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

71–80 of 153 posts

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

#71

Post by jessriedel »

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…

> Other people pay a lot of money in tax to the state to reduce their daily exposure to violence,

Just to be clear, police and courts use an extremely small fraction of tax revenue.

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

#72

Post by LesZedCB »

sankyo wrote: post #55
LesZedCB wrote: post #18

Meanwhile, 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.

Yeah, I know, I just want to make sure that our homeless problem is not linked to a scarcity of resources. I am very familiar with the links between mental illness and homelessness as well as lgbtq+ youth and homelessness.

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

#73

Post by stale2002 »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #41
Grishnakh wrote: post #40

Earlier 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…

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 t…

Because it is extremely expensive to address it locally, and you could help a LOT more people by taking that money and building homes for people in less expensive places.

Every 1 homeless person that you help in SF is 10 people that you could be helping somewhere else

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

#74

Post by dpark »

balance_factor wrote: post #36
aliston wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 not the issue. There are all sorts of issues around mental health, drugs, tolerance in certain neighborhoods, political corruption, inefficiencies in government Ho-hum. People become homeless because they don't have money. I've worked alongside more than one tech who has been homeless at some period in their lives. Some slept in their cars, some slept on park benches. Jim Carrey talks about how he was ho…

Long term homelessness is generally not just a result of lack of money. Healthy individuals can usually get out of homelessness with a bit of help. People suffering from severe mental illness or severe substance abuse have a much more difficult time escaping homelessness because they often have no support network and no way to rebuild one, and they have difficulty retaining any sort of employment.

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

#75

Post by kafkaesq »

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?

It does mention requiring that people be offered a shelter bed.

But provides no funding (or even specific requirements that would imply funding; e.g. "shelter for 30 days"). Which basically means, in effect "umm, actually we're not really going to provide shelter. We're just going to keep rousting you and rousting you until you head out over to Oakland, or down the Peninsula".

Just that people like Moritz, Conway, Oberndorf, Bogue and Mayer don't want to come out an say it. Even though it's apparently exactly what they want.

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

#76

Post by pavlov »

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…

... without any sense of responsibility ... ones who take advantage ... people who don't learn to get along ...

All this sounds like you're blaming the homeless. Your last paragraph suggests that you have solutions to the problem. What are they?

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

#77

Post by DominikR »

s0rce wrote: post #69
rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Oh you've got me completely wrong, I wouldn't guarantee anyone a place or service anywhere in the world.

What I'm saying is that people are free to go and stay where ever they want in their country as long as it isn't someones private property. That's a very basic freedom that we all have.

You don't have a mandatory responsibility to care for the homeless and homeless do not have a responsibility to accept any your care. Especially if your care amounts to basically forcing them to live in a different place.

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

#78

Post by monktastic1 »

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?

I'm not able to evaluate whether it's a good idea. But from my experience in the Bay Area, the intention is likely as others have described it: it's inconvenient to have to witness such nasty people, so let's shovel them elsewhere.

It's as insane as it sounds to you.

Edit: what's a progressive, sensitive solution? It starts with something as simple as responding with basic kindness and decency instead of stepping over them on our way to work. Some believe this is pointless or insufficient. It may not work on its own, but it's the only thing that will point us in the right direction.

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

#79

Post by dpark »

s0rce wrote: post #69
rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> This is why I agree with your statement that the state should establish services in more cost effective areas.

How's that supposed to work? The state builds a homeless ghetto in Salinas and trucks all the homeless there with promises of housing and services? Who is this supposed to be attractive to? The residents of the town now housing the ghetto? The homeless who are being shipped somewhere that they don't want to be, somewhere that can't actually support a homeless population on the street? If the program fails either wholesale or for that individual, will they truck them back to SF or just dump them on the streets in this town with no support for homelessness?

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

#80

Post by dpark »

DominikR wrote: post #64
rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 everybo…

Everywhere is someone's property. You're on private property or you are on government-owned property. Those are the only options.
Post reply on HN