The San Francisco Trash/Needles/Poop in the Streets Containment Thread (gym, affordable housing)

[Finper]

Originally Posted by TCROX

That kind of behavior is going on 24/7 all over the bay area- as expected it will get much worse.

Good grief that old man looked like he wanted the employees to put the raccoon on the grill for him.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Finper

Good grief that old man looked like he wanted the employees to put the raccoon on the grill for him.

Lol ... probably did want that.

[nobodysbusiness]

I have never been homeless, and I can't even imagine what it's like. I like to have a toilet nearby and love to sleep in a warm bed with a roof over my head.

If something happened to me and I was on the streets, I think I would do everything in my power to change that right away. I would probably be screaming on the streets for help (because I don't think I am a "survivor"). I honestly don't know how people deal with laying on the concrete, having no bathroom, being cold, having to carry your stuff around, etc. It just seems so hard.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by nobodysbusiness

I have never been homeless, and I can't even imagine what it's like. I like to have a toilet nearby and love to sleep in a warm bed with a roof over my head.

If something happened to me and I was on the streets, I think I would do everything in my power to change that right away. I would probably be screaming on the streets for help (because I don't think I am a "survivor"). I honestly don't know how people deal with laying on the concrete, having no bathroom, being cold, having to carry your stuff around, etc. It just seems so hard.

Facts are: 75% of the homeless do everything they can to become reintegrated ... and the stats are for this 75% that average time living on the streets, in vehicles, on other peoples’ couches, in shelters and halfway houses runs less than 2 months.

The other 25% are known as “chronics” and “transients” ... different stories there.

[TCROX]

Originally Posted by nobodysbusiness

I have never been homeless, and I can't even imagine what it's like. I like to have a toilet nearby and love to sleep in a warm bed with a roof over my head.

If something happened to me and I was on the streets, I think I would do everything in my power to change that right away. I would probably be screaming on the streets for help (because I don't think I am a "survivor"). I honestly don't know how people deal with laying on the concrete, having no bathroom, being cold, having to carry your stuff around, etc. It just seems so hard.

Don’t live a life of crime and/or be mentally ill and you probably won’t be forced out of the secured facilities and out into the cold with no skills but intoxication and crime. Lots of people making big money off this- just not the vagrants

[modernist1]

Originally Posted by payutenyodagimas

10% of a town is still a lot of area

i can tolerate maybe 1 or 2 blocks occupied by the homeless but 10% of a city?

thats unfair to the properties affected..to the innocent children passing by etc

where are the taxes going? dont you think the city has no obligation to her taxpayers?

It is a lot of area, and much of the 'important' parts of the city, to boot.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by TCROX

Don’t live a life of crime and/or be mentally ill and you probably won’t be forced out of the secured facilities and out into the cold with no skills but intoxication and crime. Lots of people making big money off this- just not the vagrants

Lmfao ... because mental illness is a choice! Such wisdom to share!

[ChiTownRobby]

Originally Posted by Matadora

Bleeding hearts don't understand logical thinking.

Nothing intelligent or logical that you post will be understood by the bleeding heart mentality. They will come back with excuse after excuse that defies logic.

It would appear the goal of some of the posters here is essentially damage control and PR. They approach the situation much like an employee of city hall might. Minimize when possible and explain it all away otherwise. I don't find such deflection constructive.

That being said, I do understand San Francisco's cost of living and housing cost problems on a more micro scale. I got out here to the Dakotas from Houston in 2008, prior to the ridiculous amounts of investment from the oil and gas sector that is the Dakotas in 2019. We were still largely in the exploratory phase back then. Small crews and lots of engineers and geologists. I had a nice apartment for 500 bucks a month back then. These days I pay just shy of double that for a smaller (but newer) apartment in Williston. It really only took a couple of years and a large influx of well paid employees to turn the entire region on it's head. It would seem San Francisco has encountered a similar phenomenon via the tech industry's investment in the area.

The difference is blue collar people can find well paid work out here, even those who have had some brushes with the law. ND las less than 2% unemployment. In San Francisco you are not going to find some down on his luck street person is able to find a job writing code for some tech company, and that is what it takes to be able to become self sufficient out there essentially. So yeah, the overwhelming majority of SF's homeless population will never be able to be self sufficient. You pretty much would have to subsidize them with free rent and services for life.

This also begs the question as to why street people should be the beneficiaries of the citizens generosity. When I was still out in SF I was reading an article at my hotel that many secondary school teachers in SF can't afford to live in the city because of housing costs. They commute in. They are responsible for the education of the next generation for a city they can't even afford to dwell in. I don't see anyone clamoring for giving them free rent. But some Junkie from Ohio? Sure!

[TCROX]

Originally Posted by ChiTownRobby

It would appear the goal of some of the posters here is essentially damage control and PR. They approach the situation much like an employee of city hall might. Minimize when possible and explain it all away otherwise. I don't find such deflection constructive.

