9 ms·

I live in SF. I am very, very tired of the homeless tents everywhere, dirty needles everywhere, and suspicious feces everywhere. The amount of bums living outsi

I live in SF. I am very, very tired of the homeless tents everywhere, dirty needles everywhere, and suspicious feces everywhere. The amount of bums living outside is unacceptable - this is perhaps the dirtiest city I have ever been to.

knuththetruth 8y ago
Unacceptable in what terms? I imagine the people living in those conditions are more exhausted by then than you are by your observing them.
- randycupertino 8y ago
  Not really... the homeless by choice types are tweakers who move to SF to intentionally live on the streets and have easy access to cheap and plentiful drugs. SF basically created hamsterdam, and addicts from all over the country flock here so they can get high and enjoy life on the streets with impunity. The street denizens in SF building encampments, shitting on the sidewalk, breaking into cars to get their fix and blatantly operating chop shops aren't hard up people who are just down on their luck and between jobs... these types move here to specifically live on the streets and get high all the time.
  - knuththetruth 8y ago
    It’s amazing that in a such a demonstrably corrupt and unequal society as America in 2018, that people cling to these insane narratives about the most vulnerable people in society. I guess if you’re going to side with the rich in this ongoing class war, this is the kind of stuff you have to tell yourself to sleep at night.
    - googlemike 8y ago
      Do you live in San Francisco? His narrative is far closer to reality than yours.
      - yrusowrong 8y ago
        No it isn't. 70% of homeless in SF were previously housed in SF at one point. Citation needed for your narrative. Source: hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/2007-SF-PIT-Report.pdf.
  - googlemike 8y ago
    Yes. We need a two part solution. For the first part, the city should offer all the medical (mental and physical) care they could want, as well as any help they may need to get off the street. For the other part, the city needs to arrest and prosecute those who do are clearly mentally stable and just enjoying a drug filled vagabond life on the city streets.
    - 5DFractalTetris 8y ago
      What about individuals who prefer tent dwelling and regular work (paid and volunteer) but eschew both illegal drug use and unemployment? I have a tent I could call a home but am not entirely comfortable crashing wherever I can, although generally I like being outside as much as possible. Tent dwelling is also historically well-respected, hard housing being the niche of farmers and royalty. I'd go as far to say that if people in tents aren't safe it's not a good neighborhood, because tents are fragile. They're also not garbage: some of them are fireproof and UV resistant with two or three shells. And, if you've never built housing, I can tell you: it is a huge chore for hundreds of people, including chemical workers, lumberjacks, metalworkers, and coal miners. Why not build a Black Rock City where the Burn never stops? If cities sponsored that niche, the gig economy would ramp up to "unstoppable machine" instantly. Sociologically, there's not much difference between a tent city at a festival and an apartment building with a range of incomes, in terms of deviancy and community struggles. From a housing and urban development perspective, some of the new textiles are better and more sustainable than industrial construction.
      - defen 8y ago
        > Why not build a Black Rock City where the Burn never stops? You know, that would actually be a fascinating thing to see. I doubt it will ever happen given how litigious our society is, but that seems preferable to what we're doing now. San Francisco spends about $250 million on homeless services[1], but you'd never know from walking around. You could probably fund a non-stop Burn with that; the budget for a 65,000 person burn for a week is 37 million[2]. You'd have fewer people and less overhead so I think it would work. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_San_Francisco_Bay_Area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_San_Franci... [2] https://burningman.org/expenses/expenses-2016/ https://burningman.org/expenses/expenses-2016/
  - yrusowrong 8y ago
    70% of homeless in SF were previously housed in SF at one point. Citation needed for your narrative. Source: hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/2007-SF-PIT-Report.pdf.
- googlemike 8y ago
  Unacceptable in that people shouldn't be living outside, on city streets. Unacceptable that there there is such a lack of mental health care, support, and facilities available to these people. Unacceptable that the city seems to have no solutions or plans in place. Unacceptable that the politicians live in Pacific Heights away from where the majority of the problems are so they are not affected by them like the actual citizens of the city. My exhaustion is not one of observation, I am exhausted that a modern, high tech, wealthy city looks like this.
