9 ms·

'Unsheltered' is a propaganda word and a fig leaf for the very sad reality that we have a chronic opioid and meth crisis which tips many people over into seriou

• crhulls 4y ago
  Why is this comment getting downvoted? I understand in progressive circles this statement maybe controversial, but I've always admired hacker news for being slightly more sensible when it comes to shunning people for statements that are not politically correct.
  • zackees 4y ago
    [dead]
  • Zigurd 4y ago
    It is getting downvoted because "sweeps" are a showy way for the cops to look like they are part of the solution. Don't buy in to copaganda. More police is a high-cost, unaccountable, self-perpetuating approach demonstrated for decades not to work. In conservative Utah, they know their housing-first approach works. It isn't 100% effective, but it is more effective than police-based approaches.
  • O__________O 4y ago
    See HN’s guidelines on commenting on voting: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  • runarberg 4y ago
    Probably because it has nothing to do with the article. It is derailing the conversation from something interesting (the legality of the war against homelessness) to something unsubstantiated (whether substance abuse is to blame for homelessness, and the role of organized crime). I’m gonna go so far as to say that it is even a little flamebate-y.
  • colpabar 4y ago
    Before you jump to comment on downvotes, just give it some time. The comment is 13 minutes old as I type this, things can change. Also, commenting on downvoting is generally frowned upon here. Discuss the article and the comments themselves instead.
  • triceratops 4y ago
    But it's not "not politically correct" it's just plain "not correct". Every homeless population in every city has its share of drug-addicted and mentally ill people. What most cities don't have is SF's insane expensive rental market. Follow the money.
• jelliclesfarm 4y ago
  I bet many would like to sue the city as tax payers for not fixing the unsafe and unsanitary streets that are part of the commons. Parks, streets and even public transport hubs are unusable for the tax paying citizenry.
• at-fates-hands 4y ago
  >> Giving these individuals expensive housing is not going to solve anything. They tried this in Minneapolis during COVID to try and get a bunch of homeless people off the street in a nearby hotel that had been emptied due to COVID. It didn't turn out very well: A report of a drug overdose led to the eviction Tuesday of more than 200 homeless people from a hotel in south Minneapolis that had become a refuge during protests that erupted in the wake of George Floyd’s killing in police custody. But some residents at the hotel said conditions had begun to spin out of control in recent days, with people injecting heroin and methamphetamine in the hallways, and fights breaking out at night. Volunteers became overwhelmed. “It started out well, then descended into chaos,” said Jennie Taylor, who had a room on the second floor. “People got the message that this was a place where you could use drugs freely and that attracted the wrong crowd.” https://www.startribune.com/homeless-evicted-from-former-mpls-hotel-after-drug-overdose/571135962/ https://www.startribune.com/homeless-evicted-from-former-mpl...
  • lotsofpulp 4y ago
    This would have been known to anyone who has operated a motel for even a couple months. There is a reason any half decent motel requires credit card security deposits with matching government issued photo ID.
• twblalock 4y ago
  Realistically, the only way we can solve this is with incarceration. This has little to do with the availability of housing, or the cost of housing. Some people will simply refuse to live in the housing that is provided. Many are so mentally ill and addicted to drugs that no amount of money we give them, either directly or indirectly, will get them off the streets. Proposed solutions that don't involve incarceration should be ignored as unserious and unrealistic. Is that harsh? Is it "not progressive?" Yep. Progressive attempts to solve this problem have all failed. Progressives have allowed San Francisco to turn into an open-air drug den, attracting homeless people from all over the country, and nobody should listen to their ideas anymore.
  • hezralig 4y ago
    I know plenty of homeless people in San Francisco without drug issues. The reason they are on the street or living in their cars or crashing on a friends couch in between either other spot? They cannot afford rent. Both friends I am currently in contact with are also CURRENTLY employed.
    • chimineycricket 4y ago
      come on this is anecdotal
      • clint 4y ago
        Everything in this thread is anecdotal
    • closeparen 4y ago
      I know lots of normally functioning adults who cannot afford rent in San Francisco. Many of them have bigger, nicer houses than my apartment - elsewhere than San Francisco.
      • hezralig 4y ago
        That's dope. Are any of them employed in SF, grew up in SF, and have no social supports outside of SF?
• jwlstn 4y ago
  If this were true why are the giant homeless populations almost exclusively in insanely expensive housing markets like SF, LA, NYC? Drug addiction is far worse in WV yet they don't have a major homeless problem. Explain this discrepency please if it's all because of drugs
  • profile53 4y ago
    The discrepancy is because this is untrue. Almost every city on the west coast I’ve been to has a large and obvious homeless population.
    • jwlstn 4y ago
      ...and what do we know about housing costs of cities on the west coast? You're getting REALLY close to getting this.
