9 ms·

San Francisco Firefighters Become Unintended Safety Net for the Homeless

93 points by e0m 11y ago

stcredzero 11y ago
Funny, but something similar happened to librarians in public libraries: They became unofficial social workers! (I know this from my friend, who was a librarian in the Houston public libraries.) Also, I find myself doing what amounts to social work in my volunteer life now.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- cperciva 11y ago
  To elaborate on this, here's (as accurately as I can remember it) what a librarian I know in Vancouver said recently: "Hardly anyone comes in wanting books any more, and the people who do already know how to find them. But nobody knows how to find government services, so when I'm not reading to kids I usually have a phone book open helping someone figure out which government office provides the services they need."
  - derefr 11y ago
    Admittedly, navigating bureaucracy and discovering relevant available services does seem to fall within the wheelhouse of library science.
    - screwedup 11y ago
      Ideally, our government would be user-friendly enough to make this service simple.
      - throwaway1967 11y ago
        The government is user-friendly, but the people are not its target users.
      - tetrep 11y ago
        Is a library not a simple service? While they might not be intended to fill the role of helping you find government services it seems like they fill it appropriately.
      - superuser2 11y ago
        Ideally. Making the application process sufficiently difficult that not all who qualify will fill out the paperwork successfully is often necessary to keep social services afloat. No one, not even a Democrat, gets elected on a platform of raising taxes to support more welfare spending.
  - ggchappell 11y ago
    Comments on web forums often make it seem as if this phenomenon is universal. So, I thought I would point out that where I live (Fairbanks, Alaska), we have a healthy, vibrant public library that lots of people go to for books.
- bro-stick 11y ago
  The homeless folks say the San Jose State's MLK library is the only non-commercial place around that's climate controlled and tolerates their situations.
ryanobjc 11y ago
Interesting article. I see SF's finest out taking care of the homeless population more than they do anything else. I applaud them, and agree that society needs to do something better here. Unfortunately, I do believe that "the average american" believes homeless people are in fact not people, and should be left to die. There was another callout to that video of '14 police officers taking down a one legged black man': "Many onlookers saw not the police grappling with a mentally disturbed man as he kicked and bit, but yet another incident of police brutality." I strongly believe in facts and information about the world, and the medium piece was one of the most one-sided unfair articles. Yes it was an opinion piece, but in the past we recognized that those who are in privileged positions of publishing have a special responsibility. Now a days when anyone can be a journalist, and hit-count are the name of the game, this has really pushed a lot of bad-faith and lazy journalism.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
jbaudanza 11y ago
An unfortunate side effect of the overuse of these emergency vehicles it that makes it difficult for residents to get a healthy night's sleep. Frequent sirens and air-horns are the number #1 cause of noise pollution in the Tenderloin. Many residents here are elderly and low-income and cannot afford double-paned windows and thick curtains to protect from the noise.
- meatysnapper 11y ago
  Yeah I used to live right near the SoMa fire station and it was non-stop noise. It's too bad we don't have decent, reliable public transportation so people can be housed relatively cheaply and still be able to get around quickly, easily and cheaply. This take the bus/bart for hours just won't work.
- frandroid 11y ago
  Would it be possible for firefighters to respond to mental health emergencies with another type of vehicle?
  - cwyers 11y ago
    It depends how many crews you have at the firehouse. If you have multiple crews, then maybe. If you're taking the only fire crew at the house out to respond to this, the whole firetruck needs to come with because if there is a fire, you don't want the crew to have to drive back to the firehouse, get the firetruck ready to go and then go back out to respond to the fire.
    - djrogers 11y ago
      And in many cases, if a city tried to put a (much cheaper) paramedic crew/ambulance in a firehouse to cover calls like this the union would point out that it violates their agreement with the city. So we go on wasting resources, talent, and ability.
      - Brian-Puccio 11y ago
Animats 11y ago
