3 ms·
My impression after being around homeless for many years, is that the key point that must always be understood is that chronically homeless are incapable of man
by rsj_hn 5y ago
My impression after being around homeless for many years, is that the key point that must always be understood is that chronically homeless are incapable of managing their own affairs, and therefore need someone else to manage those affairs for them. That could be institutionalization. It could be family or church. In the worst case it could be prison. But all of the above is better than leaving them on the street.
Now everything else follows. We can ask -- why can't they managing their own affairs? If it's mental illness, then is it possible to treat that illness, and get them to a situation where they can manage their affairs? Same for drugs/alcohol, and other things. But this has to be the cornerstone: they lose autonomy and some civil rights until they can demonstrate that they are able to function as independent responsible adults that do not perform antisocial behavior in urban environments. The urban environment must be protected, and the homeless should not be left alone in the streets.
The problem is that we don't have either a legal system or a care system setup (think halfway houses) for that kind of clientele. And some of those halfway houses will require bars on the windows, because for some of the hardcore population, they will refuse the care process. But it must be mandatory, until they demonstrate that they can provide for their own needs and manage their life in a harmonious way with the rest of the urban population.
When I was last in SF, I was having a coffee on Columbus in North beach and saw a homeless man with no pants but a dirty blanket run into the middle of Columbus avenue and take a big dump on the street. Then he started waving his arms and screaming at the cars that were trying to get by him. As long as San Francisco tolerates that behavior and gives that person an option to refuse treatment, then things will just continue to get worse. And high rental prices have nothing to do with it -- there is simply no rent that a person like that could afford to pay, nor would there be any apartment that would accept them.
- trevyn 5y agoI mean, San Francisco has always taken a more principled position on defining the boundaries of freedom and civil rights. It wasn’t so long ago that homosexuality was considered antisocial, could be “treated” in an institution, and was considered offensive to see in public.
- rsj_hn 5y agoI'm not sure what you mean by "more principled". Everyone has to have some principles. SF is neither more nor less principled now than before. It just cares about different things. Go defecate on a Black Lives Matter street sign and you can be sure to be hauled away and arrested. Chesa Boudin will even prosecute you. Defecate in a public park in front of schoolchildren and people just look away and keep walking. SF has not gotten less principled, it just stopped being willing to defend public parks and city streets and instead chose to defend other things. And the same people who insist we must allow millions of used needles in our parks are the ones claiming that "speech is violence". They are willing to fight to make sure that an offensive thing isn't said on twitter, but they're not willing to fight to make sure that children can play in the park without stepping on a used needle. But in order to have civil society, you do need to defend it from antisocial people. There are always going to be antisocial people. And there are always going to be red lines that the community does not allow to be crossed. That red line could be wearing a MAGA hat in the SF community college, or it could be dying on the streets of the Tenderloin. The principles are enforced with the same strictness as 100 years ago, except that the principles themselves changed. SF tolerates one but not the other, and gets the streets and parks that it deserves.
- klyrs 5y ago> Go defecate on a Black Lives Matter street sign and you can be sure to be hauled away and arrested. Chesa Boudin will even prosecute you. This sounds like you're referencing something very specific, but I haven't been able to find anything credible about such an event. Got a link?
- trevyn 5y agoIt’s defending the civil and human rights of mentally disabled and addicted people. I agree that it’s a messy, unstated process, and I understand that some may prioritize clean parks over human rights.
- rsj_hn 5y agoOh come on. The person defecating on the Black Lives Matter sign also has human rights, and San Francisco does not prioritize them at all. If someone were to wear a MAGA hat in SF Community College, how many seconds before they would be assaulted by private violence. And nothing would happen to the perpetrator -- instead the person wearing the hat would be charged. Stop pretending that this is about respecting human rights. It's about enforcing social norms. Which is OK. Except that you have to choose those social norms carefully, because they will determine the type of community you have. The fact is that dying on the streets of the tenderloin no longer violates social norms in the same way as, say, saying the N word in public. So again, you get the city you deserve -- one in which no one wears a MAGA hat, but homeless people screaming at strangers are a part of daily life. At least have the integrity to admit that these are choices as to which norms you will enforce, and stop pretending that you just allow anyone to do whatever they want because of some fundamentalist adherence to free speech or free association.