[fosk]

> But there are many reasons why the region could finally be experiencing a shrinking population:

And yet the author is missing the elephant in the room: the incredibly deteriorating living conditions in a city crammed with drug addicts, human feces and casual violent aggressions at all hours of the day. A city that enables the "homeless lifestyle" without any accountability. Homelessness is - for the most part in San Francisco - a choice and/or a result of mental illness and drug addiction.

There is of course a certain amount of people that do become homeless because of lack of housing, but for the most part the city administration has been gaslighting us on the real causes: drug addiction and homeless lifestyle.

Most of them are not even native from San Francisco, but they come from elsewhere. I suggest everybody reads this article to learn more about the long history of criminality in San Francisco, enabled by the city officials: https://www.city-journal.org/san-francisco-homelessness

Edit: Everybody in San Francisco talks about the rights of the homeless, but where are my rights as a lawful tax payer who cannot bring his son to the park without risking his life by stepping on a needle?

[landryraccoon]

High housing costs are probably a causal factor in all of the problems you mention.

When housing costs are as exorbitant as they are, everyone is much closer to homelessness than they were before. If someone is laid off in the bay, they have significantly less time to find a new job before they cannot afford housing compared to more affordable areas.

Once you are actually homeless, mental problems and drug issues can become a self fulfilling prophecy, especially if you moved to the bay from out of state and have no local support network.

> Homelessness is - for the most part in San Francisco - a choice and/or a result of mental illness and drug addiction.

This is.. a very harsh take. Mental illness and drug abuse I can see, but a choice ? That is a serious claim that requires serious evidence.

[fennecfoxen]

> a choice

This claim is stronger in San Francisco specifically than it is nationwide. The city has been a Mecca for drug culture for a long time, and its current public policy barely recognizes the drug abuse of its homeless persons as a problem, except when it’s time to mitigate the spread of HIV with needle exchanges.

“Used needles on the playground equipment” is a very-specifically San Francisco complaint.

[fosk]

Perfect, if we determine that housing is an important cause, then can we:

* Enact consequences for those that do refuse housing when available (ie, banning homeless lifestyle).

* Arrest illegal aliens that are making the lack of housing even worse.

* Stop open-air drug dealing and abuse so that people can get back on their feet.

And if not, why not?

[landryraccoon]

This sounds like it's based more on ideology than evidence.

> Enact consequences for those that do refuse housing when available (ie, banning homeless lifestyle).

You're saying that if someone homeless turns down free housing you want to arrest them? The obvious question is - where's the free housing you're talking about? Homeless shelters don't even have free beds, I'm pretty sure that the homeless would take a better indoor place to sleep if there was one available.

> Arrest illegal aliens that are making the lack of housing even worse.

I'm sorry, you think that migrant farm workers being paid less than minimum wage are the reason Google engineers have to get roommates, or why single family homes start at $1M and up? I really don't get it. Migrant workers aren't buying real estate.

[aaomidi]

It's funny because people like the parent comment here usually propose even more fines and restrictions on these people.

None of them want to admit that housing shouldn't be tied to employment.

You want to solve homelessness? Make homes a guaranteed right. And actual homes. Not some shitty shelters.

[jes5199]

Lots of folks back East, they say, is leavin' home every day,

Beatin' the hot old dusty way to the California line.

'Cross the desert sands they roll, gettin' out of that old dust bowl,

They think they're goin' to a sugar bowl, but here's what they find

Now, the police at the port of entry say,

"You're number fourteen thousand for today."

Oh, if you ain't got the do re mi, folks, you ain't got the do re mi,

Why, you better go back to beautiful Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Georgia, Tennessee.

California is a garden of Eden, a paradise to live in or see;

But believe it or not, you won't find it so hot

If you ain't got the do re mi.

You want to buy you a home or a farm, that can't deal nobody harm,

Or take your vacation by the mountains or sea.

Don't swap your old cow for a car, you better stay right where you are,

Better take this little tip from me.

'Cause I look through the want ads every day

But the headlines on the papers always say:

If you ain't got the do re mi, boys, you ain't got the do re mi,

Why, you better go back to beautiful Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Georgia, Tennessee.

