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.
[deleted]
Wealthy San Francisco tech investors bankroll bid to ban homeless camps
51–60 of 153 posts
Re: Wealthy San Francisco tech investors bankroll bid to ban homeless camps
#52Two big problems with just moving people into shelters: 1. Homeless shelters are horribly funded and have long waiting lists for beds. This proposal provides no additional funding. My guess is most people will be forced to take the bus ticket option. 2. Shelter beds themselves are poorly maintained, unsanitary, and often have bed bugs. It sounds counter-intuitive but a lot of homeless people are _choosing_ the street…
Many shelters also have rules that nobody can adhere to like curfew hours or being forced to stand in line everyday to get a spot first come first served. Often you can't book more than one night at a time so you have to spend a significant part of your day, everyday, securing your temporary bed and storage for that night so if you have a job you can't stay at a shelter.
It's much better to just live out of a tent. Problem is people in squatter tents tend to get ridiculously drunk every night, light their tent on fire accidentally or spend all night screaming and fighting with each other thus police get called and their tent city dismantled.
The Salvation Army from what I've seen has the best system going. You can book 3 months, and they help you with employment. You get your own room and there's not a lot of rules besides no alcohol or drugs allowed in the building. This is where most of the homeless go who fell through the social safety net for whatever reasons, and they can save 3 months of income to get back on their feet whereas the addicts, chronic homeless by choice, and mentally ill are the ones in tent cities.
Re: Wealthy San Francisco tech investors bankroll bid to ban homeless camps
#53I was just in San Diego. Homeless people were everywhere. I heard that Vegas is literally busing homeless people out of Vegas and into San Diego. Apparently the homeless problem is even worse in San Francisco. That's insane to me.
The difference is SF doesn't have a skid row like like San Diego and LA do. I lived in SD for years and almost never saw any homeless because I spent most of my time in the northern parts. The "sketchy" parts of SF where these camps are (SOMA, TL, parts of the Mission) are only a stones-throw from the hot tech companies and million dollar condos.
Re: Wealthy San Francisco tech investors bankroll bid to ban homeless camps
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
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."
From what I've read, poverty definitely leads to lifestyles where you're "trapped" in poverty for a long time, or forever. It's like the disability we have in the US: once you're on it, you're very unlikely to ever get off it.
However, it's not just poverty that's the issue. It's mental health, it's drug abuse, and the lack of paths to a sustainable (long-term) lifestyle for these people who are homeless.
That means education: how to manage your money, what's a "good deal" involving various things, and how to take care of yourself.
It's incredibly surprising how many of these people get taken advantage of.
If you have close-to-or-zero skills, how can you possibly sustain yourself? If you have skills but you cannot recognize (because you were never taught) when you're being taken advantage of, how is that sustainable?
Re: Wealthy San Francisco tech investors bankroll bid to ban homeless camps
#55Meanwhile, unused homes outnumber the homeless 6-1 [1], and in Detroit, they bulldoze unused homes because it is more profitable to destroy and rebuild homes that are palatable for 'civilized' people than to let people live in them.[2] [1] http://www.mintpressnews.com/empty-homes-outnumber-the-homel... [2] http://www.businessinsider.com/the-mayor-of-detroits-radical...
It is not simply a matter of providing homes. Most of the street people in San Francisco have serious mental illness and drug addiction problems. They cannot take care of themselves. Giving those people a home will not solve their problems.
Re: Wealthy San Francisco tech investors bankroll bid to ban homeless camps
#56I'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?
Counterexample: you could live where I live (upstate New York) on a tenth of the cost of San Francisco. A homeless person with marginally employable skills that moved from SF to upstate NY could work and afford to live in a home with heat and running water.
But if people choose not to work, I don't see what makes them any more "entitled" to live in a city than the people who work to make rent and pay taxes to support the services the city needs.
Re: Wealthy San Francisco tech investors bankroll bid to ban homeless camps
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think these guys are smart enough to know that people aren't setting up tents despite alternatives. How can it be compassion if what this article says is true; that the measure apparently provides no other kind of relief for them, just criminalizes their existence?
The good people of my town do this all the time. They campaign to close trailer parks or tear down low-income housing. The excuse is always "nobody should live like that". But never do they create alternatives. Giving one the cynical feeling that its really all about rich people protecting their property values.
In my life, I've lived in a handful of home-owning working class and upper middle class metropolitan areas. Every single one of them has had a "crisis" when developers want to build low income housing. I'm talking putting signs on lawns, knocking on doors, scheduling protests, going to town hall meetings and starting grassroots campaigns to protect their property values under the guise of public safety and "think of the children".
Their stated fear is that crime will increase, but press them with some sympathy towards their anxiety and they'll freely make it known that they view their property as an investment and don't want to be in the presence of people they feel are beneath them.
I also spent a majority of my childhood in the low income housing people are so against. We didn't live in fear of robbery, assault nor was there a rampant drug problem. We frequently left our door and windows unlocked and many neighbors had our key. I had a large and healthy social circle as a kid because of the close vicinity to others the property provided. The sense of community was higher there than any other place I've lived. I've brought this up only to be told that I just don't understand.
Re: Wealthy San Francisco tech investors bankroll bid to ban homeless camps
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think these guys are smart enough to know that people aren't setting up tents despite alternatives. How can it be compassion if what this article says is true; that the measure apparently provides no other kind of relief for them, just criminalizes their existence?
The good people of my town do this all the time. They campaign to close trailer parks or tear down low-income housing. The excuse is always "nobody should live like that". But never do they create alternatives. Giving one the cynical feeling that its really all about rich people protecting their property values.
What they say: "people shouldn't have to live without dignity"
What they mean: "people shouldn't live here without dignity"
What they do: "people without dignity shouldn't live"
Re: Wealthy San Francisco tech investors bankroll bid to ban homeless camps
#59This article addresses a lot of the myths of homelessness which get repeated in any discussion about SF homeless (with supporting citation).
http://48hills.org/2016/02/16/five-myths-about-the-homeless-...
Key point in my mind when it comes to talking about these tent cities, is that most of SF's homeless -- over 70% -- were living in San Francisco at the time they became homeless. And as much as 50% of the homeless had lived in SF for ten years or more.
The people sleeping on the sidewalk are San Franciscans who have been priced out of housing. San Francisco is their home. These people aren't going anywhere just because you take away their tents.
Re: Wealthy San Francisco tech investors bankroll bid to ban homeless camps
#60Two big problems with just moving people into shelters: 1. Homeless shelters are horribly funded and have long waiting lists for beds. This proposal provides no additional funding. My guess is most people will be forced to take the bus ticket option. 2. Shelter beds themselves are poorly maintained, unsanitary, and often have bed bugs. It sounds counter-intuitive but a lot of homeless people are _choosing_ the street…
The biggest issue with shelters is also that they're incredibly unsafe, much of the time. Rape, robbery, and assault are commonplace.