It's sad that the SFFD is becoming demoralized by this. They're a good fire department. (The SFPD isn't very good.) A decade ago, the SFFD had a better plan for dealing with this.[1] Even now, there are better practical plans.[2] [1] http://www.sfgov2.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/mocj/CommInvlv_News/FD_HOME_Team.pdf http://www.sfgov2.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/mocj/CommInvlv_News/... [2] http://endsfstrugglewithchronichomelessness.blogspot.com/ http://endsfstrugglewithchronichomelessness.blogspot.com/
- sliverstorm 11y ago
  What happened to [1]?
fiatmoney 11y ago
Firefighters in general are becoming more social services or general emergency services providers than actual "fire fighters". http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/07/firefighters-dont-fight-fires.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/07/fir...
jkot 11y ago
> Mayor Ed Lee said this week that the homeless are “going to have to leave” the streets before the Super Bowl comes to town in February China had similar approach for their Olympic Games :-(
- fredkbloggs 11y ago
  In this case it's doubly silly, since the Super Bowl is being played 80km and two counties away in a different city for which SF has zero responsibility. Undoubtedly a few of the visitors will stay in or visit SF while there, but probably not all that many since it's a 2+ hour drive with traffic and there's no direct mass transit option. Seems like much ado about nothing, or perhaps an excuse or rationalization.
  - rsync 11y ago
    I think you'd be surprised ... Last college bowl season, I saw numerous college football players in downtown SF who had a game to play later that day. If you make it all the way to the bay area, you're going to come into the city.
- peterwwillis 11y ago
  How are people not picketing this? Where the fuck are these people going to go? There are over 6,000 homeless in the city. Do they think they're just going to take a bus to some other city? (Which, by the way, is what both Sacramento and NYC have done in the past, among others) If they can't get them out of the city or into permanent housing, they're just going to wander around looking for a new place to collect change, soup, methodone, dope, and a corner to sleep in. That's going to anger residents and result in many conflicts.
netfire 11y ago
"By the end of this year 500 new single-occupancy units will be built and existing homeless resources will be expanded." Are these units temporary housing for people on the street? What does the path away from homelessness look like in the bay area, with real estate costs and rent as high as they are? Its hard to see how someone living on the street is going to be able to afford $1,000+ rent just for a studio apartment on whatever employment they can get coming off the street.
- fredkbloggs 11y ago
  > Are these units temporary housing for people on the street? What does the path away from homelessness look like in the bay area, with real estate costs and rent as high as they are? It starts the same way it starts everywhere: by getting sober, getting into a decent shelter, and becoming marketable as an employee. The cost of housing is neither the first barrier nor the primary one, and someone who is sober and marketable can always choose to seek work and housing elsewhere if that really becomes the primary obstacle. Don't forget that although the cost of housing in SF is very high, so is the minimum wage. And the City has a lot of programs for people who are gainfully employed but struggling with the cost of market-rate housing. What they don't have is housing for someone who spends 20 hours of every 24 lying on the ground cracked out and shitting himself. No landlord can tolerate that kind of behavior, not even a publicly-funded one. It's a health hazard, a danger to other tenants, and does too much damage to the dwelling; never mind the fact that such a tenant will never be able to pay even token rent.
  - noir_lord 11y ago
    > What they don't have is housing for someone who spends 20 hours of every 24 lying on the ground cracked out and shitting himself. No landlord can tolerate that kind of behavior, not even a publicly-funded one. It's a health hazard, a danger to other tenants, and does too much damage to the dwelling; never mind the fact that such a tenant will never be able to pay even token rent. Which makes sense in a practical way, what we should be doing (inclusive we) is funding social programs to help people avoid spending 20 hours a day cracked out shitting themselves, You aren't going to stop everybody but the cost of doing it upfront is so much lower than doing it later. That of course require that a government have a cohesive and inclusive strategy for dealing with the welfare of it's citizens and we don't seem to have that in the UK let alone the US.
stefantalpalaru 11y ago
> just over 1.5 percent of its runs last year involved fires The issue here is not homelessness, it's the waste of resources by sending the firefighters to tag along almost each and every ambulance call. Looks like a classic case of perverse incentives. Somebody somewhere wanted to give them more work or more exposure and they ended up doing useless runs.
