15 ms·

To play devil's advocate, he's right. He shouldn't have to see the pain, struggle, and despair of homeless - the city government should be providing affordable

To play devil's advocate, he's right. He shouldn't have to see the pain, struggle, and despair of homeless - the city government should be providing affordable housing and shelters for the homeless. That it hasn't is a failure of the local government, and should be addressed. Much of the reason that affordable housing is out of reach of many in San Francisco is due to government regulation, not market capitalism. Extremely restrictive construction laws and absurd rent controls distort the housing market, which is driving the expensive home market and massive rents. A large portion of the blame for this situation falls to the government - they wrote the laws, they built this disaster.

Fede_V 11y ago
I completely believe in being the charity principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when interpreting what someone said, but in this case, I think you are being too generous. He was not complaining about the suffering of those people and the lack of government intervention on their behalf - he was unhappy because poor people made his own personal life marginally worse by subjecting him to unpleasant views/smells.
- RodericDay 11y ago
  yeah that's wildly charitable: https://justink.svbtle.com/open-letter-to-mayor-ed-lee-and-greg-suhr-police-chief https://justink.svbtle.com/open-letter-to-mayor-ed-lee-and-g... > Every day, on my way to, and from work, I see people sprawled across the sidewalk, tent cities, human feces, and the faces of addiction. The city is becoming a shanty town… Worst of all, it is unsafe. > [...] > I am telling you, there is going to be a revolution. People on both sides are frustrated, and you can sense the anger. The city needs to tackle this problem head on, it can no longer ignore it and let people do whatever they want in the city. I don’t have a magic solution… It is a very difficult and complex situation, but somehow during Super Bowl, almost all of the homeless and riff raff[1] seem to up and vanish. I’m willing to bet that was not a coincidence. Money and political pressure can make change. So it is time to start making progress, or we as citizens will make a change in leadership and elect new officials who can. > Democracy is not the last stop in politics. In-fact, the order of progression according to Socrates via Plato in the Republic goes: timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and finally tyranny. Socrates argues that a society will decay and pass through each government in succession, eventually becoming a tyranny. This guy knows there's sides, and he knows what side he's on.
- StavrosK 11y ago
  The GP didn't say the letter meant it that way, he said the letter is right in that there shouldn't be homeless people living in the streets, they should be taken care of by a stronger safety net.
  - bonaldi 11y ago
    I'm going to be pedantic, but only because I think that's how the letter guy is going to try and get out of this too. The letter did not say that "there shouldn't be homeless people living in the streets". Both it and GP said he shouldn't have to see homeless people. The letter writer certainly wouldn't care if the homeless people were still homeless, so long as they were bussed somewhere he didn't have to gaze upon their poor faces.
    - StavrosK 11y ago
      Or if he went blind!
    - ktRolster 11y ago
      > so long as they were bussed somewhere he didn't have to gaze upon their poor faces. Lucky him, San Francisco offers one way bus tickets to anywhere for homeless people: http://www.ibtimes.com/homeless-bus-ticket-programs-across-nation-offer-little-accountability-poor-housing-2016812 http://www.ibtimes.com/homeless-bus-ticket-programs-across-n...
      - wpietri 11y ago
        Your summary is flatly incorrect. A lot of SF's homeless are from elsewhere, people who came here on a hope, or just because of SF's reputation as a city that's friendly to weirdos. (That's certainly part of why I came.) If they can't make it here, SF offers them a way to get home again, but only if there is actually someone there who can put them up, and only if they're in good enough condition to travel. Details are here: http://www.sfhsa.org/79.htm http://www.sfhsa.org/79.htm That is distinctly different from places that dump their homeless residents here. E.g.: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-Nevada-reach-tentative-settlement-in-6552026.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-Nevada-reach-tenta...
sandworm101 11y ago
And let's see his opinion on the evils of regulations when the city taxes him and/or turns his favourite ping pong parlour into a shelter.
- SideburnsOfDoom 11y ago
  Asking for homeless people to be moved out is basically asking for regulations and enforcement which has to be funded from taxes, isn't it. Not all that different from a shelter, except much crueller.
StavrosK 11y ago
I visited SF a few times, and I was always horrified to see how such a wealthy city leaves its homeless people to wander around, sleep in the cold and generally live in inhuman conditions. I won't claim I know enough about the city from two visits to propose any solutions, but I know that the fact that there are hundreds or thousands of people living like that is inexcusable. I've never seen this before to such extent.
- wlesieutre 11y ago
  > sleep in the cold Are we talking about the same city here? I'd call SF "occasionally chilly" at best. That's part of why so many homeless people gravitate to CA; if you're sleeping outdoors there are many, many worse climates for it. > The coldest day of the year is December 26, with an average low of 44°F and high of 55°F. https://weatherspark.com/averages/31587/San-Francisco-California-United-States https://weatherspark.com/averages/31587/San-Francisco-Califo... Related: did you know that windows can crack from thermal stress like cookware that you cool too rapidly? I learned that last weekend! Windchill -30F, fun times here in New England.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    ...and why we have few/no homeless in my town: it stays around 16F for weeks at a time. And goes negative overnight. Also, the Emergency Housing Project, an Ecumenical service my UU Church started 20 years ago.
    - StavrosK 11y ago
      A solution to the OP's problem presents itself: Make SF colder!
      - staz 11y ago
        another reason to fight global warming !
    - frik 11y ago
monkmartinez 11y ago
This is a complex issue... but in my experience, most of the homeless are not looking for help to find jobs and/or contribute to society in manner that will lead them out of "homelessness." A lot of them prefer this "lifestyle"... we try very hard to help the people that want help. Most don't. Go talk to your local EMS/Fire department personnel and most of them will have similar stories. I know the homeless people in my area better than I know my extended family. I have memorized their birthday's, the medications they should be taking, the street drugs they prefer, the kind of beer they drink, where they stash their stuff, where they have their main camp, what their childhood, and adult life were like, their medical history, what shelters they've been kicked out of and are not allowed back to... and more. We are forced to talk with them, sometimes 3 or 4 times a shift. I lost sympathy for most of them a long time ago, that doesn't mean we treat them like sub-humans... we just have less patience with the shit they are inevitably going to give us. Edit: here is an article specific to San Fran about EMS & the homeless: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/27/us/san-francisco-firefighters-become-unintended-safety-net-for-the-homeless.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/27/us/san-francisco-firefight...
