24 ms·

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

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.
  - stale2002 10y ago
    Because it is extremely expensive to address it locally, and you could help a LOT more people by taking that money and building homes for people in less expensive places. Every 1 homeless person that you help in SF is 10 people that you could be helping somewhere else
    - WillPostForFood 10y ago
      You can still do that without having the state run the program. The homeless problem in SF might looks somewhat different from Chula Vista, so it makes sense to have locally created programs in addition to state programs. Regardless, the state does run homeless programs, and earlier this year passed a two billion dollar program to build housing for the homeless.
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  It's more like this: San Francisco is very expensive. It is also a nice place to live. Why not put shelters and programs to get people back on their feet in less expensive places so that eventually the formerly homeless can live in San Francisco by paying rent with the money they earn by working? Just like everybody else.
  - DominikR 10y ago
    > It's more like this: San Francisco is very expensive. It is also a nice place to live. I don't care, I can be where ever I want as long as it is not someones property. Doesn't matter if I'm poor or rich. > Why not put shelters and programs to get people back on their feet Such programs and shelters do already exist all over the country. Do you want to force them to move to these places or camps? > Just like everybody else. Not everybody wants to be you or me.
    - dpark 10y ago
      Everywhere is someone's property. You're on private property or you are on government-owned property. Those are the only options.
  - s0rce 10y ago
    I agree with this. The fact is that to live in the bay area now is expensive and many people (myself included) work hard to afford to live here. I don't understand why someone who doesn't or can't work should be guaranteed a place here. If I was injured or became a drug addict/mentally ill and needed to stop working I would strongly consider moving back to where I lived for the past few years in Eastern WA, life was exponentially cheaper. Problem is these places where living is cheap probably have little to no services for the mentally ill/ addicts. This is why I agree with your statement that the state should establish services in more cost effective areas. I guess this seems like shipping them off to camps away from rich people but at least the dollars spent on services and shelters can serve more people more effectively.
    - DominikR 10y ago

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.
- stale2002 10y ago
  Because it is extremely expensive to address it locally, and you could help a LOT more people by taking that money and building homes for people in less expensive places. Every 1 homeless person that you help in SF is 10 people that you could be helping somewhere else
  - WillPostForFood 10y ago
    You can still do that without having the state run the program. The homeless problem in SF might looks somewhat different from Chula Vista, so it makes sense to have locally created programs in addition to state programs. Regardless, the state does run homeless programs, and earlier this year passed a two billion dollar program to build housing for the homeless.
rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
It's more like this: San Francisco is very expensive. It is also a nice place to live. Why not put shelters and programs to get people back on their feet in less expensive places so that eventually the formerly homeless can live in San Francisco by paying rent with the money they earn by working? Just like everybody else.
- DominikR 10y ago
  > It's more like this: San Francisco is very expensive. It is also a nice place to live. I don't care, I can be where ever I want as long as it is not someones property. Doesn't matter if I'm poor or rich. > Why not put shelters and programs to get people back on their feet Such programs and shelters do already exist all over the country. Do you want to force them to move to these places or camps? > Just like everybody else. Not everybody wants to be you or me.
  - dpark 10y ago
    Everywhere is someone's property. You're on private property or you are on government-owned property. Those are the only options.
- s0rce 10y ago
  I agree with this. The fact is that to live in the bay area now is expensive and many people (myself included) work hard to afford to live here. I don't understand why someone who doesn't or can't work should be guaranteed a place here. If I was injured or became a drug addict/mentally ill and needed to stop working I would strongly consider moving back to where I lived for the past few years in Eastern WA, life was exponentially cheaper. Problem is these places where living is cheap probably have little to no services for the mentally ill/ addicts. This is why I agree with your statement that the state should establish services in more cost effective areas. I guess this seems like shipping them off to camps away from rich people but at least the dollars spent on services and shelters can serve more people more effectively.
  - DominikR 10y ago