5 ms·

I used to live in the Tenderloin in 2013 and it has actually improved a lot since marijuana was legalized and public restrooms added in - back then, there was a

I used to live in the Tenderloin in 2013 and it has actually improved a lot since marijuana was legalized and public restrooms added in - back then, there was a guy on every street corner trying to sell you something, and certain alleyways/corners where there was daily cleaning for piles of human waste. It's become much less dangerous but still quite depressing to walk through. I started talking to people living on the streets and my opinion is that the problem can't be fixed by throwing money at it. Some people don't want to get free treatment, a shelter bed, or transitionary housing because of drug addiction, mental illness, a dog who can't accompany them, etc. A lot of them travel to SF because of how much we spend on homeless people, and it used to be pretty common to find people reselling food bank donations on the street for a fraction of grocery-store prices. If it was up to me, I would tell people that they either need to accept help to get back on their feet (I've witnessed the Homeless Outreach Team doing great work) or leave the city. However, espousing a "get tough on homelessness" attitude would be vilified by our political climate, so it won't ever be up to me.

rriepe 6y ago
I'll vote for you. Setting up a welfare magnet for the homeless in one of the most expensive real estate markets in the country is cruelty, not compassion.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- hevelvarik 6y ago
  Excellent point
- primitivesuave 6y ago
  If I ever campaign for something you'll know it's me after recognizing that cruelty/compassion line ;)
subsubzero 6y ago
> "get tough on homelessness" attitude would be vilified by our political climate, so it won't ever be up to me. You and me both, the solution is really straightforward. I feel like homeless in general falls into 4 camps: camp 1 - drug addiction, this one would be to get people off the streets, Open rehab clinics, get them clean, and back into a functioning society. camp 2 - mental illness, This one would be opening mental institutions(Reagan closed these in the 70's which led to our current culture of homelessness in alot of large california cities). Money would go towards either medication to get people in a functioning state or full time commitment based on severity. camp 3 - Those down on their luck, this one would be the easiest as job skills could be taught along with temporary free housing and counselors to ease the individual back into a job, once a job is found a stipend towards rent can be given until the person is fully independent again. camp 4 - Those that want to stay homeless. This is the most difficult group to deal with, and having them escorted out of the city would most likely be the only solution.
- enahs-sf 6y ago
  I wonder what the distribution is between these four camps? My hunch is solving for the first three camps as you've described would lead to a much higher quality of living for the average city dweller.
  - newsclues 6y ago
    1,2,4 have a lot of overlap or are the same group (you need to be mentally ill to want to be homeless and drug addiction is a symptom of trauma that’s basically untreated mental illness). Need to find ways to help the mentally ill, and shovelling pills won’t cut it, we need comprehensive programs.
- im3w1l 6y ago
  I met a guy who fit all of the above. Did some drugs, had some mental issues (but not to the point of being insane), was down on his luck. He didn't exactly want to stay homeless, but he preferred it to his other alternatives (which included job skill program with free housing). After a while his luck turned and he found a job that suited him and a place to stay. He probably still has some mental issues and does some drugs. Idk where I'm going with this except to say it's complicated.
didibus 6y ago