- Mz 11y ago
  I am homeless. I have never spent a night in a shelter. I prefer sleeping in a tent. It is cleaner and more humane. The services aimed at helping the homeless are mostly pretty revolting. The free meals are lower quality than fast food. The emergency shelters have mold problems. And you get crowded in with other sick, poor, desperate people to have a shot at the dregs they are willing to provide you. This is part of why I have this blog: http://sandiegohomelesssurvivalguide.blogspot.com/ http://sandiegohomelesssurvivalguide.blogspot.com/ Homeless people need the same things other people need: Work that works for them and other middle class solutions that are largely disappearing from an increasingly polarized America. But what they are offered is mostly contempt and really low quality options and services rooted in a broken, abusive, horrifying set of mental models. And then we are vilified for not being adequately grateful for the shit offered to us. I don't want to be homeless. But, yeah, I prefer this to the vastly shittier alternatives available to me.
- creshal 11y ago
  > A lot of them prefer this "lifestyle"... we try very hard to help the people that want help. Most don't. A lot of them are mentally handicapped or dealing with acquired mental illnesses. Even under good conditions, treating either is hard. Of course EMS/fire fighters/volunteers working in shelters aren't able to do that.
coldtea 11y ago
>To play devil's advocate, he's right. He shouldn't have to see the pain, struggle, and despair of homeless - the city government should be providing affordable housing and shelters for the homeless. Only if people agree, offer their solidarity, and approve the city government of doing so (with their taxes etc too). Which is exactly what people like him don't allow.
- return0 11y ago
  > Which is exactly what people like him don't allow. How did you come to that conclusion?
  - coldtea 11y ago
    From actual experiences talking to multiple upper class people who "don't want to see those homeless" that are invariably anti-taxes/government spending for such issues.
- ves 11y ago
  You shouldn't have to pay any more. Cali already takes an insane amount of your income, and it's not like the spending isn't happening. I think SF spent something like 240mm on homeless last year, which works out to something like 30-70k pp if just handed out as cash. Paying more to the govt isn't what you should be asking for, rather, you should be asking for a more efficient and accountable govt.
at-fates-hands 11y ago
Not sure what kind of solution the government should have. There's already a myriad of local, state and federal housing programs already in place. Whether its temporary emergency housing, eviction protection, child care services, or in some cases, low income housing and federal subsidies for permanent housing. There's plenty of safety nets in California, let alone the SF area. If people want to get off the streets, there's an abundance of resources at their disposal. Saying the government isn't doing enough is a bit myopic considering all the local, state and federal help readily available. http://www.sfhsa.org/76.htm http://www.sfhsa.org/76.htm http://sf-moh.org/index.aspx?page=130 http://sf-moh.org/index.aspx?page=130 https://www.mercyhousing.org/california https://www.mercyhousing.org/california http://www.homeless.org.au/directory/us-california.htm http://www.homeless.org.au/directory/us-california.htm http://www.freeprintshop.org/download/shelter_english.pdf http://www.freeprintshop.org/download/shelter_english.pdf http://www.sfcenter.org/resources/housing http://www.sfcenter.org/resources/housing http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/states/california/homeless/shelters http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/states/california/h... http://ssa.ocgov.com/calfresh/calworks/emergency/homeless http://ssa.ocgov.com/calfresh/calworks/emergency/homeless http://www.needhelppayingbills.com/html/calworks_homeless_assistance_r.html http://www.needhelppayingbills.com/html/calworks_homeless_as... And that's JUST for the homeless services. It doesn't even START to address the free addiction clinics, low cost prescriptions, free health care clinics, food shelves, and other resources homeless people might need help to get off the streets. In my mind the government is going way above and beyond trying to solve this issue.
- joosters 11y ago
  How many of these myriad services are already running at full capacity? Just because there are homelessness support groups out there doesn't magically mean that there is enough support.
  - nxzero 11y ago
    More to that point, most public resources are not required to report that they have exhausted their capacity. Further, such resources often actively waste the time of those looking for support under the pretext that resources are available and they need to prove there is demand that exceeds their capacity; even when year after year it's clear that documenting demand will not result in additional resources.
joosters 11y ago
So how many people are going to pay more taxes to raise the money for the government to do all these things? In the end, it still comes back to the people. It's not the government's fault.
- refurb 11y ago
  San Francisco has a $156M annual budget to address homelessness. That's not a small amount of money. First let's make sure that it's being spend efficiently.
  - sandworm101 11y ago
    Or, rather than get bogged down in never-ending "efficient government" debates, we can increase spending today and simultaneously address efficiencies. Far too often the demand "efficiency first" is just a means to delay the actual commitment of resources.
    - knowaveragejoe 11y ago
      But what if the already non-trivial sum isn't being spent in the best way possible? It sounds like a lot of that is going to landlords in the form of rent; granted that's a burden off the people living there.
    - rahimnathwani 11y ago
      If your doesn't work, do you upgrade your CPU or re-write your code? Sure, if your code sort of works but is maybe only 50% as efficient as you want, go ahead and upgrade your CPU. But if your code is O(n^3) and just doesn't ever give you an answer, upgrading your CPU is throwing good money after bad. The current system and people are not able to solve the problem, even after spending >$22k per homeless person per year. How much more do you suggest spending, and why do you think it would make any difference to outcomes?
  - rahimnathwani 11y ago
    That's over $20k per homeless person, per year[0] [0] http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-homeless-population-getting-sicker-older-6387308.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-homeless-populatio...
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>the city government should be providing affordable housing and shelters for the homeless. This helps the short term homeless. Long term homeless often have problems that can't be met just by giving them housing.
- tim333 11y ago
  If you give them housing they may still have problems but at least they won't be homeless.