- bro-stick 11y ago
  Perhaps emergency social services would be a better use of resources. Btw SF has social services people/volunteer orgs canvassing the Tenderloin during most daylight hours distributing resource info... it's almost impossible to not cross their paths on the fin district opposite side. The issue is that emergency social workers whom can be assigned to a specific person to intervene until they're in a better situation are what's most needed. Not all homeless people know how to fill out forms, navigate, keep appointments or can stick to getting their basic needs met by themselves/know what to do next for whatever reason/s; some do too, sure. The U.S. really needs centrally-coordinated assigned caseworker management for social services so that all needs (food, housing, health, $, edu, work, mental, dental) can be met and addressed, not the patchwork /hit-miss system-of-infinite-cracks it is now.
fredkbloggs 11y ago
> Jennifer Friedenbach, the executive director of the Coalition on Homelessness, a nonprofit in the city, said a lack of reasonably priced housing was the biggest problem. Ms. Friedenbach, you make yourself and your ideological camp appear naive and out of touch. No doubt, there are a handful of gainfully employed, productive and law-abiding citizens of SF who are homeless solely or primarily because they cannot afford an apartment. I am sure that the time they are forced to spend living in shelters, sitting on the BMR housing waiting lists, and looking for better opportunities in other cities with more affordable housing is painful, degrading, and infuriating. That sucks. As for the other 6600+ of SF's 6700 homeless population, it's not going to make any difference whether housing is $10,000 a month or $100. These are people with no marketable skills (not even the ability to show up), no desire to work, major addictions (usually following multiple treatment interventions), severe mental illnesses, a preference for the street lifestyle, or some combination of those. Most live in SF not because they were born there or because they have jobs or family there but because there is no freezing weather and the City is accommodating, like spending a large fraction of the $330m SFFD budget sending trained firefighters to pick up the same few hundred people twice a day every single day of the year. All the free housing in the world isn't going to get them off the streets. Bitching about the cost of housing in SF is fashionable. But I would really expect someone who works directly on the problems of homelessness and with homeless people to know better. The cost of housing is at most a very minor contribution to the problem. When you can show me that most of the people in the City who are homeless have jobs and are reasonably healthy, it'll be time to pin the blame on the housing market. Until then, get serious about addressing the real problems, or just accept that you're never going to and stop pretending.
- netfire 11y ago
  You obviously need to address the core issues of homelessness first. But then what? Once someone has marketable skills, mental health treatment and is in a better condition to contribute to society, do you ask them to leave the city because there isn't anywhere they can afford to live? Unaffordable housing may not be the reason someone is on the street, but its definitely a problem on the path away from that situation.
bro-stick 11y ago
While SF's mayor plans to kick out or hide as many homeless as possible to make way so Super Bowl partiers won't be offended or feel obliged to partake in some extrajudicially-unprosecuted hate crimes. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10130589 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10130589
nslocum 11y ago
The amount of money SF spends on homeless people is outrageous. $230M / 6,700 homeless = >$34K per homeless person per year
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- zardo 11y ago
  For 34k, you'd think they could get a roof over their heads.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- mikeyouse 11y ago
  A better way to frame the spending is, how many additional people would be homeless if not for the efforts of San Francisco. There aren't just 6,700 people that refuse to be helped but tens of thousands on the cusp of a very bad situation.
  - iansimon 11y ago
    Another way to frame it is: how many additional people are homeless because of the efforts of San Francisco?
    - mikeyouse 11y ago
      I'd wager approximately 0. If you mean, how many additional people are homeless in San Francisco because of the efforts here, then the number surely isn't negligible but the wealthiest area in the country seems like a decent place to extend a little humanity. What's the alternative? Treat our homeless like shit so other people don't want to move here?
