Bad (fact-based) News About Homelessness. (employees, welfare, medical, workers)

[Chowhound]

Originally Posted by john3232

Or at least quite comfortable...

I worked at a SF movie theater during my college years in the late 70's, One of my co-workers only worked the ticket booth. Loved to sit and watch the world go by. Wouldn't work the door, behind the candy counter or usher. Just the ticket booth.

The man ended up working for Muni (SF public transportation) and I would say hello when I saw him in a Muni ticket booth at Van Ness or Powell Street stations. Perfect job for the man. Just sit, answer a few questions and watch as the world passes by.

And the 85k a year in retirement pay isn't bad either.

Due to the nature of my job I have worked with just about all branches of government, from federal down to city level. I've done this for 35 plus years now. I have to interact with government union employees frequently and I got say, not a single go getter that I can recall. Most were lazy and some being marginally adequate.

I used to despise those people, the older I get the more I'm getting less and less interested in busting my ass. I still try my best to get an honest day's work, but not so much in my experience with government workers, never missed a break and we're always heading out the door 5 minutes early.

I've got about 10 yrs left to work and right about now, getting a cushy government job sounds nice. In the old days they used to not make much money, but everyone knew you had good benefits and retirement. These days here in CA, you get great pay and benefits, not like how it used to be.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by LearnMe

As this forum proves on a regular basis, homelessness is a problem not well understood by many.

You are chief among those who do not understand.

Originally Posted by LearnMe

Especially those who like to insist homelessness is due to liberal policies, and/or "a choice." Here, contrary to typical forum speak, is a good fact-based summary of why the problem is what it is and not going to get better anytime soon.

It isn't possible for NPR to be "fact-based." NPR twists facts. The link you provide has no relevant facts. It simply makes claims about 3 extremely highly populated cities which are statistical outliers.

Contrary to your claim, Liberal policies are the cause:

1) Many "homeless" are severely mentally ill. They refuse to take their medications which would allow them to function with some semblance or normalness because either they cannot tolerate the side-effects of the drugs (and I totally get that) or they think they're better and don't need them. Thanks to Liberals, we cannot force them to take their medication. In both instances, that is a choice whether you like it or not.

If reservations are good enough for the Indians, they're good enough for the "homeless." Since the mentally ill will never be able to function independently without intense supervision, hale them before a federal judge, declare them incompetent -- and homelessness is prima facie evidence of incompetence -- make them "Wards of the State" and stick them on the reservation where they can be supervised, kept out of harms way, and stop menacing and tortiously interfering with others.

2) Many "homeless" are substance abusers. They refuse to seek help and thanks to Liberals we cannot force them into substance abuse rehab unless they have committed a serious offense and are before a judge who also happens to have the authority to force them into rehab.

Contrary to Liberal claims, 28-day programs are fails. Yes, the "success rate" is 90% but that's 30 days after the 28-day program. Check in a year later and the "success rate" is now 10% because 90% have "relapsed" (the kinder gentler Liberal term.)

90% of the substance abusers are so because they have emotional and/or mental illnesses, a fact the Veteran's Administration (VA) discovered 25 years ago after seeing the same people (veterans) constantly going through rehab programs over and over and over with no success.

Those people self-medicate to deal with their emotional and/or mental illnesses which are often rooted in childhood emotional, psychological, physical, and/or sexual abuse and not for a few days or weeks but for years and years and years. You cannot sing Kum ba ya and wave a magic wand and make it go away. It will takes years, years of intense Cognitive Behavioral Therapy or Cognitive Processing Therapy (or both) to make it so they stop self-medicating.

At the end of the day, their refusal to seek help or even acknowledge they need help is their choice whether you like it or not and since they are by definition incompetent, stick them on the Res for 7 years so they can get the help they need and some skill training to be able to work.

