3 ms·

Serious question - is the city actually interested in fixing the problem? I haven't seen any evidence of it outside of paying lip service. One can only assume t

Serious question - is the city actually interested in fixing the problem? I haven't seen any evidence of it outside of paying lip service. One can only assume this is the result of negligence or someone's benefiting from the increased crime.

jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
This isn't rocket science. We know the solution to homelessness is to build sufficient shelters. NYC did it in response to shifting opinions about letting people freeze to death on the streets. Utah did it for religious reasons. From what I see in my city, and read about in SF, the real crux of the problem is people blocking the construction of shelters. Very loud NIMBYs show up to every single neighborhood association meeting about this topic. They don't care about stores closing or ultimately solving the problem because they don't shop at places like Walgreens. I wish I knew how to shift the political deadlock on this, but I simply do not. In my city there's a small amount of progress towards camps with permanent shelters, but it's still just a drop in the bucket compared to what's needed.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- lumost 5y ago
  This actually seems quite solvable by reducing local neighborhood's ability to influence new development. Everyone wants the situation to improve, NIMBY's know how to block it. On a ballot measure the majority can rightly assume that development will not affect their immediate neighborhood. Some of these problems require City or Regional policy to manage, deferring to local neighborhoods leads to gridlock.
- dehrmann 5y ago
  Not building shelters is only part of the problem. SF can't build any housing. It's also astonishingly inefficient to build homeless shelters in one of the most expensive cities in the country. That, and it induces demand from other homeless people in the region who flock to the city for its services (some already do this). On the other hand, the state housing homeless people somewhere outside Bakersfield isn't morally viable, either.

jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago

This isn't rocket science. We know the solution to homelessness is to build sufficient shelters. NYC did it in response to shifting opinions about letting people freeze to death on the streets. Utah did it for religious reasons. From what I see in my city, and read about in SF, the real crux of the problem is people blocking the construction of shelters. Very loud NIMBYs show up to every single neighborhood association meeting about this topic. They don't care about stores closing or ultimately solving the problem because they don't shop at places like Walgreens. I wish I knew how to shift the political deadlock on this, but I simply do not. In my city there's a small amount of progress towards camps with permanent shelters, but it's still just a drop in the bucket compared to what's needed.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
lumost 5y ago
This actually seems quite solvable by reducing local neighborhood's ability to influence new development. Everyone wants the situation to improve, NIMBY's know how to block it. On a ballot measure the majority can rightly assume that development will not affect their immediate neighborhood. Some of these problems require City or Regional policy to manage, deferring to local neighborhoods leads to gridlock.
dehrmann 5y ago
Not building shelters is only part of the problem. SF can't build any housing. It's also astonishingly inefficient to build homeless shelters in one of the most expensive cities in the country. That, and it induces demand from other homeless people in the region who flock to the city for its services (some already do this). On the other hand, the state housing homeless people somewhere outside Bakersfield isn't morally viable, either.