4 ms·

To be clear, it's absolutely not terrible or backward by any stretch. Please visit and see for yourself. Expensive, sure. But there's a reason (another word fo

To be clear, it's absolutely not terrible or backward by any stretch. Please visit and see for yourself. Expensive, sure. But there's a reason (another word for price in a decent market is 'value'). And not every city in California is San Francisco in terms of cost of living.

closeparen 9y ago
Our most central and highly-trafficked sidewalks and public transit stations are de facto public restrooms and homeless shelters. The plaza around our government and cultural center is densely populated with open drug use and varying degrees of mental health crisis. Begging and tent encampments abound. The cyclist-advocacy and homeless-advocacy groups are at each other's throats over whether the takeover of bike lanes by encampments should be permanent. Violent mental health breakdowns on the sidewalk are not considered worthy of the attention of any government service, least of all the police. You can learn to tune these things out and live with them, but it is absolutely 100% backwards for place so rich and so ostensibly progressive and compassionate to blithely incubate such shocking and pervasive displays of desperation and public neglect in its own backyard. Property values are in a sustained, meteoric rise and we choose not to tap them to address these issues in any meaningful way, not from a compassionate perspective, and not from an enforcement perspective either. EDIT: more detail.
- newnewpdro 9y ago
  Having seen how places like Chicago treat the homeless in the interests of keeping the things you're pointing out hidden from sight - I appreciate SF's more tolerant, somewhat live-and-let-live methods, in lieu of better, more compassionate solutions. Hopefully having all this on display in SF will eventually provide enough impetus for the better solutions to emerge. Until then, I hope they don't decide to start being agressive and violent towards what is a largely mentally ill and incredibly vulnerable homeless population. My admittedly limited understanding is that much of this problem is the result of mental institutions being closed across the state in the face of federal funding vanishing in the 80s. [1] I've also heard numerous anecdotes about mentally ill patients and the homeless being forcefully bussed to San Francisco from not just other parts of California but other states, precisely because of the city's tolerance. If there's a shred of truth to this, it's a trivial to see why it's such a persistent problem. [1] http://sfist.com/2016/06/27/san_francisco_homeless_history_1982.php http://sfist.com/2016/06/27/san_francisco_homeless_history_1...
  - closeparen 9y ago
    San Francisco had 3,146 sheltered and 4,353 unsheltered homelesss people in 2017 [0]. Chicago had 4,096 sheltered and 1,561 unsheltered. [1] Despite having 3x our population and a more centrist political climate, Chicago has fewer homeless people but provides shelter to both a greater proportion and a greater absolute number of them. Your comment is illustrative of why accelerationism doesn't work here: San Franciscans are much more interested in the social climate and ideological purity than material conditions and effects. Worsening blight only makes us congratulate each other more vigorously for tolerating it. People then opt out quietly when they can (see: private transit) or more openly when they can frame it as selfless concern for their children (see: the near-universal social norm of leaving the city, if not the region, to start a family) or their neighborhood community (see: NIMBYs). Everyone agrees that something should be done, unless it involves any tradeoffs or taxpayer money. Lack of federal funds is not an excuse. California cities would have some of the most enviable property tax revenues in the world (also less insane housing markets) if California voters would allow Prop 13 reform. [0] http://hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/2017-SF-Point-in-Time-Count-General-FINAL-6.21.17.pdf http://hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/2017-SF-Poin... [1] https://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/fss/supp_info/Homeless/2017PITSummaryReportFinal101817.pdf https://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/fss/sup...
    - newnewpdro 9y ago
      The statistics you cite say absolutely nothing of how CPD treats the homeless, or how many of their homeless are off the streets because they're instead incarcerated. If you applied Chicago's policing practices in San Francisco, you would have a whole lot less homeless people. Chicago also enjoys the luxury of being relatively unattractive as a destination for the homeless. San Francisco is a magnet for the homeless, which certainly contributes to the disproportionately high numbers for its size. San Francisco obviously has the resources at its disposal to do good things about it. I look forward to something positive in the future. I am not an SF resident, nor do I own property there, though I have spent quite a few years in the area.
- calinet6 9y ago
  The article is about California, the state. San Francisco is not California.
toasterlovin 9y ago
California is great for high earners with no plans to have kids. But it’s a pretty raw deal for everyone else, though.

