Homeless problem on streets of Phoenix, Tempe, Scottsdale. (Mesa: appointed, home)

[kytoaz]

Originally Posted by Burning Madolf

Hard to pin down actual stats but SF Chronicle just wrote an editorial where they said it's down nationwide by 10% over the last decade while up 22% in CA. Not defending/denying the numbers, just an FYI.

Maybe it's just the fact that all the shelters have closed that make it appear to be worse? Every city I travel to seems to have more homeless than I've ever seen in my lifetime.

[jdahunt]

Not in the midwest.....they wouldn't last long....I remember being in Santa Monica park in the early 90's and they would send food trucks to where the homeless was staying....they didn't even have to leave their little bed....they would raise their hands and the workers would bring them a bag lunch....I'm thinking...there is no way these people are ever going to leave this place....why don't you ever see the Hollywood crowd ever do a benefit for homeless people or invite them to live in their mansions....why is that?

[Burning Madolf]

Originally Posted by kytoaz

Maybe it's just the fact that all the shelters have closed that make it appear to be worse? Every city I travel to seems to have more homeless than I've ever seen in my lifetime.

I would assume capacity is an issue along with the idea that many city governments believe the homeless have a civil right to congregate/loiter/live in places where the police used to "roust" them from on a regular basis in the name of keeping the streets clean/safe.

[john3232]

Originally Posted by Sno0909

I don't know about you, but the VAST majority of people I see on the streets do not look like laid off software engineers! They look like they are dying a slow death due to the constant drug abuse.

Here's my experience in San Francisco:

SF started to decline during mid-80's when it became fashionable to label many transients and assorted riff-raff living on the streets as victims of the Reagan era. This is also when graffiti started getting out of control and tents started popping up in downtown Civic Center.

However, what I found surprising were the number of young people, drinking, getting high and/or basically doing nothing. The unruly/anti-social behavior was tolerated because the Reagan era policies were to blame. Not those drinking, getting high, camping or whatever. Again these were mostly people in their 20's and 30's that I saw.

This was the start and why the city has such out of control problems today.

Regarding those with mental illness: Yes, there were certainly people living on the SF streets due to cutback in health services. Yet I didn't see them as the norm given such people generally stood out.

[jdingle]

I can understand why homeless people would hang around Scottsdale. When I lived out of my van, I used to hang around the Scottsdale Mall all day to scavenge half-eaten food. Sometimes people would just hand me money too. I didn't look all THAT homeless, and really I was just being cheap, but I can't think of a better place for a free lunch.

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by john3232

Here's my experience in San Francisco:

SF started to decline during mid-80's when it became fashionable to label many transients and assorted riff-raff living on the streets as victims of the Reagan era. This is also when graffiti started getting out of control and tents started popping up in downtown Civic Center.

However, what I found surprising were the number of young people, drinking, getting high and/or basically doing nothing. The unruly/anti-social behavior was tolerated because the Reagan era policies were to blame. Not those drinking, getting high, camping or whatever. Again these were mostly people in their 20's and 30's that I saw.

This was the start and why the city has such out of control problems today.

Regarding those with mental illness: Yes, there were certainly people living on the SF streets due to cutback in health services. Yet I didn't see them as the norm given such people generally stood out.

San Francisco was on the decline well before the '80s ... in fact, it was starting to go downhill in the 1960s with the hippie movement. That city was ground zero for free love & open drug usage during that time. The Haight/Ashbury district attracted thousands of young people who participated in the counterculture movement, and lived communal lives in apartments and on the streets. After the '60s/early '70s, hippies declined in number, but San Francisco's reputation of being a hippie magnet lived on. The derelict problems worsened from then on ... largely because city leaders allowed it to happen.

[pittsflyer]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

San Francisco was on the decline well before the '80s ... in fact, it was starting to go downhill in the 1960s with the hippie movement. That city was ground zero for free love & open drug usage during that time. The Haight/Ashbury district attracted thousands of young people who participated in the counterculture movement, and lived communal lives in apartments and on the streets. After the '60s/early '70s, hippies declined in number, but San Francisco's reputation of being a hippie magnet lived on. The derelict problems worsened from then on ... largely because city leaders allowed it to happen.

SanFran does not have a monopoly on rampant homelessness. The hippie movement is not why there is rampant homelessness today. Lack of income and overpriced real estate is.

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by pittsflyer

SanFran does not have a monopoly on rampant homelessness. The hippie movement is not why there is rampant homelessness today. Lack of income and overpriced real estate is.

Just saying that San Francisco's decline began before the mid 1980s, as another poster claimed. The hippie movement from the '60s is what basically started San Francisco to go downhill, and it gave the city a lasting reputation of being a place where derelicts congregate. Yes, the out of control cost of living is contributing to the current homeless problem in San Francisco, but city leaders still have little interest in getting a handle on the problem ... just like when the hippies pretty much took over the Haight/Ashbury area in the '60s.

[pittsflyer]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

Just saying that San Francisco's decline began before the mid 1980s, as another poster claimed. The hippie movement from the '60s is what basically started San Francisco to go downhill, and it gave the city a lasting reputation of being a place where derelicts congregate. Yes, the out of control cost of living is contributing to the current homeless problem in San Francisco, but city leaders still have little interest in getting a handle on the problem ... just like when the hippies pretty much took over the Haight/Ashbury area in the '60s.

No, out of control living costs and wage stagnation ACROSS THE COUNTRY is leading to rampant homelessness EVERYWHERE. San Fran no longer has a monopoly on this and the reasons for the homelessness have nothing to do with hippies of the 60's. I bet you that none (or very few) of the homeless in san fran today would tell you that they came there because they heard it was a hippie mecca.

If I was clear that I was going to become homeless I would fly to san deigo not san fran.

The people that fight meaningful min wage increases and support housing bubbles are the ones directly responsible for 80% of homelessness and near homelessness (some homeless will always be there becuase they want to be and want to drink and do drugs even if there are viable alternatives). But most people dont want to be homeless there just arent viable alternatives (they are looking at getting servile low wage jobs that wont get them out of homelessness (which some may work to buy better tents or for those living out of a car to pad their investment account so they can travel without needing to pan handle.

[veritased]

Haha, pittsflyer, that's ridiculous and a classic liberal response to the homeless problem: "why we can just tax our way out of it".

Raising minimum wage will just exacerbate inflation, eliminate many lower paying jobs, and worsen homelessness.

What's needed are better jobs and better policies, so that productivity increases can lead to true wealth creation for those that are homeless and able to work.

Otherwise many homeless in SF are also drug abusers and homeless for that reason, so Valley Native does have a point. When you incentivize drug abuse as SF does, with needle exchange and active decriminalization of all petty crimes, then you end up with a huge mess on your hands.

Easy solution for Phoenix homeless problem: ship to SF on busses. SF has the money, and apparently, the proper progressive policies to fix all known problems, so let's help these folks get to the best location for help.

There, I think I solved AZ homeless problem, and provided Gavin Newsom with more indentured voters.