4 ms·

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 wan

by 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.
- kcplate 5y ago
  The problem is people are measuring policy success by how well intentioned it was rather than it’s results. Then, to further pile on to the disaster, political correctness discourages people from looking critically at the effects.
- lm28469 5y ago
  That's what happens when you put your ideology glasses on, you stop seeing reality. People fight for what they value as good even if everything tells them it doesn't work in the real world, as if the idea itself was more valuable than its manifestations. We're seeing that all over the world, especially in Europe with the remains of the Lumières ideals, ideals which don't scale nor work in our globalized/capitalist world
whimsicalism 5y ago
Much better when the have-nots are out of sight
- paisawalla 5y ago
  Unironically yes.
  - baby 5y ago
    Why? How can we improve as a society if we move what we don't like out of sight? I was particularly shocked when I came to the US by the sheer amount of poverty, disparity, etc. But I recently realized that the situation might not be that much better in Europe, it's just that poverty and disparity is usually moved to the suburbs and less visible.
    - paisawalla 5y ago
      What is the premise of this response? That unless we finally and completely solve the problems of society, nobody must be allowed to have streets free of needles and feces, lest they forget that addicts exist? I'm sorry, I don't think it's immoral for me to want to live in a neighborhood where all my neighbors are housed, and keep their feces and drug abuse indoors.
zarkov99 5y ago
The issue is not poverty at all. The issue is addiction. This constant framing of the homeless as dispossessed victims, rather than substance abusers with agency, makes it impossible to solve the issue.
- all2well 5y ago
  Isn't drug addiction specifically when you lose agency over your own drug use?
  - samstave 5y ago
    Its hard to be 'upwardly mobile' and drop an addiction, find a job, get out of depression, have positive self image - when you are homeless, and every US service designed to help you is fucked beyond repair and stealing so much money. I once looked at the SF budget for SFDPH and it showed all the roles, budget and costs. Payroll being the highest - but it also stated the number of homeless people in the city I did the simple math of dividing the budget by the nu,ber of homeless and at that time the number would have equated paying every homeless person $12 an hour. or ~$24,000 per year. Whichwould equate to UBI for such folks - and one could put stipulations on that such that it automatically made a savings account for the user with some % of that savings going into a fund which would be designed to, with the interest made on investment for that fund - be used to pay for more housing developments, job training etc... regardless of my lack of expertise in developing homeless help programs (I have thought of several - here is the one I wanted to apply to YC with) I try, and compared to what the city of SF spends and how well their policies work, I think evaluating other options is critically needed. Here was my concept for applying to YC (this is from ~5 years ago or so) --- 'Care Fleet' -- Mobile hygiene and necessities vehicle: A box truck with a built out full set of bathrooms with capability to self steam sterilize after each use. A one-seat barber station. A service of providing clothing to all homeless in the form of, effectively, Scrubs. And not some crazy embarrassing color. Offer them in grey, black, brown/khaki only. Socks and Shoes. Basic hygiene kit (tooth brush, shaver, soap, whatever, wipes, female hygiene stuffs) Allow homeless to take a shower, get a cut, get some scrubs and help info and some hydration and help info. --- How I maintain compassion for the homeless is twofold; I have three precious beautiful children. So whenever I see a homeless person, I see someones precious baby, a human who was once perfectly innocent. Whenever I see homeless walking in absolute shreds of clothing, no shoes, or like one sock on, it breaks my heart. If you have children, look at them - now imagine them walking through the streets filthy with shreds of clothing barely clinging to their bodies and being invisible to the rest of society aside from their disdain for your situation. See your child in that person.
YeBanKo 5y ago
Why do you think, that this policy is well intended? Honestly, a lot funds end in private pockets right away. Even recent homeless relocation to hotels benefited hotels mostly. They would be sitting idle otherwise, and even all the damage caused to the hotels is covered by the city. There is a whole economy around it in San Francisco and Los Angeles that many feed on. I think the intention is keep it going.

