5 ms·

The whole report is a great read, which completely lines up with my experience living in various places in the US (particularly California + Louisiana) as a Eur

by GuiA 9y ago

The whole report is a great read, which completely lines up with my experience living in various places in the US (particularly California + Louisiana) as a European - but this example near the beginning particularly stands out to me because, living in an area in San Francisco with a very visible homeless population, I witness it on a near daily basis: "I witnessed a San Francisco police officer telling a group of homeless people to move on but having no answer when asked where they could move to" As I said, I witness this extremely regularly just outside of my apartment. It ranges from a patrol car stopping for a few minutes to just give a talk to the homeless people that amounts to "hey, we're the police, we are letting you know we're here and we've got our eye on you... we know you can't magically stop being homeless but please stop looking so homeless", all the way to 4-5 cars + a firetruck/ambulance on standby while the officers make the homeless people take down camp, pat them down, etc. with sometimes a city sanitation pickup truck taking away all of their possessions as garbage (it seems that many homeless people are hoarders). I'm not sure what's going on "behind the scenes" here. Is it an irate neighbor that calls the police complaining about the homeless people and asking them to do something about it, which they then do their best to? Or is interacting with the homeless population an actual, documented part of their job? If so, is it tracked? What are the outcomes they hope for? What I observe is that when they make the homeless people leave, they'll typically be back a few days/weeks later, so clearly this is only shuffling the problem around, rather than actually solving it in any meaningful way. My hunch is that this is all essentially theater - the police/fire department know they can't do anything, but have instructions from above to do "something" about it, so they just end up doing what they can, even if it is utterly pointless and ineffective. But at least the irate neighbor is satisfied that there are no more homeless people outside their window for now. It's all very sad.

alexandercrohde 9y ago
It was my understanding that SF in particular is an incredibly rich county and that there are adequate beds available in shelters for the homeless. Is this not the case?
- IntronExon 9y ago
  Shelters are notoriously nasty places, and a bed alone is not what these people need. Many, if not most are seriously mentally ill, and need a level of care that isn’t available to people without serious money. Since the 1980’s mental health has been shafted in the US, with predictable results for homelessness and mass violence. Remember that the Us is a country in which a sitting congresswomen and bystanders can be gunned down by a paranoid schizophrenic who was known to authorities, and nothing changes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner
  - mschuster91 9y ago
    > in which a sitting congresswomen That's a part of the problem right there: Gabrielle Giffords is a woman, not a man - unlike the other 78% of Congress. As usual with politics, as long as you're not a white, able-bodied male with money, no one will care what happens to you. There will be a couple of rallies, maybe a week or so of media headlines and that's it. Oh and maybe anniversaries of the event. Sounds cruel but I have the feeling that it will need a rich white powerful politician's kid to die or be maimed in a mass shooting to have any effect on gun control. And even then, I wouldn't bet my money on actual change happening. As for mental health, no idea how more funding for that can ever be passed. Unlike with a person with a wound it's difficult to "see" mental health issues (or, the healing process), and a culture in which mental health issues are regarded as "weaknesses" that must be ignored/covered-over than be helped doesn't help eithr.
    - totalZero 9y ago
      Ever hear of Steve Scalise? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Scalise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Scalise
- carapace 9y ago
  SF spends about a quarter of a billion dollars a year on homelessness.[1] There are not adequate beds available in shelters for the homeless.[2] [1] https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record-241-million-on-homeless-6808319.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-recor... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/10/san-francisco-state-of-emergency-homelessness-crisis https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/10/san-francisc...
manicdee 9y ago
The implicit, undocumented, de facto aim of moving homeless on to somewhere else is to have them die quietly out of the public eye. A better way to solve the “homeless problem” is to give people homes, counselling, and access to work. This is because homelessness is usually a result of losing a job and thus a house and thus one’s self esteem (and in some cases, one’s mind).
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  Worked in Utah. TL;DR Housing the homeless is cheaper than the chronic costs of not housing the homeless. "Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness By 91 Percent; Here's How" https://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-chronic-homelessness-by-91-percent-heres-how https://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-chroni...
  - book_mentioned 9y ago
    Disputed counterpoint: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13894796#13895345 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13894796#13895345
- cycrutchfield 9y ago
  No, they aim to move homeless so that whatever camp they create is not their de facto home. SF spends a mind boggling amount of money on supporting the homeless population and trying to get them back on their feet. Unfortunately this compassion is rewarded by many more homeless people moving to SF to take advantage of the amenities.
vkou 9y ago
It's because of this. [1] A large contingent of the public wants to not have any homeless, but isn't willing to fund getting homeless people off the streets. (Yes, San Francisco may be mismanaging their homeless budget, but not every city is.) So, since they aren't willing to do anything constructive, but are willing to complain, they call the police. Since it's almost impossible to be homeless and not be breaking one law or another, the police show up, move them somewhere else, and the cycle repeats. [1] https://thehomelessguy.wordpress.com/2015/09/26/citizen-do-not-be-two-faced/ https://thehomelessguy.wordpress.com/2015/09/26/citizen-do-n...

