22 ms·

Wealthy San Francisco tech investors bankroll bid to ban homeless camps

131 points by hobolobo 10y ago

allsystemsgo 10y ago
I was just in San Diego. Homeless people were everywhere. I heard that Vegas is literally busing homeless people out of Vegas and into San Diego. Apparently the homeless problem is even worse in San Francisco. That's insane to me.
- ng12 10y ago
  The difference is SF doesn't have a skid row like like San Diego and LA do. I lived in SD for years and almost never saw any homeless because I spent most of my time in the northern parts. The "sketchy" parts of SF where these camps are (SOMA, TL, parts of the Mission) are only a stones-throw from the hot tech companies and million dollar condos.
  - allsystemsgo 10y ago
    Ah, makes sense. I personally have never been to SF. I have this idealized vision of what it's like just from knowing that all the major tech firms are there but, I'm sure that vision is not entirely accurate.
    - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
      I have to say it is rather jarring to see homeless people in SF living in tents and cardboard boxes on streets lined with skyscrapers and around pristine parks and plazas. So while the city does have a ritzy tech feel in the right parts, it is disconcerting to know that amidst so much concentrated wealth there are a lot more homeless people than you would expect. Really, a lot. Unfortunately it's not as if these are all down-on-their-luck folks in between attempts at The American Dream. A lot of homeless people - in SF and in general - have mental illnesses and addiction problems and they do need help.
      - ng12 10y ago
        There's also the third group -- the guys who hang out around Cesar Chavez and run a chop shop for stolen bikes in their tent city. Unfortunately they suck away a lot of the goodwill for the first two groups.
mattnewton 10y ago
This looks really bad. Any chance anyone has another side to the story?
- forthefuture 10y ago
  > “I strongly believe that it is not compassionate to allow human beings to live on our city streets,” wrote the measure’s author, supervisor Mark Farrell, in an op-ed. “Let’s help get the homeless into housing, not tents.” I guess this would be the other side.
  - inetsee 10y ago
    However, the article also points out that the measure doesn't provide any additional funding to pay for the housing that would be needed.
    - aliston 10y ago
      San Francisco spends roughly 35k/year per homeless person. Funding is not the issue. There are all sorts of issues around mental health, drugs, tolerance in certain neighborhoods, political corruption, inefficiencies in government etc. that contribute to the situation we have today. I guarantee you, though, that if a bunch of homeless people started camping out in Pac Heights, the issue would get "resolved" pretty quickly.
      - balance_factor 10y ago
        > Funding is not the issue. There are all sorts of issues around mental health, drugs, tolerance in certain neighborhoods, political corruption, inefficiencies in government Ho-hum. People become homeless because they don't have money. I've worked alongside more than one tech who has been homeless at some period in their lives. Some slept in their cars, some slept on park benches. Jim Carrey talks about how he was homeless as a teenager, what was the "mental health, drugs" etc. problem he had? He was actually working a full time job as a janitor after school. San Francisco is full of white, upper middle class prep school assholes who have been handed everything their whole lives, who are parasites like Ron Conman, sucking vampirically off the labor of the young people working at the various startups. They sit in Atherton with their trophy wives and little brats and think up ways to fuck over the homeless people in the city. This is what the czar and his family did in Russia before the Bolsheviks lined those parasites up against the wall in 1918.
CPLX 10y ago
To an outsider, San Fransisco's policy towards the homeless seems literally insane. Despite the negative frame of the headline, is this obviously a bad idea? It does mention requiring that people be offered a shelter bed.Or if this is a horrible/insensitive/bad idea as stated, what's the smart, thoughtful, and progressive way to change the status quo?
- lawless123 10y ago
  "Opponents of the measure point out that the proposed law does not include any funding for additional housing or shelters, and the city’s existing shelters have long waiting lists for beds." I think they just tell them to go to a shelter.
- andlarry 10y ago
  San Francisco spends $241 million[0] of it's $8.9 billion budget[1] on programs to help the homeless and to help folks avoid becoming homeless (through housing assistance, etc). The 2015 count of homeless people in San Francisco is 7,539[2]. This measure doesn't increase spending on the homeless issue but, honestly, the San Francisco govt has shown the ability to absorb funding increases without noticeable impact in services. This is especially true of homeless services. My impression is that this measure is born of frustration with the governmental inaction on the homeless problem in SF. [0] http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record-241-million-on-homeless-6808319.php http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record... [1] http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-budget-increase-aimed-at-homeless-safety-7955697.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-budget-increase-aim... [2] http://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/default/files/2015%20San%20Francisco%20Homeless%20Count%20%20Report_0.pdf http://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/default/files/2015%20San%20Franc...
  - heymijo 10y ago
    From your [0] link. "Eight city departments oversee at least 400 contracts to 76 private organizations" That says a lot about how spending $31,967.10 for every homeless person can amount to, well, no one seems to know. I'm curious what happened in New Orleans and the other places referenced that have seen success helping their homeless populations. Knowing even a little bit about systems, layering more complexity (and money) on top of a dysfunctional effort in SF isn't going to meaningfully help.
Spooky23 10y ago
Its ridiculous that supposed advocates endorse having people live in sidewalks as a compassionate policy.
- pyrophane 10y ago
  I think you are missing the point. No one wants the homeless to live on the sidewalks, but there isn't a better place for them to go right now. Given that, any proposal removing them from the sidewalks is only going to make their lives more difficult unless it also provides for a alternative, which this bill doesn't do.
kldaace 10y ago
Two big problems with just moving people into shelters: 1. Homeless shelters are horribly funded and have long waiting lists for beds. This proposal provides no additional funding. My guess is most people will be forced to take the bus ticket option. 2. Shelter beds themselves are poorly maintained, unsanitary, and often have bed bugs. It sounds counter-intuitive but a lot of homeless people are _choosing_ the streets over homeless shelters. To be honest, I think the people bankrolling this bid know that moving people into shelters is unfeasible, and they're cynically hoping to just bus the homeless out of San Francisco.
- feklar 10y ago
