24 ms·

A cautionary tale from the streets of San Francisco

185 points by CPAhem 5y ago

TedShiller 5y ago
I have some bad news for "housing advocates": More housing will never be the solution to the homeless problem. You want to see a lot of drug users and homeless people? You'll find them in areas of dense housing. Secondly, there is no "housing shortage". You're just looking in the wrong place. That's like saying there is a shortage of air in outer space.
- jdavis703 5y ago
  > You'll find them in areas of dense housing. Correlation is not causation. Perhaps homelessness is discouraged in low-density areas. Try putting up a tent up in front of nice homes in a single family neighborhood and the cops will quickly tell the camper to move on. But setting up camp under a downtown highway? One can probably last at least a few weeks before public works sweeps out the camp.
- adventured 5y ago
  One of the most important things for San Francisco - regarding homelessness - is to utilize housing first principles to remove the homeless from the streets. There is not plenty of housing for that in SF and there is very little will to change that. They have the wealth base to do it, they have the income base to do it. They're a mix of cowards and immoral misers (those who refuse to act). 2019: "Bolstered by its transformative tech industry, San Francisco has the most billionaires per capita than any other city, according to a new study from Wealth-X that measures the number of billionaires and where they live in the world. For every 11,612 people in San Francisco, the study says, there's one billionaire. And that's a much smaller ratio than the second most billionaire-dense city. In New York City, there are 81,211 inhabitants for every one billionaire." https://money.com/san-francisco-billionaire-density-income-inequality/ https://money.com/san-francisco-billionaire-density-income-i...
  - icelancer 5y ago
    Money is not the issue. NIMBYism is. And many so-called leftist people love the idea of affordable public housing... just not near them.
    - TedShiller 5y ago
      I wish for dense housing, because I could then buy a house. However, I also know it won't solve any of those problems it's supposed to solve.
- d4mi3n 5y ago
  In the interest of making your argument stronger, it may be worth addressing that when folks discuss housing shortages, they mean "affordable housing shortages". It's generally good policy to argue towards the strongest and most charitable interpretation of a counter argument if your goal is to persuade. As a counter to your statement: I believe the crux of the issue is not just more housing, though having more housing available for low and middle class workers is important, but the fact that we (the US) as a country have a bit of a paradox in how we think about hosing: 1. We generally want everyone to be able to afford to have some kind of shelter. 2. We expect all real estate to increase in value over time. We can't have both, but until we change how we think about real estate and it's role as an asset, we're unlikely to have a robust, long term solution to a lack of housing that's affordable to the average worker.
- csee 5y ago
  There's no shortage, technically, because supply and demand finds equilibrium, but that equilibrium is at an extremely high price which is pricing out everyone except the rich.
thoughtstheseus 5y ago
Homes are personal utilities for most people. They should be regulated as such. I would place an increasing tax based on some KPI to limit accumulation of real estate by corporations or individuals. Then I’d distribute that extra tax revenue to property maintainers and community development programs, maybe a portion where the money is required to be spent in mandatory projects. Then Get the federal government to invest in widespread underground rail.
pain_perdu 5y ago
This version is easier to access: https://www.printfriendly.com/p/g/yCP75A https://www.printfriendly.com/p/g/yCP75A
DoreenMichele 5y ago
("in San Francisco") From 2005 to 2020 the estimated number of unsheltered homeless people nearly doubled, even as homelessness declined nationwide. One possible explanation: California has become the dumping ground for the nation's homeless population. We have a nationwide shortage of housing. Both in person and online, I continue to hear homeless people plan to move someplace relatively warm and dry while stuck on the streets. California is on a short list of states with dry weather and the weather there is more temperate than, say, Nevada or Arizona. You can die in the extreme heat of summer in some of the dry states. I don't think the mess in San Francisco is entirely due to local policies. I think the nation as a whole needs substantially more affordable housing.
- andbberger 5y ago
  [citation needed]
  - azinman2 5y ago
    https://hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/FINAL-PIT-Report-2019-San-Francisco-1.pdf https://hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/FINAL-PIT-R... is full of a lot of good data.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - systemvoltage 5y ago
      The data does not support GP's assertion: 70% from San Francisco 22% from rest of California 8% from out of state Also, the data disagrees with the general sentiment of "Mental Health" issues amongst Homeless people. Only 5% were homeless because of mental health problems. Most of them, almost a quarter are homeless because they lost their job. Basically, many things in this report goes against the general opinion of people of the Bay Area. Misinformed public leads to misinformed decision making and policies. Responding to GP: > I don't think the mess in San Francisco is entirely due to local policies. I think the nation as a whole needs substantially more affordable housing. This is wrong. It is precisely due to the policies of SF city. The sooner people realize and accept the faults of San Francisco city's governance, the better it will be for the city. Same lessons can be applied to Portland (used to be ranked 3rd in the nation according to Oregonian, now it is ranked a whopping 66th out of 80), Seattle, and Los Angeles. To OP - thank you for the link, it's illuminating.
bryan0 5y ago
Since I moved out of SF I’ve wondered if there will ever be some public epiphany that with their well-intentioned policies they’ve reinforced what they most wanted to destroy: a society of the haves and have-nots.
- mrandish 5y ago
  > with their well-intentioned policies they’ve reinforced what they most wanted to destroy: a society of the haves and have-nots. As a newly-former SF resident and worker, what I witnessed over the past decade confirms your sad summary. The unintended consequences of misguided yet well-intentioned political policies.
  - Ericson2314 5y ago
    There is nothing well-intentioned about NIMBYism. While all this culture war keeps us busy, cars and short buildings laugh at us.
    - m_herrlich 5y ago
      I'm sick of the NIMBY card. This should not be in ANYONE'S backyard. NIMBYism is Houston, Atlanta, etc. buying one-way bus tickets to Seattle and SF. Locals who want the problem solved are not NIMBY's.
    - chroem- 5y ago
      NIMBYism is a scapegoat. The problem is much more deeply rooted in the city's culture.
      - Ericson2314 5y ago
        You are spouting nonmaterialist nonsense. All American cities are anti-growth. The hippie legacy is pretty thin at this point and the cities are closer culturally to each other than the stagnant areas. The Bay Area/California simply had more relativd demand for growth than many other areas, and better weather than the Northeast re homelessness on particular, and this is the inevitable result.
invalidname 5y ago
This is mostly a BS article that picks up a few facts to come to a conclusion while ignoring other facts like the gentrification of a very small area that triggers a lot of those problems. San Francisco has a lot of problems but it seems the article was written with the conclusion then went out hunting for facts to match that conclusion.
- alanlammiman 5y ago
  it's not an article. It's a book review.
- lowkey_ 5y ago
  I really don't think "gentrification of a very small area" is at all the reason for SF's astounding rate of homelessness, robbery, violent crime, and low rate of prosecution for crime. There's plenty of info online on Chesa Boudin, who is largely responsible for accelerating this (whereas an opposite DA could have tried to stop the descent into lawlessness).
