5 ms·

Salesforce Benioff warns he may pull conference from SF over homelessness drug

29 points by shaburn 3y ago

black_13 3y ago
[dead]
1letterunixname 3y ago
SF spends ~$1B/y on homelessness with little to show for it. Maybe they need to invest in more SROs on the outskirts and/or a federal declaration of a disaster including voluntary resettlement with comprehensive support. It's too big of an issue to solve at the local level, and it's too expensive to solve in the most expensive areas.
- soligern 3y ago
  [flagged]
- zer8k 3y ago
  The question you should be asking is how much is actually going to the homeless. A homelessness "tribunal" or whatever has a financial interest is keeping just enough homelessness around to keep their jobs. This isn't uncommon with other government projects and anyone who has been a contractor can attest to that. If they got homelessness to some absurdly low number surely the state would start to cut jobs. I would imagine applying Occam's Razor here would show that there's likely a significant amount of corruption in a program designed to solve something like homelessness. It's JUST vague enough that you can manufacture all sorts of reasons to keep the federal dollars flowing in.
  - 1letterunixname 3y ago
    "Corruption" is your first instinct? I would suspect inefficiency of service delivery before outright theft or embezzlement. (Unless Mr. of Sen. Feinstein were involved.)
- DerekL 3y ago
  There used to be many more SROs in the city. https://ccsroc.net/s-r-o-hotels-in-san-francisco/ https://ccsroc.net/s-r-o-hotels-in-san-francisco/ > S.R.O.’s, including residential hotel units and rooming houses, may have numbered as high as 90,000 in San Francisco at the inception of the 1930’s, meaning they were nearly as prevalent as apartments. By the early 1990’s the number of S.R.O. units in San Francisco had been reduced dramatically, to approximately 20,000.
- shaburn 3y ago
  I think Homeless is really a keyword for spending on <10,000 of the 750k+ people in SF who are X% target beneficiaries of those funds. Y% recipients dictate based on this <2% of the population.
  - pxmpxm 3y ago
    It certainly explains status quo - SF spends ~$57k per homeless person per year, yet is somehow unable to "solve" it despite that amount being more than median household income in this country. Demonstrably whatever the city is doing with money has nothing to do with solving homelessness.
- proc0 3y ago
  I think it's all about incentives and right now the current policies are completely oblivious to them. You need to deter people from even thinking about living outside. Just make it inconvenient. This may seem cruel at first but I think it discourages those who may have some alternatives left in their lives, maybe a relative or something like that. Once the system makes it inconvenient and deters people from certain risky life choices, those who are left will be a more manageable number of people to help out. I don't really know the details here but it's sure something that is not considered enough and instead everyone defaults to housing.
  - hdhdhsjsbdh 3y ago
    Do you really think it is convenient being homeless? The majority of people who are homeless have experienced levels of abuse, often beginning at a very young age, that are unimaginable to your average “well-adjusted” person. How high functioning do you think you would be if you were constantly beaten and raped as a child; if you were raised in an unstable environment full of constant violence; if you were exposed to addiction at a very young age? These things lead to severe mental illness – many homeless people, for instance, have been in states of constant psychosis for so long that it is nearly impossible for them to organize their thoughts enough to complete even basic tasks. Some people are so far gone that no amount of mental health support would help them. You argue that the policies are ignorant of incentives; I’d argue that you are ignorant of how truly differently a vast portion of the homeless population experience their existence on this planet. Your mental model of the incentives doesn’t apply to a population who don’t function the same way you do. It is not convenient being homeless, and making it even more difficult will not solve anything.
    - proc0 3y ago
