[nubb]

everyone acting so shocked here probably hasn’t had your home robbed, your car windows broken, or been assaulted and/or robbed by a drugged out bum.

at some point enough is enough and they gotta go.

i think it’s a juvenile attitude to look down your nose at the endless victims and tell them to just be more understanding of the hardships the homeless face.

[warent]

Well I've had my car broken into, and I've been assulted twice by homeless people--once spat on, and once physically jumped/attacked. (Edit: also the more I think about it, the more I remember other scary/dangerous incidences)

Nope, none of this changes my feelings, and certainly does not grant me "depravity tokens" that I'm now allowed to cash-in. "Hello, I have five depravity-tokens from being treated badly by a homeless person, I'd like to spend it on treating them badly in return."

[abeppu]

This doesn't get anyone off the street, it just nudges them away from this specific building. What's juvenile is people trying to displace the problem into just slightly different part of the same neighborhood and imagining that it's accomplished anything.

[bloody-crow]

Clearly, the goal here is not to solve homelessness but to reduce exposure to homelessness.

You don't have to hate homeless people to not want to be around them.

[abeppu]

But it _doesn't_ reduce exposure to homelessness. It _moves_ exposure to homelessness by a very short distance. It's one group of neighbors pushing those people to sleep on another block, where other very similar housed people will encounter them. Even if you fully don't care about homeless people and only think of them as a nuisance, this is the equivalent of shoveling the snow on your patch of sidewalk and throwing it on your neighbor's patch of sidewalk and saying, "I don't hate snow I just don't want to be around it."

I walk by this library frequently (it's on 16th just east of Market) and I _have_ seen that there used to be a bunch of people there most nights, and this often isn't true anymore. But as someone who lives in the area, my "exposure to homelessness" has not in any way been reduced; I just pass tents in slightly different parts of the neighborhood.

[2023throwawayy]

So what is your proposed solution? All I hear is "they gotta go". Go where? On who's dime?

[8f2ab37a-ed6c]

To be fair there's gotta be a more cost-effective place to house the unhoused than the Castro, West Village or Beverly Hills. I'm sure we can find cheaper stretches of land somewhere in the US.

[2023throwawayy]

To be fair...

"Go somewhere that rich people aren't" isn't much of a solution.

[michaelt]

If the average home in San Francisco sells for $1.2 million, and the average home in Willard, New Mexico sells for $120,000 is it really so dreadful to help ten times as many homeless people?

[FireBeyond]

Tell us all about Willard's booming economy and the wide swathes of open jobs available to new residents there...

... in a town of 250 people, where nearly a third of the population lives below the poverty line.

The ONLY people that benefits is the residents of SF or wherever, that successfully managed to "make it someone else's problem".

[8f2ab37a-ed6c]

People with non-tech jobs already can't afford to live in SF. Unless you're expecting the formerly unhoused to suddenly become a Senior Machine Learning Engineer at FAANG, they aren't going to have a great time trying to make ends meet in SF.

It's not a city where you want to rediscover yourself in, unless you inherited property from a previous generation or you're one of the lucky few whose career is benefiting from the latest tech gold rush. You will not escape the homelessness cycle unless SF taxpayers guarantee you free housing until you get hired by Netflix.

[michaelt]

The homeless people who get a roof over their heads don't benefit from it? Really?

[8f2ab37a-ed6c]

That's an uncharitable read. There are market realities to the cost of real estate, there's no need to add a moralistic spin to it.

[sharts]

Send them to the Pelosi’s or Breed’s or Newsom’s home. “Leaders” should be leading by being in the thick off it, personally.

[mAritz]

Let's say we go with your dystopian wishes and round them all up and ship them off to some other place - with all the problems that then causes just ignored.

Someone now loses their home after that - let's say to a fire and they didn't have it insured for that because the house insurance market is either dysfunctional or close to it in some parts of the US. You now have 1 homeless person again. Do you also ship them off again?

Do you just forever keep shipping off the unlucky and downtrodden people to some other place?

What if they lost their house, but have insurance paying soon, the insurance company is just dragging their feet for a few months. They will be fine, they will be able to pay for a new house or rebuilding. But until then they might be without housing. Ship them off anyways?

[piloto_ciego]

Let’s be real, the world view informing this sort of carceral idea typically only has one solution, and usually it’s a “final” sort of one.

The goal is not to get rid of the homeless in the city, it’s to “get rid of them.” And -consciously or unconsciously- at its core, the goal is to have a group of weak people who are easy to oppress.

The rhetoric hasn’t basically changed in 90 years. It’s disgusting and frankly I’m shocked to see this sort of talk on HN.

Perhaps Reddit was running interference for us…

[sharts]

The solution to it isn’t to cut off a vital comms channel. It is to end their lives. The problem is that nobody wants to say it.

[jrflowers]

> everyone acting so shocked here probably hasn’t had your home robbed, your car windows broken, or been assaulted and/or robbed by a drugged out bum.

Brb changing my BSSID to “FBI Van #80085” as a practical step to protect my property

[Sparkyte]

AGREED

Just a bunch of conservatives and liberals chilling. No logic people.