Tiktaalik 5y ago
> He blames San Francisco’s woes on a culture of permissive lawlessness and a mistaken view of what constitutes moral policymaking. A frequent critique of those that want to solve the homeless problem by sending in the police to crack heads and send everyone to prison. The main goal here of course being to ensure that the homeless "go away" somewhere out of view. In reality most of the "crimes" that people are wringing their hands about are things like petty theft, drug use (a medical issue) and loitering which are so incredibly and hilariously minor that any judge will laugh in your face at the notion of sending one to prison for such abuses as this would obviously be a cruel and unusual punishment and not at all reasonable. The legal system will never send such offenders to prison. It never occurs to those venturing mass imprisonment of the homeless that um, simply building housing for the homeless is a dramatically more affordable solution. Therein lies the answer to the posed question: > How can a place brimming with resources and good intentions fail so flagrantly to meet the basic needs of the population? Despite our incredible wealth we simply do not provide in any way reasonable incomes and housing for those that are (for many reasons) unable to work, and so of course the problem festers. Why would we expect any change to magically happen? In my home town of Vancouver BC, which has very similar chronic homelessness problems as SF, our minimum income assistance is $935 a month. Of this sum, the shelter allowance is $375. There is of course virtually nowhere in Vancouver where one can rent anything for $375 a month, thus ensuring systemic, state sponsored homelessness, poverty and misery and people camping outside in parks. Why is there such poverty and homelessness? Well with $375 a month for housing good grief why wouldn't there be?
- moneywoes 5y ago
  Live in Vancouver and don't we spend around 360 million a year on the DTES?
  - Tiktaalik 5y ago
    Is [big sounding number] supposed to mean anything? Either we're spending enough money that people can afford to live indoors or not. $375/month is obviously not enough money for anyone to afford to rent anything anywhere. Accordingly, the real cost of solving homelessness is more.
mrobot 5y ago
I think the article is implying the answer to the failed 'left' policies is to replace them with more 'right-wing' policies. I've seen bills popping up that involve criminalizing the homeless or making camping illegal except in designated areas [1], [2]. These are really just 'out of sight, out of mind bills'. Homeless will not respond to criminalization of being homeless just as addicted people don't respond to legislation criminalizing drug use. We are even wasting money on Boston Dynamics robot dogs in Hawaii to patrol the homeless [3]. The right-wing policies almost always seem like they will just end up being violent. However, i do agree the 'left' policies are insufficient. They are bandaids on the real problem: that rental housing is not 100% public and that even mentioning this gets you laughed at and shunned. Public housing could easily work and be healthy, well-maintained, and great, really. The only thing preventing it from working is the forces of private real estate. Any mention of it, everyone will respond with just random pictures of housing they claim to be some socialist country's public housing, saying "is THIS what you want?!?!?". The idea that you couldn't build and maintain excellent public housing is laughable. It's fine, we should seek it. [1]: https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2021/10/13/bill-calls-for-state-supervised-homeless-camps-criminalizes-other-unauthorized-camping/ https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2021/10/13/bill-calls-for-stat... [2]: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/using-new-law-la-city-council-bans-homeless-encampments-at-54-spots/ar-AAPLdFw https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/using-new-law-la-city-coun... [3]: https://www.civilbeat.org/2021/01/honolulu-police-spent-150000-in-cares-funds-on-a-robot-dog/ https://www.civilbeat.org/2021/01/honolulu-police-spent-1500...
- ProjectArcturis 5y ago
  I'm sympathetic to a leftist solution here, but let's not ignore the reality of what happened when we built huge public housing buildings in the 50s and 60s. They were a failure for everyone involved, and there aren't any easy solutions.
  - mrobot 5y ago
    What is a good source on it that is not written by a bourgeoisie economist or other agent of the wealthy?
squabble 5y ago
I wonder if this situation is intentionally maintained. Does anyone benefit from it?
- Tiktaalik 5y ago
  The established rich. Solutions require money, which requires taxes. The wealthy benefit by doing nothing about homelessness as taxes are kept low and the problem of homelessness is kettled into some tiny district far away from their leafy suburbs where they never have to see it.
- moneycantbuy 5y ago
  landlords
  - remarkEon 5y ago
    Landlords want to keep people homeless ... Landlords ... who make money from people paying to rent their units, want to deliberately keep would-be customers from handing over their money.
  - aqme28 5y ago
    You got downvoted but this is true. It's not a deliberate relationship, but housing prices correlate with homelessness. If landlords and property owners see their properties increase in value, that means that people on the margins are becoming homeless.
- baby 5y ago
  I too want to believe in a deeper conspiracy around this shitshow, but occam's razor says that it's probably a mix of: * it's a hard problem to solve * nobody wants to solve that problem * it's a national crisis, not just an SF crisis * people are incompetent and governments are slow to move (and rarely make use of data correctly) * things generally tend to get better only after they get worse
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
no_butterscotch 5y ago
The book's author was recently on Joe Rogan where they discussed the book and many of the policies in SF. They discussed: de-criminalization, the "Portugal approach", progressive policies, policing, etc. Also the use of language such as "homeless camps" which envisages a camp of homeless people just trying to live. Versus the reality which when social workers and mayors (mayor of Denver) went into these camps undercover only found that everyone was a drug abuser and were being enabled to self-destruct. Highly recommended, the author is a resident of "San Fransicko".
- ProjectArcturis 5y ago
  So what should we do? Locking everyone up seems like it would be even more expensive with even worse long-term results.
  - mgummelt 5y ago
    Social services, with punishment for not participating.
  - baby 5y ago
    I listened to part of the podcast and if I remember correctly his proposed solution is to offer treatment and housing, but it you don’t follow that road: prison. No idea if that’s a good idea, but living in SF I can definitely say that whatever the city, or even the US as a country, has been doing until now has been useless. Disclaimer: I used to live in Chicago, and while not as bad as sf, the homeless situation was the worst I had seen in my life at that time. So that sorts of tells me that this might be a national issue, not just an sf issue although it is definitely much more noticable in SF.
    - droopyEyelids 5y ago
      I do some work with the homeless in chicago, and the people you see living on the street are, by and large, not drug addicts. In Chicago, drug addicts are transient-homeless. They're in and out of shelters as they get evicted or kicked out of a place, but they find somewhere new (indoors) to live. Some may be periodic homeless. The chronic homeless in Chicago are usually physically and mentally disabled, and while they may drink, it's not substance abuse that keeps them from holding down a job and getting shelter. One of the recent encampments we visited had an interesting story. It sits on what was the future site of a factory, and the group had all gathered there to work as labor for the construction. However, the builders found contaminated soil, and were working on a mitigation plan when covid hit, and these guys (and a few women) have been living there ever since. They recently called the police because someone who moved in to camp had stolen propane tanks from the neighborhood grills. They're not all like that but it's a much different scene than a warm weather city's homeless camps. Edit: One thing that makes this plain is the lack of sharps in the chicago homeless camps. Most of the time you won't see orange caps!
