5 ms·

> 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 w

> 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.
kweks 11y ago
I've not worked with the homeless in SF, but I have seen it first hand. Noone is contesting the infiltration of alcoholism, drugs, etc that is a huge part of the homeless puzzle. However, it's important to consider that the abuse comes as a result of being on the streets, and the desire to numb against the hardship, or if it was the catalyst that placed the people in that situation. My experience is that it's more the former than the latter. Call it holier-than-thou, but I've been working with homeless for over 5 years, 2 nights per week. I am sure that SF's situation has its nuances, but I'd be surprised if it was totally different.

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.

kweks 11y ago

I've not worked with the homeless in SF, but I have seen it first hand. Noone is contesting the infiltration of alcoholism, drugs, etc that is a huge part of the homeless puzzle. However, it's important to consider that the abuse comes as a result of being on the streets, and the desire to numb against the hardship, or if it was the catalyst that placed the people in that situation. My experience is that it's more the former than the latter. Call it holier-than-thou, but I've been working with homeless for over 5 years, 2 nights per week. I am sure that SF's situation has its nuances, but I'd be surprised if it was totally different.