4 ms·
Isn't it quite an oversimplification to say that the homelessness issues in SF are due to stupid politicians? Do other cities somehow have better smarter politi
by kelp 8y ago
Isn't it quite an oversimplification to say that the homelessness issues in SF are due to stupid politicians? Do other cities somehow have better smarter politicians?
I think it's more likely that a series of cultural, historical, systemic and environmental issues have lead to the current situation, and that our politicians are generally average in competence and intelligence compared to other similarly sized cities, but are dealing with some particularly challenging issues.
Some possible factors:
Cultural: Other cities, such as NYC, house many people in large shelters, on cots, outside of the city center. SF wants to put people in a higher standard of living than a room full of cots, so we can only afford to house about half the people who need it. (Much of that $250M/year we spend goes to housing people)
It's hard for the BART police to kick people out of the stations because homeless advocacy organizations complain about abuse. So the problem stays visibile. Places like Salt Lake City also see the Mormon church active in improving these problems. I don't think there is any such non-govermental organization working at such scale in SF. Generally we think it's the goverments problem to solve, other places think it's a community problem, and take action. We seem to tolerate people visibily using drugs, leaving needles around. More conservative cities would not let that happen a block from city hall.
Historical: Most of SF's services, such as shelters, needle exchange, healthcare, etc, are downtown, this makes the problem very visible. NYC pushes this out of Manhattan and has for years. Neighborhood groups in SF usually protest adding a navigation center to their neghborhood. Imagine if we started putting shelters and navigation centers in the richmond?
Systemic: This could be an essay alone. Rising housing costs, due to downzoning, prop13, discrtionary review, etc etc, and then a job loss, and you can't make rent, you lose your apartment. Now you're out on the street. The city doesn't have enough shelters. And see previous mention of neghorhoods not wanting navigation centers or shelters near them. The city actually has to go in front of the planning comission, just like a private developer, to argue for a new navigation center. Not only do we have a system that makes it hard to build new high end housing, it's hard to build navgation centers, because of all the process involved.
Environmental: California cities have a much higher rate of unsheltered homelessness. NYC has a legal right to shelter. I do wonder if part of this has to do with climate. If NYC had the same number of people living unsheltered through the winter, they would have thousands of people freezing to death. NYC has 75K people experiencing homelessness at any given time. This creates the political will to house people.
So you're elected to the board of supervisors, or as the mayor, you have all this history, all these factors that are making your job of reducing homeless, very hard. What do you do? We've had many many bonds to increase funding to provide housing for people experiencing homelessness, but the electorate consistently votes them down. So your hands are also fairly tied with regards to money. You're left with small incremental imrovements over many years.
I can see why you'd be fed up with San Francisco for these reasons. I just don't think it's fair to blame it entirly on stupid politicians. All that said, I do agree with you that I'd rather see the time spent on more pressing issues than tech company cafeteria bans, and plastic bag bans. Part of this is because we elect people like Aaron Peskin who seem very interested in 1. having the ear of local small business groups, and passing protectionist laws. 2. Putting forward sensational laws that get a lot of media attention. Peskin and his ilk operate on the emotional appeal side of politics. Things that sound good as long as you don't think too hard about them. We'll find those types of politicans everywhere. We have to work to expose them for what they are.
- biztos 8y agoIn case anybody else had never heard of Navigation Centers, here[0] you are: "The Navigation Center, which opened in March 2015, is a successful program designed to shelter San Francisco’s highly vulnerable and long-term homeless residents who are often fearful of accessing traditional shelter and services. Navigation Centers provide these otherwise unsheltered San Franciscans room and board while case managers work to connect them to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing. Navigation Centers are different from traditional shelters in that they have few barriers to entry and intensive case management. Unlike traditional shelters, people with partners, pets and possessions are welcome at Navigation Centers. The purpose of a Navigation Center is to offer a respite from life on the street and to support people in changing their lives by making lasting social service and housing connections." [0]: http://hsh.sfgov.org/services/emergencyshelter/navigation-centers/ http://hsh.sfgov.org/services/emergencyshelter/navigation-ce...
- ageitgey 8y agoI'm always trying to quantify things because when I walk around SF, the homeless problem seems insanely bad but my pro-SF friends say things like "homeless has actually been stable or slightly improving for years and you are being unfair to SF's complex situation". But on the other had, I was walking around the Embarcadero last week at a very fancy conference hotel and the situation on the street was deplorable. I'm not disagreeing with your comment, just adding on to it. You are 100% right that homelessness is a complex issue with lots of causes. But I think it's also fair to say at the end of the day that SF is completely failing at fixing the problem - both for the safety of the homeless people and for the safety of other citizens. It's a public health crisis in my opinion when you look at the basic numbers. Here's some numbers: San Francisco population: 884,363 (2017/Wikipedia) San Francisco unsheltered population (conservative): 6,600 (7,499 SF self-reported homeless count * 88.2% HUD estimated unsheltered rate) Unsheltered population rate (conservative): ~0.75% of residents (my calculation) - nearly 1 in 100! Compare that with London, another city also experiencing a homelessness epidemic due to explosively rising housing costs: London population: 8,825,000 (2017/Wikipedia) London unsheltered population: 1,137 (homeless.org.uk) Unsheltered rate: ~0.01% of residents (my calculation) So obviously homelessness rates in SF are absurdly high. In fact, there are more unsheltered homeless people in SF than the entire country of England: San Francisco unsheltered population: 6,600 (2017) England unsheltered population: 4,751 (2017) I'm not saying they are equivalent situations, but somehow a country with a population greater than the state of California manages to have fewer homeless people than one relatively tiny city in California. And people say things like NYC has a much higher homeless population of 76,501, but according to HUD, only 5.1% of NYC homeless are unsheltered. In SF, the unsheltered rate according to HUD is almost 90% - nearly the worst in the country. That means NYC actually has fewer unshelted people than SF on the streets despite a much larger population. I'm not saying these numbers are perfect, but it gives us an idea of the scale of the problem. Politicians may or may not be smart, but at the end of the day they are doing a terrible job of fixing this issue in a meaningful way. Someone needs to step up and treat this like the public health crisis that it is, even if that means bringing in more federal resources or changing the strategy significantly.