Homeless Population Jumps by Thousands Across the San Francisco Bay Area(latimes.com)
latimes.com
Homeless Population Jumps by Thousands Across the San Francisco Bay Area
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-northern-california-homeless-count-20190517-story.html
269 comments
I agree. Grouping together "Mentally ill and/or severely drug addicted homeless person dropping syringes and trash across the city" with "Reasonably normal person who has had really bad luck, or has some weaknesses in maintaining employment but is otherwise a functioning adult" does a huge disservice to any conversation on homelessness.
Maybe, but it’s disturbingly easy for the latter to become the former.
Correct. It’s a quick jump from one to the other. I suspect most people disregard that by saying “well I’d never sink that low if I were homeless.”
What purpose does this distinction serve? It's not obvious that it's better to set them apart. Homelessness is a spectrum of states people can move between. This distinction makes it easier for people to only care about the "good" homeless and forget about the rest.
They are different problems with different solutions.
The victims of the "bad" homeless are the rest of society. The victims are the people who are assaulted, they're the people whose property is damaged, they're the people who commute by car instead of by bus/train because public transportation isn't safe, they're the people whose communities are destroyed. The solution to this problem is to wall these people off from the rest of society.
The victims of the "good" homeless are the homeless people themselves. The solution to this problem is homeless shelters, universal healthcare, affordable housing, and a stronger social safety net.
The fact that we don't acknowledge how radically different these problems are means that we solve neither of them. Nobody wants to welcome the "bad" homeless back into our communities or give them free handouts, and nobody wants to criminalize health conditions that make it difficult to work, or temporary setbacks that could be overcome if they had a safe place to sleep.
The purpose the distinction serves is to have the correct conversation about these problems. It's to help the "good" homeless who just need a little help, and to limit the catastrophic damage the "bad" homeless are doing to our society.
The victims of the "bad" homeless are the rest of society. The victims are the people who are assaulted, they're the people whose property is damaged, they're the people who commute by car instead of by bus/train because public transportation isn't safe, they're the people whose communities are destroyed. The solution to this problem is to wall these people off from the rest of society.
The victims of the "good" homeless are the homeless people themselves. The solution to this problem is homeless shelters, universal healthcare, affordable housing, and a stronger social safety net.
The fact that we don't acknowledge how radically different these problems are means that we solve neither of them. Nobody wants to welcome the "bad" homeless back into our communities or give them free handouts, and nobody wants to criminalize health conditions that make it difficult to work, or temporary setbacks that could be overcome if they had a safe place to sleep.
The purpose the distinction serves is to have the correct conversation about these problems. It's to help the "good" homeless who just need a little help, and to limit the catastrophic damage the "bad" homeless are doing to our society.
> The solution to this problem is to wall these ["bad" homeless] people off from the rest of society.
That shows a disturbing lack of understanding and empathy. A lot of people who you term "bad" homeless started out "good" but saw their mental state severely deteriorate as a consequence of being homeless.
And even for people for whom that's not the case, the solution is to find them help for their mental health issues. Yes, a part of that might involve involuntary commitment to an institution (though CA has lost its ability to do that for the most part), but... damn, "wall these people off from the rest of society"? That's pretty heartless.
That shows a disturbing lack of understanding and empathy. A lot of people who you term "bad" homeless started out "good" but saw their mental state severely deteriorate as a consequence of being homeless.
And even for people for whom that's not the case, the solution is to find them help for their mental health issues. Yes, a part of that might involve involuntary commitment to an institution (though CA has lost its ability to do that for the most part), but... damn, "wall these people off from the rest of society"? That's pretty heartless.
> Yes, a part of that might involve involuntary commitment to an institution (though CA has lost its ability to do that for the most part), but... damn, "wall these people off from the rest of society"? That's pretty heartless.
Aren’t you agreeing here in all but tone?
Aren’t you agreeing here in all but tone?
Not really. The parent's suggestion, taken at face value, is to simply isolate the "bad" homeless people from the rest of us. Nowhere is there a suggestion of rehabilitation and reintegration.
Not to mention that I'd expect only the worst cases would require institutionalization. Many with behavioral problems could likely be helped greatly with regular therapy sessions and possibly some medication. No need to put them in an institution for any amount of time.
Not to mention that I'd expect only the worst cases would require institutionalization. Many with behavioral problems could likely be helped greatly with regular therapy sessions and possibly some medication. No need to put them in an institution for any amount of time.
I don't think so. There is a huge difference between "wall them off from society" and "wall them off from society and help them". And nwallin is quite explicit in that he only wants to help the "good" homeless.
The rest of society are victims of the "bad" homeless (so walling them off may be necessary), but that does not mean that they are not also their own victims.
[deleted]
It definitely can have the problem of making one group get less attention. However, the solution to one isn't the same as the other. Helping someone who's in the street because of a mental illness means providing them with treatment. Helping someone who's in the street because they can't afford it means more housing, more job, better minimum wage, whatever.
You want both to happen, but its important to know that there's two category of things that need to happen.
You want both to happen, but its important to know that there's two category of things that need to happen.
They interact. Being homeless or without money makes your mental health worst in all aspects. Having bad mental health just slightly makes you more likely to become poor (dur to more likely fired or just bad decisions).
I think it’s extremely important to know how many homeless are profoundly addicted and in a state of total collapse vs how many ar employed but at too low a salary to obtain stable housing. I don’t think this disctinction exists purely to judge, not at all.
Agreed, but I don't think that makes it useless to keep track of the general total.
Why wouldn’t you have this distinction? If you take “homeless” as an issue then I would want a breakout Pareto of those that have mental issues, those that are due to economy, those that are war veterans...etc because when you start to look at solutions you want to know where to focus first to best remedy the issue. That “spectrum of states” has a “spectrum of solutions.”
The tactics to combat each kind are completely different. At least they are once they have become grouped like that.
By "combat", you mean help?
Yes. Did you reply in good faith or not a native English speaker? Or maybe it’s an American thing?
Otherwise, the usage is pretty normal. If I had used “fight” would you also say did I mean to help? Since that’s an incredibly common word to use and it’s also technically an aggressive word.
Otherwise, the usage is pretty normal. If I had used “fight” would you also say did I mean to help? Since that’s an incredibly common word to use and it’s also technically an aggressive word.
... and so we had the war on homelessness, which over time began to be called the war on the homeless.
You could also use my comment in good faith and not turn it into some underlying negative hit piece. The same could be done to a number of your recent comments by taking a word or phrase out of context or from obliviousness (like fear mongering) — when you were clearly not using them in negative ways.
Well, I think one group can be diverted towards receiving mental health treatment of some sort, while the other requires a higher salary and/or more affordable housing.
Because the intervention that would help people is different based on the forces driving their problems.
> It means a severely addicted and mentally ill person who lives on the street.
To whom? To me, "homeless" is "someone without a home" (I'd also consider someone living in a car to be homeless). It doesn't matter to me how they got there or whether or not they suffer from a mental illness or some ailment that makes it difficult or impossible to find work. Bottom line is that they don't have stable shelter, and that alone is a huge problem.
The solution for any individual who is homeless certainly varies based on their physical and mental condition, but I don't see a problem with counting all categories of people together.
To whom? To me, "homeless" is "someone without a home" (I'd also consider someone living in a car to be homeless). It doesn't matter to me how they got there or whether or not they suffer from a mental illness or some ailment that makes it difficult or impossible to find work. Bottom line is that they don't have stable shelter, and that alone is a huge problem.
The solution for any individual who is homeless certainly varies based on their physical and mental condition, but I don't see a problem with counting all categories of people together.
The problem with counting them altogether is that there are many in that group, even a majority that can be rehabilitated to not being homeless. And lumping them altogether and then labeling solutions which are applied to the entire group as having failed because they did not help those who could not be helped gives us a convenient excuse to not help those that could be helped.
Also someone who is initially down on their luck may be helped, but if you let them continue in this situation they may soon become someone beyond help. Immediate intervention is needed if someone becomes homeless to see if you can get them out of it as quickly as possible, before their bad luck multiplies and they become a lost cause. Someone on the street for a month is still employable, someone on the street for 2-3 years much less so.
Also someone who is initially down on their luck may be helped, but if you let them continue in this situation they may soon become someone beyond help. Immediate intervention is needed if someone becomes homeless to see if you can get them out of it as quickly as possible, before their bad luck multiplies and they become a lost cause. Someone on the street for a month is still employable, someone on the street for 2-3 years much less so.
Hitting the 1 year mark. So close to being a lost cause. Stopped applying for software engineering jobs early on. Now waiting tables near Google HQ and consider myself unemployable in tech after 19 years, starting at age 15. A shame. Still paying for the CS degree I got mid-career, thinking it was an investment and now it mocks me with default threats. The interview process is no place for a homeless person.
I certainly agree, what gets lost in the discussion is that people who have no permanent address are a population not a type. That population has many different types of people among it (as does any population). One need only volunteer at a food bank or a shelter to see how widely variable these types are.
The discussion for helping different types need different solutions. We need substance abuse clinics and counselling for the folks whose addictions have resulted in them becoming non-functional. We need housing assistance for the under employed who are working but cannot afford to both feed themselves (and often their families) and pay rent for a place to live. We need mental health services for people who are suffering with mental health issues, both genetic and non-genetic (for example someone who is diagnosed schizophrenic needs a different support system than someone suffering from PTSD or TBI. We need to create meaningful and functional communities for people whose challenges or disabilities make it impossible to participate in the existing communities.
There isn't "one" fix that we can apply because there isn't "one" type of person associated with the label "homeless."
What I have observed, is that people who are opposed to any state assistance of any kind to anyone (and there are people across the political spectrum in this group) will argue against any fix by holding it up against the type of homeless person for which it provides no benefit. They will argue against drug rehab using people who need housing assistance. They will argue against mental health services using people who need drug rehab. They will argue again housing assistance using people who need mental health services. It is sadly easier to get people to say 'no' because the solution is not generalized than it is to get people to agree to move forward because at least it helps someone.