  - knuththetruth 8y ago
    Ok understood. Apologies.
    - googlemike 8y ago
      No problem. To your comments below about class warfare, unequal societies and corruption. I think the homeless here are both of the vulnerable, drug addicted, mentally unwell kind that have been abandoned by society, but there is also a whole cadre of their homeless peers that is mentally far healthier and preys on the others - chop shops, black market economies of drugs and prostitution, etc. That being said, a city should not be this dirty and unsafe. Families of all classes and backgrounds should feel safe walking around city streets at all hours of the day, which is far from the case today.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - askafriend 8y ago
      Also don't overlook the public health crisis that it creates. Feces, urine, needles, and other human excrement openly getting kicked up into the air we breathe and thriving on the surfaces we come into contact with on a daily basis is terrible for EVERYONE. It's completely unacceptable to have to encourage that kind of environment. Homeless people aren't just a danger to themselves. They are disproportionately a danger to everyone around them. In the current situation, everyone on every side of the issue loses - there are no winners. Something needs to change.
welder 8y ago
Yea, and it can be demoralizing to see them and know it's probably not going to get better for them.
- googlemike 8y ago
  Agreed. It seems like the city does not care. These people need avenues for help but also consequences for defiling city streets.
  - Balgair 8y ago
    To be fair, YOU are "the city". This is a republic after all. If you don't like it, show up and say something. Rent Board contact info: https://sfrb.org/commission-meetings https://sfrb.org/commission-meetings SF Tenant's Union contact info: https://www.sftu.org/contact/ https://www.sftu.org/contact/ The last day to register to vote is THIS TUESDAY.
    - otterley 8y ago
      I believe a link to a group of people who want the city to build a ton of housing (including public housing for the indigent) would be more appropriate. Controlling rent will do nothing for homeless people, and will make their plight even worse.
      - Balgair 8y ago
        Well, then post that link. :)
    - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
      I would add https://cayimby.org https://cayimby.org. Rent boards and tenant unions are part of the problem.
      - Balgair 8y ago
        Great link, thanks!
0x00000000 8y ago
All they need to do is build some state institutions to provide care, but if you that NIMBYism is bad when it comes to housing, just wait until someone brings up that type of project. People are okay with just pretending they are doing everything they can, just as long as it stays mostly out of sight and the money is quietly spent. LA county spends a billion a year with little to show. Homelessness is 99% of the time a mental problem and no one wants to do anything about it
- fjsolwmv 8y ago
  That's not true, not until USA becomes a totalitarian country that can intitutionalize people against their will. Homeless people come to SF for the same reason yuppies do --- for the great weather. People who don't want help can't be helped.
- seehafer 8y ago
  Here's the problem with CA-brand NIMBYism: it's coupled with faux-bleeding-heart-ism. We could have a state initiative to build Club Med for homeless people in the Central Valley, far away from anyone who could complain, and the same people who would complain if we put that facility in Hunters Point due to their NIMBYism would complain if we put it outside of SF because that would be "mean" due to displacing the homeless people (many of whom used to have residences in SF).
  - masonic 8y ago
    build Club Med for homeless people in the Central Valley Heck, homeless wouldn't use a nice, new facility in SF that was set up in 2015 in advance of the Super Bowl because is wasn't within easy access of usual gathering haunts.
    - tim333 8y ago
      I googled that and it says (https://thinkprogress.org/san-francisco-clears-out-homeless-ahead-of-the-super-bowl-19015823747d/ https://thinkprogress.org/san-francisco-clears-out-homeless-...) >Yet the shelter is in such high demand that it has a waiting list 150 people long, all of whom were skipped over to relocate those who were moved to make way for Super Bowl visitors. which sounds like they would use it
jksadj9wq99191 8y ago
stfu and leave then
kjeetgill 8y ago
Out of curiosity, where in the city are you living? I see them around but I don't think they've ever bothered me. Usually when I hear that the city needs to do something about the homelessness problem, I assume they mean help FOR them, not for us.
- googlemike 8y ago
  Around 10th and Market.
  - noahdesu 8y ago
