6 ms·

San Francisco Orders Homeless to Leave Tent Camp

34 points by wrongc0ntinent 11y ago

towy 11y ago
Just looked up some numbers to shed some light on the proportions of these problems: - SF has had a homeless population of 6200~6500 over the last 15 years - SF spends $~240M per year on homeless services, about $35k per person (excluding police, medical and other indirect services) * $112M of that on supportive housing, $40M on shelters/transitional housing, $27M rental subsidies/eviction prevention - spending has increased by $84M since 2011 when Ed Lee took office - NYC spends about $1B but seems to have a homeless populat of about 60,000 (~10x that of SF) Pretty disheartening to see the amount of resources that have already poured into solving the problem without seeming very successful.
- maerF0x0 11y ago
  IMO this all boils down to realestate/rental costs. 1/2 the budget for services is realted to housing cost. Build the towers sky high until the market is saturated, stop the ridiculous NIMBYism, stop pandering to the crowd that profits from the problem--the housing owners.
- pj_mukh 11y ago
  Yea. What's going wrong? Would just GIVING them a place to live work? It would be cheaper. http://umanitoba.ca/outreach/evidencenetwork/archives/16127 http://umanitoba.ca/outreach/evidencenetwork/archives/16127
1024core 11y ago
Every time the topic comes up, people from across the country start commenting on SF's homelessness woes. I live in SF, and consider our homeless situation unique. There are lots of mentally ill people, who have been hanging around for many years, thanks to good weather and generous people (and the easy availability of some drugs). Most of these people are NOT your typical "lost my job, lost my apartment, and hence am homeless" types. Many of them are so mentally ill that putting them in a mental institution is the only option. They simply cannot take care of themselves.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- beatpanda 11y ago
  I suggest looking at the official data on this subject[1]. The vast majority of San Francisco's homeless people are, in fact, people who were living in SF and paying rent, lost one or more jobs, and subsequently became homeless. I would also suggest you read the literature[2] concerning "putting people in a mental institution" against their will, because that practice has a long and sordid history and there are many, many good reasons we don't do it anymore. [1]https://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/sfgov.org.lhcb/files/2015%20San%20Francisco%20Homeless%20Count%20%20Report_0.pdf https://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/sfgov.org.lhcb/files/2015%20San... [2]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3392176/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3392176/
  - hencq 11y ago
    Thanks for sharing those links. I'll definitely look into them in more detail. At a cursory glance I'm not sure that the data necessarily contradicts 1024core's statement. A disturbingly high number of respondents cites having one or more health conditions, such as Drug or Alcohol Abuse (37%), Pyschiatric or Emotional Conditions (35%) and PTSD (27%). At the same time, to your point, the number of people on the streets due to evictions has also markedly increased over the last years, so there are probably multiple things going on. I'd imagine that (as usual) the problems are complex. For instance, respondents say they're on the street because they lost their job (25%) or because family or friends asked them to leave (12%), but it doesn't mention if there's an underlying reason for that. For example, some of these people might have lost their job due to substance abuse. I'm not saying that's the case for everyone, just trying to say that the situation is complex. Similarly I'd imagine there's a vicious cycle where once you're living on the street it's difficult to break out of it. Living on the street makes it difficult to get a job, which in turn makes it hard to get a home. Substance abuse is probably more likely if you're living on the street, again making it more difficult to get a job and a home. If you have a mental illness and you voluntarily sought mental care, it's difficult to stick with it if you also have a drug addiction. Again, thanks for posting those links. I also live in SF and I find the homeless situation tragic. It saddens me that very few people seem interested in discussing the problem beyond black and white opinions and simple soundbites.
sytse 11y ago
