4 ms·

It’s a result of voting for Reagan and his dismantling of any support for asylums. Sure, it was cruel but the voters decided to throw the baby with the bath wat

It’s a result of voting for Reagan and his dismantling of any support for asylums. Sure, it was cruel but the voters decided to throw the baby with the bath water instead of any kind of nuance. Additionally, the NIMBY crowd goes against building anything, even with the new “builders remedy” in place. With a majority of homeless being from CA, this has affected everyone - homeowners can’t sell and “upgrade” because supply is too low, which doesn’t help mobility in the lower classes. The other issue is the toothless law enforcement when it comes to actual crime. That I hope will change when residents of SF get tired of the shenanigans. I’m against reducing social programs. We need it, especially if the income inequality gap keeps getting wider. We just need to be smarter about how we spend it. It’s also important to remember that WSJ, and particularly their opinion pieces, are very much a right-wing mouthpiece and loves to dunk on SF and the “poors”.

kevingadd 3y ago
The lack of a robust asylum system is a huge part of the problem here, at least if you ask anyone in law enforcement. Not all homeless people are mentally ill - I would argue that most aren't - but the chronically homeless and "troublesome" homeless that people complain about are often struggling with untreated issues and there is quite literally nowhere for them to go and nowhere to send them. They won't get treatment in jail, they won't get treatment in shelters, and the emergency room will stabilize them and discharge them (with a medical bill to be paid by the taxpayer).