    Yeh, same location for me. It's not a great situation.
paul7986 8y ago
As a visitor of San Fran ... it's homeless population is a shock to the system and a very unpleasant one. Though they say thats just San Fran for ya? Crazy housing prices and an insane homeless population. What's the good thing about living there when here on the East coast like in PA or Baltimore suburbs that doesnt exist, housing costs are way lower, salaries in govt. IT are healthy and homelessness is not such epidemic... why do people want to live in San Fran who arent chasing the startup dream or living that dream? What's the allure?
- flocial 8y ago
  But where would they go? Homelessness was a problem long before the tech industry sort of took over SF. The magnitude of the problem would require a massive political effort and innovation that is near impossible. I'm more surprised by the fact that the tech industry chose SF of all the places in California.
  - ulfw 8y ago
    The tech industry chose the (South) Bay because it was dirty cheap. A bunch of orchards and ugly factories, so they could build up their (silicon) factories etc. there.
    - Domenic_S 8y ago
      I’m surprised by how many people don’t know this history. SJ used to be a very affordable place, it was orchards and farmland.
      - tropo 8y ago
        There is no better place to grow apricots. This is a tragedy: people can go anywhere, but you can't do that with plants.
    - amacbride 8y ago
      The proximity of Stanford and Berkeley didn't hurt.
fjsolwmv 8y ago
You can leave. The homeless people are probably tired of you too.
- googlemike 8y ago
  Me as in a working, tax paying, citizen? What if all the working, tax paying citizens left - what would we have then? I do not find your comment or attitude constructive.
toomanybeersies 8y ago
I take it you haven't been to many developing countries then. Upon saying that, things are pretty bad if all we can say is "at least it's cleaner than Phnom Penh".
- googlemike 8y ago
  Been to quiet a bit of the Middle East, as well as some very poor parts of the former Soviet Union.
  - elcritch 8y ago
    I thought Phnom Penh was overall a much cleaner city than SF... Lots of people and haphazardness in PP, but mostly cleanish. I’d agree with your statement based on where I’ve been too. Also poor doesn’t always equate to "squalor".
    - toomanybeersies 8y ago
      I was last in Cambodia about 7 years ago, so a lot has probably changed. But when I was there, parts of it were basically an open air landfill.
forapurpose 8y ago
> I am very, very tired of the homeless tents everywhere Let's be careful about confusing our frustrations with something that is wrong or illegal. Frustrating me isn't wrong and it isn't illegal; my frustrations aren't evidence of either - they are, in fact, irrelevant to those questions. More importantly, many people and groups frustrate me, sometimes to a great extent. Political leaders stand out, as do many in tech; comments on HN sometimes frustrate me. Bigots frustrate me and cause great harm, IMO. I sometimes frustrate others. Why doesn't the state act against those people? Why doesn't it act against me? The state shouldn't act because we all have rights; it doesn't act because the people in this paragraph have political power. As a result, we all have to accommodate each other Homeless people do not have power. They don't have political representatives who can insist on their priorities - who in fact must insist to keep their jobs - even when others don't like them, which is perhaps the only important meaning of power. If law enforcement acts illegally or excessively toward them, they can't protect themselves. And in the courts, they have no lawyers, and judges and juries give them no credibility and don't take their pleas seriously. The great sin of government is the powerful abusing the powerless, the strong abusing the weak. It's long been a problem in the U.S. too; minorities, for example, could be publicly murdered or lynched and nobody would act; laws clearly abusing the minority, such as voting rights laws, can be implemented and they are powerless to stop it. I think we should be very careful to not let our frustrations drive us and repeat that grave error.
- googlemike 8y ago
  So if the purpose of your comment is to point out that the homeless tents are not illegal, you are incorrect. The tents are illegal. But my frustration, as you can see by my comments elsewhere in this thread, are grounded in that a city of such wealth and technological progress cannot take care of it's lowest citizens. Aside from the odd choice of perspective - have you considered that the homeless may be infringing on others rights as well? The right to an unobstructed sidewalk? The right to feel safe in my neighborhood? The right to not have to watch out for needles when I visit my nearest Muni station (Van Ness)?
  - Nuzzerino 8y ago
10065 8y ago
Ok, and what are your solutions to the problem?