- SomeCallMeTim 11y ago
  At that rate they could, you know, provide homes for them and feed them? Sounds like that's part of the plan (500 units), but not in a way that makes sense to me. Micro-apartments at ~200sq.ft., with really basic (read: mostly plastic/easy to wash, plus maybe a cot) furniture, could go for ~$800/month and still be a good deal for a developer. That's $9600/year. Throw in inexpensive food at another $800/month, and it would be $19,200/year, or a savings of $14,800 per year. Partner with a developer, guarantee the rents, and let the private sector fork over the capital for the building of WAY more than 500 units. A lot of the cost is actually far more than $34k/person, by the way. There are charities that leverage this fact by finding chronic emergency-room users and getting them a home, food, and sometimes a companion animal. [1] When a homeless person checked into a hospital can cost $9000. An emergency room visit can cost $3700. [2] When someone has serious health issues, they can visit the emergency room multiple times a month; some end up costing the taxpayer $44,400 per year. Apparently 90% of the homeless at any one time are just going through a bad spot in their lives. And giving someone a place to live can break the cycle of homelessness: You need to have an address to get a job, typically. You also need to be able to shower. Let them keep living in the cheap apartment if they want, but if their income passes a threshold then they need to start contributing to the room & board. Or don't force them to pay; food and shelter really should be human rights anyway. Why not start in San Francisco? Everyone else would benefit by there being fewer people peeing on walls or sleeping on sidewalks, and by the (relatively) cheaper labor pool that would be available. [1] http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10150757 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1015075... [2] http://greendoors.org/facts/cost.php http://greendoors.org/facts/cost.php
brandonmenc 11y ago
> Instead, the calls that ring in this and nearby fire stations tend to go like this: Male, apparently homeless, sprawled unconscious on a train platform. I can confirm that this also happens in Tempe (Phoenix), all the time.
habosa 11y ago
If you live in SF and you're reading this and you want to help the homeless, this may be a good option: https://handup.org/giftcards https://handup.org/giftcards Also consider donating to a local organization, there are many good ones. I personally like Larkin Street Youth Services. They help homeless children and young adults (12-25) get back on their feet through housing, education, etc. At that age you really can put it all behind you with the right support.
udp 11y ago
Here in the UK, if you call the emergency services they ask which service you require (police, ambulance, fire). It would be absolutely unthinkable to respond "fire" if there wasn't a fire. How does it work in the US? Is the fire dept. a different number that is somehow acceptable to call for this kind of problem? There have been a number of times when I've been in difficult situations with severely drunken or otherwise vulnerable people, and every time I've called the local police station (rather than the emergency number) and they've sent someone over. But it's always the police I would call - never the fire brigade.
- DanBC 11y ago
  > Here in the UK, if you call the emergency services they ask which service you require (police, ambulance, fire). It would be absolutely unthinkable to respond "fire" if there wasn't a fire. Although most people have no problem saying "police" not "ambulance" when they see someone in psychiatric distress. (Admittedly that's sometimes the right thing to do. Police have section 136 powers to take people to a place of safety for assessment, and there's started to be street triage services working with the police).
- mangeletti 11y ago
  The answer is that fire departments respond to any call where there could be an injury or other related need, because they are also EMTs, and in the U.S. you just call 911 and tell the operator what's wrong. If you say you want an ambulance, chances are, you'll get an ambulance... and a fire truck. This is partly due to the fact that most ambulances are a private service and don't really represent the service of the city (which firefighters / fire EMTs do represent). The problem is that we don't really have a sort of emergency first responder triage department. The operators are it. There's isn't an EMT who can speed to the scene in a fuel efficient car on his own to bring you some bandaids or water and check your blood pressure (e.g., in the case of a homeless person prone with a needle in his arm), and then call for more help if needed, so, instead, a $300,000 hook and ladder truck full of 4 highly trained firefighters (also trained as EMT) is deployed to do the same thing.
  - mattmanser 11y ago