The discussion for helping different types need different solutions. We need substance abuse clinics and counselling for the folks whose addictions have resulted in them becoming non-functional. We need housing assistance for the under employed who are working but cannot afford to both feed themselves (and often their families) and pay rent for a place to live. We need mental health services for people who are suffering with mental health issues, both genetic and non-genetic (for example someone who is diagnosed schizophrenic needs a different support system than someone suffering from PTSD or TBI. We need to create meaningful and functional communities for people whose challenges or disabilities make it impossible to participate in the existing communities.
There isn't "one" fix that we can apply because there isn't "one" type of person associated with the label "homeless."
What I have observed, is that people who are opposed to any state assistance of any kind to anyone (and there are people across the political spectrum in this group) will argue against any fix by holding it up against the type of homeless person for which it provides no benefit. They will argue against drug rehab using people who need housing assistance. They will argue against mental health services using people who need drug rehab. They will argue again housing assistance using people who need mental health services. It is sadly easier to get people to say 'no' because the solution is not generalized than it is to get people to agree to move forward because at least it helps someone.
I still remember the first tram I caught in SF, an elderly asian man boarded the tram and bumped into a homeless person. He apologized profusely, and the man turned around and the punched him directly in the face.
No one (including me) did anything or even looked twice.
Disgusting place.
No one (including me) did anything or even looked twice.
Disgusting place.
I'm one of the homeless you speak of, since last year. I came to the BA in 2011 after graduating Uni and worked as a programmer, to SF in 2014, and then had my reputation destroyed in 2016 by a false assault allegation by my old boss to HR--limiting job prospects via black list. I've an uncommon name and rare specialization.
I think of "destitute" as the keyword, at various layers of Maslow's hierarchy. The ones you talk about are destitute socially but probably have food and temporary sleeping provisions, seldom rising above the 3rd layer into esteem tho. I have a bit of my old network supporting me, and I sometimes think I'll get off the street.
I work as a waiter 30hr/wk in Mountain View at minimum wage, and don't make enough money yet to have housing prospects. Answering interview questions without needs being met sends overwhelmingly negative signals. I have all my professional stuff like books and computers in a storage unit, but rarely have a place to use it.
I don't apply for high paying jobs in my field because I know that I lack the basic necessities to make a good impression. I've tried and do entertain opportunities that fall on my lap, but I always make a blunder due to not having the resources I need and they fade away. It feels safter to not try, given domino effects of interviewing poorly (permanent record, data). "Learned helplessness" for sure. I was hired to my current job on the spot, thankfully, and almost didn't get it due to logistic issues that I'm intentionally vague about.
Personally I was not a supporter of Prop C and take no government assistance, instead fasting and meditating when I can't earn money and nobody in my network can help me out.
We'll get through this. I'm staying strong.
I think of "destitute" as the keyword, at various layers of Maslow's hierarchy. The ones you talk about are destitute socially but probably have food and temporary sleeping provisions, seldom rising above the 3rd layer into esteem tho. I have a bit of my old network supporting me, and I sometimes think I'll get off the street.
I work as a waiter 30hr/wk in Mountain View at minimum wage, and don't make enough money yet to have housing prospects. Answering interview questions without needs being met sends overwhelmingly negative signals. I have all my professional stuff like books and computers in a storage unit, but rarely have a place to use it.
I don't apply for high paying jobs in my field because I know that I lack the basic necessities to make a good impression. I've tried and do entertain opportunities that fall on my lap, but I always make a blunder due to not having the resources I need and they fade away. It feels safter to not try, given domino effects of interviewing poorly (permanent record, data). "Learned helplessness" for sure. I was hired to my current job on the spot, thankfully, and almost didn't get it due to logistic issues that I'm intentionally vague about.
Personally I was not a supporter of Prop C and take no government assistance, instead fasting and meditating when I can't earn money and nobody in my network can help me out.
We'll get through this. I'm staying strong.
This is the problem right here.
A person working a job 30 hours a week, does not make enough money to afford a place to live. And it's not that they have to live in a shitty place, it's not that they need roommates, they just don't have anywhere to stay. This should be unacceptable for a society.
Wages are too low, and housing prices are too high. Those are the 2 problems that need to be fixed. And for the housing problem the only way to get rid of it,is build, build, build. Make building new houses cheaper, and development worth it, and prices will go down.
A person working a job 30 hours a week, does not make enough money to afford a place to live. And it's not that they have to live in a shitty place, it's not that they need roommates, they just don't have anywhere to stay. This should be unacceptable for a society.
Wages are too low, and housing prices are too high. Those are the 2 problems that need to be fixed. And for the housing problem the only way to get rid of it,is build, build, build. Make building new houses cheaper, and development worth it, and prices will go down.
the problem is this guy wants to live in an area where you need a large stable source of income and he doesn’t have it. he should move.
your online presence paints you as crazy, especially your twitter. your personal website would make me avoid hiring you for sure too. take all that crap down and send some resumes out in a different part of the country. there's no sense killing yourself to make it in the bay area.
I'll step in quickly to say this is probably good advice, even if it's in the spirit of tough love. You described a feeling of destitution and no doubt that is being reflected in your online presence, and it may be best to refrain from tweeting until you feel in a better place mentally. I wish you the best of luck.
Well put. I have some level of empathy/understanding for why he would feel compelled to write Tweets like that, given his personal situation.
That said, there are _definitely_ a couple of tweets/photos I would STRONGLY suggest removing. The first thing prospective employers do is take a look at your social media.
That said, there are _definitely_ a couple of tweets/photos I would STRONGLY suggest removing. The first thing prospective employers do is take a look at your social media.
I haven't found his twitter presence and feel a bit creepy trying to, but I think you are being pretty uncharitable. His personal website may not exactly sparkle, but I don't think it paints him as crazy and there many talented techies out there who have successful careers with an even less polished of a personal website. Let's not fool ourselves into believing that tough love is what everyone needs. Let's also not fall into the trap of believing that everyone who is struggling is struggling because of obvious mistakes they made. Bad luck that plays a much larger role in many people lives than you might imagine if you have lived comfortably.
The twitter account is quite a bit 'crazier' than the personal website.
EDIT: not that there's anything wrong with that per se.
EDIT: not that there's anything wrong with that per se.
I don't think someone deserves to be destitute just because they have a fragile worldview and are sour at their poor prospects. Material security is a great way to deradicalize people and keep them from getting there in the first place.
No one deserves to be destitute, which is why we have a social safety net (and should have a stronger one). But as an employer, the danger of hiring someone who appears unstable is high: how will they treat their coworkers? What happens if they have a bad day right before a deadline? What if a customer criticizes them and their coping mechanisms break down?
Some jobs specifically have structures in place to help people make those transitions: lots of structure, clear direction, very specific expectations, independent work, separating customer-facing and non-customer-facing roles, close oversight of interpersonal interactions. Fewer tech companies expect to provide that kind of transitional support and most aren't willing to put themselves in a position where they would have to.
Painting a public persona that makes people want to work with you is the most basic of sales techniques. No one deserves to be destitute, but no one is guaranteed a high-paying tech job either.
Some jobs specifically have structures in place to help people make those transitions: lots of structure, clear direction, very specific expectations, independent work, separating customer-facing and non-customer-facing roles, close oversight of interpersonal interactions. Fewer tech companies expect to provide that kind of transitional support and most aren't willing to put themselves in a position where they would have to.
Painting a public persona that makes people want to work with you is the most basic of sales techniques. No one deserves to be destitute, but no one is guaranteed a high-paying tech job either.
I don't think the parent was suggesting the grandparent deserves to be destitute, but was offering some tough-love advice that might make him more hireable.
[deleted]
Thanks so much for sharing your story. I believe you can get through it.
Would you be willing to explain why you don't take government assistance? Is it because the sort of assistance available isn't helpful to you or is it because you disagree with idea of government assistance in principle? From what you say about needing to meet basic needs before you can make a good impression in job interviews, it seems like some temporary assistance from the government or otherwise could have a big impact in getting you back on your feet. It would be nice to know whether you are someone the government could help if the programs were structured right or someone who just refuses to take government assistance on principle.
Would you be willing to explain why you don't take government assistance? Is it because the sort of assistance available isn't helpful to you or is it because you disagree with idea of government assistance in principle? From what you say about needing to meet basic needs before you can make a good impression in job interviews, it seems like some temporary assistance from the government or otherwise could have a big impact in getting you back on your feet. It would be nice to know whether you are someone the government could help if the programs were structured right or someone who just refuses to take government assistance on principle.
Why not take the food stamps you are entitled to? I bet you none of the people here who bought homes are forgoing their mortgage interest deductions and just fasting and meditating instead. And you'll probably qualify for the EITC too.
Those programs are there for a reason, and there is no nobility in starving yourself to avoid some paperwork.
Those programs are there for a reason, and there is no nobility in starving yourself to avoid some paperwork.
I would get a bus ticket and get out. Start with a government job in a smaller city perhaps, and get yourself on your feet. Small steps instead of big leaps. Good luck, and thanks for sharing your story.
Not that I'm disputing what you are saying at all, but I do really wonder whether a "black list" really exists. There are plenty of people hiring software engineers here, I don't think word-of-mouth is THAT powerful that a low-level engineering manager who didn't like you can completely ruin your future job prospects. As long as you do not have a criminal record or bad publicity from the false allegation, you should be all right.
If you feel comfortable reaching out, I am more than happy to refer you to a couple of really great companies that I have personal connections to that are hiring! I also know some people personally that were in similar "down on their luck" situations as you that were able to rebound that can definitely help.
There are many companies here that would love to be portrayed as doing positive social good by hiring homeless.
If you feel comfortable reaching out, I am more than happy to refer you to a couple of really great companies that I have personal connections to that are hiring! I also know some people personally that were in similar "down on their luck" situations as you that were able to rebound that can definitely help.
There are many companies here that would love to be portrayed as doing positive social good by hiring homeless.
You can use an alias, you'd be surprised how easy it is. Or use your middle name as your go by name.
Thanks for sharing your story. Your contribution greatly illuminates this conversation for the rest of us.
Did you just get the job and don't have enough savings for rent? I see rooms for rent from $500-700/mo in mountain view.
I was just at the Mountain View Walmart last night and I noticed a lot of campers in the parking lot. Maybe that could be an option for you?