  Many shelters also have rules that nobody can adhere to like curfew hours or being forced to stand in line everyday to get a spot first come first served. Often you can't book more than one night at a time so you have to spend a significant part of your day, everyday, securing your temporary bed and storage for that night so if you have a job you can't stay at a shelter. It's much better to just live out of a tent. Problem is people in squatter tents tend to get ridiculously drunk every night, light their tent on fire accidentally or spend all night screaming and fighting with each other thus police get called and their tent city dismantled. The Salvation Army from what I've seen has the best system going. You can book 3 months, and they help you with employment. You get your own room and there's not a lot of rules besides no alcohol or drugs allowed in the building. This is where most of the homeless go who fell through the social safety net for whatever reasons, and they can save 3 months of income to get back on their feet whereas the addicts, chronic homeless by choice, and mentally ill are the ones in tent cities.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  The biggest issue with shelters is also that they're incredibly unsafe, much of the time. Rape, robbery, and assault are commonplace.
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    But sadly less unsafe than the street. It sucks to be homeless big time.
LesZedCB 10y ago
Meanwhile, unused homes outnumber the homeless 6-1 [1], and in Detroit, they bulldoze unused homes because it is more profitable to destroy and rebuild homes that are palatable for 'civilized' people than to let people live in them.[2] [1] http://www.mintpressnews.com/empty-homes-outnumber-the-homeless-6-to-1-so-why-not-give-them-homes/207194/ http://www.mintpressnews.com/empty-homes-outnumber-the-homel... [2] http://www.businessinsider.com/the-mayor-of-detroits-radical-plan-to-bulldoze-one-quarter-of-the-city-2010-3 http://www.businessinsider.com/the-mayor-of-detroits-radical...
- ZoeZoeBee 10y ago
  Yes Detroit has demolished thousands of buildings over the last decade. Other than that your entire take on the situation is a simplification of a much larger problem which will not be solved by just applying the idea of "let people live in them". An "unused" home does not simply sit in pristine condition waiting for the next person to come live in it. The abandoned homes in Detroit slated for demolition were built during a period which used lead paint and asbestos, abatement programs are expensive. As the homes sat unused they fell victim to scrappers who pull the copper pipe and wire from the wall, strip all of the architectual details, rip the aluminum siding from the outside, or knock down the brick facade, before the house eventually falls victim to an arsonist who may be doing their neighbors a favor. Most of the homes lie in isolated neighborhoods where burnt out buildings outnumber humans. When the homes are bulldozed they're not rebuilt, rather whole neighborhoods are set to be depopulated so city services can be better concentrated. This isn't a simple "profit" play, it is a coordinated downsizing to deal with reality
- imaginenore 10y ago
  Which makes sense. Think of how unfair it would be to those who actually paid for a house.
- sankyo 10y ago
  It is not simply a matter of providing homes. Most of the street people in San Francisco have serious mental illness and drug addiction problems. They cannot take care of themselves. Giving those people a home will not solve their problems.
AndyMcConachie 10y ago
I'm so glad I left that horrible place called the bay area. These inhumane rich jerks just don't want to see poor people. What a disgusting culture.
- product50 10y ago
  Oh yeah - what if there is a homeless colony right next to your current house? Would you say the same thing then?
  - John23832 10y ago
    The answer to that question isn't "Lets move the homeless colony", it's "Lets work to reduce poverty."
    - odonnellryan 10y ago
      From what I've read, poverty definitely leads to lifestyles where you're "trapped" in poverty for a long time, or forever. It's like the disability we have in the US: once you're on it, you're very unlikely to ever get off it. However, it's not just poverty that's the issue. It's mental health, it's drug abuse, and the lack of paths to a sustainable (long-term) lifestyle for these people who are homeless. That means education: how to manage your money, what's a "good deal" involving various things, and how to take care of yourself. It's incredibly surprising how many of these people get taken advantage of. If you have close-to-or-zero skills, how can you possibly sustain yourself? If you have skills but you cannot recognize (because you were never taught) when you're being taken advantage of, how is that sustainable?
  - odonnellryan 10y ago
    > Oh yeah - what if there is a homeless colony right next to your current house? Would you say the same thing then? So, there is actually one near me. Not next to my house, but near me: http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/04/01/shantytown-in-hoboken-hills-houses-nearly-50-homeless-people/ http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/04/01/shantytown-in-hoboken... Weird, right? This is in Hoboken...extremely (bay-area-levels) rich area. SF median household income: $65,519.00 Hoboken: $105,710 (population difference between Hoboken and SF is an order of magnitude, fyi) Weird stuff. Anyway... it's definitely not "a good feeling" to see homeless people around. I donate and try to help, but I definitely get a big pang when asked for some cash for food, and the conversation goes like this: "I don't have any cash on me, can I buy you something from this pizza place with my card?" "No I don't want pizza."
rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
Forgive my crass naïveté, for I live in a chilly northeastern college town where homelessness = death for half the year, but why are people so concerned about keeping the poorest of the poor living at the tiny tip of the wealthiest peninsula in America? Homelessness and the situations that create it are great tragedies. But to me it seems completely absurd that this problem is dealt with a municipal level. Homeless shelters are good to have but there is so little space in the city of San Francisco for the working people, let alone the tech workers forking over several thousands of dollars each month in rent. San Francisco is a tiny city. California is a very big state. I don't understand this problem at all.
- DominikR 10y ago
  I don't like having homeless people on the streets but even the homeless have freedoms and the same rights that you and I enjoy. What you are saying is that SF is only for certain people, all others should be made to go.
  - Grishnakh 10y ago
    No, he's not saying that at all. He's asking why this problem should be addressed at the municipal level, and why it isn't being addressed at the state level or federal level instead. It's a valid question: the State of California has a lot more resources to deal with a problem like this than any single municipality within the state, and the Federal government even moreso. Given how much of a problem homelessness is throughout the state of California, why is the state government not addressing it?
    - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
      Why not address it locally? Its easy to say "somebody else's problem" when dealing with your poor, dirty homeless neighbors. And its a problem all over - the reciprocal argument "the State can't fix everything for everybody" is valid too. The real hangup in all this comes when temporary fixes (tents) are pulled out from under people, and ephemeral future fixes by indeterminate somebody are waved around. People have to be sheltered every day. Starting today.