I think those posters just bored and get a kick out of arguing and trying to create some meaning in their lives...not really even a good job of PR because what they type is so blatantly out-of touch and phony don't you think? Most of the pro-homeless- pro crime advocates are obviously not out there dealing with it as most of us are..they have no idea whats really happening ( the media only reports the most sensational stories) and have no desire to clean up the areas that they will never go to.
The vagrants are given protected class status and kept loaded till their brains are fried- that way they become a money making entity like they would never be otherwise - the citizens voted for this overwhelmingly and pay for the crime and damage to the communities dearly...they are getting what they want obviously.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by ChiTownRobby

It would appear the goal of some of the posters here is essentially damage control and PR. They approach the situation much like an employee of city hall might. Minimize when possible and explain it all away otherwise. I don't find such deflection constructive.

That being said, I do understand San Francisco's cost of living and housing cost problems on a more micro scale. I got out here to the Dakotas from Houston in 2008, prior to the ridiculous amounts of investment from the oil and gas sector that is the Dakotas in 2019. We were still largely in the exploratory phase back then. Small crews and lots of engineers and geologists. I had a nice apartment for 500 bucks a month back then. These days I pay just shy of double that for a smaller (but newer) apartment in Williston. It really only took a couple of years and a large influx of well paid employees to turn the entire region on it's head. It would seem San Francisco has encountered a similar phenomenon via the tech industry's investment in the area.

The difference is blue collar people can find well paid work out here, even those who have had some brushes with the law. ND las less than 2% unemployment. In San Francisco you are not going to find some down on his luck street person is able to find a job writing code for some tech company, and that is what it takes to be able to become self sufficient out there essentially. So yeah, the overwhelming majority of SF's homeless population will never be able to be self sufficient. You pretty much would have to subsidize them with free rent and services for life.

This also begs the question as to why street people should be the beneficiaries of the citizens generosity. When I was still out in SF I was reading an article at my hotel that many secondary school teachers in SF can't afford to live in the city because of housing costs. They commute in. They are responsible for the education of the next generation for a city they can't even afford to dwell in. I don't see anyone clamoring for giving them free rent. But some Junkie from Ohio? Sure!

It could easily be also said that it seems the goal of some here is to simply denigrate and exaggerate hyperbolically ... much like disgruntled people who simply love to kvetch and criticize and assume to elevate themselves. But also there are a number of posters who simply appear comfortable ignorantly regurgitating mythologies.

It’s also somewhat curious that a new poster - from North Dakota - has landed on San Francisco homeless issues as worthy of ½ his total posts, to date ... without any knowledge beyond a reported single visit having nothing to do with assessing the problems.

If you were truly interested, as you say, you could be seeking information more than delivering uninformed opinions.

Example:
You say that: since COL in SF is so high, then obviously none, or VERY few, of the homeless can ever expect to compete and regain a life in such an expensive town.

While there is some truth to that challenge, you obviously have little to no understanding of either homelessness or San Francisco.

Facts are: on average in cities around the country including SF, 75% of the homeless are re-housed in less than one year .... average time on the streets is less than two months. Those most miserable wretches you wrote about observing - the other 25% - belong in two categories: chronics (severe mental illness, addictions, disabilities, etc.) and transients (largely existing by criminal activities).

If these professional social surveys are correct then, ¾’s of the homeless WILL, in fact, find a way back out of their cars and friends’ couches, shelters, park benches, and into housing in a matter of months.

How, you ask when earnings have to be so high? Well, sir, earnings don’t always have to be so high. Of the City’s 870,000 residents, many have lived years in rent controlled or long owned housing. People become homeless for a broad range of reasons, but can and do reconnect with family, friends, and relationships of convenience in which affordable housing pre-exists.

Example: 40-year-old tradesman (let’s call him a bricklayer) is suddenly stricken with epilepsy after falling and bumping his head (real case I know). Can’t work with tools or drive, not supposed to even cook at a stove or take a bath in a tub by doctor’s orders until medical protocols are tried and adjusted to where he hasn’t had a seizure in at least 6 months. Trial protocols can hit it right first off and result in only 6 months out of work ... or might fail on and off for years until, hopefully, one combination of medicines works ... maybe 2 years goes by. Meanwhile, he can’t make his rent anymore. Proud, once tough and strong, he is embarrassed to ask friends and family for help, or even tell them he is now disabled. He loses his apartment and moves into his former work van. Joins a gym to shower. Months go by before he qualifies for SSI and 8 more months go by before he qualifies (if he’s lucky) for SSDI. A few months later he has been seizure free for 6 months and is then removed from SSI / SSDI. He finds his way back to work and rents a bedroom from an old buddy.

You think this is a rare kind of example? You might be surprised. Women, some with children, beaten by husbands. People who have fallen to bad drinking / drug habits but recover. People stricken with cancers and sick from not only the disease but the treatments. Old-timers just plain aging out of their changing professions.

Some of us, who contribute to these threads to correct misinformation and myths, don’t do so to PR for the city. We know our topic because we’ve bothered to read, interact, contribute, and learn. I imagine you are knowledgable in whatever your professional field happens to be. And other subjects you have interest in, maybe hunting or bowling or basement beer-brewing. But you clearly lack knowledge of homelessness ... and San Francisco. Better to read, ask questions, and learn if you are curious - than spread myths and unfounded opinions ... which are counterproductive.

Enjoy N. Dakota and the winter winds on the plains ... I’ll never go back!