The San Francisco Trash/Needles/Poop in the Streets Containment Thread (realty, food)

[Matadora]

Originally Posted by nowhereman427

$77,000 salary for poop patrol

Human waste has become such a widespread problem in San Francisco that the city in September established a unit dedicated to removing it from the sidewalks. Rachel Gordon, a spokeswoman for the Public Works Department, describes the new initiative as a “proactive human waste” unit.

A public works employee uses a power washer on a sidewalk. San Francisco spends $70 million annually on street cleaning.

San Francisco spends $70 million annually on street cleaning. A city that is only 46.87 mi² spends $70 million annually to clean it's streets and sidewalks. Bleeding hearts are not the fiscally brightest folks around.

Unreal that it has to come to this vs. the police doing their jobs in order to re-establish civility.

[nowhereman427]

Originally Posted by Matadora

San Francisco spends $70 million annually on street cleaning.

Unreal that it has to come to this vs. the police doing their jobs in order to re-establish civility.

San Francisco has gone to the low lifes.

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Ah. Good. ... was waiting for the ‘reveal’, and here it is. So now we read that BlakeJones thinks in terms of partisanship ... it’s about the evils of “left-wing liberals!” ... Why am I not surprised ...

BlakeJones also reveals s/he knows pretty much nothing about the homeless ... since, for instance, on average about 75% of “homeless” are homeless for less than a year. In fact, average time homeless runs about 2 months.

Fwiw, BlakeJones, the chronically homeless are the sub-population you profile ... and yes, the answer is to get them off the street - within the bounds of constitutionally supported laws. San Francisco, like other California cities, has not done a good job of sheltering the chronic populations. This sad reality, however, is not a result of poor policing.

So what's your solution?

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by jbgusa

So what's your solution?

Housing First programs for the chronics. More temporary shelters for the transitional short-term homeless who work their way through the conditions.

But especially, addressing the larger issue: Basic Income Guarantee economics.

[BlakeJones]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Housing First programs for the chronics. More temporary shelters for the transitional short-term homeless who work their way through the conditions.

But especially, addressing the larger issue: Basic Income Guarantee economics.

As has been demonstrated countless times - the more services you offer the homeless, the more homeless you will attract to your city. It's an exercise in futility.

You'll find that a lot of conservatives are actually in favor of a UBI, but be careful what you wish for because they would use it as a replacement for all other welfare vehicles (food stamps, section 8 vouchers, medicaid, etc etc).

The reality of the universe is that when you provide handouts, people become dependent and less self sufficient. It's backwards - the only way to truly address the problem is to have higher standards for people and help them help themselves, which is actually impossible for the hard core drug addicts and many of the mentally ill on the streets

[VLWH]

Originally Posted by Tallysmom

Well, it was a Republican, Reagan, who closed the hospitals and dumped people onto the streets. It’s a Republican, Jarvis, that made sure our property taxes stayed so low, we have no way to fund to build more hospitals, to house people who need it.

Mental illness isn’t a choice, and it shouldn’t be treated as one. The mentally ill should have one right — the right to get treatment.

There are quite a few good articles that debunks the “Reagan closed the mental hospitals”. The policy was in place to release patients way before he took office. Reagan and Brown before him kept the policy in place.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by BlakeJones

As has been demonstrated countless times - the more services you offer the homeless, the more homeless you will attract to your city. It's an exercise in futility.

You'll find that a lot of conservatives are actually in favor of a UBI, but be careful what you wish for because they would use it as a replacement for all other welfare vehicles (food stamps, section 8 vouchers, medicaid, etc etc).

The reality of the universe is that when you provide handouts, people become dependent and less self sufficient. It's backwards - the only way to truly address the problem is to have higher standards for people and help them help themselves, which is actually impossible for the hard core drug addicts and many of the mentally ill on the streets

No. It hasn’t been demonstrated countless times that services attract homeless to travel for benefits (or weather). In fact, just the opposite has been proven by many studies by many agencies, public, private, and media. On average, only about 10% of homeless come from out of state. You can look this up yourself instead of regurgitating myths. On average, over 70% of homeless became homeless in the same city where they subsequently live without housing. Another 20% on average come from neighboring communities, counties or within same state.

Yes, a lot of conservative economists, as well as liberal and libertarian economists, favor UBI / BIG. Why should I be concerned about it replacing welfare? It is a vastly superior methodology / economic system to welfare.

“Higher standard for people”? Society has had high standards since about forever. See it working? Know why? When was the last time higher standards eliminated drug addiction? How about schizophrenia? You think schizophrenia or bi-polar, or borderline-personality-disorder, or PTSD or being a victim of domestic violence are choices?

When you provide handouts to hurricane, or tornado, or flood disaster victims ... does it create dependency? Or get people in a position to move on?

You seriously don’t know a thing about this topic.

[modernist1]

Originally Posted by BlakeJones

If you must know I'm fiercely independent and call it how it is for both sides of the spectrum. But if you don't think the disaster unfolding in SF is based in liberal ideology I have a bridge to sell you!!

The problem is that the same liberal ideology just facilitates the status quo. San Francisco is a perfect storm in many ways - it's not left (this is America after all), and it's not right. The liberal creed about 'rights' for the homeless, just helps enable a sort of laissez faire libertarianism - the result (for better or worse - it's up to the individual to call it) a sort of pre-revolutionary Shanghai.

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by VLWH

There are quite a few good articles that debunks the “Reagan closed the mental hospitals”. The policy was in place to release patients way before he took office. Reagan and Brown before him kept the policy in place.

De-institutionalization was a well-intentioned program starting in the late 1960's.

It was supposed to convert inhumane and, for the patient ineffective confinement into treatment in the community. This April 2, 1972 article, which I remembered reading, The Patients Can Walk Out At Any Time at Bronx State Mental Hospital (link) made the case for de-institutionalization. Unfortunately few were as motivated as Israel Zwerling, and most looked at the process as a way of saving money.

[BlakeJones]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

When you provide handouts to hurricane, or tornado, or flood disaster victims ... does it create dependency? Or get people in a position to move on?

That is temporary assistance to get people on their feet, as it should. When you have permanent section 8 vouchers, public housing projects, lifetime food stamps - it is no longer giving a boost, it is clearly dependence. Even someone as biased as yourself should be able to see that