Really?
Yes, I did this for about three months when I first moved to California. I was flat broke and it gave me a chance to stay dry and save up money.
There's a huge difference between voluntarily living in a van in the Google parking lot while saving for a downpayment with your engineering salary or lowering your burn rate for your bootstrapped startup -- and actually being homeless [1].
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/google-employee-lives-in-tru...
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/google-employee-lives-in-tru...
This is why I rarely post on the internet. So easy to misunderstand tone. I seems as if you are mis-understanding my original post. I was only hoping for the best for Harlanji based upon my personal experience. BTW, I was delivering furniture that first year.
[deleted]
San Francisco gives homeless people $520/month in cash. Unclear whether other Bay Area cities do the same. This is quite the incentive for homeless from around the state to move here, though. Whether or not it causes people to move here, it certainly funds much of the drug-fueled insanity we see on the streets.
This program gives out around $25 mil/year: https://www.sfhsa.org/services/jobs-money/county-adult-assis...
Most of the money is given out in the Tenderloin: https://www.sfhsa.org/file/7161/download?token=ywGXXXRl
More info: https://www.sfhsa.org/about/reports-publications/human-servi...
This program gives out around $25 mil/year: https://www.sfhsa.org/services/jobs-money/county-adult-assis...
Most of the money is given out in the Tenderloin: https://www.sfhsa.org/file/7161/download?token=ywGXXXRl
More info: https://www.sfhsa.org/about/reports-publications/human-servi...
The phenomenon you're talking about wouldn't explain much of the problem, given that most homeless people lived here before they were homeless. In the 2017 census, 69% of SF homeless were from SF, and 21% were from elsewhere in CA. 10% out of state.
This surprised me so I checked, the detail is: "Sixty-nine percent (69%) of respondents reported they were living in San Francisco at the time they
most recently became homeless. Of those, over half (55%) had lived in San Francisco for 10 or more
years. Eight percent (8%) had lived in San Francisco for less than one year. "
So comes to 38% of homeless had previously been living in SF for 10 years.
Is Page 22 here: http://hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/2017-SF-Poin...
So comes to 38% of homeless had previously been living in SF for 10 years.
Is Page 22 here: http://hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/2017-SF-Poin...
It seems to be a misleading statistic. I think it would probably include someone who moved to SF while homeless, found a home for a few weeks or months, and became homeless again.
Additionally, CA is a big state, and a lot those who came to it from elsewhere in CA might have been attracted to SF by its programs, economy, weather, parks, etc.
So the view that the vast majority of homeless people living in places where housing is unaffordable are there (instead of a place where housing is cheaper) in order to maintain their social connections is an inaccurate one.
Additionally, CA is a big state, and a lot those who came to it from elsewhere in CA might have been attracted to SF by its programs, economy, weather, parks, etc.
So the view that the vast majority of homeless people living in places where housing is unaffordable are there (instead of a place where housing is cheaper) in order to maintain their social connections is an inaccurate one.
By your own numbers, 31% of homeless in SF, nearly a third, came from either elsewhere in the state (as OP posits) or another state entirely. That's a pretty big chunk of the problem.
I'm not sure how you solve that particular part of the problem, though. If your city attracts non-local homeless people because your services for homeless people are good, cutting or eliminating those services doesn't solve the problem. It just makes living conditions worse for the people who are already there, and makes it even harder for them to get by. Leaving often isn't an option; if you can barely afford food, how can you afford a bus ticket elsewhere? And even if you could, that's still a risky proposition, striking out for a new city where you have no idea what the homeless scene is like.
Why is that a problem? A big chunk of the housed population came from another state entirely as well.
The 21% of "other CA county" is likely heavily tilted towards Bay Area counties. (I really wish the PIT Count would break this out in a future survey.)
And how many left the city?
Way more.
Way more.
Are these self-reported numbers or from some sort of verifiable source?
It’s plausible to consider that people being asked would be reluctant to say they are not from the locality for fear of being told to leave and “go back to where you came from”.
While resources are limited, if this cash program is shown to make improvements, then it should be considered to be scaled out to other areas, not contracted for fear of additional migration.
It’s plausible to consider that people being asked would be reluctant to say they are not from the locality for fear of being told to leave and “go back to where you came from”.
While resources are limited, if this cash program is shown to make improvements, then it should be considered to be scaled out to other areas, not contracted for fear of additional migration.
The numbers are suspect. There is a survey where the interviewer asks the question. It is in the interviewer, the interviewed, and the greater homeless industrial complex that the answer is yes I am from San Francisco and I previously had a home. The survey supports bad policy decisions and gives apologists a citation.
These stats are nonsense.
* it’s self reported
* it ignores that people drift in and out of shelters and public housing, they move to SF for that exact reason!
Homeless people absolutely come to SF and Seattle from elsewhere, because there are the best drugs, no enforcement, and the biggest community
* it’s self reported
* it ignores that people drift in and out of shelters and public housing, they move to SF for that exact reason!
Homeless people absolutely come to SF and Seattle from elsewhere, because there are the best drugs, no enforcement, and the biggest community
It's strange that statements like your "the best drugs" theory are allowed to stand uncontested when there is a plethora of evidence showing that homelessness is largely caused by housing unaffordability.
Nothing is affordable when you are addicted to opiates, and have to spend every cent to get them.
No one who has been to SF within the last few years would contest that the majority of the homeless there are drug addicts, due to the effective legalization of buying and selling drugs its right in front of your eyes (and under your feet in the form of needles)
No one who has been to SF within the last few years would contest that the majority of the homeless there are drug addicts, due to the effective legalization of buying and selling drugs its right in front of your eyes (and under your feet in the form of needles)
The replies from several homeless and articulate folks on this thread, who are both working and homeless appear to contradict your assertion. Once you are homeless for some time, I assume you will automatically fall to drug-addiction as a means to mentally escape your situation. Especially when the way out looks so hopeless and difficult.
[deleted]
Got a link to the methodology? I'd be interested in knowing what timeframe they use for "lived here". 3 years, 5 years? Also, how long were they housed, and what kind of housing was it (public assistance, private room rental).
Isn’t this based on self-answered surveys and not hard verifiable information to establish residency? The homeless and activists/nonprofits advocating on their behalf have an incentive to make it look like they’re mostly local.
It's on an EBT card [1] but can be used to withdraw cash from fee-less ATMs.
[1]: https://www.sfhsa.org/services/jobs-money/county-adult-assis...
[1]: https://www.sfhsa.org/services/jobs-money/county-adult-assis...
The guardian made a piece that SF is a net exporter of homeless people.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/dec/...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/dec/...
Well, they've gotta spend that 300 million dollars a year somehow ( i think that was increased recently to 500 million? ). i know some of it goes to housing assistance.
$500 doesn’t get you very far on an opioid addiction.
Hopefully, this does not get down-voted.
I have lived all over the US, and noticed that only in California do I find young homeless people. They generally seem happy and even have dogs.
I never saw this in NYC or anywhere else on the East Coast or in the Midwest.
Is there a reason why the demographics would be different?
I have lived all over the US, and noticed that only in California do I find young homeless people. They generally seem happy and even have dogs.
I never saw this in NYC or anywhere else on the East Coast or in the Midwest.
Is there a reason why the demographics would be different?
Weather. I used to be homeless in Toronto (at lived in the Don Valley forest for a time) and it's actually kinda fun - in the summer.
As soon as that first cold spike hits, you feel like death inside.
As soon as that first cold spike hits, you feel like death inside.
Can you help clarify why so many of these young homeless with dogs also prefer camo as their clothing color of choice?
Because BDUs/ACUs and similar are cheap, common enough at thrift stores and highly durable. I make almost 6 figures and I have BDUs I use when I'm doing manual labor.
It's outdoor gear. A lot of outdoor gear shops have surplus in their name, because there's a link between the outdoors, hunting/fishing, and the military. A lot of outdoors people don't like it and would rather wear patagonia vests (like VCs do), but camo gear certainly isn't an unusual choice for outdoors types. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_store
Their tuxedos are at the dry cleaners.
Camo is fairly popular among young people, homeless or otherwise. I would venture to guess it’s cheap and requires less washing too.
[deleted]
Dirt is less visible on them?
This is a national problem (ie. anyone in the US can be homeless anywhere), and yet it's trying to be solved at a city level.
Logistically that is impossible and makes no sense.
As for why there are so many young people homeless in SF, it's probably because SF is one of the most willing cities trying to solve a national problem by itself. We also have great weather (not too hot in the summer, not too cold in the winter). And probably a lot of generous people walking the streets.
It's really horrible what our national government has allowed to happen in our country and it's impractical for our city to hold the burden to solve this nation's problems.
Logistically that is impossible and makes no sense.
As for why there are so many young people homeless in SF, it's probably because SF is one of the most willing cities trying to solve a national problem by itself. We also have great weather (not too hot in the summer, not too cold in the winter). And probably a lot of generous people walking the streets.
It's really horrible what our national government has allowed to happen in our country and it's impractical for our city to hold the burden to solve this nation's problems.
I do think mental health is a national problem, but if the homeless people are san franciscans, its definitely a city level issue.
Its not a poor city that needs national help: it spends 10 billion dollars a year for a shitty bus and a poop patrol.
Its not a poor city that needs national help: it spends 10 billion dollars a year for a shitty bus and a poop patrol.
only defense, interstate commerce, international relations, and the like are national problems.
the state is the canonical unit for a problem like homelessness, and each state is free to delegate to local jurisdictions or to coordinate with other states on solutions.
by the way, san francisco has about 8000 homeless folks, and LA has ~55,000 (~40% of the 130,000 homeless in the state). if we wanted to build new housing for all of these folks, we'd need about $50B (state budget is about $200B/year). LA, for instance, spent $0.6B on homelessness last year, or about 3% of what is needed just in LA.
we either continuously pay for homelessness indirectly (and ineffectively), through police, crime, social services, drugs, non-profits, governmental programs, emergency services, etc. or actually tackle the problem directly by raising and allocating that $50B.