door103 5y ago
"A culture of permissive lawlessness"? A studio apartment in San Francisco starts at what, $2k? > Mr Shellenberger thinks they are on the streets in part because of a “housing-first” approach, which holds out for permanent, individual homes at the expense of building enough temporary accommodation. So his approach is that San Francisco should have third world-style slums? The solutions are simple: rent control and public housing. There just isn't political will for these policies: wealthy real estate investors fight them tooth and nail.
- icelancer 5y ago
  Rent control literally leads to constrained supply.
  - door103 5y ago
    Public housing increases supply. That's why I said rent control and public housing.
- richiezc 5y ago
  Are you aware that starting in 2020 CA has enacted rent control on everything more than 15 years old: https://sfrb.org/article/summary-ab-1482-california-tenant-protection-act-2019 https://sfrb.org/article/summary-ab-1482-california-tenant-p...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
kory 5y ago
https://archive.md/EEZ0f https://archive.md/EEZ0f
ajmurmann 5y ago
The [recent Econtalk episode with Sam Quinoas]( https://www.econtalk.org/sam-quinones-on-meth-fentanyl-and-the-least-of-us/#audio-highlights https://www.econtalk.org/sam-quinones-on-meth-fentanyl-and-t...) really changed my understanding of the homelessness crisis. The efforts to make it harder to make meth has resulted in the process and ingredients of making meth changing. This results in slightly different meth that has much worse effects. Meth junkies become less socially functioning and have stronger drive to isolate themselves in tents. I cannot recommend the episode strongly enough. It's the best explanation I've heard why we are seeing this dramatic change in quantity and behavior of the homeless.
- rkk3 5y ago
  Second that EconTalk episode. Alternatively recent Atlantic article that is adapted from his book the least of us https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/11/the-new-meth/620174/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/11/the-new...
  - _game_of_life 5y ago
    >"Perhaps the best defense against epidemics like this one lies in choosing to look more closely and more sympathetically at the people in those hoods—to put a higher priority on community than we’ve done in recent years. America has made itself more vulnerable to scourges, even as those scourges grow more potent. But scourges are also an opportunity: They call on us to reexamine how we live. Until we begin to look out for the most vulnerable among us, there’s no reason to expect them to abate." That's a great quote. When I worked at a harm reduction site (pre pandemic), I also noticed the meth users seemed to be deteriorating more rapidly than usual, and this was in Canada. Whatever the solution to this problem is, I worry something has become broken in our societies. You can even see it in this thread, with people quoting a goddamned podcaster (Joe Rogan) and spreading a ton of misinformation about addiction (eg. disputing that addiction is strongly linked to socio-economic status). Google scholar exists and this crowd is supposed to be educated. This quote from the article says it better than I could: >"Crystal meth is in some ways a metaphor for our times—times of anomie and isolation, of paranoia and delusion, of communities coming apart. Meth is not responsible for these much wider social problems, of course. But the meth epidemic is symptomatic of them, and also contributes to them."
m0zg 5y ago
Same exact thing is happening in Seattle as we speak. They are buying hotels and converting them to permanent housing and, get this, do not require that you don't take drugs or look for a job if you live there. How the fuck are people supposed to "exit homelessness" if they're addicted and jobless? The answer is, they don't expect them to _ever_ exit it. I went to a city council meeting and asked actually. They did not have an answer. Moreover, their projection is that the already _insane_ number of homeless people will triple in Seattle area over the next 10 years. That's the _official_, rose colored glasses projection, so it'll probably be even worse than that. It's a billion dollar industry in WA now, and as such it has become self sustaining and grew feedback loops which exacerbate the problems. Nobody is interested in actually solving the problems - for all the beneficiaries if it were, say, a 4 billion dollar industry, it'd only be better. So the cancer will metastasize until things reach SF levels of insanity, and maybe even beyond that. Activists speaking in favor of this stuff in public hearings are all on the take: "executive directors" of something or other. And then within 10 years people will wonder why we have shit on the sidewalks and people shooting heroin in plain view of the public. Worst part is, like in NY and SF they are often putting these permanent housing units a block or two away from schools, and allow drug addicts, sex offenders, and violent criminals to live there. It's only a matter of time before they commit crimes. Meth makes it difficult not to - gotta have that next hit. Why do this? Fuck me if I know. You can see the problems this will inevitably cause from a mile away. And don't get me wrong, I'm not against sheltering the homeless and such, _as long as_ you actually make not being homeless the lowest energy state, and take care of their underlying issues. Housing them permanently without that is a recipe for disaster.
- adt2bt 5y ago
  So what’s your proposal? Generally the #1 problem faced by homeless people is a lack of housing. Issues 2-10 will require support and help as well if we care about rehabilitation and reentry into society. Even if flawed, giving these people homes in converted hotels is likely better for them and for us than not doing that. So what else shall you have us do? Less, hoping we can ‘fix’ them with some good old fashioned tough love? (Hard to argue plenty of places haven’t done that to…basically no effect) Or, more, with learning and fixing mistakes along the way?
dehrmann 5y ago
> There are 50% more injection drug-users in San Francisco than there are students enrolled at its public high schools Makes me wonder how SF compares to NYC in the 70s and 80s.
- refurb 5y ago
  This is the thing - SF consistently lost population starting in the 1950’s through the 1980’s. Population went from 775k to 675k which 13%. It suffered from the same flight to the suburbs many American cities suffered from and benefited from the reversal of that trend. But whose to say we’re not entering another cycle where QOL suffers in big cities so people leave (usually the wealthiest first) and you see a downward spiral.
Proven 5y ago
[dead]
baby 5y ago
Sort of in topic, but as a resident of SF and an engineer: how can I help? Are there technical pain points that I could resolve with an app for free?
- andrewljohnson 5y ago
  You could work for a political campaign that supports policies you think will solve the problems.
- unreal37 5y ago
  Maybe you can work to get someone elected who promises to do something different to solve the problem. Or donate a portion of your salary to people working in the streets to help people.
RobLach 5y ago