California is a garden of Eden, a paradise to live in or see;

But believe it or not, you won't find it so hot

If you ain't got the do re mi.

Words and Music by Woody Guthrie

[neuro_image3]

I just discovered Woody Guthrie after watching the "No direction home" documentary about Bob Dylon on Netflix.

There is incredible, timeless insight into the human condition in his work.

Thank you for posting this.

[voldacar]

As someone who has never lived in SF but vaguely heard of their issues with homelessness, that article is super eye-opening. It talks about city bureaucrats and homeless advocacy organizations, but not so much the attitude of the general public. Aren't democracies supposed to have feedback loops that will eventually solve this problem? If they haven't gotten there already, at what point will the general SF citizenry get pissed off enough to elect leaders focused on fixing this?

[asdff]

The feedback loop works if you assume most people's opinions are rooted in facts. They are often not grounded in reality, especially at the local political level where awful inflammatory opinions readily circulate on social networks like nextdoor and Facebook. People in SF and other cities frequently oppose construction of homeless shelters, with the thinking that this will attract homeless to the area and make the situation worse. Guess what, the homeless are already there, that's why that site in particular was chosen for the potential shelter. At least in LA, when a shelter goes up, cleanings in the area happen much more frequently and it becomes a less attractive place to camp if you need to move all of your things every day. People don't bother reading the details of these plans to see these things.

This degenerate logic against shelter construction ignores the fact that the only alternative to not building shelters and mental health facilities is to allow the homeless population to grow and fester and continue to trash the streets, since thankfully we are not a society that just removes undesirables from existence.

[einpoklum]

> enables the "homeless lifestyle" without any accountability

You mean by not having public housing?

> Homelessness is - for the most part in San Francisco - a choice and/or a result of mental illness and drug addiction.

It's obviously not a choice. It's also not the result of mental illness nor of drug addiction, at least for the most part, as people suffering from mental illness or addicted to some drug also don't want to be homeless and stuck on the streets. And while they are somewhat more likely to lose their house due to mis-managing their life - it is much much more likely to happen when they have no social support: Medical care-givers (no such thing by default in the US), neighborhood/community associations (not much of that in most cities), families etc.

> where are my rights as a lawful tax payer who cannot bring his son to the park without risking his life by stepping on a needle?

Your right is not catered to by social institutions, and municipal ones in particular, who are acting as though homelessness should be addressed by suppressing/harassing the homeless rather than ensuring people have homes.

[fosk]

They do refuse housing when it is being offered. In addition to this San Francisco does not cooperate with ICE to deport illegal aliens which make the housing problem worse.

Do you agree that if they do refuse housing we need to do something about it? Do you also agree that we should start taking action in making more housing available by at least deporting illegal aliens?

It is obvious by now - after 40 years - that the current strategy does not work, don't you agree with this statement?

[einpoklum]

> They do refuse housing when it is being offered.

This sounds rather incredible... can you back this claim up?

> they do refuse housing we need to do something about it?

Perhaps, but to be honest I'm quite baffled by this. I'm even surprised that San Francisco is offering 0-rent apartments to the homeless, when generally from what I know the rental market there is rather out of control.

> by at least deporting illegal aliens?

the problem you decried is people who are homeless and harass others on the streets. So, why use someone's legal immigration status as the criterion for action? I'd imagine most homeless are actually US citizens, and that illegal immigrants tend to find someplace to work and some decent sleeping arrangement.

[asdff]

If you build enough shelter space to house the homeless population, by law your choices are to sleep in the shelter or go to jail if you refuse. Until enough shelter space is built, you can continue to sleep on the sidewalk. See the Boise decision which dictates this policy all over the Western United States.

[asdff]

One of the facets of the Boise decision which made it legal to camp on sidewalks in the Western United States is that you can make sidewalk camping illegal if you have sufficient shelter space. If you live in SF or anywhere else with homeless issues, and are tired of the status quo, the only solution that will ever work is building shelters and building mental health facilities. The decision for a camper would therefore be, spend a night in a shelter with social workers, move to a mental health treatment facility if they are mentally unsound or addicted so substances, or go to jail. The only way out is to build your way out, which is why opposition to shelter construction is so soooo stupid and morally abhorrent.

