San Francisco homeless issue is being exaggerated in the media (Berkeley: appointed, best cities)

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by skygazer1

Attached is a heat map of homeless-related 311 issues reported in SF over the most recent 2 months. This data comes from the public information maintained and made available on the internet by the government of the City of San Francisco.

Contrary to the sensationalist reports of a massive homeless problem throughout SF, the problems are in fact almost all confined to a very limited area around the civic center and tenderloin. The anecdotal reports of a homeless crisis is an exaggeration. The vast majority of the city has little or no homeless issues.

Hopefully, people can look at the actual facts of homelessness in SF, and see for themselves, the city is by and large a wonderful and safe place to visit.

Note: I am not associated with the City of San Francisco in any official capacity, rather I am a long-time city resident who is appalled and saddened by the negative media characterization.

I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. The homeless issues in SF are quite real and acute. But the way it is described can often be very exaggerated, particularly in how it's used to describe the City as a whole.


Or, put another way, the homeless issue is worse in certain parts of the cities. And those places where it is worst happen to also be places that people visiting SF frequent most often. Giving the impression that the entire City faces a similar severity around the issue. When in fact, of course, that is not true.

But the issues are very real, particularly in the areas of the City affected by it most.

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by candalf

A local of the Bay Area for a couple of decades here:

According to my personal experiences, OP is overall correct.

Homelessness is largely concentrated in the central areas of SF, mostly around Market St. Since that is where most people arrive to SF, that homelessness produces a big impression. I have known people who, just by vurtue of staying near Civic Center, would firmly conclude that this city entire is a cesspool.

There are large swathes of the city, on the other hand, where the issue is barely seen at all. Sunset, Richmond, Marina or Merced are some places like that coming to mind. We often entertain out of town visitors and they are usually mesmerized by this city's beauty and vibrancy.

At the same time, it is very fair to say that much of the area surrounding Market St is out of control and the level of human decay has reached disasterous proportions. Also, it has absolutely gotten worse over the years. Dante's circles of hell come to my mind when I watch the broken human beings occupying the area.

I also think SF's image is affected by its openness and tolerance. While Eastern cities seem cleaner and more orderly, the overall poverty rates are often much higher than here. They seemingly adopted an out of sight/out of mind approach to social issues. Social problems are confined to horrendous ghettoes so visitors are under the false impression of those cities' wellness. Here we don't hide our ills, on the other hand-- I guess that is just part of our more open and honest California attitude.

Whatever anyone says, the West is the best

Similar comments to mine.

I'll also add that how other cities handle these issue is very relevant, particularly in the uniqueness that is SF's tourist centers abutting up against some of worst areas of town. You rarely see that in other cities.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

Similar comments to mine.

I'll also add that how other cities handle these issue is very relevant, particularly in the uniqueness that is SF's tourist centers abutting up against some of worst areas of town. You rarely see that in other cities.

Yes, SF is a rarity. You have no reason to see society's ills as a tourist in most cities. It is way out of the way in tourist no-man's land. And here you are right in the middle of it. And so are the workers who commute to the city center.

[CrownVic95]

Originally Posted by Matadora

It's clear the OP is not familiar with the current SF of today.

Crystal clear.

[USDefault]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Both sides of the issue. None of that is helpful to defining the issues properly in ways that contribute to the kinds of understandings and considerations required to create solutions and civic support for solutions.

More word salad nonsense. There's no definitional problem. The problem has been accurately stated by myriad studies, news articles, reports, videos, and personal observations. The doctors cancelling their massive convention, zeroing out San Francisco, is only the latest bit of evidence people have had enough. More and more sane-thinking individuals will vote with their actions, and their wallets.


Continue to dissemble. And watch as productive citizens leave the apologists to their filth. Plainly, it hasn't gotten nearly bad enough to convince the purposefully obtuse, and maybe that day will never come.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by USDefault

More word salad nonsense. There's no definitional problem. The problem has been accurately stated by myriad studies, news articles, reports, videos, and personal observations. The doctors cancelling their massive convention, zeroing out San Francisco, is only the latest bit of evidence people have had enough. More and more sane-thinking individuals will vote with their actions, and their wallets.


Continue to dissemble. And watch as productive citizens leave the apologists to their filth. Plainly, it hasn't gotten nearly bad enough to convince the purposefully obtuse, and maybe that day will never come.

Heh. Ok, I’ll bite. What is “dissembling” about my comment?

[likealady]

Could it be that people don't realize or care enough to report homeless people in certain places unless they are dangerous? FWIW, I didn't even know that 311 line existed until 2 weeks ago and I've lived in this area for a while.

[Vanderbiltgrad]

Saying it is the media's fault for exaggerating this issue is a bit insulting to the homeless that need help.

[skygazer1]

Originally Posted by USDefault

More word salad nonsense. There's no definitional problem. The problem has been accurately stated by myriad studies, news articles, reports, videos, and personal observations. The doctors cancelling their massive convention, zeroing out San Francisco, is only the latest bit of evidence people have had enough. More and more sane-thinking individuals will vote with their actions, and their wallets.

Continue to dissemble. And watch as productive citizens leave the apologists to their filth. Plainly, it hasn't gotten nearly bad enough to convince the purposefully obtuse, and maybe that day will never come.

What studies are you referring to? What I posted is the actual reported data of homeless complaints since 2011, in every district of the city. My impression of the news articles, videos, personal observations, is they are sensationalism and represent the worst areas of the city, those 3 districts which total over 85,000 complaints, vs. just 300 complaints in Cole Valley, for example.

I think many of the posts here from long time city residents, they understand the problem is very concentrated in just a few districts, don't fall for this reporting bias and fear-mongering, because the rest of the city is just fine.

[TCROX]

Let's get them off the streets, into nice safe, supervised places with lots of structure and care (we obviously have lots of money to spend on it)- after a year of spending all that money on them and cleaning up the city - you can start a thread named
" Isn't the WHOLE City Better and Safer NOW?" and see if you get some different people to argue with you.