> or leave the city I would like it that we can as a society find ways to help homeless with their issues and manage their lives in a way that isn't just each city tossing them out. That said, I'm not against someone's honest decision to say, well I don't know how, and in the mean time, I want them out of sight so kick them out. But, and this is the but I feel is never discussed by those who propose that solution is HOW? How do you kick them out? What if they resist? Arrest? Jail? Now who pays for that? Should we just fire gunshots at them? Force relocate them, and if they come back? Erect barriers? What else?
- xyzzyz 6y ago
  Jailing them would actually be cheaper than what they currently do, as long as they are jailed outside of California, which spends much more per prisoners than other states.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- didibus 6y ago
  To clarify, I don't consider these ethical options. I just want to point out that without a concrete way to "kick them out", this solution is easier said than done. And so I feel it lacks a path forward.
diogenescynic 6y ago
>I used to live in the Tenderloin in 2013 and it has actually improved a lot since marijuana was legalized and public restrooms added in The TL is a lot worse than in 2013. There are more needles, more open drug use, more break ins, and on and on. >back then, there was a guy on every street corner trying to sell you something, and certain alleyways/corners where there was daily cleaning for piles of human waste. Literally nothing has changed. This is still the reality.
- primitivesuave 6y ago
  I am so sorry to hear that. I got mugged by some of the corner drug dealers in 2013 and they were at least nice enough to throw my drivers license out while running away, presumably to save me a trip to the DMV. I was thrilled to see the legal dispensaries put those guys out of business, I had long moved out by then but the area felt way less dangerous to walk around in.
  - asdff 6y ago
    Plenty of people are still buying and selling weed. Dispensaries are not a great prospect when tax alone is 30%. There is a reason why there are more black market dispensaries than licensed ones, in LA at least.
digitaltrees 6y ago
We should talk and listen. They don’t want to be homeless. They want something else. What? Provide that.
- ovao 6y ago
  In many cases? Drugs.
  - digitaltrees 6y ago
    In that case Portugal and Sweden have show some success in treatment rather than the approach we have been taking. We should learn from evidence based outcomes rather than normative based appeals to tradition.
    - asdff 6y ago
      We really need comprehensive addiction treatment. Addicts should be offered jail or court ordered rehab, but in either case there is no option but to sober up and get well. It is just so depressing how often I see people slowly killing themselves on the street smoking crack or finding a vein these days, openly on the sidewalk, in broad daylight. This needs to be coupled with mental health treatment, which often leads to drug use in the first place.
mleonhard 6y ago
Another problem is that SF shelters have schedules that exclude working people. Shelters require folks to line up for entry in the early afternoon. Many unskilled jobs require late evening work (restaurant dishwasher, line cook, bus boy, janitor, etc). So folks leaving work at 11pm cannot get into the shelters. Shelters kick everyone out in the early morning. Folks who work at night cannot get in to shelters at all. Night shift work is very important for unskilled folks (security guard, janitor, warehouse, etc). Also, many shelters are run by religious organizations and require guests to spend time attending religious presentations every day. I think 80% of the homelessness problem can be solved by providing free housing for these extremely poor people. Housing will not turn them all into successful citizens, but it will stop them from sleeping on the streets. Comprehensive health care (including therapy and long-term psychiatric care) can solve another 10%. The last 10% are folks who just prefer to live on the streets. Unfortunately, free housing in SF is very expensive because of the housing shortage. The city already houses many formerly homeless folks, spending $200M/year. Housing the remaining 8,000 would take at least $200M/year more. This would be a 4% increase in SF's $5B annual budget.