- leshow 11y ago
  by definition giving them housing would make them not homeless.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    Assuming they would accept it and stay in it. As I said, that would work great for the short term homeless, but for many (not all) of the long term homeless, they have mental issues strong enough that they would end up homeless again.
010a 11y ago
His wording might have been harsh and maybe he's coming from the wrong viewpoint, but he's ultimately right. Fixing homelessness and mental illness in the right way would be a net benefit to both people like him and the people on the street. California has the highest income tax in the entire United States. San Francisco is up there among county income tax. Its inexcusable that our star tech capital of the entire world is simultaneously infamous for its homelessness and mental health problems. You can phrase it "I hate looking at these people" or you can phrase it "these people need help"; the right solution remains the same. Fix it.
jimmytucson 11y ago
> To play devil's advocate, he's right. You're not really agreeing with him though, are you? He's saying homeless people are an eyesore. You're saying the government should create more homeless shelters. I don't think you guys are even on the same planet in terms of your views.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  >He's saying homeless people are an eyesore. You're saying the government should create more homeless shelters. I think the difference is found in empathy. Take two cases: One, I feel bad when I see a homeless person because my empathy makes me feel bad, and I want to remove that bad feeling and thus I help them. Getting them 'out of sight' might reduce the bad feeling a little, but any time I think of their being homeless people, I still feel bad for them. Two, I feel bad because the homeless person is making the place look worse. So I want them to be gone. Once they are out of sight, I no longer feel bad. I think the two above are more similar that many people treat them because of how selfishness and empathy interact, but I do also think their is still a significant difference because one is based off of empathy and the other is based off of pure selfishness.
  - patorjk 11y ago
    I think a lot of people fall into both categories. Most people have empathy and most people like beautiful things. What differs is the weight of one feeling vs the other in these types of situations.
- ryanlol 11y ago
  He's saying homeless people are an eyesore and trashing the city, that's unquestionably true. He's also saying the government should fix it, what other options are there but homeless shelters? I don't get why people are acting like this guy wants to send the homeless to concentration camps and gas them.
  - dsaint-pierre 11y ago
    Well, repealing the Ellis Act, for one. You (and he) are looking at this as if the homeless spontaneously came to exist as NPCs in the RPG that is his wonderful techie San Francisco existence rather than identifying the things that led them to this place in life like the Ellis Act, skyrocketing inflation, lack of lower-middle income jobs, etc.
kaonashi 11y ago
Homelessness is a byproduct of capitalism in the first place, in feudal societies there is no homelessness.
- mason240 11y ago
  Great satire.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - kaonashi 11y ago
    I'm just wrong.
x1024 11y ago
Yep, he's right. But like many a programmer, he just does not have a way with words.
- leshow 11y ago
  he's not right. his position is that he shouldn't have to 'see' homelessness. he doesn't care if it exists or not, just so long as it's out of his view.
  - curun1r 11y ago
    Not having to see homelessness sounds harsh. But what about not having to dodge shit, piss and uncapped needles on the street? What about not having to be asked for money constantly? What about not having to hear people yelling at the top of their lungs at 3am? What about not having to feel unsafe? If it were just seeing people being unobtrusively homeless, there would be no problem, even if they were plainly visible. His phrasing may seem harsh to people that aren't not exposed to the situation on a daily basis. But let's try to not look for reasons to be offended in this situation and, instead, search for the meaning behind the words. Because there's a serious problem that needs fixing in San Francisco.
    - orthecreedence 11y ago
      > I know people are frustrated about gentrification happening in the city, but the reality is, we live in a free market society He is free to be rich while others are poor because of the free market. Seems like his free market has created a number of people who leave urine and feces in the streets and ask people for money. He wants the benefit of a free market without having to deal with the consequences.
      - curun1r 11y ago
        He's not appealing to the free market to fix the problem. He's appealing to his city's government, to whom he pays taxes and has a reasonable expectation that of dealing with problems like these.
Shivetya 11y ago
Every consider that both the climate and the abundance of social programs could be exaggerating SF homeless issue for many? Simply put, its a good place to go and this word gets around. In other words, its good having such support systems but residents must understand that for that all people gravitate to cities that meet their needs. Techies and the like want the climate, the history, and high tech goods and services they desire. The homeless want the climate and access to the social services provided. One city can be the same refuge to vastly different social levels.
- beatpanda 11y ago
  Yes, people often consider that, and then they look at the data: http://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/sfgov.org.lhcb/files/2015%20San%20Francisco%20Homeless%20Count%20%20Report_0.pdf http://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/sfgov.org.lhcb/files/2015%20San%... 70% of homeless people in San Francisco were housed residents of San Francisco before the became homeless, and most of the remaining 30% were in a city adjacent to San Francisco before coming to SF after becoming homeless. Also, the idea that social services are "widely available" to homless people in San Francisco is a farce. For example, there is only 1 available shelter bed for every 5 homeless people. Source: I worked as a service provider for homeless people in SF and I've seen our supposed "generous benefits" up close.
cylinder 11y ago
I disagree. Handling this on a city level is absolutely wrong. That's how it is in NYC and why taxes are so high in the city. This needs to be a shared expense and program on the federal level. Otherwise, you increase the tax burden in SF and other cities/states compete in a race to the bottom, luring away businesses with their lower taxes. Homelessness, poverty are not San Francisco's problem, they are America's problem. If the rest of America takes issue with that, perhaps the Union should be questioned.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
wpietri 11y ago
