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

1–10 of 153 posts

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

#3

Post by forthefuture »

mattnewton wrote: post #2

This looks really bad. Any chance anyone has another side to the story?

> “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.”

I guess this would be the other side.

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

#4

Post by CPLX »

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?

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

#5

Post by inetsee »

forthefuture wrote: post #3
mattnewton wrote: post #2

This looks really bad. Any chance anyone has another side to the story?

> “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.” I guess this would be the other side.

However, the article also points out that the measure doesn't provide any additional funding to pay for the housing that would be needed.

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

#6

Post by lawless123 »

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?

"Opponents of the measure point out that the proposed law does not include any funding for additional housing or shelters, and the city’s existing shelters have long waiting lists for beds."

I think they just tell them to go to a shelter.

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

#7

Post by bbctol »

forthefuture wrote: post #3
mattnewton wrote: post #2

This looks really bad. Any chance anyone has another side to the story?

> “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.” I guess this would be the other side.

Except that the only way it "helps" them is by providing an "extra incentive" to get off the streets, which is hardly the issue.

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

#9

Post by mattnewton »

forthefuture wrote: post #3
mattnewton wrote: post #2

This looks really bad. Any chance anyone has another side to the story?

> “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.” I guess this would be the other side.

I think these guys are smart enough to know that people aren't setting up tents despite alternatives. How can it be compassion if what this article says is true; that the measure apparently provides no other kind of relief for them, just criminalizes their existence?

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

#10

Post by yalogin »

forthefuture wrote: post #3
mattnewton wrote: post #2

This looks really bad. Any chance anyone has another side to the story?

> “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.” I guess this would be the other side.

Except in the next paragraph it says there is no provision for any housing in the bill, just removing the tents.
Post reply on HN