(obviously talking about first-order effects here. this is not an in-depth policy paper.)
the state is the canonical unit for a problem like homelessness, and each state is free to delegate to local jurisdictions or to coordinate with other states on solutions.
by the way, san francisco has about 8000 homeless folks, and LA has ~55,000 (~40% of the 130,000 homeless in the state). if we wanted to build new housing for all of these folks, we'd need about $50B (state budget is about $200B/year). LA, for instance, spent $0.6B on homelessness last year, or about 3% of what is needed just in LA.
we either continuously pay for homelessness indirectly (and ineffectively), through police, crime, social services, drugs, non-profits, governmental programs, emergency services, etc. or actually tackle the problem directly by raising and allocating that $50B.
(obviously talking about first-order effects here. this is not an in-depth policy paper.)
Given that the federal government weasels its way into things by claiming "interstate commerce" in questionable circumstances, or threatening withholding things like federal highway funds if states don't comply, your argument doesn't hold much water with me.
Hell, the REAL ID act is technically illegal, but the feds can use the "we won't let you board a flight without one" stick to force compliance.
The federal government gets its paws into whatever it wants to. It simply doesn't care about homeless issues.
I do agree that, on its face, homelessness seems like a textbook local/state problem. However, any city/state that tries to solve the problem with money and services will be a magnet for homeless people from outside the area, which can easily overwhelm the services provided. How do you fix that?
Hell, the REAL ID act is technically illegal, but the feds can use the "we won't let you board a flight without one" stick to force compliance.
The federal government gets its paws into whatever it wants to. It simply doesn't care about homeless issues.
I do agree that, on its face, homelessness seems like a textbook local/state problem. However, any city/state that tries to solve the problem with money and services will be a magnet for homeless people from outside the area, which can easily overwhelm the services provided. How do you fix that?
States and cities can build a wall and introduce a visa system? I don't understand how any problem that would require effective border control to solve at a local level (because otherwise it turns into a global problem) can be considered a textbook state problem?
I'd say this is a textbook border-controlling-entity-level problem...
I'd say this is a textbook border-controlling-entity-level problem...
Not workable; freedom of movement among the states has been recognized as a constitutional right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_Unit...
Yeah, you know, Brexit is going really great for Britain: we should definitely try dissolving the union and see if that helps.
My preference (and argument) falls closer to global planetary government than to village-state actually...
> "Given that the federal government weasels its way into things [anyway]... your argument doesn't hold much water with me."
that's such a non-sequitur. so is the gist that we just accept the federal government overstepping its bounds? that's sounds so defeatist. instead, let's put even more pressure on (all of) our representatives to contain the overstepping.
> "...magnet for homeless people from outside the area, which can easily overwhelm the services provided. How do you fix that?"
that's worth keeping in mind, but there's no compelling evidence that that's going to be a problem. an optimist might posit that it's just as likely that micro-economies develop that allow the former homeless to lift others out of homelessness without further intervention. it depends on how things are implemented of course. let's take a step forward and (continually) assess.
that's such a non-sequitur. so is the gist that we just accept the federal government overstepping its bounds? that's sounds so defeatist. instead, let's put even more pressure on (all of) our representatives to contain the overstepping.
> "...magnet for homeless people from outside the area, which can easily overwhelm the services provided. How do you fix that?"
that's worth keeping in mind, but there's no compelling evidence that that's going to be a problem. an optimist might posit that it's just as likely that micro-economies develop that allow the former homeless to lift others out of homelessness without further intervention. it depends on how things are implemented of course. let's take a step forward and (continually) assess.
Would it really cost about 400 thousand dollars per homeless person? That's what 50 bil / 130,000 gets you.
yes, from what i've read, it costs roughly $400K per unit ($440K is actually the number thrown about) in the metro areas of california (whether it's affordable housing or not). that apparently includes the direct building & overhead costs, land, building code compliance, regulatory costs, and the costs of legal and bureaucratic delays.
Maybe housing the homeless in the most expensive places in the country to live is a bad idea.
> and each state is free to... or to coordinate with other states on solutions.
This can't be solved without coordination, ie. federal government.
This can't be solved without coordination, ie. federal government.
What makes you think it can be solved at the national level when it can't even be solved at the city level?
Cities don’t have border gates. As the article states, the number of homeless people is increasing at a higher rate than other population growth factor. SF is taking on the burden of a full state and some of the country.
Is your belief falsifiable?
What would you have to see before you might start to think San Francisco's policies might be part of the problem?
What would you have to see before you might start to think San Francisco's policies might be part of the problem?
[deleted]
SF is willingly taking on that burden. All of SF's policies have only made homelessness worse, not better.
I mean the person just argued that it has to be solved at the national level. I think willingness of homeless people to stay in small to medium sized towns with bad winters depends on accessibility of student and tourist populations, but those balance of factors means they sleep in the snow to get their support, but the small town doesn't want to build a shelter and provide extra incentive to stay.
My guess is you agree that is has to be solved at the national level? The federal government has spent over $20 trillion to fight the war on poverty since 1965. You really thinking throwing more money at the problem will solve homelessness?
Just money? No. Money doesn't ever solve problems. The effective use of said money does. You can't find effective uses for money without trying to see what works. Most cities have homeless if some sort. My small city has a homeless population and it took my church guaranteeing to donating time just to keep people alive in the winter. The mayor here routinely destroys places where the homeless live and takes all their resources in the middle of winter. Does our effort help? It keeps a lot of them stay alive over the winter. We also have a community meal on Saturdays to give people community and companionship. No government here helping, but it does require a lot of time and money.
It is extremely difficult to clean up and heal surrounded by the problems of the city (drugs, violence, lack of entry level jobs & housing) but services are concentrated in city...
The drug problems in rural America are worse than in urban areas, fueled by the additional joblessness, lack of mental health services and general boredom.
I lived in SF for 20 years and now live in NYC. I see young homeless people here all the time but they generally look very down and out. The ones you see that are care free with the dogs are more "travelers" that benefit from the good weather on the west coast.
A lot of the more permenant homeless population in SF are mentally ill with nowhere to go.
A lot of the more permenant homeless population in SF are mentally ill with nowhere to go.
They have them in NYC. They hang out around Union Square during the summer.
Some (many? most?) of these kids are homeless by choice, it's a subculture as much as circumstance. They flock to the Bay Area (Berkeley/Oakland, and the Haight area) to be a part of the scene.
Some (many? most?) of these kids are homeless by choice, it's a subculture as much as circumstance. They flock to the Bay Area (Berkeley/Oakland, and the Haight area) to be a part of the scene.
"Homeless by choice" is a long disproven myth. There are exceptions, of course, but often young people experiencing homelessness are on the streets because they were explicitly forced out of their homes by their guardians or were forced out because of sexual abuse.
From an article in Hoodline, quoting Mary Howe, founder of the Homeless Youth Alliance,
> [San Francisco's Haight Street] is an international destination for youth who come seeking refuge from abusive families, alienating foster care and group home situations, and juvenile justice system involvement. These homeless young people encounter constant threats to both their physical and mental health while on the streets.
https://hoodline.com/2015/03/getting-to-know-haight-street-k...
From an article in Hoodline, quoting Mary Howe, founder of the Homeless Youth Alliance,
> [San Francisco's Haight Street] is an international destination for youth who come seeking refuge from abusive families, alienating foster care and group home situations, and juvenile justice system involvement. These homeless young people encounter constant threats to both their physical and mental health while on the streets.
https://hoodline.com/2015/03/getting-to-know-haight-street-k...
OP was asking why you see so many of them in SF compared to other places. Obviously there's a reason they chose that lifestyle but they still chose it. These kids are traveling from across the world to be part of it.
Yeah, they're often referred to as "crust punks" or "crusties" (and I think that's the name they use for themselves). Plenty of articles about them- absolutely homeless by choice, and migrate up/ down the East Coast (often by hopping freight rail) seasonally https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2018/07/27/summer-brings-wave-o...
They are also a huge drag on resources designated for homelessness.
Yeah- I have a ton of sympathy for folks driven in to homelessness by economic hardship, or mental illness, or even addiction, but the crust punks are INCREDIBLY frustrating for a number of reasons (the one you mention being a big one)
A crust punk once told me "Why bother when I could work full time in a city that's worth living in to be almost this homeless."
They are homeless, in my experience with them.
That shouldn’t be considered homeless then. I thought homeless meant you have no permanent place to live. Not by choice, but you just don’t.
Why is it such a simple dichotomy? Most people have to make large efforts to maintain a legal shelter and it's as easy as a medical emergency to slip from the tenuous position of not being homeless.
Are you saying the person with the medical emergency who becomes homeless was always homeless? Otherwise perhaps I didn’t understand your reply.
Regardless you’re right it’s not a simple dichotomy. Similar to how if you’re living in a new Airstream, chances are you aren’t the same sort of homeless as someone in a runned down camper with little cash flow or savings.
Regardless you’re right it’s not a simple dichotomy. Similar to how if you’re living in a new Airstream, chances are you aren’t the same sort of homeless as someone in a runned down camper with little cash flow or savings.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Agreed. There is one more interesting fact about this subculture. Some of those "homeless" people do actually have their own places that they don't want to live in. They rent out and live on the street by choice.
I can’t imagine anyone choosing to be exposed to that level of risk of disease, violence, weather and conflict with the authorities, at least not in a big city.
It's not just California. You see the same homeless population in Santa Cruz as you do in Eugene. But these visible homeless are a tiny fraction; what we're talking about here are people living in cars and RVs.
Yeah I think the problem with viability is also, some 'homeless' in SF are actually housed, they're just poor n scruffy.
Last three years though I'm seeing people that are homeless and not scruffy. Friend of a friend was living in a panel truck with her 6 year old daughter for a year.
My solution is fairly simple, force the tech companies to direct their firehose of free cash somewhere else like Detroit or Albuquerque.
Last three years though I'm seeing people that are homeless and not scruffy. Friend of a friend was living in a panel truck with her 6 year old daughter for a year.
My solution is fairly simple, force the tech companies to direct their firehose of free cash somewhere else like Detroit or Albuquerque.
