• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

San Francisco homeless problem: A Civic Disgrace (San Francisco Chronicle)

Status
Not open for further replies.

entremet

Member
The reduction of homelessness to the extent humanly possible must be San Francisco’s No. 1 priority.

http://projects.sfchronicle.com/sf-homeless/civic-disgrace/

It persists on the streets of San Francisco through boom times and downturns. It is alternately an incubator and a destroyer of political will, as elected representatives eventually discover that their pledges to address it become their undoing when it doesn’t go away. It takes a heavy toll on the ambience of our neighborhoods, the cost of doing business for many enterprises and the experience of visitors who are stunned to encounter such deprivation in a city of profound prosperity.

It frustrates and polarizes San Francisco like nothing else. There are those who see it as a social-services challenge, those who reduce it to a law-enforcement matter, and a few who think the problem would simply go away if only there were more affordable housing in the city.

On one point we must all agree: The level and pervasiveness of homelessness in San Francisco is a disgrace. It is simply not acceptable to allow people to stay in the squalor of tent encampments or sleep in doorways, parks and freeway underpasses without attention to the underlying issues that prevent them from attaining shelter and stability in their lives. It’s bad for public safety, bad for public health, and bad as a matter of basic humanity.

Its reduction to the extent humanly possible should be this city’s No. 1 priority.

The ultimate goal must be to eliminate, not manage, homelessness.

No mayor, no member of the Board of Supervisors — no resident with heart and a love for this city — should accept the status quo.

This was actually a rare front page editorial from the SF Chronicle. I couldn't find it via search here but it recently made my RSS feed.
 
"Rabble Rabble we should really do something about this homeless problem!"

"Rabble rabble why don't we build a few new housing complexes downtown?"

"But...mah Air BNB rates ;_; "
"I don't want to live next to those people."
"Hard to appreciate the sunset with a highrise in the way ya know."
"Why don't they just move out of the city?"
 
"Rabble Rabble we should really do something about this homeless problem!"

"Rabble rabble why don't we build a few new housing complexes downtown?"

"But...mah Air BNB rates ;_; "
"I don't want to live next to those people."
"Hard to appreciate the sunset with a highrise in the way ya know."
"Why don't they just move out of the city?"

Fuck the dirty poors, breathing my air!
 
Wasn't there an asshole who wrote an article on how he shouldn't have to see so many homeless people on his commute to whatever tech company he works at? That about sums up the attitude of your average person's view on the homeless.
 

Bombless

Member
Wasn't there an asshole who wrote an article on how he shouldn't have to see so many homeless people on his commute to whatever tech company he works at? That about sums up the attitude of your average person's view on the homeless.

I was about to post that very thing. It had a thread here too.
 

Yaboosh

Super Sleuth
Suggestions they make:

More efficient spending of the $241 million yearly being thrown at the issue corruptly/haphazardly. Do this via tracking and eliminating programs that are shown not to improve individuals situations, shifting people to programs that are state/federally funded, emulating places like Houston, SLC and NYC.

Spend a ton on new public housing (where?)

Cooperate with surrounding areas to make sure SF doesn't just shift their problem to Oakland or SJ.

Get more aggressive with arrests for tent city, public pooping and pissing, and aggressive begging to punish those who don't participate in the programs.






More efficient spending would obviously be good, but the tracking will likely be expensive at first.

Public housing in SF just seems impossible.

It will be a political minefield to get good deals with the surrounding cities.

And the arrest recommendation feels weird given the rest of the editorial.

This problem just seems impossible to actually tackle given the reality of the current city.
 
What's actually most shocking about the homeless problem in SF is that it seems like there are so many mentally ill homeless people there, more so than in my hometown of NYC. Walking down the street more often than not you'll see a homeless guy muttering to himself and walking through traffic rather than sitting on the sidewalk and panhandling. It makes a daunting problem even more so.
 

Mariolee

Member
Wasn't there an asshole who wrote an article on how he shouldn't have to see so many homeless people on his commute to whatever tech company he works at? That about sums up the attitude of your average person's view on the homeless.

Why go that far? Just like at some of the opinions spewed into the threads on GAF concerning the homeless.
 