by GuiA 9y ago

alexandercrohde 9y ago

It was my understanding that SF in particular is an incredibly rich county and that there are adequate beds available in shelters for the homeless. Is this not the case?

IntronExon 9y ago
Shelters are notoriously nasty places, and a bed alone is not what these people need. Many, if not most are seriously mentally ill, and need a level of care that isn’t available to people without serious money. Since the 1980’s mental health has been shafted in the US, with predictable results for homelessness and mass violence. Remember that the Us is a country in which a sitting congresswomen and bystanders can be gunned down by a paranoid schizophrenic who was known to authorities, and nothing changes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner
- mschuster91 9y ago
  > in which a sitting congresswomen That's a part of the problem right there: Gabrielle Giffords is a woman, not a man - unlike the other 78% of Congress. As usual with politics, as long as you're not a white, able-bodied male with money, no one will care what happens to you. There will be a couple of rallies, maybe a week or so of media headlines and that's it. Oh and maybe anniversaries of the event. Sounds cruel but I have the feeling that it will need a rich white powerful politician's kid to die or be maimed in a mass shooting to have any effect on gun control. And even then, I wouldn't bet my money on actual change happening. As for mental health, no idea how more funding for that can ever be passed. Unlike with a person with a wound it's difficult to "see" mental health issues (or, the healing process), and a culture in which mental health issues are regarded as "weaknesses" that must be ignored/covered-over than be helped doesn't help eithr.
  - totalZero 9y ago
    Ever hear of Steve Scalise? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Scalise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Scalise
carapace 9y ago
SF spends about a quarter of a billion dollars a year on homelessness.[1] There are not adequate beds available in shelters for the homeless.[2] [1] https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record-241-million-on-homeless-6808319.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-recor... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/10/san-francisco-state-of-emergency-homelessness-crisis https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/10/san-francisc...

manicdee 9y ago

The implicit, undocumented, de facto aim of moving homeless on to somewhere else is to have them die quietly out of the public eye. A better way to solve the “homeless problem” is to give people homes, counselling, and access to work. This is because homelessness is usually a result of losing a job and thus a house and thus one’s self esteem (and in some cases, one’s mind).

toomuchtodo 9y ago
Worked in Utah. TL;DR Housing the homeless is cheaper than the chronic costs of not housing the homeless. "Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness By 91 Percent; Here's How" https://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-chronic-homelessness-by-91-percent-heres-how https://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-chroni...
- book_mentioned 9y ago
  Disputed counterpoint: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13894796#13895345 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13894796#13895345
cycrutchfield 9y ago
No, they aim to move homeless so that whatever camp they create is not their de facto home. SF spends a mind boggling amount of money on supporting the homeless population and trying to get them back on their feet. Unfortunately this compassion is rewarded by many more homeless people moving to SF to take advantage of the amenities.

vkou 9y ago

It's because of this. [1] A large contingent of the public wants to not have any homeless, but isn't willing to fund getting homeless people off the streets. (Yes, San Francisco may be mismanaging their homeless budget, but not every city is.) So, since they aren't willing to do anything constructive, but are willing to complain, they call the police. Since it's almost impossible to be homeless and not be breaking one law or another, the police show up, move them somewhere else, and the cycle repeats. [1] https://thehomelessguy.wordpress.com/2015/09/26/citizen-do-not-be-two-faced/ https://thehomelessguy.wordpress.com/2015/09/26/citizen-do-n...