DominikR 10y ago
Something similar was actually tried already in the Soviet Union and in other Communist/Socialist countries with regards to Gypsies. (it didn't target them specifically and instead all homeless, but policy makers had this group in mind) Laws were implemented that would force them to live in (free) government assigned apartments and accept government assigned jobs. This policy failed because you can't force someone to like or accept a lifestyle they don't want. They just run away at the first opportunity. You can offer them different opportunities and some might accept it, but as far as I know this is already being done. What is funny though about this article is that many of the SF tech billionaires are themselves immigrants from former Communist countries or children of these immigrants. Many of their statements seem to indicate that they believe in technocrat rule and some kind of artificial betterment of people that can be achieved through education and policy. (which often translates into propaganda and use of force if you ask me) It's interesting how values can persist throughout generations, even if you move to a different continent.
- lucker 10y ago
  I find it more plausible that tech billionaires are just more likely, as a group, to believe in technocrat rule, etc. than are people who are not tech billionaires. Being an immigrant from Communist countries or a child of such immigrants is just as likely or more likely to make one despise top-down solutions as it is to make one favor them. People with such backgrounds have direct experience of the sorts of problems that arise from heavy-handed government involvement in society. Based on what I've seen, I speculate that financially successful immigrants from Communist countries actually tend, as a group, to favor hands-off government.
Temposs 10y ago
I want to point out that this measure does not take effect until there is actual open housing in which to send homeless folks. They cannot be told to leave otherwise. Since there is no funding for new housing in this measure, there is some chance the removal measures outlined here will never get to be used. This means shelter will be guaranteed to anyone who is told to leave. That said, my political club voted against this measure because the 24 hour time frame is way too short and does not meet federal standards for managing homeless population. It takes more time to engage with a homeless person and negotiate what sort of help would be best for them.
- dpark 10y ago
  > I want to point out that this measure does not take effect until there is actual open housing in which to send homeless folks. They cannot be told to leave otherwise. The text of the measure isn't that specific. [1] It just says that the city has to offer shelter. In no way does it state that shelter must be actually available or secured before removing the tent. The pessimistic interpretation is that the police will be able to tell a tent dweller that they need to go to a shelter and just give them directions to the nearest one, and the requirements of the law will be satisfied. [1] https://ballotpedia.org/San_Francisco,_California,_Prohibiting_Tents_on_Public_Sidewalks,_Proposition_Q_(November_2016) https://ballotpedia.org/San_Francisco,_California,_Prohibiti...
convolvatron 10y ago
Its already the case that as the camps get larger, the police come in with city trucks to force everyone out, then they remove the trash and sometimes seem to steam wash the area. Removal seems to be roughly based on the proximity of the camp to retail/residential, and the size of the camp. This has been going on since at least the 90s, although the camps are larger and more visible in the last few years. As a result the homeless kind of blow around, try to find an inconspicuous spot, and hang on until they are ousted again. I've known several people with palette and tarp covered homes tucked away in corners in light industrial areas hang onto a spot for 3 or more years. But usually, a tent on the sidewalk (or a barely running tan RV) establishes a safe place for more tents/RVs/vans/etc and the cycle continues. Once there are a few people living in a spot, the police become regular visitors because of all the fighting, human waste, theft, etc. Residents constantly call in complaints hoping to raise the bar enough to get them removed. Since the police are already spending a huge amount of time trying to manage and break down camps, how is this law going to help?
Grishnakh 10y ago
I have an idea: they should pass a law which forbids homeless people from setting up tents anyplace except certain zones. Those zones will be located in and around the very wealthiest neighborhoods in SF. Any violators will be simply moved to these locations. No funding is even necessary, only the designation of various places (like parks) in the wealthy neighborhoods as OK for homeless people to set up tents and camps. I predict this would solve the homelessness problem in SF pretty quickly.
fatdog 10y ago
Why do homeless people camp on sidewalks? Because it works. The question becomes, "works for what?" The proposition appears to mean to make camping "not work," by imposing risk and cost on campers. It's responding to a symptom, but it's like treating cancer with crutches. What does the street provide an alley or park doesn't? I've said before, the perceived security from non-underclass people walking by. Police protect non-underclass people from violence, and the homeless get this additional benefit by extension by being nearby. In shelters and tent cities, you are more likely to be targeted for crime. Sure people without addresses have a right to safety and security of person like everyone else, but their behavior (often due to mental illness or drug use or factors outside of their direct control) makes it extra difficult/costly to provide it. Other people pay a lot of money in tax to the state to reduce their daily exposure to violence, regardless of the factors that might contribute to it. Tent cities are a source of risk, and they are provocative symbols of the limits of the ability of the local government to operate credibly. Governments, mainly for their own sake, must remove tent cities when they pop up, arguably because that's what they were originally chartered to do. Some may say that the homeless are "just trying to live," but it could be said they are hovering around public services without any sense of responsibility to the local society that provides them. They are human beings, but ones who take advantage of the lack of a continuous tribal identity in cities, where they can live with people believing they are someone else's problem. People who don't learn to get along get run out of small towns (or worse). Add a drug addiction to severe mental illness, and you basically get a municipal zombie problem. To me, homelessness is only a complicated problem from the perspective of an ideology that cannot tolerate examples of the limits to its power. Everyone else has solutions, just not ones that reinforce the narcissism of maternalistic policymakers.
- jsprogrammer 10y ago
  Could you please expand on the argument that governments were originally chartered to remove tent cities?
- jessriedel 10y ago
  > Other people pay a lot of money in tax to the state to reduce their daily exposure to violence, Just to be clear, police and courts use an extremely small fraction of tax revenue.
scelerat 10y ago
