5 ms·

San Francisco has the world's richest companies, but you can't even walk the street without running into a several homeless people every single block. Go figure

San Francisco has the world's richest companies, but you can't even walk the street without running into a several homeless people every single block. Go figure, very 'progressive'.

notadoc 8y ago
It's like that throughout the entire west coast, there is a severe homeless crisis that is entirely ignored. But this is unrelated to the article.
- mwfunk 8y ago
  It's not ignored at all- AFAICT the biggest problem is that there's no critical mass of people who can agree on what to do about it. Furthermore I'm not sure that there's even a critical mass of people in SF who think it's a problem. In any thread about homelessness in SF, you will see at least a few locals get very incensed that anyone is complaining about the sheer numbers of homeless on the streets, and accuse people who would like to move them off sidewalks and into shelters as being heartless monsters. I don't know how many SF locals are in the homelessness-as-a-human-right camp, but enough to be visible here and elsewhere, and probably enough to muddy the waters even further politically. I've lived in the Bay Area for 10+ years and it always seemed like no one could even agree on what the problem was, much less a solution.
abritinthebay 8y ago
There’s a LOT more to it that that. Part of why you DO see them is policing and treatment of the homeless population has been (until recently, anyhow) much more progressive & humane. ”Out of sight, out of mind” is not good policy.
walrus01 8y ago
There are generally two categories of homeless: People who can actually get back on their feet again and hold a regular job, and the long term either mentally ill, or mentally ill + drug/alcohol addicted who are not capable of holding down jobs. Just because empty positions exist doesn't mean that the available "talent pool" of homeless could theoretically fill them.
- vertexFarm 8y ago
  It's kind of a chicken or the egg situation on a long enough timeline. Unattainable housing combined with the fact that 40% of people in this country don't even have $400 in savings drives a lot of people out on the streets, and try being out on the street long-term without developing mental problems or a habit.
- StanislavPetrov 8y ago
  The ability to "hold a job" is only tangentially related to the ability to "get back on your feet" while being homeless. Having no fixed address, no place to shower, no clean clothes, often having a criminal record (as a result of homelessness not true criminality - vagrancy, trespassing, ect) makes it very, very difficult for even otherwise capable people to get back on their feet and find (let alone hold) another job. Many people with a roof over their head and all the amenities of modern society are capable of holding a job (especially a menial one), but entirely incapable of pulling themselves out of dire straights.
woah 8y ago
Many of the most self righteous progressives in California have made a few million off their ramshackle bungalows and would like to keep the housing prices sky high. Incredibly, they argue that increasing supply would make prices higher, even though the past 40 years have conclusively disproven that, to their great enrichment.
- abritinthebay 8y ago
  NIMBY’s are not Progressive. They’re practically the definition of Conservative. There’s just this wildly mistaken belief that CA (and SF in particular) is populated by ultra-left people. The Bay is centrist at best.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    >The Bay is centrist at best. If SF is centrist I want less than nothing to do with the whatever is left of it. I'm sure if you want to pick and choose an issue to use as your measuring stick you will find that a substantial chunk of people in SF do not have a far left position on an issue when a far left of center position hurts them personally. However, justifying exceptions to the rule when the rule is not in your self interest is pretty common. Fiscal conservatives don't complain when the government pisses money away on things they like. Commies will gladly redistribute all the wealth that isn't their personal wealth. Few people are so dedicated to their beliefs that they advocate against their own self interest. Edit: Is it the slight against SF or the observation about humanity that people don't like?
    - drb91 8y ago
      SF is conservative in some ways, liberal in others, just like.... everything. However, if you look at the money in the area, it’s not hard to see how the culture will eventually clash with leftists.
    - abritinthebay 8y ago
      Most of the rest of the developed world is to the left of SF. Especially Europe.
scarmig 8y ago
Homelessness as a problem always has to be scoped at the geographic level where freedom of movement exists. In the case of the USA, that's national. The strongest predictors of homelessness are population density, walkability, and climate. Homeless people move to places that have those and away from places that don't. There's a theoretical case for provision of services driving homeless migration to the cities that provide services, but it's silly to imagine "progressive" policies generally being the reason why people are homeless. In San Francisco, if you're priced out of your home, you don't end up homeless for years on end; you need severe mental health issues or addiction to account for that. San Jose and San Diego are hardly wildly progressive, but they rank near the top on homeless population.
- dahdum 8y ago
  It's not the reason most end up homeless, but progressive policies applied incorrectly can certainly exacerbate the problem. Excluding the dirty kids who choose the lifestyle, the easier you make it to be homeless and drug addicted the less likely they are to seek treatment. In Ottawa I remember the mayor pleading on television not to give any handouts or cash to the homeless, so they'd seek out the govt services that would help them. SF enables them far more than most cities...they can shoot up in broad daylight in a Bart station or busy street with no police response.
dmode 8y ago
It is a combination of many things including 1. Treating homeless in a humane way, rather than just as garbage that need to be discarded with (Nevada pays homeless people to move CA) 2. Generous homeless services 3. Location of homeless services close to City center 4. Gentrification of small City leading to previy homeless zones suddenly colliding with posh apartments 5. Rising rent 6. Opiod crisis 7. Nice weather 8. Foot traffic

