The San Francisco Trash/Needles/Poop in the Streets Containment Thread (San Jose: evictions, trains)

[googgo]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaPlaya

Wadda ya mean, anything goes in San Francisco and its all a part of the craziness these days.

Homeless man brings dead raccoon inside San Francisco McDonald's

https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/...d-s/1693987807

Straight comedy

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaPlaya

Wadda ya mean, anything goes in San Francisco and its all a part of the craziness these days.

Homeless man brings dead raccoon inside San Francisco McDonald's

https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/...d-s/1693987807

Were they going to make McRaccoon with cheese?

[Finper]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

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!

so with that analysis there are 7000 rounded off homeless in SF on the last count. Assuming that's the 25% of chronics that means the actual number of homeless drifting in and out. Living in cars or rvs couch surfing is actually 21000 more people. Which makes a lot more sense seeing you can't walk 50 ft in SF and LA without seeing a homeless person.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Finper

so with that analysis there are 7000 rounded off homeless in SF on the last count. Assuming that's the 25% of chronics that means the actual number of homeless drifting in and out. Living in cars or rvs couch surfing is actually 21000 more people. Which makes a lot more sense seeing you can't walk 50 ft in SF and LA without seeing a homeless person.

Um no, Finper. It means that of the 7,499 (last point time count), 2325 of them are chronic (31%, as SF has a somewhat higher chronic population than the national 25% average).

2325 in 49 square miles (SF geographic footprint) means you would encounter 47 or so every square mile if they were evenly distributed ... which, in spite of your estimate (“can’t walk 50 ft without seeing one”) they aren’t.

These 2325 wretches concentrated as they are in the Tenderloin and Market and a few other areas are really impactful, sure.

But not all the crazies you encounter in SF are actually homeless.

There are thousands more very outrageous oddballs in various states of mental disarray who, believe it or not, have rooms one place or another yet thrive (if you can call it that) on making a spectacle on the streets.

https://projects.sfchronicle.com/sf-...-homelessness/

[Finper]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Um no, Finper. It means that of the 7,499 (last point time count), 2325 of them are chronic (31%, as SF has a somewhat higher chronic population than the national 25% average).

2325 in 49 square miles (SF geographic footprint) means you would encounter 47 or so every square mile if they were evenly distributed ... which, in spite of your estimate (“can’t walk 50 ft without seeing one”) they aren’t.

These 2325 wretches concentrated as they are in the Tenderloin and Market and a few other areas are really impactful, sure.

But not all the crazies you encounter in SF are actually homeless.

There are thousands more very outrageous oddballs in various states of mental disarray who, believe it or not, have rooms one place or another yet thrive (if you can call it that) on making a spectacle on the streets.

https://projects.sfchronicle.com/sf-...-homelessness/

There's nothing in that article that backed up your stats. So I'm right. Anyone with eyes can see there's more then 2425 "wretches " in the streets. There's probably that many shooting up heroin in the Bart tunnels right this minute.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Finper

There's nothing in that article that backed up your stats. So I'm right. Anyone with eyes can see there's more then 2425 "wretches " in the streets. There's probably that many shooting up heroin in the Bart tunnels right this minute.

You are not right.

I didn’t link the report to back up my stats. I linked it to offer you general, contemporaneous status of the SF situation: homelessness there is trending down. What stats haven’t I provided many times before that you would now need repeated? I’ve linked dozens of studies, investigative reports, with stats over and over in conversations with you.

You know I can back up everything I post.

[nowhereman427]

Originally Posted by googgo

Straight comedy

[BlakeJones]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaPlaya

Wadda ya mean, anything goes in San Francisco and its all a part of the craziness these days.

Homeless man brings dead raccoon inside San Francisco McDonald's

https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/...d-s/1693987807

"The entire McDonald's was sanitized before they reopened"

translation, "Extra special sauce for everyone!!!"

[BlakeJones]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Um no, Finper. It means that of the 7,499 (last point time count), 2325 of them are chronic (31%, as SF has a somewhat higher chronic population than the national 25% average).

2325 in 49 square miles (SF geographic footprint) means you would encounter 47 or so every square mile if they were evenly distributed ... which, in spite of your estimate (“can’t walk 50 ft without seeing one”) they aren’t.

These 2325 wretches concentrated as they are in the Tenderloin and Market and a few other areas are really impactful, sure.

But not all the crazies you encounter in SF are actually homeless.

There are thousands more very outrageous oddballs in various states of mental disarray who, believe it or not, have rooms one place or another yet thrive (if you can call it that) on making a spectacle on the streets.

https://projects.sfchronicle.com/sf-...-homelessness/

Not sure why you're such an apologist for the homeless.

Why do believe they should drastically affect other people's public quality of live without consequence?

Legit question, do you have a relative who's homeless or something

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by BlakeJones

Not sure why you're such an apologist for the homeless.

Why do believe they should drastically affect other people's public quality of live without consequence?

Legit question, do you have a relative who's homeless or something

Not sure why you interpret my providing accurate, factual information as being “apologetic”. I’ve never apologized for homelessness or its behaviors.

Not sure where you get I “believe they should drastically affect other people's public quality of live [sic] without consequence”. Never said any such thing. Ever. Not once. Anywhere.

No, I don’t have a homeless relative. I am a Vietnam veteran who has been helping other veterans for about 30 years on and off. I also live around lots of homeless and get to know some of them. Some are jerks. Some are nuts. Some are sick. Some are interesting. Some are actually cheerful and fun to talk with now and then. Some are smart. Some are stupid as hell. Just like a cross section of real life pretty much everywhere.