by bryan0 5y ago

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.
kcplate 5y ago
The problem is people are measuring policy success by how well intentioned it was rather than it’s results. Then, to further pile on to the disaster, political correctness discourages people from looking critically at the effects.
lm28469 5y ago
That's what happens when you put your ideology glasses on, you stop seeing reality. People fight for what they value as good even if everything tells them it doesn't work in the real world, as if the idea itself was more valuable than its manifestations. We're seeing that all over the world, especially in Europe with the remains of the Lumières ideals, ideals which don't scale nor work in our globalized/capitalist world

whimsicalism 5y ago

Much better when the have-nots are out of sight

paisawalla 5y ago
Unironically yes.
- baby 5y ago
  Why? How can we improve as a society if we move what we don't like out of sight? I was particularly shocked when I came to the US by the sheer amount of poverty, disparity, etc. But I recently realized that the situation might not be that much better in Europe, it's just that poverty and disparity is usually moved to the suburbs and less visible.
  - paisawalla 5y ago
    What is the premise of this response? That unless we finally and completely solve the problems of society, nobody must be allowed to have streets free of needles and feces, lest they forget that addicts exist? I'm sorry, I don't think it's immoral for me to want to live in a neighborhood where all my neighbors are housed, and keep their feces and drug abuse indoors.

zarkov99 5y ago

The issue is not poverty at all. The issue is addiction. This constant framing of the homeless as dispossessed victims, rather than substance abusers with agency, makes it impossible to solve the issue.

all2well 5y ago
Isn't drug addiction specifically when you lose agency over your own drug use?
- samstave 5y ago
  Its hard to be 'upwardly mobile' and drop an addiction, find a job, get out of depression, have positive self image - when you are homeless, and every US service designed to help you is fucked beyond repair and stealing so much money. I once looked at the SF budget for SFDPH and it showed all the roles, budget and costs. Payroll being the highest - but it also stated the number of homeless people in the city I did the simple math of dividing the budget by the nu,ber of homeless and at that time the number would have equated paying every homeless person $12 an hour. or ~$24,000 per year. Whichwould equate to UBI for such folks - and one could put stipulations on that such that it automatically made a savings account for the user with some % of that savings going into a fund which would be designed to, with the interest made on investment for that fund - be used to pay for more housing developments, job training etc... regardless of my lack of expertise in developing homeless help programs (I have thought of several - here is the one I wanted to apply to YC with) I try, and compared to what the city of SF spends and how well their policies work, I think evaluating other options is critically needed. Here was my concept for applying to YC (this is from ~5 years ago or so) --- 'Care Fleet' -- Mobile hygiene and necessities vehicle: A box truck with a built out full set of bathrooms with capability to self steam sterilize after each use. A one-seat barber station. A service of providing clothing to all homeless in the form of, effectively, Scrubs. And not some crazy embarrassing color. Offer them in grey, black, brown/khaki only. Socks and Shoes. Basic hygiene kit (tooth brush, shaver, soap, whatever, wipes, female hygiene stuffs) Allow homeless to take a shower, get a cut, get some scrubs and help info and some hydration and help info. --- How I maintain compassion for the homeless is twofold; I have three precious beautiful children. So whenever I see a homeless person, I see someones precious baby, a human who was once perfectly innocent. Whenever I see homeless walking in absolute shreds of clothing, no shoes, or like one sock on, it breaks my heart. If you have children, look at them - now imagine them walking through the streets filthy with shreds of clothing barely clinging to their bodies and being invisible to the rest of society aside from their disdain for your situation. See your child in that person.

YeBanKo 5y ago

Why do you think, that this policy is well intended? Honestly, a lot funds end in private pockets right away. Even recent homeless relocation to hotels benefited hotels mostly. They would be sitting idle otherwise, and even all the damage caused to the hotels is covered by the city. There is a whole economy around it in San Francisco and Los Angeles that many feed on. I think the intention is keep it going.