What's actually most shocking about the homeless problem in SF is that it seems like there are so many mentally ill homeless people there, more so than in my hometown of NYC. Walking down the street more often than not you'll see a homeless guy muttering to himself and walking through traffic rather than sitting on the sidewalk and panhandling. It makes a daunting problem even more so.
I'm guessing it's because the crazy roamers in NYC just end up freezing to death? That's not something that can happen in SF.
 

Fuchsdh

Member
Suggestions they make:

More efficient spending of the $241 million yearly being thrown at the issue corruptly/haphazardly. Do this via tracking and eliminating programs that are shown not to improve individuals situations, shifting people to programs that are state/federally funded, emulating places like Houston, SLC and NYC.

Spend a ton on new public housing (where?)

Cooperate with surrounding areas to make sure SF doesn't just shift their problem to Oakland or SJ.

Get more aggressive with arrests for tent city, public pooping and pissing, and aggressive begging to punish those who don't participate in the programs.






More efficient spending would obviously be good, but the tracking will likely be expensive at first.

Public housing in SF just seems impossible.

It will be a political minefield to get good deals with the surrounding cities.

And the arrest recommendation feels weird given the rest of the editorial.

This problem just seems impossible to actually tackle given the reality of the current city.

I agree that the arrest bit seems contradictory, but the problem is that making cities more attractive for homeless people means you're literally creating a magnet for other homeless people (those cities that just bus their homeless to the west coast say hello).

Their idea seems to be that you make the existing programs more effective (at least from the example they give, a lot seems to be about accountability and seeing if general welfare programs can replace homeless-specific ones) but at some point you probably do need a stick to push people to the programs as well. As long as at least the initial goal of the police arrests is about getting people treatment instead of just getting them an arrest record that'll make things harder for them, it seems like a reasonable approach.

I guess my concern is that they seem to just focus on "cut bloat", which is all well and good but is pretty damn hard to do in government. Hard to argue the problem needs more money thrown at it, though, when you consider how staggering 200 mil is though.
 

Guevara

Member
More than anything else, this is a problem of government incompetence and years of staggering mismanagement.

San Francisco already spends more per capita than any U.S. City on homelessness, San Francisco spends more per capita on almost everything, period.

It's fun to blame the young libertarian assholes, and they are assholes, but they alone can't explain why the entire city is so poorly run.
 

h1nch

Member
As a visitor to SF the homeless problem there is out of this world.

I've encountered homeless ppl in every city I've ever been to, but never have I ever felt as threatened by them or witnessed as many hostile homeless folk as I have in SF.

Last time I was there for a conference, a coworker got sucker punched by a homeless dude who was trying to steal his phone...while he was talking on it.

This was mid day, on Market maybe a few blocks down from Embarcadero.
 
California has the 7th highest economy in the world and it's run by a Democratic government, so what's the problem here? Homelessness and high cost to live should both be down, unless there's corruption.
 

olympia

Member
California has the 7th highest economy in the world and it's run by a Democratic government, so what's the problem here? Homelessness and high cost to live should both be down, unless there's corruption.

sf has created it's own housing problems by restricting development with a mixture of stringent environmental regulation and nimbyism. high cost of living occurs when there is low supply and high demand.

also california can't be generalized into one area. the state has 30 million people and is very diverse. there are plenty of areas that have local republican or conservative leadership, even in the bay area.

housing first is the most effective antihomlessness program but it's hard to do that when people who make six figures cannot find housing in the city. a huge part of the issue is displacement because of shitty landlords who do shit like burn down their own buildings to exile their tenants.

a few weeks ago every bay area media source collectively did stories about homelessness. I highly recommend anyone who really cares about this issue to at least listen to the coverage on homelessness by KQED Forum, among others. https://ww2.kqed.org/forum/2016/06/28/in-my-experience-homeless-in-the-bay-area/
 

Gallbaro

Banned
California has the 7th highest economy in the world and it's run by a Democratic government, so what's the problem here? Homelessness and high cost to live should both be down, unless there's corruption.

SF spends enough money ($60,000 per homeless person, per year), its just filled with ineptitude.
 
Sometimes I wonder if SF's spending is what pushes some people around there to lean right politically. Like they see with their own eyes that all these social programs seemingly don't work.
 

old

Member
Perhaps we need to reavaluate the assumption that one gets to live in any city of their choosing simply because they they want to or because they placed their physical selves there.

Lots of space for public housing out in flyover country. They've got the space. We've got the busses. I see a solution.
 

