7 ms·

"It's insane to me that the city with so many rich people and incredibly valuable companies is such a mess, your telling me that a small city with an incredibly

"It's insane to me that the city with so many rich people and incredibly valuable companies is such a mess, your telling me that a small city with an incredibly wealthy population can't figure out how to keep the tenderloin from being full of tents and open drug use? Or get some form of functioning public transit? Pretty pathetic." SF resident for 15 years until I left. I walked around and talked to homeless. From the dozens I have talked with: 1. They are not from SF. 2. They were homeless somewhere else and it sucked. 3. Pan handling cash is easy. $100+ a day. 4. The SF programs kick ass. Suboxone clinics, Free cell phones, free bus passes, monthly stipends $$, even occasional housing 5. The police do not hassle much, you can shoot up on the street no problem. It is a system designed to create more homelessness.

gameswithgo 6y ago
well, a system designed to attract the homeless to sf anyway
smsm42 6y ago
So we have: 1. A lot of rich residents and rich companies which supply the city budget with sweet sweet tax money 2. A lot of programs and NGOs that draw large budgets to helping the homeless 3. Political climate that encourages spending money on helping the homeless without requiring anything from them, basically free money 4. Generous programs providing various freebies for homeless people, and no consequences for any behavior short of major robbery (yes, shoplifting is allowed too unless it's over $900) 5. Mild weather that makes living on the street possible year around And we're wondering why homelessness has not disappeared? There's nobody that is interested in it disappearing, that's why. Well, at least nobody whose opinion matters, anyway. There's a lot of people interested in allocating and spending budgets on fighting homelessness, these aren't people interested in doing something that will make it stop once and for all.
- runarberg 6y ago
  I downvoted this because as someone that has been what many consider homeless in San Francisco, I am a little insulted by this attitude. It comes across as someone that has never lived this life claiming that it is a good life and generalizing over the homeless population as freebies and criminals. If there exists a complicated social problem that involves thousands of human beings and someone on the internet claims to have an explanation for it in 10 paragraphs or less, that explanation is probably overly simplistic.
  - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
    I downvoted you because I am insulted by this attitude. As someone who comes from a country of starvation deaths, I can easily see how the homeless in SF would be considered the 1% of the world. If the milk of human kindness is all about spreading the wealth..how about spreading the wealth to other countries? Why should I pay for the homeless in SF when they live in the richest country in the world when I can send the money to Kenya or Vietnam or India and truly create meaningful impact. And so that’s what I do. My taxes already pay towards the healthcare, food and if in SF..smart phone and BART tickets for the homeless. No more tax hikes without an explanation for the $350 million dollars spent in just one year for SF homeless population.
    - runarberg 6y ago
      I actually upvoted that because I glad you left this comment. It provides an essential perspective for the global distribution of wealth. USA is the richest and the most powerful nation in the world and it is a ridiculous power dynamic that has no justification. The USA cannot provide housing option for some of its population, but even worse, the USA consistently steals wealth from other nations leaving them impoverished just so they can provide cheap goods for their own citizens. It is always good to get a reminder that for every USA resident the government leaves behind there are hundreds of impoverished non-USA citizen that still has to pay for it.
      - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
        Thanks. I agree. But there needs to be no justification. The USA does not steal wealth from other nations. Please substantiate this comment with an example. Wealth is not an indicator of quality of life. I have seen this over and over again amongst the rich and the poor. All we can do is live well so we are not a burden to others. The next best thing to do is help when we can. What I am against..on principle..is that we look to someone else for our happiness. Or survival. I am an immigrant too. I left my country of origin for one reason and one reason only..upper economic mobility. Many immigrants cause reverse brain drain. I have a better quality of life and I can uplift people within my circle of influence. I can do better as an American than as a citizen of my country of origin. And I enjoy the comforts of my new life. And that’s fine with me. I don’t believe we can heal the world by squeezing the hearts of the collective rich. I don’t understand why I should support someone who doesn’t want to leave SF because it’s chill while I had to leave behind my native country, my family and friends and all things familiar because I wanted the same thing as them. Comfort and quality of life. Only..I was willing to make sacrifices and trade offs. It’s difficult to empathize because it would make a mockery of the sacrifices that I had to make because I wanted something. We can’t ask others to sacrifice their money because some people don’t want to make any sacrifices for their own desires. We have seen that money doesn’t solve problems. In SF alone..350+ million did not solve homelessness or drug addiction or mental illness or despair due to poverty. So what is the answer. If the pitchforks against the rich are laid down and the energy is properly channelized to find meaningful solutions, we will get somewhere. My motto: Do what you have to do. Others are not a measure. What I am NOT is a fan of guilty self flagellation. If I am not going to flagellate myself, why would I allow others to do it to me?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
