What's with all the bums? (San Diego, San Jose: schools, camp, taxis)

[DocGoldstein]

Originally Posted by ssmaster

the headline of the article that article you are refrencing is in error and misleading It is actually talking about people in alameda county who are at risk of homeless if they lose there general assistance/welfare benefits.






a qoute from the article
"These severe cuts impact almost all GA(general assistance) recipients with the three-month time limit, impacting over 7,000 Alameda County community members who are currently facing unemployment in one of the nation’s worst recessions."

it refers to 7000 alameda county residents


alameda county incorporated cities are Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Dublin, Emeryville, Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, Newark, Oakland, Piedmont, Pleasanton, San Leandro, and Union City.
The unincorporated communities are Ashland, Castro Valley, Cherryland, Fairview, San Lorenzo, and Sunol.


also from the article

In 1997, the last time Alameda County imposed a time limit on General Assistance, the county saw an increase in hunger, crime, homelessness and housing instability. According to a study prepared for the Alameda County Social Services Agency on the impact of time limits on GA, 29 percent of recipients surveyed were forced to move after losing aid and 20 percent became homeless

I think you're missing the point of the article. It's not all about Oakland (although Oakland has a huge homeless problem that is sort of ignored by most residents).

Budget cuts, unemployment, and a generally weak economy has exacerbated the homeless problem in Oakland, and other cities around the Bay Area.

But I'm glad you actually read the article.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

I think you're missing the point of the article. It's not all about Oakland (although Oakland has a huge homeless problem that is sort of ignored by most residents).

Thankfully it's not nearly as bad as SF

[DocGoldstein]

I'm not sure it should be treated or perceived as a competition. The homeless problem in both cities is dire.

Half of Alameda County's homeless population lives in Oakland:
Who is Homeless in Alameda County? - East Oakland Community Project

That's nothing to really be proud of in my opinion.

[garxhap]

Originally Posted by tropical87

I recently visited San Fran. Coming from Miami, I was SHOCKED at the depressing amount of homeless people EVERYWHERE. I was besieged, harassed and generally annoyed everywhere I went. It was unnerving.

mod cut

I will not be returning anytime soon.

How did it get so bad in San Fran?

First of all, you need to learn the new California terminology. Since illegals are no longer called illegals and are known as guest workers, in California the bums are not called bums anymore. They are known as guest non-workers.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

I'm not sure it should be treated or perceived as a competition. The homeless problem in both cities is dire.

Half of Alameda's homeless population lives in Oakland:
Who is Homeless in Alameda County? - East Oakland Community Project

That's nothing to really be proud of in my opinion.

I don't see anyone being proud of Oakland's homeless situation, what an odd statement to make or infer. It's just a good thing that they don't have the level of homelessness and the issues that SF does. SF residents seem to really ignore this issue.

Even in places like Concord the homeless situation has gotten worse over the years.

[DocGoldstein]

Originally Posted by sav858

I don't see anyone being proud of Oakland's homeless situation, what an odd statement to make or infer. It's just a good thing that they don't have the level of homelessness and the issues that SF does. SF residents seem to really ignore this issue.

Even in places like Concord the homeless situation has gotten worse over the years.

Umm, Oakland actually has a higher overall percentage of homeless people than S.F. You know that right? So your entire premise is wrong, and inaccurate.

In 2011 S.F Support Services estimated the homeless population at 4,691 in 2011, or roughly 723 out of every 100,000 people.

Oakland on the other hand has an estimated homeless population of 3,058 in 2011, or roughly 782 out of every 100,000 people in Oakland is homeless.

This is what I'm talking about. A lot of people are unaware of how dire the homeless problem in Oakland is, it's one of the worst cities in the state (and country) for homelessness, but people somehow have this misconception that S.F has the bigger problem.

Neither city is a bright spot when it comes to the situation of the homeless. As someone who works with the homeless year after year, this is something I can attest to in both cities. I've seen mothers with kids sitting in Jack London Square with no where to go because the shelters are all full. It's heart breaking.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

Umm, Oakland actually has a higher overall percentage of homeless people than S.F. You know that right? So your entire premise is wrong, and inaccurate.

In 2011 S.F Support Services estimated the homeless population at 4,691 in 2011, or roughly 723 out of every 100,000 people.

Oakland on the other hand has an estimated homeless population of 3,058 in 2011, or roughly 782 out of every 100,000 people in Oakland is homeless.

This is what I'm talking about. A lot of people are unaware of how dire the homeless problem in Oakland is, it's one of the worst cities in the state (and country) for homelessness, but people somehow have this misconception that S.F has the bigger problem.

Neither city is a bright spot when it comes to the situation of the homeless. As someone who works with the homeless year after year, this is something I can attest to in both cities.

Actually according to that count SF has 6,455 people that are homeless, you were only counting SINGLE people and not families.

So when you actually use the CORRECT FIGURES for homelessness in SF that equals roughly 807 out of every 100,00 people in SF.

http://www.sfgov3.org/Modules/ShowDo...documentid=787

So yes SF does have a bigger homeless problem and it's obvious to any OBJECTIVE person.

As you said it's not a competition but yet here you are trying to falsify numbers and make SF come out ahead.

[DocGoldstein]

Originally Posted by sav858

Actually according to that count SF has 6,455 people that are homeless, you were only counting SINGLE people and not families.

So when you actually use the CORRECT FIGURES for homelessness in SF that equals roughly 807 out of every 100,00 people in SF.

http://www.sfgov3.org/Modules/ShowDo...documentid=787

So yes SF does have a bigger homeless problem and it's obvious to any OBJECTIVE person.

As you said it's not a competition but yet here you are trying to falsify numbers and make SF come out ahead.

Umm those numbers count those who are in rehabilitation facilities!

The numbers I quoted for Oakland are people who are actually on the streets not in a hospital, or treatment center for drugs.

Maybe if you spend more time actually helping the homeless (instead of making it into some sick competition), you would know how these agencies categorize and count the numbers.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

Umm those numbers count those who are in rehabilitation facilities!

The numbers I quoted for Oakland are people who are actually on the streets not in a hospital, or treatment center for drugs.

Maybe if you spend more time actually helping the homeless (instead of making it into some sick competition), you would know how these agencies categorize and count the numbers.

Um your original 4,691 number includes ALL the people in rehabilitation facilities too. The additional 1,764 you tried to exclude includes ZERO people in rebailitation facilities! And there are only 241 people in treatment centers, so feel free to subtract that and you still have more in SF.

The number you quoted for Oakland is for ALL homeless people in the city, not just those on the streets. Please provide actual PROOF that number is for those on the street. Your link says NOTHING about those being all on the street. And it actually clearly states what they count as homeless:

People are homeless if they live in:

• Places not meant for habitation: cars, parks, abandoned buildings, the streets
• An emergency shelter, transitional housing program or motel
• A temporary, unstable arrangement with friends or family members
• When you are discharged from an institution with no resources to obtain housing (e.g. hospital, jail, mental health facility)

Good lord just stop already, you're wrong

Who is Homeless in Alameda County? - East Oakland Community Project


So please take a closer look at what you find on your google searches because you are doing a disservice to people who view this site by providing false and misinterpreted information.

Maybe instead of wasting time providing FALSE data in your competition to make Oakland's homeless population worse you can now see the FACTS and go across the bridge and help out the homeless in SF since there problem is clearly worse.

[04kL4nD]

I think sav858 might be correct