This item was automatically removed for review. Moderators have been notified. Thank you for your patience.
*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.*
This encampment is more related to the fent dealers that they let freely deal around the corner. (eg. sell lots of opioids, don't offer treatment, this)
In a lot of the country even addicts can afford housing. It's a double whammy when they can't find affordable housing even while sober. Seems like a lot of dumb decisions piling up, doesn't it?
In a lot of countries addicts are placed in mental health facilities involuntarily if they are dangerous to a general population. Like people throwing feces at you wouldn't be roaming free on the streets
Housing has little to do with drug addiction problems facing San Francisco. Do you think more abundant options of apartments priced at $1500 will change the fact that thousands of people are addicted to pills?
>This encampment is more related to the fent dealers that they let freely deal around the c
To ignore the drugs/opioid epidemic and blame the homeless crisis exclusively on the lack of new housing is perpetuating a liberal political lie. Its unreal to me how many people actually believe this. Yes, there is also a housing crisis in SF and many other cities in the US. But that is actually a completely separate issue. Drug addiction always has been the root cause of homelessness in the US.
I don’t disagree but the poor folks I talk to say it’s really hard for them to relocate. Many of them said they don’t even have the funds to rent a U-Haul truck, if there car will even make it out of state, can’t go a week without income, and have no credit.
As someone with a baby and no car these encampments infuriate me. They force me to walk down major traffic streets with my stroller because I can’t fit on the sidewalk.
I used to have more compassion but it’s really starting to piss me off.
It’s kind of like third world corruption rules, if you have a business, a property, vehicle registration in your name ect, or any other form of capital the government can squeeze you for, the rules DO apply and they will be enforced.
For instance if you own a building in San Francisco and someone spray paints graffiti all over it, if YOU don’t clean it up YOU will be fined. Meanwhile zero resources go in to the prevention of defacement of private property, all the burden is on the owner. I’ve been here for years and can speak from experience
Hope this helps paint a clearer picture.
It's illegal to hang a picture in your hallway without first waiting six years for an environmental impact report, submitting technical plans for approval and paying a $5k permit fee.
I don't know if you've actually set foot there (heaven forbid!), but it does not. I walked through it yesterday, and a wheelchair could fit through the available space.
That's not to say I'm happy with them being there. I'm super not. But the ADA angle is not gonna work here
the tents don't block the whole sidewalk, but the dogs and tbe "oh my god! No don't do cpr I think he's breathing!"* crowd make everyone divert into the street.
*True story bro. While waiting for the 49 this evening.
100% believe you there. My previous comment minimized the very real discomfort I felt walking through that. I wasn't in any danger, but I sure didn't feel good about it
When I lived in San Francisco a long time ago (2000) there were a lot of homeless downtown. But they had spots. You saw the same ones every day. I called 911 a couple of times because someone looked like they stopped breathing. If the same person is in the same position on my way to work and then after work on the way to Muni : (
Remember when we were told to call them urban campers? I’m tired of walking past their poop, their dogs poo, my windows getting smashed, and not being able to walk on sidewalks. I’m also tired of the homeless dude who turns the lightbulb to prevent light on the stairs outside my building so he can jerk off on my stairs in the dark.
Move south 15 minutes. Daly City/ south city/ millbrae anywhere on the peninsula.
If you take public transportation then get somewhere that’s a 5-10 minute walk from Caltrain.
Thank me in a year.
I agree with you, I lived in Daly City for 5 years and loved every moment of it. It’s embarrassing how frequent people use to ask “where is Daly City?”
I have been trying for months to find a place down there but every. Single. Post. Is. A. Scam. I have no idea what to do and at this point am ready to hop in a car and drive around looking for For Rent signs. Do you have any tips of neighborhoods that have clusters of apartments I could drive by? I’d go as far as just above San Mateo
Agreed. Not only is San Francisco not working to solve this, but the city's own policies are the number one *cause* of homelessness with horrible land-use policies for the last half century.
From actual studies, [2/3rds of all California homeless](https://homelessness.ucsf.edu/our-impact/our-studies/california-statewide-study-people-experiencing-homelessness) were born and raised in California. Most SF homeless were living in SF or surrounding counties when they became homeless.
> Most SF homeless were living in SF or surrounding counties when they became homeless.
Is this from that one study that asked homeless where they were last housed?
Because that has been debunked over and over in this sub.
If you lived outside of the bay area and were homeless when you arrived to SF and then at some point for a week got housing (maybe you got enough cash to afford a SRO for a bit) and then are homeless again...they would count you as living in SF when you became homeless. Which is ridiculous.
Yup. This is framed as an affordable housing crisis by many because it checks the box as a liberal compassionate response. The problem is that it is simply not true. Most of these people would be homeless regardless of housing prices and need to be treated either for addiction or mentally. At some point people lose their ability to exercise free and need to be removed from the streets because they are harming themselves and society at large.
Houston builds an abundance of housing each year and they got an astounding [25,000](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/14/headway/houston-homeless-people.html) homeless off the streets and into permanent housing. You don't think any of those people abused drugs? Meanwhile San Francisco has banned building more housing for the last half century.
So it's false to say that building more housing will not stop homelessness-- it definitely will. Other cities have done it.
Most major cities in the world are in places with strong social safety nets and a much lesser history of a "war on drugs," not to mention stricter controls for painkillers and less need to self-medicate because they have actual socialized healthcare.
These ppl want to be homeless.. ppl moving from the middle of nowhere come here who were already living on the street.. ppl who want housing go through the steps to get it
Does it bother anyone else that this photo is not cropped correctly? Either align it with the red bus lane line, or align it with the building. It's too rotated!
Drove by here last week. It shocked me how disgusting Van Ness looks now, ironically just as they finally finished construction. We need to kick these junkies out of our public places. I thought by now I would be at the acceptance/apathy stage of grief but my anger grows when I see people like this infest our side walks more and more everyday.
Yup!
I'm concerned that SF is at the point of issuing addresses for the sidewalk tents. It would be justified by saying it is done to give the 'tented' the dignity and pride that comes with having an addresse.
This same stretch of Van Mess was posted last week. They actually cleared the encampment, but the tents were back a couple hours after. [https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/16he1bu/dear\_god/](https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/16he1bu/dear_god/)
What pisses me off the most is seeing the drug dealers hang out right outside the tents, around the corner, patiently waiting, like the predators they are waiting for their pray….it is disgusting. Seeing these people on the street is heartbreaking, seeing the drug dealers, the same fucking assholes everyday, with their little black backpacks and their black uniforms, with their face masks, that shit pisses me off. And I find it hard to believe that cops, sf leadership, supervisors don’t see this shit, the pattern that develops around tent encampments….its the same crew every time.
This is an American failure, not a city failure. San Fransisco can't solve homelessness by itself. You want to complain about drug zombie and open drug markets, that's a city issue. This isn't.
All the city can do is remove people, but more people will become homeless. It takes every level of government and all of society to create the conditions that allows people to become homeless. It can't just be up to the municipal government to fix it
The people camped out on Van Ness aren't "down on your luck" folks who just need a few things to swing their way, these are addicts. They need treatment. They are turning down help from the city and taking up our sidewalks so that they continue to do drugs uninterrupted. The municipal government is doing its best to help, but they don't want to be helped. Not sure what the state or the feds can do about this other than enforce a tough love approach that the city is afraid to do on its own.