runarberg 6y ago
Speaking as someone that lived in van in SF for 6 month before I left for immigration reasons: 1. I’m not from SF, I came there to live with my partner who was in school there but we couldn’t afford a place to rent. 2. I’ve never been homeless anywhere else and I wouldn’t have been homeless in SF if rent was fair. 3. I’ve never pan handled, but I didn’t need to. Dumpster diving is easy, there is plenty of free food options (including free farm stand with organic vegetables; I also cooked for food not bombs but that was more for the fun then the food). 4. Didn’t get any free phones, paid for my own bus fairs (or just jumped the muni). 5. Police never hassled me too much. Only one time when I parked near Dolores Park too see if they had their porta potties open all night (they didn’t). Police advised us to stay out of this neighborhood. We did and moved back to a friendlier neighborhood in the lower mission. 6. Showering is impossible for the homeless. I could really only shower and shave once a week. I had to wait in a line for a ticket at a charity and then wait there for an hour or two at a cramped space for my turn. Sometimes I would sneak at my the campus of my partner’s school and steal a shower. Speaking from experience the only thing that is creating the homelessness in SF is lack of reasonable, affordable, and accessible housing options.
- hevelvarik 6y ago
  This is the best example of “speaking from experience” I’ve ever read. The question how representative are you of the general homeless population in SF. I would guess not much. Am I wrong?
  - runarberg 6y ago
    No, you are not wrong. I am not at all representative of the general homeless population in SF. I doubt anyone is. The homeless is probably one of the most diverse of any classifiable group in San Francisco. People are homeless for numerous reasons, and I bet any similarity you find is only superficial. Note that I never considered my self homeless. My 1981 VW vanagon—which we named Sunny—was a plenty good home for me. It was the first home I bought with my partner and we had a really good life in it. We would have stayed in it longer if it wasn’t so difficult to immigrate into the USA. But I know—and understand why—many people consider that homelessness.
proc0 6y ago
Yep, unfortunately people living there are too dumb to see they create their own problems by excusing the elected politicians (same for decades). Maybe some people are so nice they would rather step on human waste than make someone else uncomfortable for some of the decisions they made.
opportune 6y ago
Just as an aside, I don't know the stats for SF, but in Seattle the "invisible" homeless outnumbered the street-homeless 2:1. Street-homeless people tend to cause the most problems and put the most strain on the system, but there are a lot more people sleeping in cars, shelters, temporary housing, and couchsurfing, who are still homeless and need help. I honestly think SF and Seattle need to be tougher on the street-homeless but IMO it's important to remember that there are a lot more homeless people than the obnoxious ones. Those are just the ones you notice, because they are obnoxious.
- runarberg 6y ago
  Its funny you should say this, I have a sibling comment providing an anecdote about my (non obnoxious) [generally perceived] homelessness in San Francisco, while currently living in Seattle (well Vashon Island). Generally I get the a little lacking vibe in Seattle then San Francisco. Never having lived without a house in Seattle I feel like it would be similar except for the superior weather in San Francisco. I also doubt that I would be able to find as welcoming neighbors in Seattle as I did in San Francisco (although that is just a speculation).
- jordan_curve 6y ago
  Do you have a source for the 2:1 ratio in Seattle? I ask not because I think it’s false, but because I was looking for similar data earlier and couldn’t find it.
  - opportune 6y ago
    Check out page 7 of this: https://regionalhomelesssystem.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Count-Us-In-2020-Final_7.29.2020.pdf https://regionalhomelesssystem.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/0... Actually the ratio seems higher if you compare street/outside/tent/encampment/abandoned building vs. the other options.
- ummonk 6y ago
  To be honest I think there is a bit of semantic trickery here by homeless advocates. In colloquial parlance, “homeless” means “unsheltered” rather than “lacking a long term living arrangement”.
digitaltrees 6y ago
Maybe it’s good to see these issues rather than pretend they don’t exist.