San Francisco has the world's richest companies, but you can't even walk the street without running into a several homeless people every single block. Go figure, very 'progressive'.

notadoc 8y ago

It's like that throughout the entire west coast, there is a severe homeless crisis that is entirely ignored. But this is unrelated to the article.

mwfunk 8y ago
It's not ignored at all- AFAICT the biggest problem is that there's no critical mass of people who can agree on what to do about it. Furthermore I'm not sure that there's even a critical mass of people in SF who think it's a problem. In any thread about homelessness in SF, you will see at least a few locals get very incensed that anyone is complaining about the sheer numbers of homeless on the streets, and accuse people who would like to move them off sidewalks and into shelters as being heartless monsters. I don't know how many SF locals are in the homelessness-as-a-human-right camp, but enough to be visible here and elsewhere, and probably enough to muddy the waters even further politically. I've lived in the Bay Area for 10+ years and it always seemed like no one could even agree on what the problem was, much less a solution.

abritinthebay 8y ago

There’s a LOT more to it that that. Part of why you DO see them is policing and treatment of the homeless population has been (until recently, anyhow) much more progressive & humane. ”Out of sight, out of mind” is not good policy.

walrus01 8y ago

There are generally two categories of homeless: People who can actually get back on their feet again and hold a regular job, and the long term either mentally ill, or mentally ill + drug/alcohol addicted who are not capable of holding down jobs. Just because empty positions exist doesn't mean that the available "talent pool" of homeless could theoretically fill them.

vertexFarm 8y ago
It's kind of a chicken or the egg situation on a long enough timeline. Unattainable housing combined with the fact that 40% of people in this country don't even have $400 in savings drives a lot of people out on the streets, and try being out on the street long-term without developing mental problems or a habit.
StanislavPetrov 8y ago
The ability to "hold a job" is only tangentially related to the ability to "get back on your feet" while being homeless. Having no fixed address, no place to shower, no clean clothes, often having a criminal record (as a result of homelessness not true criminality - vagrancy, trespassing, ect) makes it very, very difficult for even otherwise capable people to get back on their feet and find (let alone hold) another job. Many people with a roof over their head and all the amenities of modern society are capable of holding a job (especially a menial one), but entirely incapable of pulling themselves out of dire straights.

woah 8y ago

Many of the most self righteous progressives in California have made a few million off their ramshackle bungalows and would like to keep the housing prices sky high. Incredibly, they argue that increasing supply would make prices higher, even though the past 40 years have conclusively disproven that, to their great enrichment.

abritinthebay 8y ago
NIMBY’s are not Progressive. They’re practically the definition of Conservative. There’s just this wildly mistaken belief that CA (and SF in particular) is populated by ultra-left people. The Bay is centrist at best.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  >The Bay is centrist at best. If SF is centrist I want less than nothing to do with the whatever is left of it. I'm sure if you want to pick and choose an issue to use as your measuring stick you will find that a substantial chunk of people in SF do not have a far left position on an issue when a far left of center position hurts them personally. However, justifying exceptions to the rule when the rule is not in your self interest is pretty common. Fiscal conservatives don't complain when the government pisses money away on things they like. Commies will gladly redistribute all the wealth that isn't their personal wealth. Few people are so dedicated to their beliefs that they advocate against their own self interest. Edit: Is it the slight against SF or the observation about humanity that people don't like?
  - drb91 8y ago
    SF is conservative in some ways, liberal in others, just like.... everything. However, if you look at the money in the area, it’s not hard to see how the culture will eventually clash with leftists.
  - abritinthebay 8y ago
    Most of the rest of the developed world is to the left of SF. Especially Europe.

scarmig 8y ago

Homelessness as a problem always has to be scoped at the geographic level where freedom of movement exists. In the case of the USA, that's national. The strongest predictors of homelessness are population density, walkability, and climate. Homeless people move to places that have those and away from places that don't. There's a theoretical case for provision of services driving homeless migration to the cities that provide services, but it's silly to imagine "progressive" policies generally being the reason why people are homeless. In San Francisco, if you're priced out of your home, you don't end up homeless for years on end; you need severe mental health issues or addiction to account for that. San Jose and San Diego are hardly wildly progressive, but they rank near the top on homeless population.

dahdum 8y ago
It's not the reason most end up homeless, but progressive policies applied incorrectly can certainly exacerbate the problem. Excluding the dirty kids who choose the lifestyle, the easier you make it to be homeless and drug addicted the less likely they are to seek treatment. In Ottawa I remember the mayor pleading on television not to give any handouts or cash to the homeless, so they'd seek out the govt services that would help them. SF enables them far more than most cities...they can shoot up in broad daylight in a Bart station or busy street with no police response.

dmode 8y ago

It is a combination of many things including 1. Treating homeless in a humane way, rather than just as garbage that need to be discarded with (Nevada pays homeless people to move CA) 2. Generous homeless services 3. Location of homeless services close to City center 4. Gentrification of small City leading to previy homeless zones suddenly colliding with posh apartments 5. Rising rent 6. Opiod crisis 7. Nice weather 8. Foot traffic