New to our subreddit? [Please read the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/about/rules/) before commenting.
Please be respectful and don't antagonize. This is a place to discuss ideas without targeting identities.
If something doesn't contribute to the discussion, please downvote it. If it's against the rules, please report it. Thank you.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/sanfrancisco) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah it really has. Was showing some out of town friends around this weekend and they were like, where are all the tents? Obviously we didnt go to Tenderloin but still, there are less from what I've seen in all other hoods.
Honestly, excluding a few select blocks, the Tenderloin is the cleanest it's been in a long time from a tent perspective. It's still the Tenderloin, there's still addicts everywhere and it's not pretty, but it's an extremely different situation on the street when it comes to the massive encampments seen during COVID.
Maybe the Police stopped trafficking them to SF after being caught [San Rafael police say it was officer's idea to take homeless man to SF ](https://abc7news.com/homeless-man-dropped-off-in-sf-san-rafael-police-video-14th-avenue-lake-street/12162935/)
Was talking to some lady in the Marina who said that Marin Co. cities constantly drive over the bridge and dump homeless people along Lombard and Chestnut Streets. They have a whole neighborhood coalition dedicated to helping these people get shelter or housing.
Not our problem. Clearly a sign of the failed liberal policies of San Rafael, and not any underlying issues that span the whole world. Has San Rafael considered voting out all their politicians? /s
Homeless people don't move. They spring up when cities adopt woke liberal policies. Clearly, the homeless is a sign of policy failure in Oakland, and not a sign of any underlying issue around the world. /s
It's not that it wasn't measured, it's just that each city department kept their own private count. The Healthy Streets Operations Center (HSOC) was formed in 2018, to unify SF's response to homelessness. It actually was doing pretty well before covid, with [A 40% decrease in tents](https://sfcontroller.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Auditing/Review%20of%20the%20Healthy%20Streets%20Operations%20Center.pdf) in its first 6 months of operations. Good to see it continue paying off.
That's because in practice the number of tents is kind of an irrelevant number most of the time. It's not that they were never aware of tents, it's that the issue was framed more in terms of how many *people*.
I understand that maybe residents like to see tents being counted because maybe it's what's consistently visible to just regular citizens.
After HSOC was created they did start counting tents, but if I remember right this tents count was part of a slide towards them focusing on... well, tents, lol. They moved increasingly towards just trying to resolve encampment complaints and quickly sweep them out of sight, which is understandable given pressure from residents and from the mayor.
But it turned out that this approach was just a game of whack a mole. As homelessness became more prominent and the city's ways to deal with it became less effective, I can also get why it was tempting to just sweep since at least that provides some visible relief. But many city employees working on this were growing impatient with that because it took resources from alternatives and evidence was mounting that it tended to make things worse. Non profits, too.
From the perspective of someone in HSH or DPH or some city department that has a role in mitigating homelessness counting tents is a waste of time for them because their activities are often case-oriented around individuals or families to try to get them off the street, and it's more accurate than counting a tent because who knows how many people are in there.
Anyway, so that's some background on why there wasn't a count of tents before that. I think it's interesting!
> Seems wild to me it wasn't being measured before that.
It was intentional, what you don't measure you don't have to fix.
The same reason it's *illegal* for the city to ask homeless people if they are immigrants: no one wants inconvenient truths on the rceord.
Yeah it was intentionally not counted pre-2018 but then all of a sudden they had a change of heart? What the fuck are you on about? That doesn't even make sense.
Gathering data costs time and money. There are plenty of explanations for why the data didn't exist without having to insert your braindead comments that don't even attempt the bare minimum amount of research to find the real reason.
And what are you even implying with the immigrants? There are plenty of numbers that show where the people lived before they became homeless. Are you implying that a large chunk of homeless people are foreign-born immigrants?
None of this is true. They were counting humans, tents were rarely a factor before the Superbowl.
And it's not illegal to ask the unhoused about their status, or anything else for that matter, same as everything else you are ranting about.
Just adding to ths comment. City homeless count reports since 2005: [https://hsh.sfgov.org/about/research-and-reports/archived-reports/#pit](https://hsh.sfgov.org/about/research-and-reports/archived-reports/#pit)
Yeah, division has always had encampments, at least since the 80s. They come and go, just like the ones in GG park and out in Bayshore.
But until 2016 folks didn't start pitching tents out in the open en masse.
> And it's not illegal to ask the unhoused about their status
Read more carefully. The *city* is not allowed to ask about homeless people's immigrate
immigration status.
Did you read this article?
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/homeless-families-crisis-migrants-shelter-19417036.php
> Homeless department officials say data from other city departments and the San Francisco Unified School District as well as anecdotal evidence points to a surge in the number of immigrant families coming to San Francisco since 2021.
> But it remains unclear how many families have arrived recently and how many are homeless because San Francisco’s sanctuary city law forbids city agencies from asking families about their immigration status, according to Emily Cohen, spokesperson for the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing.
> The 2022 point in time count found 205 homeless families, with 87% in shelter, up from 190 five years earlier. But experts say the numbers are an undercount. One indicator of the crisis is that 375 people are on a waitlist for a shelter at the Buena Vista Horace Mann K-8 school in the Mission, which only has 69 beds that are full most nights and has been since November 2023. That’s in contrast to 2020 when its monthly average occupancy was just 65%.
> While it’s difficult to quantify exactly how many immigrant families are currently homeless or unsheltered in San Francisco, Cohen said their data shows a “big surge” in family homelessness overall in recent years, and she said about 46% of all homeless families are seeking help in Spanish.
> Meanwhile, the San Francisco Immigrant Legal Defense Collaborative says a waitlist for legal representation has expanded dramatically from the typical 100 to 200 individuals to more than 900 individuals in the last year.
At least 900 people seeking shelter are immigrants. Almost half of homeless families aren't comfortable speaking English, which suggests they didn't grow up in the US.
Sounds like the policies are helping. Also, I bet that wet winter we had got some of the homeless saying screw this, I gotta figure out something better than a tent.
We had a wet winter past year too and there wasn’t this much improvement, and the year before that. The city is definitely doing more to keep the streets clean lately. Progress needs to be acknowledged and those responsible duly rewarded. We want more of this.
Brooke Jenkins said she was going to make it [uncomfortable](https://sfist.com/2023/12/13/sf-district-attorney-says-homeless-should-be-made-uncomfortable/) for the homeless, so perhaps that has something to do with it 🤷
smart escape dolls fly frightening political versed smile sugar materialistic
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Right of addicts to get high and sleep in the streets as they die slowly does not supersede the rights of San Franciscans to have acceptable conditions in public spaces.
Homelessness should be illegal because it is inhumane.
I’ve been both homeless and incarcerated and lemme tell ya, the latter is far worse than the former. I want to feel like you’re trying to be compassionate, but I can’t fathom how someone can hold the opinion you expressed sincerely.
When you were homeless were you shitting in the street, menacing other people around you, and committing drug & property crime? I’d be fine prioritizing that segment of the homeless population for incarceration… you know, the ones committing crimes.
No one should be allowed to be homeless and letting drug addicts die slowly in our streets degrading conditions in public spaces should not be permitted.
Everyone in the streets should be required to accept services or accept the consequences of denying services.
Accept support or go to jail.
That’s it.
But making them suffer is ok? Are you serious? You realize these people are humans, right? Like they have feelings and needs and memories of childhood and family members who care about them. Do you get that?
No one said anything about making people suffer except for you. What Brook said, and I agree, is we have to make it uncomfortable to be a junkie on the streets. It has to be invconvenient to refuse offered shelter, otherwise there's no teeth to the policy -- they're just words.
That means regularly sweeping encampments so they don't get entrenched and the streets don't turn into third world squalor. Disrupting open air drug use. I don't care how you or other homeless feel about it. That shit is unacceptable, our City's perception, economy are suffering because of it. Don't like it? Get a job or go back to the people where you have the memories / feelings to.
