the security guard sounds overeager ("Everyone in there makes over $1 million" - really?). Not having been to skid row, but if it's like the tenderloin (and I'

the security guard sounds overeager ("Everyone in there makes over $1 million" - really?). Not having been to skid row, but if it's like the tenderloin (and I've heard it's worse) you know the streets are totally overrun with vice. The notion that private corporations enforce social control is not novel. What's new is this pattern of tech companies going into sketchy neighborhoods and 'cleaning them up'. In San Francisco Twitter got a tax break for 'revitalizing' the area. Part of the tactic is patrols by 'Business Improvement District' officers. I think Google must have known what they were getting themselves into. Probably got a tax break for their 'sanitizing' effect. This being said, it's disingenuous for them to not acknowledge the problem and point their 'brilliant minds' to research being done. There's a need for more evidence-based policy on homelessness. Services and transitional housing are good ideas. For Google to quarantine a two-block radius doesn't help solve the larger issue at all. At the same time, the issues of skid row are not just 'lack of sidewalk space for tents'. The concept of a "sanctuary encampment" is developing, but I'm not sure that designating the neighborhood 'tent-friendly' is productive for anyone considering the amount of drugs there. It's also not really fair that low-income apartment renters need to live in such a chaotic area in order to afford a bed. Kicking homeless people out of a peaceful off-the-grid settlement might seem cruel, but I have slightly less sympathy for their plight at the urban core. Making these neighborhoods sanctuaries is not a solution unless the broader support network is there (stuff like mental health, finance, and drug support), which it's not. For Google to kick out these people may be slightly counterproductive to society's larger homeless issue, but not dramatically so.