Homelessness is a solved problem. SF residents don't want the solution. Real estate is the primary wealth building asset class of long-term residents who bought property ages ago or inherited it. In California property taxes as assessed at time of sale, so you hold onto properties realistically valued at multiple millions while paying taxes at rate appropriate to tens of thousands. Bulldozing a single family home to build a multi-family unit has an enormous cost on the back end given re-assessment. Any potential drop in property values has massive protest. It's such a nice free-ride you will fight tooth and nail for. These residents just want the homeless population "dealt with". The only solution viable for these residents is getting rid of homeless people through force. This in untenable give that these residents also have internalized a set of liberal moral values, which mostly means alleviating guilt by dumping money onto ineffective non-profit organization who at worst are siphoning public funds for themselves or at best are trying their best at executing strategies which have minimal impact. Consider that between 2010 and 2020, SF built ~25,000 new housing units. Charlotte, NC, a city with a lower population, built 160,000 new units. Norway has homeless population of 0.07% by mostly doing one thing: building and giving homes to people who don't have them. That would cause property values to plummet. Many long-term residents would have to seek employment after a lifetime of living off rents.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  As long as California is willing to pay market value for said house, then sure. Otherwise, they have no more right to my property than anyone else. The USA isn't a communist country or a dictatorship, and property rights dominate except in the most dire circumstances. So it really isn't a “solved problem”. What would work is shutting the NIMBY's down and letting housing get rezoned by developers for multi-home units.
  - i_am_proteus 5y ago
    How does one determine the correct "market value" of a property where government zoning laws prevent building more dense housing? Perhaps you advocate for removing these zoning laws and then letting the market clear?
rented_mule 5y ago
I often hear treatment promoted, but it's interesting that I rarely hear a topic right next to this come up in such discussions: a for-profit healthcare system that not-only leaves these people behind, but helps to put many of them there in the first place. I can't find anything in this thread about health insurance, universal access to healthcare, etc. I have excellent health insurance by US standards (the most expensive plan offered by a big tech company in SF). I've been battling mental illness for the last two years (more like two decades, but getting treatment for two years after it became untenable), resulting in months of medical leave from work on the advice of multiple doctors. Even with "excellent" insurance, I'm approaching $50K out of pocket over the last two years. It was more than that before my insurance company decided to cover my illness and reimbursed some of what I had previously paid (after 18 months of me, my doctor, and HR fighting them). What if I wasn't lucky enough to have "excellent" health insurance and sufficient savings from years of high paying jobs? If I wasn't so lucky and ended up homeless, what chance would I have of recovering from my condition? I've avoided alcohol and drugs my entire life because I know I'm prone to addictive behavior - I'm guessing one cold night on the street would be all it would take for the first drink. It's scary to think about where it would go from there. Healthcare for homeless people tends to be emergency rooms and under-resourced free clinics. Given my experience being treated for mental illness, I can't conceive of making any progress in free clinics or ERs. So why wouldn't I be a permanent resident of the streets? I see talk here of homelessness being less of an issue in Europe and China... in my opinion, access to healthcare is a key difference. Treatment for homeless people is great, but how sane is a system that pushes people off a health/financial cliff before they can get such treatment? Financially feasible access to treatment long before we get there is crucial.
- arpinum 5y ago
  My experience of mental healthcare in the UK and China is not what what you imply. Your description of mental care for homeless in USA is close to what is available for the majority of the working class in the UK. I worked in mental health in the UK. In my area an initial mental health consult has a 6 month wait. You are unlikely to receive ongoing care in the first 2 years after the initial consult, but most will never be offered ongoing care. Lack of treatment pushes people out of the job market and into destructive behaviour. The fact that it is free at the point of care matters little when poor health is itself financially destructive. I also cared for a relative's health in China. If you want a basic level of hygiene you will pay for everything. If you want clean sheets and avoid bed sores you may need to pay extra. Bring a good blanket, the hospital may not have a heating system.
profeatur 5y ago
Whenever this topic comes up the conversation always centers around money or housing or other brute physical facts. It should be obvious by now that this problem is not about material resources but is something deeper and much more intractable. American society has died. Many here will reply that that’s a good thing, and then continue complaining about the wealth divide or housing or whatever else fits their political agenda. The world is a dark place and we are fragile creatures. Through technological hubris and the idea of “progress” we’ve destroyed the balance our ancestors maintained. The System has tried for over 100 years to take on more and more of the family’s roles, and even though it’s incapable of providing us with what we really need, it’s strong-armed us all into believing it’s been a success, and that this is what progress looks like, and that this progress is the greatest good. Society proceeds from the family. The family is the center of a human’s life, and we’ve destroyed it. Divorce, broken homes, a lack of tribal cohesion, a lack of god, a total lack of all autonomy unless you’re one of the lucky few who have the ability to find it within abstractions. In this new anomic landscape parents become shadows. They have nothing to provide us because they are also confused. The filament that once held families together through generations has been snipped and there’s no way we can reconnect it now. We look away from our families and attach ourselves to a reactionary “culture” that’s completely fabricated out of the whims of the moment rather than being a mesh work that develops over time. We identity ourselves with our own coping mechanisms. We forsake the past because our ancestors were strong but it’s a kind of strength we’ve been taught to deny, because that kind of strength is dangerous to the System. The only thing connecting us now is our sickness.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- rwbt 5y ago
  Very well said. This is really the price of progress and technology. Ironically, we still fool ourselves thinking that the way out of this mess is even more technology and progress.
- drsnow 5y ago
  We don't need god
habosa 5y ago
If you live in San Francisco and want to do something to end homelessness, consider a donation to Larkin Street Youth Services: https://larkinstreetyouth.org/ https://larkinstreetyouth.org/ They help homeless youth ages 12-24 in San Francisco with a full range of services. Housing, mental and physical health, education, job training, etc. 75% of the people that enter their program exit street life permanently. I have worked with them for years and can vouch for the character of their employees and the effectiveness of their programs.
sizzle 5y ago
Why is no one addressing the underlying mental health issues affecting homeless and not being neurotypical affects the ability to hold a job and function well in society which is a vicious cycle without psychiatric intervention for neuroatypical individuals.
PostThisTooFast 5y ago
[dead]
thepasswordis 5y ago
Why do so many of the comments here want to strip these people of their human agency? They make bad decisions, and those decisions have effects. It isn’t always some opaque “the system”. Sometimes you’ll have to see that these people are humans just like you are, and just like you are responsible for your decisions, so are they. Anything else, which aims to make them less than you, is a problem. Treat these people like human beings.
- palijer 5y ago
  Are you implying that developing a mental illness is a decision some people make?
tsegratis 5y ago
The sad thing is the comments I knew there was an unusual level of homelessness in America, i didn't know people cared so little I dont want to conclude the problem is these attitudes, but the relative distance between the average opinion here, and how China treats you is what? -- The CCP leadership care about materialism and power, before other people; and simplistically, but not incorrectly, that is why they abuse and lie Certainly on average the comments here reduce your distance to them

