7 ms·

My opinion is that the problem with SF isn’t as much housing. It is more with mental health and drug addiction. You do know where many immigrants live right? It

by fakethenews2022 4y ago

My opinion is that the problem with SF isn’t as much housing. It is more with mental health and drug addiction. You do know where many immigrants live right? It isn’t so much on the streets. It is 16 packed into a single apartment. So the mechanisms people talk about already exist. It is that the homeless can’t work because of mental or social issues that compound with drug abuse. You need to fix the mental issues, social issues, and the drug abuse. The housing helps a little but the underlying problems are still there. I think the results already show this.

fakethenews2022 4y ago
We can just measure this. What percentage of people we give just housing to get off their feet after say a year or two? What percentage of people we allow to shoot up in city approved areas go clean after a year or two? From what I have read, it is a percentage in the low single digits. We are perpetuating a permanent dependent underclass along with a bureaucracy that is incentivized to maintain the class to maintain their power.
- seanmcdirmid 4y ago
  > We can just measure this. How? Getting accurate statistics is impossible, and what we get is self reported. "I'm not on drugs anymore!" (while smoking fent) is not uncommon. Every group will roll out self reported data to support their positions, scientific studies are frowned on, if they are even possible anyways.
  - fakethenews2022 4y ago
    SF rolled out stats. Their stats did the opposite of supporting their position. Some stats are so bad that you can only lie in interpretation.
vkou 4y ago
SROs were a housing solution for low-income people who were not functional[1] enough to live with roommates, but were functional enough to be able to live alone. When we got rid of them, many of their former inhabitants ended up on the street. [1] For an incredibly broad definition of 'not functional'.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- fakethenews2022 4y ago
  I agree. Your Democratic mayors and supervisors did that. They tore down the SOMA SROs and replaced them with tech campuses without a plan of where to house those people. But it is multi-factorial. You have mental health institutions closed down a decade earlier as well. They should have been reformed instead of closed down.
  - vkou 4y ago
    This has happened across the entire country, in big towns and small, in red states and blue, (and, to a great extent, across the rest of the developed world). I assure you, the Democratic boogiemen are not responsible for such a broad international failure.
    - fakethenews2022 4y ago
      It wasn’t Democrat boogeyman. It was those people fronting for those interests. Those people in SF happened to be Democrats. And those Democrats are still fronting for those interests. I disagree with the fronting of interests and those Democrats were complicit and still are. If there is a Democrat who won’t front for those interests, I will gladly vote for them. In fact I have.
  - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
    > Your Democratic mayors and supervisors did that. You mean: the people who run the cities did that, who all happen to be incredibly Democratic. They also did it in San Diego, where I bet a Republican mayor was in power at the time (since you know, that was mostly true in the 80s, 90s, and 00s), but economics rather than political ideology was the main driver of the gentrification. > You have mental health institutions closed down a decade earlier as well. Mostly by that famous Democrat named Ronald Reagan?
    - 4y ago
seanmcdirmid 4y ago
> It is that the homeless can’t work because of mental or social issues that compound with drug abuse. You mean "chronic homeless." There are homeless that you don't notice because they aren't standing out. They are living in cars or maybe crashing on someone's couch. Let's not equate homelessness with mental illness drug abuse.
- fakethenews2022 4y ago
  Agree.

fakethenews2022 4y ago

We can just measure this. What percentage of people we give just housing to get off their feet after say a year or two? What percentage of people we allow to shoot up in city approved areas go clean after a year or two? From what I have read, it is a percentage in the low single digits. We are perpetuating a permanent dependent underclass along with a bureaucracy that is incentivized to maintain the class to maintain their power.

seanmcdirmid 4y ago
> We can just measure this. How? Getting accurate statistics is impossible, and what we get is self reported. "I'm not on drugs anymore!" (while smoking fent) is not uncommon. Every group will roll out self reported data to support their positions, scientific studies are frowned on, if they are even possible anyways.
- fakethenews2022 4y ago
  SF rolled out stats. Their stats did the opposite of supporting their position. Some stats are so bad that you can only lie in interpretation.

vkou 4y ago

SROs were a housing solution for low-income people who were not functional[1] enough to live with roommates, but were functional enough to be able to live alone. When we got rid of them, many of their former inhabitants ended up on the street. [1] For an incredibly broad definition of 'not functional'.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
fakethenews2022 4y ago
I agree. Your Democratic mayors and supervisors did that. They tore down the SOMA SROs and replaced them with tech campuses without a plan of where to house those people. But it is multi-factorial. You have mental health institutions closed down a decade earlier as well. They should have been reformed instead of closed down.
- vkou 4y ago
  This has happened across the entire country, in big towns and small, in red states and blue, (and, to a great extent, across the rest of the developed world). I assure you, the Democratic boogiemen are not responsible for such a broad international failure.
  - fakethenews2022 4y ago
    It wasn’t Democrat boogeyman. It was those people fronting for those interests. Those people in SF happened to be Democrats. And those Democrats are still fronting for those interests. I disagree with the fronting of interests and those Democrats were complicit and still are. If there is a Democrat who won’t front for those interests, I will gladly vote for them. In fact I have.
- seanmcdirmid 4y ago
  > Your Democratic mayors and supervisors did that. You mean: the people who run the cities did that, who all happen to be incredibly Democratic. They also did it in San Diego, where I bet a Republican mayor was in power at the time (since you know, that was mostly true in the 80s, 90s, and 00s), but economics rather than political ideology was the main driver of the gentrification. > You have mental health institutions closed down a decade earlier as well. Mostly by that famous Democrat named Ronald Reagan?
  - 4y ago

seanmcdirmid 4y ago

> It is that the homeless can’t work because of mental or social issues that compound with drug abuse. You mean "chronic homeless." There are homeless that you don't notice because they aren't standing out. They are living in cars or maybe crashing on someone's couch. Let's not equate homelessness with mental illness drug abuse.

fakethenews2022 4y ago
Agree.