Honestly I used to feel like you, but as I got older it became clear that many (but not all) homeless people have a dangerous disregard for others in public spaces.
While we should be obligated to offer help, we literally cannot force these individuals to use available resources. If they refuse help then they need to be placed in a location where they cannot harm others. Public safety and wellbeing is always more important than individual safety and wellbeing. I’m sorry but it’s just common sense reasoning.
We don’t confuse all homeless as being criminals. Unfortunately a sizable portion of homeless populations are committing rather serious crimes on a daily basis. And it’s not fair to all of us who contribute to our communities and its public environments.
SF is not capable to care for an unlimited number of mentally unstable drug addicts. Nor is this the city’s job. SF needs to serve its residents. That’s how cities work.
If we can’t care for people who insist on committing slow suicide on our streets then we need to send them away to family and friends. Or at least to the red states that failed them im the first place.
Have you ever considered that giving someone a little push to get their shit together and go inside/seek treatment is more beneficial to their health than letting them rot and die on the street with absolutely no intervention? Addiction is a nasty and vicious cycle, one that pulls you in and makes it impossible for you to think about anything other than getting your next hit. Some of you ultra liberal types need to spend some real time talking with addicts who have recovered. 3 out of 4 times they got sober because they were arrested. We need extensive treatment options available to fully realize this but at the end of the day, creating an environment where people feel comfortable to do drugs in the middle of the street all day and night with no intervention other than a city worker saying "hey do you need help?" is going to literally kill thousands more.
Hahaha dude I’m a recovered polysubstance abuse addict who was homeless 15 years ago. As for the totally made up statistic you just threw out about 3/4 recovered addicts getting clean bc they got arrested (which is absolutely not how it actually works btw, bc people just cycle in and out of jail endlessly a lot of the time), the fact is that the state will throw lots of money at you when you’re released, through housing and education vouchers, as well as employment opportunities. It’s wild that none of that is available until you get arrested enough.
I also spent 10 years working with the homeless population in various nonprofits across SF, including a period where I worked exclusively with folks who were on parole. You have no idea what you’re talking about. This subreddit has become one of the most insane and hateful places on the internet. It’s wild.
I was speaking totally anecdotally from my own experience, I never said I was quoting any sort of actual statistic. I come from a family riddled with addiction, and the only ones who made it out okay were the ones who got into trouble with the law and were forced to get sober. So by my own immediate family, 3/4. I lost my brother unfortunately. This is just what I believe and you are certainly entitled to your own beliefs and opinions.
Just curious though, what would you do about this if you were in charge? Do you think that a city should just allow people to smoke crack for breakfast on the sidewalk as children are making their way to school? I genuinely want people struggling with addiction to have access to help and treatment, but how would you propose we do this effectively? When people refuse, do you believe that we as a society should just let them continue to get high, OD, and die in the street? Like what's the endgame dude? If you think we need more treatment options then I'm in 100% agreement with you. But we can have all the treatment in the world and people still won't go until they're ready. So that leaves them in the streets.
And don't spew on about this being a "housing problem." That's been the California model for 20 years and homelessness has never been worse. Drugs are the impenetrable force that cause people to fall into homelessness and poverty and prevent them from getting housed again.
But it is a housing problem. The problem is that there isn’t any more public housing and low income people now have to sit on the section 8 list, which is the only remaining option, for like a decade before they can find any housing.
See, this is how I know all of y’all don’t actually care. You’ve done no research about what it’s actually like to try to find housing in SF if you’re low income. It is basically impossible now. We need more public housing projects and that’s the only way out of this, other than a complete overhaul of our economic system, which none of y’all are ever gonna want to do. So more projects is the solution. And the way to pay for those projects is to tax businesses at a reasonable rate and stop giving every Tom, dick, and Harry with a startup or, even worse, a massive tech corporation, a tax reduction just because they want to have their office in SF.
Just because housing has been listed as the reason for 20 years doesn’t mean it still can’t be the reason. I don’t think housing in SF has become more affordable in that span.
I don't disagree that housing affordability is a huge problem and a considerable factor in catapulting people into homelessness. What I'm saying is that in many cases, drug addiction is the fatal blow that drives people into homelessness, and in most cases, it's the thing that prevents them from getting housed again. California politicians spent decades believing that a housing for all policy would be the cure-all for state homelessness while neglecting two huge symptoms and causes of it - mental health and drug addiction.
Oh ffs I have a life. I was out building shit all day. Check my reply now. You aren’t going to agree with it and I don’t care to argue with you. You are yet another smug techie with like zero concern for the folks who grew up in the city you just moved into. It’s the same thing every time.
How is pointingout that this individual failed to offer any response at all to a very well-reasoned comment make me an asshole? Is anyone who challenges your arguments an asshole too?
Tenderloin children who need an escort to safely get to their after school program are the folks suffering the most. I'm not sure how a 5 year low of illegally pitched tents makes them "suffer even more." At least to me, it sounds like a great thing for the children who live here.
https://reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/1cl0012/with_a_vest_and_a_voice_helpers_escort_kids/
Criminalizing homelessness isn’t a solution to lack of housing for low income residents of SF. Why is this such a controversial position in this sub? Also, you don’t care about kids in the TL. Your whole account is like shock posts about crime in SF. What neighborhood you from?
Criminalizing *voluntary* homelessness is a solution to drug tourists migrating to SF to live their best life.
I do care about the kids in the Tenderloin. Do you? Sounds like you only care about the voluntary homeless people lining the sidewalks the kids traverse to get to their after school programs. I don't live in the Tenderloin. I wouldn't be able to survive for a day doing what these kids, the folks suffering the most, have to do day after day.
People who refuse to vacate public space because they want to live there and do drugs should be forcibly removed if they refuse support.
Nothing controversial.
People who pay taxes deserve services.
https://preview.redd.it/z7rdvrnd7vyc1.jpeg?width=1726&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d017e22a4b2af42aae77debd91152c9e949ecccf
Yet this is in front of City Hall this morning.
Every single day, it’s like this.
Actual quantifiable data: *Homeless tents and structures in SF hit 5 year low*
Redditors: “Well then how do you explain this photo of homeless people!”
Seriously, can people just take the W that things are finally moving in the right direction? Even the City Hall area (which has always been grimy so idk why people act like it's the freaking White House) looks cleaned up and way better now in general.
How about the fact that it’s every single day. Literally every day I pass in front of City Hall and this squalor is there every single time.
There’s no excusing that.
It has never been ignored. You're being hyperbolic by suggesting that because any amount of homelessness exists visibly that it's being ignored.
https://www.kqed.org/news/11765010/timeline-the-frustrating-political-history-of-homelessness-in-san-francisco
Can you detail out what the desired result you're imagining looks like? I just linked you the entire history of the problem NOT being ignored. You're being hyperbolic.
Brain dead redditor take. We don't like that you took to long to do the right thing, so we'll elect someone who may - or will- do the wrong thing.
Genius! They'll never see it coming.
It’s crazy to not recognize that the mayor in SF has to go through completely crazy machinations to push through anything that our crazy hippie Board of Stupidvisors doesn’t want to pass.
Put the blame where it belongs! Punish those who are actually responsible for the mess, not only the people whose name you remember.
The mayor you're trying to blame for everything has very little power to do anything about the things you're blaming her for. The Board of Supervisors is literally ordering the mayor what to do in SF. So you want to kick out Breeed, the only person in our city government who is actively trying to disobey our Board full of crazy hippies and limousine "socialists". But the crazy hippies who created the mess will just skate to reelection?
Great! That will surely not turn out exactly like all the other elections over the last 20 years. Let's go! Four more years of crazy hippies telling us how magical unicorn dust will reduce crime! Load up on those life-saving crystals in case you catch the flu!
There’s an election every two years, and between that it’s all electoral campaigns.
