6 ms·

Twitter was given a famously sweet deal by the city to occupy that troubled stretch of Market St. In the time I lived nearby (until the pandemic) the area never

Twitter was given a famously sweet deal by the city to occupy that troubled stretch of Market St. In the time I lived nearby (until the pandemic) the area never really improved. San Francisco has an odd tolerance for the tent communities, no just that it largely allows them, but that it allows them in and around the busiest and most publicly-utilized transit hubs and the city center.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
davedx 2y ago
What do you think the city should do with the tent communities?
- standardUser 2y ago
  Designate areas outside of the densest neighborhoods for tent communities to exist and clear out areas that have the highest public utilization.
- notfried 2y ago
  For starters, tents shouldn't be allowed in the downtown area, which is the heart of business, shopping and tourism in San Francisco. It is one of the most expensive areas to live, so just like most residents cannot afford to live there, it is only fair that homeless people don't live there as well.
- next_xibalba 2y ago
  Remove them. It is an abuse of the commons that creates a vicious cycle that will only exacerbate the problem. And for your next question, San Fran already spends $141k per year per homeless person. That’s 7x LA. It isn’t working because of the lack of accountability and oversight in the use of those funds and San Fran’s lax (even favorable treatment) of public drug use, public camping, and general lawlessness. Send them to a shelter, treatment, or jail. “Harm reduction” doesn’t work. Full stop.
  - davedx 2y ago
    Freakonomics have done some interesting coverage of the opioid epidemic and how spending more money on it doesn't necessarily lead to better outcomes. Having listened to what different people say about it, I'm not so sure that "harm reduction doesn't work" is something I can agree with. Addiction and homelessness just aren't trivial problems to solve. Sending people to jail sure doesn't help anything, does it? That being said, seeing it first hand is pretty shocking for sure. We stayed a couple of blocks from Tenderloin a few weeks ago and at one point drove down a side street that was just full of people doing meth (I think). Whatever SF is doing, it sure seems like it needs a course change.
- urda 2y ago
  Remove them, many are causing ADA violations. You don't get to break the law because you feel like it.
gtirloni 2y ago
> San Francisco has an odd tolerance for the tent communities When I visited SF for the first time in 2019, it felt really weird that such a rich place would have so many people living in tents in public spaces. Being naive, I saw dozens of tents in Sue Bierman Park and thought they were having an event or something. Then it dawned on me what I was seeing and it never made sense because certainly it doesn't take a lot of money to give these people something so they don't have to live in tents. Where I live (South America), the city had this situation about 20 years ago and what they did was buy a bunch of cheap land in the outskirts, build small houses and relocate these people. To avoid it being called charity, they "lent" the money that these people could pay in >50 years without interest. And this is a place with no tradition of philantrophy or billionaries. So I'd imagine a single billionarie could fix SF's situation in a blink of an eye, no?
- squigz 2y ago
  > So I'd imagine a single billionarie could fix SF's situation in a blink of an eye, no? There's no money in that though, and there's lots of money in keeping Americans divided.
- milkshakes 2y ago
  I don't think it's a resource allocation issue. SF government alone spends almost a billion a year[1] on trying to improve the situation. That's not including the non-profit spending. Money won't buy the city out of this situation as long as there exist people who don't want to live in homes and play by the rules. 1: https://hsh.sfgov.org/about/budget/ https://hsh.sfgov.org/about/budget/
  - maxerickson 2y ago
    Seems you need to evaluate the effectiveness of that spending to conclude that it can't be a resource allocation issue.
    - adolph 2y ago
      Maybe a problem could be on the allocation side rather than the resource side.
hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
I recall seeing some stories years ago was that one issue with Twitter (and most Bay area tech companies at the time) was that due to the presence of an on campus cafeteria, surrounding areas never got much benefit from Twitter's presence. That is, workers would show up to the building, and then essentially never leave (and spend money at nearby businesses) until the day was over and they went home.
- kjksf 2y ago
  Yes, that's how politicians and activists are shifting blame from their lack of interest in solving the issue to sacrificial goats. The streets are full of homeless and drugged out people? That's not the reason restaurants are failing, it's the tech bro's cafeteria! The house prices are sky high? It's not single house zoning and politicians blocking any house building, it's the rich tech bros gentrifying your neighborhood!
tedivm 2y ago
It allows them because of a court case that said they can't take them down unless they can provide shelter, and they've refused to build enough shelter space. The supreme court invalidated that decision, and so now they are allowed to tear the tent cities down again without having to actually find people shelter space. I imagine a lot of these encampments are going to be torn down (which will just cause them to relocate until they end up at a place where no one cares).
- brookst 2y ago
  Mostly agree, but there are few places no one cares. The pattern is generally that they just get chased around from one place to another, forever.
- kjksf 2y ago
  San Francisco was ignoring this problem for at least 10 years before that judgement happened. Not to mention the issue there wasn't exactly that the city was trying to do something but the fact that they were fining them and plaintiffs claimed the fines were so large that they were "cruel and unusual punishment" which is non-constitutional. So no, it's 100% political and bureaucratic apathy over many years, not one court case.
  - PM_me_your_math 2y ago
    [dead]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

davedx 2y ago

What do you think the city should do with the tent communities?

