The San Francisco Trash/Needles/Poop in the Streets Containment Thread (Oakland: earthquakes, zoning)

[Scott456]

How about non-homeless on homeless crime?

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

#1 economy in the nation, and 5th in the world? ...

Yeah #1 for cost of living adjusted poverty. Oops, you forgot to mention that one.

https://www.politifact.com/californi...overty-rate-w/

The fact that CA is the #1 economy in the U.S. isn't a big deal. It's also the most populous state. China's the #2 economy in the world, but their standard of living is well below that of any developed country (not to mention their uber Orwellian 'social credit' system). It's just not a very relevant metric. Same for #5 economy in the world.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

what an inane comment.

It's not inane. Conservative religious people don't have the market cornered on guilt trips. Liberals do it, too.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by BlakeJones

Actually, the huge numbers in NYC make San Fran look exceptionally bad. At last count NYC had 63,615 homeless, and I believe the number in SF is about 8,000. So in NYC with 8 times more homeless, we do not have the human poop on the sidewalks, we don't have aggressive beggars outside waiting for you to walk out of a store with your change, we don't have every car with something left on the seat getting broken into.

Don't get me wrong, our bozo mayor is trying his best to turn NYC into San Francisco but the homeless disfunction is a special kind of stupid in San Fran. The issue is what the homeless are allowed to get away with in San Francsico.

Excuses excuses bleeding heart permissiveness rooted in deep self guilt.

Amen! New Yorkers and East Coasters don't buy into that guilt BS the way people on the West Coast do. Thank goodness!

Rhode Island came up with a very practical, compassionate, and effective program to deal with homeless opioid addicts.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-...ioid-addiction

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

San Francisco sucks at dealing with its homeless, no question about it.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere.

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

It’s also true that the City has some pretty unique barriers to working the problem. Geography, weather, available space, raging economics of inequality evolving at a blisteringly fast rate, cost of land/structures, cost of services under the previously mentioned list of circumstances ... and more. Not an excuse. Just an explanation.

Those are some valid barriers. But if there's a collective sigh or shrug and it's left at that, those explanations harden into excuses. A mild climate with expensive real estate means you're going to attract more vagrant type people. That means the first step is you need to be vigilant about not letting them do as they please.

S.F. needs to look into spending the money more effectively. It could start with with drug addicts and give them a choice between mandatory treatment or jail. That's what Rhode Island is doing with its opioid addicts and it's working and it's more cost effective than the messes that are S.F. and Seattle. Granted, I'm sure it's far from perfect. And drug addiction is only one of the issues facing the homeless population (albeit a major one). But almost anything is better than the mess that is the California homeless situation.

I might add that much of the inequality is due to high housing costs because they don't build enough housing. I've also pointed out the super tenant friendly laws also work against honest tenants, to the point where small landlords would sometimes rather keep their units off the market rather than take the risk of renting to a deadbeat tenant....I've linked plenty of articles about these issues numerous times over the years--all of them from liberal leaning media outlets.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by BlakeJones

It's related in the sense that SF is a bastion of ultra wealth with a heavily left leaning population. Those with prosperous lives feel guilt about it and act out by letting those less fortunate do whatever they want.

I'm telling you the root of the SF problem is self guilt, because in their view enforcing laws on public nuisance would make the homeless worse off even if those homeless are actively damaging their own public quality of life.

It comes down to what Jonathan Haidt (Moral Reasoning) would say that if a certain type of person is deemed a victim, then they become sacred cows. And anyone who says anything bad or suggests we rein in the sacred cow is going against a religion of sorts. Not in the strictest sense of the word, but in a moralistic one. It's part of liberal moral reasoning that anyone deemed a victim can not be criticized or have their bad behavior stopped.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy

Many of the homeless currently on the streets today are people who would have been ‘institutionalized’ years ago.

And many of them need to be institutionalized. My libertarian self screams at saying that. But it's obvious. Whatever decisions were made in the past need to be at least partially reversed. We have to stop blaming it on Reagan and then shrugging our collective shoulders as if that's the end of it. He's been dead for 15 years and out of office for 30 freakin' years now.

As far as the housing issue goes..San Francisco doesn't build enough housing and its tenant laws are too tenant friendly especially as it pertains to evictions--which actually punishes honest tenants and encourages small landlords to keep their units off the market rather than risk dealing with an eviction. But SF doesn't want to deal with any of that. I think we also need to be real, though. Despite my firm conviction that SF should build more housing, there is only so much land. It's not fair, but not everyone can live there. No matter what we do or don't do, that is just the truth. That's life. Maybe the people forced out by the high costs will be grateful when the next earthquake hits.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Agreed. Now, where are you going to move them to ... legally ... at what cost?

It's not cheap to have them revolve in and out of jails and emergency rooms.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Most homeless don’t want to move.

Of course they don't want to leave. The mild climate and permissive attitudes and lack of enforcement make it too easy for them. Other places have harsher climates and people who don't put up with their BS.

[CorporateCowboy]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

It's not cheap to have them revolve in and out of jails and emergency rooms.

Which is exactly why the funds are better spent on adequate psychiatric services.