3 ms·

That only works if the people in need of assistance don't respond to the on-site security by moving out of the encampment. You wind up having to establish a siz

by Kalium 4y ago

That only works if the people in need of assistance don't respond to the on-site security by moving out of the encampment. You wind up having to establish a sizable security-protected area around the blessed encampment, otherwise you wind up with a series of unsanctioned and unsecured encampments anchored by the serviced one. Neighbors tend to object to that kind of thing. What SF actually needs to do is house people. Unfortunately, its main dysfunction is its flat refusal to actually do this.

hcurtiss 4y ago
Is housing really an option? I mean that seriously. I suppose we could build "projects," like in Baltimore, but I definitely wouldn't call those a success. Right now, most of the Section 8 projects are skimming the better candidates off the top. The hard cases, the truly drug addicted and mentally disturbed (and there are a whole lot of them), will take whatever housing you give them and either ruin it, or move back onto the street, or both. I always hear this appeal to just "house people," but it seems to me there's more to it than that. I think in many, many circumstances, you would have to involuntarily commit them. And then it starts looking like a jail or mental hospital. In my mind, those are probably the best answers, but that ship sailed a long time ago.
- Kalium 4y ago
  Honestly, all SF has to do is stop obstructing projects that are a mere 20% subsidized units. It's become common political practice to pretend that a parking lot housing zero people is preferable to a lot housing a bunch of people, of which up to 20% are impoverished and formerly unsheltered vulnerable community members. Couple it with a fantasy that 100% subsidized is within reach in all cases and you have a recipe for a parking lot staying that way forever and the unsheltered staying that way too. Getting people in housing is often the first step to being able to help them with everything else making their lives difficult. It's remarkably hard to deliver psychiatric care to people who cannot be reliably contacted.

by Kalium 4y ago

hcurtiss 4y ago

Is housing really an option? I mean that seriously. I suppose we could build "projects," like in Baltimore, but I definitely wouldn't call those a success. Right now, most of the Section 8 projects are skimming the better candidates off the top. The hard cases, the truly drug addicted and mentally disturbed (and there are a whole lot of them), will take whatever housing you give them and either ruin it, or move back onto the street, or both. I always hear this appeal to just "house people," but it seems to me there's more to it than that. I think in many, many circumstances, you would have to involuntarily commit them. And then it starts looking like a jail or mental hospital. In my mind, those are probably the best answers, but that ship sailed a long time ago.

Kalium 4y ago
Honestly, all SF has to do is stop obstructing projects that are a mere 20% subsidized units. It's become common political practice to pretend that a parking lot housing zero people is preferable to a lot housing a bunch of people, of which up to 20% are impoverished and formerly unsheltered vulnerable community members. Couple it with a fantasy that 100% subsidized is within reach in all cases and you have a recipe for a parking lot staying that way forever and the unsheltered staying that way too. Getting people in housing is often the first step to being able to help them with everything else making their lives difficult. It's remarkably hard to deliver psychiatric care to people who cannot be reliably contacted.