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

San Francisco, Hostage to the Homeless

city-journal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–79 of 79 posts

Re: San Francisco, Hostage to the Homeless

#71

Post by m0llusk »

maxlybbert wrote: post #68
m0llusk wrote: post #7

It is strange that this subject gets so much attention but so little actual investigation. It is asserted that San Francisco simply backed off from enforcement and then this happened, but the reality is far more complex. Heavy ongoing use of incarceration caused both a backlash and extreme expense. Troubled people from all over the globe come to San Francisco. Most homeless only stay in the City for a couple of weeks…

> Making it sound like deciding to enforce crimes would be easy and cheap and fix ... San Francisco used to enforce these quality of life laws, and things were different. The thing is that San Franciscans didn’t like that world. Sure, people got in trouble for crapping on the sidewalk, but they didn’t have better places to crap. Instead of creating better places to crap, San Francisco decided not to hassle people for…

That is extremely incorrect analysis. Nationwide homelessness used to be extremely rare and limited to mostly middle aged men and older women. Now in America homelessness has become common everywhere and we have homeless working families which simply didn't happen before. Back in the 1970s minimum wage would support a small family and modest homes were available in most markets. Blaming San Francisco for this major nationwide change makes no sense at all.

As recently as the mid 1970s simply being black or in a homosexual relationship could get you beaten up and thrown in jail. People rejected this arrangement because it was unfair, unreasonable, and extremely expensive. Then the drug war turned the whole nation into a kind of gulag. Go ahead and object to Chinese treatment of minorities, but we have more in jail here.

Neoliberal economists said that if we just lowered taxes enough there would be plenty of opportunity, but modern capitalism runs lean and fires fast. Even basically competent middle aged men can have trouble, so the larger population which includes people of various genders, ages, and capacities is not doing well. Labor markets are as brutal in America now as during the depression. You can't shred labor markets and leave them in tatters and then whine about how society isn't fixing itself like before.

The appeal to dominance and laws and enforcement is a silly delusion that we will have to get over if we ever want to make progress with this problem for real.

Re: San Francisco, Hostage to the Homeless

#72

Post by cpr »

twelve40 wrote: post #60
MrAlex94 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since your governments go ahead and remove people who are trying to live in public spaces, you don't see them, and you assume they don't exist. From this, I assume you aren’t from the UK and don’t actually have any idea about homelessness here? [Shelter]( https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/homelessness ) and [Centrepoint]( https://centrepoint.org.uk/ ) are two of the biggest homeless charities here and t…

In the US, in San Francisco specifically, many homeless get not just a free coffee, but free needles, methadone, and pretty much a blind eye to all drug circulation downtown. The city spends $300 million on homeless every year, yet in the other thread here they say that SF has more homeless than all of the UK, and that number keeps growing every year. There are people defecating every day in the street around my offi…

Isn't it obvious that way you pay for, you get more of?

I don't mean that cynically--just seems like common sense.

Re: San Francisco, Hostage to the Homeless

#73

Post by maxlybbert »

m0llusk wrote: post #71
maxlybbert wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Making it sound like deciding to enforce crimes would be easy and cheap and fix ... San Francisco used to enforce these quality of life laws, and things were different. The thing is that San Franciscans didn’t like that world. Sure, people got in trouble for crapping on the sidewalk, but they didn’t have better places to crap. Instead of creating better places to crap, San Francisco decided not to hassle people for…

That is extremely incorrect analysis. Nationwide homelessness used to be extremely rare and limited to mostly middle aged men and older women. Now in America homelessness has become common everywhere and we have homeless working families which simply didn't happen before. Back in the 1970s minimum wage would support a small family and modest homes were available in most markets. Blaming San Francisco for this major n…

San Francisco certainly did used to enforce quality of life laws, and they certainly have intentionally relaxed that enforcement: “based on the sit/lie ordinance [prohibiting people from sitting or lying on the sidewalk], infractions peaked at 1,011 in 2013, but since that time they have steadily declined, falling to 114 in 2017. ... SFPD's current policy focuses on steering homeless people to shelters, rather than arresting them” ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sit-lie_ordinance#San_Francisc... ).

Incidentally, the city believes there are roughly the same number of homeless people today as there were back when they enforced quality of life laws: “The sense that homelessness itself is exploding in San Francisco is not reflected in the city’s numbers. According to the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, the city’s homeless population has remained essentially flat in recent years. The agency counted 7,499 people experiencing homelessness in 2017, about 2 percent higher than 2013 levels, and slightly lower than in 2015” ( https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/08/san-franciscos-sidewa... ). They claim that back then, there wasn’t crap on the street because people were crapping in vacant buildings. Now, because of the building boom, there aren’t many vacant buildings.

I’m not saying that hassling people for crapping on the street is the right approach. I understand why San Franciscans by and large rejected it. But it absolutely can be done, because that is what they used to do.

