maybe a low chance of issues, but safety is also about how people feel, do they feel secure? In this case I think its a resounding no, the behavior of many of these street people is outright disturbing and makes people, likely those least able of defending themselves, live with a burned of fear/insecurity.

Re: San Francisco Orders Homeless to Leave Tent Camp

#60

Post by maerF0x0 »

aetherson wrote: post #27
fosk wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in SF and the problem with housing here is that although the residential neighborhoods are very extended (think of the Richmond), most of the residential buildings are 2/3 story houses that cannot accomodate many people. We need to start replacing these little residential houses with 10 story buildings. There is nowhere else to build, we need to start upgrading the existing buildings. Will that change the city…

While I do support infill development, San Francisco is already a dense city (the second-densest city in the US after New York City, unless you count much smaller municipalities), and the idea that everyone must, must, must be given the opportunity to live in San Francisco proper is naïve, as is the idea that any but a tiny minority of the homeless in the city would ever be able to afford any kind of market-rate hous…

While san francisco maybe dense, one thing I've noticed is that people live very small here. It may just be my social circle, granted anecdotal, but I seem to see tight living situations here. A quick search didnt turn up data about over crowding conditions, consider things like People per room, People per sq ft. Nearl everyone I know has housemates, may have roommates (literally same room).

Compared to what I've seen elsewhere San francisco is a very compact city and people are making great sacrifices in order to make rent affordable on a per person basis.

Post reply on HN