knuththetruth 8y ago

Unacceptable in what terms? I imagine the people living in those conditions are more exhausted by then than you are by your observing them.

randycupertino 8y ago
Not really... the homeless by choice types are tweakers who move to SF to intentionally live on the streets and have easy access to cheap and plentiful drugs. SF basically created hamsterdam, and addicts from all over the country flock here so they can get high and enjoy life on the streets with impunity. The street denizens in SF building encampments, shitting on the sidewalk, breaking into cars to get their fix and blatantly operating chop shops aren't hard up people who are just down on their luck and between jobs... these types move here to specifically live on the streets and get high all the time.
- knuththetruth 8y ago
  It’s amazing that in a such a demonstrably corrupt and unequal society as America in 2018, that people cling to these insane narratives about the most vulnerable people in society. I guess if you’re going to side with the rich in this ongoing class war, this is the kind of stuff you have to tell yourself to sleep at night.
  - googlemike 8y ago
    Do you live in San Francisco? His narrative is far closer to reality than yours.
    - yrusowrong 8y ago
      No it isn't. 70% of homeless in SF were previously housed in SF at one point. Citation needed for your narrative. Source: hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/2007-SF-PIT-Report.pdf.
- googlemike 8y ago
  Yes. We need a two part solution. For the first part, the city should offer all the medical (mental and physical) care they could want, as well as any help they may need to get off the street. For the other part, the city needs to arrest and prosecute those who do are clearly mentally stable and just enjoying a drug filled vagabond life on the city streets.
  - 5DFractalTetris 8y ago
    What about individuals who prefer tent dwelling and regular work (paid and volunteer) but eschew both illegal drug use and unemployment? I have a tent I could call a home but am not entirely comfortable crashing wherever I can, although generally I like being outside as much as possible. Tent dwelling is also historically well-respected, hard housing being the niche of farmers and royalty. I'd go as far to say that if people in tents aren't safe it's not a good neighborhood, because tents are fragile. They're also not garbage: some of them are fireproof and UV resistant with two or three shells. And, if you've never built housing, I can tell you: it is a huge chore for hundreds of people, including chemical workers, lumberjacks, metalworkers, and coal miners. Why not build a Black Rock City where the Burn never stops? If cities sponsored that niche, the gig economy would ramp up to "unstoppable machine" instantly. Sociologically, there's not much difference between a tent city at a festival and an apartment building with a range of incomes, in terms of deviancy and community struggles. From a housing and urban development perspective, some of the new textiles are better and more sustainable than industrial construction.
    - defen 8y ago
      > Why not build a Black Rock City where the Burn never stops? You know, that would actually be a fascinating thing to see. I doubt it will ever happen given how litigious our society is, but that seems preferable to what we're doing now. San Francisco spends about $250 million on homeless services[1], but you'd never know from walking around. You could probably fund a non-stop Burn with that; the budget for a 65,000 person burn for a week is 37 million[2]. You'd have fewer people and less overhead so I think it would work. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_San_Francisco_Bay_Area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_San_Franci... [2] https://burningman.org/expenses/expenses-2016/ https://burningman.org/expenses/expenses-2016/
- yrusowrong 8y ago
  70% of homeless in SF were previously housed in SF at one point. Citation needed for your narrative. Source: hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/2007-SF-PIT-Report.pdf.
googlemike 8y ago
Unacceptable in that people shouldn't be living outside, on city streets. Unacceptable that there there is such a lack of mental health care, support, and facilities available to these people. Unacceptable that the city seems to have no solutions or plans in place. Unacceptable that the politicians live in Pacific Heights away from where the majority of the problems are so they are not affected by them like the actual citizens of the city. My exhaustion is not one of observation, I am exhausted that a modern, high tech, wealthy city looks like this.
- knuththetruth 8y ago
  Ok understood. Apologies.
  - googlemike 8y ago
    No problem. To your comments below about class warfare, unequal societies and corruption. I think the homeless here are both of the vulnerable, drug addicted, mentally unwell kind that have been abandoned by society, but there is also a whole cadre of their homeless peers that is mentally far healthier and preys on the others - chop shops, black market economies of drugs and prostitution, etc. That being said, a city should not be this dirty and unsafe. Families of all classes and backgrounds should feel safe walking around city streets at all hours of the day, which is far from the case today.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - askafriend 8y ago
    Also don't overlook the public health crisis that it creates. Feces, urine, needles, and other human excrement openly getting kicked up into the air we breathe and thriving on the surfaces we come into contact with on a daily basis is terrible for EVERYONE. It's completely unacceptable to have to encourage that kind of environment. Homeless people aren't just a danger to themselves. They are disproportionately a danger to everyone around them. In the current situation, everyone on every side of the issue loses - there are no winners. Something needs to change.