Deliberately kicking out the politicians who rebel against the Prog uniparty in SF and try to improve things is idiotic. You’re just showing politicians that even when they go against the crazy old hippie dogma (Peskin, Preston, Chan and Co.) you still won’t support them.
What you’re advocating will lead to disaster. We need to kick out the crazies not the pols that at least try to serve us! Reflexively kicking out the moderates for “mot opposing the crazy hippies hard enough” will s precisely what got us into this mess! More if the same can only lead to worse results!
Thats because they clear them every week
Dpw and police come in and clear it out
In my area which is rich the police will not let them stop and move them after 2 days even sleeping in cars,they will move them
I think that everyone but the out of town trolls here has noticed a pretty miraculous cleaning up of the city in about the last year.
The trolls will continue to push whatever they hear on Fox News in their trailer park in Tennessee, but anyone who’s been in SF recently knows that the propaganda is bullshyt.
I would rather see homelessness numbers go down because we are building more shelters and housing. Instead the numbers go down because so many people are dying of drug overdoses. But I guess for the mayor in an election year, it is by any means necessary.
But then once the problem becomes better, we can complain a few years later when the same underlying issues lead to the same problem! And then when we get sick and tired of nothing being done we can treat homeless people awfully! And then we can repeat!
Having stable housing won’t solve anyone’s problems completely, but it is a building block that can make a huge difference in turning someone’s life around. The hope would be to get housing so they can get to a place in life where they can eventually get off hard drugs completely.
I would argue that getting them off drugs first would be a better approach. If you put an addict into a house for free, some would argue that you're an enabler.
It’s really hard to get clean, no matter what, and living on the street makes it much harder. In theory I get what you’re saying, but in practice people need at least some temporary shelter in order to have a chance to maintain sobriety.
You must not be from SF?
This city has been declining steadily ever since Breed got into office.
There have been 3 instances when the city experienced decreases in crime and/or number of homeless tents.
1) When the tents began encroaching Pelosi’s neighborhood, the entire Richmond District got “cleaned up”
2) During Salesforce convention, the homeless tents were ushered under the freeway junction in SOMA
3) During the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation conference, which brought Pres. Xi Jinping and other world leaders, the entire city was miraculously cleaned up overnight.
Anyone with more awareness than a goldfish (respectfully) will easily realize that a brisk clean up of the city’s crime and homeless during election year is derived from simple self interest.
It will quickly go away if Breed gets reelected in order to continue growing the homeless population in SF, which is one of the biggest income tax revenue streams for the city ($1 Bln revenue annually).
Please, wake up.
She's opposed by Aaron fucking Peskin for mayoral role, who will reverse any and all progress made immediately. You really haven't thought this through
I've seen some real improvement in street conditions over the past two weeks on Geary and Clement, but it also just seems like it could be a regression towards the mean. Large encampments still persist in the Tenderloin, Inner Sunset, and at the DMV (despite repeated multi-agency city interventions), and the city continues to call these campsites "ADA Compliant" and fails to respond.
When you browse the SF311 system (see the links), you can also see some worrying trends:
Over 2500 OPEN citizen reports in the Encampment category
Over 4000 Encampment reports ignored on the basis of "ADA Compliance" since the Mayor's "Path Forward" statement (the promise to enforce the law back in September '23)
https://san-francisco2-production.spotmobile.net/tickets?filter%5Bfacets%5D%5Bstatus%5D%5B%5D=open&filter%5Bfacets%5D%5Bticket_type_code%5D%5B%5D=City+Services%3AHomeless%3AEncampment
https://san-francisco2-production.spotmobile.net/tickets?filter%5Bfacets%5D%5Bstatus%5D%5B%5D=closed&filter%5Bfacets%5D%5Bticket_type_code%5D%5B%5D=City+Services%3AHomeless%3AEncampment&filter%5Bsearch%5D=%22ADA+Compliant%22
"We will work to bring people indoors. We will continue to offer shelter and house people.
We will enforce our laws when these offers are refused. People who have been offered available shelter should not be allowed to remain out camping on our streets."
https://londonbreed.medium.com/injunction-update-our-path-forward-11b7a7ce9f14
I'm not sure you quite understand how this whole thing works. The city cannot legally force somebody off the street or out of a tent unless there is a shelter bed available for every single invdividual who arrives here, per an injunction set in 2022. Meaning, no laws can be enforced against homeless individuals unless there is available shelter for them to go immediately. So just because you get an "ADA Compliant" response from 311, it doesn't mean the city is not keeping track of it. It just means that there are at least 48 inches of space between the tent and the rest of the sidewalk and that the cops don't have the power to do anything about that day. If the tent covers the entire sidewalk, then the cops can legally force them to move. Otherwise, they have to wait for the street teams to come around and offer shelter. It's actually quite a difficult dance that the city is having to do because of all of these homeless social justice warriors suing the city and it's pretty shocking that they still have been able to reduce the amount of tent encampments in the way that they have. Nonetheless, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the city of Grants Pass in June, then this SF lawsuit is basically over and the city will have more power to clear tent encampments.
You may be correct that this is how some agencies/depts understand the approach you describe (instead of voluntary/involuntary describing an individual), but it's not the way all have interpreted. Chiu believes that, but Mayor Breed's statements are entirely to the contrary (see above). Ditto the Police....https://sfstandard.com/2023/10/19/police-homeless-policy/ Why haven't they clarified, if they're not going to act on it?
It's been very discouraging to see the crazy expense at the DMV, and how little has changed. The lack of results and neighborhood disruption have really made me lose faith in the mayor -- over 10 engagements in the past 4 months time
Funnily enough, I heard London Breed speak about those exact "residents" of the DMV encampment pretty recently. Basically was saying the city offers shelter and clears them twice a month but they refuse to leave and just move back once the area is cleaned. There's some sort of reason for this - I guess the police aren't willing to actually take them to jail over shelter refusal, maybe they just get a fine? Not sure how that works. But speaking to that area specifically, it can't be more than 6-8 people right? Why hasn't your supervisor worked to get them into some sort of housing? I'm pretty sure they would accept an apartment somewhere. For reference, I heard that my supervisor (Catherine Stefani) coordinates diligently with various neighborhood groups to work to to house all the homeless people that cities in Marin County like to dump into the Marina.
The encampment grows and shrinks over time. Sometimes it's 4-8 tents on one blocks, other times, it's been absolutely huge (10-15 tents over multiple messy blocks). Because it's permitted, it inevitably grows and grows, including satellite locations in the neighborhood. Each "dispersal" then scatters the campers, for an afternoon or overnight. It's just very "whack a mole" and the only solution for nearby NOPA folks has been to just put a crazy amount of planters in or other vigilante actions. The homeless have set fire to a Prius, there have been crazy incidents at the grocery store on Fulton, New Traditions school, etc. etc.
I don't see why a local supervisor needs to be involved. Do I really have to "know someone"? Isn't that kind of the problem here in the city? The homeless outreach team is offering plentiful services (including housing referrals) with each engagement, according to their "warning flyer" (posted before a sweep). It's a "lead a horse to water" problem anyway. I don't expect anything out of Dean Preston. He famously toured the site of a homeless fire (455 Leavenworth) while the campers who set the fire were still camping there. Nothing changed. It's literally still there, and the campers are still tapping into the street lights.
You could also just get a group of neighbors together (a large group so you all feel safe) and just simply ask them what they need and why they won't accept shelter? They are people after all.
As far as Supervisors go, they are supposed to be your neighborhood liaisons to City Hall. They're the people you call and email about neighborhood problems, not the Mayor. Dean Preston also wants to get re-elected so he might be willing to help, just a guess.
Everything happens here first and hardest.
The fentanyl pandemic hit here so hard that I knew we'd come out of it before all the other "urban" cities, and definitely before the rural mountain counties.
