51–60 of 257 posts
Mods - can we update the title to “San Francisco dog poop crisis” ? Note that the category of tickets in 311 is “Human / Animal waste”. I personally went through 100 random tickets on the sf data portal and found that 95% were either dog poop or miss classified (eg abandoned car or trash collection). People automatically read the headline and correlate to human waste.
I wonder how much this has to do with an increase in people knowing that there exists a system to complain about poop, versus the actual increase of poop itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Out of curiosity why is that not a solution? Why is it inherently better for them to live on the streets of SF than someplace with running water and electricity? It's also obviously better for the citizens of SF to not have to deal with human feces, dirty needles and massive amounts of property crime (at the least). There's tons of empty space in the US, it seems reasonable to move people who are breaking the law, ca…
You can't keep humans in place, who don't want to stay in place. If you paid some benighted town in the Great Plains $500/head to accept your homeless, that town would just buy each transplanted San Francisco resident a sandwich and a bus ticket, pocketing the rest. It would soon become a joke on SF streets, "yeah I just got back from Nebraska!"
SF needs the Portland Loo.[1][2] The homeless-resistant public toilet. Not enough privacy for a drug deal. Water faucet on the outside, not the inside. Prison-grade stainless. [1] https://www.latimes.com/world/la-xpm-2012-aug-29-la-na-08-29... [2] https://portlandloo.com/
If its private enough to poop in its not private enough to do a drug deal in? So you can see multiple people's legs that's going to stop things?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know you think this seems very logical, sane - but you have a tell "outside city limits" - you want these people rounded up and bused out. it's not a solution. Sane policing, treatment programs, and massive development is the solution.
Out of curiosity why is that not a solution? Why is it inherently better for them to live on the streets of SF than someplace with running water and electricity? It's also obviously better for the citizens of SF to not have to deal with human feces, dirty needles and massive amounts of property crime (at the least). There's tons of empty space in the US, it seems reasonable to move people who are breaking the law, ca…
You could actually enforce the laws and put people in safe jails with better living conditions than they have now, outside the city limits. It seems like being more and more lenient is not a solution to a problem getting worse and worse.
I know you think this seems very logical, sane - but you have a tell "outside city limits" - you want these people rounded up and bused out. it's not a solution. Sane policing, treatment programs, and massive development is the solution.
"Outside city limits" would be because of the prohibitively high cost of real estate and regulations in San Francisco.
Allowing people to commit crimes with impunity is not a solution. It is effectively punishing law-abiding people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't keep humans in place, who don't want to stay in place. If you paid some benighted town in the Great Plains $500/head to accept your homeless, that town would just buy each transplanted San Francisco resident a sandwich and a bus ticket, pocketing the rest. It would soon become a joke on SF streets, "yeah I just got back from Nebraska!"
I stopped replying because it's just classic entitled NIMBY-ism happening here. You're not going to get through to them.
SF needs the Portland Loo.[1][2] The homeless-resistant public toilet. Not enough privacy for a drug deal. Water faucet on the outside, not the inside. Prison-grade stainless. [1] https://www.latimes.com/world/la-xpm-2012-aug-29-la-na-08-29... [2] https://portlandloo.com/
> Not enough privacy for a drug deal. That is SF. Drug deals are done in broad daylight.
Like in most cities, in the US atleast.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Give them a better place to do drugs; a place where they get free needles and can throw away the old ones properly (so they won't leave them lying about).
Im just curious if there are any examples of this kind of attitude actually working instead of just attracting more homeless people. So far it seems like San Francisco's policy of not enforcing basic quality of life laws has not made homeless people say "oh gee they sure are nice not to arrest me for dealing drugs and smashing car windows. To thank them I will not poop in the street."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Im just curious if there are any examples of this kind of attitude actually working instead of just attracting more homeless people. So far it seems like San Francisco's policy of not enforcing basic quality of life laws has not made homeless people say "oh gee they sure are nice not to arrest me for dealing drugs and smashing car windows. To thank them I will not poop in the street."
Sure, there are plenty of safe injection cities all over Canada. They save lives, not promote homelessness. https://www.ottawapublichealth.ca/en/public-health-topics/ha... edit: > "oh gee they sure are nice not to arrest me for dealing drugs and smashing car windows. To thank them I will not poop in the street." This is terribly reductionist, and apathy is not at all the same as actually providing help.