[aaomidi]

How do you propose to solve said drug addiction and homeless lifestyle?

[einpoklum]

Homelessness is not a "lifestyle", and it is quite rude of you to say that.

Also, in the US, a great amount of social resources are expended - albeit often indirectly or inadvertantly - to _encourage_ drug addiction. Aim for the social institutions that make the US the highest developed country in terms of, say, opiate use:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_prevalenc...

(second highest if we consider Russia developed rather than developing)

[thrownaway954]

give them the compassion and support that any one of us deserves as human beings. if they are mental ill, then get them on the medication they need. if they want a job, give them one. if they are on drugs, get them into a program like NA and give them the medication to combat the withdrawl. everyone deserves the help the desire. there is no reason why we should putting each other down.

[ueueshitashita]

> if they are mental ill, then get them on the medication they need.

What if they don't want to be on medication?

> if they are on drugs, get them into a program like NA and give them the medication to combat the withdrawl.

What if they have no interest in doing that?

[asdff]

Right now, nothing. If you build enough shelter space, by law, you no longer can make these decisions. If there is enough shelter space to house the homeless population, the choices become go to the shelter or go to jail. This is why we need to build more shelters as soon as possible.

[einpoklum]

Agree with you generally, but NA is a religious missionary program, where the treatment/process involves worship or reverence of supernatural entities (a god / higher power).

[thrownaway954]

I'm in NA... it's not a religious program and you don't have to believe in god or a higher power. all of that crap is suggested.

it's a fellowship, nothing more, nothing less. you have someone that you can talk that understands first hand what you are going through when you have cravings. that's all it is... support when you want it.

everything is optional.

[fosk]

Well for starters, not allowing open air drug dealing and arresting illegal drug dealers in the streets. Cooperating with ICE, and so on. Starting to take action against homeless that do refuse housing because they enjoy the homeless lifestyle, which in turn will make it less attractive for non-native homeless to come to San Francisco.

[renewiltord]

Cooperating with ICE to send these people back to America where they come from? My, my, San Francisco’s atavistic parochialism is really something but calling ones fellow Americans illegal immigrants. That’s good.

[aaomidi]

I knew these comments are racist dog whistles. It's so sad how San Francisco went from the cradle of counter culture to...this.

[fosk]

If there is no housing available, then why are illegal immigrants tolerated which would arguably make the problem worse? It makes no sense.

[renewiltord]

Because no one can demonstrate it makes an appreciable impact, and the cost is that we get ghettos where no one will report crime. So we don’t do it.

[fosk]

So - as a result of your logic - you suggest that we allow crime and illegal aliens?

We know it does make an impact because the police department regularly arrests them (since they cause negativities in the community) and regularly the courts release them so that they can go back to the same street corner to keep selling death.

San Francisco truly is a law-less place.

[eanzenberg]

Outlaw street-level drug use.

[kube-system]

I guess prisoners technically aren't homeless.

[aaomidi]

And how does that help? You're just sending anyone undesirable to prison?

How about, and this is a wild idea, we just require housing to be a natural right and we give people that?

[ueueshitashita]

> we just require housing to be a natural right and we give people that?

Who is "we" in this context?

[aaomidi]

People who realize housing people is cheaper than jailing them.

[eanzenberg]

How is it in any way cheaper. I mean yes, if you ship people to middle america it will be. But touting a "right" to housing in SF is preposterous, at $1000 / sq ft (and will only go up with more demand).

[ueueshitashita]

What is stopping the group of people who realize this from housing people?

[booboolayla]

I say we let them continue "thriving" just like we did for decades. Left wing "activists" keep their steady income so they can continue pretending to solve problems, the homeless will be happy too. As for tax payers, we can scare them with Trump and republicans so they keep voting for us. What do you say? Sounds like a win-win-win to me.

[ahelwer]

A place with the highest housing prices in the country, where software engineers make over six figures and still have roommates, also happens to have a large number of homeless people - nope, no causality there, it's just that they're all drug addicts or living the H O M E L E S S L I F E S T Y L E or (some other thing that absolves me of any need to have empathy for my fellow people)

Software engineers who move in and give zero shits about their fellow humans are truly the disease of SF, not the homeless.