16,000 Feces Complaints In One Week

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Homeless people who sleep on the sidewalk are obviously not very functional. And in my experience the people who would most benefit by moving to a lower cost of living area are the least able to afford to move. That's why families end up living in their car, if they can't afford their rent and have to move out, the landlord has 21 days to return their deposit. If you're just scraping by where do you go for those 21 days before you get the deposit to rent a different place, and what does it cost you to move out of your apartment and put everything in storage until you get your deposit back? And how do you get a job in this new cheaper place? Do you have the money to travel back and forth to apply and interview, or do you just move and worry about getting a job after you get there.

It's worse than that. Most people in that situation have consumed the deposit either by living it down, or through "damage."

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Rental units built after June 13, 1979 aren’t covered by rent control.

The problem with that is that there's never a guarantee that rent controls by some name won't be imposed. In New York City they initially applied only to pre-1947 buildings. In 1974 they were extended, under the term "rent stabilization" to existing buildings, and those buildings constructed later where the owners took advantage of certain tax abatements. The landlords usually took those since there was the expectation that the buildings might be covered by controls or stabilization under yet newer legislation.

[steel7]

The homeless have to crap somewhere. Better S.F. then here.

Originally Posted by oregonwoodsmoke

High rise buildings in San Francisco will do nothing to provide housing for the homeless. Any tall rise buildings will be condos, not rental apartments. No sane person ever builds rentals in a city with rent control laws. They will not only be condos, they will be really expensive condos, built on some of the most expensive land in this country.

There are good ways to solve the homeless issues, but not without violating someone's civil rights. Since you can't violate civil rights, there is not much that can be done.

Uh, you might want to check your facts.


San Francisco's rent control laws only apply to old buildings. If anything, it's an incentive for developers to build new construction, because the new buildings don't have rent control, and the tenants in the old buildings won't move which further restricts supply and drives up rents.


Newer rental buildings do generally have to have some percentage of affordable units. Developers can get around it by building other affordable units elsewhere in the city or paying a fee to the city.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by jbgusa

."The problem with that is that there's never a guarantee that rent controls by some name won't be imposed. In New York City they initially applied only to pre-1947 buildings. In 1974 they were extended, under the term "rent stabilization" to existing buildings, and those buildings constructed later where the owners took advantage of certain tax abatements. The landlords usually took those since there was the expectation that the buildings might be covered by controls or stabilization under yet newer legislation.

Well then the "problem with that" is that any City County or State could impose rent control tomorrow right? It's curious that you would think that could only happen in a place that previously had rent control

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Well then the "problem with that" is that any City County or State could impose rent control tomorrow right? It's curious that you would think that could only happen in a place that previously had rent control

History and culture tend to repeat.

[Taz22]

Originally Posted by 2nd trick op

I recognize that the workings of a society which is both increasingly technology-oriented, but also increasingly driven by a perceived demand for often-needless personal attention, is not going to be kind to the aging and the overly-introverted; they truly deserve a means to survive and function, which need not be too expensive, IF effectively policed, and at as close a level to the locality as possible.

But there are also many more out there in the open sewer who landed there via their own foolish choices; granted, they may no longer be capable of fully-rational behavior, but it's clear to a lot of us that the only concern of some of the charlatans here is to recruit them for political purposes, and leave the underlying problem for those of us who always foot the bill. And there are quite a few, possibly a majority, who are very adept at "working the system".

if reasonably-able-bodied, usually-male adults seek to forage like animals, breed like animals, and defecate like animals, then they need to be (humanely) confined like animals, and confronted with the hard choice between a harsh subsistence, and living somewhat better due to simple choices on their part.

I refuse to accept the do-gooder fantasy that most of them aren't capable of that much.

I like your logic and it’s true that politicians have caused a lot of this mess. Like you, I believe that many of these people are capable of being self sufficient, but with free food, tents, and panhandling for booze, drugs and smokes, there isn’t much incentive for them to clean up their act. That’s where society needs to step in and give them the opportunity to get clean from drugs, get mental help and start thinking of a job . Letting them go on the way they are now benefits no one.

San Francisco is a beautiful city or was, but I won’t be visiting again anytime soon.

[eastcoastguyz]

Originally Posted by nobodysbusiness

"The weather is bad?" I don't think so. Sounds like a little jealousy, based on your name.

Just because San Francisco is in CA, doesn't mean it has the same weather. I've been there over a dozen times on business and the vast majority of the time it is cloudy and raining. It is very cold there during the summer. Yes, the weather is bad there.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by eastcoastguyz

Just because San Francisco is in CA, doesn't mean it has the same weather. I've been there over a dozen times on business and the vast majority of the time it is cloudy and raining. It is very cold there during the summer. Yes, the weather is bad there.

I guess you and I have a different definition of "very cold"
7/8 67
7/9 74
7/10 77
7/11 71

[NYJoe]

Originally Posted by Taz22

I like your logic and it’s true that politicians have caused a lot of this mess. Like you, I believe that many of these people are capable of being self sufficient, but with free food, tents, and panhandling for booze, drugs and smokes, there isn’t much incentive for them to clean up their act. That’s where society needs to step in and give them the opportunity to get clean from drugs, get mental help and start thinking of a job . Letting them go on the way they are now benefits no one.

San Francisco is a beautiful city or was, but I won’t be visiting again anytime soon.

If the homeless were to settle in the neighborhoods where the politicians live, you can bet they would take action. How many politicians or high profile celebrities and business people, who defend the rights of the homeless, have to step over/around them on a daily basis? These elitists probably work and live far from the worst areas, and I am sure have never encountered a bag of feces sitting outside their offices or homes.

The status quo will continue until it actually impacts the quality of life of the people who have the power and influence to change it.

[JONOV]

Originally Posted by mike1003

How about moving the homeless out of the cities. Find a park that works and move them, tents and crap, there.

Move them all to a camp, where they are given uniforms and put to work all day...

I don't think California, their politics, or any of their other problems have to do with their homeless problem. Every statistic I look at fails to recognize what appears to be the most common factor in states with high rates of unsheltered homeless people; they have decent weather. California, Florida, Nevada, Arkansas...as compared to Maine, Iowa, Masachusetts, New York...

Add to that, every vacation destination I've ever been to, has more homeless than I'm used to. And, every "alternative" hippy type destination has the same. Asheville, NC for example has a large amount of what I'd almost term "voluntary homeless," the vagabond type that are different than what I'd see in Chicago or Raleigh (the truly down and out and mentally ill and/or addicted.)