93 points by e0m 11y ago

Funny, but something similar happened to librarians in public libraries: They became unofficial social workers! (I know this from my friend, who was a librarian in the Houston public libraries.) Also, I find myself doing what amounts to social work in my volunteer life now.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
cperciva 11y ago
To elaborate on this, here's (as accurately as I can remember it) what a librarian I know in Vancouver said recently: "Hardly anyone comes in wanting books any more, and the people who do already know how to find them. But nobody knows how to find government services, so when I'm not reading to kids I usually have a phone book open helping someone figure out which government office provides the services they need."
- derefr 11y ago
  Admittedly, navigating bureaucracy and discovering relevant available services does seem to fall within the wheelhouse of library science.
  - screwedup 11y ago
    Ideally, our government would be user-friendly enough to make this service simple.
    - throwaway1967 11y ago
      The government is user-friendly, but the people are not its target users.
    - tetrep 11y ago
      Is a library not a simple service? While they might not be intended to fill the role of helping you find government services it seems like they fill it appropriately.
    - superuser2 11y ago
      Ideally. Making the application process sufficiently difficult that not all who qualify will fill out the paperwork successfully is often necessary to keep social services afloat. No one, not even a Democrat, gets elected on a platform of raising taxes to support more welfare spending.
- ggchappell 11y ago
  Comments on web forums often make it seem as if this phenomenon is universal. So, I thought I would point out that where I live (Fairbanks, Alaska), we have a healthy, vibrant public library that lots of people go to for books.
bro-stick 11y ago
The homeless folks say the San Jose State's MLK library is the only non-commercial place around that's climate controlled and tolerates their situations.

ryanobjc 11y ago

Interesting article. I see SF's finest out taking care of the homeless population more than they do anything else. I applaud them, and agree that society needs to do something better here. Unfortunately, I do believe that "the average american" believes homeless people are in fact not people, and should be left to die. There was another callout to that video of '14 police officers taking down a one legged black man': "Many onlookers saw not the police grappling with a mentally disturbed man as he kicked and bit, but yet another incident of police brutality." I strongly believe in facts and information about the world, and the medium piece was one of the most one-sided unfair articles. Yes it was an opinion piece, but in the past we recognized that those who are in privileged positions of publishing have a special responsibility. Now a days when anyone can be a journalist, and hit-count are the name of the game, this has really pushed a lot of bad-faith and lazy journalism.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

jbaudanza 11y ago

An unfortunate side effect of the overuse of these emergency vehicles it that makes it difficult for residents to get a healthy night's sleep. Frequent sirens and air-horns are the number #1 cause of noise pollution in the Tenderloin. Many residents here are elderly and low-income and cannot afford double-paned windows and thick curtains to protect from the noise.

meatysnapper 11y ago
Yeah I used to live right near the SoMa fire station and it was non-stop noise. It's too bad we don't have decent, reliable public transportation so people can be housed relatively cheaply and still be able to get around quickly, easily and cheaply. This take the bus/bart for hours just won't work.
frandroid 11y ago
Would it be possible for firefighters to respond to mental health emergencies with another type of vehicle?
- cwyers 11y ago
  It depends how many crews you have at the firehouse. If you have multiple crews, then maybe. If you're taking the only fire crew at the house out to respond to this, the whole firetruck needs to come with because if there is a fire, you don't want the crew to have to drive back to the firehouse, get the firetruck ready to go and then go back out to respond to the fire.
  - djrogers 11y ago
    And in many cases, if a city tried to put a (much cheaper) paramedic crew/ambulance in a firehouse to cover calls like this the union would point out that it violates their agreement with the city. So we go on wasting resources, talent, and ability.
    - Brian-Puccio 11y ago

