The San Francisco Trash/Needles/Poop in the Streets Containment Thread (San Diego: rich, budget)

[Matadora]

Originally Posted by BlakeJones

Thanks for proving my point - the annual certification is actually a perverse incentive for beneficiaries to NOT make more money because they would lose their benefits. The SNAP benefits for people with kids is pretty much an entitlement for the life of the children until adulthood

Yep and the folks who rely on this free funding know exactly how to milk the system. I had a neighbor when I first moved here that was on disability. I wondered what his disability was as he was always out mowing the yard and tending to the garden. He loved to smoke weed and play his music loud and sing and dance and talk to all the neighbors. Showed no signs of being disabled. He had a part time job that allowed him to earn just enough to not exceed what's allowed to be able to receive free funds.

I've heard stores since moving here that people buy houses with disability money.

I've seen first hand what happens when you have a system that's easy to milk. CA is known as the welfare state for a reason!

It's interesting that it does not dawn on bleeding hearts that no matter how much money is being thrown at cleaning up the homeless crap all over SF it's not solved the issue. You would think that after beating ones head against the wall over and over that it would begin to hurt...but it never phases the bleeding heart mentality. They think you can keep doing the same thing with no results and this is perfectly acceptable.

It's a social behavioral crises issue and no amount of money is going to resolve it.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by BlakeJones

The homeless that take a dump in the nicer neighborhoods no doubt get a thrill from doing it and see it as some sort of retaliation against functional society. Obviously they wouldn't be doing it if they thought the police would actually do their job

Lmao. Right. They (the homeless) would just hold their poop ... because, you know, it’s optional.

[TCROX]

9th circuit- the most overturned court ever and in panic mode now......whose next - rbg or sotomayor? Both have health problems and dementia-- maybe early next year?

[Matadora]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Lmao. Right. They (the homeless) would just hold their poop ... because, you know, it’s optional.

Such a lame excuse. You bleeding hearts come up with the most ridiculous lame excuses time and time again.

Or they could be like anyone else who's not at home when needing to use the bathroom. You use a public restroom.

Ever hear about these being installed all around SF? Public Toilets

I guess this is not good enough for the sorry behaviors of those who deliberately crap on sidewalks.

Why crap on the sidewalks? Why not crap in the garden if you really have to go so urgently?

It's a social behavior issue that has reached epic proportions in SF.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Matadora

Such a lame excuse. You bleeding hearts come up with the most ridiculous lame excuses time and time again.

Or they could be like anyone else who's not at home when needing to use the bathroom. You use a public restroom.

Ever hear about these being installed all around SF? Public Toilets

I guess this is not good enough for the sorry behaviors of those who deliberately crap on sidewalks.

Why crap on the sidewalks? Why not crap in the garden if you really have to go so urgently?

It's a social behavior issue that has reached epic proportions in SF.

Lmfao ... Very good Matadora ... 25 recently installed public toilets to serve 7,500 homeless plus anyone else of nearly a million residents who feel the call at any given moment scattered across 47 square miles. Lolololol.

Of those 7500 SF homeless, approximately 1,000 are not in their right minds at any time ... and you think they should act “like anyone else who's not at home when needing to use the bathroom. ” ... Too gawddang funny ...

My observations aren’t excuses. They are reporting factual realities. You can set all the “higher standards” for behavior you want in your mind ... won’t change a thing. The people who crap in public on open sidewalks require management to step in ... or people like you can “stepin”to their crap while you lecture them until you are blue in the face as you scrape your shoes clean best you can on the curb.

[Matadora]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Lmfao ... Very good Matadora ... 25 recently installed public toilets to serve 7,500 homeless plus anyone else of nearly a million residents who feel the call at any given moment scattered across 47 square miles. Lolololol.

Stop your skewing of facts. No not all of the homeless in SF are un-sheltered or have NO BATHROOMS with TOILETS available to them.

So let's look at your same logic and apply it to all the visitors who roam around the SF yearly. That's million right? When they are out roaming the city how many of them do you think takes a crap on the sidewalk?

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

My observations aren’t excuses.

You don't live in SF and according you have not for a very long time. You are not observing SF daily or roaming the streets daily...so yes your opinions are certainly bleeding heart excuses.

[BlakeJones]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

What would you like to see happen to Section 8 recipients if we evict them after a year? And who is going to feed kids when their parents time out on SNAP benefits?

What you're discussing here is actually an entitlement trap. You can make the case for any entitlement that the beneficiary would be significantly worse off without it, which is absolutely true. But somehow life went on before those entitlements were put in place.