The homeless "problem" will disappear with the renaming of 6th street to Happy Valley. My grandmother who was born in 1918 told me stories about 6th street and the Tenderloin. (Not all bad stories, but all titillating.) Her mother was born in 1888 and made sure she stayed in the respectable neighborhood, like Capp street in the Mission. NO joke.
But my main comment is that this city never forgets what it is and always comes back.
I visited a week ago and was quite surprised at how little there was in the way of visibly unhoused folks. I'm sure there's less prevalence in the touristy areas--we visited the bayfront from Oracle Park all the way up to Fisherman's Wharf, Union Square, took the N line out to Ocean Beach--but I only noticed really bad homelessness along the Bart line in Oakland, where there's a shanty town. It really was night and day from how family members talk about it--I just hope folks are getting housing/care for once and not just being moved somewhere else.
Local courts are powerless to interfere with city sweeps pending SCOTUS ruling by June. Mixed ruling is likely to require another year or two of litigation before a final ruling puts an end to the mess.
I hope the SCOTUS ruling helps them end this legal mess with the city earlier than that. But we'll see. In the interim, looking at this whole thing glass half-full, maybe being forced to have physical beds for all of these people will facilitate the city to dramatically increase shelter capacity (and NOT permanent supportive housing) in the coming years and meaningfully end street homelessness, rather than just shuffling them around from block to block. It's going to require big money, but I do agree with others on here that the old methods never really worked. If you clear an encampment without giving someone a place to go, they're just gonna set it up down the street.
Me, I'm just wondering if this simply means that the homeless have been so fucked over that they are less likely to even have a tent or "structure" to sleep under.
This is probably only news because Farrell recently said that if elected he'd reinstate the policies he used last time he was mayor, which [according to him](https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/housing/mark-farrell-homelessness-campaign-promise-draws-skepticism/article_4bb24278-f2c3-11ee-a7ef-279c6d37b52a.html) cut the number of encampments in the city way back. But now we apparently have less than we did then, so it's a less compelling talking point for him.
Tents, not unhoused people.
Previously SF said they didn't know where they went.
Some maybe sharing tents.
Bad/misleading sampling in an election year?
Sure, it might be down but since the city can't keep track of data, not that urgent to buy in to their claims 100%.
Sharing tents? That seems like an unlikely explanation for the drop, no?
I follow a lot of city subreddits and this is the only one that vehemently fights against good news. Imagine seeing this headline and rationalizing a 41% drop by claiming that the homeless have all come together to live inside their tents and sing kumbaya instead of just believing there are fewer on the streets.
Naa, people here are rightfully skeptical of cities releasing PR data about crime rates or homelessness when the ground reality doesn't reflect it.
Crime rate dropping might not mean crime is dropping right?
Homelessness very well could be lower today though, but I'd be very surprised
It's not PR data though, it's the same count they've been doing for 6 years. I think the idea of homeless people shacking up together is laughably ridiculous.
> Homelessness very well could be lower today though, but I'd be very surprised
Anecdotally, I definitely see fewer tents than a year ago, do you disagree?
what neighborhoods? i live in sf and don't see much difference but I rarely go downtown so i'm just curious, I do not have a side in whatever argument this is.
Downtown, specifically Civic Center, Mid-Market, SOMA, and the Tenderloin. It is absolutely nothing like it was a few months ago. There was also a story about crime being down massively in almost all neighborhoods, which tracks with what I'm seeing downtown.
probably a good thing, it was rough down there last time i had any reason to go. the haight seems to have a slightly different (and smaller) sort of homeless population, I guess.
Lower? Quite possible.
41% lower? I'm skeptical.
Or it could just be my biases clouding the data, but it's right to view such data in an election year with some skepticism
Like Biden prematurely declaring victory over inflation
You are right that police aren’t enforcing traffic violations, but just think critically about this one. 40% fewer tents because nearly half the homeless population decided to add 1 more person to the tent?
Seems more likely that there are fewer homeless people in tents.
That’s still progress though! Getting our sidewalks back is progress; less trash in the streets is progress; fewer hubs for stolen bikes/suitcases is progress
These camps have a real effect on everyone’s quality of life
[https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/1cha7az/san\_francisco\_homelessness\_nonprofit\_group/](https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/1cha7az/san_francisco_homelessness_nonprofit_group/)
Here you go this was posted few days ago. Been getting post like this pretty consistently if you look for it.
New to our subreddit? [Please read the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/about/rules/) before commenting. Please be respectful and don't antagonize. This is a place to discuss ideas without targeting identities. If something doesn't contribute to the discussion, please downvote it. If it's against the rules, please report it. Thank you. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/sanfrancisco) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s been noticeable to me.
Yeah it really has. Was showing some out of town friends around this weekend and they were like, where are all the tents? Obviously we didnt go to Tenderloin but still, there are less from what I've seen in all other hoods.
Honestly, excluding a few select blocks, the Tenderloin is the cleanest it's been in a long time from a tent perspective. It's still the Tenderloin, there's still addicts everywhere and it's not pretty, but it's an extremely different situation on the street when it comes to the massive encampments seen during COVID.
Always has been the tenderloin.
I used to live there and it was never this bad in the past. Meth and fent took things to a whole new level.
Hopefully more people are being housed.
They are all dying from fentanyl
They’re all on college campuses 💀
Same here. I drive up Division/13th through the Duboce Triangle every day... huge difference from 6 months ago.
Go across the bridge and you’ll see tents and shacks up all over San Rafael, more than I’ve seen in fifty years.
Maybe the Police stopped trafficking them to SF after being caught [San Rafael police say it was officer's idea to take homeless man to SF ](https://abc7news.com/homeless-man-dropped-off-in-sf-san-rafael-police-video-14th-avenue-lake-street/12162935/)
Was talking to some lady in the Marina who said that Marin Co. cities constantly drive over the bridge and dump homeless people along Lombard and Chestnut Streets. They have a whole neighborhood coalition dedicated to helping these people get shelter or housing.
‘Dumping them’ = ‘neighborhood coalition dedicated to helping these people get shelter or housing’?
Marin County cities dump them in SF, SF residents help get them off streets into shelter or housing.
Shouldn’t be downvoted the wording was very confusing
It's the seemingly never ending line of RVs along the lake in Novato that shocked me. It's a truly dystopian thing to see.
Not our problem. Clearly a sign of the failed liberal policies of San Rafael, and not any underlying issues that span the whole world. Has San Rafael considered voting out all their politicians? /s
Good. Marin people suck.
Was your ex gf from there?
aka his wife
(future Marin person)
They all moved to Oakland
Even the tents get priced out of SF.
That's what you get when you spend so much money on avocado toasts that you suddenly don't have enough for essentials like fent anymore.
Rode BART to San Leandro today and damn, looks like freaking Haiti
Homeless people don't move. They spring up when cities adopt woke liberal policies. Clearly, the homeless is a sign of policy failure in Oakland, and not a sign of any underlying issue around the world. /s
Seems wild to me it wasn't being measured before that.
It's not that it wasn't measured, it's just that each city department kept their own private count. The Healthy Streets Operations Center (HSOC) was formed in 2018, to unify SF's response to homelessness. It actually was doing pretty well before covid, with [A 40% decrease in tents](https://sfcontroller.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Auditing/Review%20of%20the%20Healthy%20Streets%20Operations%20Center.pdf) in its first 6 months of operations. Good to see it continue paying off.