gameswithgo 6y ago

well, a system designed to attract the homeless to sf anyway

smsm42 6y ago

So we have: 1. A lot of rich residents and rich companies which supply the city budget with sweet sweet tax money 2. A lot of programs and NGOs that draw large budgets to helping the homeless 3. Political climate that encourages spending money on helping the homeless without requiring anything from them, basically free money 4. Generous programs providing various freebies for homeless people, and no consequences for any behavior short of major robbery (yes, shoplifting is allowed too unless it's over $900) 5. Mild weather that makes living on the street possible year around And we're wondering why homelessness has not disappeared? There's nobody that is interested in it disappearing, that's why. Well, at least nobody whose opinion matters, anyway. There's a lot of people interested in allocating and spending budgets on fighting homelessness, these aren't people interested in doing something that will make it stop once and for all.

runarberg 6y ago
I downvoted this because as someone that has been what many consider homeless in San Francisco, I am a little insulted by this attitude. It comes across as someone that has never lived this life claiming that it is a good life and generalizing over the homeless population as freebies and criminals. If there exists a complicated social problem that involves thousands of human beings and someone on the internet claims to have an explanation for it in 10 paragraphs or less, that explanation is probably overly simplistic.
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  I downvoted you because I am insulted by this attitude. As someone who comes from a country of starvation deaths, I can easily see how the homeless in SF would be considered the 1% of the world. If the milk of human kindness is all about spreading the wealth..how about spreading the wealth to other countries? Why should I pay for the homeless in SF when they live in the richest country in the world when I can send the money to Kenya or Vietnam or India and truly create meaningful impact. And so that’s what I do. My taxes already pay towards the healthcare, food and if in SF..smart phone and BART tickets for the homeless. No more tax hikes without an explanation for the $350 million dollars spent in just one year for SF homeless population.
  - runarberg 6y ago
    I actually upvoted that because I glad you left this comment. It provides an essential perspective for the global distribution of wealth. USA is the richest and the most powerful nation in the world and it is a ridiculous power dynamic that has no justification. The USA cannot provide housing option for some of its population, but even worse, the USA consistently steals wealth from other nations leaving them impoverished just so they can provide cheap goods for their own citizens. It is always good to get a reminder that for every USA resident the government leaves behind there are hundreds of impoverished non-USA citizen that still has to pay for it.
    - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
      Thanks. I agree. But there needs to be no justification. The USA does not steal wealth from other nations. Please substantiate this comment with an example. Wealth is not an indicator of quality of life. I have seen this over and over again amongst the rich and the poor. All we can do is live well so we are not a burden to others. The next best thing to do is help when we can. What I am against..on principle..is that we look to someone else for our happiness. Or survival. I am an immigrant too. I left my country of origin for one reason and one reason only..upper economic mobility. Many immigrants cause reverse brain drain. I have a better quality of life and I can uplift people within my circle of influence. I can do better as an American than as a citizen of my country of origin. And I enjoy the comforts of my new life. And that’s fine with me. I don’t believe we can heal the world by squeezing the hearts of the collective rich. I don’t understand why I should support someone who doesn’t want to leave SF because it’s chill while I had to leave behind my native country, my family and friends and all things familiar because I wanted the same thing as them. Comfort and quality of life. Only..I was willing to make sacrifices and trade offs. It’s difficult to empathize because it would make a mockery of the sacrifices that I had to make because I wanted something. We can’t ask others to sacrifice their money because some people don’t want to make any sacrifices for their own desires. We have seen that money doesn’t solve problems. In SF alone..350+ million did not solve homelessness or drug addiction or mental illness or despair due to poverty. So what is the answer. If the pitchforks against the rich are laid down and the energy is properly channelized to find meaningful solutions, we will get somewhere. My motto: Do what you have to do. Others are not a measure. What I am NOT is a fan of guilty self flagellation. If I am not going to flagellate myself, why would I allow others to do it to me?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