Example - Proper dental care is very important, yet everyone is on their own to provide it for themselves. If congress authorized a multi-billion entitlement plan for free dental care to poverty level earners, you would then make the same argument "How are people going to afford Dental care if you take it away??"

It's not the government's job or responsibility to support citizens (never mind illegal aliens). It is their responsibility to assist their citizens to support themselves. Temporary assistance for able bodied men and women is completely appropriate, but after a finite amount of time you just have to be on your own. There should be no free ride for anyone while everyone else is out there contributing to society

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Matadora

Stop your skewing of facts. No not all of the homeless in SF are un-sheltered or have NO BATHROOMS with TOILETS available to them.

So let's look at your same logic and apply it to all the visitors who roam around the SF yearly. That's million right? When they are out roaming the city how many of them do you think takes a crap on the sidewalk?
You don't live in SF and according you have not for a very long time. You are not observing SF daily or roaming the streets daily...so yes your opinions are certainly bleeding heart excuses.

I lived IN SF and environs from 1966 until a few years ago ... and now I only visit there about half dozen times a year. I lived right in the Marina and Haight and Presidio. Rubbing shoulders daily with homeless. You don’t begin to have my knowledge of the City.

“All the visitors” ... “a million”? Um no. There are nearly a million residents. Plus visitors. Over 15 million visitors a year flowing through the City. Plus over ¼ million workers commuting in from elsewhere around the Bay Area each weekday.

Those workers and visitors aren’t and don’t look like street people. So yeah, they get to go into all kinds of shops and cafes and buildings to use facilities - that street people are denied access to.

But, as I said, preach your visions of an orderly society until you turn blue and keel over. If things worked the way you envision they should - things wouldn’t be as they are today. There’s not an iota of ‘bleeding heart’ to objective observations of these realities. There’s isn’t a single excuse in any of what I contribute. No sugar-coating. No fantasies.

No one likes or find these behaviors acceptable. But stamping your feet and waving your arms while ranting about “personal responsiblity” and other righteousness doesn’t change a thing. The only legal thing that can clear the streets is: housing the chronics out of our collective way.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by BlakeJones

What you're discussing here is actually an entitlement trap. You can make the case for any entitlement that the beneficiary would be significantly worse off without it, which is absolutely true. But somehow life went on before those entitlements were put in place.

Example - Proper dental care is very important, yet everyone is on their own to provide it for themselves. If congress authorized a multi-billion entitlement plan for free dental care to poverty level earners, you would then make the same argument "How are people going to afford Dental care if you take it away??"

It's not the government's job or responsibility to support citizens (never mind illegal aliens). It is their responsibility to assist their citizens to support themselves. Temporary assistance for able bodied men and women is completely appropriate, but after a finite amount of time you just have to be on your own. There should be no free ride for anyone while everyone else is out there contributing to society

You keep going back to this bullcrap inference that all these homeless are playing the system. 75% ARE only “temporary”. So there’s your vast majority who ARE NOT playing the system ... they hit a wall ... they can get back on their feet and be contributors again.

And the majority of the chronics ARE NOT hardly, if at all, ever coherent ... so no, they’re not playing any systems. You take support away from all these people : you end up with more crime and emergency interventions. Which cost society even more.

“Responsibility” really doesn’t have a damn thing to do with the chronics. They aren’t “responsible” people ..
And your condescensions won’t change that. Neither do you have to believe it is society’s responsibility to serve these chronics, for their sake. It IS society’s responsibility to house them out of the way of the rest of us ... that is: society has a responsibility to those of us who ARE responsible citizens, to clear the irresponsible, incapable ones from interferring with our normal function of daily life.

[Matadora]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

I lived IN SF and environs from 1966 until a few years ago ... and now I only visit there about half dozen times a year. I lived right in the Marina and Haight and Presidio. Rubbing shoulders daily with homeless. You don’t begin to have my knowledge of the City.

It's clear I have more knowledge of the issues plaguing SF than you do.

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

“All the visitors” ... “a million”? Um no. There are nearly a million residents. Plus visitors. Over 15 million visitors a year flowing through the City. Plus over ¼ million workers commuting in from elsewhere around the Bay Area each weekday.

Yes and that was my point that on any given day you have at least a million visitors roaming the streets. How many of them do you see taking a crap on public sidewalks?

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Those workers and visitors aren’t and don’t look like street people. So yeah, they get to go into all kinds of shops and cafes and buildings to use facilities - that street people are denied access to.

More lame bleeding heart ridiculous excuses. A street person who looks like one can easily and effortlessly find a place to crap other than on a side walk. You really want to know what the difference is between the street folks and the visitors? Civility in behavior.