      > Your mental model of the incentives doesn’t apply to a population who don’t function the same way you do We all function the same, we're all human. It comes down to how much do we want to prevent people from spiraling down in the first place. If the laws were enforced and it was socially unacceptable to tolerate homelessness, then I think many people would look for alternatives at any cost. This would then expose those who truly have no other options. Instead what we have now is enablement of that lifestyle, at least implicitly by allowing it, but also explicitly in many cities by subsidizing it. This makes it into a viable option for many who would rather take the risk than seek for help as soon as possible. If homelessness is so bad, why do we leave people to their own demise? Even with free housing it's not enough for many who struggle mentally, as you are pointing out. If someone is drowning they need to be forced out of the water instead of doing nothing because dragging them would hurt their arm.
NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
Defo got my click to find out about this novel "homelessness drug"!
- shaburn 3y ago
  Sorry.
soligern 3y ago
Just build free housing for the homeless. Build a large camp style rehab center. If you’re sleeping on the street you get arrested and get a choice to go to one of these two places. These homeless bums are currently provided with housing but since they can’t shoot you there they refuse to use them.
- deafpolygon 3y ago
  > Build a large camp style rehab center. I don't think the homeless deserves to be corralled up in one place like cattle. One of the best ways to help the homeless become less homeless is to firstly make them feel like a functioning human being again. Treat the issue (poverty, unemployment, depression, lack of self-worth) itself, not the symptom (homelessness, drug use).
  - soligern 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - jstarfish 3y ago
      > All you get is all the worst filth from all over the country migrating there to take advantage of free resources. This always happens when you don't ask for anything in return. Stop offering these programs for free. Make it an inpatient work/rehab program with mandatory work hours and weekend release.
jerojero 3y ago
The way homelessness has been tackled in Finland is by offering free housing, no string attached, to homeless people. I think there is a culture of "but people need to deserve it", and I guess because housing is so expensive in San Francisco it might seem like it's unfair that homeless people get free housing whereas someone with a job needs to spend 50% of their pay in housing. But if you want the problem to be solved, this seems to be way to go about it. Of course, governments need to also provide programs for reinsertion and rehabilitation, but people need the stability while they recover which is a process that will be full of ups and downs. For these people any barrier might be too high. So I think the rest of us need to come to terms with "giving away free stuff", that's just what works. Free housing for the homeless, no strings attached.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > offering free housing, no string attached, to homeless people What if everyone wants their free housing in Helsinki? California's problem isn't a lack of homes per se, it's a lack of homes where people want to live. (San Francisco also has a massive drug-use enforcement problem.)
  - kelseyfrog 3y ago
    Should we make decisions based on the what-ifs of the helsinkiläinen or reality?
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > Should we make decisions based on the what-ifs of the helsinkiläinen or reality? What works for Finland might not for California without us acknowledging that every homeless person who wants housing in San Francisco isn’t entitled to it. They can be entitled to housing. But not where they want it.
      - nullc 3y ago
        One challenge there is that many of the factors driving the location wants aren't entirely unreasonable: That "want" to live in proximity to the VA hospital that will provide them the medical services they need, they "want" to live in proximity to family members they can get (or sadly, often harass) some support out of. They "want" to live in a place where a poor ability to manage themselves and/or their substance addictions won't result in a quick death from exposure (or arrest).
archo 3y ago
https://archive.is/K2Wj1 https://archive.is/K2Wj1