The devil doesn't seem to need more help, so maybe you should question your hobbies. That aside, what both you and he miss: the problem with the pain, struggle and despair of homelessness is not a comfortable person having to see it. It is a person having to experience the pain, struggle, and despair of homelessness. As a San Francisco with 5x his tenure, I am entirely proud that SF has not swept the homeless problem out of sight. I would rather that everybody were safe, whole, and housed. But as long as we have the problems we do, I would rather they be on public display. Because fixing them is going to require public action. If that is uncomfortable for him, then good. He should be fucking uncomfortable that people are suffering in the streets. I am, and anybody with half a heart is. As long as the pain exists among his fellow residents, he should see it. We all should.
- skewart 11y ago
  His post was incredibly tone-deaf, and he comes across as an entitled jerk. That said, there's a big difference between being reminded of other peoples' suffering and being assaulted. Leaning on someone's car, yelling at someone, and interrupting a theater are all acts of aggression. It's understandable that he's upset. Nobody should be subjected to this kind of behavior. Honestly you come across as kind of callous by not seeming able to empathize with why he might be upset. Of course saying that just sweeping people away is an acceptable solution is incredibly heartless. That's where he lost my sympathy. At the same time, embracing the status and also kinda heartless. It doesn't help anyone, except for people who are neither living on the street nor being confronted by people living on the street. People often seem to think we should give the homeless and drug addicts and mentally ill free reign to do whatever they want as some sort of act of kindness. I think that's belittling and infantalizing. Nobody should punished harshly for acting a little obscene in public from time to time, but we should do something so that people actually can get help while also enforcing laws that ensure public space can be shared and enjoyed by everyone.
  - wpietri 11y ago
    Being upset is reasonable, and I do empathize with that. Asking the police to make the homeless disappear because wealthy market winners feel uncomfortable is not reasonable. > Leaning on someone's car, yelling at someone, and interrupting a theater are all acts of aggression. He describes exactly none of those instances as even directed at him or his family. I get why people find mental illness to be troubling, and why they might feel unsafe. But he described nothing that was aggressive. Your feelings, although important, do not prove anything about what other people intend. > People often seem to think we should give the homeless and drug addicts and mentally ill free reign to do whatever they want as some sort of act of kindness. That is a ridiculous straw man. If they "seem" to think that to you, I don't believe you're trying very hard to understand what they actually think.
knughit 11y ago
The government is our employees, not some Other power above is. We need to make the changes. Make demands , build consensus, and run for office if needed.
mc32 11y ago
It's unfortunate people always have to play politics and angles. "'bro" is the new "thug". It's a label imposed on a person you disagree with in order to garner antipathy against them. And yes, there should not be homeless people, they should be managed and taken care of by either government agencies, charities or families. It's a failure of society, rather than a failure of the people complaining about unhinged people who at times panhandle, sleep, urinate, defecate, scream, accost, spit, voice their inner monologues, eat, in public often times at the expense of the public. And to be sure, this should not be a locally addressed problem but a national problem. Addressing it locally only attracts more homeless into homeless friendly areas. Render homeless services to homeless based on where they lived the longest, from federal funds so you don't get concentrations in Santa Clara county, or Los Angeles county from people from all over.
sheri 11y ago
To be fair, he's wrong and you're wrong. It's not about what he wants to see or not see. He says homelessness is bad because it affects him and his lifestyle. To couch this problem in such a narcissistic way leads to solutions like Super Bowl city (a solution he mentions and actively endorses). It leads to solutions to just resolve the rich lifestyles, and not actually help the homeless. His letter doesn't highlight the problem (like so many commenters here are saying), but just highlights the impact it has to his lifestyle.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
viscanti 11y ago
Of course the city should do more to help the issue. Turning a blind eye to tents on the street (which are illegal) isn't doing enough. It just makes the issues of a poor mental health system even more obvious. The article is interesting as it's attempting to vilify "rich tech bros". Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems weird to point out that he took his parents to a restaurant that serves Lobster (no word on if they ordered or considered ordering it) and that he once spent $20 on a ticket to a special theater. He's then called a tech bro nearly 10 times, always with the presumption that being a man who works in a tech job is both a "bro" and that because of that he's inherently responsible for everything wrong in the world. He shouldn't have written his medium post, or at best he could have found a much better way to word it. The city DOES need to treat it's homeless in a more humane way. But I wonder if journalists don't also have some soul searching to do, and if they might want to back off the "All techies are evil" rhetoric which is really the basis of this article.
- FireBeyond 11y ago
  It's because if you read the article, or his letter, there's very little about "what can be done to help fix or solve this issue" or help these people, and their plight... and very much about how someone who can afford the nice things in life, a luxurious / extravagant lifestyle by many standards, 'shouldn't have to be subjected to the unpleasantness thereof' and how uncomfortable / annoying it is -for him-. He's not trying to solve the problem for them, he's trying to solve it for himself. He even says as much, talking about how easy it is to 'sweep the problem away' for Super Bowl. No-one thinks that SF temporarily solved the homeless issue for SB weekend, and he doesn't want it solved either (or makes no real mention of that in this letter), he just wants it swept.
st3v3r 11y ago
Blaming it solely on government is a pretty meaningless and shallow look at it. There are many, many actors at play who have all made decisions of their own volition which has lead to this. Land developers, tech companies, VCs, zoning commissions, they all have a hand in it.
jboggan 11y ago
Maybe this isn't a city government problem but a federal one. What would you think about re-enacting homesteading? About half the land in this country is federally owned. Why not offer 50 acres and a trailer to whomever would be willing to work and improve it?
pj_mukh 11y ago
You are right, except we can't have that conversation till the entitled techies in the bay area just shut up for a sec. Our flooding of the market has showed how the lack of supply is the problem, but like you correctly pointed out, the deportation of techies is not the solution. But we certainly should not be writing articles like this, it makes solving the problem that much harder. There are a lot of activists (mostly behind the scenes) trying to increase the supply the side of the economics. However, the weird alliance between the NIMBY's and progressives in the city keep pointing at the entitled techies (like the author of the article) to show how the techie's are part of the problem.