I live close to the area (I'm on 8th and Howard) and the situation for the homeless there is horrible. We walked past the tent camp while going to the local spca to see if they had a cat we could adopt. The spca has a great facility and it is great that their animals are treated so well. But the contrast between the animals and humans on the street made my heart sink. I hope that we can keep the great facilities for the animals but we find a better solution for the people living on the street. As mentioned in the article many are mentally ill and it is sad to see them scream and yell at ghosts. I've never heard someone say something about throwing feces so this doesn't seem frequent. I'm sure many of the homeless want to keep their place clean but there is a lack of public sanitation to do so. Reports say many went to this area after being told to do so during the super bowl http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/S-F-mayor-Homeless-have-to-leave-the-6465209.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/S-F-mayor-...
tropo 11y ago
Meanwhile, houses in Detroit can be purchased for the cost of a month's rent in SF. The solution is obvious, no? It seems that people want so badly to live in some of the nation's most expensive real estate that they are willing to be homeless. That's a choice. The quarter billion spent on them is an enabler. It encourages them to stay homeless.
- crisnoble 11y ago
  Are you suggesting bussing all of the homeless to Detroit?
- jpindar 11y ago
  I get your point, but Detroit is a really bad example. Who would want to live with undrinkable water and the highest murder rate in the country, with essentially no municipal services, in a house so run down that it'd be condemned in any other city?
  - SeoxyS 11y ago
    You must be thinking of St. Louis and Flint, MI… That, plus I hear Detroit is bouncing back a bit. The homeless would probably become jobless, there. A slight improvement, I guess.
    - jpindar 11y ago
      Oops, yeah the contaminated water thing is in Flint. But Detroit does have high crime, even if the exact rankings vary slightly from year to year.
- diamondtrim 11y ago
  Homeless flock to SF because it's very tolerant of them relative to many other cities (some of which actually bus their mentally ill to SF), and the conditions are moderate enough that they aren't fighting off hypothermia. It has nothing to do with their desire to live on the curb in front of expensive real estate. I don't know that you understand the problem at all if you refer to it as a choice. Particularly if you think the alternative choice is home ownership in abandoned areas of the country's most troubled city. Owning some empty, stripped-apart house in Detroit doesn't solve anybody's problems and certainly doesn't eliminate the cost of supporting the downtrodden. Many people in Detroit who have skills aren't finding employment and are barely surviving. A property title doesn't fill your stomach day after day. And the 4-figure houses you refer to are that way because they represent more liability than asset. They need massive investment to make them liveable. Your comment is frankly ignorant.
20years 11y ago
This is very similar to the homeless situation where I live. We had to recently break up a camp in one of the beach communities too. Many, many drug addicts (especially meth) and mentally ill (possibly due to drugs). Simply providing shelter is not the solution imo. The challenge is so much bigger than that. Drug rehab services need to be provided or even required. The easy access to drugs also needs to be addressed. I am all for helping people that need our help. I am not for enabling certain behaviors though such as drug use. It is going to be hard to empower drug addicted homeless people if they can't hold down a job or relationships due to their addiction. I am not saying this is the case for all homeless but at least in my area, it is the majority. If we want to solve this problem, we need to provide shelter along with drug rehab services & require weekly clean drug tests as a requirement to keep the shelter. Now the costs for all of that, I am sure is just as big of a challenge.
- iamnothere 11y ago
  This is directly contrary to what has been found to work in practice. Mental illness and drug addiction can take years to treat successfully, and it's impossible to treat people who don't live in a fixed location. "Housing first" policies treat housing as the first priority, necessary for even gaining access to help people with other problems. Without housing, many of these people gradually become worse off and eventually die. Housing should be treated as a human right, without any special conditions imposed.
  - 20years 11y ago
    "we need to provide shelter along with drug rehab services"
    - iamnothere 11y ago