Animats 11y ago

It's sad that the SFFD is becoming demoralized by this. They're a good fire department. (The SFPD isn't very good.) A decade ago, the SFFD had a better plan for dealing with this.[1] Even now, there are better practical plans.[2] [1] http://www.sfgov2.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/mocj/CommInvlv_News/FD_HOME_Team.pdf http://www.sfgov2.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/mocj/CommInvlv_News/... [2] http://endsfstrugglewithchronichomelessness.blogspot.com/ http://endsfstrugglewithchronichomelessness.blogspot.com/

sliverstorm 11y ago
What happened to [1]?

fiatmoney 11y ago

Firefighters in general are becoming more social services or general emergency services providers than actual "fire fighters". http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/07/firefighters-dont-fight-fires.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/07/fir...

jkot 11y ago

> Mayor Ed Lee said this week that the homeless are “going to have to leave” the streets before the Super Bowl comes to town in February China had similar approach for their Olympic Games :-(

fredkbloggs 11y ago
In this case it's doubly silly, since the Super Bowl is being played 80km and two counties away in a different city for which SF has zero responsibility. Undoubtedly a few of the visitors will stay in or visit SF while there, but probably not all that many since it's a 2+ hour drive with traffic and there's no direct mass transit option. Seems like much ado about nothing, or perhaps an excuse or rationalization.
- rsync 11y ago
  I think you'd be surprised ... Last college bowl season, I saw numerous college football players in downtown SF who had a game to play later that day. If you make it all the way to the bay area, you're going to come into the city.
peterwwillis 11y ago
How are people not picketing this? Where the fuck are these people going to go? There are over 6,000 homeless in the city. Do they think they're just going to take a bus to some other city? (Which, by the way, is what both Sacramento and NYC have done in the past, among others) If they can't get them out of the city or into permanent housing, they're just going to wander around looking for a new place to collect change, soup, methodone, dope, and a corner to sleep in. That's going to anger residents and result in many conflicts.

netfire 11y ago

"By the end of this year 500 new single-occupancy units will be built and existing homeless resources will be expanded." Are these units temporary housing for people on the street? What does the path away from homelessness look like in the bay area, with real estate costs and rent as high as they are? Its hard to see how someone living on the street is going to be able to afford $1,000+ rent just for a studio apartment on whatever employment they can get coming off the street.

fredkbloggs 11y ago
> Are these units temporary housing for people on the street? What does the path away from homelessness look like in the bay area, with real estate costs and rent as high as they are? It starts the same way it starts everywhere: by getting sober, getting into a decent shelter, and becoming marketable as an employee. The cost of housing is neither the first barrier nor the primary one, and someone who is sober and marketable can always choose to seek work and housing elsewhere if that really becomes the primary obstacle. Don't forget that although the cost of housing in SF is very high, so is the minimum wage. And the City has a lot of programs for people who are gainfully employed but struggling with the cost of market-rate housing. What they don't have is housing for someone who spends 20 hours of every 24 lying on the ground cracked out and shitting himself. No landlord can tolerate that kind of behavior, not even a publicly-funded one. It's a health hazard, a danger to other tenants, and does too much damage to the dwelling; never mind the fact that such a tenant will never be able to pay even token rent.
- noir_lord 11y ago
  > What they don't have is housing for someone who spends 20 hours of every 24 lying on the ground cracked out and shitting himself. No landlord can tolerate that kind of behavior, not even a publicly-funded one. It's a health hazard, a danger to other tenants, and does too much damage to the dwelling; never mind the fact that such a tenant will never be able to pay even token rent. Which makes sense in a practical way, what we should be doing (inclusive we) is funding social programs to help people avoid spending 20 hours a day cracked out shitting themselves, You aren't going to stop everybody but the cost of doing it upfront is so much lower than doing it later. That of course require that a government have a cohesive and inclusive strategy for dealing with the welfare of it's citizens and we don't seem to have that in the UK let alone the US.