Fede_V 11y ago

I completely believe in being the charity principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when interpreting what someone said, but in this case, I think you are being too generous. He was not complaining about the suffering of those people and the lack of government intervention on their behalf - he was unhappy because poor people made his own personal life marginally worse by subjecting him to unpleasant views/smells.

RodericDay 11y ago
yeah that's wildly charitable: https://justink.svbtle.com/open-letter-to-mayor-ed-lee-and-greg-suhr-police-chief https://justink.svbtle.com/open-letter-to-mayor-ed-lee-and-g... > Every day, on my way to, and from work, I see people sprawled across the sidewalk, tent cities, human feces, and the faces of addiction. The city is becoming a shanty town… Worst of all, it is unsafe. > [...] > I am telling you, there is going to be a revolution. People on both sides are frustrated, and you can sense the anger. The city needs to tackle this problem head on, it can no longer ignore it and let people do whatever they want in the city. I don’t have a magic solution… It is a very difficult and complex situation, but somehow during Super Bowl, almost all of the homeless and riff raff[1] seem to up and vanish. I’m willing to bet that was not a coincidence. Money and political pressure can make change. So it is time to start making progress, or we as citizens will make a change in leadership and elect new officials who can. > Democracy is not the last stop in politics. In-fact, the order of progression according to Socrates via Plato in the Republic goes: timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and finally tyranny. Socrates argues that a society will decay and pass through each government in succession, eventually becoming a tyranny. This guy knows there's sides, and he knows what side he's on.
StavrosK 11y ago
The GP didn't say the letter meant it that way, he said the letter is right in that there shouldn't be homeless people living in the streets, they should be taken care of by a stronger safety net.
- bonaldi 11y ago
  I'm going to be pedantic, but only because I think that's how the letter guy is going to try and get out of this too. The letter did not say that "there shouldn't be homeless people living in the streets". Both it and GP said he shouldn't have to see homeless people. The letter writer certainly wouldn't care if the homeless people were still homeless, so long as they were bussed somewhere he didn't have to gaze upon their poor faces.
  - StavrosK 11y ago
    Or if he went blind!
  - ktRolster 11y ago
    > so long as they were bussed somewhere he didn't have to gaze upon their poor faces. Lucky him, San Francisco offers one way bus tickets to anywhere for homeless people: http://www.ibtimes.com/homeless-bus-ticket-programs-across-nation-offer-little-accountability-poor-housing-2016812 http://www.ibtimes.com/homeless-bus-ticket-programs-across-n...
    - wpietri 11y ago
      Your summary is flatly incorrect. A lot of SF's homeless are from elsewhere, people who came here on a hope, or just because of SF's reputation as a city that's friendly to weirdos. (That's certainly part of why I came.) If they can't make it here, SF offers them a way to get home again, but only if there is actually someone there who can put them up, and only if they're in good enough condition to travel. Details are here: http://www.sfhsa.org/79.htm http://www.sfhsa.org/79.htm That is distinctly different from places that dump their homeless residents here. E.g.: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-Nevada-reach-tentative-settlement-in-6552026.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-Nevada-reach-tenta...

sandworm101 11y ago

And let's see his opinion on the evils of regulations when the city taxes him and/or turns his favourite ping pong parlour into a shelter.

SideburnsOfDoom 11y ago
Asking for homeless people to be moved out is basically asking for regulations and enforcement which has to be funded from taxes, isn't it. Not all that different from a shelter, except much crueller.

StavrosK 11y ago

I visited SF a few times, and I was always horrified to see how such a wealthy city leaves its homeless people to wander around, sleep in the cold and generally live in inhuman conditions. I won't claim I know enough about the city from two visits to propose any solutions, but I know that the fact that there are hundreds or thousands of people living like that is inexcusable. I've never seen this before to such extent.

wlesieutre 11y ago
> sleep in the cold Are we talking about the same city here? I'd call SF "occasionally chilly" at best. That's part of why so many homeless people gravitate to CA; if you're sleeping outdoors there are many, many worse climates for it. > The coldest day of the year is December 26, with an average low of 44°F and high of 55°F. https://weatherspark.com/averages/31587/San-Francisco-California-United-States https://weatherspark.com/averages/31587/San-Francisco-Califo... Related: did you know that windows can crack from thermal stress like cookware that you cool too rapidly? I learned that last weekend! Windchill -30F, fun times here in New England.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  ...and why we have few/no homeless in my town: it stays around 16F for weeks at a time. And goes negative overnight. Also, the Emergency Housing Project, an Ecumenical service my UU Church started 20 years ago.
  - StavrosK 11y ago
    A solution to the OP's problem presents itself: Make SF colder!
    - staz 11y ago
      another reason to fight global warming !
  - frik 11y ago

monkmartinez 11y ago

This is a complex issue... but in my experience, most of the homeless are not looking for help to find jobs and/or contribute to society in manner that will lead them out of "homelessness." A lot of them prefer this "lifestyle"... we try very hard to help the people that want help. Most don't. Go talk to your local EMS/Fire department personnel and most of them will have similar stories. I know the homeless people in my area better than I know my extended family. I have memorized their birthday's, the medications they should be taking, the street drugs they prefer, the kind of beer they drink, where they stash their stuff, where they have their main camp, what their childhood, and adult life were like, their medical history, what shelters they've been kicked out of and are not allowed back to... and more. We are forced to talk with them, sometimes 3 or 4 times a shift. I lost sympathy for most of them a long time ago, that doesn't mean we treat them like sub-humans... we just have less patience with the shit they are inevitably going to give us. Edit: here is an article specific to San Fran about EMS & the homeless: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/27/us/san-francisco-firefighters-become-unintended-safety-net-for-the-homeless.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/27/us/san-francisco-firefight...

