The San Francisco Trash/Needles/Poop in the Streets Containment Thread (London: mayor, building)

[RocketSci]

Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy

You haven’t followed the posts in context. My point is about SF - and how the Tourism industry has gotten heavily involved with the homeless problem (and part of the reason it is so much more visible and complained about in SF than other cities where homelessness is actually worse). The bottom line - people plan a vacation here and it can be a shocking contrast to the natural beauty of the Bay Area and they go back to their midwestern town and post YouTube videos and get people talking about it in forums. All valid, of course - it is a problem. But there are many people who think SF’s homeless problem is the worst - which is simply not true and statistics back that up. So I’m not relating tourism to homelessness - I’m relating tourism to the exposure when in fact, as a percentage to population, there’s more homelessness in St. Louis, Memphis, Birmingham, and Buffalo. If it’s looked at by numbers alone, SF comes in at 6th. So instead of collective criticism about a national epidemic - people like to focus on SF (even when they are posting from another city).

I don't buy this. There are different measures of "homeless" that statistically may show what you say, but for the numbers of people actually living on the streets there may be no comparison.

Buffalo, N.Y., Only Has 25 Chronic Homeless People Left To House

[CorporateCowboy]

Originally Posted by RocketSci

I don't buy this. There are different measures of "homeless" that statistically may show what you say, but for the numbers of people actually living on the streets there may be no comparison.

Buffalo, N.Y., Only Has 25 Chronic Homeless People Left To House

There is nothing to ‘buy’ - if you refuse to believe documented facts as ‘fake news’, that’s on you. The Dept. of Urban Development and Forbes/Statista state otherwise. The following list is when compared about actual numbers; Buffalo, NY (and other cities I mentioned) only come into play if we compare the PERCENTAGE of homeless to each city’s population. So actual numbers in the latter are irrelevant, until you figure the percentage. In addition, ‘25 chronic homeless people left to house’ says absolutely nothing about the total number of homeless in Buffalo (or the city’s percentage) - very misleading title. If Buffalo didn’t have a homeless problem, why would a sensationalistic article with an attention-grabbing headline be written in the first place? It would not be newsworthy.

But if we look at just numbers (which it appears you want to do), SF is 7th. I believe I actually said they were 6th - so SF finishes even better than I thought.

1. NYC - 78,676
2. Los Angeles - 49,955
3. Seattle - 12,112
4. San Diego - 8,576
5. San Jose/Santa Clara - 7254
6. DC - 6,904
7. SF - 6857 (yep all the way down here
8. Phoenix - 6298
9. Boston - 6188
10. Las Vegas - 6083

*Dept. of Housing & Urban Development, Forbes/Statista 2018

I’m not negating SF’s homeless problem - it’s real and it’s ugly; I see it every day. But homelessness in this country is an epidemic; SF is not in this battle alone. It’s just more visible here (partly due to tourism in the entire Bay Area) - and way more visible on forums when people want to express, inaccurately, it is the ‘worst’. It’s simply not true.

[ssmaster]

Buffalo had a windchill of negative 22 degrees last week I don't believe it's homeless experience is relavent to sf

[BlakeJones]

Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy

I’m not negating SF’s homeless problem - it’s real and it’s ugly; I see it every day. But homelessness in this country is an epidemic; SF is not in this battle alone. It’s just more visible here (partly due to tourism in the entire Bay Area) - and way more visible on forums when people want to express, inaccurately, it is the ‘worst’. It’s simply not true.

There seems to be confusion about what the thread is about, so let's be clear here. No one said SF had more homeless people than anywhere else, the problem is that the people in SF let them do whatever they want and now are reaping the consequences of that attitude

[CorporateCowboy]

Originally Posted by BlakeJones

There seems to be confusion about what the thread is about, so let's be clear here. No one said SF had more homeless people than anywhere else, the problem is that the people in SF let them do whatever they want and now are reaping the consequences of that attitude

Sure - let’s be clear! The thread is in the SF forum (for starters) - and when comments are being made (such as yours) regarding SF and their ‘attitude’ as being something it has brought on by itself and is now ‘reaping the consequences’, of course the homelessness in other cities becomes a factor in showing just how foolish your statement is (not to mention unproductive). If you believe it’s the attitude of the people in SF suffering for their own choices or attitudes, then the question has to be asked: In your opinion, what’s the reason for homelessness, then, in all of the other cities? You have somehow managed to use SF as its own enemy/cause in our homeless problem - why do you keep avoiding the question as to what you believe is the problem with homelessness in all of the other cities (many of which are worse). Because it’s absurd, short-sided and only sets forth to single out one city. Homelessness is a nation-wide epidemic, and SF is far from alone. Drugs, mental health, escalating cost of living, and alcoholism - those are the real problems.