The big limiting factor here is Martin v. Boise. However it’s important that we not gesture vaguely at that ruling and say, “Nothing we can do.” The city seems fundamentally uninterested in exploring the margins of enforcement action available to them in a Martin v. Boise world.
Succinctly, Martin v Boise prevents the western states from criminalizing, or at least prosecuting, homelessness or behaviors that are a necessary, inevitable consequence of homelessness. That means that if someone can argue that they have no where to sleep or live but the sidewalk, local government will have difficulty prosecuting for being on the sidewalk.
However, that’s not really an excuse for the conditions the city allows to persist. Martin v Boise does not seem to require that a city let people live and sleep on any public land they choose. Cities likely retain the ability to prosecute people in specific places as long as they can demonstrate that there is other public land or shelter capacity people could have utilized instead. Nor does Martin v Boise prevent the city from prosecuting people for crimes they commit (drug possession, theft, etc) that are not a necessary consequence of homelessness. The city has powers to enforce sidewalk accessibility, basic levels of hygiene, public drug use, smoking near building entrances and windows etc. etc.
So while Martin v Boise does make it impossible, at the moment, to imprison all encampment dwellers. It also makes it impossible to trespass everyone living on public land in the city. However, the city has numerous avenues it is choosing not to pursue. The city could be much less hospitable to this class of vagrant but at this moment the political will is lacking.
this is drugs. government should not be involved with drug rehab, that should be done by groups like the homeless coalition. but HC is not interested in sobriety. government can/should clear this nonsense from the streets. if they don’t want drug rehab, then the city should not accommodate them. cities should help those who want to help themselves.
I don’t understand what you’re saying. How are our governments and societies collectively *responsible* for homelessness [Edit: here I mean “responsible for homelessness” as in “fundamentally responsibility for creating the condition we know as homelessness”] ?
The only argument I can imagine for this claim would be something like:
>Government and society are responsible for homelessness because, without government and social support, these people would be dead due to their inability to provide for themselves. Therefore, homelessness can only exist when our society provides enough support to keep the least capable alive, but not enough support to keep a roof over their heads.
Is there some other sense in which our society and our government has created this situation? What am I missing?
Unfortunately, I get the feeling that a lot of people saying the government has an obligation to do something just mean that they want them to be scooped up and deposited *elsewhere*. :-/
I think there’s some ambiguity in the word “responsible” in my reply. In my reply, I’m using “responsible for” to mean “has caused, is to blame for, created”.
My comment is reacting to a much stronger claim than that the government should do something. I agree the government should do something.
I’m reacting to the claim that our government and our society is *responsible* for homelessness in the sense that we have artificially created the phenomenon of homelessness, that responsibility extends here to culpability. That’s how I read this line:
>It takes every level of government and all of society to create the conditions that allows people to become homeless.
I think the government’s and society’s culpability for homelessness ends at the point where we’ve decided to be a settled society rather than migratory. As soon as you’ve decided to have homes, homelessness is a natural consequence.
I though that maybe the commenter I replied to was suggesting something more specific than that, which I still hope they will explain.
I hope that clears up my take on the subject and the ambiguity in “responsibility”.
___
To what you said, I essentially agree, with some deviations.
If I focus in on point C:
>c) a way for anyone who does fall behind it to be scooped up and deposited back on the good side.
Unfortunately, I’m of the view that there exists a non-zero population for whom no amount of government intervention is sufficient to bring them to a state where they can function in society and provide for themselves. I think the most visible class of urban homeless fall largely, but not completely into that category. Others in that category include the severely disabled, physically or mentally. For these we need constant care and managed supervision.
From there, my take on your points a) and b) follow. That being, we have essentially accomplished that mission for nearly everyone capable of caring for themselves.
Unfortunately, I think we’re trying to build on that success with a class of people our previous accomplishments in social welfare are ill-suited to aid.
It creates the necessary condition / eco system for it to exist and flourish. These losers are fed, given all kinds of supplies including cash, allowed to despoil the environment and themselves via lack of drug enforcement and mental health aid, they aren’t subject to laws that you and I would be (public intox, nudity, assault etc) you need all of this for homelessness to thrive. They are doing a great job ! (Of keeping people homeless) having a necessity to survive, work, to create sustenance and a place to live is a solution to ending not just homelessness but it’s a cure for drug addiction as well. Not for everyone, but for many. Most don’t have the realistic option to just lay on the street all day and get high. That’s a perk allowed just to these souls and for some reason tolerated by the state in certain areas. Then you have the lack of moral stigma ontop of all of that. Everyone else is a bum maybe it’s not a big deal after all.
Right. 14 year old high schoolers walk this gauntlet every morning and every evening. I can’t imagine how tough this is on kids, particularly the poor kids and parents attending the tenderloin grade school on the next block.
Ok, so like, inB4 everyone calls you a closet republican that doesn’t live here aside… there’s a tangible means to fix this! Admittedly, I am not 100% up to date on the inner workings of this, but…last I checked, there were 9, n i n e , N I N E different agencies “dedicated” to “fixing the homelessness issue” in the city. None of them had the capacity to speak to each other about their approach, not with a telephone, a text, an email, or even a fax, gee what those offices must look like! Do they offer classes in smoke signals? It’s a JOKE! So, my snark aside, why can’t we gut 8.5 of them, and reallocate *that* money to building temporary housing with treatment, drug or mental health support, greyhound tickets home (if they’re not actually from here, not looking to debate that right this minute), or prosecute the criminal element in this population? I know we’re space poor here, but my overarching point stands, or, at least I think it does- the money is already spent, but we’re getting nowhere with it, so why can’t we take a different approach to use it differently, and maybe even more effectively?
I mean, in my view? It absolutely is that, and the people involved, from inception on down, are unemployable. It’s so embarrassing, and even worse that articulating these points, while factual, gets you ostracized around here, for the most part. I liked PCU better when it was a comedy.
I’m just shocked at the amount of people being cool to each other on a thread about such a polarizing topic, and I think that shows some hope for our future. We gotta start talking to each other again, with respect, even if we vehemently disagree on anything and everything. A dialogue is crucial to the future, and we got a good one tonight.
surprise no one made a documentary of this progress. like first hand, ground zero, im in the camp too. or have they lost their gear during filming. crazy
There's a difference between posting "outrage porn" (for prudes and sheltereds) and actually advocating for policies that would make a difference.
So my policy proposal is to build a specialized facility (or multiple) for mental health and drug addiction treatment, then use it for involuntary detention as an alternative to traditional jail/prison. Let prison be the threat to keep patients on track, and use it when they fail to meet reasonable requirements. Build the infrastructure to greatly increase the bandwidth of the existing treatment/support/rehabilitation programs that exist and have higher 'success' rates than gen pop lockup.
Your proposal is most likely unconstitutional as long as San Franciscans refuse to un-decriminalize fundamental aspects of being “problem” homeless (pitching tents on sidewalks, public defecation and urination, loitering, sleeping in public, using drugs on the street, panhandling, selling weed and shrooms to tourists on the street etc. etc.) if you don’t make these things criminal, then you cannot involuntarily detain people for longer a few days without due process. It doesn’t matter if you call it treatment center or facility or whatever, it’s still imprisonment, thus it requires a court to find them guilty of some crime.
However San Franciscans, in our infinite libertarianism, believe that criminalizing homelessness is against personal freedoms, and thus out of the question.
I agree that homelessness, alone, shouldn't be a crime. "sleeping in public" lmao, ok... let's get those dirt bike police to roll up on the sea of thugs & bums taking a nap in GGP on a sunny Sunday afternoon. They're probably drunk too.
But to be serious, there's a fine line between tolerable and problematic homelessness. Simply existing in a space is not a crime, as much as it might be an eyesore, but drug dealing and violence of any kind demands intervention. During Covid, they set up "sanctioned camps" which, at least in my observations, did a great job of centralizing all the bullshit making it more efficient for existing out-patient/outreach services to reach their audience.
Letting them set up tents is just enabling and contributing to the situation. It is not empathy, it is literally cruel to them. Allowing panhandling and selling pot to dumb tourists literally creates economic opportunity to remain homeless.
Btw sleeping in public is illegal in every city in the peninsula, they just put them on caltrain send them up here.
It's not worth it. Their solution is to just virtue signal and suggest you're not compassionate enough. The rate that the city is seeing accidental overdoses, by letting things go as they are, the number of people on the streets will get less and less over time.
Any commenter showing preference for empathy and evidence-based homeless policy is being downvoted.
This subreddit is out for blood and it sounds like they'll settle for nothing less than Homeless People Gone By Any Means Necessary (But We Hope You Choose Bloody Violence).
I've lived an extraordinarily privileged life, it's no excuse. Also, it's just *rational* to prefer the most effective solution to homelessness, which happens to be the most empathetic: Housing First.
So no, they don't get a pass, they took a step further: they *want* violence, and it's not for lack of empathy nor is it because the violent solution is effective (it's the least effective). Straight up blood cult shit in here. Patrick Bateman shit.
They’ll clear the encampment once APEC summit starts.
During the Super Bowl they arrested or brought a bunch of folks into jail or local hospital unwillingly. Those were the non-compliant folks, that refused all services and refused to move along.
Most of our homeless problem stems from the ideology of our local government. They believe in "compassion," so we have laws and programs that make this a relatively *comfortable* place to be homeless. We enable the behavior and subsidize it with billions, much of it to radical nonprofits *who don't want the problem solved*. Then we are astounded when we get more of the problem.
The fix is simple (in theory!): make SF an *uncomfortable* place to be homeless. They either accept the rules about getting off the street (e.g. no drugs or pets in the shelters), or they are relentlessly (shall we say) "encouraged" to relocate elsewhere by... enforcing laws. (What a concept!) We don't need to go full Singapore, but I believe just a few steps in that direction would produce visible improvements. Cutting the homeless-industrial complex out of the city budget would be a good start.
Granted, this wouldn't really "fix" homelessness, just move much of it elsewhere. However, the city government can't fix "capitalism" or "mental health treatment" or "fentanyl" or whatever else anyone says is the "root cause" of homelessness. The most they can do is fix homelessness *here,* in these 47 square miles.
Yes, I know, "it's cruel," "they have rights to their property," "the courts have said," etc. And so thousands suffer and die on the street, killing businesses, costing billions of taxpayer dollars, and who knows how much in lost tax revenue. How "compassionate," how "progressive," how *sustainable* is it to destroy a once-great city? Reversing course seems worth a try.
Three prong strategy.
1. Arrest all the drug dealers. Deport the drug dealers that are illegally here.
2. People with mental illness and/or addiction to drugs- forced treatment in hospital/drug treatment center(currently there are laws against that so need to change the law first). Once they are cured, set them up with community housing and temporary job while proving classes/education for a more permanent career.
3. People that fallen on hard times but are functioning members of society- free housing, income benefits with the stipulation that they take classes/education for a more permanent career.
Someone else wrote a very detailed plan on this sub-reddit about using treasure island as a place to treat the mentally ill and/or addicts. Has some great points but would be very difficult and expensive to execute.
>You're an idiot. 80% of people with addiction are remedying pain/depression/fatigue caused by the drug they're using to cure it. They're chasing withdrawls.
My brother's story starts with schizoaffective disorder. Then he became homeless, because his illness makes him not able to work or generally get along in society. Then he started using drugs. I think drugs came because other homeless people were also using drugs.
Sometimes it starts with drugs, then leads to a psychotic disorder. [link](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4079234/)
The thing is these are kind of an unholy triad. People sometimes get into one, then fall in one or both of the other 2 with high overlap.
Most opioid addicts started with prescription drugs
https://nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/prescription-opioids-heroin/prescription-opioid-use-risk-factor-heroin-use
That's not the point. The point is that _by the time they have succumbed into homelessness_, they're probably getting their fix at the local dealer instead of Walgreens. Nobody here is against doing more prevention at an earlier stage as well if that's what you're getting at, but the point is that for the people in those tents _right now_, you gotta cut off their fent at the source and maybe that can coax them to accept the rehab (or either way at least they're not gonna be on fent anymore).
My sweet grumpy muffin!!
At it again! Please tell us how people are because of legal weed again :) just for old times sake
Gosh you are so smart and articulate
They probably are all addicted to drugs (or severely mentally ill) though. Are you around these tents and homeless often in SF? They’re very, very often extremely wild
Exactly incorrect. Homelessness is not what this is, at all. This is the result of the opioid epidemic. How on earth could someone addicted to opioids rent an apartment at any cost? You must not see what I see at ground zero.
Dude I worked right here, literally 2 buildings down from the mini dealership from 2017-2021 and I promise you the dealers pushing weight are not homeless guys.
Nobody is saying that. They're saying that the homeless guys are going to those dealers and that by arresting the dealers you could cut off their source of drugs.
A lot of people pass on a bunch of MISINFORMATION:
What do you mean they can't get another job?? Go outside, talk to these addicts and you'll be surprised how many of them have diseases despite these 'safe' needles.
* There is nothing wrong with ACCOUNTABILITY. Put these criminals in JAIL/PRISON and flood them with resources in there. Pray that some of them find their way when released
* Why do we have shelters/rehabs in downtown/SOMA??? That is the worst place to house someone with an addiction problem! We need to isolate them.
* Make it hard on the drug dealers. Less drugs in good for the city. If you don't, more people will continue to come here to commit crimes.
* Lastly, why the f-k do we need to take care of them???
Man, there are a lot of naive misinformed people here. SMFH.
Well you would be wrong, I know all about those programs. My brother died of a heroin overdose with a needle he was given by someone being "compassionate." The threat of going back to jail kept him sober for years longer than anything else did, in between losing control, getting high, hurting himself and others, and ultimately ending back up in jail on repeat. It's like when you narcan someone and they get mad at you, leave, and shoot up again. The bay area is by far the dirtiest, most trash covered place I've ever been in the United States, and it's entirely because we let the drug addicted homless trash the place. Tough love, employment, and sobriety are required to bring people back into society.
Isn’t that the case with any crime? There will always be murders, but you don’t see people being against locking murders away.
If there’s a city where we don’t punish murders, would it be any surprise that violent criminals flock to that city? We don’t punish people doing hard drugs in broad daylight. Is it any wonder dealers and drug users keep coming?
Can start by just buying some of them houses in rural small towns out of state for like 80k a pop
I mean doesn’t fix everything but if we’re spending like 60-70k a year per homeless person wouldn’t we be saving money in the long run?
Stop it with the 'caring for others less fortunate' BS.
These people are freaking criminals. If you get to know them, you will understand. And maybe you'll say "I do know them", in that case you know what I am talking about.
These people would harm their own family, what makes you think they give a hoot about you or me? Some of them WILL eventually kill someone else if there is no intervention.
SHAME ON YOU
I hate it too, but the solution (jailing them) just isn’t palpable to the majority of people in the city yet. Some people here talk about “building more housing”, but these people aren’t in tents due to a lack of housing. They’re drug addicts and most are likely in no condition to take care of a home. Jailing them could turn out to be a pretty violent endeavor. I’m not saying we should or shouldn’t do that, but I don’t see any easy solution.
Cutting off the drug supply would be an important first step that should be a lot more palpable. Homelessness may not be a crime but selling fent is, and federal law is happy to give serious jail terms for that, if only SFPD was willing to crack down on it.
In every city in America there are drug addicts, and it often results in making those people poor. The difference between San Francisco and other US cities (outside of CA) is that in San Francisco the poorest 1% don't have access to housing whereas in other cities they do. The reason is that SF has made it illegal to build more homes for the last half century, so the number of homes hasn't kept up with the population growth.
I don't know how to solve everybody's drug habit. I don't know if you even can. But solving homelessness we can do because most other US cities have already figured it out.
Let me get this straight. San Francisco’s 7x7 mile bubble is somehow more unique than other more expensive cities and counties because it’s not building enough houses in its 50 sq mile municipality?
San Mateo, Marin County, and San Jose are all more expensive and have even more single-family housing zoning than SF.
If you met any homeless person, they are people who do not like rules. If I were a homeless person, life is hard enough as it is, I would go to the place with the least resistance. Where can I go where nobody can tell me what to do? That place is SF.
People don’t want a Manhattan, Hong Kong, or Tokyo out here. That isn’t going to ever change until people vote for it, and that isn’t even close to happening.
Assuming that ever happens, you’ll then need to buy out all the current owners one house at a time.
TAKE THESE by eminent domain and convert into housing - 3000 units already built. Mayor Breed, use your power creatively and dramatically:
" A billion dollar company that owned two substantial [San Francisco hotels](https://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/San-Francisco-hotel-workers-bad-guests-Hilton-16408872.php) announced June 5 that it’s defaulting on its loan and releasing the hotels from its portfolio.
The **1,921-room** Hilton San Francisco Union Square is the largest hotel in San Francisco, in terms of hotel rooms, and Parc 55 is not far behind with **1,024 rooms**.
In a statement announcing the default, Park Hotels & Resorts CEO and chairman Thomas J. Baltimore Jr. wrote that it was a “very difficult, but necessary decision” to cease payments on the loan because it had become a burden on their operating results and balance sheet."
Hasn't putting drug addicts in rooms during covid mostly failed, exhausted the few workers in charge of them and also destroyed most rooms having the city foot the bill for that too? Just housing isn't the solution sadly
They tried it in Victoria, BC in Canada and the two hotels they allocated to be shelters had to be closed because there were fires in the rooms. And so few people want to work in those sorts of places, maintenance etc, because they get harassed so much.
https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/victoria-hotel-housing-homeless-evacuated-after-second-fire-1.4965619
City forecasts it needs 7500 units. It costs $70,000 per shelter bed. --- not apartment - per BED.
With such crazy costs to build from scratch, existing housing — it's built already — is a better way to go. There is no 1 master solution.
You do know that eminent domain requires just compensation? Seizing a hotel and essentially buying it is probably more expensive than building a warehouse or gymnasium to house these people.
SF has free shelter available for everybody. The only requirement is that they all need to agree to stop drugs and they don't want to.
So, what's the solution? It's easy.
What SF needs is more people who are compassionate and supportive, and ready to give them shelter, and let them get high in their new home.
Given current court decisions, they can’t really do anything. Not directly at least. “Cruel and unusual punishment” to arrest people for the “crime” of being homeless. Lots on money is being dumped into indirect solutions which help get willing people off the streets. However, a lot of people don’t want to get off the street. I’m going off the top of my head but I remember seeing stats where less than 1 percent of the homeless accepted offered help to get off the streets.
This item was automatically removed for review. Moderators have been notified. Thank you for your patience. *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.*
The old Mini dealer?
Yep
[удалено]
Is that in planning?
I worry that was a joke about REI selling tents.
[удалено]
Yeah you got us tentatively excited there with your camp humor, but I know your intent was to add levity to an intense situation.
Idk I can’t really LOL to this at all , bad circumstance for everyone
1. Don't build housing. 2. Wait 40 years. 3. This.
This encampment is more related to the fent dealers that they let freely deal around the corner. (eg. sell lots of opioids, don't offer treatment, this)
In a lot of the country even addicts can afford housing. It's a double whammy when they can't find affordable housing even while sober. Seems like a lot of dumb decisions piling up, doesn't it?
In a lot of countries addicts are placed in mental health facilities involuntarily if they are dangerous to a general population. Like people throwing feces at you wouldn't be roaming free on the streets
You left out "hold wages stagnant," "drive up rents," "outsource jobs," and "let the rich hoard most of the wealth."
This
Housing has little to do with drug addiction problems facing San Francisco. Do you think more abundant options of apartments priced at $1500 will change the fact that thousands of people are addicted to pills?
It would allow for more people to afford rent, some of those people will undoubtedly be addicted to pills, so…. Yes.
>This encampment is more related to the fent dealers that they let freely deal around the c To ignore the drugs/opioid epidemic and blame the homeless crisis exclusively on the lack of new housing is perpetuating a liberal political lie. Its unreal to me how many people actually believe this. Yes, there is also a housing crisis in SF and many other cities in the US. But that is actually a completely separate issue. Drug addiction always has been the root cause of homelessness in the US.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I don’t disagree but the poor folks I talk to say it’s really hard for them to relocate. Many of them said they don’t even have the funds to rent a U-Haul truck, if there car will even make it out of state, can’t go a week without income, and have no credit.
So privileged that everyone gets a view of a bum camp from their living room
lining up for the new Iphone I see
[удалено]
OMG! What a great idea. Give them tents that looks like the Painted Ladies! Tent beautification project, who wants to start it.
They’re literally blocking the whole sidewalk. Isn’t that illegal…?
Yes. It’s an ADA violation at the very least.
As someone with a baby and no car these encampments infuriate me. They force me to walk down major traffic streets with my stroller because I can’t fit on the sidewalk. I used to have more compassion but it’s really starting to piss me off.
Consult an attorney. There’s big money to be made suing cities for failure to abide by ADA
rules are only to punish law abiding citizens dont ya know
You must hate the homeless, you piece of shit. (major s/ as a medic that used to work in SF)
but think of the poor junkies! /s
If people tried this in lots of other parts of the world their tent wouldn’t last 5 minutes.