welder 8y ago

Yea, and it can be demoralizing to see them and know it's probably not going to get better for them.

googlemike 8y ago
Agreed. It seems like the city does not care. These people need avenues for help but also consequences for defiling city streets.
- Balgair 8y ago
  To be fair, YOU are "the city". This is a republic after all. If you don't like it, show up and say something. Rent Board contact info: https://sfrb.org/commission-meetings https://sfrb.org/commission-meetings SF Tenant's Union contact info: https://www.sftu.org/contact/ https://www.sftu.org/contact/ The last day to register to vote is THIS TUESDAY.
  - otterley 8y ago
    I believe a link to a group of people who want the city to build a ton of housing (including public housing for the indigent) would be more appropriate. Controlling rent will do nothing for homeless people, and will make their plight even worse.
    - Balgair 8y ago
      Well, then post that link. :)
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    I would add https://cayimby.org https://cayimby.org. Rent boards and tenant unions are part of the problem.
    - Balgair 8y ago
      Great link, thanks!

0x00000000 8y ago

All they need to do is build some state institutions to provide care, but if you that NIMBYism is bad when it comes to housing, just wait until someone brings up that type of project. People are okay with just pretending they are doing everything they can, just as long as it stays mostly out of sight and the money is quietly spent. LA county spends a billion a year with little to show. Homelessness is 99% of the time a mental problem and no one wants to do anything about it

fjsolwmv 8y ago
That's not true, not until USA becomes a totalitarian country that can intitutionalize people against their will. Homeless people come to SF for the same reason yuppies do --- for the great weather. People who don't want help can't be helped.
seehafer 8y ago
Here's the problem with CA-brand NIMBYism: it's coupled with faux-bleeding-heart-ism. We could have a state initiative to build Club Med for homeless people in the Central Valley, far away from anyone who could complain, and the same people who would complain if we put that facility in Hunters Point due to their NIMBYism would complain if we put it outside of SF because that would be "mean" due to displacing the homeless people (many of whom used to have residences in SF).
- masonic 8y ago
  build Club Med for homeless people in the Central Valley Heck, homeless wouldn't use a nice, new facility in SF that was set up in 2015 in advance of the Super Bowl because is wasn't within easy access of usual gathering haunts.
  - tim333 8y ago
    I googled that and it says (https://thinkprogress.org/san-francisco-clears-out-homeless-ahead-of-the-super-bowl-19015823747d/ https://thinkprogress.org/san-francisco-clears-out-homeless-...) >Yet the shelter is in such high demand that it has a waiting list 150 people long, all of whom were skipped over to relocate those who were moved to make way for Super Bowl visitors. which sounds like they would use it

jksadj9wq99191 8y ago

stfu and leave then

kjeetgill 8y ago

Out of curiosity, where in the city are you living? I see them around but I don't think they've ever bothered me. Usually when I hear that the city needs to do something about the homelessness problem, I assume they mean help FOR them, not for us.

googlemike 8y ago
Around 10th and Market.
- noahdesu 8y ago
  Yeh, same location for me. It's not a great situation.