185 points by CPAhem 5y ago

I have some bad news for "housing advocates": More housing will never be the solution to the homeless problem. You want to see a lot of drug users and homeless people? You'll find them in areas of dense housing. Secondly, there is no "housing shortage". You're just looking in the wrong place. That's like saying there is a shortage of air in outer space.

jdavis703 5y ago
> You'll find them in areas of dense housing. Correlation is not causation. Perhaps homelessness is discouraged in low-density areas. Try putting up a tent up in front of nice homes in a single family neighborhood and the cops will quickly tell the camper to move on. But setting up camp under a downtown highway? One can probably last at least a few weeks before public works sweeps out the camp.
adventured 5y ago
One of the most important things for San Francisco - regarding homelessness - is to utilize housing first principles to remove the homeless from the streets. There is not plenty of housing for that in SF and there is very little will to change that. They have the wealth base to do it, they have the income base to do it. They're a mix of cowards and immoral misers (those who refuse to act). 2019: "Bolstered by its transformative tech industry, San Francisco has the most billionaires per capita than any other city, according to a new study from Wealth-X that measures the number of billionaires and where they live in the world. For every 11,612 people in San Francisco, the study says, there's one billionaire. And that's a much smaller ratio than the second most billionaire-dense city. In New York City, there are 81,211 inhabitants for every one billionaire." https://money.com/san-francisco-billionaire-density-income-inequality/ https://money.com/san-francisco-billionaire-density-income-i...
- icelancer 5y ago
  Money is not the issue. NIMBYism is. And many so-called leftist people love the idea of affordable public housing... just not near them.
  - TedShiller 5y ago
    I wish for dense housing, because I could then buy a house. However, I also know it won't solve any of those problems it's supposed to solve.
d4mi3n 5y ago
In the interest of making your argument stronger, it may be worth addressing that when folks discuss housing shortages, they mean "affordable housing shortages". It's generally good policy to argue towards the strongest and most charitable interpretation of a counter argument if your goal is to persuade. As a counter to your statement: I believe the crux of the issue is not just more housing, though having more housing available for low and middle class workers is important, but the fact that we (the US) as a country have a bit of a paradox in how we think about hosing: 1. We generally want everyone to be able to afford to have some kind of shelter. 2. We expect all real estate to increase in value over time. We can't have both, but until we change how we think about real estate and it's role as an asset, we're unlikely to have a robust, long term solution to a lack of housing that's affordable to the average worker.
csee 5y ago
There's no shortage, technically, because supply and demand finds equilibrium, but that equilibrium is at an extremely high price which is pricing out everyone except the rich.

thoughtstheseus 5y ago

Homes are personal utilities for most people. They should be regulated as such. I would place an increasing tax based on some KPI to limit accumulation of real estate by corporations or individuals. Then I’d distribute that extra tax revenue to property maintainers and community development programs, maybe a portion where the money is required to be spent in mandatory projects. Then Get the federal government to invest in widespread underground rail.

pain_perdu 5y ago

This version is easier to access: https://www.printfriendly.com/p/g/yCP75A https://www.printfriendly.com/p/g/yCP75A

DoreenMichele 5y ago

("in San Francisco") From 2005 to 2020 the estimated number of unsheltered homeless people nearly doubled, even as homelessness declined nationwide. One possible explanation: California has become the dumping ground for the nation's homeless population. We have a nationwide shortage of housing. Both in person and online, I continue to hear homeless people plan to move someplace relatively warm and dry while stuck on the streets. California is on a short list of states with dry weather and the weather there is more temperate than, say, Nevada or Arizona. You can die in the extreme heat of summer in some of the dry states. I don't think the mess in San Francisco is entirely due to local policies. I think the nation as a whole needs substantially more affordable housing.

andbberger 5y ago
[citation needed]
- azinman2 5y ago
  https://hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/FINAL-PIT-Report-2019-San-Francisco-1.pdf https://hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/FINAL-PIT-R... is full of a lot of good data.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - systemvoltage 5y ago
    The data does not support GP's assertion: 70% from San Francisco 22% from rest of California 8% from out of state Also, the data disagrees with the general sentiment of "Mental Health" issues amongst Homeless people. Only 5% were homeless because of mental health problems. Most of them, almost a quarter are homeless because they lost their job. Basically, many things in this report goes against the general opinion of people of the Bay Area. Misinformed public leads to misinformed decision making and policies. Responding to GP: > I don't think the mess in San Francisco is entirely due to local policies. I think the nation as a whole needs substantially more affordable housing. This is wrong. It is precisely due to the policies of SF city. The sooner people realize and accept the faults of San Francisco city's governance, the better it will be for the city. Same lessons can be applied to Portland (used to be ranked 3rd in the nation according to Oregonian, now it is ranked a whopping 66th out of 80), Seattle, and Los Angeles. To OP - thank you for the link, it's illuminating.

bryan0 5y ago

Since I moved out of SF I’ve wondered if there will ever be some public epiphany that with their well-intentioned policies they’ve reinforced what they most wanted to destroy: a society of the haves and have-nots.

mrandish 5y ago
> with their well-intentioned policies they’ve reinforced what they most wanted to destroy: a society of the haves and have-nots. As a newly-former SF resident and worker, what I witnessed over the past decade confirms your sad summary. The unintended consequences of misguided yet well-intentioned political policies.
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  There is nothing well-intentioned about NIMBYism. While all this culture war keeps us busy, cars and short buildings laugh at us.
  - m_herrlich 5y ago
    I'm sick of the NIMBY card. This should not be in ANYONE'S backyard. NIMBYism is Houston, Atlanta, etc. buying one-way bus tickets to Seattle and SF. Locals who want the problem solved are not NIMBY's.
  - chroem- 5y ago
    NIMBYism is a scapegoat. The problem is much more deeply rooted in the city's culture.
    - Ericson2314 5y ago
      You are spouting nonmaterialist nonsense. All American cities are anti-growth. The hippie legacy is pretty thin at this point and the cities are closer culturally to each other than the stagnant areas. The Bay Area/California simply had more relativd demand for growth than many other areas, and better weather than the Northeast re homelessness on particular, and this is the inevitable result.

invalidname 5y ago

This is mostly a BS article that picks up a few facts to come to a conclusion while ignoring other facts like the gentrification of a very small area that triggers a lot of those problems. San Francisco has a lot of problems but it seems the article was written with the conclusion then went out hunting for facts to match that conclusion.

alanlammiman 5y ago
it's not an article. It's a book review.
lowkey_ 5y ago
I really don't think "gentrification of a very small area" is at all the reason for SF's astounding rate of homelessness, robbery, violent crime, and low rate of prosecution for crime. There's plenty of info online on Chesa Boudin, who is largely responsible for accelerating this (whereas an opposite DA could have tried to stop the descent into lawlessness).

