Build a mental health infrastructure, reform the prison system, and you'll be solving more than half of your homeless "problem"... which is mostly an addiction and mental health problem at its core.
Wealthy San Francisco tech investors bankroll bid to ban homeless camps
61–70 of 153 posts
Re: Wealthy San Francisco tech investors bankroll bid to ban homeless camps
#62Two 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.
But sadly less unsafe than the street. It sucks to be homeless big time.
Re: Wealthy San Francisco tech investors bankroll bid to ban homeless camps
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
The biggest issue with shelters is also that they're incredibly unsafe, much of the time. Rape, robbery, and assault are commonplace.
But sadly less unsafe than the street. It sucks to be homeless big time.
It does suck, but safety on the streets is highly variable depending on your experience and what you're trying to be safe from. If your bad experiences are getting groped every night, the risk of death from exposure or someone hassling you on the streets may seem more desirable.
Re: Wealthy San Francisco tech investors bankroll bid to ban homeless camps
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> It's more like this: San Francisco is very expensive. It is also a nice place to live.
I don't care, I can be where ever I want as long as it is not someones property. Doesn't matter if I'm poor or rich.
> Why not put shelters and programs to get people back on their feet
Such programs and shelters do already exist all over the country. Do you want to force them to move to these places or camps?
> Just like everybody else.
Not everybody wants to be you or me.
Re: Wealthy San Francisco tech investors bankroll bid to ban homeless camps
#65Meanwhile, 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.
Except it's really hard to provide treatment for those illnesses if you can't find them regularly, so giving them a home, first, and then bringing services to that home is the only policy that makes sense. Seems to be working in Utah.
Re: Wealthy San Francisco tech investors bankroll bid to ban homeless camps
#66My hometown is Anaheim, CA. I recently visited to go biking along the Santa Ana river, and I was shocked at the large numbers of homeless people throughout the stretch between the Angel Stadium and Santa Ana. Even more shocking was the fact that most of them seemed to be under 30. Every freeway overpass had encampments beneath and around it -- at least 30-40 tents total in the smaller encampments, and 60+ in the larger ones.
The river and the county seat (which also has encampments surrounding it) have become the only place where homeless encampments are allowed any sort of permanence, since police departments in cities throughout Southern California have adopted increasingly aggressive policies towards them. From what I understand, the river and county seat fall under the County Sheriff's jurisdiction, so city police can't evict them or seize possessions, and the Sheriff has realized that there is literally no where else for these people to go, and is currently allowing them to stay.
This year's ACLU report on homeless in Orange County is interesting:
https://www.aclusocal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Nowhere...
I honestly had no idea how bad things are. I feel horrible about it.
Re: Wealthy San Francisco tech investors bankroll bid to ban homeless camps
#67I'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?
I live on one side of Vancouver's Downtown Eastside (DTES), work on the other side, and walk through it twice a day. DTES is the centre of gravity for at-risk populations in the lower mainland, and it's basically where you see the homeless, the crazy, and the addicted hanging out, shooting up, and pitching tents.
It's never bothered me, and I've never been bothered. My property value is still amongst the highest in Canada. Various agencies have wisely decided to colocate services in the DTES to help the at-risk groups, and a touch of gentrification keeps police and city services involved.
So basically, I don't give a shit about a "homeless colony" (what, they're an infestation?) right next to my current house, and I'm glad that the attention it receives is focused on helping the people there rather than trying move them somewhere out of sight and out of mind.
Re: Wealthy San Francisco tech investors bankroll bid to ban homeless camps
#68I want to point out that this measure does not take effect until there is actual open housing in which to send homeless folks. They cannot be told to leave otherwise. Since there is no funding for new housing in this measure, there is some chance the removal measures outlined here will never get to be used. This means shelter will be guaranteed to anyone who is told to leave. That said, my political club voted agains…
> I want to point out that this measure does not take effect until there is actual open housing in which to send homeless folks. They cannot be told to leave otherwise.
The text of the measure isn't that specific. [1] It just says that the city has to offer shelter. In no way does it state that shelter must be actually available or secured before removing the tent.
The pessimistic interpretation is that the police will be able to tell a tent dweller that they need to go to a shelter and just give them directions to the nearest one, and the requirements of the law will be satisfied.
[1] https://ballotpedia.org/San_Francisco,_California,_Prohibiti...
Re: Wealthy San Francisco tech investors bankroll bid to ban homeless camps
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I agree with this. The fact is that to live in the bay area now is expensive and many people (myself included) work hard to afford to live here. I don't understand why someone who doesn't or can't work should be guaranteed a place here. If I was injured or became a drug addict/mentally ill and needed to stop working I would strongly consider moving back to where I lived for the past few years in Eastern WA, life was exponentially cheaper. Problem is these places where living is cheap probably have little to no services for the mentally ill/ addicts. This is why I agree with your statement that the state should establish services in more cost effective areas. I guess this seems like shipping them off to camps away from rich people but at least the dollars spent on services and shelters can serve more people more effectively.
Re: Wealthy San Francisco tech investors bankroll bid to ban homeless camps
#70“I strongly believe that it is not compassionate to allow human beings to live on our city streets,” wrote the measure’s author, supervisor Mark Farrell, in an op-ed. “Let’s help get the homeless into housing, not tents.”
By passing a measure that bans the tents -- but doesn't actually do anything to help get these people into housing. Or for that matter, any meaningful promise of a safe place to sleep at night (because without funding -- and that's precisely where the crux of the issue lies, behind this problem -- the phrase "offer shelter for all tent residents" has precisely zero chance of seeing a viable implementation).
Now that's compassionate.