rriepe 6y ago

I'll vote for you. Setting up a welfare magnet for the homeless in one of the most expensive real estate markets in the country is cruelty, not compassion.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
hevelvarik 6y ago
Excellent point
primitivesuave 6y ago
If I ever campaign for something you'll know it's me after recognizing that cruelty/compassion line ;)

subsubzero 6y ago

> "get tough on homelessness" attitude would be vilified by our political climate, so it won't ever be up to me. You and me both, the solution is really straightforward. I feel like homeless in general falls into 4 camps: camp 1 - drug addiction, this one would be to get people off the streets, Open rehab clinics, get them clean, and back into a functioning society. camp 2 - mental illness, This one would be opening mental institutions(Reagan closed these in the 70's which led to our current culture of homelessness in alot of large california cities). Money would go towards either medication to get people in a functioning state or full time commitment based on severity. camp 3 - Those down on their luck, this one would be the easiest as job skills could be taught along with temporary free housing and counselors to ease the individual back into a job, once a job is found a stipend towards rent can be given until the person is fully independent again. camp 4 - Those that want to stay homeless. This is the most difficult group to deal with, and having them escorted out of the city would most likely be the only solution.

enahs-sf 6y ago
I wonder what the distribution is between these four camps? My hunch is solving for the first three camps as you've described would lead to a much higher quality of living for the average city dweller.
- newsclues 6y ago
  1,2,4 have a lot of overlap or are the same group (you need to be mentally ill to want to be homeless and drug addiction is a symptom of trauma that’s basically untreated mental illness). Need to find ways to help the mentally ill, and shovelling pills won’t cut it, we need comprehensive programs.
im3w1l 6y ago
I met a guy who fit all of the above. Did some drugs, had some mental issues (but not to the point of being insane), was down on his luck. He didn't exactly want to stay homeless, but he preferred it to his other alternatives (which included job skill program with free housing). After a while his luck turned and he found a job that suited him and a place to stay. He probably still has some mental issues and does some drugs. Idk where I'm going with this except to say it's complicated.

didibus 6y ago

> or leave the city I would like it that we can as a society find ways to help homeless with their issues and manage their lives in a way that isn't just each city tossing them out. That said, I'm not against someone's honest decision to say, well I don't know how, and in the mean time, I want them out of sight so kick them out. But, and this is the but I feel is never discussed by those who propose that solution is HOW? How do you kick them out? What if they resist? Arrest? Jail? Now who pays for that? Should we just fire gunshots at them? Force relocate them, and if they come back? Erect barriers? What else?

xyzzyz 6y ago
Jailing them would actually be cheaper than what they currently do, as long as they are jailed outside of California, which spends much more per prisoners than other states.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
didibus 6y ago
To clarify, I don't consider these ethical options. I just want to point out that without a concrete way to "kick them out", this solution is easier said than done. And so I feel it lacks a path forward.

diogenescynic 6y ago

>I used to live in the Tenderloin in 2013 and it has actually improved a lot since marijuana was legalized and public restrooms added in The TL is a lot worse than in 2013. There are more needles, more open drug use, more break ins, and on and on. >back then, there was a guy on every street corner trying to sell you something, and certain alleyways/corners where there was daily cleaning for piles of human waste. Literally nothing has changed. This is still the reality.

primitivesuave 6y ago
I am so sorry to hear that. I got mugged by some of the corner drug dealers in 2013 and they were at least nice enough to throw my drivers license out while running away, presumably to save me a trip to the DMV. I was thrilled to see the legal dispensaries put those guys out of business, I had long moved out by then but the area felt way less dangerous to walk around in.
- asdff 6y ago
  Plenty of people are still buying and selling weed. Dispensaries are not a great prospect when tax alone is 30%. There is a reason why there are more black market dispensaries than licensed ones, in LA at least.

digitaltrees 6y ago

We should talk and listen. They don’t want to be homeless. They want something else. What? Provide that.

ovao 6y ago
In many cases? Drugs.
- digitaltrees 6y ago
  In that case Portugal and Sweden have show some success in treatment rather than the approach we have been taking. We should learn from evidence based outcomes rather than normative based appeals to tradition.
  - asdff 6y ago
    We really need comprehensive addiction treatment. Addicts should be offered jail or court ordered rehab, but in either case there is no option but to sober up and get well. It is just so depressing how often I see people slowly killing themselves on the street smoking crack or finding a vein these days, openly on the sidewalk, in broad daylight. This needs to be coupled with mental health treatment, which often leads to drug use in the first place.

mleonhard 6y ago

Another problem is that SF shelters have schedules that exclude working people. Shelters require folks to line up for entry in the early afternoon. Many unskilled jobs require late evening work (restaurant dishwasher, line cook, bus boy, janitor, etc). So folks leaving work at 11pm cannot get into the shelters. Shelters kick everyone out in the early morning. Folks who work at night cannot get in to shelters at all. Night shift work is very important for unskilled folks (security guard, janitor, warehouse, etc). Also, many shelters are run by religious organizations and require guests to spend time attending religious presentations every day. I think 80% of the homelessness problem can be solved by providing free housing for these extremely poor people. Housing will not turn them all into successful citizens, but it will stop them from sleeping on the streets. Comprehensive health care (including therapy and long-term psychiatric care) can solve another 10%. The last 10% are folks who just prefer to live on the streets. Unfortunately, free housing in SF is very expensive because of the housing shortage. The city already houses many formerly homeless folks, spending $200M/year. Housing the remaining 8,000 would take at least $200M/year more. This would be a 4% increase in SF's $5B annual budget.