There is a spectrum of choice when it comes to homelessness. One extreme are those with severe mental and physical disabilities and the other is... https://vanlifecustoms.com/vans
There are quite a few people who actively aspire to live in vans on the streets of the bay area. There are more who are on the end of having other options (but don't want to, say, have a connivance store job in a small midwest town) but don't take them for whatever reason. If you had a few resources, wouldn't you rather try to make your way to live in SF instead of NY, especially in January?
Being young makes it more likely that the lifestyle is a choice and when it isn't, being young makes it easier to migrate to the best possible place to be homeless.
There are quite a few people who actively aspire to live in vans on the streets of the bay area. There are more who are on the end of having other options (but don't want to, say, have a connivance store job in a small midwest town) but don't take them for whatever reason. If you had a few resources, wouldn't you rather try to make your way to live in SF instead of NY, especially in January?
Being young makes it more likely that the lifestyle is a choice and when it isn't, being young makes it easier to migrate to the best possible place to be homeless.
We can debate about definitions, but I wouldn't call people living out of expensive, customized vans homeless.
Those people still have a roof over their heads. They just don't have a mailing address.
EDIT: I stand corrected. Apparently, San Francisco does count those among the homeless.
> The number of people living in cars and campers grew — a big part of the reason the number of unsheltered people increased, the city said.
Those people still have a roof over their heads. They just don't have a mailing address.
EDIT: I stand corrected. Apparently, San Francisco does count those among the homeless.
> The number of people living in cars and campers grew — a big part of the reason the number of unsheltered people increased, the city said.
A lot of those, I expect the vast majority of them, are in a regular 4 door sedan, or a shitty old camper that barely runs. People living in cars, on a friends couch, etc, all count as homeless.
The streets in the peninsula are lined with campers and vans in varying levels of decay, but mostly functional if a bit unclean.
I've been thinking about doing a dashcam of 10 miles of El Camino Real to show the extent to people unfamiliar.
I've been thinking about doing a dashcam of 10 miles of El Camino Real to show the extent to people unfamiliar.
I'd love to see that. When a video surfaced a few years back, of the Santa Ana riverbed behind the Big A in Anaheim, it was much easier to share the video with family and friends who were unfamiliar than it was to try to explain what I was seeing (I stopped into that particular tent city a couple of times searching for an ill family member who contends with bouts of homelessness).
In San Jose there are/were several on ramps to 280 and 101 lined with tents where people lived last time I was in the neighborhood. It's kind of mind-blowing the first time you see people living like that here.
Not sure what you're saying, sounds like you're agreeing that they aren't living in "expensive, customized vans"?
Really that many vans? 10 miles?
I thought it’s anecdotal
I thought it’s anecdotal
Yes it's really that many. The vans and campers tend to move around to different areas as the police crack down on illegal long-term parking in particular spots.
It is not 10 miles bumper to bumper, but in that 10 miles you will see very many apparent vehicle residences.
The cities that have to manage the people living on their streets in vans (usually much less fancy) can't treat them as anything but homeless.
You can still sometimes see groups of young (teen-ish to 20-ish) homeless people in Harvard Square, including with dogs sometimes, though not as much as you used to. There at least used to be a mobile health clinic that would visit "The Pit" area around the Harvard Square subway station, where young homeless kids would congregate. (Also, non-homeless kids, such as from affluent suburbs, hanging out and being cool/punk/real with the homeless. But some of them actually are homeless, maybe escaping from rough family situations.) I understand there recently is/was a dotcom-y charitable homeless shelter in Harvard Square (unless it already disappeared; sometimes projects fail, or are career steps).
Cambridge, Boston, and Massaschusetts are wealthy, and good about social programs and safety nets for the poor, by overall US standards. But the winters get cold, so a lot of homeless who are able might go to the SF Bay Area.
Cambridge, Boston, and Massaschusetts are wealthy, and good about social programs and safety nets for the poor, by overall US standards. But the winters get cold, so a lot of homeless who are able might go to the SF Bay Area.
I saw young homeless people in Montréal about 15 years ago. I don't remember if they were happy or if they had dogs. But I think they were anarchists living out some sort of lifestyle choice. I don't recall seeing any of this when I visited last year.
Yes there are very few visible homeless people or beggars in downtown Montreal.
Uh... how many places have you lived in and for how long, and how much contact have you had with the homeless? And when we say homeless, what do you mean? Those who temporarily don't have homes, those don't want to live in a permanent structure, etc.
I've lived in the South, New England, Texas, and California. There are homeless people every where. Before you conclude that the demographics are actually different (I'm not disputing it is -- California is different but not as stark as you may think), ensure that your observations aren't biased (I don't mean personal bias but some places put more effort into hiding their homeless population).
I've lived in the South, New England, Texas, and California. There are homeless people every where. Before you conclude that the demographics are actually different (I'm not disputing it is -- California is different but not as stark as you may think), ensure that your observations aren't biased (I don't mean personal bias but some places put more effort into hiding their homeless population).
It happens in Hawai'i, too. I volunteer at a homeless shelter and routinely serve young people. Some of them have nicer clothes than I do.
There is an episode of Portlandia satirizing young homeless people too, so I'd imagine that is another example.
There is an episode of Portlandia satirizing young homeless people too, so I'd imagine that is another example.
I thought that this was an issue on the entire West Coast and not just California.
The people of CA exporting their failed public policy is an issue that covers the entire west coast (and Nevada, Colorado and parts of Texas) to it's no surprise that the homelessness problem follows.
You're adding nothing to the discussion with unsubstantiated claims.
A "hurr durr" would have sufficed.
A "hurr durr" would have sufficed.
I didn't realize that Texas is part of the West Coast.
The only failed public policy is the one that creates such a jaw-dropping amount of homelessness in a country with 11 million millionaires.
And that failed public policy isn't prop 13. It's a policy of expecting cities to deal with their homeless problems.
And that failed public policy isn't prop 13. It's a policy of expecting cities to deal with their homeless problems.
Nah, it's pretty much prop 13.
Nonsense.
Neither Seattle or Vancouver have prop 13, and they are dealing with a homelessness crisis. Neither does Hawaii, Vegas, etc.
What they all have in common is a federal government that doesn't give a shit.
Neither Seattle or Vancouver have prop 13, and they are dealing with a homelessness crisis. Neither does Hawaii, Vegas, etc.
What they all have in common is a federal government that doesn't give a shit.
The young homeless people I knew on the East Coast were almost universally "travelers". They'd hop trains to Florida in the winter and migrate north in the summer. Most of the East Coast is inhospitable at one time of the year or another -- when the low temperature is above 70 F (20 C) or below 30 F (0 C) it can be very hard to sleep outside.
Would you rather spend winter in NYC or SF? Would you rather spend summer in Atlanta or SF?
Other cities building shelters on the outskirts, and often in areas without public transit access, so that people get off the streets and are out of sight. The weather patterns almost everywhere else in the country also drive people into those shelters, either with extreme heat or cold.
Here, there is never a time of year when people have to get off the streets, and we don't have enough beds for them even if they did. The Bay Area is also a huge sprawl, so it isn't clear where we would build such housing to be out of sight and out of mind even if we were going to.
Here, there is never a time of year when people have to get off the streets, and we don't have enough beds for them even if they did. The Bay Area is also a huge sprawl, so it isn't clear where we would build such housing to be out of sight and out of mind even if we were going to.
> I never saw this in NYC or anywhere else on the East Coast or in the Midwest.
Human beings have a tough time surviving when exposed to the elements, and winter lasts for 6 months in the North East and Midwest. It is difficult to live when you are soaking wet and it is 34 degrees outside.
Hope this helps.
Human beings have a tough time surviving when exposed to the elements, and winter lasts for 6 months in the North East and Midwest. It is difficult to live when you are soaking wet and it is 34 degrees outside.
Hope this helps.
Also very prevalent in Boulder.
Boulder and Denver have cold, but it's mild enough that it can be dealt with somewhat using coats, blankets, sleeping bags, and tents. It doesn't have heat in the summers like New York City or Chicago do, or most of the year like Atlanta, Houston, and Miami do. 20 degrees below room temperature is much easier to handle than 20 degrees above room temperature, because there isn't anything wearable that protects people from heat like coats protect people from cold.
We see a good number of young homeless people in Denver.
It's mostly the weather. I prefer the weather in Miami to the weather in SF by just a little bit, but if I were homeless, it wouldn't even come close. I would vastly prefer the weather in SF.
The weather is a big factor in peoples' decisions to move places. It's near the top of the list in any discussion on which city people would prefer to live in on the city-data forums. People who aren't homeless take the air conditioning or heating for granted when comparing the weather in two different cities.
The weather is a big factor in peoples' decisions to move places. It's near the top of the list in any discussion on which city people would prefer to live in on the city-data forums. People who aren't homeless take the air conditioning or heating for granted when comparing the weather in two different cities.
The weather in the Bay Area in general is pretty pleasant, but San Francisco in particular seems to be a bit of a local minimum, with the foggy and frequently quite cold weather even in summer.
As we used to remind our guests before taking them to SF: "There's a reason why there are so many tourists wearing San Francisco branded fleece jackets".
I thought about it, and AFAICT it only widens the gap between ideal weather for a homeless person and ideal weather for a non-homeless person. For a homeless person, Walnut Creek is going to be worse during the winter because it's cold, and worse during the summer because it's hot. For a non-homeless person, San Francisco is going to be worse during the June Gloom because they might be stuck in an office during the times that the sun comes out.
This phenomenon exists in Phoenix / Tempe as well. Most likely due to weather [as noted below] and relatively high population
some of the younger homeless folks are that by choice. The largest % of the population isn't though.
The abundance of young homeless with dogs also appears to be a thing in France.
Weather?
People tend to focus on San Francisco because the homeless sleeping on sidewalks are so visible, but it seems like the situation in San Jose is getting worse at an accelerating rate. The problem just isn't as visible there because the city is less dense and more spread out. Take a ride along the Guadalupe River Trail, Los Gatos Creek Trail, and the Coyote Creek Trail, and look carefully under the bushes: you'll be shocked at the number of homeless encampments. I don't have population numbers but subjectively it's noticeably worse than it was 5 years ago.