closeparen 9y ago

Our most central and highly-trafficked sidewalks and public transit stations are de facto public restrooms and homeless shelters. The plaza around our government and cultural center is densely populated with open drug use and varying degrees of mental health crisis. Begging and tent encampments abound. The cyclist-advocacy and homeless-advocacy groups are at each other's throats over whether the takeover of bike lanes by encampments should be permanent. Violent mental health breakdowns on the sidewalk are not considered worthy of the attention of any government service, least of all the police. You can learn to tune these things out and live with them, but it is absolutely 100% backwards for place so rich and so ostensibly progressive and compassionate to blithely incubate such shocking and pervasive displays of desperation and public neglect in its own backyard. Property values are in a sustained, meteoric rise and we choose not to tap them to address these issues in any meaningful way, not from a compassionate perspective, and not from an enforcement perspective either. EDIT: more detail.

newnewpdro 9y ago
Having seen how places like Chicago treat the homeless in the interests of keeping the things you're pointing out hidden from sight - I appreciate SF's more tolerant, somewhat live-and-let-live methods, in lieu of better, more compassionate solutions. Hopefully having all this on display in SF will eventually provide enough impetus for the better solutions to emerge. Until then, I hope they don't decide to start being agressive and violent towards what is a largely mentally ill and incredibly vulnerable homeless population. My admittedly limited understanding is that much of this problem is the result of mental institutions being closed across the state in the face of federal funding vanishing in the 80s. [1] I've also heard numerous anecdotes about mentally ill patients and the homeless being forcefully bussed to San Francisco from not just other parts of California but other states, precisely because of the city's tolerance. If there's a shred of truth to this, it's a trivial to see why it's such a persistent problem. [1] http://sfist.com/2016/06/27/san_francisco_homeless_history_1982.php http://sfist.com/2016/06/27/san_francisco_homeless_history_1...
- closeparen 9y ago
  San Francisco had 3,146 sheltered and 4,353 unsheltered homelesss people in 2017 [0]. Chicago had 4,096 sheltered and 1,561 unsheltered. [1] Despite having 3x our population and a more centrist political climate, Chicago has fewer homeless people but provides shelter to both a greater proportion and a greater absolute number of them. Your comment is illustrative of why accelerationism doesn't work here: San Franciscans are much more interested in the social climate and ideological purity than material conditions and effects. Worsening blight only makes us congratulate each other more vigorously for tolerating it. People then opt out quietly when they can (see: private transit) or more openly when they can frame it as selfless concern for their children (see: the near-universal social norm of leaving the city, if not the region, to start a family) or their neighborhood community (see: NIMBYs). Everyone agrees that something should be done, unless it involves any tradeoffs or taxpayer money. Lack of federal funds is not an excuse. California cities would have some of the most enviable property tax revenues in the world (also less insane housing markets) if California voters would allow Prop 13 reform. [0] http://hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/2017-SF-Point-in-Time-Count-General-FINAL-6.21.17.pdf http://hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/2017-SF-Poin... [1] https://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/fss/supp_info/Homeless/2017PITSummaryReportFinal101817.pdf https://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/fss/sup...
  - newnewpdro 9y ago
    The statistics you cite say absolutely nothing of how CPD treats the homeless, or how many of their homeless are off the streets because they're instead incarcerated. If you applied Chicago's policing practices in San Francisco, you would have a whole lot less homeless people. Chicago also enjoys the luxury of being relatively unattractive as a destination for the homeless. San Francisco is a magnet for the homeless, which certainly contributes to the disproportionately high numbers for its size. San Francisco obviously has the resources at its disposal to do good things about it. I look forward to something positive in the future. I am not an SF resident, nor do I own property there, though I have spent quite a few years in the area.
calinet6 9y ago
The article is about California, the state. San Francisco is not California.

toasterlovin 9y ago

California is great for high earners with no plans to have kids. But it’s a pretty raw deal for everyone else, though.