3) "Homeless" vets. Biggest con game ever. It's their choice whether you like it or not. They can choose to stop being "homeless" any time they want. All they have to do is contact any social worker or social welfare organization anywhere in America and if they're not already a VA social worker they'll be put in touch with a VA social worker who will get them into a Domiciliary where:

a) they get free bunk space (SRO or a roommate) for up to a year; and
b) three free meals each day; and
c) free medical care; and
d) free psychiatric care; and
e) free psychological counseling; and
f) free relationship counseling (often the root cause of addiction); and
g) free financial/money management counseling; and
h) free substance abuse counseling; and
i) three to six months at 100% disabled receiving more than $3,000/month pay working at a VA hospital; and
j) a free chauffeur to drive them around to apply for jobs; and
k) a free chauffeur to drive them around to get an apartment on HUD-VASH

Only a substance abuse enabler or a really stupid person would give money to a "homeless vet."

4) the remaining "homeless" are so by choice contrary to what you and NPR claim and if there is a Cause & Effect it is Liberal policies.

NPR's deceptive zeal neglected to mention there are 39,000+ municipalities in the US and more than 600,000 housing markets in the US.

That's because their goal is to mislead people into believing the rare conditions that exist in 3 incredibly over-populated cities that are statistical outliers exists everywhere when in fact it only exists in a teeny tiny minority of cities.

NPR mentions nothing about the Liberal policies that created the rare conditions in those teeny tiny minority of cities.

It was Liberals who gave us the Departments of Housing & Urban Development and Transportation.

The Liberal policies of the government and those two Departments specifically took tax-dollars from Americans and lavished them on a small fraction of the population and an even small fraction of the municipalities -- about 0.0564% -- to create immense urban centers while totally and completely ignoring 99.05% of the other municipalities.

How's that working out for everybody? According to you and NPR, not well.

Disband HUD and DOT and the problem will self-resolve within a decade and at no cost to tax-payers.

The Laws of Economics can never --meaning at no time ever -- be violated without suffering penalties which is exactly what's happening now. HUD and DOT violated the Laws of Economics and some people are and have been paying the price.

Sadly, land is finite. Land in proximity to amenities and/or employment opportunities is even more finite. San Francisco is not a housing market in spite of what Zillow wants people to believe. There are 122 housing markets in San Francisco. There are nearly 1,400 housing markets in Los Angeles just in case you're confused and erroneously believe Los Angeles is a housing market.

The majority of housing markets in those two cities are 100% saturated meaning every square inch of land is occupied by residential, retail, commercial, medical, or industrial space. Increasing the housing supply in order to offset demand and lower housing prices including rents is simply not possible, and again, you can thank HUD and DOT for that.

Liberal education policies are also to blame.

You can tell those who were educated by Liberals. Two job opportunities are available to you, one in White Plains (NJ) at $100,000/year and the same in Cincinnati (OH) for $44,000/year.

Which pays more? The Liberal educated one will say "$100,000" because they aren't educated enough to understand the job in Cincinnati actually pays $4,000 more per year due to Cost-of-Living (mostly from Cost-push Inflation caused by Liberal policies).

No one has a right to live in any specific place. They live wherever they can afford to live and if that means moving to another city or even another State then that is what must be done and if people choose not to do that, well that's their choice and if they end up homeless because they can't afford it, then that's their choice, too.

As is par for the course, the NPR article supports an agenda which is Soviet-style housing for all (except for the Elite.)

[john3232]

O.K. just got back from a community meeting regarding the city of Mesa the purchasing of the Grand Hotel to be converted into a homeless and substance abuse rehabilitation center.
https://www.mesaaz.gov/residents/com...ff-the-streets

The owners bought the hotel in 2021 for 3.7M and the area is run down. So why is the city of Mesa paying over 7M? That’s wanted to know. I was told the comps showed 8M and the owner wanted 9M. The comps were based on similar purchases in Tempe and Phoenix. I said but we're not in Phoenix or Tempe. We're in Mesa. There are a number of motels/hotels in this area why weren’t they used. The city rep. smiled but said nothing more.

I then walked over to the section where the substance abuse counselors were and spoke to a young man. I asked is there any information regarding the budget and salaries. He said that was above is pay grade. He went on to say he was in recovery, and I said great so am I.

I then asked what he believes will make this treatment center successful. The color brochure certainly looks gorgeous but… what makes this different from other treatment centers? He said love and went on to explain that's what he needed when he got clean. At which point I thanked him and left the meeting.

