[UIUC_06]

> he found shelters too stressful

> The threat of jail won’t convince him to stay in a shelter, which already feels like jail

So there you have it. Giving them a free bed won't do it. I have a feeling that even giving them a room at the Fairmont wouldn't do it.

[skavi]

Homeless shelters really do suck from what I’ve read. Theft in particular is an issue.

I don’t think it’s fair to extrapolate from that statement that people wouldn’t take up the offer of shelter if quality and safety were improved.

There will always be holdouts, but a practical solution will make those the outliers rather than the common case.

[drblastoff]

Do you let the shelters become drugs dens? Because many chronically-homeless people in SF are addicts, and they prefer to live on the street than give up drugs to sleep indoors.

Addicts should have a choice: shelter, treatment, or jail. If you bring drugs in the shelter, your choice becomes treatment or jail. Drug encampments on city sidewalks should simply not be an option.

Some chronically homeless people in SF also suffer from mental illness and cannot look after themselves. They may also not do well in shelters. But leaving them outside is not humane. Institutions had a reputation for poor living conditions, but leaving them to suffer in the street is no better. And institutions can be improved.

[floam]

I’ve stayed at a shelter once in my life. It was horrible. I had to line up with scary people at like 6pm, wait hours, make it to my cot at 8ish, lights out at 9pm and then they wake you up at 5:30 in the morning and cast you away to figure out how to keep warm in below freezing weather. Couldn’t bring my stuff in with me; I had to leave my backpack in a shed that relied on the honor system (and getting to it ASAP when they unlocked the shed in the morning) to prevent theft. I couldn’t bring a snack in with me. It felt like jail. If I had more stuff than a little bag, they simply could not accommodate storage. If I had a sleeping bag I’d 100% have preferred to find some safer quiet spot to sleep, and sleep in until the sun came up.

[azinman2]

To be fair, there’s a large delta between homeless shelters and the Fairmont. I’ve read a lot of women feel unsafe in them as it’s not exactly private and secure. Of course neither is the streets, but you can try and create more distance.

I have a lot of sympathy for those in this situation. It’s a tough place to be, and many won’t get out of it for a wide variety of reasons.

[inamberclad]

You also can't take your belongings, and people have nowhere else to put their things.

[UIUC_06]

Where are you getting that information?

https://svdp-sf.org/navigation-center/

"Among the unique features of the Center are the capacity for couples to shelter together, bring in pets, and have clients possessions stored. "

[Cupertino95014]

So here's a question for you: is there ANY definition of "housing" under which you'd be willing to compel homeless people to take it, under penalty of fines & jail? Please tell us.

[AlbertCory]

I notice no one cares to answer this, but they do seem to be downvoting it. I wonder why? Because they think living on the streets is an unconditional right?

[UIUC_06]

Nonetheless, no city is responsible for providing pleasant housing for everyone who comes there. The law on that is now quite clear.

[hobs]

If you cant offer something better than jail why stay out of jail?

[drblastoff]

The point is that you don’t incentivize moving to SF with no money and no job and no prospects and living on the street until you get free housing.

Newsom tried this while he was mayor. His conclusion was that for every person they put in housing, two new people showed up on the street.

Another issue was that most people they put into “temporary” supportive housing never moved out. A significant portion of SF’s budget goes towards paying for the housing of formerly homeless people. The city won’t put them out on the street, so why would they ever leave?

[Cupertino95014]

So you're saying "let's put them in jail?"

[maerF0x0]

>"than jail why stay out of jail?

to me their sentence reads more like if the shelter is worse than prison, might as well do something to get into prison.

[literallycancer]

Can't blame people for not using shelters if you make them feel like a prison.

Would you use a shelter where you can't control light switches, get woken up by a siren, get your stuff stolen, probably have to share showers and kitchen with junkies, if you are even allowed to cook your own food?

[UIUC_06]

https://svdp-sf.org/what-we-do/msc-shelter/

For most of those, I either don't find any support, or it's actually contradicted ("get your stuff stolen").

"cook your own food" -- how do they manage that if they live on the street?

VDP does mention:

"fully-functioning computer lab

free weekly haircuts

shower and laundry facilities"

So I think you are mostly making stuff up.