This article addresses a lot of the myths of homelessness which get repeated in any discussion about SF homeless (with supporting citation). http://48hills.org/2016/02/16/five-myths-about-the-homeless-problem-in-san-francisco/ http://48hills.org/2016/02/16/five-myths-about-the-homeless-... Key point in my mind when it comes to talking about these tent cities, is that most of SF's homeless -- over 70% -- were living in San Francisco at the time they became homeless. And as much as 50% of the homeless had lived in SF for ten years or more. The people sleeping on the sidewalk are San Franciscans who have been priced out of housing. San Francisco is their home. These people aren't going anywhere just because you take away their tents.
- WillPostForFood 10y ago
  The increased cost of housing makes dealing with the problem more difficult (expensive). But just because someone used to live in SF doesn't mean the reason they became homeless was the price of housing. The report shows that over 10 years, the homeless population has only increased by 468 people, which does show any strong correlation to the huge increase in the price of housing over that period. High prices have made the problem marginally worse, but the major underlying problems are the same as 10 years ago: drug abuse, mental illness, disability. It is pretty obvious walking around SF that the problem isn't just that rents are too high. These are people who need other kinds of help, and housing pricing talk distracts from the more difficult issues to deal with.
  - scelerat 10y ago
    The price of housing not only affects incentives for landlords to evict; it affects it affects the cost of shelters and temporary housing; it affects the cost of running clinics and social services facilities, and so on.
- imh 10y ago
  That link says that the problem is that they got priced out and that's why they're homeless (and you imply that's the cause too). I don't buy it. I have tons of friends who have gotten priced out of SF, or even the whole bay area. They moved to other parts of the state or country. It sucks, but it didn't make them homeless.
M_Grey 10y ago
Build a mental health infrastructure, reform the prison system, and you'll be solving more than half of your homeless "problem"... which is mostly an addiction and mental health problem at its core.
xenihn 10y ago
My hometown is Anaheim, CA. I recently visited to go biking along the Santa Ana river, and I was shocked at the large numbers of homeless people throughout the stretch between the Angel Stadium and Santa Ana. Even more shocking was the fact that most of them seemed to be under 30. Every freeway overpass had encampments beneath and around it -- at least 30-40 tents total in the smaller encampments, and 60+ in the larger ones. The river and the county seat (which also has encampments surrounding it) have become the only place where homeless encampments are allowed any sort of permanence, since police departments in cities throughout Southern California have adopted increasingly aggressive policies towards them. From what I understand, the river and county seat fall under the County Sheriff's jurisdiction, so city police can't evict them or seize possessions, and the Sheriff has realized that there is literally no where else for these people to go, and is currently allowing them to stay. This year's ACLU report on homeless in Orange County is interesting: https://www.aclusocal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Nowhere-to-Live-ACLU-SoCal-Report.pdf https://www.aclusocal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Nowhere... I honestly had no idea how bad things are. I feel horrible about it.
kafkaesq 10y ago
“I strongly believe that it is not compassionate to allow human beings to live on our city streets,” wrote the measure’s author, supervisor Mark Farrell, in an op-ed. “Let’s help get the homeless into housing, not tents.” By passing a measure that bans the tents -- but doesn't actually do anything to help get these people into housing. Or for that matter, any meaningful promise of a safe place to sleep at night (because without funding -- and that's precisely where the crux of the issue lies, behind this problem -- the phrase "offer shelter for all tent residents" has precisely zero chance of seeing a viable implementation). Now that's compassionate.
- zlynx 10y ago
  Isn't San Francisco the same city that used made-up housing code to reject all attempts to build cheap "tiny houses" for the homeless? I seem to recall a tech multi-millionaire offering to build them FOR FREE and being denied. You would think that a fully functional tiny house with plumbing and everything needed for one person would be far better than living on the street. But nooooo, it has to be full size houses or nothing I guess.
autognosis 10y ago
CTRL+F "Minimum wage" yields no results in either the OP, or the comments. That tells me that SF is going to have a homelessness problem for loooong time. CA has told everyone that they CANNOT work if their time is not worth at least $21/hour. $15 for minimum wage, and ~$7 for taxes on the business to provide that employment. Of course you are going to have these problems. Downvote me if you like. But you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. if you really cared about these people, you'd abolish the minimum wage yesterday.
- bm1362 10y ago
  So you're saying that a high minimum wage prevents homeless people from getting jobs? That opinion seems overly simplistic -- I'm inclined to believe homelessness isn't a result of the lack of opportunity.
  - WillPostForFood 10y ago
    High minimum wage reduces opportunity for those capable of working to find work. And if you are going to hire someone at $15/hr it may mean you now longer have to take a chance on someone less skilled, less experienced, or with a sketchy record. It is simplistic, or simple economics. But of course you are right, the core problem of homelessness isn't lack of opportunity, or lack of housing.
  - autognosis 10y ago
    Yes, that is a fact. Minimum wage increases unemployment. Ispso facto. No job ---> no self-reliance. Homelessness is only a short leap from that point. Simple does not imply over simplification.
    - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
      Minimum wages also correlate with higher economic growth, as higher wages mean more people can buy more stuff, and so more people are employed to sell those people that stuff. Also you leave out mental illness and addiction which are impossible-to-ignore factors when comparing homelessness to impoverishment.
banusaur 10y ago
Fuck the poor!
abrkn 10y ago
Is it currently legal to build makeshift homes on the sidewalk?
cloudjacker 10y ago
People don't have a coherent idea of what they think of the encampments. Propose a measure like this and the most empathic of the privileged people point out how insensitive it is. Embrace reality and call San Francisco the peninsula's biggest camp ground, and the same people call it insensitive. Both statements ignore the security issues and circumstances that many campers endure so not mutually exclusive of insensitivity, but at a certain point you are just turning a blind eye in your own special way. If living in a tent actually is a viable option, then we should stop treating it like it is the most sensitive topic to even talk about casually. People should be taking as much censorship pity for all the people that live in old walkups or luxury apt in liquification zones of SF. A tent would most likely fair better during an earthquake.
bertiewhykovich 10y ago
God damn these people. Regulations are pointless bullshit -- unless, of course, there are homeless people dirtying up your view.