Mz 11y ago
I am homeless. I have never spent a night in a shelter. I prefer sleeping in a tent. It is cleaner and more humane. The services aimed at helping the homeless are mostly pretty revolting. The free meals are lower quality than fast food. The emergency shelters have mold problems. And you get crowded in with other sick, poor, desperate people to have a shot at the dregs they are willing to provide you. This is part of why I have this blog: http://sandiegohomelesssurvivalguide.blogspot.com/ http://sandiegohomelesssurvivalguide.blogspot.com/ Homeless people need the same things other people need: Work that works for them and other middle class solutions that are largely disappearing from an increasingly polarized America. But what they are offered is mostly contempt and really low quality options and services rooted in a broken, abusive, horrifying set of mental models. And then we are vilified for not being adequately grateful for the shit offered to us. I don't want to be homeless. But, yeah, I prefer this to the vastly shittier alternatives available to me.
creshal 11y ago
> A lot of them prefer this "lifestyle"... we try very hard to help the people that want help. Most don't. A lot of them are mentally handicapped or dealing with acquired mental illnesses. Even under good conditions, treating either is hard. Of course EMS/fire fighters/volunteers working in shelters aren't able to do that.

coldtea 11y ago

>To play devil's advocate, he's right. He shouldn't have to see the pain, struggle, and despair of homeless - the city government should be providing affordable housing and shelters for the homeless. Only if people agree, offer their solidarity, and approve the city government of doing so (with their taxes etc too). Which is exactly what people like him don't allow.

return0 11y ago
> Which is exactly what people like him don't allow. How did you come to that conclusion?
- coldtea 11y ago
  From actual experiences talking to multiple upper class people who "don't want to see those homeless" that are invariably anti-taxes/government spending for such issues.
ves 11y ago
You shouldn't have to pay any more. Cali already takes an insane amount of your income, and it's not like the spending isn't happening. I think SF spent something like 240mm on homeless last year, which works out to something like 30-70k pp if just handed out as cash. Paying more to the govt isn't what you should be asking for, rather, you should be asking for a more efficient and accountable govt.

at-fates-hands 11y ago

Not sure what kind of solution the government should have. There's already a myriad of local, state and federal housing programs already in place. Whether its temporary emergency housing, eviction protection, child care services, or in some cases, low income housing and federal subsidies for permanent housing. There's plenty of safety nets in California, let alone the SF area. If people want to get off the streets, there's an abundance of resources at their disposal. Saying the government isn't doing enough is a bit myopic considering all the local, state and federal help readily available. http://www.sfhsa.org/76.htm http://www.sfhsa.org/76.htm http://sf-moh.org/index.aspx?page=130 http://sf-moh.org/index.aspx?page=130 https://www.mercyhousing.org/california https://www.mercyhousing.org/california http://www.homeless.org.au/directory/us-california.htm http://www.homeless.org.au/directory/us-california.htm http://www.freeprintshop.org/download/shelter_english.pdf http://www.freeprintshop.org/download/shelter_english.pdf http://www.sfcenter.org/resources/housing http://www.sfcenter.org/resources/housing http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/states/california/homeless/shelters http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/states/california/h... http://ssa.ocgov.com/calfresh/calworks/emergency/homeless http://ssa.ocgov.com/calfresh/calworks/emergency/homeless http://www.needhelppayingbills.com/html/calworks_homeless_assistance_r.html http://www.needhelppayingbills.com/html/calworks_homeless_as... And that's JUST for the homeless services. It doesn't even START to address the free addiction clinics, low cost prescriptions, free health care clinics, food shelves, and other resources homeless people might need help to get off the streets. In my mind the government is going way above and beyond trying to solve this issue.

joosters 11y ago
How many of these myriad services are already running at full capacity? Just because there are homelessness support groups out there doesn't magically mean that there is enough support.
- nxzero 11y ago
  More to that point, most public resources are not required to report that they have exhausted their capacity. Further, such resources often actively waste the time of those looking for support under the pretext that resources are available and they need to prove there is demand that exceeds their capacity; even when year after year it's clear that documenting demand will not result in additional resources.

joosters 11y ago

So how many people are going to pay more taxes to raise the money for the government to do all these things? In the end, it still comes back to the people. It's not the government's fault.

refurb 11y ago
San Francisco has a $156M annual budget to address homelessness. That's not a small amount of money. First let's make sure that it's being spend efficiently.
- sandworm101 11y ago
  Or, rather than get bogged down in never-ending "efficient government" debates, we can increase spending today and simultaneously address efficiencies. Far too often the demand "efficiency first" is just a means to delay the actual commitment of resources.
  - knowaveragejoe 11y ago
    But what if the already non-trivial sum isn't being spent in the best way possible? It sounds like a lot of that is going to landlords in the form of rent; granted that's a burden off the people living there.
  - rahimnathwani 11y ago
    If your doesn't work, do you upgrade your CPU or re-write your code? Sure, if your code sort of works but is maybe only 50% as efficient as you want, go ahead and upgrade your CPU. But if your code is O(n^3) and just doesn't ever give you an answer, upgrading your CPU is throwing good money after bad. The current system and people are not able to solve the problem, even after spending >$22k per homeless person per year. How much more do you suggest spending, and why do you think it would make any difference to outcomes?
- rahimnathwani 11y ago
  That's over $20k per homeless person, per year[0] [0] http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-homeless-population-getting-sicker-older-6387308.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-homeless-populatio...

