5 ms·

‘Gut-wrenching’ videos of SF bike route populated by homeless spur debate

danjoc 9y ago
The article starts off sounding compassionate for the homeless, then quickly pivots to characterize them as cyclist hazards. Odd how SF has so many people living on the streets and yet so many vacant homes, https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/01/30/18767847.php https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/01/30/18767847.php It's like the system is broken and nobody there has the humanity to bother trying to fix it.
- swrobel 9y ago
  Not like the hazard to both cyclists and homeless aren't real...
- GhostVII 9y ago
  I think they are trying to fix it, they spent over $200 million on the homeless last year, but it is a difficult problem to solve.
  - rhapsodic 9y ago
    > I think they are trying to fix it, they spent over $200 million on the homeless last year, but it is a difficult problem to solve. Perhaps the $200 million spent on the homeless attracts more homeless people to San Francisco. It was stated in 2015[1] that there were 6686 homeless people in San Francisco. That seems low, but if it's even in the ballpark that means there is a lot of money spent per capita on the homeless there. It's no wonder there are so many of them. [1] http://projects.sfchronicle.com/sf-homeless/numbers/ http://projects.sfchronicle.com/sf-homeless/numbers/
    - davewongillies 9y ago
      > Perhaps the $200 million spent on the homeless attracts more homeless people to San Francisco. From [1]: > The most recent homeless count, conducted in January 2015, found 6,686 homeless people in the city. Seventy-one percent of people reported living in San Francisco when they became homeless, up from 61 percent in 2013. Just 10 percent said they were living outside California when they became homeless, and the remaining 19 percent were living in the state but not in the city. [1] http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/What-San-Franciscans-know-about-homeless-isn-t-7224018.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/What-San-Franciscans-k...
      - rhapsodic 9y ago
        > Just 10 percent said they were living outside California when they became homeless, and the remaining 19 percent were living in the state but not in the city. So 29% were homeless somewhere else and then decided SF was a better place to live as a homeless person. QED.
        BoiledCabbage 9y ago
        QED for what? Don't you need to know how many people became homeless in ST and moved somewhere else in order to even attempt to draw some form of conclusion? In general do homeless people continue living in the suburbs or do they move to cities? What exactly to do you feel was QED'ed here?
      - scarmig 9y ago
        That's not a very useful statistic. It refers to whether the person was living in San Francisco when they most recently became homeless. But plenty of scenarios are captured in it that don't at all line up with the impression that the statistic is intended to give. E.g. a homeless man comes to San Francisco and lives on the streets. He gets temporary assistive housing but is kicked out for criminal activities after a month, and is back on the streets. Do you think that statistic captures him as an outsider homeless, or an insider? There's a big continuum here, but it's rare for someone to have been living here and paying their bills for a couple years and then become homeless because they're kicked out by an evil landlord or whatever. And even when it happens, San Francisco is pretty dang effective at getting and keeping them off the streets. That's sort of all besides the point, because the actual homeless people that people get angry at--that homeless woman setting up a tent to block my fire escape, and that homeless man who punched me in the head in broad daylight on Market Street--don't respond differently to interventions regardless of whether they are an insider or an outsider.
- closeparen 9y ago
  Why are they empty? How long are they empty for, on average? It wouldn't surprise me if so many homes were between tenants on any given day, but it would be shocking if so many homes went unoccupied for more than a month at a time.
  - danjoc 9y ago
    >2012 ACS data indicates there are 30,057 vacant homes in San Francisco. Census data https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/data.html https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/data.html
BoiledCabbage 9y ago
That article is incredible. I'm almost waiting for a "Onion"-esque quote of "Families with no homes and no opportunity are inconvenience to bikers." "Man, I used to really enjoy my morning bike ride, and it was nice the way the highway gave gave me cover from the elements when it rains - but with all these poor people seeking shelter here is a really downer. Not a great way to start of the morning. Can't we make them move into the field or out of the way or something? It's kinda selfish of them to set up right here in my bike lane. My tax dollars paid for this highway - I bet they don't even pay taxes... And what if someone runs into one of them and gets hurt? You can't sue them for the bike repairs, they don't even have any money. They're like someone driving without car insurance, totally irresponsible! The city needs to do something about this." While clearly satire, It's amazing how much the focus really seems to be on the perception of people being homeless, or the chance of a biker being hurt, rather than actually on any of the people living there.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- closeparen 9y ago
  I don't think we're morally obligated to let the city's infrastructure and public space become completely unusable out of sympathy for the people making it so. There can be no bike path, or public transit, or public park anywhere in San Francisco until poverty is eradicated globally? That's equally absurd. Homeless shelters, mental health services, and bike paths are all responsibilities of local government.
  - convolvatron 9y ago
    ok yes. i see a lot of homeless encampments in sf. by my home, right next to my shop, and all the way in-between (down chavez, the strip written about in this article). at least 50 people in that 1 mile stretch. homelessness has been an issue in sf for quite a while. but i think there has been a qualitative turn. the homeless used to try to find a place out of the way, where they could stay unmolested as long as possible. camps got bigger, were busted up, and everyone moved on. today, they are going out of their way to put themselves front and center. yesterday, when trying to chase away three tents that suddenly appeared on the sidewalk right outside my front door, i was told that this was public property, and that i can call the police all i want. which of course i did to no effect. suddenly the encampment down the block, with the concomitant human waste, snaring dogs, asphalt fires, and all manner of detritus needs to be crossed to get into my shop and there is apparently nothing to be done about it. public works comes out a couple times a week to collect trash and spray down the street. i was already used to dealing with hugo, whose been living on the our street for a couple years - passed out in the doorway from huffing paint. he's really an ok guy. he steals power from us and sells bikes assembled from stolen parts. and old crazy bill that parks in front of the shop and yells and threatens people. all the tweaked out scrappers. that used to be what you put up with for light industrial space. but it was stable. today, its pretty hard to even drive down the street with all the tents and dogs and stolen bikes lying around. there are easily 3 acres underneath the highway where people can live, and have for decades. but now its some kind of occupation, a ticketless burning man. a giant middle finger to anyone that can afford to have a home.
afpx 9y ago
I have been traveling to San Francisco for work for probably 15 years, maybe more. But, over the last year, I've seen things I've never seen before. And, I used to regularly hang out in NYC in the 80s and 90s, when crime was at its peak, so that's something. Some highlights: - I've had to call the police about people who appeared to be dead sprawled out on the sidewalk of Market. - When stopping at an intersection, a homeless woman laid on the hood of my car until I gave her $10. - My wife had 'sticky stuff' thrown at the back of her head as she walked near the Tenderloin. - I saw a family chased by a homeless guy with his pants down laughing, and yelling, "your kids ever see one of these?" - I've seen several people defecating on the street, with really no shame or attempt to hide it. - Both of my kids have been physically touched and yelled at (like, in their face) by homeless. - I've lost count of the number of people I've seen shooting up or smoking crack. I unfortunately know very little about homelessness. I donate money to shelters and programs because ... I don't know what else to do. I've tried talking to them to learn more, but everyone has been incomprehensible. All that I know is that it makes me very sad to travel here. This city, which used to be one of my favorites, is in a sick state and at war with itself.