[RoyalHenOil]

That is a highly dubious opinion.

I am not homeless and I never have been, but I would MUCH rather sleep in a car or a tent (placed in a spot of my choosing, near people I trust and away from people I distrust) than in a typical homeless shelter surrounded by strangers who might assault me or steal from me in the night. It's not even close.

However, I'd MUCH rather sleep in a hotel room than in a car or a tent. Again, not even close.

[Cupertino95014]

All you people trashing shelters as they exist:

is there ANY definition of "housing" under which you'd be willing to compel homeless people to take it, under penalty of fines & jail? Please tell us.

[klyrs]

If I put a gun to your head and told you where to live, would you feel that I was giving, or taking away, your personal liberty? Which of these two things should our government be responsible for? My Constitution says the former.

Without threat of violence, housing projects such as the Harlem River Houses have been immensely successful. Other than the US and Canada, do any other first world countries have homelessness problems of the magnitude we're seeing? Why does the US lead the world in homeless and prison populations; if stricter laws were the answer, shouldn't that have worked by now?

[drblastoff]

If the city says “You cannot live on the sidewalk, in public parks, or in Bart stations,” that’s a far cry from putting a gun to someone’s head.

The city can offer other options:

- shelters in the city

- shelters outside the city if shelter in the city are full (this is my controversial opinion, but if you can’t afford housing in a specific place, you may need to live in a different place until you can afford it. I’d love to live in Malibu, but I can’t afford it. I don’t think it’s my right to plop myself down on the sidewalk and shoot heroin until the city of Malibu builds me free housing. That’s not a realistic expectation.)

- bus fare return to family

- treatment for addicts

[dmitrygr]

It might, if laws were enforced. Most everyone I know left Norcal precisely because enforcement is nonexistent. Try calling the police in SF/Oakland. Hell, just google what it is actually like if you try: https://abc7news.com/post/oakland-76-gas-station-burglary-ro...

People who claim that "laws do not work" are usually ignoring that laws need ENFORCEMENT.

[JumpCrisscross]

> If I put a gun to your head and told you where to live, would you feel that I was giving, or taking away, your personal liberty?

Context: I’m in your living room and refuse to leave.

[klyrs]

Private property.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Private property

Valid. This is a tragedy of the commons. The problem is they’re being used for the private benefit of those camping on them. That will eventually undermine support for funding them.

[klyrs]

Yes, that's why you spend money on housing; for pennies on the police state dollar. Granting a person a room is a one-time cost, which can be diminished with larger builds, and a modest upkeep. The criminal justice system incurs significant ongoing costs per incarceree. Moreover, a criminal record is a barrier to employment, which tends to entrench people within the criminal justice system -- these costs can avoidably result in a lifetime of wasted taxpayer dollars.

[AlbertCory]

You didn't answer the question.

Unless the Harlem River House is your answer. So if that were available, THEN you'd be OK with compulsion?

[klyrs]

No, I am not okay with compulsion... you're asking me at which point has the government given enough gifts to justify authoritarianism. And I'm telling you, I don't accept your authoritarianism, and there may be a path forward that doesn't require it.

[dmitrygr]

> there may be a path forward that doesn't require it.

pray tell

[klyrs]

I said so upthread, Harlem River House is the model. Government building out large and livable housing.

[UIUC_06]

OK, I think we have it, finally: you think people are entitled to live on the street. Good to know.

"There may be a path forward" -- weasel words.

[klyrs]

> "There may be a path forward" -- weasel words.

Or, humility. Nothing is certain in civic planning. But I suspect you'd jump on me if I claimed it was a foolproof plan, wouldn't you? But it's observed all over the world: in places where housing is affordable and available, there isn't a homelessness crisis. Most homeless people don't wanna be. Remove them, and the community goes away, and with it, all but a very few diehards that exist in practically every city.

[skavi]

It sounds like you’re looking for an absolute solution which, as you suggest, will never exist without the use of state violence.

I believe most people would be satisfied if the problem were to simply become rare enough that they didn’t have to think about it.

If that’s the goal, I think improving housing quality can get you close.