standardUser 2y ago
Designate areas outside of the densest neighborhoods for tent communities to exist and clear out areas that have the highest public utilization.
notfried 2y ago
For starters, tents shouldn't be allowed in the downtown area, which is the heart of business, shopping and tourism in San Francisco. It is one of the most expensive areas to live, so just like most residents cannot afford to live there, it is only fair that homeless people don't live there as well.
next_xibalba 2y ago
Remove them. It is an abuse of the commons that creates a vicious cycle that will only exacerbate the problem. And for your next question, San Fran already spends $141k per year per homeless person. That’s 7x LA. It isn’t working because of the lack of accountability and oversight in the use of those funds and San Fran’s lax (even favorable treatment) of public drug use, public camping, and general lawlessness. Send them to a shelter, treatment, or jail. “Harm reduction” doesn’t work. Full stop.
- davedx 2y ago
  Freakonomics have done some interesting coverage of the opioid epidemic and how spending more money on it doesn't necessarily lead to better outcomes. Having listened to what different people say about it, I'm not so sure that "harm reduction doesn't work" is something I can agree with. Addiction and homelessness just aren't trivial problems to solve. Sending people to jail sure doesn't help anything, does it? That being said, seeing it first hand is pretty shocking for sure. We stayed a couple of blocks from Tenderloin a few weeks ago and at one point drove down a side street that was just full of people doing meth (I think). Whatever SF is doing, it sure seems like it needs a course change.
urda 2y ago
Remove them, many are causing ADA violations. You don't get to break the law because you feel like it.

gtirloni 2y ago

> San Francisco has an odd tolerance for the tent communities When I visited SF for the first time in 2019, it felt really weird that such a rich place would have so many people living in tents in public spaces. Being naive, I saw dozens of tents in Sue Bierman Park and thought they were having an event or something. Then it dawned on me what I was seeing and it never made sense because certainly it doesn't take a lot of money to give these people something so they don't have to live in tents. Where I live (South America), the city had this situation about 20 years ago and what they did was buy a bunch of cheap land in the outskirts, build small houses and relocate these people. To avoid it being called charity, they "lent" the money that these people could pay in >50 years without interest. And this is a place with no tradition of philantrophy or billionaries. So I'd imagine a single billionarie could fix SF's situation in a blink of an eye, no?

squigz 2y ago
> So I'd imagine a single billionarie could fix SF's situation in a blink of an eye, no? There's no money in that though, and there's lots of money in keeping Americans divided.
milkshakes 2y ago
I don't think it's a resource allocation issue. SF government alone spends almost a billion a year[1] on trying to improve the situation. That's not including the non-profit spending. Money won't buy the city out of this situation as long as there exist people who don't want to live in homes and play by the rules. 1: https://hsh.sfgov.org/about/budget/ https://hsh.sfgov.org/about/budget/
- maxerickson 2y ago
  Seems you need to evaluate the effectiveness of that spending to conclude that it can't be a resource allocation issue.
  - adolph 2y ago
    Maybe a problem could be on the allocation side rather than the resource side.

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago

I recall seeing some stories years ago was that one issue with Twitter (and most Bay area tech companies at the time) was that due to the presence of an on campus cafeteria, surrounding areas never got much benefit from Twitter's presence. That is, workers would show up to the building, and then essentially never leave (and spend money at nearby businesses) until the day was over and they went home.

kjksf 2y ago
Yes, that's how politicians and activists are shifting blame from their lack of interest in solving the issue to sacrificial goats. The streets are full of homeless and drugged out people? That's not the reason restaurants are failing, it's the tech bro's cafeteria! The house prices are sky high? It's not single house zoning and politicians blocking any house building, it's the rich tech bros gentrifying your neighborhood!

tedivm 2y ago

It allows them because of a court case that said they can't take them down unless they can provide shelter, and they've refused to build enough shelter space. The supreme court invalidated that decision, and so now they are allowed to tear the tent cities down again without having to actually find people shelter space. I imagine a lot of these encampments are going to be torn down (which will just cause them to relocate until they end up at a place where no one cares).

brookst 2y ago
Mostly agree, but there are few places no one cares. The pattern is generally that they just get chased around from one place to another, forever.
kjksf 2y ago
San Francisco was ignoring this problem for at least 10 years before that judgement happened. Not to mention the issue there wasn't exactly that the city was trying to do something but the fact that they were fining them and plaintiffs claimed the fines were so large that they were "cruel and unusual punishment" which is non-constitutional. So no, it's 100% political and bureaucratic apathy over many years, not one court case.
- PM_me_your_math 2y ago
  [dead]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]