      Yes, but treatment should be sought voluntarily, not imposed as a condition of housing. *edit: Treatment should be readily available and highly encouraged, obviously.
      - 11y ago
martinshen 11y ago
Housing and the homeless topics keep coming up on HN and in my social circles. It's frustrating. My real frustration is in fact with our cities are incentivizing businesses to create jobs while not creating more housing supply nor using that capital to improve our city like solve homelessness. This is unethical and despicable. The city is not run by the techies who work here. The city is run by rich companies AND entrenched groups. Entrenched groups are the older long-time homeowners looking to push the value of their own homes, the non-profit communities that want to protect their neighborhood's culture and the longtime renters who want to keep their rent control. There are countless entrenched players who push the status quo and the majority of them don't have that much money. Whether you agree that "keeping neighborhood culture" is important or not, we must first acknowledge that doing so is contributing in some way to housing prices. I believe rich companies are not inherently evil. Many wish to help their employees by encouraging cities to build new housing alongside their new offices. However, when push comes to shove, companies will prioritize their office over new housing projects. New offices are also a lot easier to sell to many of the entrenched players. How do we combat this all? We vote! Oh wait... Unfortunately, those who have recently moved here (who tend to be techies) tend not to vote and many cannot simply because they haven't yet lived here long enough. Additionally, those who commute (most people) cannot vote in the locations where may be truly relevant. For example, if I work at Twitter but live in Oakland, I cannot vote to encourage more housing to be built in San Francisco. The other big problem that many ignore is that many of us cannot vote in cities because frankly, we're not American. At last I counted there are over 250,000 Canadians alone that live in the San Francisco Bay Area. Don't forget all the other TN, H-1Bs, L-2, non-visa aliens and families that live (and more than likely, rent) here. The Bay Area likely has the most non-voting capable residents in the US. I would guess that up to 10% of Bay area residents cannot vote.
- fosk 11y ago
  I live in SF and the problem with housing here is that although the residential neighborhoods are very extended (think of the Richmond), most of the residential buildings are 2/3 story houses that cannot accomodate many people. We need to start replacing these little residential houses with 10 story buildings. There is nowhere else to build, we need to start upgrading the existing buildings. Will that change the city? Well yes, but cities evolve and some of the houses built after the earthquake are anachronistic and of out place in this time.
dreamdu5t 11y ago
Why is that a problem that needs solving? Quite honestly I do not give a shit if someone is choosing to use drugs and live in the street... And the idea that they just need "addiction services" is laughable. Whatever. I don't give two shits about some alcoholic or methhead, and the idea that they have no control over it and need to be "helped" is perverted.
- henrikschroder 11y ago
  The above reasoning is shared by a large part of the American people, and this is why the homeless situation in SF and other places in the US is so ridiculously bad compared to the rest of the civilized world.
- 20years 11y ago
  Coming from a place where a loved one of mine got the "addiction services" support he needed and is now thriving, I can't agree with you. Addiction services do help IF the person wants help and IS held accountable.
- dang 11y ago
  This comment breaks the HN guidelines, as unfortunately do many of your other contributions. Please post civilly and substantively when adding to threads here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11185181 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11185181 and marked it off-topic.
pjlegato 11y ago
What San Francisco needs is a free, high quality, in-patient psychiatric hospital. No, I am not talking about a stereotypical 1960s Nurse Ratchett type dungeon psych ward. I am talking about a modern and caring facility where homeless people with severe mental problems and drug/alcohol addiction can check in and get help. If they need it, they should be able to live there on a long-term basis. It says the city of San Francisco spends $242 million a year on homeless services. That'd build and operate a very nice psych hospital.