stefantalpalaru 11y ago

> just over 1.5 percent of its runs last year involved fires The issue here is not homelessness, it's the waste of resources by sending the firefighters to tag along almost each and every ambulance call. Looks like a classic case of perverse incentives. Somebody somewhere wanted to give them more work or more exposure and they ended up doing useless runs.

bro-stick 11y ago
Perhaps emergency social services would be a better use of resources. Btw SF has social services people/volunteer orgs canvassing the Tenderloin during most daylight hours distributing resource info... it's almost impossible to not cross their paths on the fin district opposite side. The issue is that emergency social workers whom can be assigned to a specific person to intervene until they're in a better situation are what's most needed. Not all homeless people know how to fill out forms, navigate, keep appointments or can stick to getting their basic needs met by themselves/know what to do next for whatever reason/s; some do too, sure. The U.S. really needs centrally-coordinated assigned caseworker management for social services so that all needs (food, housing, health, $, edu, work, mental, dental) can be met and addressed, not the patchwork /hit-miss system-of-infinite-cracks it is now.

fredkbloggs 11y ago

> Jennifer Friedenbach, the executive director of the Coalition on Homelessness, a nonprofit in the city, said a lack of reasonably priced housing was the biggest problem. Ms. Friedenbach, you make yourself and your ideological camp appear naive and out of touch. No doubt, there are a handful of gainfully employed, productive and law-abiding citizens of SF who are homeless solely or primarily because they cannot afford an apartment. I am sure that the time they are forced to spend living in shelters, sitting on the BMR housing waiting lists, and looking for better opportunities in other cities with more affordable housing is painful, degrading, and infuriating. That sucks. As for the other 6600+ of SF's 6700 homeless population, it's not going to make any difference whether housing is $10,000 a month or $100. These are people with no marketable skills (not even the ability to show up), no desire to work, major addictions (usually following multiple treatment interventions), severe mental illnesses, a preference for the street lifestyle, or some combination of those. Most live in SF not because they were born there or because they have jobs or family there but because there is no freezing weather and the City is accommodating, like spending a large fraction of the $330m SFFD budget sending trained firefighters to pick up the same few hundred people twice a day every single day of the year. All the free housing in the world isn't going to get them off the streets. Bitching about the cost of housing in SF is fashionable. But I would really expect someone who works directly on the problems of homelessness and with homeless people to know better. The cost of housing is at most a very minor contribution to the problem. When you can show me that most of the people in the City who are homeless have jobs and are reasonably healthy, it'll be time to pin the blame on the housing market. Until then, get serious about addressing the real problems, or just accept that you're never going to and stop pretending.

netfire 11y ago
You obviously need to address the core issues of homelessness first. But then what? Once someone has marketable skills, mental health treatment and is in a better condition to contribute to society, do you ask them to leave the city because there isn't anywhere they can afford to live? Unaffordable housing may not be the reason someone is on the street, but its definitely a problem on the path away from that situation.

bro-stick 11y ago

While SF's mayor plans to kick out or hide as many homeless as possible to make way so Super Bowl partiers won't be offended or feel obliged to partake in some extrajudicially-unprosecuted hate crimes. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10130589 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10130589

nslocum 11y ago

The amount of money SF spends on homeless people is outrageous. $230M / 6,700 homeless = >$34K per homeless person per year

