A decade of homelessness: Thousands in San Francisco remain in crisis (San Jose: apartment, city hall)

[Leo3]

A decade and roughly $1.5 billion later, the city has succeeded in moving 19,500 homeless people off its streets, roughly equivalent to relocating the entire Castro district. But despite that major effort, the homeless population hasn't budged, showing that as one homeless person is helped, another takes his place.

Meanwhile, new homeless encampments dot downtown alleys. Panhandlers still pervade the city. Needles, urine and human feces still litter sidewalks. It's not unusual to see homeless mothers with children begging downtown, people bathing in the sinks at the Main Library, and open-air crack and heroin use within view of the mayor's balcony at City Hall.

The one thing that disturbs me most about this city. A homeless woman pooped right in front of me last weekend.. right in the middle of the street! In Noe Valley of all places!! It feels so grimy here and walking around this city is really starting to assault my senses.

A decade of homelessness: Thousands in S.F. remain in crisis - SFGate

[GalacticDragonfly]

What exactly is San Francisco supposed to do? Providing funding for homeless housing? We already have that and homeless people don't go. What sense does it make to live in Sf if you're homeless anyways, its always been an expensive city to live.

Its unfortunate that a lot of these people who are mentally insane were released from their institutions (thanks Reagan) but unless the police do a mass-round up, what exactly can happen? I'm here in Berkeley where the problem is just a background thing to most foreign students, its as Berkeley as being hippie. But its also embarrassing, and I know these homeless people. They dont want to look for jobs, many of then enjoy being homeless and dont care if they cause issues on the street. It sucks but I don't want to be here in 30 years and see the problem be exactly the same.

Either we provide housing and force them to accept, or there's going to be a mass-sweep of homeless and insane people.

[Natural510]

SF's plan to house the homeless was bound for failure if it wasn't subsequently tough on problematic street people at the same time. Otherwise you have the same people sleeping in an apartment but otherwise hanging out on the street all day drinking/drugging and harrassing everyone...along with homeless around the country flocking to San Francisco because "they'll get you a free place to live and won't mess with you on the street".

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

There are plenty of resources for the homeless. You can't force them to want to live in an apartment, or to budget their SSI appropriately.

Here in Redding I've encountered homeless who make as much money as I do on SSI. They qualify to get into subsidized housing, just like I do. And most homeless do have a source of government income - SSI, SSDI, vet benefits, etc.

Here in Redding, the local mission will house them for 30 days and if they make a serious effort to find a job during that time, they will continue to house them, and they will house them while they save up a down payment, etc. And there's separate funding for homeless people that will provide them with down payment money, etc., etc.

The problem is not that there are not programs and resources in place. You can't force them to not be homeless. But, the belief that the resources are not there, and THAT's the reason these people are homeless - is wrong.

In Redding, there are lots of charities that provide food and services for the homeless. The number of food banks alone is staggering. So, when I see a sign that says, "Need food" I have to laugh. They can go to the mission for free hot meals, and there are numerous food banks, as well.

Anyway, there are signs around town that say "Don't feed the problem." It says to give money to the services that provide for the homeless, rather than a hand-out to the guy on the corner holding a sign. That way, you give money to house and feed them, but you aren't giving them cash to buy meth or whatever.

At any rate, it seems like the more resources a city provides, the more homeless there are. They come to Redding because the mission will feed them a hot meal 3 times a day and house them for 30 days, and when they run out of their 30 days, they can still get hot meals, and can go to the numerous food banks, as well.

In my opinion, the majority of homeless people in California, at least, are homeless by choice. There's certainly no lack of resources for them.

[andyadhi01]

Originally Posted by Leo3

The one thing that disturbs me most about this city. A homeless woman pooped right in front of me last weekend.. right in the middle of the street! In Noe Valley of all places!! It feels so grimy here and walking around this city is really starting to assault my senses.