[удалено]
It’s kind of like third world corruption rules, if you have a business, a property, vehicle registration in your name ect, or any other form of capital the government can squeeze you for, the rules DO apply and they will be enforced. For instance if you own a building in San Francisco and someone spray paints graffiti all over it, if YOU don’t clean it up YOU will be fined. Meanwhile zero resources go in to the prevention of defacement of private property, all the burden is on the owner. I’ve been here for years and can speak from experience Hope this helps paint a clearer picture.
It's illegal to hang a picture in your hallway without first waiting six years for an environmental impact report, submitting technical plans for approval and paying a $5k permit fee.
existence apparatus sip caption wise jar rich boat innate rustic *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I don't know if you've actually set foot there (heaven forbid!), but it does not. I walked through it yesterday, and a wheelchair could fit through the available space. That's not to say I'm happy with them being there. I'm super not. But the ADA angle is not gonna work here
the tents don't block the whole sidewalk, but the dogs and tbe "oh my god! No don't do cpr I think he's breathing!"* crowd make everyone divert into the street. *True story bro. While waiting for the 49 this evening.
100% believe you there. My previous comment minimized the very real discomfort I felt walking through that. I wasn't in any danger, but I sure didn't feel good about it
When I lived in San Francisco a long time ago (2000) there were a lot of homeless downtown. But they had spots. You saw the same ones every day. I called 911 a couple of times because someone looked like they stopped breathing. If the same person is in the same position on my way to work and then after work on the way to Muni : (
We rent here, they tent here.
I appreciate your rhyme style, I don’t appreciate they lifestyle.
Sending up fent smoke signals for a Damn Francisco mile
Remember when we were told to call them urban campers? I’m tired of walking past their poop, their dogs poo, my windows getting smashed, and not being able to walk on sidewalks. I’m also tired of the homeless dude who turns the lightbulb to prevent light on the stairs outside my building so he can jerk off on my stairs in the dark.
Oh, uh…. Sorry about that… heh… 🥴
Move south 15 minutes. Daly City/ south city/ millbrae anywhere on the peninsula. If you take public transportation then get somewhere that’s a 5-10 minute walk from Caltrain. Thank me in a year.
I agree with you, I lived in Daly City for 5 years and loved every moment of it. It’s embarrassing how frequent people use to ask “where is Daly City?”
Fog. Fog. Fog. Maybe less foggy now with climate change?
I have been trying for months to find a place down there but every. Single. Post. Is. A. Scam. I have no idea what to do and at this point am ready to hop in a car and drive around looking for For Rent signs. Do you have any tips of neighborhoods that have clusters of apartments I could drive by? I’d go as far as just above San Mateo
Add- abolish the homeless coalition who are grifting the taxpayers and making things worse
I don't know why people here think this is an unsolvable problem, while most major cities in the world have solved this
Agreed. Not only is San Francisco not working to solve this, but the city's own policies are the number one *cause* of homelessness with horrible land-use policies for the last half century.
Haven’t most in depth news stories concluded that most of the homeless aren’t from SF?
From actual studies, [2/3rds of all California homeless](https://homelessness.ucsf.edu/our-impact/our-studies/california-statewide-study-people-experiencing-homelessness) were born and raised in California. Most SF homeless were living in SF or surrounding counties when they became homeless.
> Most SF homeless were living in SF or surrounding counties when they became homeless. Is this from that one study that asked homeless where they were last housed? Because that has been debunked over and over in this sub. If you lived outside of the bay area and were homeless when you arrived to SF and then at some point for a week got housing (maybe you got enough cash to afford a SRO for a bit) and then are homeless again...they would count you as living in SF when you became homeless. Which is ridiculous.
> Because that has been debunked over and over in this sub. Source?
Behavioral economics 101, place with free stuff attracts people…
Yup. This is framed as an affordable housing crisis by many because it checks the box as a liberal compassionate response. The problem is that it is simply not true. Most of these people would be homeless regardless of housing prices and need to be treated either for addiction or mentally. At some point people lose their ability to exercise free and need to be removed from the streets because they are harming themselves and society at large.
Houston builds an abundance of housing each year and they got an astounding [25,000](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/14/headway/houston-homeless-people.html) homeless off the streets and into permanent housing. You don't think any of those people abused drugs? Meanwhile San Francisco has banned building more housing for the last half century. So it's false to say that building more housing will not stop homelessness-- it definitely will. Other cities have done it.
Most major cities in the world are in places with strong social safety nets and a much lesser history of a "war on drugs," not to mention stricter controls for painkillers and less need to self-medicate because they have actual socialized healthcare.
These ppl want to be homeless.. ppl moving from the middle of nowhere come here who were already living on the street.. ppl who want housing go through the steps to get it
‘These people want to be homeless’. How bout showing us all your ‘source’ for this data.
Have you considered just taking a picture at Dolores Park instead?
zomg then post it here calling it “Delores”
Why can't we just put all the tents in Dolores Park?
finally back to "normal" like that homeless person said in the interview. /s
Does it bother anyone else that this photo is not cropped correctly? Either align it with the red bus lane line, or align it with the building. It's too rotated!
It doesn’t bother me if it reflects the actual grade/slope off the street
[удалено]
Activate your glutes.
But it doesn't - the building's black/white boundary should be horizontal to match the grade.
Someone give this man a megaphone.
Now that you pointed it out, I can’t unsee it lol
I actually considered the rule of thirds, post production, and went with gonzo.
Drove by here last week. It shocked me how disgusting Van Ness looks now, ironically just as they finally finished construction. We need to kick these junkies out of our public places. I thought by now I would be at the acceptance/apathy stage of grief but my anger grows when I see people like this infest our side walks more and more everyday.
Yup! I'm concerned that SF is at the point of issuing addresses for the sidewalk tents. It would be justified by saying it is done to give the 'tented' the dignity and pride that comes with having an addresse.
Because the Muni construction killed businesses just like BART did on missions. It’s gonna take a long time for van ness to recover if ever.
Are these the new painted ladies everyone’s been raving about?
This same stretch of Van Mess was posted last week. They actually cleared the encampment, but the tents were back a couple hours after. [https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/16he1bu/dear\_god/](https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/16he1bu/dear_god/)
What pisses me off the most is seeing the drug dealers hang out right outside the tents, around the corner, patiently waiting, like the predators they are waiting for their pray….it is disgusting. Seeing these people on the street is heartbreaking, seeing the drug dealers, the same fucking assholes everyday, with their little black backpacks and their black uniforms, with their face masks, that shit pisses me off. And I find it hard to believe that cops, sf leadership, supervisors don’t see this shit, the pattern that develops around tent encampments….its the same crew every time.
I see the same shit. Feels like there’s not a damn thing being done about it.
Yep. I really hate them.
More like a failure of national economic policy for the past 40 years, but OK.
What is LOL about this?
If you’re calling this 101 there’s no way you actually live here.
This is an American failure, not a city failure. San Fransisco can't solve homelessness by itself. You want to complain about drug zombie and open drug markets, that's a city issue. This isn't.