Tiktaalik 5y ago

> He blames San Francisco’s woes on a culture of permissive lawlessness and a mistaken view of what constitutes moral policymaking. A frequent critique of those that want to solve the homeless problem by sending in the police to crack heads and send everyone to prison. The main goal here of course being to ensure that the homeless "go away" somewhere out of view. In reality most of the "crimes" that people are wringing their hands about are things like petty theft, drug use (a medical issue) and loitering which are so incredibly and hilariously minor that any judge will laugh in your face at the notion of sending one to prison for such abuses as this would obviously be a cruel and unusual punishment and not at all reasonable. The legal system will never send such offenders to prison. It never occurs to those venturing mass imprisonment of the homeless that um, simply building housing for the homeless is a dramatically more affordable solution. Therein lies the answer to the posed question: > How can a place brimming with resources and good intentions fail so flagrantly to meet the basic needs of the population? Despite our incredible wealth we simply do not provide in any way reasonable incomes and housing for those that are (for many reasons) unable to work, and so of course the problem festers. Why would we expect any change to magically happen? In my home town of Vancouver BC, which has very similar chronic homelessness problems as SF, our minimum income assistance is $935 a month. Of this sum, the shelter allowance is $375. There is of course virtually nowhere in Vancouver where one can rent anything for $375 a month, thus ensuring systemic, state sponsored homelessness, poverty and misery and people camping outside in parks. Why is there such poverty and homelessness? Well with $375 a month for housing good grief why wouldn't there be?

moneywoes 5y ago
Live in Vancouver and don't we spend around 360 million a year on the DTES?
- Tiktaalik 5y ago
  Is [big sounding number] supposed to mean anything? Either we're spending enough money that people can afford to live indoors or not. $375/month is obviously not enough money for anyone to afford to rent anything anywhere. Accordingly, the real cost of solving homelessness is more.

mrobot 5y ago

I think the article is implying the answer to the failed 'left' policies is to replace them with more 'right-wing' policies. I've seen bills popping up that involve criminalizing the homeless or making camping illegal except in designated areas [1], [2]. These are really just 'out of sight, out of mind bills'. Homeless will not respond to criminalization of being homeless just as addicted people don't respond to legislation criminalizing drug use. We are even wasting money on Boston Dynamics robot dogs in Hawaii to patrol the homeless [3]. The right-wing policies almost always seem like they will just end up being violent. However, i do agree the 'left' policies are insufficient. They are bandaids on the real problem: that rental housing is not 100% public and that even mentioning this gets you laughed at and shunned. Public housing could easily work and be healthy, well-maintained, and great, really. The only thing preventing it from working is the forces of private real estate. Any mention of it, everyone will respond with just random pictures of housing they claim to be some socialist country's public housing, saying "is THIS what you want?!?!?". The idea that you couldn't build and maintain excellent public housing is laughable. It's fine, we should seek it. [1]: https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2021/10/13/bill-calls-for-state-supervised-homeless-camps-criminalizes-other-unauthorized-camping/ https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2021/10/13/bill-calls-for-stat... [2]: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/using-new-law-la-city-council-bans-homeless-encampments-at-54-spots/ar-AAPLdFw https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/using-new-law-la-city-coun... [3]: https://www.civilbeat.org/2021/01/honolulu-police-spent-150000-in-cares-funds-on-a-robot-dog/ https://www.civilbeat.org/2021/01/honolulu-police-spent-1500...

ProjectArcturis 5y ago
I'm sympathetic to a leftist solution here, but let's not ignore the reality of what happened when we built huge public housing buildings in the 50s and 60s. They were a failure for everyone involved, and there aren't any easy solutions.
- mrobot 5y ago
  What is a good source on it that is not written by a bourgeoisie economist or other agent of the wealthy?

squabble 5y ago

I wonder if this situation is intentionally maintained. Does anyone benefit from it?

Tiktaalik 5y ago
The established rich. Solutions require money, which requires taxes. The wealthy benefit by doing nothing about homelessness as taxes are kept low and the problem of homelessness is kettled into some tiny district far away from their leafy suburbs where they never have to see it.
moneycantbuy 5y ago
landlords
- remarkEon 5y ago
  Landlords want to keep people homeless ... Landlords ... who make money from people paying to rent their units, want to deliberately keep would-be customers from handing over their money.
- aqme28 5y ago
  You got downvoted but this is true. It's not a deliberate relationship, but housing prices correlate with homelessness. If landlords and property owners see their properties increase in value, that means that people on the margins are becoming homeless.
baby 5y ago
I too want to believe in a deeper conspiracy around this shitshow, but occam's razor says that it's probably a mix of: * it's a hard problem to solve * nobody wants to solve that problem * it's a national crisis, not just an SF crisis * people are incompetent and governments are slow to move (and rarely make use of data correctly) * things generally tend to get better only after they get worse
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

no_butterscotch 5y ago

The book's author was recently on Joe Rogan where they discussed the book and many of the policies in SF. They discussed: de-criminalization, the "Portugal approach", progressive policies, policing, etc. Also the use of language such as "homeless camps" which envisages a camp of homeless people just trying to live. Versus the reality which when social workers and mayors (mayor of Denver) went into these camps undercover only found that everyone was a drug abuser and were being enabled to self-destruct. Highly recommended, the author is a resident of "San Fransicko".

ProjectArcturis 5y ago
So what should we do? Locking everyone up seems like it would be even more expensive with even worse long-term results.
- mgummelt 5y ago
  Social services, with punishment for not participating.
- baby 5y ago
  I listened to part of the podcast and if I remember correctly his proposed solution is to offer treatment and housing, but it you don’t follow that road: prison. No idea if that’s a good idea, but living in SF I can definitely say that whatever the city, or even the US as a country, has been doing until now has been useless. Disclaimer: I used to live in Chicago, and while not as bad as sf, the homeless situation was the worst I had seen in my life at that time. So that sorts of tells me that this might be a national issue, not just an sf issue although it is definitely much more noticable in SF.
  - droopyEyelids 5y ago
    I do some work with the homeless in chicago, and the people you see living on the street are, by and large, not drug addicts. In Chicago, drug addicts are transient-homeless. They're in and out of shelters as they get evicted or kicked out of a place, but they find somewhere new (indoors) to live. Some may be periodic homeless. The chronic homeless in Chicago are usually physically and mentally disabled, and while they may drink, it's not substance abuse that keeps them from holding down a job and getting shelter. One of the recent encampments we visited had an interesting story. It sits on what was the future site of a factory, and the group had all gathered there to work as labor for the construction. However, the builders found contaminated soil, and were working on a mitigation plan when covid hit, and these guys (and a few women) have been living there ever since. They recently called the police because someone who moved in to camp had stolen propane tanks from the neighborhood grills. They're not all like that but it's a much different scene than a warm weather city's homeless camps. Edit: One thing that makes this plain is the lack of sharps in the chicago homeless camps. Most of the time you won't see orange caps!

