3 ms·
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 facil
by 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 agoOk understood. Apologies.
- googlemike 8y agoNo 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 agoAlso 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.
- forapurpose 8y ago> public health crisis Is there any evidence of public health consequences, much less a crisis. This argument looks suspiciously like the rationalizations long made for people to discriminate against those they feel uncomfortable around.
- otterley 8y agoYou're aware that human waste carries pathogens, right?
- yourapostasy 8y agoBasic public sanitation measures, including isolating human waste from open air spaces, is the most significant factor to increased average lifespan than medical technology. Reverse that in even just one of the legs of basic sanitation and you invite in a host of (in America) extraordinarily expensive pathogenic consequences. Expensive to treat and expensive to prophylactically ward off after an outbreak starts. Like code defects, it is magnitudes cheaper to fix earlier in the development pipeline.
- pm90 8y agoAbsolutely not. Getting rid of human waste is one of the most important issues in developing countries precisely because of the public health effects it has: transmitting pathogens, contaminating water supplies etc. It isn't hard to see that being the case in an Urban area like SF, especially since the density of people is so much greater.
- forapurpose 8y agoI know why human waste is dangerous. I asked if there is evidence that there is such a problem in SF, and if there is evidence of that problem being a health "crisis". So far, no evidence is cited in this thread - which certainly doesn't mean there isn't any. It does seem like the ideal talking point - it's disgusting, a bit frightening, and thus shifts readers from reason to a strong emotional reaction. Let's try to shift back. If there's evidence of a problem, it absolutely should be addressed.