Ferrio

Banned
Perhaps we need to reavaluate the assumption that one gets to live in any city of their choosing simply because they they want to or because they placed their physical selves their.

Lots of space for public housing out in flyover country. They've got the space. We've got the busses. I see a solution.

What a gross opinion. Many of these people were there first.
 

collige

Banned
Perhaps we need to reavaluate the assumption that one gets to live in any city of their choosing simply because they they want to or because they placed their physical selves their.

Lots of space for public housing out in flyover country. They've got the space. We've got the busses. I see a solution.

No one in flyover country would approve of a plan that involves them paying money to house homeless people from another city.
 

Gallbaro

Banned
Perhaps we need to reavaluate the assumption that one gets to live in any city of their choosing simply because they they want to or because they placed their physical selves their.

Lots of space for public housing out in flyover country. They've got the space. We've got the busses. I see a solution.

Clinton pretty much pushed and succeeded in making new public housing illegal.
 

olympia

Member
Perhaps we need to reavaluate the assumption that one gets to live in any city of their choosing simply because they they want to or because they placed their physical selves their.

Lots of space for public housing out in flyover country. We've got the space. We've got the busses. I see a solution.

so the people who were born there should be shipped across the country because they were displaced by the bubble? ok.
 

Yaboosh

Super Sleuth
Perhaps we need to reavaluate the assumption that one gets to live in any city of their choosing simply because they they want to or because they placed their physical selves there.

Lots of space for public housing out in flyover country. They've got the space. We've got the busses. I see a solution.


I don't think you have given what you said more than a second of thought.
 
They need to suck it up and start pursing programs and ordinances that devalue the local housing market.

They're going to eventually have to start building up, whether they want to or not.
 

norm9

Member
Not a solution, but stop letting other states send their mentally ill on greyhound buses to California. THat'd be a start.
 

SapientWolf

Trucker Sexologist
More than anything else, this is a problem of government incompetence and years of staggering mismanagement.

San Francisco already spends more per capita than any U.S. City on homelessness, San Francisco spends more per capita on almost everything, period.

It's fun to blame the young libertarian assholes, and they are assholes, but they alone can't explain why the entire city is so poorly run.
From what I've been told, the inhabitants of San Francisco are resistant to any kind of new housing development, let alone public housing.
 

CodonAUG

Member
50% of SF is suburbia.

The solution is to make it all urban.

But its not going to happen because people buy houses as investments, instead of as a machine for living.
 

Gallbaro

Banned
50% of SF is suburbia.

The solution is to make it all urban.

But its not going to happen because people buy houses as investments, instead of as a machine for living.

Yup and even if SF changed to become an actual progressive town today (not this neo-liberal shit) and became reasonable in zoning.

The absolute lack of construction in the area means it will take decades for adequate construction talent to actually exist there and for any reasonable rate of new bedroom construction to exist. AKA its only going to keep pulling ahead from New York City in terms of rent. NYC is currently in the biggest building boom since 1920's and it is still not enough.
 

Mistake

Member
Well if I got a job there, I'd probably choose being homeless with those rates. I think I remember reading about a guy that did that. And yeah, if they're spending so much money, it must not be going to the homeless people like it should
 

KodaRuss

Member
I recently visited and the problem is unbelievable. There has to be better ways to spend the amount that they are spending on the problem because it is not working right now and it hasnt been for years.
 

aeolist

Banned
that city can't even get it together enough to build housing affordable to teachers and service workers, how does anyone expect them to house the unemployed homeless?
 

entremet

Member
60k a person and they are still homeless? I find it hard to believe they are spending that with how shit is there.
It's going to services and programs that support the homeless.

The services are inefficient since they don't address the problem head on, lack of housing.

Utah recently built housing for their homeless population because it was cheaper than spending money on social workers, drug rehabilitation, job placement and training and so on.
 
What's actually most shocking about the homeless problem in SF is that it seems like there are so many mentally ill homeless people there, more so than in my hometown of NYC. Walking down the street more often than not you'll see a homeless guy muttering to himself and walking through traffic rather than sitting on the sidewalk and panhandling. It makes a daunting problem even more so.

I noticed this in Santa Monica too.
 
that city can't even get it together enough to build housing affordable to teachers and service workers, how does anyone expect them to house the unemployed homeless?

if its anything like the way NYC does things its going to be years before a family ever steps foot in an affordable home.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom