4 ms·

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. 'N

by 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.
- beatpanda 11y ago
  Serious question: how many people working in the software industry do you know who don't use drugs or alcohol? If everybody in San Francisco was held to the insane standards shelter clients are held to, nobody would be able to stay in an apartment for more than a week.
  - 1024core 11y ago
    That's a strawman. There's a difference between drinking a couple of pints of beer with buddies, and emptying a pint of cheap vodka and passing out on the street, covered in your own urine and/or vomit.
    - beatpanda 11y ago
      And your comment is also a strawman, because people get kicked out of shelters for simple possession.
      - 1024core 11y ago
        Being in a shelter is a privilege. A shelter is free to make their own rules. Since quite a few of the residents may be fighting addictions or may be recovering alcoholics, the shelter may ban all alcohol and drugs to help in their recovery. For example: I am a vegetarian and don't allow meat in my house. It's my house, I can set the rules. If you are my guest, you have to abide by them. It's quite simple, really.
        beatpanda 11y ago
        The question isn't whether or not shelters have the right to make rules that make it incredibly difficult for people to maintain a shelter bed. The questions is are they doing the right thing -- that is, acting in the best interest of both the shelter clients and the greater public. Shelters are paid for with public money to do a specific job, which is to create a safe place for people to sleep for people who have run out of options. The public should be able to examine whether restrictive shelter rules are helping or hurting the shelters' ability to do their job. And, in fact, this happens pretty regularly -- there were public hearings on revised shelter rules about a year ago (http://www.sfbos.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=51651 http://www.sfbos.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=51...). A lot of people argued, correctly in my opinion, that the current regime of shelter rules put an undue burden on poor and homeless people, and make their already incredibly difficult lives even harder. That's not what we should be doing. As lots of other people in this thread, and all throughout the community of people who study poverty alleviation, have pointed out, simply giving someone a home, or some kind of shelter, without conditions, is by far a more effective approach. The whole idea of subjecting homeless people to more restrictive rules than anyone else faces to keep their housing is based on the notion that people are homeless because of some personal failure or lack of self-discipline. The data do not support this assumption, and we need to stop making policy based on it.
aeturnum 11y ago
> 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. I did some work with a bay area organization that runs reduced rate housing for transitionally housed people and families when I was in college. First, I should say that you're completely correct about the numbers at any given time, but this also misses the larger picture. Homelessness, broadly speaking, breaks down into two categories: temporary and chronic. The vast majority (~90% by the number of people) are 'temporary' (generally just called homeless). These are people who lose housing for a short period, then find housing again. Around 10% of the homeless are 'chronically' homeless - which means they have been homeless repeatedly over a number of years.[0] I bring this up because I think your impression of where our social safety net is failing is incorrect. We do pretty well when dealing with the 90% of non-chronically homeless people. I think we could do a lot better, but most of those people are homeless for a short time, get help and find housing and stability again. When you talk about 'normal' people who have had a run of bad luck - they are the group we do best at helping. The chronically homeless, on the other hand, need a totally different set of services. Being homeless for a long period of time often changes your entire outlook on life. The idea of investing in the future, or of any long term planning, can start to seem absurd if you're not sure where your next meal will come from. In general, the idea of living 'in society,' where there are shared rules and expectations looses its value if society places no (or almost no) value on you. Chronically homeless people can prefer homelessness to free housing, they can refuse to participate in a process that will feed, cloth and employ them because they don't believe it will be better than their current lives. They often have PTSD. In many ways, we are still working to understand how to best help this population. I point this out because it's important to understand the kinds of things we do well and the kinds of things we do poorly. The kinds of interventions that help the recently unhoused will often be useless to the chronically homeless. All people are people and deserve dignity and compassion, but we shouldn't focus too much on how much like us many homeless people are. The failures of our system and what most people think of as 'homeless' people, are often facing a totally different set of problems and have a very different outlook on life. They are just as much people are you or I, but we don't do them favors by pretending they're one missed paycheck away from self-sufficiency. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_States#Total_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_Sta...

