4 ms·

I think he does have a point... but he could have put it better. I live in SF too; for ~10 years. I have never seen it this bad. The City passed a "sit/lie" la

I think he does have a point... but he could have put it better. I live in SF too; for ~10 years. I have never seen it this bad. The City passed a "sit/lie" law a couple of years ago.. but it's never enforced. The City is spending $1M/month ... for housing 225 people[1]. Do the math, and you'll see how ridiculous is that. At that rate, how much do you think the City can spend on the homeless? It has 7000 homeless, and counting. Many of the homeless used to live in City housing, but got kicked out due to drug and alcohol habits. What's the solution here? You can't incarcerate them. You can't force them to use detox clinics, etc. If the person refuses help, and refuses to follow the rules of whichever shelter they're in, then s/he has no more right to live in SF! As a last resort, the City is within rights to just kick you out. No one is entitled to live in SF. You can't just show up and setup tent in a public space; that public space belongs to the rest of us too! [1] http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/02/10/san-franciscos-pier-80-homeless-shelter-comes-with-staggering-cost/ http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/02/10/san-franciscos-p...

Coding_Cat 11y ago
>You can't force them to use detox clinics, etc. Maybe it is not possible yet legally, but why shouldn't we allow this? The courts can already force people to be commited for mental afflictions when they are a danger to themselves or others. Why not do the same for (heavy) drug addicts who start becoming a liability?
- danharaj 11y ago
  Forced mental treatment has been the source of a great many atrocities by the state over the decades.
- DanBC 11y ago
  It doesn't work unless the person wants to recover. That's apart from the human rights violation.
  - Shivetya 11y ago
    Clue me in, what is the human rights violation? Or better yet, in descending order what are they in regards to those needing help but refusing it and possibly endangering themselves or others?
    - kefka 11y ago
      I certainly understand why there's strife around this. Mental drugs cause a lot of effects, including causing other problems. They usually cause you to feel like you're in a cloud of anti-emotion. It really sucks when you want to feel stuff. Worse yet, are other side effects like tardive dyskinesia and tremors and things. And those, once you get them, don't go away. What I gather, the only really humane way to handle mental health problems relating to homelessness is to medically arrest them, have a panel of doctors whom medicate according to the mental disease, wait until the drugs take effect (upwards to 6 weeks), and then explain what's going on and how they wish to continue. If the patient wants to stay on drugs, awesome: they should be provided free of charge. Along with that, governmental services they may have turned down prior can be reactivated and put into motion to assist them. Or... if they don't want help/treatment, they should sign a paper stating that they were medicated, informed, and that they wish to not be on drugs and live on the street. At this time, they are released to live as they choose. And this "medical arrest" to inform them of their rights would never happen again. That's a one-time affair. This "Arrest" would happen once, and would be done to provide informed consent. We already acknowledge that things like contracts and the like can't be made while on drugs, alcohol, or under duress. There's no reason why mental defects that cause effects like drugs can't also be grouped in with this. This sounds to be the most fair..
    - yoo1I 11y ago
      > needing help, refusing it and possibly endangering themselves and others? Sounds like most drivers I know...
    - rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
      Tell me everything about your life, and I could envision a situation where an aspect of yourself could be considered too "abnormal" or "dangerous" in action or thought to be left untreated. If people haven't harmed anybody, then they themselves shouldn't be harmed, even if professionals believe it is help. Removing that barrier opens the door to arbitrary treatment and involuntary commitment, the likes of which not seen since the 19th century.
- basseq 11y ago
  Especially considering the alternative is forced incarceration. Mandatory treatment at least focuses on improvement.
  - BinaryIdiot 11y ago
    Mandatory treatment can also mean forced incarceration though. It's hard to get out of a mental hospital if the government picked you up and put you there. Not saying I know the answer though.
kweks 11y ago
The subject is more nuanced than this. Firstly, you need to examine the reason why people are on the streets. Generally, it falls into three categories: 1. 'Normal' People with mental illness, and no support network 2. 'Normal' People who have lost their financial stability. 3. Rest (Choice, Addiction, etc. by far the smallest group) The key thing to note here is that with very, very few exceptions, everyone living on the street was a 'normal' person. The line of being 'normal' and 'homeless' is startlingly slim. For the majority of people, foundations are job, family and health. Most people can survive losing one, because the others elements support it. Two elements, most people will have problems bouncing back. Three, and you're on the street. Ask yourself: If tomorrow you lost your job and had significant health problem, could you survive? What if you had no family to support you? Likewise, once on the street, mental health deteriorates rapidly. People wither in a matter of weeks and months. No matter how stoic, strong and determined you think you are - the streets will cripple you. Once you're on the streets, getting back on your feet is hard. Try getting a job, an apartment, or even a document without a fixed address. It's a vicious circle. Finally - yes, there are shelters. Unfortunately, most homeless people avoid shelters - as they are notorious spots for theft and abuse; most prefer to risk it on the streets. People aren't refusing help, they're refusing to be sexually assaulted, or have the very few posessions that have left being stolen. Finally: you're totally right - SF is expensive. You suggest the homeless should leave, but forget the how: buy a plane / train / bus? Or, perhaps they should risk jumping without a ticket, then being arrested, and then having a felony against their name. The take away message is this: homeless people are 'normal' people. The difference between you, me, and anyone with the homeless is that we're incredibly lucky to not have faced significant problems in life, or be burdened with mental illness. It's a tough subject, and noone likes the results, but it's worth remembering you're human, and applying empathy.
- 1024core 11y ago
  > The key thing to note here is that with very, very few exceptions, everyone living on the street was a 'normal' person. That is where you are dead wrong. I would highly recommend you walk down 13th street (aka Duboce or Division, can't remember) and talk to the people living in the tent colony lining it. I have; it used to be my way to work till the hassle became too much and I started taking a detour. I would posit and say 100% of them are there by some sort of choice (not following the rules of the shelter is a huge #1). Drugs, alcohol and theft (bike, specially) are rife there. I live in SF, and just can't stand the holier-than-thou approach taken by those who have not experienced SF's homeless firsthand. These are not your "lost my job and house and am forced to live out of my car" homeless; these are people, most of whom made a conscious decision to come to SF because they're attracted by the generous benefits, or got hounded out of whatever city they were in.
foldr 11y ago
>Do the math, and you'll see how ridiculous is that. It's $4444 per person per month. Why is that ridiculous? They need to employ people to manage the program as well as run shelters, pay rents, etc. $4444 is not so high that it's obviously too much.
- njharman 11y ago
  That's not even that high of rent for SF.
- discardorama 11y ago
  > They need to employ people to manage the program as well as run shelters, pay rents, etc. $4444 is not so high that it's obviously too much. Who will they pay rent to? The pier belongs to the City. That much money gets a homeless basically a cot in a large warehouse. How is that worth $4K/month? And which other city spends $50K/homeless person?
  - foldr 11y ago
    If you have a breakdown of the various expenditures showing that money is being wasted, then by all means post it. Otherwise, the amount really does not seem that high.