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

>the city government should be providing affordable housing and shelters for the homeless. This helps the short term homeless. Long term homeless often have problems that can't be met just by giving them housing.

tim333 11y ago
If you give them housing they may still have problems but at least they won't be homeless.
leshow 11y ago
by definition giving them housing would make them not homeless.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  Assuming they would accept it and stay in it. As I said, that would work great for the short term homeless, but for many (not all) of the long term homeless, they have mental issues strong enough that they would end up homeless again.

010a 11y ago

His wording might have been harsh and maybe he's coming from the wrong viewpoint, but he's ultimately right. Fixing homelessness and mental illness in the right way would be a net benefit to both people like him and the people on the street. California has the highest income tax in the entire United States. San Francisco is up there among county income tax. Its inexcusable that our star tech capital of the entire world is simultaneously infamous for its homelessness and mental health problems. You can phrase it "I hate looking at these people" or you can phrase it "these people need help"; the right solution remains the same. Fix it.

jimmytucson 11y ago

> To play devil's advocate, he's right. You're not really agreeing with him though, are you? He's saying homeless people are an eyesore. You're saying the government should create more homeless shelters. I don't think you guys are even on the same planet in terms of your views.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>He's saying homeless people are an eyesore. You're saying the government should create more homeless shelters. I think the difference is found in empathy. Take two cases: One, I feel bad when I see a homeless person because my empathy makes me feel bad, and I want to remove that bad feeling and thus I help them. Getting them 'out of sight' might reduce the bad feeling a little, but any time I think of their being homeless people, I still feel bad for them. Two, I feel bad because the homeless person is making the place look worse. So I want them to be gone. Once they are out of sight, I no longer feel bad. I think the two above are more similar that many people treat them because of how selfishness and empathy interact, but I do also think their is still a significant difference because one is based off of empathy and the other is based off of pure selfishness.
- patorjk 11y ago
  I think a lot of people fall into both categories. Most people have empathy and most people like beautiful things. What differs is the weight of one feeling vs the other in these types of situations.
ryanlol 11y ago
He's saying homeless people are an eyesore and trashing the city, that's unquestionably true. He's also saying the government should fix it, what other options are there but homeless shelters? I don't get why people are acting like this guy wants to send the homeless to concentration camps and gas them.
- dsaint-pierre 11y ago
  Well, repealing the Ellis Act, for one. You (and he) are looking at this as if the homeless spontaneously came to exist as NPCs in the RPG that is his wonderful techie San Francisco existence rather than identifying the things that led them to this place in life like the Ellis Act, skyrocketing inflation, lack of lower-middle income jobs, etc.

kaonashi 11y ago

Homelessness is a byproduct of capitalism in the first place, in feudal societies there is no homelessness.

mason240 11y ago
Great satire.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- kaonashi 11y ago
  I'm just wrong.

x1024 11y ago

Yep, he's right. But like many a programmer, he just does not have a way with words.

leshow 11y ago
he's not right. his position is that he shouldn't have to 'see' homelessness. he doesn't care if it exists or not, just so long as it's out of his view.
- curun1r 11y ago
  Not having to see homelessness sounds harsh. But what about not having to dodge shit, piss and uncapped needles on the street? What about not having to be asked for money constantly? What about not having to hear people yelling at the top of their lungs at 3am? What about not having to feel unsafe? If it were just seeing people being unobtrusively homeless, there would be no problem, even if they were plainly visible. His phrasing may seem harsh to people that aren't not exposed to the situation on a daily basis. But let's try to not look for reasons to be offended in this situation and, instead, search for the meaning behind the words. Because there's a serious problem that needs fixing in San Francisco.
  - orthecreedence 11y ago
    > I know people are frustrated about gentrification happening in the city, but the reality is, we live in a free market society He is free to be rich while others are poor because of the free market. Seems like his free market has created a number of people who leave urine and feces in the streets and ask people for money. He wants the benefit of a free market without having to deal with the consequences.
    - curun1r 11y ago
      He's not appealing to the free market to fix the problem. He's appealing to his city's government, to whom he pays taxes and has a reasonable expectation that of dealing with problems like these.

Shivetya 11y ago

Every consider that both the climate and the abundance of social programs could be exaggerating SF homeless issue for many? Simply put, its a good place to go and this word gets around. In other words, its good having such support systems but residents must understand that for that all people gravitate to cities that meet their needs. Techies and the like want the climate, the history, and high tech goods and services they desire. The homeless want the climate and access to the social services provided. One city can be the same refuge to vastly different social levels.

beatpanda 11y ago
Yes, people often consider that, and then they look at the data: http://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/sfgov.org.lhcb/files/2015%20San%20Francisco%20Homeless%20Count%20%20Report_0.pdf http://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/sfgov.org.lhcb/files/2015%20San%... 70% of homeless people in San Francisco were housed residents of San Francisco before the became homeless, and most of the remaining 30% were in a city adjacent to San Francisco before coming to SF after becoming homeless. Also, the idea that social services are "widely available" to homless people in San Francisco is a farce. For example, there is only 1 available shelter bed for every 5 homeless people. Source: I worked as a service provider for homeless people in SF and I've seen our supposed "generous benefits" up close.

cylinder 11y ago

I disagree. Handling this on a city level is absolutely wrong. That's how it is in NYC and why taxes are so high in the city. This needs to be a shared expense and program on the federal level. Otherwise, you increase the tax burden in SF and other cities/states compete in a race to the bottom, luring away businesses with their lower taxes. Homelessness, poverty are not San Francisco's problem, they are America's problem. If the rest of America takes issue with that, perhaps the Union should be questioned.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

wpietri 11y ago

The devil doesn't seem to need more help, so maybe you should question your hobbies. That aside, what both you and he miss: the problem with the pain, struggle and despair of homelessness is not a comfortable person having to see it. It is a person having to experience the pain, struggle, and despair of homelessness. As a San Francisco with 5x his tenure, I am entirely proud that SF has not swept the homeless problem out of sight. I would rather that everybody were safe, whole, and housed. But as long as we have the problems we do, I would rather they be on public display. Because fixing them is going to require public action. If that is uncomfortable for him, then good. He should be fucking uncomfortable that people are suffering in the streets. I am, and anybody with half a heart is. As long as the pain exists among his fellow residents, he should see it. We all should.