by kweks 11y ago

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.

beatpanda 11y ago
Serious question: how many people working in the software industry do you know who don't use drugs or alcohol? If everybody in San Francisco was held to the insane standards shelter clients are held to, nobody would be able to stay in an apartment for more than a week.
- 1024core 11y ago
  That's a strawman. There's a difference between drinking a couple of pints of beer with buddies, and emptying a pint of cheap vodka and passing out on the street, covered in your own urine and/or vomit.
  - beatpanda 11y ago
    And your comment is also a strawman, because people get kicked out of shelters for simple possession.
    - 1024core 11y ago
      Being in a shelter is a privilege. A shelter is free to make their own rules. Since quite a few of the residents may be fighting addictions or may be recovering alcoholics, the shelter may ban all alcohol and drugs to help in their recovery. For example: I am a vegetarian and don't allow meat in my house. It's my house, I can set the rules. If you are my guest, you have to abide by them. It's quite simple, really.
      - beatpanda 11y ago
        The question isn't whether or not shelters have the right to make rules that make it incredibly difficult for people to maintain a shelter bed. The questions is are they doing the right thing -- that is, acting in the best interest of both the shelter clients and the greater public. Shelters are paid for with public money to do a specific job, which is to create a safe place for people to sleep for people who have run out of options. The public should be able to examine whether restrictive shelter rules are helping or hurting the shelters' ability to do their job. And, in fact, this happens pretty regularly -- there were public hearings on revised shelter rules about a year ago (http://www.sfbos.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=51651 http://www.sfbos.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=51...). A lot of people argued, correctly in my opinion, that the current regime of shelter rules put an undue burden on poor and homeless people, and make their already incredibly difficult lives even harder. That's not what we should be doing. As lots of other people in this thread, and all throughout the community of people who study poverty alleviation, have pointed out, simply giving someone a home, or some kind of shelter, without conditions, is by far a more effective approach. The whole idea of subjecting homeless people to more restrictive rules than anyone else faces to keep their housing is based on the notion that people are homeless because of some personal failure or lack of self-discipline. The data do not support this assumption, and we need to stop making policy based on it.

aeturnum 11y ago

> 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. I did some work with a bay area organization that runs reduced rate housing for transitionally housed people and families when I was in college. First, I should say that you're completely correct about the numbers at any given time, but this also misses the larger picture. Homelessness, broadly speaking, breaks down into two categories: temporary and chronic. The vast majority (~90% by the number of people) are 'temporary' (generally just called homeless). These are people who lose housing for a short period, then find housing again. Around 10% of the homeless are 'chronically' homeless - which means they have been homeless repeatedly over a number of years.[0] I bring this up because I think your impression of where our social safety net is failing is incorrect. We do pretty well when dealing with the 90% of non-chronically homeless people. I think we could do a lot better, but most of those people are homeless for a short time, get help and find housing and stability again. When you talk about 'normal' people who have had a run of bad luck - they are the group we do best at helping. The chronically homeless, on the other hand, need a totally different set of services. Being homeless for a long period of time often changes your entire outlook on life. The idea of investing in the future, or of any long term planning, can start to seem absurd if you're not sure where your next meal will come from. In general, the idea of living 'in society,' where there are shared rules and expectations looses its value if society places no (or almost no) value on you. Chronically homeless people can prefer homelessness to free housing, they can refuse to participate in a process that will feed, cloth and employ them because they don't believe it will be better than their current lives. They often have PTSD. In many ways, we are still working to understand how to best help this population. I point this out because it's important to understand the kinds of things we do well and the kinds of things we do poorly. The kinds of interventions that help the recently unhoused will often be useless to the chronically homeless. All people are people and deserve dignity and compassion, but we shouldn't focus too much on how much like us many homeless people are. The failures of our system and what most people think of as 'homeless' people, are often facing a totally different set of problems and have a very different outlook on life. They are just as much people are you or I, but we don't do them favors by pretending they're one missed paycheck away from self-sufficiency. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_States#Total_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_Sta...