29 points by shaburn 3y ago

[dead]

SF spends ~$1B/y on homelessness with little to show for it. Maybe they need to invest in more SROs on the outskirts and/or a federal declaration of a disaster including voluntary resettlement with comprehensive support. It's too big of an issue to solve at the local level, and it's too expensive to solve in the most expensive areas.

soligern 3y ago
[flagged]
zer8k 3y ago
The question you should be asking is how much is actually going to the homeless. A homelessness "tribunal" or whatever has a financial interest is keeping just enough homelessness around to keep their jobs. This isn't uncommon with other government projects and anyone who has been a contractor can attest to that. If they got homelessness to some absurdly low number surely the state would start to cut jobs. I would imagine applying Occam's Razor here would show that there's likely a significant amount of corruption in a program designed to solve something like homelessness. It's JUST vague enough that you can manufacture all sorts of reasons to keep the federal dollars flowing in.
- 1letterunixname 3y ago
  "Corruption" is your first instinct? I would suspect inefficiency of service delivery before outright theft or embezzlement. (Unless Mr. of Sen. Feinstein were involved.)
DerekL 3y ago
There used to be many more SROs in the city. https://ccsroc.net/s-r-o-hotels-in-san-francisco/ https://ccsroc.net/s-r-o-hotels-in-san-francisco/ > S.R.O.’s, including residential hotel units and rooming houses, may have numbered as high as 90,000 in San Francisco at the inception of the 1930’s, meaning they were nearly as prevalent as apartments. By the early 1990’s the number of S.R.O. units in San Francisco had been reduced dramatically, to approximately 20,000.
shaburn 3y ago
I think Homeless is really a keyword for spending on <10,000 of the 750k+ people in SF who are X% target beneficiaries of those funds. Y% recipients dictate based on this <2% of the population.
- pxmpxm 3y ago
  It certainly explains status quo - SF spends ~$57k per homeless person per year, yet is somehow unable to "solve" it despite that amount being more than median household income in this country. Demonstrably whatever the city is doing with money has nothing to do with solving homelessness.
proc0 3y ago
I think it's all about incentives and right now the current policies are completely oblivious to them. You need to deter people from even thinking about living outside. Just make it inconvenient. This may seem cruel at first but I think it discourages those who may have some alternatives left in their lives, maybe a relative or something like that. Once the system makes it inconvenient and deters people from certain risky life choices, those who are left will be a more manageable number of people to help out. I don't really know the details here but it's sure something that is not considered enough and instead everyone defaults to housing.
- hdhdhsjsbdh 3y ago
  Do you really think it is convenient being homeless? The majority of people who are homeless have experienced levels of abuse, often beginning at a very young age, that are unimaginable to your average “well-adjusted” person. How high functioning do you think you would be if you were constantly beaten and raped as a child; if you were raised in an unstable environment full of constant violence; if you were exposed to addiction at a very young age? These things lead to severe mental illness – many homeless people, for instance, have been in states of constant psychosis for so long that it is nearly impossible for them to organize their thoughts enough to complete even basic tasks. Some people are so far gone that no amount of mental health support would help them. You argue that the policies are ignorant of incentives; I’d argue that you are ignorant of how truly differently a vast portion of the homeless population experience their existence on this planet. Your mental model of the incentives doesn’t apply to a population who don’t function the same way you do. It is not convenient being homeless, and making it even more difficult will not solve anything.
  - proc0 3y ago
    > Your mental model of the incentives doesn’t apply to a population who don’t function the same way you do We all function the same, we're all human. It comes down to how much do we want to prevent people from spiraling down in the first place. If the laws were enforced and it was socially unacceptable to tolerate homelessness, then I think many people would look for alternatives at any cost. This would then expose those who truly have no other options. Instead what we have now is enablement of that lifestyle, at least implicitly by allowing it, but also explicitly in many cities by subsidizing it. This makes it into a viable option for many who would rather take the risk than seek for help as soon as possible. If homelessness is so bad, why do we leave people to their own demise? Even with free housing it's not enough for many who struggle mentally, as you are pointing out. If someone is drowning they need to be forced out of the water instead of doing nothing because dragging them would hurt their arm.

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago

Defo got my click to find out about this novel "homelessness drug"!

shaburn 3y ago
Sorry.

soligern 3y ago

Just build free housing for the homeless. Build a large camp style rehab center. If you’re sleeping on the street you get arrested and get a choice to go to one of these two places. These homeless bums are currently provided with housing but since they can’t shoot you there they refuse to use them.

deafpolygon 3y ago
> Build a large camp style rehab center. I don't think the homeless deserves to be corralled up in one place like cattle. One of the best ways to help the homeless become less homeless is to firstly make them feel like a functioning human being again. Treat the issue (poverty, unemployment, depression, lack of self-worth) itself, not the symptom (homelessness, drug use).
- soligern 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - jstarfish 3y ago
    > All you get is all the worst filth from all over the country migrating there to take advantage of free resources. This always happens when you don't ask for anything in return. Stop offering these programs for free. Make it an inpatient work/rehab program with mandatory work hours and weekend release.

jerojero 3y ago

The way homelessness has been tackled in Finland is by offering free housing, no string attached, to homeless people. I think there is a culture of "but people need to deserve it", and I guess because housing is so expensive in San Francisco it might seem like it's unfair that homeless people get free housing whereas someone with a job needs to spend 50% of their pay in housing. But if you want the problem to be solved, this seems to be way to go about it. Of course, governments need to also provide programs for reinsertion and rehabilitation, but people need the stability while they recover which is a process that will be full of ups and downs. For these people any barrier might be too high. So I think the rest of us need to come to terms with "giving away free stuff", that's just what works. Free housing for the homeless, no strings attached.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> offering free housing, no string attached, to homeless people What if everyone wants their free housing in Helsinki? California's problem isn't a lack of homes per se, it's a lack of homes where people want to live. (San Francisco also has a massive drug-use enforcement problem.)
- kelseyfrog 3y ago
  Should we make decisions based on the what-ifs of the helsinkiläinen or reality?
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Should we make decisions based on the what-ifs of the helsinkiläinen or reality? What works for Finland might not for California without us acknowledging that every homeless person who wants housing in San Francisco isn’t entitled to it. They can be entitled to housing. But not where they want it.
    - nullc 3y ago
      One challenge there is that many of the factors driving the location wants aren't entirely unreasonable: That "want" to live in proximity to the VA hospital that will provide them the medical services they need, they "want" to live in proximity to family members they can get (or sadly, often harass) some support out of. They "want" to live in a place where a poor ability to manage themselves and/or their substance addictions won't result in a quick death from exposure (or arrest).

archo 3y ago

https://archive.is/K2Wj1 https://archive.is/K2Wj1