131 points by hobolobo 10y ago

I was just in San Diego. Homeless people were everywhere. I heard that Vegas is literally busing homeless people out of Vegas and into San Diego. Apparently the homeless problem is even worse in San Francisco. That's insane to me.

ng12 10y ago
The difference is SF doesn't have a skid row like like San Diego and LA do. I lived in SD for years and almost never saw any homeless because I spent most of my time in the northern parts. The "sketchy" parts of SF where these camps are (SOMA, TL, parts of the Mission) are only a stones-throw from the hot tech companies and million dollar condos.
- allsystemsgo 10y ago
  Ah, makes sense. I personally have never been to SF. I have this idealized vision of what it's like just from knowing that all the major tech firms are there but, I'm sure that vision is not entirely accurate.
  - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
    I have to say it is rather jarring to see homeless people in SF living in tents and cardboard boxes on streets lined with skyscrapers and around pristine parks and plazas. So while the city does have a ritzy tech feel in the right parts, it is disconcerting to know that amidst so much concentrated wealth there are a lot more homeless people than you would expect. Really, a lot. Unfortunately it's not as if these are all down-on-their-luck folks in between attempts at The American Dream. A lot of homeless people - in SF and in general - have mental illnesses and addiction problems and they do need help.
    - ng12 10y ago
      There's also the third group -- the guys who hang out around Cesar Chavez and run a chop shop for stolen bikes in their tent city. Unfortunately they suck away a lot of the goodwill for the first two groups.

mattnewton 10y ago

This looks really bad. Any chance anyone has another side to the story?

forthefuture 10y ago
> “I strongly believe that it is not compassionate to allow human beings to live on our city streets,” wrote the measure’s author, supervisor Mark Farrell, in an op-ed. “Let’s help get the homeless into housing, not tents.” I guess this would be the other side.
- inetsee 10y ago
  However, the article also points out that the measure doesn't provide any additional funding to pay for the housing that would be needed.
  - aliston 10y ago
    San Francisco spends roughly 35k/year per homeless person. Funding is not the issue. There are all sorts of issues around mental health, drugs, tolerance in certain neighborhoods, political corruption, inefficiencies in government etc. that contribute to the situation we have today. I guarantee you, though, that if a bunch of homeless people started camping out in Pac Heights, the issue would get "resolved" pretty quickly.
    - balance_factor 10y ago
      > Funding is not the issue. There are all sorts of issues around mental health, drugs, tolerance in certain neighborhoods, political corruption, inefficiencies in government Ho-hum. People become homeless because they don't have money. I've worked alongside more than one tech who has been homeless at some period in their lives. Some slept in their cars, some slept on park benches. Jim Carrey talks about how he was homeless as a teenager, what was the "mental health, drugs" etc. problem he had? He was actually working a full time job as a janitor after school. San Francisco is full of white, upper middle class prep school assholes who have been handed everything their whole lives, who are parasites like Ron Conman, sucking vampirically off the labor of the young people working at the various startups. They sit in Atherton with their trophy wives and little brats and think up ways to fuck over the homeless people in the city. This is what the czar and his family did in Russia before the Bolsheviks lined those parasites up against the wall in 1918.

CPLX 10y ago

To an outsider, San Fransisco's policy towards the homeless seems literally insane. Despite the negative frame of the headline, is this obviously a bad idea? It does mention requiring that people be offered a shelter bed.Or if this is a horrible/insensitive/bad idea as stated, what's the smart, thoughtful, and progressive way to change the status quo?

lawless123 10y ago
"Opponents of the measure point out that the proposed law does not include any funding for additional housing or shelters, and the city’s existing shelters have long waiting lists for beds." I think they just tell them to go to a shelter.
andlarry 10y ago
San Francisco spends $241 million[0] of it's $8.9 billion budget[1] on programs to help the homeless and to help folks avoid becoming homeless (through housing assistance, etc). The 2015 count of homeless people in San Francisco is 7,539[2]. This measure doesn't increase spending on the homeless issue but, honestly, the San Francisco govt has shown the ability to absorb funding increases without noticeable impact in services. This is especially true of homeless services. My impression is that this measure is born of frustration with the governmental inaction on the homeless problem in SF. [0] http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record-241-million-on-homeless-6808319.php http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record... [1] http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-budget-increase-aimed-at-homeless-safety-7955697.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-budget-increase-aim... [2] http://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/default/files/2015%20San%20Francisco%20Homeless%20Count%20%20Report_0.pdf http://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/default/files/2015%20San%20Franc...
- heymijo 10y ago
  From your [0] link. "Eight city departments oversee at least 400 contracts to 76 private organizations" That says a lot about how spending $31,967.10 for every homeless person can amount to, well, no one seems to know. I'm curious what happened in New Orleans and the other places referenced that have seen success helping their homeless populations. Knowing even a little bit about systems, layering more complexity (and money) on top of a dysfunctional effort in SF isn't going to meaningfully help.

Spooky23 10y ago

Its ridiculous that supposed advocates endorse having people live in sidewalks as a compassionate policy.

pyrophane 10y ago
I think you are missing the point. No one wants the homeless to live on the sidewalks, but there isn't a better place for them to go right now. Given that, any proposal removing them from the sidewalks is only going to make their lives more difficult unless it also provides for a alternative, which this bill doesn't do.

kldaace 10y ago

Two big problems with just moving people into shelters: 1. Homeless shelters are horribly funded and have long waiting lists for beds. This proposal provides no additional funding. My guess is most people will be forced to take the bus ticket option. 2. Shelter beds themselves are poorly maintained, unsanitary, and often have bed bugs. It sounds counter-intuitive but a lot of homeless people are _choosing_ the streets over homeless shelters. To be honest, I think the people bankrolling this bid know that moving people into shelters is unfeasible, and they're cynically hoping to just bus the homeless out of San Francisco.

