7 ms·

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.

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.