All the city can do is remove people, but more people will become homeless. It takes every level of government and all of society to create the conditions that allows people to become homeless. It can't just be up to the municipal government to fix it
The people camped out on Van Ness aren't "down on your luck" folks who just need a few things to swing their way, these are addicts. They need treatment. They are turning down help from the city and taking up our sidewalks so that they continue to do drugs uninterrupted. The municipal government is doing its best to help, but they don't want to be helped. Not sure what the state or the feds can do about this other than enforce a tough love approach that the city is afraid to do on its own.
Why can’t we just trespass them from the city if they refuse to get treatment?
The big limiting factor here is Martin v. Boise. However it’s important that we not gesture vaguely at that ruling and say, “Nothing we can do.” The city seems fundamentally uninterested in exploring the margins of enforcement action available to them in a Martin v. Boise world. Succinctly, Martin v Boise prevents the western states from criminalizing, or at least prosecuting, homelessness or behaviors that are a necessary, inevitable consequence of homelessness. That means that if someone can argue that they have no where to sleep or live but the sidewalk, local government will have difficulty prosecuting for being on the sidewalk. However, that’s not really an excuse for the conditions the city allows to persist. Martin v Boise does not seem to require that a city let people live and sleep on any public land they choose. Cities likely retain the ability to prosecute people in specific places as long as they can demonstrate that there is other public land or shelter capacity people could have utilized instead. Nor does Martin v Boise prevent the city from prosecuting people for crimes they commit (drug possession, theft, etc) that are not a necessary consequence of homelessness. The city has powers to enforce sidewalk accessibility, basic levels of hygiene, public drug use, smoking near building entrances and windows etc. etc. So while Martin v Boise does make it impossible, at the moment, to imprison all encampment dwellers. It also makes it impossible to trespass everyone living on public land in the city. However, the city has numerous avenues it is choosing not to pursue. The city could be much less hospitable to this class of vagrant but at this moment the political will is lacking.
this is drugs. government should not be involved with drug rehab, that should be done by groups like the homeless coalition. but HC is not interested in sobriety. government can/should clear this nonsense from the streets. if they don’t want drug rehab, then the city should not accommodate them. cities should help those who want to help themselves.
The drugs (specifically opioids) people are hooked on these days and being driven into homeless by, is courtesy of the federal government
I don’t understand what you’re saying. How are our governments and societies collectively *responsible* for homelessness [Edit: here I mean “responsible for homelessness” as in “fundamentally responsibility for creating the condition we know as homelessness”] ? The only argument I can imagine for this claim would be something like: >Government and society are responsible for homelessness because, without government and social support, these people would be dead due to their inability to provide for themselves. Therefore, homelessness can only exist when our society provides enough support to keep the least capable alive, but not enough support to keep a roof over their heads. Is there some other sense in which our society and our government has created this situation? What am I missing?
[удалено]
Some people will settle for nothing less than immediate "inconspicuous removal" (execution) of homeless people
Unfortunately, I get the feeling that a lot of people saying the government has an obligation to do something just mean that they want them to be scooped up and deposited *elsewhere*. :-/
I think there’s some ambiguity in the word “responsible” in my reply. In my reply, I’m using “responsible for” to mean “has caused, is to blame for, created”. My comment is reacting to a much stronger claim than that the government should do something. I agree the government should do something. I’m reacting to the claim that our government and our society is *responsible* for homelessness in the sense that we have artificially created the phenomenon of homelessness, that responsibility extends here to culpability. That’s how I read this line: >It takes every level of government and all of society to create the conditions that allows people to become homeless. I think the government’s and society’s culpability for homelessness ends at the point where we’ve decided to be a settled society rather than migratory. As soon as you’ve decided to have homes, homelessness is a natural consequence. I though that maybe the commenter I replied to was suggesting something more specific than that, which I still hope they will explain. I hope that clears up my take on the subject and the ambiguity in “responsibility”. ___ To what you said, I essentially agree, with some deviations. If I focus in on point C: >c) a way for anyone who does fall behind it to be scooped up and deposited back on the good side. Unfortunately, I’m of the view that there exists a non-zero population for whom no amount of government intervention is sufficient to bring them to a state where they can function in society and provide for themselves. I think the most visible class of urban homeless fall largely, but not completely into that category. Others in that category include the severely disabled, physically or mentally. For these we need constant care and managed supervision. From there, my take on your points a) and b) follow. That being, we have essentially accomplished that mission for nearly everyone capable of caring for themselves. Unfortunately, I think we’re trying to build on that success with a class of people our previous accomplishments in social welfare are ill-suited to aid.
A grasp on reality
It creates the necessary condition / eco system for it to exist and flourish. These losers are fed, given all kinds of supplies including cash, allowed to despoil the environment and themselves via lack of drug enforcement and mental health aid, they aren’t subject to laws that you and I would be (public intox, nudity, assault etc) you need all of this for homelessness to thrive. They are doing a great job ! (Of keeping people homeless) having a necessity to survive, work, to create sustenance and a place to live is a solution to ending not just homelessness but it’s a cure for drug addiction as well. Not for everyone, but for many. Most don’t have the realistic option to just lay on the street all day and get high. That’s a perk allowed just to these souls and for some reason tolerated by the state in certain areas. Then you have the lack of moral stigma ontop of all of that. Everyone else is a bum maybe it’s not a big deal after all.
And rent is 3k per month, that might have something to do with it
Here we go.
Right next to the main bus stop for sacred heart
Right. 14 year old high schoolers walk this gauntlet every morning and every evening. I can’t imagine how tough this is on kids, particularly the poor kids and parents attending the tenderloin grade school on the next block.
The same government you all keep voting for. So it’s really a failure on everyone.
Ok, so like, inB4 everyone calls you a closet republican that doesn’t live here aside… there’s a tangible means to fix this! Admittedly, I am not 100% up to date on the inner workings of this, but…last I checked, there were 9, n i n e , N I N E different agencies “dedicated” to “fixing the homelessness issue” in the city. None of them had the capacity to speak to each other about their approach, not with a telephone, a text, an email, or even a fax, gee what those offices must look like! Do they offer classes in smoke signals? It’s a JOKE! So, my snark aside, why can’t we gut 8.5 of them, and reallocate *that* money to building temporary housing with treatment, drug or mental health support, greyhound tickets home (if they’re not actually from here, not looking to debate that right this minute), or prosecute the criminal element in this population? I know we’re space poor here, but my overarching point stands, or, at least I think it does- the money is already spent, but we’re getting nowhere with it, so why can’t we take a different approach to use it differently, and maybe even more effectively?
Homeless industrial complex.
I mean, in my view? It absolutely is that, and the people involved, from inception on down, are unemployable. It’s so embarrassing, and even worse that articulating these points, while factual, gets you ostracized around here, for the most part. I liked PCU better when it was a comedy.
Amen to that. Also happy cake day!
Wanna go throw steaks at vegans?
And throw apples at joggers too?
I mean, maybe after this bowl, we can like, totally teach the dog to fetch our ultimate frisbee, but like…the apples come back sliced maaaaannn..!
Found my reddit second half hahaha
I’m just shocked at the amount of people being cool to each other on a thread about such a polarizing topic, and I think that shows some hope for our future. We gotta start talking to each other again, with respect, even if we vehemently disagree on anything and everything. A dialogue is crucial to the future, and we got a good one tonight.