feklar 10y ago
Many shelters also have rules that nobody can adhere to like curfew hours or being forced to stand in line everyday to get a spot first come first served. Often you can't book more than one night at a time so you have to spend a significant part of your day, everyday, securing your temporary bed and storage for that night so if you have a job you can't stay at a shelter. It's much better to just live out of a tent. Problem is people in squatter tents tend to get ridiculously drunk every night, light their tent on fire accidentally or spend all night screaming and fighting with each other thus police get called and their tent city dismantled. The Salvation Army from what I've seen has the best system going. You can book 3 months, and they help you with employment. You get your own room and there's not a lot of rules besides no alcohol or drugs allowed in the building. This is where most of the homeless go who fell through the social safety net for whatever reasons, and they can save 3 months of income to get back on their feet whereas the addicts, chronic homeless by choice, and mentally ill are the ones in tent cities.
M_Grey 10y ago
The biggest issue with shelters is also that they're incredibly unsafe, much of the time. Rape, robbery, and assault are commonplace.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  But sadly less unsafe than the street. It sucks to be homeless big time.

LesZedCB 10y ago

Meanwhile, unused homes outnumber the homeless 6-1 [1], and in Detroit, they bulldoze unused homes because it is more profitable to destroy and rebuild homes that are palatable for 'civilized' people than to let people live in them.[2] [1] http://www.mintpressnews.com/empty-homes-outnumber-the-homeless-6-to-1-so-why-not-give-them-homes/207194/ http://www.mintpressnews.com/empty-homes-outnumber-the-homel... [2] http://www.businessinsider.com/the-mayor-of-detroits-radical-plan-to-bulldoze-one-quarter-of-the-city-2010-3 http://www.businessinsider.com/the-mayor-of-detroits-radical...

ZoeZoeBee 10y ago
Yes Detroit has demolished thousands of buildings over the last decade. Other than that your entire take on the situation is a simplification of a much larger problem which will not be solved by just applying the idea of "let people live in them". An "unused" home does not simply sit in pristine condition waiting for the next person to come live in it. The abandoned homes in Detroit slated for demolition were built during a period which used lead paint and asbestos, abatement programs are expensive. As the homes sat unused they fell victim to scrappers who pull the copper pipe and wire from the wall, strip all of the architectual details, rip the aluminum siding from the outside, or knock down the brick facade, before the house eventually falls victim to an arsonist who may be doing their neighbors a favor. Most of the homes lie in isolated neighborhoods where burnt out buildings outnumber humans. When the homes are bulldozed they're not rebuilt, rather whole neighborhoods are set to be depopulated so city services can be better concentrated. This isn't a simple "profit" play, it is a coordinated downsizing to deal with reality
imaginenore 10y ago
Which makes sense. Think of how unfair it would be to those who actually paid for a house.
sankyo 10y ago
It is not simply a matter of providing homes. Most of the street people in San Francisco have serious mental illness and drug addiction problems. They cannot take care of themselves. Giving those people a home will not solve their problems.

AndyMcConachie 10y ago

I'm so glad I left that horrible place called the bay area. These inhumane rich jerks just don't want to see poor people. What a disgusting culture.

product50 10y ago
Oh yeah - what if there is a homeless colony right next to your current house? Would you say the same thing then?
- John23832 10y ago
  The answer to that question isn't "Lets move the homeless colony", it's "Lets work to reduce poverty."
  - odonnellryan 10y ago
    From what I've read, poverty definitely leads to lifestyles where you're "trapped" in poverty for a long time, or forever. It's like the disability we have in the US: once you're on it, you're very unlikely to ever get off it. However, it's not just poverty that's the issue. It's mental health, it's drug abuse, and the lack of paths to a sustainable (long-term) lifestyle for these people who are homeless. That means education: how to manage your money, what's a "good deal" involving various things, and how to take care of yourself. It's incredibly surprising how many of these people get taken advantage of. If you have close-to-or-zero skills, how can you possibly sustain yourself? If you have skills but you cannot recognize (because you were never taught) when you're being taken advantage of, how is that sustainable?
- odonnellryan 10y ago
  > Oh yeah - what if there is a homeless colony right next to your current house? Would you say the same thing then? So, there is actually one near me. Not next to my house, but near me: http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/04/01/shantytown-in-hoboken-hills-houses-nearly-50-homeless-people/ http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/04/01/shantytown-in-hoboken... Weird, right? This is in Hoboken...extremely (bay-area-levels) rich area. SF median household income: $65,519.00 Hoboken: $105,710 (population difference between Hoboken and SF is an order of magnitude, fyi) Weird stuff. Anyway... it's definitely not "a good feeling" to see homeless people around. I donate and try to help, but I definitely get a big pang when asked for some cash for food, and the conversation goes like this: "I don't have any cash on me, can I buy you something from this pizza place with my card?" "No I don't want pizza."

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago

Forgive my crass naïveté, for I live in a chilly northeastern college town where homelessness = death for half the year, but why are people so concerned about keeping the poorest of the poor living at the tiny tip of the wealthiest peninsula in America? Homelessness and the situations that create it are great tragedies. But to me it seems completely absurd that this problem is dealt with a municipal level. Homeless shelters are good to have but there is so little space in the city of San Francisco for the working people, let alone the tech workers forking over several thousands of dollars each month in rent. San Francisco is a tiny city. California is a very big state. I don't understand this problem at all.

DominikR 10y ago
I don't like having homeless people on the streets but even the homeless have freedoms and the same rights that you and I enjoy. What you are saying is that SF is only for certain people, all others should be made to go.
- Grishnakh 10y ago
  No, he's not saying that at all. He's asking why this problem should be addressed at the municipal level, and why it isn't being addressed at the state level or federal level instead. It's a valid question: the State of California has a lot more resources to deal with a problem like this than any single municipality within the state, and the Federal government even moreso. Given how much of a problem homelessness is throughout the state of California, why is the state government not addressing it?
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    Why not address it locally? Its easy to say "somebody else's problem" when dealing with your poor, dirty homeless neighbors. And its a problem all over - the reciprocal argument "the State can't fix everything for everybody" is valid too. The real hangup in all this comes when temporary fixes (tents) are pulled out from under people, and ephemeral future fixes by indeterminate somebody are waved around. People have to be sheltered every day. Starting today.