The article starts off sounding compassionate for the homeless, then quickly pivots to characterize them as cyclist hazards. Odd how SF has so many people living on the streets and yet so many vacant homes, https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/01/30/18767847.php https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/01/30/18767847.php It's like the system is broken and nobody there has the humanity to bother trying to fix it.

swrobel 9y ago
Not like the hazard to both cyclists and homeless aren't real...
GhostVII 9y ago
I think they are trying to fix it, they spent over $200 million on the homeless last year, but it is a difficult problem to solve.
- rhapsodic 9y ago
  > I think they are trying to fix it, they spent over $200 million on the homeless last year, but it is a difficult problem to solve. Perhaps the $200 million spent on the homeless attracts more homeless people to San Francisco. It was stated in 2015[1] that there were 6686 homeless people in San Francisco. That seems low, but if it's even in the ballpark that means there is a lot of money spent per capita on the homeless there. It's no wonder there are so many of them. [1] http://projects.sfchronicle.com/sf-homeless/numbers/ http://projects.sfchronicle.com/sf-homeless/numbers/
  - davewongillies 9y ago
    > Perhaps the $200 million spent on the homeless attracts more homeless people to San Francisco. From [1]: > The most recent homeless count, conducted in January 2015, found 6,686 homeless people in the city. Seventy-one percent of people reported living in San Francisco when they became homeless, up from 61 percent in 2013. Just 10 percent said they were living outside California when they became homeless, and the remaining 19 percent were living in the state but not in the city. [1] http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/What-San-Franciscans-know-about-homeless-isn-t-7224018.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/What-San-Franciscans-k...
    - rhapsodic 9y ago
      > Just 10 percent said they were living outside California when they became homeless, and the remaining 19 percent were living in the state but not in the city. So 29% were homeless somewhere else and then decided SF was a better place to live as a homeless person. QED.
      - BoiledCabbage 9y ago
        QED for what? Don't you need to know how many people became homeless in ST and moved somewhere else in order to even attempt to draw some form of conclusion? In general do homeless people continue living in the suburbs or do they move to cities? What exactly to do you feel was QED'ed here?
    - scarmig 9y ago
      That's not a very useful statistic. It refers to whether the person was living in San Francisco when they most recently became homeless. But plenty of scenarios are captured in it that don't at all line up with the impression that the statistic is intended to give. E.g. a homeless man comes to San Francisco and lives on the streets. He gets temporary assistive housing but is kicked out for criminal activities after a month, and is back on the streets. Do you think that statistic captures him as an outsider homeless, or an insider? There's a big continuum here, but it's rare for someone to have been living here and paying their bills for a couple years and then become homeless because they're kicked out by an evil landlord or whatever. And even when it happens, San Francisco is pretty dang effective at getting and keeping them off the streets. That's sort of all besides the point, because the actual homeless people that people get angry at--that homeless woman setting up a tent to block my fire escape, and that homeless man who punched me in the head in broad daylight on Market Street--don't respond differently to interventions regardless of whether they are an insider or an outsider.
closeparen 9y ago
Why are they empty? How long are they empty for, on average? It wouldn't surprise me if so many homes were between tenants on any given day, but it would be shocking if so many homes went unoccupied for more than a month at a time.
- danjoc 9y ago
  >2012 ACS data indicates there are 30,057 vacant homes in San Francisco. Census data https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/data.html https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/data.html

