What's with all the homeless people? (San Francisco, Fresno: buying, bankrupt, law school)

[SunDevil1212]

There's tons of homeless people here because the politicians in the city cater to them, and they fail to make a distinction between the people who are truly down on their luck - in my estimation, a small percentage of the homeless - and what I call "the willingly homeless" - addicts/drunks, gutter punks, and people that have no interest in becoming contributing members of society. In my opinion, the city needs to do one of two things:

1) Start a Giuliani-style crackdown on crime like in NYC in the 90's. Embrace the broken-windows theory. Have police offers patrol Union Square, the Tenderloin, Mission and start harassing the panhandlers and addicts just like they harass the tourists and the locals. Actually enforce the sit-lie law. Keep 'em moving, on their feet. No more sleeping on private doorsteps (FAR too common), no more sleeping in the park. Don't allow these people to get comfortable.
2) Create an area similar to "Hamsterdam" (for those who have watched the Wire). Allow the addicts, drunks and prostitutes to do what they please as long as they are in a designated zone of a couple blocks. This is honestly not terribly different than how it is now - the difference is though that once they wander outside, no BS out of them or they get cracked.

[rkwalton]

Originally Posted by NYCtoSF

Is it just me or does this city have a serious homeless people problem? It's much worse than Manhattan. I can't walk a block without seeing a couple of dudes parked on the sidewalk with a shopping cart by their side.

Why doesn't the city take care of these people? At the very least they should be moved someplace else, probably Oakland or something. Not trying to be a jerk, but it's not good for tourism to see so many homeless people on Market Street.

It's a combination of much better weather and a greater tolerance for them. You do know California went bankrupt recently? Even when I was in law school here, homelessness was an issue, but not fixing the problem or not agreeing on policies to fix the problem is part of it.

In NYC it's f%^king cold. If I'm on the street, I'm much more likely to commit a crime, like shoplifting, to get tossed into jail where it's warm and they'll feed me than I would in San Francisco. It can get cold in San Francisco too, but it's not East Coast freezing.

Also, there are things NYC has done to remove homeless (one way tickets and Giuliani-style crackdowns to get rid of them, which you do realize is actually just moving them to someplace else). Bloomberg is definitely keeping that up and is in no mood to have them come back in.

However, it was a complete dunce move on your part to suggest moving them to Oakland. Why is it so hard to just ask a question without offending the next city over?

[SunDevil1212]

Originally Posted by rkwalton

In NYC it's f%^king cold. If I'm on the street, I'm much more likely to commit a crime, like shoplifting, to get tossed into jail where it's warm and they'll feed me than I would in San Francisco. It can get cold in San Francisco too, but it's not East Coast freezing.

Temperate weather certainly contributes to the problem, but I'd say in the grand scheme of things that's a very small factor. First of all, yes its not east-coast freezing here but it can get damn cold/windy at night. Sleeping outside would be most unpleasant here. Second, if weather was the primary factor, than San Diego and LA would be absolutely overrun by homeless people. Certainly, there are big homeless problems there as well, but in my experience its not nearly as bad as SF.

Here's the main problem: The City does want to solve the homeless problem, but unfortunately its not an easy problem to fix in a manner that would be consistent with their liberal principles. I'm making no endorsements here of either the liberal or conservative philosophy, just stating what should be obvious: it would be much easier to fix the problem using an all-out crackdown. But to do that you have to ever-so-slightly move towards a police state, and perhaps sacrifice some civil rights along the way. NYC certainly had to employ some questionable tactics, but their methods were so successful that in the eyes of the public the ends justified the means.

Furthermore, to do this the City would have to acknowledge that perhaps a tolerant/accommodating approach to homelessness might not be working, and that's the last thing the Board of Supervisors would ever want to convey. They have an image and brand to maintain, after all.

[Cruithne]

When I first moved here I asked someone the same question. The lady said to me, quite straight faced: "On the East Coast, they don't survive the winter". I'd only been living in America 2 days and found the kind of heartless but truthful answer quite shocking.

[marilyn220]

Originally Posted by NYCtoSF

Is it just me or does this city have a serious homeless people problem? It's much worse than Manhattan. I can't walk a block without seeing a couple of dudes parked on the sidewalk with a shopping cart by their side.

Why doesn't the city take care of these people? At the very least they should be moved someplace else, probably Oakland or something. Not trying to be a jerk, but it's not good for tourism to see so many homeless people on Market Street.

I think it's a CALIFORNIA way of life. Seriously.

I'm in LA and they are EVERYWHERE. Doesn't matter where you go.

From what I've heard though, there are better services for the homeless in SF than in LA. Don't know how true it is, but I believe it.