door103 5y ago

"A culture of permissive lawlessness"? A studio apartment in San Francisco starts at what, $2k? > Mr Shellenberger thinks they are on the streets in part because of a “housing-first” approach, which holds out for permanent, individual homes at the expense of building enough temporary accommodation. So his approach is that San Francisco should have third world-style slums? The solutions are simple: rent control and public housing. There just isn't political will for these policies: wealthy real estate investors fight them tooth and nail.

icelancer 5y ago
Rent control literally leads to constrained supply.
- door103 5y ago
  Public housing increases supply. That's why I said rent control and public housing.
richiezc 5y ago
Are you aware that starting in 2020 CA has enacted rent control on everything more than 15 years old: https://sfrb.org/article/summary-ab-1482-california-tenant-protection-act-2019 https://sfrb.org/article/summary-ab-1482-california-tenant-p...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

kory 5y ago

https://archive.md/EEZ0f https://archive.md/EEZ0f

ajmurmann 5y ago

The [recent Econtalk episode with Sam Quinoas]( https://www.econtalk.org/sam-quinones-on-meth-fentanyl-and-the-least-of-us/#audio-highlights https://www.econtalk.org/sam-quinones-on-meth-fentanyl-and-t...) really changed my understanding of the homelessness crisis. The efforts to make it harder to make meth has resulted in the process and ingredients of making meth changing. This results in slightly different meth that has much worse effects. Meth junkies become less socially functioning and have stronger drive to isolate themselves in tents. I cannot recommend the episode strongly enough. It's the best explanation I've heard why we are seeing this dramatic change in quantity and behavior of the homeless.

rkk3 5y ago
Second that EconTalk episode. Alternatively recent Atlantic article that is adapted from his book the least of us https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/11/the-new-meth/620174/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/11/the-new...
- _game_of_life 5y ago
  >"Perhaps the best defense against epidemics like this one lies in choosing to look more closely and more sympathetically at the people in those hoods—to put a higher priority on community than we’ve done in recent years. America has made itself more vulnerable to scourges, even as those scourges grow more potent. But scourges are also an opportunity: They call on us to reexamine how we live. Until we begin to look out for the most vulnerable among us, there’s no reason to expect them to abate." That's a great quote. When I worked at a harm reduction site (pre pandemic), I also noticed the meth users seemed to be deteriorating more rapidly than usual, and this was in Canada. Whatever the solution to this problem is, I worry something has become broken in our societies. You can even see it in this thread, with people quoting a goddamned podcaster (Joe Rogan) and spreading a ton of misinformation about addiction (eg. disputing that addiction is strongly linked to socio-economic status). Google scholar exists and this crowd is supposed to be educated. This quote from the article says it better than I could: >"Crystal meth is in some ways a metaphor for our times—times of anomie and isolation, of paranoia and delusion, of communities coming apart. Meth is not responsible for these much wider social problems, of course. But the meth epidemic is symptomatic of them, and also contributes to them."

m0zg 5y ago

Same exact thing is happening in Seattle as we speak. They are buying hotels and converting them to permanent housing and, get this, do not require that you don't take drugs or look for a job if you live there. How the fuck are people supposed to "exit homelessness" if they're addicted and jobless? The answer is, they don't expect them to _ever_ exit it. I went to a city council meeting and asked actually. They did not have an answer. Moreover, their projection is that the already _insane_ number of homeless people will triple in Seattle area over the next 10 years. That's the _official_, rose colored glasses projection, so it'll probably be even worse than that. It's a billion dollar industry in WA now, and as such it has become self sustaining and grew feedback loops which exacerbate the problems. Nobody is interested in actually solving the problems - for all the beneficiaries if it were, say, a 4 billion dollar industry, it'd only be better. So the cancer will metastasize until things reach SF levels of insanity, and maybe even beyond that. Activists speaking in favor of this stuff in public hearings are all on the take: "executive directors" of something or other. And then within 10 years people will wonder why we have shit on the sidewalks and people shooting heroin in plain view of the public. Worst part is, like in NY and SF they are often putting these permanent housing units a block or two away from schools, and allow drug addicts, sex offenders, and violent criminals to live there. It's only a matter of time before they commit crimes. Meth makes it difficult not to - gotta have that next hit. Why do this? Fuck me if I know. You can see the problems this will inevitably cause from a mile away. And don't get me wrong, I'm not against sheltering the homeless and such, _as long as_ you actually make not being homeless the lowest energy state, and take care of their underlying issues. Housing them permanently without that is a recipe for disaster.

adt2bt 5y ago
So what’s your proposal? Generally the #1 problem faced by homeless people is a lack of housing. Issues 2-10 will require support and help as well if we care about rehabilitation and reentry into society. Even if flawed, giving these people homes in converted hotels is likely better for them and for us than not doing that. So what else shall you have us do? Less, hoping we can ‘fix’ them with some good old fashioned tough love? (Hard to argue plenty of places haven’t done that to…basically no effect) Or, more, with learning and fixing mistakes along the way?

dehrmann 5y ago

> There are 50% more injection drug-users in San Francisco than there are students enrolled at its public high schools Makes me wonder how SF compares to NYC in the 70s and 80s.

refurb 5y ago
This is the thing - SF consistently lost population starting in the 1950’s through the 1980’s. Population went from 775k to 675k which 13%. It suffered from the same flight to the suburbs many American cities suffered from and benefited from the reversal of that trend. But whose to say we’re not entering another cycle where QOL suffers in big cities so people leave (usually the wealthiest first) and you see a downward spiral.

Proven 5y ago

[dead]

baby 5y ago

Sort of in topic, but as a resident of SF and an engineer: how can I help? Are there technical pain points that I could resolve with an app for free?

andrewljohnson 5y ago
You could work for a political campaign that supports policies you think will solve the problems.
unreal37 5y ago
Maybe you can work to get someone elected who promises to do something different to solve the problem. Or donate a portion of your salary to people working in the streets to help people.