So...will this homeless and substance abuse rehabilitation center help people?

Time will tell.

[Greenvalleyfan]

Originally Posted by LearnMe

I have addressed this sort of thing before and Thomas Sowell specifically. He is a well educated intelligent man who is a darling among conservatives. A regular guest on the Rush Limbaugh show, so just a word of caution when considering the opinion of someone like this rather than ALSO those who don't necessarily see things the same way for many reasons. Sowell is a Libertarian, for example. I certainly am not, for just as many reasons, but if that's your preferred flavor of Cool Aid, then obviously every word goes down easily.

Hell, I am a liberal and even I could write up similar critiques about cities dealing with the problem of homelessness in the same way. With a total slant against "the anointed ones" and all that sort of telltale rhetoric. All worthy of consideration of course. No argument there, but time for me to sign off now, so I'll just do so with this parting thought I've often shared in this forum...

"If you don't know the other side of the argument as well as your own, then you don't know your argument as well as you should."

You are not right and you are not wrong. You don't have any answers to solve the homeless problem, just like everyone else voicing an opinion. These opinions are 51 pages long.
So, now what? Regurgitating the same talking points will accomplish what again? Can you explain that?

[LearnMe]

Originally Posted by FC76-81

What he said is absolutely true. Another thing too is homelessness is a final destination for most who end up there. Many of these individuals got to that destination because of liberal democrat policies.

Nothing here worth responding to.

[LearnMe]

Originally Posted by Chowhound

Interesting.

I'm not all that familiar with Thomas Sowell. I know he's a favorite of the conservative crowd. The breakout you've laid out here seems to be what is happening in many places around the country.

I still reject the idea that most of the homeless problems are related to housing supply/cost. It could be a factor, not saying it's not at all. The argument from some is that some people have something come up in their lives, they end up losing their house/apartment, job and turn to drugs and alcohol, maybe they have some mental health issues in the mix as well.

Is is a horse / cart thing. Does the drugs/alcohol/mental health issues cause homeless or does being homeless push one toward the mental health drugs deal.

From what I've read from previous homeless people, legit homeless advocates, not the grifters making money, is that the problem is largely drug alcohol, and mental health driven primarily. There is a guy on local radio here that is a minister and works with homeless on skid row for 35 plus years has said on several occasions that 75% of the problem is drug/mental health and that there is a smaller percentage that just simply don't want to live in a home, like living on the streets.

These people need to be off the streets and in some kind of facilities to get them assistance and not just languish on the streets. It's not fair to them, and it's not fair to the general public to allow this to go on as it is.

My very good friend who is now over 5 years sober had a good career, wife, home, kids and for a variety of reasons, he began to abuse alcohol until he was thoroughly and for a long time seemingly hopeless. His wife suddenly hit with breast cancer was certainly a contributor, but hardly entirely to blame. Eventually he lost his home and got divorced specifically because of his addiction, and he damn near killed himself, at least a few times, before he finally sobered up.

Fortunately he had what far too many people don't have. Money. He had enough money and equity in their home so that when the wheels came off, at least he had enough money to keep a roof over his head and food on the table. Even after splitting everything up with his wife. Otherwise, I'm not at all sure he wouldn't have ended up homeless too. He ended up in the hospital a few times but not on the street.

Besides being a close part of this sad story for a good many years, another real "eye opener" came to me while I waited outside at a table in a mall while my wife was doing some shopping. On the table happened to be the AA book. I started reading it to pass the time and reading those stories, true stories, helped me understand what too many people don't seem to understand about drug addiction. What's "a choice" and what is something else altogether. Something more in any case.

Fortunately my friend's story is one with a happy ending, because he is as happy as he's ever been right now. "In a good place" as he likes to say. Others are not so lucky. Not that it's about luck either. It's just a little more complicated than most people who have never experienced these problems seem to realize.

[LearnMe]

Originally Posted by john3232

SF has an estimated 7700 homeless and a budget of 757M. That is outrageous for a city that size . Forget ROI. That's obvious.
https://sfstandard.com/2023/06/03/sa...ss-count-data/

For starters I'd like to see a breakdown of salaries and the budget for the various departments. What is needed is a serious audit.