BoiledCabbage 9y ago

That article is incredible. I'm almost waiting for a "Onion"-esque quote of "Families with no homes and no opportunity are inconvenience to bikers." "Man, I used to really enjoy my morning bike ride, and it was nice the way the highway gave gave me cover from the elements when it rains - but with all these poor people seeking shelter here is a really downer. Not a great way to start of the morning. Can't we make them move into the field or out of the way or something? It's kinda selfish of them to set up right here in my bike lane. My tax dollars paid for this highway - I bet they don't even pay taxes... And what if someone runs into one of them and gets hurt? You can't sue them for the bike repairs, they don't even have any money. They're like someone driving without car insurance, totally irresponsible! The city needs to do something about this." While clearly satire, It's amazing how much the focus really seems to be on the perception of people being homeless, or the chance of a biker being hurt, rather than actually on any of the people living there.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
closeparen 9y ago
I don't think we're morally obligated to let the city's infrastructure and public space become completely unusable out of sympathy for the people making it so. There can be no bike path, or public transit, or public park anywhere in San Francisco until poverty is eradicated globally? That's equally absurd. Homeless shelters, mental health services, and bike paths are all responsibilities of local government.
- convolvatron 9y ago
  ok yes. i see a lot of homeless encampments in sf. by my home, right next to my shop, and all the way in-between (down chavez, the strip written about in this article). at least 50 people in that 1 mile stretch. homelessness has been an issue in sf for quite a while. but i think there has been a qualitative turn. the homeless used to try to find a place out of the way, where they could stay unmolested as long as possible. camps got bigger, were busted up, and everyone moved on. today, they are going out of their way to put themselves front and center. yesterday, when trying to chase away three tents that suddenly appeared on the sidewalk right outside my front door, i was told that this was public property, and that i can call the police all i want. which of course i did to no effect. suddenly the encampment down the block, with the concomitant human waste, snaring dogs, asphalt fires, and all manner of detritus needs to be crossed to get into my shop and there is apparently nothing to be done about it. public works comes out a couple times a week to collect trash and spray down the street. i was already used to dealing with hugo, whose been living on the our street for a couple years - passed out in the doorway from huffing paint. he's really an ok guy. he steals power from us and sells bikes assembled from stolen parts. and old crazy bill that parks in front of the shop and yells and threatens people. all the tweaked out scrappers. that used to be what you put up with for light industrial space. but it was stable. today, its pretty hard to even drive down the street with all the tents and dogs and stolen bikes lying around. there are easily 3 acres underneath the highway where people can live, and have for decades. but now its some kind of occupation, a ticketless burning man. a giant middle finger to anyone that can afford to have a home.

afpx 9y ago

I have been traveling to San Francisco for work for probably 15 years, maybe more. But, over the last year, I've seen things I've never seen before. And, I used to regularly hang out in NYC in the 80s and 90s, when crime was at its peak, so that's something. Some highlights: - I've had to call the police about people who appeared to be dead sprawled out on the sidewalk of Market. - When stopping at an intersection, a homeless woman laid on the hood of my car until I gave her $10. - My wife had 'sticky stuff' thrown at the back of her head as she walked near the Tenderloin. - I saw a family chased by a homeless guy with his pants down laughing, and yelling, "your kids ever see one of these?" - I've seen several people defecating on the street, with really no shame or attempt to hide it. - Both of my kids have been physically touched and yelled at (like, in their face) by homeless. - I've lost count of the number of people I've seen shooting up or smoking crack. I unfortunately know very little about homelessness. I donate money to shelters and programs because ... I don't know what else to do. I've tried talking to them to learn more, but everyone has been incomprehensible. All that I know is that it makes me very sad to travel here. This city, which used to be one of my favorites, is in a sick state and at war with itself.