DominikR 10y ago

Something similar was actually tried already in the Soviet Union and in other Communist/Socialist countries with regards to Gypsies. (it didn't target them specifically and instead all homeless, but policy makers had this group in mind) Laws were implemented that would force them to live in (free) government assigned apartments and accept government assigned jobs. This policy failed because you can't force someone to like or accept a lifestyle they don't want. They just run away at the first opportunity. You can offer them different opportunities and some might accept it, but as far as I know this is already being done. What is funny though about this article is that many of the SF tech billionaires are themselves immigrants from former Communist countries or children of these immigrants. Many of their statements seem to indicate that they believe in technocrat rule and some kind of artificial betterment of people that can be achieved through education and policy. (which often translates into propaganda and use of force if you ask me) It's interesting how values can persist throughout generations, even if you move to a different continent.

lucker 10y ago
I find it more plausible that tech billionaires are just more likely, as a group, to believe in technocrat rule, etc. than are people who are not tech billionaires. Being an immigrant from Communist countries or a child of such immigrants is just as likely or more likely to make one despise top-down solutions as it is to make one favor them. People with such backgrounds have direct experience of the sorts of problems that arise from heavy-handed government involvement in society. Based on what I've seen, I speculate that financially successful immigrants from Communist countries actually tend, as a group, to favor hands-off government.

Temposs 10y ago

I want to point out that this measure does not take effect until there is actual open housing in which to send homeless folks. They cannot be told to leave otherwise. Since there is no funding for new housing in this measure, there is some chance the removal measures outlined here will never get to be used. This means shelter will be guaranteed to anyone who is told to leave. That said, my political club voted against this measure because the 24 hour time frame is way too short and does not meet federal standards for managing homeless population. It takes more time to engage with a homeless person and negotiate what sort of help would be best for them.

dpark 10y ago
> I want to point out that this measure does not take effect until there is actual open housing in which to send homeless folks. They cannot be told to leave otherwise. The text of the measure isn't that specific. [1] It just says that the city has to offer shelter. In no way does it state that shelter must be actually available or secured before removing the tent. The pessimistic interpretation is that the police will be able to tell a tent dweller that they need to go to a shelter and just give them directions to the nearest one, and the requirements of the law will be satisfied. [1] https://ballotpedia.org/San_Francisco,_California,_Prohibiting_Tents_on_Public_Sidewalks,_Proposition_Q_(November_2016) https://ballotpedia.org/San_Francisco,_California,_Prohibiti...

convolvatron 10y ago

Its already the case that as the camps get larger, the police come in with city trucks to force everyone out, then they remove the trash and sometimes seem to steam wash the area. Removal seems to be roughly based on the proximity of the camp to retail/residential, and the size of the camp. This has been going on since at least the 90s, although the camps are larger and more visible in the last few years. As a result the homeless kind of blow around, try to find an inconspicuous spot, and hang on until they are ousted again. I've known several people with palette and tarp covered homes tucked away in corners in light industrial areas hang onto a spot for 3 or more years. But usually, a tent on the sidewalk (or a barely running tan RV) establishes a safe place for more tents/RVs/vans/etc and the cycle continues. Once there are a few people living in a spot, the police become regular visitors because of all the fighting, human waste, theft, etc. Residents constantly call in complaints hoping to raise the bar enough to get them removed. Since the police are already spending a huge amount of time trying to manage and break down camps, how is this law going to help?

Grishnakh 10y ago

I have an idea: they should pass a law which forbids homeless people from setting up tents anyplace except certain zones. Those zones will be located in and around the very wealthiest neighborhoods in SF. Any violators will be simply moved to these locations. No funding is even necessary, only the designation of various places (like parks) in the wealthy neighborhoods as OK for homeless people to set up tents and camps. I predict this would solve the homelessness problem in SF pretty quickly.

fatdog 10y ago

Why do homeless people camp on sidewalks? Because it works. The question becomes, "works for what?" The proposition appears to mean to make camping "not work," by imposing risk and cost on campers. It's responding to a symptom, but it's like treating cancer with crutches. What does the street provide an alley or park doesn't? I've said before, the perceived security from non-underclass people walking by. Police protect non-underclass people from violence, and the homeless get this additional benefit by extension by being nearby. In shelters and tent cities, you are more likely to be targeted for crime. Sure people without addresses have a right to safety and security of person like everyone else, but their behavior (often due to mental illness or drug use or factors outside of their direct control) makes it extra difficult/costly to provide it. Other people pay a lot of money in tax to the state to reduce their daily exposure to violence, regardless of the factors that might contribute to it. Tent cities are a source of risk, and they are provocative symbols of the limits of the ability of the local government to operate credibly. Governments, mainly for their own sake, must remove tent cities when they pop up, arguably because that's what they were originally chartered to do. Some may say that the homeless are "just trying to live," but it could be said they are hovering around public services without any sense of responsibility to the local society that provides them. They are human beings, but ones who take advantage of the lack of a continuous tribal identity in cities, where they can live with people believing they are someone else's problem. People who don't learn to get along get run out of small towns (or worse). Add a drug addiction to severe mental illness, and you basically get a municipal zombie problem. To me, homelessness is only a complicated problem from the perspective of an ideology that cannot tolerate examples of the limits to its power. Everyone else has solutions, just not ones that reinforce the narcissism of maternalistic policymakers.

jsprogrammer 10y ago
Could you please expand on the argument that governments were originally chartered to remove tent cities?
jessriedel 10y ago
> Other people pay a lot of money in tax to the state to reduce their daily exposure to violence, Just to be clear, police and courts use an extremely small fraction of tax revenue.

scelerat 10y ago

This article addresses a lot of the myths of homelessness which get repeated in any discussion about SF homeless (with supporting citation). http://48hills.org/2016/02/16/five-myths-about-the-homeless-problem-in-san-francisco/ http://48hills.org/2016/02/16/five-myths-about-the-homeless-... Key point in my mind when it comes to talking about these tent cities, is that most of SF's homeless -- over 70% -- were living in San Francisco at the time they became homeless. And as much as 50% of the homeless had lived in SF for ten years or more. The people sleeping on the sidewalk are San Franciscans who have been priced out of housing. San Francisco is their home. These people aren't going anywhere just because you take away their tents.