[marilyn220]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Well, speaking of Manhattan, here's what NYC did:
City Buys One-Way Tickets Home for Homeless Families - NYTimes.com

Yeah, but at least they're giving them money to leave.

California doesn't care and will never do it. The homeless can rot for all they care.

[marilyn220]

Originally Posted by SunDevil1212

There's tons of homeless people here because the politicians in the city cater to them, and they fail to make a distinction between the people who are truly down on their luck - in my estimation, a small percentage of the homeless - and what I call "the willingly homeless" - addicts/drunks, gutter punks, and people that have no interest in becoming contributing members of society.

Do you really believe this? Especially after all that has happened in this economy? I feel sad for you.

In my opinion, the city needs to do one of two things:

1) Start a Giuliani-style crackdown on crime like in NYC in the 90's. Embrace the broken-windows theory.

You do NOT want a Giuliani anything here. Trust. We couldn't wait to get rid of him when we did and please believe he will NEVER be re-elected again, unless by those midwestern transplants who didn't live through his Saddamesque type rule.

2) Create an area similar to "Hamsterdam" (for those who have watched the Wire). Allow the addicts, drunks and prostitutes to do what they please as long as they are in a designated zone of a couple blocks. This is honestly not terribly different than how it is now - the difference is though that once they wander outside, no BS out of them or they get cracked.

Hmmmmm, interesting. I can't even comment. You've left me speechless.

[SunDevil1212]

Originally Posted by marilyn220

Do you really believe this? Especially after all that has happened in this economy? I feel sad for you.



You do NOT want a Giuliani anything here. Trust. We couldn't wait to get rid of him when we did and please believe he will NEVER be re-elected again, unless by those midwestern transplants who didn't live through his Saddamesque type rule.



Hmmmmm, interesting. I can't even comment. You've left me speechless.

1) First, I should clarify I'm talking about the chronic homeless, because that's where the real societal problem is. So yes, I believe more than half of chronic homeless people are homeless because they've decided they'd rather do drugs, drink and/or have absolutely no responsibilities in life, rather than clean up their act. The number of homeless you see in SF boozing away on the sidewalk or generally acting like a-holes supports this claim. The homeless here are so brazen about it that you regularly see cardboard handwritten signs that say things like "Why lie - it's for beer", or "Need Weed."

There is no doubt a good number of people who are either mentally ill or have just fallen on rough times. But these are not the people you see on the street, harassing tourists and giving San Francisco a bad name. There are plenty of transitional housing shelters in SF that if you want to get out of a desperate situation, people here will help you (see for yourself: San Francisco Homeless Resource)

2) "We couldn't wait to get rid of him" - who's "we"? Because his policy on crime in the 90's was quite popular among New Yorkers.

source: Giuliani's Approval Rating Climbs in Poll - NYTimes.com

"The poll showed that a still-growing number of New Yorkers -- 72 percent now, compared with 62 percent three months ago -- approved of the Mayor's handling of crime. That figure, according to the poll, compensated for the fact that a majority disapproved of his handling of education and the city's budget.

'People think that on crime, he's a terrific Mayor'..."

[marilyn220]

Originally Posted by SunDevil1212

1) First, I should clarify I'm talking about the chronic homeless, because that's where the real societal problem is. So yes, I believe more than half of chronic homeless people are homeless because they've decided they'd rather do drugs, drink and/or have absolutely no responsibilities in life, rather than clean up their act. The number of homeless you see in SF boozing away on the sidewalk or generally acting like a-holes supports this claim. The homeless here are so brazen about it that you regularly see cardboard handwritten signs that say things like "Why lie - it's for beer", or "Need Weed."

There is no doubt a good number of people who are either mentally ill or have just fallen on rough times. But these are not the people you see on the street, harassing tourists and giving San Francisco a bad name. There are plenty of transitional housing shelters in SF that if you want to get out of a desperate situation, people here will help you (see for yourself: San Francisco Homeless Resource)

Good. I thought you were referring to the new homeless who are not drug, alcohol abusers.

2) "We couldn't wait to get rid of him" - who's "we"? Because his policy on crime in the 90's was quite popular among New Yorkers.

source: Giuliani's Approval Rating Climbs in Poll - NYTimes.com

"The poll showed that a still-growing number of New Yorkers -- 72 percent now, compared with 62 percent three months ago -- approved of the Mayor's handling of crime. That figure, according to the poll, compensated for the fact that a majority disapproved of his handling of education and the city's budget.

'People think that on crime, he's a terrific Mayor'..."

It was fine in the beginning, but he went overboard on many things to where the NYPD became a modern day Gestapo task force.

Trust - EVERYONE (from rich to poor) was GLAD when he left office.

You had to LIVE there to UNDERSTAND.

[NorCal Dude]

Originally Posted by NYCtoSF

Is it just me

Yes.