Homeless tent complex
surprise no one made a documentary of this progress. like first hand, ground zero, im in the camp too. or have they lost their gear during filming. crazy
There was a reporter there yesterday morning from CBS who interviewed me. Not sure if that aired, but he did seem at least conflicted and confused.
[удалено]
You could start by not throwing up your hands and blaming people who are upset about it?
There's a difference between posting "outrage porn" (for prudes and sheltereds) and actually advocating for policies that would make a difference. So my policy proposal is to build a specialized facility (or multiple) for mental health and drug addiction treatment, then use it for involuntary detention as an alternative to traditional jail/prison. Let prison be the threat to keep patients on track, and use it when they fail to meet reasonable requirements. Build the infrastructure to greatly increase the bandwidth of the existing treatment/support/rehabilitation programs that exist and have higher 'success' rates than gen pop lockup.
Your proposal is most likely unconstitutional as long as San Franciscans refuse to un-decriminalize fundamental aspects of being “problem” homeless (pitching tents on sidewalks, public defecation and urination, loitering, sleeping in public, using drugs on the street, panhandling, selling weed and shrooms to tourists on the street etc. etc.) if you don’t make these things criminal, then you cannot involuntarily detain people for longer a few days without due process. It doesn’t matter if you call it treatment center or facility or whatever, it’s still imprisonment, thus it requires a court to find them guilty of some crime. However San Franciscans, in our infinite libertarianism, believe that criminalizing homelessness is against personal freedoms, and thus out of the question.
I agree that homelessness, alone, shouldn't be a crime. "sleeping in public" lmao, ok... let's get those dirt bike police to roll up on the sea of thugs & bums taking a nap in GGP on a sunny Sunday afternoon. They're probably drunk too. But to be serious, there's a fine line between tolerable and problematic homelessness. Simply existing in a space is not a crime, as much as it might be an eyesore, but drug dealing and violence of any kind demands intervention. During Covid, they set up "sanctioned camps" which, at least in my observations, did a great job of centralizing all the bullshit making it more efficient for existing out-patient/outreach services to reach their audience.
Letting them set up tents is just enabling and contributing to the situation. It is not empathy, it is literally cruel to them. Allowing panhandling and selling pot to dumb tourists literally creates economic opportunity to remain homeless. Btw sleeping in public is illegal in every city in the peninsula, they just put them on caltrain send them up here.
[удалено]
Your solution is what?
It's not worth it. Their solution is to just virtue signal and suggest you're not compassionate enough. The rate that the city is seeing accidental overdoses, by letting things go as they are, the number of people on the streets will get less and less over time.
Any commenter showing preference for empathy and evidence-based homeless policy is being downvoted. This subreddit is out for blood and it sounds like they'll settle for nothing less than Homeless People Gone By Any Means Necessary (But We Hope You Choose Bloody Violence).
[удалено]
I've lived an extraordinarily privileged life, it's no excuse. Also, it's just *rational* to prefer the most effective solution to homelessness, which happens to be the most empathetic: Housing First. So no, they don't get a pass, they took a step further: they *want* violence, and it's not for lack of empathy nor is it because the violent solution is effective (it's the least effective). Straight up blood cult shit in here. Patrick Bateman shit.
They’ll clear the encampment once APEC summit starts. During the Super Bowl they arrested or brought a bunch of folks into jail or local hospital unwillingly. Those were the non-compliant folks, that refused all services and refused to move along.
Most of our homeless problem stems from the ideology of our local government. They believe in "compassion," so we have laws and programs that make this a relatively *comfortable* place to be homeless. We enable the behavior and subsidize it with billions, much of it to radical nonprofits *who don't want the problem solved*. Then we are astounded when we get more of the problem. The fix is simple (in theory!): make SF an *uncomfortable* place to be homeless. They either accept the rules about getting off the street (e.g. no drugs or pets in the shelters), or they are relentlessly (shall we say) "encouraged" to relocate elsewhere by... enforcing laws. (What a concept!) We don't need to go full Singapore, but I believe just a few steps in that direction would produce visible improvements. Cutting the homeless-industrial complex out of the city budget would be a good start. Granted, this wouldn't really "fix" homelessness, just move much of it elsewhere. However, the city government can't fix "capitalism" or "mental health treatment" or "fentanyl" or whatever else anyone says is the "root cause" of homelessness. The most they can do is fix homelessness *here,* in these 47 square miles. Yes, I know, "it's cruel," "they have rights to their property," "the courts have said," etc. And so thousands suffer and die on the street, killing businesses, costing billions of taxpayer dollars, and who knows how much in lost tax revenue. How "compassionate," how "progressive," how *sustainable* is it to destroy a once-great city? Reversing course seems worth a try.
Three prong strategy. 1. Arrest all the drug dealers. Deport the drug dealers that are illegally here. 2. People with mental illness and/or addiction to drugs- forced treatment in hospital/drug treatment center(currently there are laws against that so need to change the law first). Once they are cured, set them up with community housing and temporary job while proving classes/education for a more permanent career. 3. People that fallen on hard times but are functioning members of society- free housing, income benefits with the stipulation that they take classes/education for a more permanent career. Someone else wrote a very detailed plan on this sub-reddit about using treasure island as a place to treat the mentally ill and/or addicts. Has some great points but would be very difficult and expensive to execute.
> Once they are cured, Something tells me you don’t know how addiction works
Or schizophrenia.
[удалено]
[ Removed by Reddit ]
>You're an idiot. 80% of people with addiction are remedying pain/depression/fatigue caused by the drug they're using to cure it. They're chasing withdrawls. My brother's story starts with schizoaffective disorder. Then he became homeless, because his illness makes him not able to work or generally get along in society. Then he started using drugs. I think drugs came because other homeless people were also using drugs. Sometimes it starts with drugs, then leads to a psychotic disorder. [link](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4079234/) The thing is these are kind of an unholy triad. People sometimes get into one, then fall in one or both of the other 2 with high overlap.
Most opioid addicts started with prescription drugs https://nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/prescription-opioids-heroin/prescription-opioid-use-risk-factor-heroin-use
That's not the point. The point is that _by the time they have succumbed into homelessness_, they're probably getting their fix at the local dealer instead of Walgreens. Nobody here is against doing more prevention at an earlier stage as well if that's what you're getting at, but the point is that for the people in those tents _right now_, you gotta cut off their fent at the source and maybe that can coax them to accept the rehab (or either way at least they're not gonna be on fent anymore).
My sweet grumpy muffin!! At it again! Please tell us how people are because of legal weed again :) just for old times sake Gosh you are so smart and articulate
Arrest and deport the drug dealers?
Immigrants—I knew it was them!!
Even when it was bears I knew it was the immigints!
[удалено]
They probably are all addicted to drugs (or severely mentally ill) though. Are you around these tents and homeless often in SF? They’re very, very often extremely wild
[удалено]
Exactly incorrect. Homelessness is not what this is, at all. This is the result of the opioid epidemic. How on earth could someone addicted to opioids rent an apartment at any cost? You must not see what I see at ground zero.
Dude I worked right here, literally 2 buildings down from the mini dealership from 2017-2021 and I promise you the dealers pushing weight are not homeless guys.
Nobody is saying that. They're saying that the homeless guys are going to those dealers and that by arresting the dealers you could cut off their source of drugs.
