4 ms·

I've been working in SF for a year now. After working in Baltimore City and going to NYC multiple times, it's amazing just how bad it is in SF. But the vast maj

I've been working in SF for a year now. After working in Baltimore City and going to NYC multiple times, it's amazing just how bad it is in SF. But the vast majority of homeless people I've run into never ask for money but instead simply "exist", sleeping or walking around on the sidewalks. Many, maybe even most, have mental issues that make it harder to re-integrate. While housing prices are a little different, zoning is most certainly an issue as many would much prefer to stay in any type of housing. You suggest making it a requirement but I contest that as that wouldn't actually be constitutional and most of the homeless here would love a place to stay. In NYC there are TONS of places for the homeless to stay but in SF, many shelters will have lines out the door well into the night and into the morning. There just isn't much shelter for them here. Attempting to build new homeless housing is always faced with NIMBY opposition.

rsj_hn 9y ago
Sure, they would love a place to stay, as long as someone else took care of it and paid all the bills. But the same difficulty with life that causes them to be where they are -- whether mental, physical, or abuse related, is going to prevent them from being self-sufficient even if the rent they have to pay is zero. In terms of being unconstitutional, maybe it is, but it's the only solution to this problem. People who are unable to take care of their basic needs and defecate on the streets need to be forced into group home situations until they demonstrate an ability to handle the difficulties of managing self-care.
- HumbleGamer 9y ago
  Not to be rude, but you sound like the out of towners we are sick of already in the bay area.
  - tomcam 9y ago
    Please read grandparent's other posts. They are thoughtful, born from experience, and (IMHO) dead on.
- BinaryIdiot 9y ago
  > In terms of being unconstitutional, maybe it is, but it's the only solution to this problem. People who are unable to take care of their basic needs and defecate on the streets need to be forced into group home situations until they demonstrate an ability to handle the difficulties of managing self-care. You're advocating for in-prisoning people who cannot afford or, for whatever reason, can't live in a home. That's really awful and lacking in empathy. That's almost like debtors prison. The vast majority of these people will actually stay in a home if you provide one. The majority of them in SF, however, do not have access to any type of shelter because the existing shelters are far too overcrowded and any attempts at building new shelters get held up for years by people who don't want homeless people in their neighborhoods. The solution to helping someone is providing them with healthcare (preventative is far cheaper than reactionary care for the tax payer) and providing them with a place to stay. Currently we don't really do either, especially in SF.
paul7986 9y ago
Baltimore born, raised and living here still. My startup adventures have prompted many visits to San Fran and in turn I witnessed the plight of the homeless there. It does not exist on any scale like it does there whether it's in Baltimore or New York City where I lived a year after college. There's not much you can do re: the homeless in San Francisco, but it bothers me and makes me feel bad. Overall not a fan of San Francisco for a variety of reasons.

rsj_hn 9y ago

Sure, they would love a place to stay, as long as someone else took care of it and paid all the bills. But the same difficulty with life that causes them to be where they are -- whether mental, physical, or abuse related, is going to prevent them from being self-sufficient even if the rent they have to pay is zero. In terms of being unconstitutional, maybe it is, but it's the only solution to this problem. People who are unable to take care of their basic needs and defecate on the streets need to be forced into group home situations until they demonstrate an ability to handle the difficulties of managing self-care.

HumbleGamer 9y ago
Not to be rude, but you sound like the out of towners we are sick of already in the bay area.
- tomcam 9y ago
  Please read grandparent's other posts. They are thoughtful, born from experience, and (IMHO) dead on.
BinaryIdiot 9y ago
> In terms of being unconstitutional, maybe it is, but it's the only solution to this problem. People who are unable to take care of their basic needs and defecate on the streets need to be forced into group home situations until they demonstrate an ability to handle the difficulties of managing self-care. You're advocating for in-prisoning people who cannot afford or, for whatever reason, can't live in a home. That's really awful and lacking in empathy. That's almost like debtors prison. The vast majority of these people will actually stay in a home if you provide one. The majority of them in SF, however, do not have access to any type of shelter because the existing shelters are far too overcrowded and any attempts at building new shelters get held up for years by people who don't want homeless people in their neighborhoods. The solution to helping someone is providing them with healthcare (preventative is far cheaper than reactionary care for the tax payer) and providing them with a place to stay. Currently we don't really do either, especially in SF.

paul7986 9y ago

Baltimore born, raised and living here still. My startup adventures have prompted many visits to San Fran and in turn I witnessed the plight of the homeless there. It does not exist on any scale like it does there whether it's in Baltimore or New York City where I lived a year after college. There's not much you can do re: the homeless in San Francisco, but it bothers me and makes me feel bad. Overall not a fan of San Francisco for a variety of reasons.