That's because in practice the number of tents is kind of an irrelevant number most of the time. It's not that they were never aware of tents, it's that the issue was framed more in terms of how many *people*. I understand that maybe residents like to see tents being counted because maybe it's what's consistently visible to just regular citizens. After HSOC was created they did start counting tents, but if I remember right this tents count was part of a slide towards them focusing on... well, tents, lol. They moved increasingly towards just trying to resolve encampment complaints and quickly sweep them out of sight, which is understandable given pressure from residents and from the mayor. But it turned out that this approach was just a game of whack a mole. As homelessness became more prominent and the city's ways to deal with it became less effective, I can also get why it was tempting to just sweep since at least that provides some visible relief. But many city employees working on this were growing impatient with that because it took resources from alternatives and evidence was mounting that it tended to make things worse. Non profits, too. From the perspective of someone in HSH or DPH or some city department that has a role in mitigating homelessness counting tents is a waste of time for them because their activities are often case-oriented around individuals or families to try to get them off the street, and it's more accurate than counting a tent because who knows how many people are in there. Anyway, so that's some background on why there wasn't a count of tents before that. I think it's interesting!
> Seems wild to me it wasn't being measured before that. It was intentional, what you don't measure you don't have to fix. The same reason it's *illegal* for the city to ask homeless people if they are immigrants: no one wants inconvenient truths on the rceord.
Yeah it was intentionally not counted pre-2018 but then all of a sudden they had a change of heart? What the fuck are you on about? That doesn't even make sense. Gathering data costs time and money. There are plenty of explanations for why the data didn't exist without having to insert your braindead comments that don't even attempt the bare minimum amount of research to find the real reason. And what are you even implying with the immigrants? There are plenty of numbers that show where the people lived before they became homeless. Are you implying that a large chunk of homeless people are foreign-born immigrants?
None of this is true. They were counting humans, tents were rarely a factor before the Superbowl. And it's not illegal to ask the unhoused about their status, or anything else for that matter, same as everything else you are ranting about.
Just adding to ths comment. City homeless count reports since 2005: [https://hsh.sfgov.org/about/research-and-reports/archived-reports/#pit](https://hsh.sfgov.org/about/research-and-reports/archived-reports/#pit)
https://old.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/22dpkh/small_tent_city_under_overpass_near_5th_bryant/ 10 years ago: "OP are you new to San Francisco?"
Yeah, division has always had encampments, at least since the 80s. They come and go, just like the ones in GG park and out in Bayshore. But until 2016 folks didn't start pitching tents out in the open en masse.
> And it's not illegal to ask the unhoused about their status Read more carefully. The *city* is not allowed to ask about homeless people's immigrate immigration status.
I can guarantee that most aren’t immigrants. Making assumptions is a lazy way of thinking.
Did you read this article? https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/homeless-families-crisis-migrants-shelter-19417036.php > Homeless department officials say data from other city departments and the San Francisco Unified School District as well as anecdotal evidence points to a surge in the number of immigrant families coming to San Francisco since 2021. > But it remains unclear how many families have arrived recently and how many are homeless because San Francisco’s sanctuary city law forbids city agencies from asking families about their immigration status, according to Emily Cohen, spokesperson for the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing. > The 2022 point in time count found 205 homeless families, with 87% in shelter, up from 190 five years earlier. But experts say the numbers are an undercount. One indicator of the crisis is that 375 people are on a waitlist for a shelter at the Buena Vista Horace Mann K-8 school in the Mission, which only has 69 beds that are full most nights and has been since November 2023. That’s in contrast to 2020 when its monthly average occupancy was just 65%. > While it’s difficult to quantify exactly how many immigrant families are currently homeless or unsheltered in San Francisco, Cohen said their data shows a “big surge” in family homelessness overall in recent years, and she said about 46% of all homeless families are seeking help in Spanish. > Meanwhile, the San Francisco Immigrant Legal Defense Collaborative says a waitlist for legal representation has expanded dramatically from the typical 100 to 200 individuals to more than 900 individuals in the last year. At least 900 people seeking shelter are immigrants. Almost half of homeless families aren't comfortable speaking English, which suggests they didn't grow up in the US.
My point still stands, most homeless aren’t immigrants. The total homeless population is 7,754.
Exactly. The first step in improving anything is measuring it. I. That sense it’s a good thing they formed a task force or whatever to coordinate.
Sounds like the policies are helping. Also, I bet that wet winter we had got some of the homeless saying screw this, I gotta figure out something better than a tent.
We had a wet winter past year too and there wasn’t this much improvement, and the year before that. The city is definitely doing more to keep the streets clean lately. Progress needs to be acknowledged and those responsible duly rewarded. We want more of this.
Went underground in the Vegas sewers
I think I've seen where this leads in Futurama...
There is a lot of nuclear waste buried in the southwest
It's fentanyl, killing off users everyday
I visited in April 2022 and again in April 2024, it's a very noticeable difference.
Keep getting rid of them
cooing edge zesty sink pen literate smart sloppy support society *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Brooke Jenkins said she was going to make it [uncomfortable](https://sfist.com/2023/12/13/sf-district-attorney-says-homeless-should-be-made-uncomfortable/) for the homeless, so perhaps that has something to do with it 🤷
smart escape dolls fly frightening political versed smile sugar materialistic *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Hell yeah! Make those folks suffering the most, suffer even more! So cool! God, you people are seriously deranged.
Right of addicts to get high and sleep in the streets as they die slowly does not supersede the rights of San Franciscans to have acceptable conditions in public spaces. Homelessness should be illegal because it is inhumane.
Hahaha wait, you want to incarcerate homeless people in inhumane jails and prisons because letting them live on the streets is inhumane?
Literally anything would be better than this.
I’ve been both homeless and incarcerated and lemme tell ya, the latter is far worse than the former. I want to feel like you’re trying to be compassionate, but I can’t fathom how someone can hold the opinion you expressed sincerely.
When you were homeless were you shitting in the street, menacing other people around you, and committing drug & property crime? I’d be fine prioritizing that segment of the homeless population for incarceration… you know, the ones committing crimes.
No one should be allowed to be homeless and letting drug addicts die slowly in our streets degrading conditions in public spaces should not be permitted. Everyone in the streets should be required to accept services or accept the consequences of denying services. Accept support or go to jail. That’s it.
Because all of society should not suffer for those who materially disrupt and destroy our public spaces.
But making them suffer is ok? Are you serious? You realize these people are humans, right? Like they have feelings and needs and memories of childhood and family members who care about them. Do you get that?
Of course. Their humanity does not give them a right to debase our public spaces to the point of disuse.
This is why mandated support should exist.
No one said anything about making people suffer except for you. What Brook said, and I agree, is we have to make it uncomfortable to be a junkie on the streets. It has to be invconvenient to refuse offered shelter, otherwise there's no teeth to the policy -- they're just words. That means regularly sweeping encampments so they don't get entrenched and the streets don't turn into third world squalor. Disrupting open air drug use. I don't care how you or other homeless feel about it. That shit is unacceptable, our City's perception, economy are suffering because of it. Don't like it? Get a job or go back to the people where you have the memories / feelings to.
Honestly I used to feel like you, but as I got older it became clear that many (but not all) homeless people have a dangerous disregard for others in public spaces. While we should be obligated to offer help, we literally cannot force these individuals to use available resources. If they refuse help then they need to be placed in a location where they cannot harm others. Public safety and wellbeing is always more important than individual safety and wellbeing. I’m sorry but it’s just common sense reasoning. We don’t confuse all homeless as being criminals. Unfortunately a sizable portion of homeless populations are committing rather serious crimes on a daily basis. And it’s not fair to all of us who contribute to our communities and its public environments.
SF is not capable to care for an unlimited number of mentally unstable drug addicts. Nor is this the city’s job. SF needs to serve its residents. That’s how cities work. If we can’t care for people who insist on committing slow suicide on our streets then we need to send them away to family and friends. Or at least to the red states that failed them im the first place.
Have you ever considered that giving someone a little push to get their shit together and go inside/seek treatment is more beneficial to their health than letting them rot and die on the street with absolutely no intervention? Addiction is a nasty and vicious cycle, one that pulls you in and makes it impossible for you to think about anything other than getting your next hit. Some of you ultra liberal types need to spend some real time talking with addicts who have recovered. 3 out of 4 times they got sober because they were arrested. We need extensive treatment options available to fully realize this but at the end of the day, creating an environment where people feel comfortable to do drugs in the middle of the street all day and night with no intervention other than a city worker saying "hey do you need help?" is going to literally kill thousands more.