A decade of homelessness: Thousands in S.F. remain in crisis - SFGate

That is what happens when you don't have public restrooms. Just about any densely populated city in the world with lots of pedestrians have public restrooms everywhere. It's only in the US that public toilets are considered a socialist thing that should be avoided. Even large public transit facilities in US (subway stations) don't have restrooms and the stupidity of that is just incredible. You can control only so long, homeless or not.. After that if you have to go then you have to go. It's not SF's fault, just about every American city is like this and scale very low by global standards.

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by andyadhi01

That is what happens when you don't have public restrooms. Just about any densely populated city in the world with lots of pedestrians have public restrooms everywhere. It's only in the US that public toilets are considered a socialist thing that should be avoided. Even large public transit facilities in US (subway stations) don't have restrooms and the stupidity of that is just incredible. You can control only so long, homeless or not.. After that if you have to go then you have to go. It's not SF's fault, just about every American city is like this and scale very low by global standards.

Um, I'm 58 years old and have lived every year except for 2 in the US. I have never found it necessary to relive myself on a sidewalk. I've traveled, lived in lots of cities, and even in Mexico and Canada, and have never found it impossible to find a restroom in 58 years and 3 countries, 56 of those in the US.

[dalparadise]

Originally Posted by andyadhi01

That is what happens when you don't have public restrooms. Just about any densely populated city in the world with lots of pedestrians have public restrooms everywhere. It's only in the US that public toilets are considered a socialist thing that should be avoided. Even large public transit facilities in US (subway stations) don't have restrooms and the stupidity of that is just incredible. You can control only so long, homeless or not.. After that if you have to go then you have to go. It's not SF's fault, just about every American city is like this and scale very low by global standards.

"Socialist?" Do you even know what that means?

Also, restrooms and garbage receptacles in subway stations around the world have been removed or closed because of threats to the facilities by terrorists.

[andyadhi01]

Originally Posted by dalparadise

"Socialist?" Do you even know what that means?

Also, restrooms and garbage receptacles in subway stations around the world have been removed or closed because of threats to the facilities by terrorists.

Evidently your knowledge of the world is just as limited as your knowledge of San Francisco!

[GalacticDragonfly]

Originally Posted by andyadhi01

That is what happens when you don't have public restrooms. Just about any densely populated city in the world with lots of pedestrians have public restrooms everywhere. It's only in the US that public toilets are considered a socialist thing that should be avoided. Even large public transit facilities in US (subway stations) don't have restrooms and the stupidity of that is just incredible. You can control only so long, homeless or not.. After that if you have to go then you have to go. It's not SF's fault, just about every American city is like this and scale very low by global standards.

Well, firstly we do. At literally every BART station I can think of here in San Francisco, we do. Nobody uses them because homeless people tend to use them for drugs or other illegal acts. Secondly, I've been to public restrooms in Japan, one of the cleanest countries I've ever visited, and I thought it was terrible. Thirdly, if you need to use the bathroom in the United States, just go to a restaurant. Even McDonalds has bathrooms.

Forth, public restrooms have made the problem worse with homeless people, not better. Ever seen this in San Francisco, or at least a picture of it?


Yes it is rare for American cities to have public restrooms, but San Francisco is certainly the exception. Besides, its used by tourists and homeless people, because most of San Francisco knows better and certainly would rather use the restroom in a building instead. Even though these things tend to be clean, by public restroom standards, there's always someone messing around in there.

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

I actually used one of those restrooms in San Jose, like the one in the picture above. When you are finished using it, and close the door, it actually washes the entire toilet area with a water spray. When someone is finished and closes the door, you have to wait for the wash cycle to finish before you can go in it. I hated waiting for it to be finished, but I thought it was pretty cool.

I don't remember if I had to pay for it or not. But it was clean, and very convenient on the street. If I recall correctly, it was in downtown San Jose in front of the transit authority office. I had driven a friend to get her monthly bus pass, and was waiting for her in my car and saw the restroom and decided to use it.