by CPAhem on 10/24/21, 12:15 AM with 354 comments
by RobLach on 10/24/21, 5:28 AM
SF residents don't want the solution.
Real estate is the primary wealth building asset class of long-term residents who bought property ages ago or inherited it.
In California property taxes as assessed at time of sale, so you hold onto properties realistically valued at multiple millions while paying taxes at rate appropriate to tens of thousands.
Bulldozing a single family home to build a multi-family unit has an enormous cost on the back end given re-assessment.
Any potential drop in property values has massive protest. It's such a nice free-ride you will fight tooth and nail for.
These residents just want the homeless population "dealt with".
The only solution viable for these residents is getting rid of homeless people through force.
This in untenable give that these residents also have internalized a set of liberal moral values, which mostly means alleviating guilt by dumping money onto ineffective non-profit organization who at worst are siphoning public funds for themselves or at best are trying their best at executing strategies which have minimal impact.
Consider that between 2010 and 2020, SF built ~25,000 new housing units.
Charlotte, NC, a city with a lower population, built 160,000 new units.
Norway has homeless population of 0.07% by mostly doing one thing: building and giving homes to people who don't have them.
That would cause property values to plummet. Many long-term residents would have to seek employment after a lifetime of living off rents.
by no_butterscotch on 10/24/21, 1:43 AM
They discussed: de-criminalization, the "Portugal approach", progressive policies, policing, etc. Also the use of language such as "homeless camps" which envisages a camp of homeless people just trying to live. Versus the reality which when social workers and mayors (mayor of Denver) went into these camps undercover only found that everyone was a drug abuser and were being enabled to self-destruct.
Highly recommended, the author is a resident of "San Fransicko".
by bryan0 on 10/24/21, 1:13 AM
by ajmurmann on 10/24/21, 2:09 AM
by Tiktaalik on 10/24/21, 1:23 AM
A frequent critique of those that want to solve the homeless problem by sending in the police to crack heads and send everyone to prison. The main goal here of course being to ensure that the homeless "go away" somewhere out of view.
In reality most of the "crimes" that people are wringing their hands about are things like petty theft, drug use (a medical issue) and loitering which are so incredibly and hilariously minor that any judge will laugh in your face at the notion of sending one to prison for such abuses as this would obviously be a cruel and unusual punishment and not at all reasonable. The legal system will never send such offenders to prison.
It never occurs to those venturing mass imprisonment of the homeless that um, simply building housing for the homeless is a dramatically more affordable solution.
Therein lies the answer to the posed question:
> How can a place brimming with resources and good intentions fail so flagrantly to meet the basic needs of the population?
Despite our incredible wealth we simply do not provide in any way reasonable incomes and housing for those that are (for many reasons) unable to work, and so of course the problem festers. Why would we expect any change to magically happen?
In my home town of Vancouver BC, which has very similar chronic homelessness problems as SF, our minimum income assistance is $935 a month. Of this sum, the shelter allowance is $375. There is of course virtually nowhere in Vancouver where one can rent anything for $375 a month, thus ensuring systemic, state sponsored homelessness, poverty and misery and people camping outside in parks.
Why is there such poverty and homelessness? Well with $375 a month for housing good grief why wouldn't there be?
by rented_mule on 10/24/21, 6:04 AM
I have excellent health insurance by US standards (the most expensive plan offered by a big tech company in SF). I've been battling mental illness for the last two years (more like two decades, but getting treatment for two years after it became untenable), resulting in months of medical leave from work on the advice of multiple doctors. Even with "excellent" insurance, I'm approaching $50K out of pocket over the last two years. It was more than that before my insurance company decided to cover my illness and reimbursed some of what I had previously paid (after 18 months of me, my doctor, and HR fighting them). What if I wasn't lucky enough to have "excellent" health insurance and sufficient savings from years of high paying jobs? If I wasn't so lucky and ended up homeless, what chance would I have of recovering from my condition? I've avoided alcohol and drugs my entire life because I know I'm prone to addictive behavior - I'm guessing one cold night on the street would be all it would take for the first drink. It's scary to think about where it would go from there.
Healthcare for homeless people tends to be emergency rooms and under-resourced free clinics. Given my experience being treated for mental illness, I can't conceive of making any progress in free clinics or ERs. So why wouldn't I be a permanent resident of the streets?
I see talk here of homelessness being less of an issue in Europe and China... in my opinion, access to healthcare is a key difference. Treatment for homeless people is great, but how sane is a system that pushes people off a health/financial cliff before they can get such treatment? Financially feasible access to treatment long before we get there is crucial.
by DoreenMichele on 10/24/21, 1:06 AM
One possible explanation: California has become the dumping ground for the nation's homeless population.