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
zardo 11y ago
For 34k, you'd think they could get a roof over their heads.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
mikeyouse 11y ago
A better way to frame the spending is, how many additional people would be homeless if not for the efforts of San Francisco. There aren't just 6,700 people that refuse to be helped but tens of thousands on the cusp of a very bad situation.
- iansimon 11y ago
  Another way to frame it is: how many additional people are homeless because of the efforts of San Francisco?
  - mikeyouse 11y ago
    I'd wager approximately 0. If you mean, how many additional people are homeless in San Francisco because of the efforts here, then the number surely isn't negligible but the wealthiest area in the country seems like a decent place to extend a little humanity. What's the alternative? Treat our homeless like shit so other people don't want to move here?
SomeCallMeTim 11y ago
At that rate they could, you know, provide homes for them and feed them? Sounds like that's part of the plan (500 units), but not in a way that makes sense to me. Micro-apartments at ~200sq.ft., with really basic (read: mostly plastic/easy to wash, plus maybe a cot) furniture, could go for ~$800/month and still be a good deal for a developer. That's $9600/year. Throw in inexpensive food at another $800/month, and it would be $19,200/year, or a savings of $14,800 per year. Partner with a developer, guarantee the rents, and let the private sector fork over the capital for the building of WAY more than 500 units. A lot of the cost is actually far more than $34k/person, by the way. There are charities that leverage this fact by finding chronic emergency-room users and getting them a home, food, and sometimes a companion animal. [1] When a homeless person checked into a hospital can cost $9000. An emergency room visit can cost $3700. [2] When someone has serious health issues, they can visit the emergency room multiple times a month; some end up costing the taxpayer $44,400 per year. Apparently 90% of the homeless at any one time are just going through a bad spot in their lives. And giving someone a place to live can break the cycle of homelessness: You need to have an address to get a job, typically. You also need to be able to shower. Let them keep living in the cheap apartment if they want, but if their income passes a threshold then they need to start contributing to the room & board. Or don't force them to pay; food and shelter really should be human rights anyway. Why not start in San Francisco? Everyone else would benefit by there being fewer people peeing on walls or sleeping on sidewalks, and by the (relatively) cheaper labor pool that would be available. [1] http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10150757 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1015075... [2] http://greendoors.org/facts/cost.php http://greendoors.org/facts/cost.php

brandonmenc 11y ago

> Instead, the calls that ring in this and nearby fire stations tend to go like this: Male, apparently homeless, sprawled unconscious on a train platform. I can confirm that this also happens in Tempe (Phoenix), all the time.

habosa 11y ago

If you live in SF and you're reading this and you want to help the homeless, this may be a good option: https://handup.org/giftcards https://handup.org/giftcards Also consider donating to a local organization, there are many good ones. I personally like Larkin Street Youth Services. They help homeless children and young adults (12-25) get back on their feet through housing, education, etc. At that age you really can put it all behind you with the right support.

udp 11y ago

Here in the UK, if you call the emergency services they ask which service you require (police, ambulance, fire). It would be absolutely unthinkable to respond "fire" if there wasn't a fire. How does it work in the US? Is the fire dept. a different number that is somehow acceptable to call for this kind of problem? There have been a number of times when I've been in difficult situations with severely drunken or otherwise vulnerable people, and every time I've called the local police station (rather than the emergency number) and they've sent someone over. But it's always the police I would call - never the fire brigade.

DanBC 11y ago
> Here in the UK, if you call the emergency services they ask which service you require (police, ambulance, fire). It would be absolutely unthinkable to respond "fire" if there wasn't a fire. Although most people have no problem saying "police" not "ambulance" when they see someone in psychiatric distress. (Admittedly that's sometimes the right thing to do. Police have section 136 powers to take people to a place of safety for assessment, and there's started to be street triage services working with the police).
mangeletti 11y ago
The answer is that fire departments respond to any call where there could be an injury or other related need, because they are also EMTs, and in the U.S. you just call 911 and tell the operator what's wrong. If you say you want an ambulance, chances are, you'll get an ambulance... and a fire truck. This is partly due to the fact that most ambulances are a private service and don't really represent the service of the city (which firefighters / fire EMTs do represent). The problem is that we don't really have a sort of emergency first responder triage department. The operators are it. There's isn't an EMT who can speed to the scene in a fuel efficient car on his own to bring you some bandaids or water and check your blood pressure (e.g., in the case of a homeless person prone with a needle in his arm), and then call for more help if needed, so, instead, a $300,000 hook and ladder truck full of 4 highly trained firefighters (also trained as EMT) is deployed to do the same thing.
- mattmanser 11y ago