It's a terrible situation for people, but at the same time after helping out with a few river cleanup efforts my sympathy is wearing thin (I do continue donating to several local charities serving the homeless population). Even when there are public garbage cans within walking distance many of the homeless population have been throwing their garbage on the ecologically sensitive river banks — including drug paraphernalia and other hazardous waste. Our rivers are turning into landfills and the city crews can't keep up.
I was in Reno a few weeks ago and the banks of the Truckee River are one solid homeless encampment for several miles. They've completely taken over several public parks. Locals complained that they no longer felt safe going there.
It's a terrible situation for people, but at the same time after helping out with a few river cleanup efforts my sympathy is wearing thin (I do continue donating to several local charities serving the homeless population). Even when there are public garbage cans within walking distance many of the homeless population have been throwing their garbage on the ecologically sensitive river banks — including drug paraphernalia and other hazardous waste. Our rivers are turning into landfills and the city crews can't keep up.
I was in Reno a few weeks ago and the banks of the Truckee River are one solid homeless encampment for several miles. They've completely taken over several public parks. Locals complained that they no longer felt safe going there.
The situation has been around for a long time, what we're seeing is a bum-rush. Groups of people just come in and take over areas: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bum-rush
We can't really reckon with our homeless problem without reckoning with the way we treat the severely mentally ill. At this point, we don't treat them.
Many of the homeless, and a majority of the chronically homeless, are people who are severely mentally ill.
We used to have a state psychiatric hospital system. That system has been destroyed. Now, the severely mentally ill, when they get any treatment at all, are primarily treated in American prisons.
https://www.governing.com/topics/health-human-services/gov-m...
https://www.npr.org/2017/11/30/567477160/how-the-loss-of-u-s...
https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/deinstitutional...
https://www.amazon.com/American-Psychosis-Government-Destroy...
"Many times individuals who really do require intensive psychiatric care find themselves homeless or more and more in prison," Sisti says. "Much of our mental health care now for individuals with serious mental illness has been shifted to correctional facilities."
The percentage of people with serious mental illness in prisons rose from .7 percent in 1880 to 21 percent in 2005, according to the Center for Prisoner Health and Human Rights.
A consensus of other experts estimates that the total number of state beds required for acute and long-term care would be more like 50 beds per 100,000 in the population [5]. At the peak of availability in 1955, there were 340 beds per 100,000 [5]. In 2010, the number of state beds was 43,318 or 14.1 beds per 100,000 [7].
We used to have a state psychiatric hospital system. That system has been destroyed. Now, the severely mentally ill, when they get any treatment at all, are primarily treated in American prisons.
https://www.governing.com/topics/health-human-services/gov-m...
https://www.npr.org/2017/11/30/567477160/how-the-loss-of-u-s...
https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/deinstitutional...
https://www.amazon.com/American-Psychosis-Government-Destroy...
"Many times individuals who really do require intensive psychiatric care find themselves homeless or more and more in prison," Sisti says. "Much of our mental health care now for individuals with serious mental illness has been shifted to correctional facilities."
The percentage of people with serious mental illness in prisons rose from .7 percent in 1880 to 21 percent in 2005, according to the Center for Prisoner Health and Human Rights.
A consensus of other experts estimates that the total number of state beds required for acute and long-term care would be more like 50 beds per 100,000 in the population [5]. At the peak of availability in 1955, there were 340 beds per 100,000 [5]. In 2010, the number of state beds was 43,318 or 14.1 beds per 100,000 [7].
https://sfmayor.org/article/mayor-breed-announces-new-homele...
> The increase in unsheltered people was driven largely by people living in vehicles, accounting for 68% of the increase in unsheltered people.
Seems people are using vehicles more and that looks to be the largest contributor. Me and my SO have considered such an idea because we've been open to the idea of living in tiny houses, etc. (We live in a 400sqft in-law unit now) We also know people who have lived out of them. Quite happily btw.
Things like this don't really give you an idea if it's forced or willing homelessness. Sure, maybe everyone would love a $3m home in Palo Alto (also known as "a home" in the rest of the country) but they're willing to suffer a bit to save some serious $$$ like we all do in various ways.
Anyway - would like more insight and look forward to the full report coming out whenever it does.
> The increase in unsheltered people was driven largely by people living in vehicles, accounting for 68% of the increase in unsheltered people.
Seems people are using vehicles more and that looks to be the largest contributor. Me and my SO have considered such an idea because we've been open to the idea of living in tiny houses, etc. (We live in a 400sqft in-law unit now) We also know people who have lived out of them. Quite happily btw.
Things like this don't really give you an idea if it's forced or willing homelessness. Sure, maybe everyone would love a $3m home in Palo Alto (also known as "a home" in the rest of the country) but they're willing to suffer a bit to save some serious $$$ like we all do in various ways.
Anyway - would like more insight and look forward to the full report coming out whenever it does.
There's a continuum of "forced" versus "willing": raising the cost of rent beyond what someone can comfortably afford, but maybe they could manage if they didn't buy anything else and ate only beans and rice is only slightly less coercive than raising the rent beyond what they can afford at all.
My brother lives in Humboldt county, I thought he was exaggerating the situation there but now I can't help but believe him. The stats are staggering - Humboldt's homeless population is up 157% in two years!
It seems to be funding, services and counting are all related. That is, open a new shelter and you're going to serve (read: count) more homeless.
I'm not disputing there have been increases in homelessness. And we are our brothers' / sisters' keeper, so I'm not taking a stand against funding such efforts. What I'm wondering (out loud) about is the accuracy of previous counting. That is, how much is an actual increase, and how much is due to the thoroughness of the counting?
I'm not disputing there have been increases in homelessness. And we are our brothers' / sisters' keeper, so I'm not taking a stand against funding such efforts. What I'm wondering (out loud) about is the accuracy of previous counting. That is, how much is an actual increase, and how much is due to the thoroughness of the counting?
From what I've seen of the canvasing, it's pretty thorough. They walk around all the neighborhoods with clipboards.
Yes. But that still doesn't support there are more. The depth and breadth of this canvasing could have improved (note: as it should). It's also possible the homeless are more willing to be seen and counted. That is, the stigma has softened.
One can always identify something unknown and question the result. Is there an actual reason to think this count was different? Especially with governments, betting they did the same thing they've always done has the highest probability.
Yup, there are lots of services in places like SF and San Jose for them, so they are flocking here.
The vast majority of homeless in SFBA were living here when they became homeless. They are not flocking here.
Do you have an intuition why? It doesn’t seem rational. If you’re a low end service worker, and economic conditions push you into homelessness, why wouldn’t you go somewhere else?
Does perhaps your perception of economic conditions make it feel like it’ll be shit everywhere and so you’re better off with your local social network?
Does perhaps your perception of economic conditions make it feel like it’ll be shit everywhere and so you’re better off with your local social network?
Your local network and your existing paycheck, instead of significant expenses to relocate and then search for a job, while dealing with everyone in the new place shitting on you for moving to their location to sponge off them.
Why would you have serious costs to relocate if you don’t have a home (and thus, stuff that costs money to move)?
Are you expecting them to live on the streets in the new town while they search for a job?
I’m getting downvoted for pursuing this line of questioning, but... yes? I really don’t see why this is controversial. Let’s ignore edge cases. You’re a single dude. You’re used to living in a house. Suddenly your local environment is too expensive to live in a house with your current levels of employability.
Option 1 is to live on the streets with your current job. Given the derivative of the economy you will not be able to afford housing in the near future.
Option 2 is to move and seek a similar low paying job in an area with lower cost of living. Try to find a job, to acquire food and shelter.
Option 2 feels to me like it could be much safer. Both require living on the streets, but the second one provides a path to not doing that. I get that both are unpleasant. But why not?
Option 1 is to live on the streets with your current job. Given the derivative of the economy you will not be able to afford housing in the near future.
Option 2 is to move and seek a similar low paying job in an area with lower cost of living. Try to find a job, to acquire food and shelter.
Option 2 feels to me like it could be much safer. Both require living on the streets, but the second one provides a path to not doing that. I get that both are unpleasant. But why not?
I’m not sure how much you understand about how people become homeless. I don’t think anyone ever says they became homeless because “suddenly the area is too expensive”. The majority of people who become homeless are actually only homeless for a short time. Their roommate kicked them out, or they were sick and couldn’t make rent once, or or other individual crisis events, and they don’t think “welp that’s it, I can’t make it in this city any more”.
Moving from one city to another surprisingly enough costs money that homeless people don't happen to have. Many of them have children in schools, and the school is the only place the child is ever warm or fed. Yes, in American society we will let children sleep under bridges. And if you do move to another city that seems to offer more opportunity you'll still be homeless and then 15-year-old Libertarian fuckwits on forums like this one will deride you as someone who "flocked here" for the welfare handouts.
This explanation doesn't seem to jibe with my understanding of the facts/trends surrounding % of homeless residents that came from outside the bay (generally pretty steady and a small %).
I'm feeding more bread crumbs to the pigeons than ever, but even more pigeons are coming. It's such a paradox.
Have you tried safe injection sites?
Seattle's homeless shelter also doubles as a library
It would be great to understand why the Bay Area is seeing this increase. I haven't seen any studies that attempt to quantify this viz. the effects of local cost of housing increases vs arrivals from elsewhere vs mental health system failures vs ? It strikes me that understanding the root cause-through interviews etc-would be an important input to a policy response.
SF does a homeless census every 2 years. It answers many of the questions you might have. Eg in the 2017 census:
* 69% were from SF and 21% from elsewhere in CA (10% out of state) * 39% reported psychiatric or emotional conditions
http://hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/2017-SF-Poin...
* 69% were from SF and 21% from elsewhere in CA (10% out of state) * 39% reported psychiatric or emotional conditions
http://hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/2017-SF-Poin...
Where have you looked? I followed the citations on the wikipedia page about homelessness in the Bay Area and found this in about 30 seconds: https://www.spur.org/publications/urbanist-article/2017-10-2...
> vs arrivals from elsewhere
This particular attribute (what was the person's place of residence at time of homelessness) is answered by the study. (Called the PIT Count or Point-In-Time count). As the article notes, the study that the article is referencing is not released yet, so we can't see the stats for this particular iteration of the study. However, in the previous study[1] (2017, these are done every two years), 69% of respondents were from SF, and another 21% from some other county in CA.