towy 11y ago

Just looked up some numbers to shed some light on the proportions of these problems: - SF has had a homeless population of 6200~6500 over the last 15 years - SF spends $~240M per year on homeless services, about $35k per person (excluding police, medical and other indirect services) * $112M of that on supportive housing, $40M on shelters/transitional housing, $27M rental subsidies/eviction prevention - spending has increased by $84M since 2011 when Ed Lee took office - NYC spends about $1B but seems to have a homeless populat of about 60,000 (~10x that of SF) Pretty disheartening to see the amount of resources that have already poured into solving the problem without seeming very successful.

maerF0x0 11y ago
IMO this all boils down to realestate/rental costs. 1/2 the budget for services is realted to housing cost. Build the towers sky high until the market is saturated, stop the ridiculous NIMBYism, stop pandering to the crowd that profits from the problem--the housing owners.
pj_mukh 11y ago
Yea. What's going wrong? Would just GIVING them a place to live work? It would be cheaper. http://umanitoba.ca/outreach/evidencenetwork/archives/16127 http://umanitoba.ca/outreach/evidencenetwork/archives/16127

1024core 11y ago

Every time the topic comes up, people from across the country start commenting on SF's homelessness woes. I live in SF, and consider our homeless situation unique. There are lots of mentally ill people, who have been hanging around for many years, thanks to good weather and generous people (and the easy availability of some drugs). Most of these people are NOT your typical "lost my job, lost my apartment, and hence am homeless" types. Many of them are so mentally ill that putting them in a mental institution is the only option. They simply cannot take care of themselves.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
beatpanda 11y ago
I suggest looking at the official data on this subject[1]. The vast majority of San Francisco's homeless people are, in fact, people who were living in SF and paying rent, lost one or more jobs, and subsequently became homeless. I would also suggest you read the literature[2] concerning "putting people in a mental institution" against their will, because that practice has a long and sordid history and there are many, many good reasons we don't do it anymore. [1]https://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/sfgov.org.lhcb/files/2015%20San%20Francisco%20Homeless%20Count%20%20Report_0.pdf https://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/sfgov.org.lhcb/files/2015%20San... [2]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3392176/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3392176/
- hencq 11y ago
  Thanks for sharing those links. I'll definitely look into them in more detail. At a cursory glance I'm not sure that the data necessarily contradicts 1024core's statement. A disturbingly high number of respondents cites having one or more health conditions, such as Drug or Alcohol Abuse (37%), Pyschiatric or Emotional Conditions (35%) and PTSD (27%). At the same time, to your point, the number of people on the streets due to evictions has also markedly increased over the last years, so there are probably multiple things going on. I'd imagine that (as usual) the problems are complex. For instance, respondents say they're on the street because they lost their job (25%) or because family or friends asked them to leave (12%), but it doesn't mention if there's an underlying reason for that. For example, some of these people might have lost their job due to substance abuse. I'm not saying that's the case for everyone, just trying to say that the situation is complex. Similarly I'd imagine there's a vicious cycle where once you're living on the street it's difficult to break out of it. Living on the street makes it difficult to get a job, which in turn makes it hard to get a home. Substance abuse is probably more likely if you're living on the street, again making it more difficult to get a job and a home. If you have a mental illness and you voluntarily sought mental care, it's difficult to stick with it if you also have a drug addiction. Again, thanks for posting those links. I also live in SF and I find the homeless situation tragic. It saddens me that very few people seem interested in discussing the problem beyond black and white opinions and simple soundbites.

sytse 11y ago

I live close to the area (I'm on 8th and Howard) and the situation for the homeless there is horrible. We walked past the tent camp while going to the local spca to see if they had a cat we could adopt. The spca has a great facility and it is great that their animals are treated so well. But the contrast between the animals and humans on the street made my heart sink. I hope that we can keep the great facilities for the animals but we find a better solution for the people living on the street. As mentioned in the article many are mentally ill and it is sad to see them scream and yell at ghosts. I've never heard someone say something about throwing feces so this doesn't seem frequent. I'm sure many of the homeless want to keep their place clean but there is a lack of public sanitation to do so. Reports say many went to this area after being told to do so during the super bowl http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/S-F-mayor-Homeless-have-to-leave-the-6465209.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/S-F-mayor-...

tropo 11y ago

Meanwhile, houses in Detroit can be purchased for the cost of a month's rent in SF. The solution is obvious, no? It seems that people want so badly to live in some of the nation's most expensive real estate that they are willing to be homeless. That's a choice. The quarter billion spent on them is an enabler. It encourages them to stay homeless.

crisnoble 11y ago
Are you suggesting bussing all of the homeless to Detroit?
jpindar 11y ago
I get your point, but Detroit is a really bad example. Who would want to live with undrinkable water and the highest murder rate in the country, with essentially no municipal services, in a house so run down that it'd be condemned in any other city?
- SeoxyS 11y ago
  You must be thinking of St. Louis and Flint, MI… That, plus I hear Detroit is bouncing back a bit. The homeless would probably become jobless, there. A slight improvement, I guess.
  - jpindar 11y ago
    Oops, yeah the contaminated water thing is in Flint. But Detroit does have high crime, even if the exact rankings vary slightly from year to year.
diamondtrim 11y ago
Homeless flock to SF because it's very tolerant of them relative to many other cities (some of which actually bus their mentally ill to SF), and the conditions are moderate enough that they aren't fighting off hypothermia. It has nothing to do with their desire to live on the curb in front of expensive real estate. I don't know that you understand the problem at all if you refer to it as a choice. Particularly if you think the alternative choice is home ownership in abandoned areas of the country's most troubled city. Owning some empty, stripped-apart house in Detroit doesn't solve anybody's problems and certainly doesn't eliminate the cost of supporting the downtrodden. Many people in Detroit who have skills aren't finding employment and are barely surviving. A property title doesn't fill your stomach day after day. And the 4-figure houses you refer to are that way because they represent more liability than asset. They need massive investment to make them liveable. Your comment is frankly ignorant.