Coding_Cat 11y ago

>You can't force them to use detox clinics, etc. Maybe it is not possible yet legally, but why shouldn't we allow this? The courts can already force people to be commited for mental afflictions when they are a danger to themselves or others. Why not do the same for (heavy) drug addicts who start becoming a liability?

danharaj 11y ago
Forced mental treatment has been the source of a great many atrocities by the state over the decades.
DanBC 11y ago
It doesn't work unless the person wants to recover. That's apart from the human rights violation.
- Shivetya 11y ago
  Clue me in, what is the human rights violation? Or better yet, in descending order what are they in regards to those needing help but refusing it and possibly endangering themselves or others?
  - kefka 11y ago
    I certainly understand why there's strife around this. Mental drugs cause a lot of effects, including causing other problems. They usually cause you to feel like you're in a cloud of anti-emotion. It really sucks when you want to feel stuff. Worse yet, are other side effects like tardive dyskinesia and tremors and things. And those, once you get them, don't go away. What I gather, the only really humane way to handle mental health problems relating to homelessness is to medically arrest them, have a panel of doctors whom medicate according to the mental disease, wait until the drugs take effect (upwards to 6 weeks), and then explain what's going on and how they wish to continue. If the patient wants to stay on drugs, awesome: they should be provided free of charge. Along with that, governmental services they may have turned down prior can be reactivated and put into motion to assist them. Or... if they don't want help/treatment, they should sign a paper stating that they were medicated, informed, and that they wish to not be on drugs and live on the street. At this time, they are released to live as they choose. And this "medical arrest" to inform them of their rights would never happen again. That's a one-time affair. This "Arrest" would happen once, and would be done to provide informed consent. We already acknowledge that things like contracts and the like can't be made while on drugs, alcohol, or under duress. There's no reason why mental defects that cause effects like drugs can't also be grouped in with this. This sounds to be the most fair..
  - yoo1I 11y ago
    > needing help, refusing it and possibly endangering themselves and others? Sounds like most drivers I know...
  - rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
    Tell me everything about your life, and I could envision a situation where an aspect of yourself could be considered too "abnormal" or "dangerous" in action or thought to be left untreated. If people haven't harmed anybody, then they themselves shouldn't be harmed, even if professionals believe it is help. Removing that barrier opens the door to arbitrary treatment and involuntary commitment, the likes of which not seen since the 19th century.
basseq 11y ago
Especially considering the alternative is forced incarceration. Mandatory treatment at least focuses on improvement.
- BinaryIdiot 11y ago
  Mandatory treatment can also mean forced incarceration though. It's hard to get out of a mental hospital if the government picked you up and put you there. Not saying I know the answer though.