[1] The results of previous studies: http://hsh.sfgov.org/research-reports/san-francisco-homeless... ; I presume the new one will be posted there once it is released. The article says that will be in July
This particular attribute (what was the person's place of residence at time of homelessness) is answered by the study. (Called the PIT Count or Point-In-Time count). As the article notes, the study that the article is referencing is not released yet, so we can't see the stats for this particular iteration of the study. However, in the previous study[1] (2017, these are done every two years), 69% of respondents were from SF, and another 21% from some other county in CA.
[1] The results of previous studies: http://hsh.sfgov.org/research-reports/san-francisco-homeless... ; I presume the new one will be posted there once it is released. The article says that will be in July
It's honestly an epidemic and people have to admit it's mostly due to meth and heroin--it's not all due to housing prices. Yes, housing affordability is absolutely a real issue and there are people being displaced and actually are homeless from it--but that's not the real source if this crisis. We literally have THOUSANDS of mentally ill and criminally insane drug addicts all over the city in a constant state of anarchy.
For example, I live in a decent area (near Noe Valley) and constantly have homeless people in our carport area of our building. The landlord refuses to install a security camera, and actually removed the dummy security cameras which is now making the problem worse. I have had my car broken into like 8 times in 5 years. Every single night there are 2-3 of the same tweakers and addicts down there doing drugs, screaming all night, leaving needles and feces all over. I call the cops 2-3x a day and the cops show up probably 1/50 times but they never actually do anything but shoo them along and then they come back in 2 hours.
I've left messages for the local SFPD Sergeant, I've gone to community meetings and asking for more patrols, I've written my supervisor. NOTHING has changed. This is a miserable way to live when you already have a stressful job and have hard work. I truly do not want to live my life in a city like this. The cops do nothing, DAs don't prosecute, juries don't convict, and judges don't sentence--yet housing prices are $2.5M for the privilege of having a tweaker camp outside your house. I just don't get it. This video is of Seattle, but it's basically the same situation in SF but 25% worse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpAi70WWBlw
For example, I live in a decent area (near Noe Valley) and constantly have homeless people in our carport area of our building. The landlord refuses to install a security camera, and actually removed the dummy security cameras which is now making the problem worse. I have had my car broken into like 8 times in 5 years. Every single night there are 2-3 of the same tweakers and addicts down there doing drugs, screaming all night, leaving needles and feces all over. I call the cops 2-3x a day and the cops show up probably 1/50 times but they never actually do anything but shoo them along and then they come back in 2 hours.
I've left messages for the local SFPD Sergeant, I've gone to community meetings and asking for more patrols, I've written my supervisor. NOTHING has changed. This is a miserable way to live when you already have a stressful job and have hard work. I truly do not want to live my life in a city like this. The cops do nothing, DAs don't prosecute, juries don't convict, and judges don't sentence--yet housing prices are $2.5M for the privilege of having a tweaker camp outside your house. I just don't get it. This video is of Seattle, but it's basically the same situation in SF but 25% worse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpAi70WWBlw
I don't understand how a country can maintain a coherent system of law when there are so many homeless people and almost 1% of the entire population is in prison.
The percent is only so high because JFK closed the mental wards and expected communities to pick up the difference.
From my personal experience from helping actual homeless people and being one (with my family). I find the homeless population is struggling. The numbers are GROWING...all around the greater bay area (up to Sacramento, where I currently reside). The majority aren't suffering from mental health problems, which to me, is terrifying for our society.
If the US has a 'growing economy' what will happen when we start to see this recession/depression that many are saying is eminent? I can't help but agree with the world leaders that the entire global economy is very fragile.
We can build our way out of this but I'm skeptical that California could build it's way out due to the private interests of powerful people (even single/one home-owners).
If the US has a 'growing economy' what will happen when we start to see this recession/depression that many are saying is eminent? I can't help but agree with the world leaders that the entire global economy is very fragile.
We can build our way out of this but I'm skeptical that California could build it's way out due to the private interests of powerful people (even single/one home-owners).
It’s not unthinkable that a recession could indirectly help by lowering construction costs.
> It's not unthinkable
It's highly unlikely. SV is an economic engine for Cali and the USA. Unions and bureaucracies (local govt red tape) are the driving forces to high construction costs.
It's highly unlikely. SV is an economic engine for Cali and the USA. Unions and bureaucracies (local govt red tape) are the driving forces to high construction costs.
No, this wont happen. A recession will push the ones on the bottom to unemployement which spirals them into poverty.
Recessions are most cruel to the poor.
Recessions are most cruel to the poor.
Build. More. Shelters.
I live in New York and we have more homeless people per capita than San Francisco but we don't have the same kinds of problems. The very simple solution is to build shelters. The rate of homeless that are sheltered in NY is WAY higher and as a result we don't have the same kind of problems.
In SF 492/100k residents sleep on the street. In NYC the rate is 45/100k.
Source: https://medium.com/@josefow/new-york-decided-to-end-street-h...
(among others, these aren't controversial numbers)
I live in New York and we have more homeless people per capita than San Francisco but we don't have the same kinds of problems. The very simple solution is to build shelters. The rate of homeless that are sheltered in NY is WAY higher and as a result we don't have the same kind of problems.
In SF 492/100k residents sleep on the street. In NYC the rate is 45/100k.
Source: https://medium.com/@josefow/new-york-decided-to-end-street-h...
(among others, these aren't controversial numbers)
Weather is a driving factor that one shouldn't overlook. SV has a massive housing problem. Let's not defer the issue. It's a substantial issue.
Seems like this could be heavily correlated with weather.
Weather has something to do with the amount of shelters? I'm not sure I follow.
There are (legitimate) drawbacks to living/sleeping in a shelter and with moderate weather on the west coast many homeless choose to sleep outside. Shelters here already have empty beds so building more isn’t going to solve anything - there just isn’t a tangible benefit over sleeping in a private tent outside.
That's one hypothesis I suppose.
There is a homeless epidemic. Anyone who lives in the US can see it. But these issues are being closely tracked and discussed widely in political problem solving contexts, and HN is more of an observer reacting to the most extreme examples that make news usually with very little empathy focused mainly on the consequences to others, so the discussions are weirdly 'disconnected' and stuck in 'first principles'.
Look at every single homeless discussion on HN over the last 5 years, its homeless people are bums, weirdoes who enjoy living in poverty without homes or people who are 'choosing this lifestyle' based on anecdotal evidence mostly focused on how they negatively impact the commentators life, untill the next article. Is having this same discussion over and over again helpful to anyone?
The software community used to be associated with freedom, liberty and not being jerks, more connected to the human experience and with empathy. Now they build surveillance systems, are increasingly authoritarian in their outlook and are snarky about others suffering. There may be a serious problem of homelessness but it seems this absence of empathy is a much more serious problem for any society leaving it unequal to any social challenge.
Look at every single homeless discussion on HN over the last 5 years, its homeless people are bums, weirdoes who enjoy living in poverty without homes or people who are 'choosing this lifestyle' based on anecdotal evidence mostly focused on how they negatively impact the commentators life, untill the next article. Is having this same discussion over and over again helpful to anyone?
The software community used to be associated with freedom, liberty and not being jerks, more connected to the human experience and with empathy. Now they build surveillance systems, are increasingly authoritarian in their outlook and are snarky about others suffering. There may be a serious problem of homelessness but it seems this absence of empathy is a much more serious problem for any society leaving it unequal to any social challenge.
It’s easy to preach empathy from a leafy suburb. I certainly used to. When you are actually inhaling piss, stepping over feces, and weaving through tents every time you go outside, the situation is a bit different. Much of HN lives in urban SF and moves around the city without a glass and steel cage. In that light, homelessness moves down Maslow’s hierarchy from a moral reasoning problem to a visceral disgust/fear, a threat to the safety and dignity of home.
It’s one thing to be “against” mass incarceration and the criminalization of the poor, another to be okay with zero police response to your own assault/burglary. It’s one thing to be pro legalization, another to be okay with street dealers on your block. One thing to believe homeless people have a right to go where they please, another to stay committed when they decide to camp at your doorstep.
Maybe I am the only fake/uncommitted liberal but I get the sense that this kind of right-shifting after a few years in SF is not uncommon.
It’s one thing to be “against” mass incarceration and the criminalization of the poor, another to be okay with zero police response to your own assault/burglary. It’s one thing to be pro legalization, another to be okay with street dealers on your block. One thing to believe homeless people have a right to go where they please, another to stay committed when they decide to camp at your doorstep.
Maybe I am the only fake/uncommitted liberal but I get the sense that this kind of right-shifting after a few years in SF is not uncommon.
You're not the only one. The daily grind of dealing with this shit on the streets and homeless/muggers on muni is giving me a noticeable rightward shift from my typically progressive politics. And I used to BE homeless!
My homeless friends in Berkeley pine about the good old days before the nuts, tweakers, dope fiends, and dirtbags started to multiply and swarm the community. If HOMELESS people are complaining about the homeless people in your city, you have a big problem.
Anecdotally, a crazy homeless lady was stabbing random people with scissors in my neighborhood last year, and I just checked up on what happened with her. Charges reduced to misdemeanors and set loose back on the streets. Meanwhile uppity rich liberals complain about police treatment of the homeless, and launch anonymous opposition to shelters and new housing development when they come to their neighborhoods. That basically sums up everything going wrong here from my perspective.
My homeless friends in Berkeley pine about the good old days before the nuts, tweakers, dope fiends, and dirtbags started to multiply and swarm the community. If HOMELESS people are complaining about the homeless people in your city, you have a big problem.
Anecdotally, a crazy homeless lady was stabbing random people with scissors in my neighborhood last year, and I just checked up on what happened with her. Charges reduced to misdemeanors and set loose back on the streets. Meanwhile uppity rich liberals complain about police treatment of the homeless, and launch anonymous opposition to shelters and new housing development when they come to their neighborhoods. That basically sums up everything going wrong here from my perspective.
There's a homeless NIMBYISM joke around here somewhere.
