Wealthy San Francisco tech investors bankroll bid to ban homeless camps

Post by rm_-rf_slash » Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 4:41 PM UTC

DominikR wrote: post #77

s0rce wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

Post by autognosis » Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 4:49 PM UTC

Post by bm1362 » Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 4:57 PM UTC

autognosis wrote: post #83

CTRL+F "Minimum wage" yields no results in either the OP, or the comments. That tells me that SF is going to have a homelessness problem for loooong time. CA has told everyone that they CANNOT work if their time is not worth at least $21/hour. $15 for minimum wage, and ~$7 for taxes on the business to provide that employment. Of course you are going to have these problems. Downvote me if you like. But you cannot igno…

Post by CPLX » Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 4:58 PM UTC

monktastic1 wrote: post #78

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 ove…

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 5:00 PM UTC

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #82

M_Grey wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Daily survival is not a game theory problem. If I were homeless and expected sexual assault at shelters I would probably feel so insecure there that I would end up trying to live on the street instead, even at the risk of freezing. It's not a rational choice but sexual assault does not often result in (or come from) rational decisions.