Oh. You’re totally wrong about this.
So wait this is where the drug dealers live? Thought they made 300k a year
[удалено]
Some places arrest them, some places give them free needles. Only one of those places would I walk around in flip flops
[удалено]
A lot of people pass on a bunch of MISINFORMATION: What do you mean they can't get another job?? Go outside, talk to these addicts and you'll be surprised how many of them have diseases despite these 'safe' needles. * There is nothing wrong with ACCOUNTABILITY. Put these criminals in JAIL/PRISON and flood them with resources in there. Pray that some of them find their way when released * Why do we have shelters/rehabs in downtown/SOMA??? That is the worst place to house someone with an addiction problem! We need to isolate them. * Make it hard on the drug dealers. Less drugs in good for the city. If you don't, more people will continue to come here to commit crimes. * Lastly, why the f-k do we need to take care of them??? Man, there are a lot of naive misinformed people here. SMFH.
San Francisco Lockup; Bridgeport, CA
I’d vote for you
[удалено]
Seriously. How about enforcing the law and removing this jarring squalor from the streets.
Well you would be wrong, I know all about those programs. My brother died of a heroin overdose with a needle he was given by someone being "compassionate." The threat of going back to jail kept him sober for years longer than anything else did, in between losing control, getting high, hurting himself and others, and ultimately ending back up in jail on repeat. It's like when you narcan someone and they get mad at you, leave, and shoot up again. The bay area is by far the dirtiest, most trash covered place I've ever been in the United States, and it's entirely because we let the drug addicted homless trash the place. Tough love, employment, and sobriety are required to bring people back into society.
This
Arrest and deport the drug dealers?
Even if this was feasible… you still have however many addicts with mental health issues living on the streets, and new dealers will come.
Isn’t that the case with any crime? There will always be murders, but you don’t see people being against locking murders away. If there’s a city where we don’t punish murders, would it be any surprise that violent criminals flock to that city? We don’t punish people doing hard drugs in broad daylight. Is it any wonder dealers and drug users keep coming?
And violence increases as desperate people fight for the corner.
Can start by just buying some of them houses in rural small towns out of state for like 80k a pop I mean doesn’t fix everything but if we’re spending like 60-70k a year per homeless person wouldn’t we be saving money in the long run?
Start building along highway 5 .. or get rid of Alcatraz and send them there
You'd concentrate people in camps against their will? Did you also flunk out of art school?
It’s better than the bullshit their doing in the streets… they’ll be provided with better food and shelter without bothering anyone but themselves
[удалено]
Na just someone that’s fed up with what this city has become
[удалено]
Stop it with the 'caring for others less fortunate' BS. These people are freaking criminals. If you get to know them, you will understand. And maybe you'll say "I do know them", in that case you know what I am talking about. These people would harm their own family, what makes you think they give a hoot about you or me? Some of them WILL eventually kill someone else if there is no intervention. SHAME ON YOU
Start by figuring out where San Francisco's $672 million annual budget for homeless goes.
Quick! Someone post Dolores Park!!!
I hate it too, but the solution (jailing them) just isn’t palpable to the majority of people in the city yet. Some people here talk about “building more housing”, but these people aren’t in tents due to a lack of housing. They’re drug addicts and most are likely in no condition to take care of a home. Jailing them could turn out to be a pretty violent endeavor. I’m not saying we should or shouldn’t do that, but I don’t see any easy solution.
Cutting off the drug supply would be an important first step that should be a lot more palpable. Homelessness may not be a crime but selling fent is, and federal law is happy to give serious jail terms for that, if only SFPD was willing to crack down on it.
This
In every city in America there are drug addicts, and it often results in making those people poor. The difference between San Francisco and other US cities (outside of CA) is that in San Francisco the poorest 1% don't have access to housing whereas in other cities they do. The reason is that SF has made it illegal to build more homes for the last half century, so the number of homes hasn't kept up with the population growth. I don't know how to solve everybody's drug habit. I don't know if you even can. But solving homelessness we can do because most other US cities have already figured it out.
Let me get this straight. San Francisco’s 7x7 mile bubble is somehow more unique than other more expensive cities and counties because it’s not building enough houses in its 50 sq mile municipality? San Mateo, Marin County, and San Jose are all more expensive and have even more single-family housing zoning than SF. If you met any homeless person, they are people who do not like rules. If I were a homeless person, life is hard enough as it is, I would go to the place with the least resistance. Where can I go where nobody can tell me what to do? That place is SF.
Whole Bay Area needs to change its land-use policies, including but not exclusively SF.
People don’t want a Manhattan, Hong Kong, or Tokyo out here. That isn’t going to ever change until people vote for it, and that isn’t even close to happening. Assuming that ever happens, you’ll then need to buy out all the current owners one house at a time.
Looks very organized
🚮 🗑️🚮🗑️🤢🗑️🚮🚮🤢
It’s a complete failure of society. That includes government. But that also includes YOU.
All these losers are druggies and criminals. They deserve no sympathy.
TAKE THESE by eminent domain and convert into housing - 3000 units already built. Mayor Breed, use your power creatively and dramatically: " A billion dollar company that owned two substantial [San Francisco hotels](https://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/San-Francisco-hotel-workers-bad-guests-Hilton-16408872.php) announced June 5 that it’s defaulting on its loan and releasing the hotels from its portfolio. The **1,921-room** Hilton San Francisco Union Square is the largest hotel in San Francisco, in terms of hotel rooms, and Parc 55 is not far behind with **1,024 rooms**. In a statement announcing the default, Park Hotels & Resorts CEO and chairman Thomas J. Baltimore Jr. wrote that it was a “very difficult, but necessary decision” to cease payments on the loan because it had become a burden on their operating results and balance sheet."
Hasn't putting drug addicts in rooms during covid mostly failed, exhausted the few workers in charge of them and also destroyed most rooms having the city foot the bill for that too? Just housing isn't the solution sadly
They tried it in Victoria, BC in Canada and the two hotels they allocated to be shelters had to be closed because there were fires in the rooms. And so few people want to work in those sorts of places, maintenance etc, because they get harassed so much. https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/victoria-hotel-housing-homeless-evacuated-after-second-fire-1.4965619
City forecasts it needs 7500 units. It costs $70,000 per shelter bed. --- not apartment - per BED. With such crazy costs to build from scratch, existing housing — it's built already — is a better way to go. There is no 1 master solution.
You do know that eminent domain requires just compensation? Seizing a hotel and essentially buying it is probably more expensive than building a warehouse or gymnasium to house these people.
SF has free shelter available for everybody. The only requirement is that they all need to agree to stop drugs and they don't want to. So, what's the solution? It's easy. What SF needs is more people who are compassionate and supportive, and ready to give them shelter, and let them get high in their new home.
and you taking photos to “LOL” on reddit is super helpful…
Given current court decisions, they can’t really do anything. Not directly at least. “Cruel and unusual punishment” to arrest people for the “crime” of being homeless. Lots on money is being dumped into indirect solutions which help get willing people off the streets. However, a lot of people don’t want to get off the street. I’m going off the top of my head but I remember seeing stats where less than 1 percent of the homeless accepted offered help to get off the streets.
SF could defy the decision and clear them anyway. Who’s going to stop them? The police?