Indeed, I feel the Bay Area has made me more hard-hearted and conservative when it comes to the homeless over years. I'm happy to donate to local charities that try to give them the help they need, but it's best for me to keep my distance from street folks day-to-day, as they produce in me a deep instinctive threat response with their smell and unpredictable behavior.
My local camp is great: no drug use, good structures, waste disposal and a portapotty provided by the city. And because there are always people around, we have less crime otherwise.
The problem comes when there aren't better options for people: neighborhoods break down and rather than get to know the people of their community, the haves come to see their neighbors, many of whom were here before the haves moved in and jacked up rents, as somehow less than human. When someone's very existence is seen as a threat, yeah, you'll end up opposing the effective policy solutions and instead look to ineffective punitive solutions that further destroy the basic bonds of society.
You can always move to Walnut Creak. San Francisco has always been thus (or worse), and the expectation that it's going to transform into your shiny polished city of glass and steel is a remarkably clear description of the entitlement behind gentrification. This was their city: you are the interloper here.
The problem comes when there aren't better options for people: neighborhoods break down and rather than get to know the people of their community, the haves come to see their neighbors, many of whom were here before the haves moved in and jacked up rents, as somehow less than human. When someone's very existence is seen as a threat, yeah, you'll end up opposing the effective policy solutions and instead look to ineffective punitive solutions that further destroy the basic bonds of society.
You can always move to Walnut Creak. San Francisco has always been thus (or worse), and the expectation that it's going to transform into your shiny polished city of glass and steel is a remarkably clear description of the entitlement behind gentrification. This was their city: you are the interloper here.
So the rough sleepers I see are the people whose city it was - people with jobs and households, relationships and support networks. They got renewal offers they couldn’t sign, and had nowhere to go / no money to relocate when their leases expired.
Jesus. For like $3,000 I can buy someone a plane ticket to a more reasonable market and a few weeks of temporary accommodation there. That’s all they would need to have permanent normal lives again, and our government is somehow not doing this? Who even cares, if this is real I’ll do it myself starting tomorrow.
Or could it be that our social services agencies are not actually stupid, and the homeless population has extensive special needs that are incompatible with the modern world for deep-seated reasons unlikely to change this century?
Jesus. For like $3,000 I can buy someone a plane ticket to a more reasonable market and a few weeks of temporary accommodation there. That’s all they would need to have permanent normal lives again, and our government is somehow not doing this? Who even cares, if this is real I’ll do it myself starting tomorrow.
Or could it be that our social services agencies are not actually stupid, and the homeless population has extensive special needs that are incompatible with the modern world for deep-seated reasons unlikely to change this century?
> I get the sense that this kind of right-shifting after a few years in SF is not uncommon.
I'll believe it when it shows up in voting behavior. Nothing is going to improve until you change who you elect. Nothing at all.
FYI; someone camps out on my doorstep they're gone with one call; no debate. Your "homeless" problem is not a nation wide phenomena. This is you; the government you chose, the policies you voted for. No one else is at fault for this. It's you. Look around at what you made.
I'll believe it when it shows up in voting behavior. Nothing is going to improve until you change who you elect. Nothing at all.
FYI; someone camps out on my doorstep they're gone with one call; no debate. Your "homeless" problem is not a nation wide phenomena. This is you; the government you chose, the policies you voted for. No one else is at fault for this. It's you. Look around at what you made.
[deleted]
Its easy to label those who advocate for more empathy as 'leafy liberals' or hypocrites. But this this just a ruse to justify the lack of empathy for those who make this argument.
The immediate shift of the focus from those who are homeless and suffering to the consequences just confirms their priorities. They don't care about anyone else, they just feel entitled to a life without homeless people and that's what bugs them about homelessness. But no one promised you that. 100 years ago poverty and suffering was widespread but this got solved, not by complaining about their existance but with better policies and concern. Thats why modernity is associated by a more humane caring society compared to the past.
Dehumanizing others carries a great cost, you are just dehumanizing yourself and a society that has no value or concern for human beings is not a civilization. Homelessness cannot force anyone from left to right, these people were nowhere near left or liberal to start with. These are not labels for your personal living convenience, they stand for values and ideas.
The immediate shift of the focus from those who are homeless and suffering to the consequences just confirms their priorities. They don't care about anyone else, they just feel entitled to a life without homeless people and that's what bugs them about homelessness. But no one promised you that. 100 years ago poverty and suffering was widespread but this got solved, not by complaining about their existance but with better policies and concern. Thats why modernity is associated by a more humane caring society compared to the past.
Dehumanizing others carries a great cost, you are just dehumanizing yourself and a society that has no value or concern for human beings is not a civilization. Homelessness cannot force anyone from left to right, these people were nowhere near left or liberal to start with. These are not labels for your personal living convenience, they stand for values and ideas.
Hats off to anyone who truly empathizes and engages with deepest suffering of the world each time they go to buy groceries. I really mean it. I thought I would do that, I said things like you’re saying here, and when push came to shove I couldn’t. If the price of living in a city is to be some kind of monk, it’s not for me.
What I won’t respect is people who have simply chosen a different way of excluding the homeless from their community - car dependence - being sanctimonious about people in higher density environment wanting the same things.
What I won’t respect is people who have simply chosen a different way of excluding the homeless from their community - car dependence - being sanctimonious about people in higher density environment wanting the same things.
Empathy is the first step to action. if you were born 100 years ago this would be a fact of life, child labour, poverty, racism and homelessness was rampant. And economic downturns like the great depression brought these right back. How do you imagine these problems were solved?
Talking about liberals, hypocrisy and inconvenience is not going to solve anything and is not designed to. How is talking about car dependence going to solve the problem of thousands of homeless people in cities? This just highlights how without empathy the only problem people can see is how their own life is impacted.
But widespread homelessness is simply an early warning system telling you there is something broken in your society. Those without empathy will keep complaining about how their lives have been ruined by the existance of homeless people like HN has been doing for the last 5 years without any engagement with history, economics, policies or inequality and those with empathy will solve this like they have done multiple times before.
Talking about liberals, hypocrisy and inconvenience is not going to solve anything and is not designed to. How is talking about car dependence going to solve the problem of thousands of homeless people in cities? This just highlights how without empathy the only problem people can see is how their own life is impacted.
But widespread homelessness is simply an early warning system telling you there is something broken in your society. Those without empathy will keep complaining about how their lives have been ruined by the existance of homeless people like HN has been doing for the last 5 years without any engagement with history, economics, policies or inequality and those with empathy will solve this like they have done multiple times before.
[deleted]
Wouldn’t more spending homelessness at the state level incentivize homeless migration into the state, therefore possibly counteracting the effects of the spending? To me it seems like this is something which needs to be addressed at the federal level.
Anyone have any research they can point to about this possible issue?
Anyone have any research they can point to about this possible issue?
I can't help but notice that all the people saying they have similiar symptoms in non-CA cities are mentioning cities that are popular places for people moving out of CA to go to and cities where there is a lot of complaining about the newcomers enacting the kind of public policy that gave CA it's problem. I know this is just correlation and doesn't mean anything by itself but I can't help but notice it.
Does anyone know where the data came from that made this plot ?
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a3xdae/more-people-poopin...
I could not it in the pages or article ?
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a3xdae/more-people-poopin...
I could not it in the pages or article ?
>San Francisco has seen rental prices skyrocket
Add deinstitutionalization on top of that, The Opioid epidemic, And that the majority of the population still think in bootstraps,
You're going to see it only get worse. Remember, you are your brother's keeper, whether you want to be or not.
Add deinstitutionalization on top of that, The Opioid epidemic, And that the majority of the population still think in bootstraps,
You're going to see it only get worse. Remember, you are your brother's keeper, whether you want to be or not.
>> Remember, you are your brother's keeper, whether you want to be or not.
I've never heard is phrase and I really like how you phrased it. There's no way to determine the apathy of humanity more than being homeless and seeing just how little people give a damn. We're trained to ignore these people, and then when we become one, we see just how awful we have been.
There was actually a 1985 Twilight Zone episode about this...
I've never heard is phrase and I really like how you phrased it. There's no way to determine the apathy of humanity more than being homeless and seeing just how little people give a damn. We're trained to ignore these people, and then when we become one, we see just how awful we have been.
There was actually a 1985 Twilight Zone episode about this...
It is a biblical quote. Cain kills his brother. Then God asks where his brother is, and Cain says idk, he’s not my problem.
> I've never heard is phrase
Based off Genesis 4:9.
Based off Genesis 4:9.
> Remember, you are your brother's keeper, whether you want to be or not.
However, you need to be careful not to apply that with too heavy a hand.
"When do you take someone's freedom of choice away?" should always be a heavy decision.
However, you need to be careful not to apply that with too heavy a hand.
"When do you take someone's freedom of choice away?" should always be a heavy decision.
Wow double digit growth. Meanwhile AB50 is stalled. This is probably the worst part of the BA which is otherwise wonderful. Its utter helplessness in confronting it's housing problem.
Someone please smash together a chart of Tesla vehicle sales and homelessness rates in California. I think it would be very interesting.
[deleted]
I initially read this as "Homeless population jumps by thousands across the San Francisco Bay".
I believe the term "homeless" was adopted in part to avoid more pejorative terms like "bum" or "vagrant". However, there may be some differences. You may not notice the majority of the homeless. They may very well hang out in libraries, coffee shops, and park benches, but these folks may be people with no mental illness or addiction, victims of the economy, or a restrictive housing supply. Alternatively, they may be people with personal health (including mental health) challenges that do severely impede their ability to work (or just cope with the world), but they have no immediate outward appearance of distress or addiction, and they don't pass out on city streets or, worse, intimidate, berate, threaten, stalk, harass, or assault fellow citizens.
The term homeless has come in the vernacular to refer to the people I referenced in that last sentence as the "homeless", almost to the point where the word is detached from home and less. It means a severely addicted and mentally ill person who lives on the street.
I don't know which one is increasing. I've lived in SF my whole life (SF, not the Bay Area, I took urban muni routes home from middle school), I'm in my late 40s, and I've never seen it so bad. I've always been a big public transportation taker, but I'm less enthusiastic about it now. What were occasional bad moments in the 80s and 90s have become an every other ride experience in some locations, and the lows are starting to get really, really low.