6 ms·

Yeah everyone loves those things too, they just don't want to deal with the cost and quality of life from the homeless/drug problem. I walked up to beautiful Co

• jhatemyjob 6y ago
  Dude you live in the mission, probably the most disgusting part of the entire bay area, other than maybe the bay itself. I didn't last a single week there Move to Noe Valley or Bernal heights
  • jonwalch 6y ago
    There are parts of the Mission that are extremely nice. The Tenderloin is far worse than the Mission and parts of SoMa rival the Mission for grossness.
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    • PopeDotNinja 6y ago
      On my morning walks in the TL, I had brieflly kepts stat on the poops per mile I counted. I decided it was too much work after I saw 3 poops on a single block.
  • wyclif 6y ago
    Yes, can confirm the Tenderloin is worse than the Mission. Take a walk down to Eddy & Leavenworth, especially right after all the homeless and drug abusers have cashed their disability cheques (or on the weekends) and try to walk down the sidewalk without being harassed or your nostrils assaulted by the acrid tang of human piss and fecal matter: https://youtu.be/KUtVz2fIhHM https://youtu.be/KUtVz2fIhHM
  • nullz3r0 6y ago
    Hell even park Merced area by SFSU is nice. I have a few friends who love out there. Aside from the limited parking it is a decent area that does not smell like “San Francisco”
• ethanbond 6y ago
  The important thing to remember is that the same forces that made those people homeless are what made you pay for your overpriced apartment. All the “unlanded” are sharecroppers, some better paid than others. Time for some solidarity among the renter class.
  • refurb 6y ago
    And what forces are those? Demand for housing?
    • ethanbond 6y ago
      Housing prices are set as high as they need to be in order to guarantee at least “a little bit” of poverty. Everyone being housed is effectively a signal to landlords that rent is too cheap. We obviously produce enough capital to ensure everyone is housed and fed, yet housing costs simply keep rising with productivity because, well, why wouldn’t they? Zoning/NIMBYism doesn’t help either, but even with perfect zoning, prices would still rise with productivity.
  • natalyarostova 6y ago
    The median homeless person living on the streets of SF wouldn’t be doing fine if rent was cheaper. These are severely mentally ill people suffering from severe drug addiction comorbidities in a system that fundamentally respects their right to live this way.
    • mercer 6y ago
      I've known a number of homeless people with serious mental illnesses who were both much happier and saner once they had an apartment (and, crucially, were helped with getting there).
  • fsloth 6y ago
    Homelesnes can be cured only by treating housing as a basic human right. There are plenty of examples of this globally so it's a fact, not a theory or a political fad. If you prefer more equal ownership of capital there is nothing wrong with that. But that is completely orthogonal to solving 'the problem' of homelessness. Please don't confuse the two issues.
• wolco 6y ago
  Tents? I didn't realize it has gotten that bad. Do they try to remove them?
  • nwallin 6y ago
    The city has a limited ability to remove them. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Martin v Boise, which held that it was illegal for the city (of Boise, Idaho) to remove homeless people from public spaces if the city has insufficient homeless shelters. This is a binding precedent in San Francisco, which is also in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The city of Boise, Idaho appealed to the Supreme Court, prodded by several cities including Los Angeles, but the Supreme Court declined to see the case. San Francisco is still held to Martin vs. Boise. They need to either build sufficient homeless shelters for all of the homeless in SF, (lol) or allow them to sleep where they please in public places. I am not a lawyer, but I got an A in Political Science 101 and I read the news. This is not legal advice, but my personal advice is that cities in California oughta build more homeless shelters.
    • DoreenMichele 6y ago
      cities in California oughta build more homeless shelters. Oh, please, god, no. California desperately needs more actual housing. That's a huge issue in California. More homeless shelters just drags out the problem. It doesn't solve it.
      • natalyarostova 6y ago
        The people who scream at me in a schizophrenic drug addled haze aren’t going to go away because cheap 1br housing pops up in an affordable neighborhood. They do need help though. They need homeless institutions.
        • DoreenMichele 6y ago
          I spent nearly six years homeless and I have had a college class from SFSU on Homelessness and Public Policy. There are mentally ill people in housing. They don't generally follow you down the street and scream at you when they have housing. Being homeless is enormously stressful. It is itself crazy-making. Lack of sufficient housing supply is a root cause of high housing prices and of homelessness. California has been under building for decades.
• TaylorAlexander 6y ago
  Well if we built housing for those people they wouldn’t have to live in tents. And if we provided mental health services to all people there would be fewer people who slip to homelessness in the first place.
  • ralusek 6y ago
    Yes but do we have to build houses for them in one of the most physically constrained places (partly geographic, partly zoning) on Earth? There seems to be this strange idea that people put forth that your options are simply between living in the most expensive city in the country or being homeless in the most expensive city in the country. How about Modesto? I think you would find plenty of support from people who genuinely would like for those people to have somewhere to live. The problem is that the opposition wouldn't accept it. It would come off as some perverse form of gentrification, under the implication that anybody "deserves" to live anywhere. I personally have always found the argument that "I should be able to continue living here, because I lived here previously" to be incredibly uncompelling. What about people who weren't born in fantastic cities? The fact that the Tenderloin is where it is, in what would probably be some of the best real estate in the city, is absolutely insane. I think you would find that there is all the good will in the world from people, if the proposed solutions make sense. They just don't.
    • TaylorAlexander 6y ago
      Modesto is not San Francisco. I believe it is reasonable for someone to want to live in San Francisco even if they do not earn many tens of thousands of dollars a year minimum. While there are many units grandfathered in or rent controlled in SF, it seems all new tenants are selected based on wealth. Why should SF be a city exclusive to the wealthy? The city of Vienna Austria has a fantastic social housing program. The city owns and manages 220,000 units of housing and indirectly controls another 200,000 units of private properties developed under a city-regulated process [1]. This could be done in SF. And then even people who are not very wealthy could potentially move to and live in the city. I reject the notion that individual wealth should be the sole or primary way that we allot housing to people. Instead of complaining about tents, we could (through our taxes) build these people homes. Instead of stepping over people sleeping on the ground we could make sure every person has a roof over their head. San Francisco is a very wealthy city. We could certainly afford to build this kind of housing. [1] https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_featd_article_011314.html https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_featd_articl...