paul7986 8y ago

As a visitor of San Fran ... it's homeless population is a shock to the system and a very unpleasant one. Though they say thats just San Fran for ya? Crazy housing prices and an insane homeless population. What's the good thing about living there when here on the East coast like in PA or Baltimore suburbs that doesnt exist, housing costs are way lower, salaries in govt. IT are healthy and homelessness is not such epidemic... why do people want to live in San Fran who arent chasing the startup dream or living that dream? What's the allure?

flocial 8y ago
But where would they go? Homelessness was a problem long before the tech industry sort of took over SF. The magnitude of the problem would require a massive political effort and innovation that is near impossible. I'm more surprised by the fact that the tech industry chose SF of all the places in California.
- ulfw 8y ago
  The tech industry chose the (South) Bay because it was dirty cheap. A bunch of orchards and ugly factories, so they could build up their (silicon) factories etc. there.
  - Domenic_S 8y ago
    I’m surprised by how many people don’t know this history. SJ used to be a very affordable place, it was orchards and farmland.
    - tropo 8y ago
      There is no better place to grow apricots. This is a tragedy: people can go anywhere, but you can't do that with plants.
  - amacbride 8y ago
    The proximity of Stanford and Berkeley didn't hurt.

fjsolwmv 8y ago

You can leave. The homeless people are probably tired of you too.

googlemike 8y ago
Me as in a working, tax paying, citizen? What if all the working, tax paying citizens left - what would we have then? I do not find your comment or attitude constructive.

toomanybeersies 8y ago

I take it you haven't been to many developing countries then. Upon saying that, things are pretty bad if all we can say is "at least it's cleaner than Phnom Penh".

googlemike 8y ago
Been to quiet a bit of the Middle East, as well as some very poor parts of the former Soviet Union.
- elcritch 8y ago
  I thought Phnom Penh was overall a much cleaner city than SF... Lots of people and haphazardness in PP, but mostly cleanish. I’d agree with your statement based on where I’ve been too. Also poor doesn’t always equate to "squalor".
  - toomanybeersies 8y ago
    I was last in Cambodia about 7 years ago, so a lot has probably changed. But when I was there, parts of it were basically an open air landfill.

forapurpose 8y ago

> I am very, very tired of the homeless tents everywhere Let's be careful about confusing our frustrations with something that is wrong or illegal. Frustrating me isn't wrong and it isn't illegal; my frustrations aren't evidence of either - they are, in fact, irrelevant to those questions. More importantly, many people and groups frustrate me, sometimes to a great extent. Political leaders stand out, as do many in tech; comments on HN sometimes frustrate me. Bigots frustrate me and cause great harm, IMO. I sometimes frustrate others. Why doesn't the state act against those people? Why doesn't it act against me? The state shouldn't act because we all have rights; it doesn't act because the people in this paragraph have political power. As a result, we all have to accommodate each other Homeless people do not have power. They don't have political representatives who can insist on their priorities - who in fact must insist to keep their jobs - even when others don't like them, which is perhaps the only important meaning of power. If law enforcement acts illegally or excessively toward them, they can't protect themselves. And in the courts, they have no lawyers, and judges and juries give them no credibility and don't take their pleas seriously. The great sin of government is the powerful abusing the powerless, the strong abusing the weak. It's long been a problem in the U.S. too; minorities, for example, could be publicly murdered or lynched and nobody would act; laws clearly abusing the minority, such as voting rights laws, can be implemented and they are powerless to stop it. I think we should be very careful to not let our frustrations drive us and repeat that grave error.

googlemike 8y ago
So if the purpose of your comment is to point out that the homeless tents are not illegal, you are incorrect. The tents are illegal. But my frustration, as you can see by my comments elsewhere in this thread, are grounded in that a city of such wealth and technological progress cannot take care of it's lowest citizens. Aside from the odd choice of perspective - have you considered that the homeless may be infringing on others rights as well? The right to an unobstructed sidewalk? The right to feel safe in my neighborhood? The right to not have to watch out for needles when I visit my nearest Muni station (Van Ness)?
- Nuzzerino 8y ago

10065 8y ago

Ok, and what are your solutions to the problem?