  • jelliclesfarm 4y ago
    It seems like they are literally bussing in homeless into San Francisco because of the services and money. It has become a drug distribution hub that is supported by the govt and tax money. There is little to no consequence for peddling drugs on the streets right under the nose of law enforcement.
    • scelerat 4y ago
      Do you have a source for this?
  • gnicholas 4y ago
    I think part of the reason SF and LA have large homeless populations is because of the temperate climate. It's much easier to survive a winter outside in LA than in WV. NYC is a different story, and I'm not sure that if they have the same number of homeless on a per-capita basis as cities like LA, SF, and Sacramento.
    • Gibbon1 4y ago
• abeppu 4y ago
  > Giving these individuals expensive housing is not going to solve anything. The "housing first" approach does seem to have a number of successful examples. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First#Evidence_and_outcome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First#Evidence_and_out... > we have a chronic opioid and meth crisis which tips many people over into serious mental illness. But also the most visible homeless population is not the only homeless population, and people who became homeless through other paths can get stuck. Having a home is really helpful for e.g. getting and keeping a job, resolving or managing health issues, etc.
  • LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
    On the ground in a city determined to kill people with its liberal drug policies I can say this housing-first does NOT save junkies. Its main benefit is to provide people who do not know the conditions and the costs a way to attack those of us who do. Read the wiki page - their examples are primarily before 2010 when the opioid crisis really kicked in and many of the examples are about alcohol addiction - not hard drugs. You can't give a junkie anything you don't want them to trade for drugs. If you give them an apartment they'll sell the plumbing fixtures and everything else. They'll also go back to sleeping outside, right next to where they procure their fentanyl, because nothing but acquiring and using matters. Vancouver and SF also both insist you can't give someone a dingy basement suite (like many of their residents actually pay for and live in) but you have to give them a bright cheery condo in an expensive area. All done seemingly to avoid ever having enough money to house more than a few people. Housing first isn't actually being tried, in a way that taxpayers or foreign drug-policy experts would expect. It's more about the careers of the literal thousands of people, poverty pimps, who "manage" the problem every day, and the power it gives them in city council to make sweeping decisions for the city. The number of lives lost positively correlates with dollars spent because the money goes to feel-good nonsense and bandaids, and actually counter-productive measures like fentanyl vending machines which have been proven to increase, not replace, street crime.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• omegaworks 4y ago
  >California is a magnet for substance abuse casualties The data[1] shows that over 70% of all of SF's unhoused people became homeless while living in San Francisco. What we're dealing with is a housing crisis. Every $100 increase in median rent is associated with a 9 percent increase in the estimated homelessness rate. [2] [1] https://hsh.sfgov.org/get-involved/2022-pit-count/ https://hsh.sfgov.org/get-involved/2022-pit-count/ [2] https://nlihc.org/resource/gao-report-congress-finds-increase-homelessness-likely-undercount-hud https://nlihc.org/resource/gao-report-congress-finds-increas...
• geokon 4y ago
  I just visited SF for the first time in a long time and I noticed many many homeless crushing crystals in aluminum foil and then smoking with a torch and glass pipe. (Never saw this previously.. was always people shooting up) Out of morbid curiosity.. is this not crack cocaine?
  • jaywalk 4y ago
    Sounds more like meth.
• space_fountain 4y ago
  Is this an intuitive take or a data take? My understanding is that much of the data disagrees with the idea that homelessness is driven by drug abuse. Things like the strong association between homelessness and housing costs + just survey data implying most homeless people don't move to SF as homeless people, all sort of implies that. Worth noting though, unsheltered isn't the same as homeless. Many homeless people are sheltered either in shelters, their cars, or friends homes. I think intuitively it seem likely to me that drugs might be the difference between chronically homeless people and merely temporary, it also seems like it might have a relationship with the people you encounter on the street and get mad about seeing, but the studies of the overall population seem to say homelessness is causing drug use not the other way around
  • colinmhayes 4y ago
    > the strong association between homelessness and housing costs I'd be careful with this. High housing costs are also likely highly correlated with areas that provide a lot of services to the homeless which might be the cause of homelessness.
    • space_fountain 4y ago
      For sure, there's a reason I just said association, but in the absence of evidence that the cause is something else just trying to spin an argument from first principles is dangerous. For a story to sound good it need not be true and any story that sees the bad things that happen to people in the world as somehow their own fault is bound to be attractive, though weirdly also a story that removes all personal responsibility so I must admit it goes a bit both ways.
• scelerat 4y ago
  Primary cause of homelessness in SF, according to a 2019 survey conducted by Applied Survey Research for the City of San Francisco: Lost Job 26% Alcohol or Drug Use 18% Eviction 13% Argument with Family or Friend Who Asked You to Leave 12% Mental Health Issues 8% Divorce/Separation/Breakup 5% https://hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/2019HIRDReport_SanFrancisco_FinalDraft-1.pdf https://hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/2019HIRDRep...