WillPostForFood 10y ago
The increased cost of housing makes dealing with the problem more difficult (expensive). But just because someone used to live in SF doesn't mean the reason they became homeless was the price of housing. The report shows that over 10 years, the homeless population has only increased by 468 people, which does show any strong correlation to the huge increase in the price of housing over that period. High prices have made the problem marginally worse, but the major underlying problems are the same as 10 years ago: drug abuse, mental illness, disability. It is pretty obvious walking around SF that the problem isn't just that rents are too high. These are people who need other kinds of help, and housing pricing talk distracts from the more difficult issues to deal with.
- scelerat 10y ago
  The price of housing not only affects incentives for landlords to evict; it affects it affects the cost of shelters and temporary housing; it affects the cost of running clinics and social services facilities, and so on.
imh 10y ago
That link says that the problem is that they got priced out and that's why they're homeless (and you imply that's the cause too). I don't buy it. I have tons of friends who have gotten priced out of SF, or even the whole bay area. They moved to other parts of the state or country. It sucks, but it didn't make them homeless.

M_Grey 10y ago

Build a mental health infrastructure, reform the prison system, and you'll be solving more than half of your homeless "problem"... which is mostly an addiction and mental health problem at its core.

xenihn 10y ago

My hometown is Anaheim, CA. I recently visited to go biking along the Santa Ana river, and I was shocked at the large numbers of homeless people throughout the stretch between the Angel Stadium and Santa Ana. Even more shocking was the fact that most of them seemed to be under 30. Every freeway overpass had encampments beneath and around it -- at least 30-40 tents total in the smaller encampments, and 60+ in the larger ones. The river and the county seat (which also has encampments surrounding it) have become the only place where homeless encampments are allowed any sort of permanence, since police departments in cities throughout Southern California have adopted increasingly aggressive policies towards them. From what I understand, the river and county seat fall under the County Sheriff's jurisdiction, so city police can't evict them or seize possessions, and the Sheriff has realized that there is literally no where else for these people to go, and is currently allowing them to stay. This year's ACLU report on homeless in Orange County is interesting: https://www.aclusocal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Nowhere-to-Live-ACLU-SoCal-Report.pdf https://www.aclusocal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Nowhere... I honestly had no idea how bad things are. I feel horrible about it.

kafkaesq 10y ago

“I strongly believe that it is not compassionate to allow human beings to live on our city streets,” wrote the measure’s author, supervisor Mark Farrell, in an op-ed. “Let’s help get the homeless into housing, not tents.” By passing a measure that bans the tents -- but doesn't actually do anything to help get these people into housing. Or for that matter, any meaningful promise of a safe place to sleep at night (because without funding -- and that's precisely where the crux of the issue lies, behind this problem -- the phrase "offer shelter for all tent residents" has precisely zero chance of seeing a viable implementation). Now that's compassionate.

zlynx 10y ago
Isn't San Francisco the same city that used made-up housing code to reject all attempts to build cheap "tiny houses" for the homeless? I seem to recall a tech multi-millionaire offering to build them FOR FREE and being denied. You would think that a fully functional tiny house with plumbing and everything needed for one person would be far better than living on the street. But nooooo, it has to be full size houses or nothing I guess.

autognosis 10y ago

CTRL+F "Minimum wage" yields no results in either the OP, or the comments. That tells me that SF is going to have a homelessness problem for loooong time. CA has told everyone that they CANNOT work if their time is not worth at least $21/hour. $15 for minimum wage, and ~$7 for taxes on the business to provide that employment. Of course you are going to have these problems. Downvote me if you like. But you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. if you really cared about these people, you'd abolish the minimum wage yesterday.

bm1362 10y ago
So you're saying that a high minimum wage prevents homeless people from getting jobs? That opinion seems overly simplistic -- I'm inclined to believe homelessness isn't a result of the lack of opportunity.
- WillPostForFood 10y ago
  High minimum wage reduces opportunity for those capable of working to find work. And if you are going to hire someone at $15/hr it may mean you now longer have to take a chance on someone less skilled, less experienced, or with a sketchy record. It is simplistic, or simple economics. But of course you are right, the core problem of homelessness isn't lack of opportunity, or lack of housing.
- autognosis 10y ago
  Yes, that is a fact. Minimum wage increases unemployment. Ispso facto. No job ---> no self-reliance. Homelessness is only a short leap from that point. Simple does not imply over simplification.
  - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
    Minimum wages also correlate with higher economic growth, as higher wages mean more people can buy more stuff, and so more people are employed to sell those people that stuff. Also you leave out mental illness and addiction which are impossible-to-ignore factors when comparing homelessness to impoverishment.

banusaur 10y ago

Fuck the poor!

abrkn 10y ago

Is it currently legal to build makeshift homes on the sidewalk?

cloudjacker 10y ago

People don't have a coherent idea of what they think of the encampments. Propose a measure like this and the most empathic of the privileged people point out how insensitive it is. Embrace reality and call San Francisco the peninsula's biggest camp ground, and the same people call it insensitive. Both statements ignore the security issues and circumstances that many campers endure so not mutually exclusive of insensitivity, but at a certain point you are just turning a blind eye in your own special way. If living in a tent actually is a viable option, then we should stop treating it like it is the most sensitive topic to even talk about casually. People should be taking as much censorship pity for all the people that live in old walkups or luxury apt in liquification zones of SF. A tent would most likely fair better during an earthquake.

bertiewhykovich 10y ago

God damn these people. Regulations are pointless bullshit -- unless, of course, there are homeless people dirtying up your view.