[Finper]

Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy

Sure - let’s be clear! The thread is in the SF forum (for starters) - and when comments are being made (such as yours) regarding SF and their ‘attitude’ as being something it has brought on by itself and is now ‘reaping the consequences’, of course the homelessness in other cities becomes a factor in showing just how foolish your statement is (not to mention unproductive). If you believe it’s the attitude of the people in SF suffering for their own choices or attitudes, then the question has to be asked: In your opinion, what’s the reason for homelessness, then, in all of the other cities? You have somehow managed to use SF as its own enemy/cause in our homeless problem - why do you keep avoiding the question as to what you believe is the problem with homelessness in all of the other cities (many of which are worse). Because it’s absurd, short-sided and only sets forth to single out one city. Homelessness is an epidemic, and SF is far from alone. Drugs, mental health, escalating cost of living, and alcoholism - those are the real problems.

Few bathrooms, millions of syringes handed out, no criminal consequences, homeless encampments run amok, open drug use permitted. Liberal bleeding hearts that don't enforce ANYTHING, poop on the streets, no in house care for mentally ill, city of vast separation of have and have nots, is what makes San Fran different from Buffalo and any other city. It's also why people in other states think San Franciscans are off their rockers crazy.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Finper

Few bathrooms, millions of syringes handed out, no criminal consequences, homeless encampments run amok, open drug use permitted. Liberal bleeding hearts that don't enforce ANYTHING, poop on the streets, no in house care for mentally ill, city of vast separation of have and have nots, is what makes San Fran different from Buffalo and any other city. It's also why people in other states think San Franciscans are off their rockers crazy.

No Finper, what makes Buffalo different than San Francisco is this:

The right to shelter was established in 1979, when the lawyer Robert Hayes teamed up with Kim Hopper, Ellen Baxter and other activists to bring a class-action lawsuit on behalf of homeless New Yorkers (and to found the Coalition for the Homeless). The argument was that Article 17 the New York State Constitution required the government to care for people in need – and that providing adequate shelter was part of that obligation. The lawsuit resulted in the parties agreeing to the “Callahan Consent Decree” establishing the legal right to shelter for homeless single men and guaranteeing certain conditions and standards in the shelters. Subsequent lawsuits established the right to shelter for single women and for families with children.
Today's Read: Behind New York's Right to Shelter Policy - Coalition For The Homeless

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by BlakeJones

There seems to be confusion about what the thread is about, so let's be clear here. No one said SF had more homeless people than anywhere else, the problem is that the people in SF let them do whatever they want and now are reaping the consequences of that attitude

No, they do not do whatever they want, but it's very difficult to put people in jail for quality of life violations. The jail will not release more serious offenders in order to make space for some guy who violated a city ordinance. SFPD responds to calls about the homeless all the time but unless the guy is still pooping when the Officer arrives the Police Dept. is not going to pay for DNA testing to find out who the feces belongs to. When a homeless person commits a crime and an Officer isn't present, how do they find the suspect? They don't have an address, they can readily move from one area to another, it's a lot harder than you can imagine.

You have some strange ideas about how policing works and I don't think you understand how futile it is to think that law enforcement can solve homelessness.

[BlakeJones]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

it's a lot harder than you can imagine.

yet somehow other cities manage to avoid widespread street poop

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by BlakeJones

yet somehow other cities manage to avoid widespread street poop

Maybe they have more public restrooms, did you think about that?

Poop on the streets has another obvious cause: a lack of restroom access. Many businesses restrict their bathrooms to customers only, precisely because they don’t want their facilities to be frequented by the homeless. But the “privatization of bathrooms” means people are left without obvious places to go. There are even websites offering tips on how to go to the bathroom in San Francisco, such as by pretending to be interested in furniture at Crate & Barrel or finding the “hidden gem” of a bathroom on the second floor of a Banana Republic. The city has installed 25 small self-cleaning public toilets and recently commissioned a set of futuristic-looking new bathrooms, but a few dozen toilets for a city of 870,000 is woefully insufficient. Bathroom access should be considered a basic right, and it’s worth considering the idea of banning “customers only” toilets. In a city with generous public spaces and a commitment to equal access, no one would ever have to use the street. https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...y-homelessness

I was in the Ferry building this past summer and there was a huge line of people waiting to use the restrooms and two security guards walked up and down the line ordering people who looked homeless to leave. Those are public restrooms, but apparently someone decided that homeless people shouldn't have access to them...