6 ms·

Other countries, other states, other cities have "solved" this problem in a bunch of different ways, it's not a unique problem. What's unique is the city's unwi

Other countries, other states, other cities have "solved" this problem in a bunch of different ways, it's not a unique problem. What's unique is the city's unwillingness to actually solve it. At the core, you need to spend more money by basically giving these people healthcare, mental health care, and a place to live. "But that's not fair, what about all the good, honest citizens of the city who work their asses off to pay the exorbitant rents and exorbitant health insurances and still struggle to put food on the table bla bla bla" No, it's not fair, but as long as that mentality rules, SF will have a homeless problem. The city sure as fuck doesn't lack the money to solve it, it lacks political will. "But that's socialism!" Yes. Now do you want to solve the problem, or keep sticking your head in the sand and hope it goes away through the magic of capitalism and the free market?

natalyarostova 9y ago
I wasn't under the impression that the current issue in SF was a lack of willingness for politicians in both the city, and the state, to throw money at the problem due to constituents complaining it is unfair due to its socialistic resemblence. But I'll admit I haven't read about it as much since I moved from SF.
jasonmp85 9y ago
If we can eminent domain land to build walls and pipelines, we can do it for housing. This isn't about money; it's cheap to build housing. It's about land. Seize it and build housing. The end. EDIT: Of course this will never happen in the U.S. and we will always have homeless people and poor people like it's some axiom of civilization.
- yonran 9y ago
  In America, the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment requires that property owners must be compensated when their property is seized for public purposes, so any seizures still come out of the government’s budget. States are supposed to raise resources using their tax power, not the police power. The correct law to reform is California’s tax limitation law, Proposition 13.
  - Girlang 9y ago
    You are pure evil.
topmonk 9y ago
The article itself points out that SF is already spending $305 million a year on homelessness. The number of homeless people is only officially 6500. It's probably closer to 12,000 but how much more do you want to spend? That's $46K per person! You prop up this solution of something vague but close to socialism as a silver bullet, but with no evidence. If $46K per person doesn't show that socialism is failing to work, then what will?
- querulous 9y ago
  their spending is inefficient largely because of anti-socialist attitudes. it's not politically viable to just give the homeless $30k a year tax free but it's almost certainly the cheapest and most effective way to solve the problem
  - topmonk 9y ago
    Giving anyone who shows up and claims they are homeless $30K is the cheapest and most effective way to solve the problem? It sounds like the most effective way to rob SF of its treasury.
    - viraptor 9y ago
      As parent pointed out, they're already at 40k+ per person at the moment. Why would lowering that rob them?
      - topmonk 9y ago
        Because more people would apply. Giving away money doesn't just attract people within your city's borders only.
        loorinm 9y ago
        "30k spending per person" does not mean each homeless person gets 30k. This money goes to all the workers who go through papers, work at shelters, office people to write papers to try to get more money from the federal government, and all sorts of other bureaucracy. Almost none of it goes to the homeless people themselves.
IIAOPSW 9y ago
Thank for putting it into words for me. Its so hard to express political support for these types of solutions without being decried as a naive bleeding-heart liberal. That said I'm under the impression that a huge fraction of bay-area homeless are of the mentally-unsound variety not the out-of-work variety.
- goatlover 9y ago
  Which sounds like a lack of proper mental health services in the area, including institutions. Those homeless because of mental illness probably can't function well enough to provide for themselves. Society should be taking care of them. And it's much more likely for those people to become productive if they're receiving proper care.
goatlover 9y ago
Pragmatism over ideology should be the rule of politics. Whatever works and provides the better situation. Too many people get bent out of shape over whether something is liberal or conservative, whether it's fair, whether it applies to their situation (I had to work hard for my home), etc. How about whether it solves the problem?
- jimmywanger 9y ago
  Orange county is certainly very pragmatic about it. Down there or Irvine, if you're homeless and the cops see you, you get driven to city limits, identity recorded, and told not to come back. The second time you get beat up, recorded again and driven to city limits. The third time and afterwards, you get beat up, all your stuff gets destroyed/confiscated, and you're driven to city limits. There is no homeless problem in Orange County/Irvine despite it having nicer weather than San Francisco.
  - dredmorbius 9y ago
    Evidence says otherwise. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yRZbbJ9kyg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yRZbbJ9kyg
  - goatlover 9y ago
    Pretty sure beating up citizens and telling them not to come back is unconstitutional.
BaronVonSteuben 9y ago
Solving the problem would be even more effective and much cheaper if the city just shot every homeless person it sees. "But that's murder!" Yes. Now do you want to solve the problem, or keep sticking your head in the sand and hope it goes away by just throwing money at the problem...
- bpp 9y ago
  It seems clear that there's a difference between a reasonable set of policy prescriptions and wholesale slaughter of human beings.
  - BaronVonSteuben 9y ago
    My point is, if you don't care how you get there (rejecting principles) and only look at results as the measure of success, you can justify anything.
- burfog 9y ago
  You have to go up a couple levels of government for it to not be murder. California is the controlling authority on the definition of murder, assuming that the situation doesn't involve federal property or federal employees. California can just make an exemption for homeless people, and that is that.
- dang 9y ago
  Would you please not post flamebait to HN? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