20years 11y ago

This is very similar to the homeless situation where I live. We had to recently break up a camp in one of the beach communities too. Many, many drug addicts (especially meth) and mentally ill (possibly due to drugs). Simply providing shelter is not the solution imo. The challenge is so much bigger than that. Drug rehab services need to be provided or even required. The easy access to drugs also needs to be addressed. I am all for helping people that need our help. I am not for enabling certain behaviors though such as drug use. It is going to be hard to empower drug addicted homeless people if they can't hold down a job or relationships due to their addiction. I am not saying this is the case for all homeless but at least in my area, it is the majority. If we want to solve this problem, we need to provide shelter along with drug rehab services & require weekly clean drug tests as a requirement to keep the shelter. Now the costs for all of that, I am sure is just as big of a challenge.

iamnothere 11y ago
This is directly contrary to what has been found to work in practice. Mental illness and drug addiction can take years to treat successfully, and it's impossible to treat people who don't live in a fixed location. "Housing first" policies treat housing as the first priority, necessary for even gaining access to help people with other problems. Without housing, many of these people gradually become worse off and eventually die. Housing should be treated as a human right, without any special conditions imposed.
- 20years 11y ago
  "we need to provide shelter along with drug rehab services"
  - iamnothere 11y ago
    Yes, but treatment should be sought voluntarily, not imposed as a condition of housing. *edit: Treatment should be readily available and highly encouraged, obviously.
    - 11y ago

martinshen 11y ago

Housing and the homeless topics keep coming up on HN and in my social circles. It's frustrating. My real frustration is in fact with our cities are incentivizing businesses to create jobs while not creating more housing supply nor using that capital to improve our city like solve homelessness. This is unethical and despicable. The city is not run by the techies who work here. The city is run by rich companies AND entrenched groups. Entrenched groups are the older long-time homeowners looking to push the value of their own homes, the non-profit communities that want to protect their neighborhood's culture and the longtime renters who want to keep their rent control. There are countless entrenched players who push the status quo and the majority of them don't have that much money. Whether you agree that "keeping neighborhood culture" is important or not, we must first acknowledge that doing so is contributing in some way to housing prices. I believe rich companies are not inherently evil. Many wish to help their employees by encouraging cities to build new housing alongside their new offices. However, when push comes to shove, companies will prioritize their office over new housing projects. New offices are also a lot easier to sell to many of the entrenched players. How do we combat this all? We vote! Oh wait... Unfortunately, those who have recently moved here (who tend to be techies) tend not to vote and many cannot simply because they haven't yet lived here long enough. Additionally, those who commute (most people) cannot vote in the locations where may be truly relevant. For example, if I work at Twitter but live in Oakland, I cannot vote to encourage more housing to be built in San Francisco. The other big problem that many ignore is that many of us cannot vote in cities because frankly, we're not American. At last I counted there are over 250,000 Canadians alone that live in the San Francisco Bay Area. Don't forget all the other TN, H-1Bs, L-2, non-visa aliens and families that live (and more than likely, rent) here. The Bay Area likely has the most non-voting capable residents in the US. I would guess that up to 10% of Bay area residents cannot vote.

fosk 11y ago
I live in SF and the problem with housing here is that although the residential neighborhoods are very extended (think of the Richmond), most of the residential buildings are 2/3 story houses that cannot accomodate many people. We need to start replacing these little residential houses with 10 story buildings. There is nowhere else to build, we need to start upgrading the existing buildings. Will that change the city? Well yes, but cities evolve and some of the houses built after the earthquake are anachronistic and of out place in this time.

dreamdu5t 11y ago

Why is that a problem that needs solving? Quite honestly I do not give a shit if someone is choosing to use drugs and live in the street... And the idea that they just need "addiction services" is laughable. Whatever. I don't give two shits about some alcoholic or methhead, and the idea that they have no control over it and need to be "helped" is perverted.

henrikschroder 11y ago
The above reasoning is shared by a large part of the American people, and this is why the homeless situation in SF and other places in the US is so ridiculously bad compared to the rest of the civilized world.
20years 11y ago
Coming from a place where a loved one of mine got the "addiction services" support he needed and is now thriving, I can't agree with you. Addiction services do help IF the person wants help and IS held accountable.
dang 11y ago
This comment breaks the HN guidelines, as unfortunately do many of your other contributions. Please post civilly and substantively when adding to threads here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11185181 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11185181 and marked it off-topic.

pjlegato 11y ago

What San Francisco needs is a free, high quality, in-patient psychiatric hospital. No, I am not talking about a stereotypical 1960s Nurse Ratchett type dungeon psych ward. I am talking about a modern and caring facility where homeless people with severe mental problems and drug/alcohol addiction can check in and get help. If they need it, they should be able to live there on a long-term basis. It says the city of San Francisco spends $242 million a year on homeless services. That'd build and operate a very nice psych hospital.