RobLach 5y ago

Homelessness is a solved problem. SF residents don't want the solution. Real estate is the primary wealth building asset class of long-term residents who bought property ages ago or inherited it. In California property taxes as assessed at time of sale, so you hold onto properties realistically valued at multiple millions while paying taxes at rate appropriate to tens of thousands. Bulldozing a single family home to build a multi-family unit has an enormous cost on the back end given re-assessment. Any potential drop in property values has massive protest. It's such a nice free-ride you will fight tooth and nail for. These residents just want the homeless population "dealt with". The only solution viable for these residents is getting rid of homeless people through force. This in untenable give that these residents also have internalized a set of liberal moral values, which mostly means alleviating guilt by dumping money onto ineffective non-profit organization who at worst are siphoning public funds for themselves or at best are trying their best at executing strategies which have minimal impact. Consider that between 2010 and 2020, SF built ~25,000 new housing units. Charlotte, NC, a city with a lower population, built 160,000 new units. Norway has homeless population of 0.07% by mostly doing one thing: building and giving homes to people who don't have them. That would cause property values to plummet. Many long-term residents would have to seek employment after a lifetime of living off rents.

stjohnswarts 5y ago
As long as California is willing to pay market value for said house, then sure. Otherwise, they have no more right to my property than anyone else. The USA isn't a communist country or a dictatorship, and property rights dominate except in the most dire circumstances. So it really isn't a “solved problem”. What would work is shutting the NIMBY's down and letting housing get rezoned by developers for multi-home units.
- i_am_proteus 5y ago
  How does one determine the correct "market value" of a property where government zoning laws prevent building more dense housing? Perhaps you advocate for removing these zoning laws and then letting the market clear?

rented_mule 5y ago

I often hear treatment promoted, but it's interesting that I rarely hear a topic right next to this come up in such discussions: a for-profit healthcare system that not-only leaves these people behind, but helps to put many of them there in the first place. I can't find anything in this thread about health insurance, universal access to healthcare, etc. I have excellent health insurance by US standards (the most expensive plan offered by a big tech company in SF). I've been battling mental illness for the last two years (more like two decades, but getting treatment for two years after it became untenable), resulting in months of medical leave from work on the advice of multiple doctors. Even with "excellent" insurance, I'm approaching $50K out of pocket over the last two years. It was more than that before my insurance company decided to cover my illness and reimbursed some of what I had previously paid (after 18 months of me, my doctor, and HR fighting them). What if I wasn't lucky enough to have "excellent" health insurance and sufficient savings from years of high paying jobs? If I wasn't so lucky and ended up homeless, what chance would I have of recovering from my condition? I've avoided alcohol and drugs my entire life because I know I'm prone to addictive behavior - I'm guessing one cold night on the street would be all it would take for the first drink. It's scary to think about where it would go from there. Healthcare for homeless people tends to be emergency rooms and under-resourced free clinics. Given my experience being treated for mental illness, I can't conceive of making any progress in free clinics or ERs. So why wouldn't I be a permanent resident of the streets? I see talk here of homelessness being less of an issue in Europe and China... in my opinion, access to healthcare is a key difference. Treatment for homeless people is great, but how sane is a system that pushes people off a health/financial cliff before they can get such treatment? Financially feasible access to treatment long before we get there is crucial.

arpinum 5y ago
My experience of mental healthcare in the UK and China is not what what you imply. Your description of mental care for homeless in USA is close to what is available for the majority of the working class in the UK. I worked in mental health in the UK. In my area an initial mental health consult has a 6 month wait. You are unlikely to receive ongoing care in the first 2 years after the initial consult, but most will never be offered ongoing care. Lack of treatment pushes people out of the job market and into destructive behaviour. The fact that it is free at the point of care matters little when poor health is itself financially destructive. I also cared for a relative's health in China. If you want a basic level of hygiene you will pay for everything. If you want clean sheets and avoid bed sores you may need to pay extra. Bring a good blanket, the hospital may not have a heating system.

profeatur 5y ago

Whenever this topic comes up the conversation always centers around money or housing or other brute physical facts. It should be obvious by now that this problem is not about material resources but is something deeper and much more intractable. American society has died. Many here will reply that that’s a good thing, and then continue complaining about the wealth divide or housing or whatever else fits their political agenda. The world is a dark place and we are fragile creatures. Through technological hubris and the idea of “progress” we’ve destroyed the balance our ancestors maintained. The System has tried for over 100 years to take on more and more of the family’s roles, and even though it’s incapable of providing us with what we really need, it’s strong-armed us all into believing it’s been a success, and that this is what progress looks like, and that this progress is the greatest good. Society proceeds from the family. The family is the center of a human’s life, and we’ve destroyed it. Divorce, broken homes, a lack of tribal cohesion, a lack of god, a total lack of all autonomy unless you’re one of the lucky few who have the ability to find it within abstractions. In this new anomic landscape parents become shadows. They have nothing to provide us because they are also confused. The filament that once held families together through generations has been snipped and there’s no way we can reconnect it now. We look away from our families and attach ourselves to a reactionary “culture” that’s completely fabricated out of the whims of the moment rather than being a mesh work that develops over time. We identity ourselves with our own coping mechanisms. We forsake the past because our ancestors were strong but it’s a kind of strength we’ve been taught to deny, because that kind of strength is dangerous to the System. The only thing connecting us now is our sickness.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
rwbt 5y ago
Very well said. This is really the price of progress and technology. Ironically, we still fool ourselves thinking that the way out of this mess is even more technology and progress.
drsnow 5y ago
We don't need god

habosa 5y ago

If you live in San Francisco and want to do something to end homelessness, consider a donation to Larkin Street Youth Services: https://larkinstreetyouth.org/ https://larkinstreetyouth.org/ They help homeless youth ages 12-24 in San Francisco with a full range of services. Housing, mental and physical health, education, job training, etc. 75% of the people that enter their program exit street life permanently. I have worked with them for years and can vouch for the character of their employees and the effectiveness of their programs.

sizzle 5y ago

Why is no one addressing the underlying mental health issues affecting homeless and not being neurotypical affects the ability to hold a job and function well in society which is a vicious cycle without psychiatric intervention for neuroatypical individuals.

PostThisTooFast 5y ago

[dead]

thepasswordis 5y ago

Why do so many of the comments here want to strip these people of their human agency? They make bad decisions, and those decisions have effects. It isn’t always some opaque “the system”. Sometimes you’ll have to see that these people are humans just like you are, and just like you are responsible for your decisions, so are they. Anything else, which aims to make them less than you, is a problem. Treat these people like human beings.

palijer 5y ago
Are you implying that developing a mental illness is a decision some people make?

tsegratis 5y ago

The sad thing is the comments I knew there was an unusual level of homelessness in America, i didn't know people cared so little I dont want to conclude the problem is these attitudes, but the relative distance between the average opinion here, and how China treats you is what? -- The CCP leadership care about materialism and power, before other people; and simplistically, but not incorrectly, that is why they abuse and lie Certainly on average the comments here reduce your distance to them