natalyarostova 9y ago

I wasn't under the impression that the current issue in SF was a lack of willingness for politicians in both the city, and the state, to throw money at the problem due to constituents complaining it is unfair due to its socialistic resemblence. But I'll admit I haven't read about it as much since I moved from SF.

jasonmp85 9y ago

If we can eminent domain land to build walls and pipelines, we can do it for housing. This isn't about money; it's cheap to build housing. It's about land. Seize it and build housing. The end. EDIT: Of course this will never happen in the U.S. and we will always have homeless people and poor people like it's some axiom of civilization.

yonran 9y ago
In America, the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment requires that property owners must be compensated when their property is seized for public purposes, so any seizures still come out of the government’s budget. States are supposed to raise resources using their tax power, not the police power. The correct law to reform is California’s tax limitation law, Proposition 13.
- Girlang 9y ago
  You are pure evil.

topmonk 9y ago

The article itself points out that SF is already spending $305 million a year on homelessness. The number of homeless people is only officially 6500. It's probably closer to 12,000 but how much more do you want to spend? That's $46K per person! You prop up this solution of something vague but close to socialism as a silver bullet, but with no evidence. If $46K per person doesn't show that socialism is failing to work, then what will?

querulous 9y ago
their spending is inefficient largely because of anti-socialist attitudes. it's not politically viable to just give the homeless $30k a year tax free but it's almost certainly the cheapest and most effective way to solve the problem
- topmonk 9y ago
  Giving anyone who shows up and claims they are homeless $30K is the cheapest and most effective way to solve the problem? It sounds like the most effective way to rob SF of its treasury.
  - viraptor 9y ago
    As parent pointed out, they're already at 40k+ per person at the moment. Why would lowering that rob them?
    - topmonk 9y ago
      Because more people would apply. Giving away money doesn't just attract people within your city's borders only.
      - loorinm 9y ago
        "30k spending per person" does not mean each homeless person gets 30k. This money goes to all the workers who go through papers, work at shelters, office people to write papers to try to get more money from the federal government, and all sorts of other bureaucracy. Almost none of it goes to the homeless people themselves.

IIAOPSW 9y ago

Thank for putting it into words for me. Its so hard to express political support for these types of solutions without being decried as a naive bleeding-heart liberal. That said I'm under the impression that a huge fraction of bay-area homeless are of the mentally-unsound variety not the out-of-work variety.

goatlover 9y ago
Which sounds like a lack of proper mental health services in the area, including institutions. Those homeless because of mental illness probably can't function well enough to provide for themselves. Society should be taking care of them. And it's much more likely for those people to become productive if they're receiving proper care.

goatlover 9y ago

Pragmatism over ideology should be the rule of politics. Whatever works and provides the better situation. Too many people get bent out of shape over whether something is liberal or conservative, whether it's fair, whether it applies to their situation (I had to work hard for my home), etc. How about whether it solves the problem?

jimmywanger 9y ago
Orange county is certainly very pragmatic about it. Down there or Irvine, if you're homeless and the cops see you, you get driven to city limits, identity recorded, and told not to come back. The second time you get beat up, recorded again and driven to city limits. The third time and afterwards, you get beat up, all your stuff gets destroyed/confiscated, and you're driven to city limits. There is no homeless problem in Orange County/Irvine despite it having nicer weather than San Francisco.
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  Evidence says otherwise. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yRZbbJ9kyg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yRZbbJ9kyg
- goatlover 9y ago
  Pretty sure beating up citizens and telling them not to come back is unconstitutional.

BaronVonSteuben 9y ago

Solving the problem would be even more effective and much cheaper if the city just shot every homeless person it sees. "But that's murder!" Yes. Now do you want to solve the problem, or keep sticking your head in the sand and hope it goes away by just throwing money at the problem...

bpp 9y ago
It seems clear that there's a difference between a reasonable set of policy prescriptions and wholesale slaughter of human beings.
- BaronVonSteuben 9y ago
  My point is, if you don't care how you get there (rejecting principles) and only look at results as the measure of success, you can justify anything.
burfog 9y ago
You have to go up a couple levels of government for it to not be murder. California is the controlling authority on the definition of murder, assuming that the situation doesn't involve federal property or federal employees. California can just make an exemption for homeless people, and that is that.
dang 9y ago
Would you please not post flamebait to HN? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html