skewart 11y ago
His post was incredibly tone-deaf, and he comes across as an entitled jerk. That said, there's a big difference between being reminded of other peoples' suffering and being assaulted. Leaning on someone's car, yelling at someone, and interrupting a theater are all acts of aggression. It's understandable that he's upset. Nobody should be subjected to this kind of behavior. Honestly you come across as kind of callous by not seeming able to empathize with why he might be upset. Of course saying that just sweeping people away is an acceptable solution is incredibly heartless. That's where he lost my sympathy. At the same time, embracing the status and also kinda heartless. It doesn't help anyone, except for people who are neither living on the street nor being confronted by people living on the street. People often seem to think we should give the homeless and drug addicts and mentally ill free reign to do whatever they want as some sort of act of kindness. I think that's belittling and infantalizing. Nobody should punished harshly for acting a little obscene in public from time to time, but we should do something so that people actually can get help while also enforcing laws that ensure public space can be shared and enjoyed by everyone.
- wpietri 11y ago
  Being upset is reasonable, and I do empathize with that. Asking the police to make the homeless disappear because wealthy market winners feel uncomfortable is not reasonable. > Leaning on someone's car, yelling at someone, and interrupting a theater are all acts of aggression. He describes exactly none of those instances as even directed at him or his family. I get why people find mental illness to be troubling, and why they might feel unsafe. But he described nothing that was aggressive. Your feelings, although important, do not prove anything about what other people intend. > People often seem to think we should give the homeless and drug addicts and mentally ill free reign to do whatever they want as some sort of act of kindness. That is a ridiculous straw man. If they "seem" to think that to you, I don't believe you're trying very hard to understand what they actually think.

knughit 11y ago

The government is our employees, not some Other power above is. We need to make the changes. Make demands , build consensus, and run for office if needed.

mc32 11y ago

It's unfortunate people always have to play politics and angles. "'bro" is the new "thug". It's a label imposed on a person you disagree with in order to garner antipathy against them. And yes, there should not be homeless people, they should be managed and taken care of by either government agencies, charities or families. It's a failure of society, rather than a failure of the people complaining about unhinged people who at times panhandle, sleep, urinate, defecate, scream, accost, spit, voice their inner monologues, eat, in public often times at the expense of the public. And to be sure, this should not be a locally addressed problem but a national problem. Addressing it locally only attracts more homeless into homeless friendly areas. Render homeless services to homeless based on where they lived the longest, from federal funds so you don't get concentrations in Santa Clara county, or Los Angeles county from people from all over.

sheri 11y ago

To be fair, he's wrong and you're wrong. It's not about what he wants to see or not see. He says homelessness is bad because it affects him and his lifestyle. To couch this problem in such a narcissistic way leads to solutions like Super Bowl city (a solution he mentions and actively endorses). It leads to solutions to just resolve the rich lifestyles, and not actually help the homeless. His letter doesn't highlight the problem (like so many commenters here are saying), but just highlights the impact it has to his lifestyle.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

viscanti 11y ago

Of course the city should do more to help the issue. Turning a blind eye to tents on the street (which are illegal) isn't doing enough. It just makes the issues of a poor mental health system even more obvious. The article is interesting as it's attempting to vilify "rich tech bros". Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems weird to point out that he took his parents to a restaurant that serves Lobster (no word on if they ordered or considered ordering it) and that he once spent $20 on a ticket to a special theater. He's then called a tech bro nearly 10 times, always with the presumption that being a man who works in a tech job is both a "bro" and that because of that he's inherently responsible for everything wrong in the world. He shouldn't have written his medium post, or at best he could have found a much better way to word it. The city DOES need to treat it's homeless in a more humane way. But I wonder if journalists don't also have some soul searching to do, and if they might want to back off the "All techies are evil" rhetoric which is really the basis of this article.

FireBeyond 11y ago
It's because if you read the article, or his letter, there's very little about "what can be done to help fix or solve this issue" or help these people, and their plight... and very much about how someone who can afford the nice things in life, a luxurious / extravagant lifestyle by many standards, 'shouldn't have to be subjected to the unpleasantness thereof' and how uncomfortable / annoying it is -for him-. He's not trying to solve the problem for them, he's trying to solve it for himself. He even says as much, talking about how easy it is to 'sweep the problem away' for Super Bowl. No-one thinks that SF temporarily solved the homeless issue for SB weekend, and he doesn't want it solved either (or makes no real mention of that in this letter), he just wants it swept.

st3v3r 11y ago

Blaming it solely on government is a pretty meaningless and shallow look at it. There are many, many actors at play who have all made decisions of their own volition which has lead to this. Land developers, tech companies, VCs, zoning commissions, they all have a hand in it.

jboggan 11y ago

Maybe this isn't a city government problem but a federal one. What would you think about re-enacting homesteading? About half the land in this country is federally owned. Why not offer 50 acres and a trailer to whomever would be willing to work and improve it?

pj_mukh 11y ago

You are right, except we can't have that conversation till the entitled techies in the bay area just shut up for a sec. Our flooding of the market has showed how the lack of supply is the problem, but like you correctly pointed out, the deportation of techies is not the solution. But we certainly should not be writing articles like this, it makes solving the problem that much harder. There are a lot of activists (mostly behind the scenes) trying to increase the supply the side of the economics. However, the weird alliance between the NIMBY's and progressives in the city keep pointing at the entitled techies (like the author of the article) to show how the techie's are part of the problem.