3 ms·

Temporary tents seem to be more tolerated. There are a few I see every night in my area, but they aren't there during the day. Its the semipermanent encampments

by dexwiz 1y ago

Temporary tents seem to be more tolerated. There are a few I see every night in my area, but they aren't there during the day. Its the semipermanent encampments that are really being targeted. I see less full-time living on the sidewalk, but there are definitely people still sleeping there.

BobaFloutist 1y ago
I think a big part of the problem is that if you allow large, semipermanent encampments or groups of RVs, you eventually end up with huge mounds of trash. Some of it is supposedly from other people dumping trash, but some of it is absolutely from residents hoarding, and it makes the footprint balloon out of control into sidewalks, streets, parks, and any other flat bit of space, until the area becomes pretty unusable for anyone not living there. Which makes a hands off approach politically untenable.
- fragmede 1y ago
  Yeah, but why not come out and make the actual problem - trash and fires - the issue (and it is a big issue), and not RVs more broadly. Institute a we-will-kick-you-out-if-there's-a-mountain-of-trash law and do sweeps (as they have been doing).
  - lotsofpulp 1y ago
    Because it’s faster and cheaper to prevent the problem rather than clean it up afterwards.
    - fragmede 1y ago
      Sure, but somehow I don't think banning poor people from reproducing is likely to go over well, so what makes this stage the right place to stop the problem at instead of earlier/later?
      - lotsofpulp 1y ago
        The right place to stop the problem for a city/county/state government in a country with freedom of movement is different than the right place to stop for a federal government with immigration controls. I.e. SF is never going to be able to fix the problem of people being too poor (or addicted or mentally ill or whatever), due to arbitrage opportunities.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- dexwiz 1y ago
  Absolutely. The overnight tents I see are much tidier. Usually they take up a very small footprint, have a well secured tarp, and look like they get rolled up neatly every day. They aren't accompanied by a hoard of refuse.

by dexwiz 1y ago

BobaFloutist 1y ago

I think a big part of the problem is that if you allow large, semipermanent encampments or groups of RVs, you eventually end up with huge mounds of trash. Some of it is supposedly from other people dumping trash, but some of it is absolutely from residents hoarding, and it makes the footprint balloon out of control into sidewalks, streets, parks, and any other flat bit of space, until the area becomes pretty unusable for anyone not living there. Which makes a hands off approach politically untenable.

fragmede 1y ago
Yeah, but why not come out and make the actual problem - trash and fires - the issue (and it is a big issue), and not RVs more broadly. Institute a we-will-kick-you-out-if-there's-a-mountain-of-trash law and do sweeps (as they have been doing).
- lotsofpulp 1y ago
  Because it’s faster and cheaper to prevent the problem rather than clean it up afterwards.
  - fragmede 1y ago
    Sure, but somehow I don't think banning poor people from reproducing is likely to go over well, so what makes this stage the right place to stop the problem at instead of earlier/later?
    - lotsofpulp 1y ago
      The right place to stop the problem for a city/county/state government in a country with freedom of movement is different than the right place to stop for a federal government with immigration controls. I.e. SF is never going to be able to fix the problem of people being too poor (or addicted or mentally ill or whatever), due to arbitrage opportunities.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
dexwiz 1y ago
Absolutely. The overnight tents I see are much tidier. Usually they take up a very small footprint, have a well secured tarp, and look like they get rolled up neatly every day. They aren't accompanied by a hoard of refuse.