runarberg 6y ago

Speaking as someone that lived in van in SF for 6 month before I left for immigration reasons: 1. I’m not from SF, I came there to live with my partner who was in school there but we couldn’t afford a place to rent. 2. I’ve never been homeless anywhere else and I wouldn’t have been homeless in SF if rent was fair. 3. I’ve never pan handled, but I didn’t need to. Dumpster diving is easy, there is plenty of free food options (including free farm stand with organic vegetables; I also cooked for food not bombs but that was more for the fun then the food). 4. Didn’t get any free phones, paid for my own bus fairs (or just jumped the muni). 5. Police never hassled me too much. Only one time when I parked near Dolores Park too see if they had their porta potties open all night (they didn’t). Police advised us to stay out of this neighborhood. We did and moved back to a friendlier neighborhood in the lower mission. 6. Showering is impossible for the homeless. I could really only shower and shave once a week. I had to wait in a line for a ticket at a charity and then wait there for an hour or two at a cramped space for my turn. Sometimes I would sneak at my the campus of my partner’s school and steal a shower. Speaking from experience the only thing that is creating the homelessness in SF is lack of reasonable, affordable, and accessible housing options.

hevelvarik 6y ago
This is the best example of “speaking from experience” I’ve ever read. The question how representative are you of the general homeless population in SF. I would guess not much. Am I wrong?
- runarberg 6y ago
  No, you are not wrong. I am not at all representative of the general homeless population in SF. I doubt anyone is. The homeless is probably one of the most diverse of any classifiable group in San Francisco. People are homeless for numerous reasons, and I bet any similarity you find is only superficial. Note that I never considered my self homeless. My 1981 VW vanagon—which we named Sunny—was a plenty good home for me. It was the first home I bought with my partner and we had a really good life in it. We would have stayed in it longer if it wasn’t so difficult to immigrate into the USA. But I know—and understand why—many people consider that homelessness.

proc0 6y ago

Yep, unfortunately people living there are too dumb to see they create their own problems by excusing the elected politicians (same for decades). Maybe some people are so nice they would rather step on human waste than make someone else uncomfortable for some of the decisions they made.

opportune 6y ago

Just as an aside, I don't know the stats for SF, but in Seattle the "invisible" homeless outnumbered the street-homeless 2:1. Street-homeless people tend to cause the most problems and put the most strain on the system, but there are a lot more people sleeping in cars, shelters, temporary housing, and couchsurfing, who are still homeless and need help. I honestly think SF and Seattle need to be tougher on the street-homeless but IMO it's important to remember that there are a lot more homeless people than the obnoxious ones. Those are just the ones you notice, because they are obnoxious.

runarberg 6y ago
Its funny you should say this, I have a sibling comment providing an anecdote about my (non obnoxious) [generally perceived] homelessness in San Francisco, while currently living in Seattle (well Vashon Island). Generally I get the a little lacking vibe in Seattle then San Francisco. Never having lived without a house in Seattle I feel like it would be similar except for the superior weather in San Francisco. I also doubt that I would be able to find as welcoming neighbors in Seattle as I did in San Francisco (although that is just a speculation).
jordan_curve 6y ago
Do you have a source for the 2:1 ratio in Seattle? I ask not because I think it’s false, but because I was looking for similar data earlier and couldn’t find it.
- opportune 6y ago
  Check out page 7 of this: https://regionalhomelesssystem.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Count-Us-In-2020-Final_7.29.2020.pdf https://regionalhomelesssystem.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/0... Actually the ratio seems higher if you compare street/outside/tent/encampment/abandoned building vs. the other options.
ummonk 6y ago
To be honest I think there is a bit of semantic trickery here by homeless advocates. In colloquial parlance, “homeless” means “unsheltered” rather than “lacking a long term living arrangement”.

digitaltrees 6y ago

Maybe it’s good to see these issues rather than pretend they don’t exist.