We have a nationwide shortage of housing. Both in person and online, I continue to hear homeless people plan to move someplace relatively warm and dry while stuck on the streets.
California is on a short list of states with dry weather and the weather there is more temperate than, say, Nevada or Arizona. You can die in the extreme heat of summer in some of the dry states.
I don't think the mess in San Francisco is entirely due to local policies. I think the nation as a whole needs substantially more affordable housing.
by profeatur on 10/24/21, 6:54 AM
American society has died. Many here will reply that that’s a good thing, and then continue complaining about the wealth divide or housing or whatever else fits their political agenda.
The world is a dark place and we are fragile creatures. Through technological hubris and the idea of “progress” we’ve destroyed the balance our ancestors maintained. The System has tried for over 100 years to take on more and more of the family’s roles, and even though it’s incapable of providing us with what we really need, it’s strong-armed us all into believing it’s been a success, and that this is what progress looks like, and that this progress is the greatest good.
Society proceeds from the family. The family is the center of a human’s life, and we’ve destroyed it. Divorce, broken homes, a lack of tribal cohesion, a lack of god, a total lack of all autonomy unless you’re one of the lucky few who have the ability to find it within abstractions. In this new anomic landscape parents become shadows. They have nothing to provide us because they are also confused. The filament that once held families together through generations has been snipped and there’s no way we can reconnect it now. We look away from our families and attach ourselves to a reactionary “culture” that’s completely fabricated out of the whims of the moment rather than being a mesh work that develops over time. We identity ourselves with our own coping mechanisms. We forsake the past because our ancestors were strong but it’s a kind of strength we’ve been taught to deny, because that kind of strength is dangerous to the System.
The only thing connecting us now is our sickness.
by dehrmann on 10/24/21, 2:42 AM
Makes me wonder how SF compares to NYC in the 70s and 80s.
by habosa on 10/24/21, 7:08 AM
They help homeless youth ages 12-24 in San Francisco with a full range of services. Housing, mental and physical health, education, job training, etc. 75% of the people that enter their program exit street life permanently.
I have worked with them for years and can vouch for the character of their employees and the effectiveness of their programs.
by thepasswordis on 10/24/21, 9:29 AM
They make bad decisions, and those decisions have effects. It isn’t always some opaque “the system”. Sometimes you’ll have to see that these people are humans just like you are, and just like you are responsible for your decisions, so are they.
Anything else, which aims to make them less than you, is a problem. Treat these people like human beings.
by pain_perdu on 10/24/21, 12:57 AM
by door103 on 10/24/21, 1:56 AM
> Mr Shellenberger thinks they are on the streets in part because of a “housing-first” approach, which holds out for permanent, individual homes at the expense of building enough temporary accommodation.
So his approach is that San Francisco should have third world-style slums?
The solutions are simple: rent control and public housing. There just isn't political will for these policies: wealthy real estate investors fight them tooth and nail.
by m0zg on 10/24/21, 2:41 AM
Worst part is, like in NY and SF they are often putting these permanent housing units a block or two away from schools, and allow drug addicts, sex offenders, and violent criminals to live there. It's only a matter of time before they commit crimes. Meth makes it difficult not to - gotta have that next hit. Why do this? Fuck me if I know. You can see the problems this will inevitably cause from a mile away.
And don't get me wrong, I'm not against sheltering the homeless and such, _as long as_ you actually make not being homeless the lowest energy state, and take care of their underlying issues. Housing them permanently without that is a recipe for disaster.
by thoughtstheseus on 10/24/21, 2:08 PM
by squabble on 10/24/21, 1:33 AM
by tsegratis on 10/24/21, 11:43 AM
I knew there was an unusual level of homelessness in America, i didn't know people cared so little
I dont want to conclude the problem is these attitudes, but the relative distance between the average opinion here, and how China treats you is what?
--
The CCP leadership care about materialism and power, before other people; and simplistically, but not incorrectly, that is why they abuse and lie
Certainly on average the comments here reduce your distance to them
by kory on 10/24/21, 2:08 AM
by sizzle on 10/24/21, 8:16 AM
by mrobot on 10/24/21, 1:28 AM
[1]: https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2021/10/13/bill-calls-for-stat... [2]: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/using-new-law-la-city-coun... [3]: https://www.civilbeat.org/2021/01/honolulu-police-spent-1500...
by baby on 10/24/21, 3:12 AM
by TedShiller on 10/24/21, 1:21 AM
Secondly, there is no "housing shortage". You're just looking in the wrong place. That's like saying there is a shortage of air in outer space.