Re: San Francisco, Hostage to the Homeless

#74

Post by CompanionCuuube »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #23
airnomad wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever camped in a camping spot somewhere? You get electricity, bathrooms, access to kitchen etc. If we could accept the fact that some people want to live on the streets, we would be able to make their life much easier and better without imposing a certain philosophy on how they should be living.

>Have you ever camped in a camping spot somewhere? You get electricity, bathrooms, access to kitchen etc. There are many people for which the definition of camping specifically excludes those things.

But how am I going to plug in all this stuff I got from Skymall?

Re: San Francisco, Hostage to the Homeless

#75

Post by Data_Junkie »

maxlybbert wrote: post #73
m0llusk wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is extremely incorrect analysis. Nationwide homelessness used to be extremely rare and limited to mostly middle aged men and older women. Now in America homelessness has become common everywhere and we have homeless working families which simply didn't happen before. Back in the 1970s minimum wage would support a small family and modest homes were available in most markets. Blaming San Francisco for this major n…

San Francisco certainly did used to enforce quality of life laws, and they certainly have intentionally relaxed that enforcement: “based on the sit/lie ordinance [prohibiting people from sitting or lying on the sidewalk], infractions peaked at 1,011 in 2013, but since that time they have steadily declined, falling to 114 in 2017. ... SFPD's current policy focuses on steering homeless people to shelters, rather than a…

So what the city is saying is more people crap on the streets because there is less shelter ? Wow, color me shocked the reason we have problems with homeless people is that they have no shelter. These geniuses are sure to solve this problem !

Re: San Francisco, Hostage to the Homeless

#76

Post by Data_Junkie »

m0nsoon wrote: post #58
awayyyythrow wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The alternative is building houses . When you put people in houses they cease to be homeless. They did it in Helsinki, and it worked: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jun/03/its-a-miracle... Very simple deductive reasoning actually, I wonder how people did not come up with it yet.

>>>No other American city has built as much affordable housing per capita, according to the Bay Area Council Economic Institute. From 2004 to 2014, the city spent $2 billion on nearly 3,000 new units of permanent supportive housing. You’re conflating addressing “housing transience” with addressing “addiction, mental illness, and criminal antisocial behavior”. Additional housing units don’t resolve this problem.

Ever been to a developmental center ? Full of addiction, mental illness and criminal anti-social behavior, at a level completely beyond anything seen in any homeless group, not even close. You know what the answer the local government in the area has done to improve the lives of the people they have had locked away from society since the area has existed? Provided them housing.

Re: San Francisco, Hostage to the Homeless

#77

Post by MrAlex94 »

twelve40 wrote: post #60
MrAlex94 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since your governments go ahead and remove people who are trying to live in public spaces, you don't see them, and you assume they don't exist. From this, I assume you aren’t from the UK and don’t actually have any idea about homelessness here? [Shelter]( https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/homelessness ) and [Centrepoint]( https://centrepoint.org.uk/ ) are two of the biggest homeless charities here and t…

In the US, in San Francisco specifically, many homeless get not just a free coffee, but free needles, methadone, and pretty much a blind eye to all drug circulation downtown. The city spends $300 million on homeless every year, yet in the other thread here they say that SF has more homeless than all of the UK, and that number keeps growing every year. There are people defecating every day in the street around my offi…

Okay? I was talking about your egregious remarks about the homeless situation in London.

It’s by no means peachy, as austerity is making things worse - but it can’t be compared to homelessness in the US where there are barely any social safety nets.

> I guess I should start buying them coffee or some food and things will get back on track.

Comprehension would lend itself well to the context of what I said.

Re: San Francisco, Hostage to the Homeless

#78

Post by MrAlex94 »

cpr wrote: post #72
twelve40 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, in San Francisco specifically, many homeless get not just a free coffee, but free needles, methadone, and pretty much a blind eye to all drug circulation downtown. The city spends $300 million on homeless every year, yet in the other thread here they say that SF has more homeless than all of the UK, and that number keeps growing every year. There are people defecating every day in the street around my offi…

Isn't it obvious that way you pay for, you get more of? I don't mean that cynically--just seems like common sense.

I imagine it also depends on what it’s being spent on. If it’s not used effectively, no amount of money will make any difference - and as you said probably exacerbate the problem.

Re: San Francisco, Hostage to the Homeless

#79

Post by PopeDotNinja »

jahaja wrote: post #20

Wow, that article's rhetoric is seething with social darwinistic class hatred. All these voluntary homeless seems to be conspicuously absent in western Europe. At least at this scale. Insisting on, which the author clearly does according to a quick googling, firmly supporting and perpetuating an economic system that creates these dystopian features and then calling for their forceful removal, through weasel language,…

> voluntary homeless

I lived deep inside the homeless prone parts of SF. 99% of the homeless in my neighborhood couldn't hold down a job if they wanted one. I was homeless for a while, and I certainly didn't do that voluntarily. Drugs, inability to afford housing & find a job (my issue), alcoholism, landlords playing games to get people evicted, mental health issues, lack of skills to compete, etc. The list goes on. I'll shut up now before I say what I REALLY think.

Post reply on HN