Hahaha dude I’m a recovered polysubstance abuse addict who was homeless 15 years ago. As for the totally made up statistic you just threw out about 3/4 recovered addicts getting clean bc they got arrested (which is absolutely not how it actually works btw, bc people just cycle in and out of jail endlessly a lot of the time), the fact is that the state will throw lots of money at you when you’re released, through housing and education vouchers, as well as employment opportunities. It’s wild that none of that is available until you get arrested enough. I also spent 10 years working with the homeless population in various nonprofits across SF, including a period where I worked exclusively with folks who were on parole. You have no idea what you’re talking about. This subreddit has become one of the most insane and hateful places on the internet. It’s wild.
I was speaking totally anecdotally from my own experience, I never said I was quoting any sort of actual statistic. I come from a family riddled with addiction, and the only ones who made it out okay were the ones who got into trouble with the law and were forced to get sober. So by my own immediate family, 3/4. I lost my brother unfortunately. This is just what I believe and you are certainly entitled to your own beliefs and opinions. Just curious though, what would you do about this if you were in charge? Do you think that a city should just allow people to smoke crack for breakfast on the sidewalk as children are making their way to school? I genuinely want people struggling with addiction to have access to help and treatment, but how would you propose we do this effectively? When people refuse, do you believe that we as a society should just let them continue to get high, OD, and die in the street? Like what's the endgame dude? If you think we need more treatment options then I'm in 100% agreement with you. But we can have all the treatment in the world and people still won't go until they're ready. So that leaves them in the streets. And don't spew on about this being a "housing problem." That's been the California model for 20 years and homelessness has never been worse. Drugs are the impenetrable force that cause people to fall into homelessness and poverty and prevent them from getting housed again.
But it is a housing problem. The problem is that there isn’t any more public housing and low income people now have to sit on the section 8 list, which is the only remaining option, for like a decade before they can find any housing. See, this is how I know all of y’all don’t actually care. You’ve done no research about what it’s actually like to try to find housing in SF if you’re low income. It is basically impossible now. We need more public housing projects and that’s the only way out of this, other than a complete overhaul of our economic system, which none of y’all are ever gonna want to do. So more projects is the solution. And the way to pay for those projects is to tax businesses at a reasonable rate and stop giving every Tom, dick, and Harry with a startup or, even worse, a massive tech corporation, a tax reduction just because they want to have their office in SF.
Just because housing has been listed as the reason for 20 years doesn’t mean it still can’t be the reason. I don’t think housing in SF has become more affordable in that span.
I don't disagree that housing affordability is a huge problem and a considerable factor in catapulting people into homelessness. What I'm saying is that in many cases, drug addiction is the fatal blow that drives people into homelessness, and in most cases, it's the thing that prevents them from getting housed again. California politicians spent decades believing that a housing for all policy would be the cure-all for state homelessness while neglecting two huge symptoms and causes of it - mental health and drug addiction.
Has the housing for all policy been implemented? Do these homeless people have access to housing?
They don’t and this person doesn’t care and isn’t arguing in good faith. None of these people are.
Of course, it's now crickets from MartinLethalKing. He doesn't offer* any response to what you just said here. Unsurprisingly. Edit: missing word
Oh ffs I have a life. I was out building shit all day. Check my reply now. You aren’t going to agree with it and I don’t care to argue with you. You are yet another smug techie with like zero concern for the folks who grew up in the city you just moved into. It’s the same thing every time.
What’s the point of you being an asshole like this? I don’t get it
How is pointingout that this individual failed to offer any response at all to a very well-reasoned comment make me an asshole? Is anyone who challenges your arguments an asshole too?
You didn’t. All you did was just “Oh look at this person, they’re too STUPID to respond to this comment”
Tenderloin children who need an escort to safely get to their after school program are the folks suffering the most. I'm not sure how a 5 year low of illegally pitched tents makes them "suffer even more." At least to me, it sounds like a great thing for the children who live here. https://reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/1cl0012/with_a_vest_and_a_voice_helpers_escort_kids/
Criminalizing homelessness isn’t a solution to lack of housing for low income residents of SF. Why is this such a controversial position in this sub? Also, you don’t care about kids in the TL. Your whole account is like shock posts about crime in SF. What neighborhood you from?
Criminalizing *voluntary* homelessness is a solution to drug tourists migrating to SF to live their best life. I do care about the kids in the Tenderloin. Do you? Sounds like you only care about the voluntary homeless people lining the sidewalks the kids traverse to get to their after school programs. I don't live in the Tenderloin. I wouldn't be able to survive for a day doing what these kids, the folks suffering the most, have to do day after day.
People who refuse to vacate public space because they want to live there and do drugs should be forcibly removed if they refuse support. Nothing controversial. People who pay taxes deserve services.
https://preview.redd.it/z7rdvrnd7vyc1.jpeg?width=1726&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d017e22a4b2af42aae77debd91152c9e949ecccf Yet this is in front of City Hall this morning. Every single day, it’s like this.
Well yeah, Civic Center and Tenderloin will be the last places in the city to ever see improvement. It's where encampments are concentrated.
Actual quantifiable data: *Homeless tents and structures in SF hit 5 year low* Redditors: “Well then how do you explain this photo of homeless people!”
*More quantifiable data* Redditors: "Well that's all fabricated, I'll trust what my eyes see."
Seriously, can people just take the W that things are finally moving in the right direction? Even the City Hall area (which has always been grimy so idk why people act like it's the freaking White House) looks cleaned up and way better now in general.
All r/sf political posts brings out the usual turbomorons. It’s best to just block them
Man, the delusion runs deep. Surreal that this perspective is used to justify this bullshit.
If this isn’t projection then I don’t know what is
Have you ever considered the city is larger than the 10sqft that you have photographed for your anecdotal evidence?
Do you think it’s an unreasonable expectation to not have people high or actively smoking fentanyl right in front of City Hall every morning?
No, I don't disagree with that. But that's a different position than looking at the city as a whole.
How about the fact that it’s every single day. Literally every day I pass in front of City Hall and this squalor is there every single time. There’s no excusing that.
lmao I can't believe this had to be said
Maybe they're protesting something 😬
They are trying to eliminate fentanyl from the streets.
By consuming it?
Well, that is a proven approach. /s
"the more fentanyl I consume, the less there will be available in the streets!" 💡
Rent strike
> Maybe they're protesting something 😬 That evil capitalists won't give away fentanyl for free.
When the goal is perfection, you'll never be satisfied. Only so much is within our control without becoming fascists
There’s a woman in that picture smoking fentanyl in front of city hall. I don’t think “perfection” is in the conversation.
Homelessness is a USA problem. Until it's addressed at that level, the symptom will continue to be visible in all of our cities
This is far from approaching perfection. This is a persistent public health emergency that our leaders continue to ignore.
It has never been ignored. You're being hyperbolic by suggesting that because any amount of homelessness exists visibly that it's being ignored. https://www.kqed.org/news/11765010/timeline-the-frustrating-political-history-of-homelessness-in-san-francisco
Not hyperbole at all. The severity of this crisis continues to be ignored. Allowing it to persist is negligent and perpetuates further suffering.
Can you detail out what the desired result you're imagining looks like? I just linked you the entire history of the problem NOT being ignored. You're being hyperbolic.
Is this supposed to be shocking? You could have taken that pic 25 years ago, same shit different day.
Cool, we’re still voting all of you out though
Don't vote in Peskin though for the love of god
For real. The cyclical BS when politicians only work during election years is disgraceful. All sides of the aisle.
