3 ms·

Interesting this article primarily cites federal policies that have led to the current situation and then vilifies Democrats in Sacramento and Progressives in S

by RC_ITR 3y ago

Interesting this article primarily cites federal policies that have led to the current situation and then vilifies Democrats in Sacramento and Progressives in SF. No comment on the politics, just seems like an inconsistent and thin argument (probably one that has no business on HN). >San Francisco is under a federal injunction that bars officials from enforcing laws against camping or sleeping in public spaces as long as its homeless population exceeds available shelter beds. As we recently explained, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment creates a right to vagrancy.

AlbertCory 3y ago
So you're implying SF Democrats would solve the problem, if not for those Sacramento and US Democrats tying their hands?
- RC_ITR 3y ago
  As the article states: >San Francisco is under a federal injunction that bars officials from enforcing laws against camping or sleeping in public spaces as long as its homeless population exceeds available shelter beds. As we recently explained, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment creates a right to vagrancy.
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    I read that. You didn't answer the question.
    - RC_ITR 3y ago
      I am not implying the strawman hypothetical you proposed. I think the confusion might be that the strawman doesn't even follow logic, TBH. Were did the Sacramento Democrats comment come in? I simply stated that the article highlighted federal decisions and blamed other governments for the consequences of those decisions. In that set of circumstances, Sacramento Democrats are equal to SF progressives, as they are both bound by a higher power (The Federal Government). And to answer the question I think that you're asking, yes, I do believe the Federal government has a lot more power to solve homelessness than SF or California does. Do you think otherwise? EDIT: I also think this fascination with Democrats vs. Republicans really misses the point here. This shouldn't be a competition to lay blame. That's the top symptom of broken government. It should be a creative endeavor to solve the problems and it saddens me that so many people don't feel that way on this supposed "hacker" forum. EDIT 2: >Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. I disagree that a city of 800k residents has the resources to solve a problem that's plagued every society ever. I think the largest and wealthiest government in history is much better suited for the task. I also think that SF being in the United States 100% makes it the Federal Government's issue, not some isolated thing that most people who live in other places can ignore. Like it or not, most homeless people are American citizens who happen to choose to live in SF right now. They can leave SF, but can't leave America.
      - AlbertCory 3y ago
        You're "simply" trying to spread blame around. That's all you're simply doing. SF has all the resources they need. They just need to use them. "plagued every society ever" -- no, it hasn't, not to anywhere near the scale of SF. Even large cities within the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit, like San Diego, Fresno, Spokane. San Jose.
        RC_ITR 3y ago
        The injunction applies specifically to SF as it relates to a specific court case. Is that not clear to you? >SF has all the resources they need. They just need to use them. I guarantee to you the Federal government has more/better. But hey, let's play the game. What exactly does SF need to do? Step by step.
        AlbertCory 3y ago
        Oh, I see, you want me to put some specifics out there, so you can nitpick them? I guarantee to you that SF has possibly the worst problem of any city, except for some other West Coast cities. So why don't you explain why cities with equivalently good weather don't suffer nearly as much? Just luck?
RajT88 3y ago
This explains quite a lot about that: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/wall-street-journal/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/wall-street-journal/
zdragnar 3y ago
What makes SF unable to have enough shelter space? Why is their homeless population unusually large? Is it a spiral of consequences that feed each other? https://www.sfhsa.org/services/financial-assistance/county-adult-assistance-programs-caap/caap-benefits#:~:text=Eligible%20San%20Franciscans%20can%20receive,of%20additional%20services%20and%20assistance https://www.sfhsa.org/services/financial-assistance/county-a.... Do cash payments help or hurt? Clearly, there are more than just federal policies at play. They have job and home placement programs, mental health and so forth. Are they understaffed or with limited opportunities, or does the cash payment act as a perverse incentive to keep people on the street?
- RC_ITR 3y ago
  The biggest propaganda win of the century has been the following: In a country with complete freedom of movement (and relatively cheap long-distance transportation), the mainstream has been convinced that homelessness is only caused by the communities where those people live. It's the Federal government's historical role to serves as a social safety net, not mid-sized cities with 'live outside year round' weather. Like what does SF 'fixing homelessness' even look like? I can tell you what it looks like at the Federal level.
  - zdragnar 3y ago
    > Federal government's historical role to serves as a social safety net This is not true. Medicare, section 8 housing and social security are (relatively) new inventions, and Medicaid is run by individual states, with some funding from the federal government. By volume, most social programs are either state or county run, from job training to mental health and food assistance and so on. As for what SF can do, it can designate emergency shelter space sufficient to get out from under the federal regulations preventing them from breaking up permanent camps. They can make cash payments contingent on going through some service which pushes people towards getting mental health care, addiction treatment, housing / job assistance, etc. So long as they are paying people to be homeless, and managing themselves into a corner where they can't stop illegal camping, some people will choose to stay that way for one reason or another, and they will choose to do so in SF.

by RC_ITR 3y ago

AlbertCory 3y ago

So you're implying SF Democrats would solve the problem, if not for those Sacramento and US Democrats tying their hands?