So you are under the impression audits are not done? On a regular basis? And published for the public?

[LearnMe]

Originally Posted by FC76-81

Because local politicians are skimming/lining their pockets from that money. Example, London Breed is now a multimillionaire and after only a few years as Mayor. Each homeless person sees only a fraction of such money in the form of some healthcare & meals and a few nights a week in a homeless shelter between 1800 hours and 0600 hours.

Have you a source for the information you are passing along here? In particular how you know what Breed is worth and/or how she made the money? I've been able to find sources that put her net worth at about one million and that her salary as mayor is about $350K/year. That's really nothing compared to what most corporate executives make per year, but maybe that's a big deal for you. What is a mayor of a city like SF supposed to make far as you are concerned, and as for all the rest, what about the rest of the story?

Here's a little something perhaps at least equally worth considering. AKA the rest of the story...

"Born in San Francisco, Breed was raised by her grandmother in Plaza East public housing in the Western Addition neighborhood of the city. Breed later wrote of her childhood in San Francisco: "... five of us living on $900 per month. 'Recycling' meant drinking out of old mayonnaise jars. Violence was never far away. And once a week, we took Grandma's pushcart to the community room to collect government-issued groceries." Her younger sister died of a drug overdose in 2006. Her brother, Napoleon Brown, is in prison serving a 44-year sentence for a 2000 manslaughter and armed robbery conviction, for which Breed has repeatedly asked for clemency from the governor's office. Breed has stated that her brother's early release from prison would be "what’s best for both Napoleon and society overall."

Breed graduated with honors from Galileo High School. She earned a bachelor's degree in political science–public service from the University of California, Davis in 1997 and a master's degree in public administration from the University of San Francisco in 2012."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Breed

Damned if they do. Damned if they don't?

[LearnMe]

Originally Posted by Chowhound

It's a money laundering scheme. The homeless advocates all setup shop, bring in lots of money and they push agendas to the politicians.

Add in all of the real estate developers pushing housing and kicking in their share to coffers to the politicians and you wind up here where the primary factor for homeless is lack of available housing. Real estate developers would love to build all of the affordable housing that they can.

It's not really that complicated as it's made out to be.

Doesn't anyone ever wonder how so many civil service workers wind up so damn rich??????

Funny...

Again have you got anything to back up these claims of yours? For example what the average civil service worker makes? Do you know how many wind up "so damn rich" or are you just asking the question as if true without question?

Or maybe it's whatever you mean by rich. I get the feeling that lots of people posting in this forum don't make much money or have much in the way of an education. You have to wonder, because it always seems like too much focus and envy about what other's earn. Especially those working in the public sector. Most of those people who I know personally are not rich by any means, but boy howdy it sure is easy to make it sound like they are if that's your thing.

If any are rich, they're the exception rather than the rule, but of course with a few too many conservatives, it's all about the exceptions rather than the rule, or the truth of these matters.

[john3232]

Originally Posted by LearnMe

I have addressed this sort of thing before and Thomas Sowell specifically. He is a well educated intelligent man who is a darling among conservatives. A regular guest on the Rush Limbaugh show, so just a word of caution when considering the opinion of someone like this rather than ALSO those who don't necessarily see things the same way for many reasons. Sowell is a Libertarian, for example. I certainly am not, for just as many reasons, but if that's your preferred flavor of Cool Aid, then obviously every word goes down easily.

Hell, I am a liberal and even I could write up similar critiques about cities dealing with the problem of homelessness in the same way. With a total slant against "the anointed ones" and all that sort of telltale rhetoric. All worthy of consideration of course. No argument there, but time for me to sign off now, so I'll just do so with this parting thought I've often shared in this forum...

"If you don't know the other side of the argument as well as your own, then you don't know your argument as well as you should."

Thomas Sowell and Victor Davis Hanson are both bright and well-spoken. Yet, I don't recall seeing them much on mainstream news (outside of Fox) over the years. You would think MSM would be interested in what they have to say.