kweks 11y ago

The subject is more nuanced than this. Firstly, you need to examine the reason why people are on the streets. Generally, it falls into three categories: 1. 'Normal' People with mental illness, and no support network 2. 'Normal' People who have lost their financial stability. 3. Rest (Choice, Addiction, etc. by far the smallest group) The key thing to note here is that with very, very few exceptions, everyone living on the street was a 'normal' person. The line of being 'normal' and 'homeless' is startlingly slim. For the majority of people, foundations are job, family and health. Most people can survive losing one, because the others elements support it. Two elements, most people will have problems bouncing back. Three, and you're on the street. Ask yourself: If tomorrow you lost your job and had significant health problem, could you survive? What if you had no family to support you? Likewise, once on the street, mental health deteriorates rapidly. People wither in a matter of weeks and months. No matter how stoic, strong and determined you think you are - the streets will cripple you. Once you're on the streets, getting back on your feet is hard. Try getting a job, an apartment, or even a document without a fixed address. It's a vicious circle. Finally - yes, there are shelters. Unfortunately, most homeless people avoid shelters - as they are notorious spots for theft and abuse; most prefer to risk it on the streets. People aren't refusing help, they're refusing to be sexually assaulted, or have the very few posessions that have left being stolen. Finally: you're totally right - SF is expensive. You suggest the homeless should leave, but forget the how: buy a plane / train / bus? Or, perhaps they should risk jumping without a ticket, then being arrested, and then having a felony against their name. The take away message is this: homeless people are 'normal' people. The difference between you, me, and anyone with the homeless is that we're incredibly lucky to not have faced significant problems in life, or be burdened with mental illness. It's a tough subject, and noone likes the results, but it's worth remembering you're human, and applying empathy.

1024core 11y ago
> The key thing to note here is that with very, very few exceptions, everyone living on the street was a 'normal' person. That is where you are dead wrong. I would highly recommend you walk down 13th street (aka Duboce or Division, can't remember) and talk to the people living in the tent colony lining it. I have; it used to be my way to work till the hassle became too much and I started taking a detour. I would posit and say 100% of them are there by some sort of choice (not following the rules of the shelter is a huge #1). Drugs, alcohol and theft (bike, specially) are rife there. I live in SF, and just can't stand the holier-than-thou approach taken by those who have not experienced SF's homeless firsthand. These are not your "lost my job and house and am forced to live out of my car" homeless; these are people, most of whom made a conscious decision to come to SF because they're attracted by the generous benefits, or got hounded out of whatever city they were in.

foldr 11y ago

>Do the math, and you'll see how ridiculous is that. It's $4444 per person per month. Why is that ridiculous? They need to employ people to manage the program as well as run shelters, pay rents, etc. $4444 is not so high that it's obviously too much.

njharman 11y ago
That's not even that high of rent for SF.
discardorama 11y ago
> They need to employ people to manage the program as well as run shelters, pay rents, etc. $4444 is not so high that it's obviously too much. Who will they pay rent to? The pier belongs to the City. That much money gets a homeless basically a cot in a large warehouse. How is that worth $4K/month? And which other city spends $50K/homeless person?
- foldr 11y ago
  If you have a breakdown of the various expenditures showing that money is being wasted, then by all means post it. Otherwise, the amount really does not seem that high.