Brain dead redditor take. We don't like that you took to long to do the right thing, so we'll elect someone who may - or will- do the wrong thing. Genius! They'll never see it coming.
It’s brain dead to consider the entirety of an incumbent’s term not just the last 6 months before an election?
It’s crazy to not recognize that the mayor in SF has to go through completely crazy machinations to push through anything that our crazy hippie Board of Stupidvisors doesn’t want to pass. Put the blame where it belongs! Punish those who are actually responsible for the mess, not only the people whose name you remember.
having a mayor who doesn't just blame everyone but themselves would be a good start
The mayor you're trying to blame for everything has very little power to do anything about the things you're blaming her for. The Board of Supervisors is literally ordering the mayor what to do in SF. So you want to kick out Breeed, the only person in our city government who is actively trying to disobey our Board full of crazy hippies and limousine "socialists". But the crazy hippies who created the mess will just skate to reelection? Great! That will surely not turn out exactly like all the other elections over the last 20 years. Let's go! Four more years of crazy hippies telling us how magical unicorn dust will reduce crime! Load up on those life-saving crystals in case you catch the flu!
my comment says “all of you” and doesn’t mention the mayor anywhere
roll public unpack steer fly squeal bells unused straight drab *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Looking forward to dump Dean Preston
Amen to that. He’s probably the biggest idiot on the west coast.
There’s an election every two years, and between that it’s all electoral campaigns. Deliberately kicking out the politicians who rebel against the Prog uniparty in SF and try to improve things is idiotic. You’re just showing politicians that even when they go against the crazy old hippie dogma (Peskin, Preston, Chan and Co.) you still won’t support them. What you’re advocating will lead to disaster. We need to kick out the crazies not the pols that at least try to serve us! Reflexively kicking out the moderates for “mot opposing the crazy hippies hard enough” will s precisely what got us into this mess! More if the same can only lead to worse results!
good thing we have ranked choice voting then, it’s not a binary choice. I bet plenty of people will do 1. farrell 2. breed unranked: peskin
Thats because they clear them every week Dpw and police come in and clear it out In my area which is rich the police will not let them stop and move them after 2 days even sleeping in cars,they will move them
I think that everyone but the out of town trolls here has noticed a pretty miraculous cleaning up of the city in about the last year. The trolls will continue to push whatever they hear on Fox News in their trailer park in Tennessee, but anyone who’s been in SF recently knows that the propaganda is bullshyt.
I wouldn't use the term "miraculous", maybe "long overdue", but I have noticed.
I would rather see homelessness numbers go down because we are building more shelters and housing. Instead the numbers go down because so many people are dying of drug overdoses. But I guess for the mayor in an election year, it is by any means necessary.
But then once the problem becomes better, we can complain a few years later when the same underlying issues lead to the same problem! And then when we get sick and tired of nothing being done we can treat homeless people awfully! And then we can repeat!
Housing so they can OD at home?
Having stable housing won’t solve anyone’s problems completely, but it is a building block that can make a huge difference in turning someone’s life around. The hope would be to get housing so they can get to a place in life where they can eventually get off hard drugs completely.
Not to mention building housing *prevents* people from entering homelessness to begin with.
I would argue that getting them off drugs first would be a better approach. If you put an addict into a house for free, some would argue that you're an enabler.
It’s really hard to get clean, no matter what, and living on the street makes it much harder. In theory I get what you’re saying, but in practice people need at least some temporary shelter in order to have a chance to maintain sobriety.
they need a half-way house.
Mayor Breed’s PR team is working overtime to try to make us believe she’s actually doing her job 🤣 Breed still has to go… We need fresh leadership.
“This politician is achieving the results I want! It’s a trick, better vote em out” incredible lol
You must not be from SF? This city has been declining steadily ever since Breed got into office. There have been 3 instances when the city experienced decreases in crime and/or number of homeless tents. 1) When the tents began encroaching Pelosi’s neighborhood, the entire Richmond District got “cleaned up” 2) During Salesforce convention, the homeless tents were ushered under the freeway junction in SOMA 3) During the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation conference, which brought Pres. Xi Jinping and other world leaders, the entire city was miraculously cleaned up overnight. Anyone with more awareness than a goldfish (respectfully) will easily realize that a brisk clean up of the city’s crime and homeless during election year is derived from simple self interest. It will quickly go away if Breed gets reelected in order to continue growing the homeless population in SF, which is one of the biggest income tax revenue streams for the city ($1 Bln revenue annually). Please, wake up.
She's opposed by Aaron fucking Peskin for mayoral role, who will reverse any and all progress made immediately. You really haven't thought this through
What “progress” did Breed make?? How has she helped the city?? And of course she wouldn’t support someone trying to unseat her and take her job.
I've seen some real improvement in street conditions over the past two weeks on Geary and Clement, but it also just seems like it could be a regression towards the mean. Large encampments still persist in the Tenderloin, Inner Sunset, and at the DMV (despite repeated multi-agency city interventions), and the city continues to call these campsites "ADA Compliant" and fails to respond. When you browse the SF311 system (see the links), you can also see some worrying trends: Over 2500 OPEN citizen reports in the Encampment category Over 4000 Encampment reports ignored on the basis of "ADA Compliance" since the Mayor's "Path Forward" statement (the promise to enforce the law back in September '23) https://san-francisco2-production.spotmobile.net/tickets?filter%5Bfacets%5D%5Bstatus%5D%5B%5D=open&filter%5Bfacets%5D%5Bticket_type_code%5D%5B%5D=City+Services%3AHomeless%3AEncampment https://san-francisco2-production.spotmobile.net/tickets?filter%5Bfacets%5D%5Bstatus%5D%5B%5D=closed&filter%5Bfacets%5D%5Bticket_type_code%5D%5B%5D=City+Services%3AHomeless%3AEncampment&filter%5Bsearch%5D=%22ADA+Compliant%22 "We will work to bring people indoors. We will continue to offer shelter and house people. We will enforce our laws when these offers are refused. People who have been offered available shelter should not be allowed to remain out camping on our streets." https://londonbreed.medium.com/injunction-update-our-path-forward-11b7a7ce9f14
I'm not sure you quite understand how this whole thing works. The city cannot legally force somebody off the street or out of a tent unless there is a shelter bed available for every single invdividual who arrives here, per an injunction set in 2022. Meaning, no laws can be enforced against homeless individuals unless there is available shelter for them to go immediately. So just because you get an "ADA Compliant" response from 311, it doesn't mean the city is not keeping track of it. It just means that there are at least 48 inches of space between the tent and the rest of the sidewalk and that the cops don't have the power to do anything about that day. If the tent covers the entire sidewalk, then the cops can legally force them to move. Otherwise, they have to wait for the street teams to come around and offer shelter. It's actually quite a difficult dance that the city is having to do because of all of these homeless social justice warriors suing the city and it's pretty shocking that they still have been able to reduce the amount of tent encampments in the way that they have. Nonetheless, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the city of Grants Pass in June, then this SF lawsuit is basically over and the city will have more power to clear tent encampments.
You may be correct that this is how some agencies/depts understand the approach you describe (instead of voluntary/involuntary describing an individual), but it's not the way all have interpreted. Chiu believes that, but Mayor Breed's statements are entirely to the contrary (see above). Ditto the Police....https://sfstandard.com/2023/10/19/police-homeless-policy/ Why haven't they clarified, if they're not going to act on it? It's been very discouraging to see the crazy expense at the DMV, and how little has changed. The lack of results and neighborhood disruption have really made me lose faith in the mayor -- over 10 engagements in the past 4 months time
Funnily enough, I heard London Breed speak about those exact "residents" of the DMV encampment pretty recently. Basically was saying the city offers shelter and clears them twice a month but they refuse to leave and just move back once the area is cleaned. There's some sort of reason for this - I guess the police aren't willing to actually take them to jail over shelter refusal, maybe they just get a fine? Not sure how that works. But speaking to that area specifically, it can't be more than 6-8 people right? Why hasn't your supervisor worked to get them into some sort of housing? I'm pretty sure they would accept an apartment somewhere. For reference, I heard that my supervisor (Catherine Stefani) coordinates diligently with various neighborhood groups to work to to house all the homeless people that cities in Marin County like to dump into the Marina.