RC_ITR 3y ago
As the article states: >San Francisco is under a federal injunction that bars officials from enforcing laws against camping or sleeping in public spaces as long as its homeless population exceeds available shelter beds. As we recently explained, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment creates a right to vagrancy.
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  I read that. You didn't answer the question.
  - RC_ITR 3y ago
    I am not implying the strawman hypothetical you proposed. I think the confusion might be that the strawman doesn't even follow logic, TBH. Were did the Sacramento Democrats comment come in? I simply stated that the article highlighted federal decisions and blamed other governments for the consequences of those decisions. In that set of circumstances, Sacramento Democrats are equal to SF progressives, as they are both bound by a higher power (The Federal Government). And to answer the question I think that you're asking, yes, I do believe the Federal government has a lot more power to solve homelessness than SF or California does. Do you think otherwise? EDIT: I also think this fascination with Democrats vs. Republicans really misses the point here. This shouldn't be a competition to lay blame. That's the top symptom of broken government. It should be a creative endeavor to solve the problems and it saddens me that so many people don't feel that way on this supposed "hacker" forum. EDIT 2: >Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. I disagree that a city of 800k residents has the resources to solve a problem that's plagued every society ever. I think the largest and wealthiest government in history is much better suited for the task. I also think that SF being in the United States 100% makes it the Federal Government's issue, not some isolated thing that most people who live in other places can ignore. Like it or not, most homeless people are American citizens who happen to choose to live in SF right now. They can leave SF, but can't leave America.
    - AlbertCory 3y ago
      You're "simply" trying to spread blame around. That's all you're simply doing. SF has all the resources they need. They just need to use them. "plagued every society ever" -- no, it hasn't, not to anywhere near the scale of SF. Even large cities within the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit, like San Diego, Fresno, Spokane. San Jose.
      - RC_ITR 3y ago
        The injunction applies specifically to SF as it relates to a specific court case. Is that not clear to you? >SF has all the resources they need. They just need to use them. I guarantee to you the Federal government has more/better. But hey, let's play the game. What exactly does SF need to do? Step by step.
        AlbertCory 3y ago
        Oh, I see, you want me to put some specifics out there, so you can nitpick them? I guarantee to you that SF has possibly the worst problem of any city, except for some other West Coast cities. So why don't you explain why cities with equivalently good weather don't suffer nearly as much? Just luck?

RajT88 3y ago

This explains quite a lot about that: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/wall-street-journal/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/wall-street-journal/

zdragnar 3y ago

What makes SF unable to have enough shelter space? Why is their homeless population unusually large? Is it a spiral of consequences that feed each other? https://www.sfhsa.org/services/financial-assistance/county-adult-assistance-programs-caap/caap-benefits#:~:text=Eligible%20San%20Franciscans%20can%20receive,of%20additional%20services%20and%20assistance https://www.sfhsa.org/services/financial-assistance/county-a.... Do cash payments help or hurt? Clearly, there are more than just federal policies at play. They have job and home placement programs, mental health and so forth. Are they understaffed or with limited opportunities, or does the cash payment act as a perverse incentive to keep people on the street?

RC_ITR 3y ago
The biggest propaganda win of the century has been the following: In a country with complete freedom of movement (and relatively cheap long-distance transportation), the mainstream has been convinced that homelessness is only caused by the communities where those people live. It's the Federal government's historical role to serves as a social safety net, not mid-sized cities with 'live outside year round' weather. Like what does SF 'fixing homelessness' even look like? I can tell you what it looks like at the Federal level.
- zdragnar 3y ago
  > Federal government's historical role to serves as a social safety net This is not true. Medicare, section 8 housing and social security are (relatively) new inventions, and Medicaid is run by individual states, with some funding from the federal government. By volume, most social programs are either state or county run, from job training to mental health and food assistance and so on. As for what SF can do, it can designate emergency shelter space sufficient to get out from under the federal regulations preventing them from breaking up permanent camps. They can make cash payments contingent on going through some service which pushes people towards getting mental health care, addiction treatment, housing / job assistance, etc. So long as they are paying people to be homeless, and managing themselves into a corner where they can't stop illegal camping, some people will choose to stay that way for one reason or another, and they will choose to do so in SF.