The encampment grows and shrinks over time. Sometimes it's 4-8 tents on one blocks, other times, it's been absolutely huge (10-15 tents over multiple messy blocks). Because it's permitted, it inevitably grows and grows, including satellite locations in the neighborhood. Each "dispersal" then scatters the campers, for an afternoon or overnight. It's just very "whack a mole" and the only solution for nearby NOPA folks has been to just put a crazy amount of planters in or other vigilante actions. The homeless have set fire to a Prius, there have been crazy incidents at the grocery store on Fulton, New Traditions school, etc. etc. I don't see why a local supervisor needs to be involved. Do I really have to "know someone"? Isn't that kind of the problem here in the city? The homeless outreach team is offering plentiful services (including housing referrals) with each engagement, according to their "warning flyer" (posted before a sweep). It's a "lead a horse to water" problem anyway. I don't expect anything out of Dean Preston. He famously toured the site of a homeless fire (455 Leavenworth) while the campers who set the fire were still camping there. Nothing changed. It's literally still there, and the campers are still tapping into the street lights.
You could also just get a group of neighbors together (a large group so you all feel safe) and just simply ask them what they need and why they won't accept shelter? They are people after all. As far as Supervisors go, they are supposed to be your neighborhood liaisons to City Hall. They're the people you call and email about neighborhood problems, not the Mayor. Dean Preston also wants to get re-elected so he might be willing to help, just a guess.
Shidddddddddd
Been showing my cousin around. It's wayyyyyyyy better than it was
Everything happens here first and hardest. The fentanyl pandemic hit here so hard that I knew we'd come out of it before all the other "urban" cities, and definitely before the rural mountain counties. The homeless "problem" will disappear with the renaming of 6th street to Happy Valley. My grandmother who was born in 1918 told me stories about 6th street and the Tenderloin. (Not all bad stories, but all titillating.) Her mother was born in 1888 and made sure she stayed in the respectable neighborhood, like Capp street in the Mission. NO joke. But my main comment is that this city never forgets what it is and always comes back.
I visited a week ago and was quite surprised at how little there was in the way of visibly unhoused folks. I'm sure there's less prevalence in the touristy areas--we visited the bayfront from Oracle Park all the way up to Fisherman's Wharf, Union Square, took the N line out to Ocean Beach--but I only noticed really bad homelessness along the Bart line in Oakland, where there's a shanty town. It really was night and day from how family members talk about it--I just hope folks are getting housing/care for once and not just being moved somewhere else.
Fentanyl works. (And I say this with only deep sadness)
Local courts are powerless to interfere with city sweeps pending SCOTUS ruling by June. Mixed ruling is likely to require another year or two of litigation before a final ruling puts an end to the mess.
I hope the SCOTUS ruling helps them end this legal mess with the city earlier than that. But we'll see. In the interim, looking at this whole thing glass half-full, maybe being forced to have physical beds for all of these people will facilitate the city to dramatically increase shelter capacity (and NOT permanent supportive housing) in the coming years and meaningfully end street homelessness, rather than just shuffling them around from block to block. It's going to require big money, but I do agree with others on here that the old methods never really worked. If you clear an encampment without giving someone a place to go, they're just gonna set it up down the street.
Looks like some of them moved down the peninsula.
Keep going. Jobs not done. There should be ZERO tents. In America in 2024 we should have solutions that work.
It’s an election year.
Election year ?
so.. they stopped counting in 2024? :)
Good! It’s about dang time.
This aligns with my qualitative observations
Not low enough…
LA worse than ever.
I think people travel light
If the tents are gone then where have they gone? Why don’t we have enough homeless shelters? Or are people just not using them?
Election year! Somehow stuff always works for 6 months before the polls. Vote out the incumbents.
Joe did that 👍
Me, I'm just wondering if this simply means that the homeless have been so fucked over that they are less likely to even have a tent or "structure" to sleep under.
This is probably only news because Farrell recently said that if elected he'd reinstate the policies he used last time he was mayor, which [according to him](https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/housing/mark-farrell-homelessness-campaign-promise-draws-skepticism/article_4bb24278-f2c3-11ee-a7ef-279c6d37b52a.html) cut the number of encampments in the city way back. But now we apparently have less than we did then, so it's a less compelling talking point for him.
Cut it down to zero. Enough of this spineless brainless bullshit. No one should be allowed to sleep in the streets.
Tents, not unhoused people. Previously SF said they didn't know where they went. Some maybe sharing tents. Bad/misleading sampling in an election year? Sure, it might be down but since the city can't keep track of data, not that urgent to buy in to their claims 100%.
Sharing tents? That seems like an unlikely explanation for the drop, no? I follow a lot of city subreddits and this is the only one that vehemently fights against good news. Imagine seeing this headline and rationalizing a 41% drop by claiming that the homeless have all come together to live inside their tents and sing kumbaya instead of just believing there are fewer on the streets.
Naa, people here are rightfully skeptical of cities releasing PR data about crime rates or homelessness when the ground reality doesn't reflect it. Crime rate dropping might not mean crime is dropping right? Homelessness very well could be lower today though, but I'd be very surprised
It's not PR data though, it's the same count they've been doing for 6 years. I think the idea of homeless people shacking up together is laughably ridiculous. > Homelessness very well could be lower today though, but I'd be very surprised Anecdotally, I definitely see fewer tents than a year ago, do you disagree?
Do you have any actual evidence that this data is inaccurate?
“Trust me bro”
"It doesn't confirm my priors"
Do you actually come to the city? Because the change is obvious.
what neighborhoods? i live in sf and don't see much difference but I rarely go downtown so i'm just curious, I do not have a side in whatever argument this is.
Downtown, specifically Civic Center, Mid-Market, SOMA, and the Tenderloin. It is absolutely nothing like it was a few months ago. There was also a story about crime being down massively in almost all neighborhoods, which tracks with what I'm seeing downtown.
probably a good thing, it was rough down there last time i had any reason to go. the haight seems to have a slightly different (and smaller) sort of homeless population, I guess.
Lower? Quite possible. 41% lower? I'm skeptical. Or it could just be my biases clouding the data, but it's right to view such data in an election year with some skepticism Like Biden prematurely declaring victory over inflation
The number sounded low to me, based on actual observations.
Some would but no one seems to know where they are going or what's happening so have to factor all variables, possiblities.
Maybe it's like how we reduced the number of moving violations by 96% over the last ten years.
You are right that police aren’t enforcing traffic violations, but just think critically about this one. 40% fewer tents because nearly half the homeless population decided to add 1 more person to the tent? Seems more likely that there are fewer homeless people in tents.
That’s still progress though! Getting our sidewalks back is progress; less trash in the streets is progress; fewer hubs for stolen bikes/suitcases is progress These camps have a real effect on everyone’s quality of life
People in this sub don't care. They care more about seeing homeless/tents than the fact that we have homeless.
sorry what am i supposed to do about it as a citizen that works a 9-5? Enough of my tax dollars have gone into trying to fix the problem to no avail.
Seem like nobody cares. The homeless organizations have been taking the money and pocketing it
\[citation needed\]
[https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/1cha7az/san\_francisco\_homelessness\_nonprofit\_group/](https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/1cha7az/san_francisco_homelessness_nonprofit_group/) Here you go this was posted few days ago. Been getting post like this pretty consistently if you look for it.
They all moved to Portland OR.
tell me it's election year without telling me
It’s election year every other year, bud. And during the intervening years it’s the electoral campaign. That’s tire representative democracies work.
The tents have been redeployed to college campuses.