A friend just visited San Francisco and the main thing that left a lasting impression was...yeah, you guessed it... (Montclair: condos, homes)

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

Spot on. My sister, who lived in NYC was shocked at the homeless situation where she lives in.....Sacramento, which is much tamer than in SF.

She said (I'll paraphrase). "In New York, no one is homeless unless they absolutely have to be. The weather is not that great, plus there just isn't this culture of tolerating it like there is out here (in CA). For some small subset of people, it really does seem like a viable way of life whereas nobody in NYC views it that way"

Um?

65 percent of the country's homeless population was provided with emergency shelter, according to a report from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.The largest number of homeless people was recorded in New York City (76,501), with Los Angeles in second place (55,188).

New York has lots of shelters though ... they have to.

[skygazer1]

Originally Posted by Dapper Zoom

I think what you're saying has some truth to it. Especially your point about where all of the hotels are situated in Union Square. That's the worst of it. I know there are areas without much of a homeless problem, but you mentioned Civic Center, the Haight and the Mission, and I'd also add Western Addition and SOMA. These areas are all pretty bad, and then there are what I'd sort of call the "second tier" of homeless areas - areas like the Castro, Hayes Valley, Duboce Triangle, and the financial district. I think these areas are pretty bad as well, but as someone else mentioned upthread, many of us have become so used to it we no longer see it as much.

Yes! I'm so glad to see a local SF resident describe the situation as it is, rather than it seems most of these posters come from somewhere else, or tourists, who haven't the vaguest idea how the rest of the city works. But, I admit the compact downtown area is the center of "action", where almost all of the business, work, tourism is located, and that will severely skew the impressions in a public forum.

[HappyinCali]

Originally Posted by skygazer1

As I repeat again and again, the problem is very isolated to small enclaves around Civic Ctr/Tenderloin/Market St./Mission. How can you possibly extrapolate this to the entire 99% of the rest of the city, where homeless are rarely if ever seen, and claim SF as a whole has a major homeless problem - NOT.

Don't waster your effort. i have fought this battle before. You won't convince anyone. their mind is already made-up

[HappyinCali]

You guys, the issue is not that homeless and poor exist. It is that you see them while you are buying a sandwich. Better to stick them all in the Bayview and build a wall. Trump is building the wrong wall!

MSFGA

/sarcasm

[skygazer1]

Originally Posted by HappyinCali

Don't waster your effort. i have fought this battle before. You won't convince anyone. their mind is already made-up

Yep, False beliefs based on ignorance of the facts. The #1 cause of trouble on Earth

[roadwarrior101]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Actually, bad as it seems and is, this is not true. NYC, L.A., Seattle, Washington D.C., Honolulu, San Diego, San Jose all have higher numbers of homeless ... and most, if not all, have a higher rate of homelessness as well. Another ½ dozen or more have nearly identical problems.

Some of those cities, including NYC, have more sheltered homeless so somewhat less visible.

I was in NYC a couple months ago. Yes, I did see some homeless people, but not the sheer concentration that we have here in SF. I also didn't experience the urine smell when I was walking out of the subway, as I always do coming out of BART.

Not surprising that NYC has a higher number of homeless, given that the city has 10x the number of people that SF has. My personal observation was that it wasn't as bad, even if there was a higher number. However, I would say that its gotten worse vs. previous times I've visited there.

[TR95]

Originally Posted by skygazer1

As I repeat again and again, the problem is very isolated to small enclaves around Civic Ctr/Tenderloin/Market St./Mission. How can you possibly extrapolate this to the entire 99% of the rest of the city, where homeless are rarely if ever seen, and claim SF as a whole has a major homeless problem - NOT.

Ok, and as I repeat again and again, I mentioned leaving work and seeing this in the Financial district. And as I repeat again there has not been any other city that I have visited or worked in that you see the kind of **** you see in SF where people work. Maybe open your eyes and learn how to read what I said. Obviously you can’t comprehend since I never extrapolated anything as you claim. Hey, if you like seeing that **** then by all means enjoy!

[JJonesIII]

Originally Posted by roadwarrior101

I was in NYC a couple months ago. Yes, I did see some homeless people, but not the sheer concentration that we have here in SF. I also didn't experience the urine smell when I was walking out of the subway, as I always do coming out of BART.

Not surprising that NYC has a higher number of homeless, given that the city has 10x the number of people that SF has. My personal observation was that it wasn't as bad, even if there was a higher number. However, I would say that its gotten worse vs. previous times I've visited there.

Agree. We should be talking apples to apples here. On a percentage basis, NYC is at .896% and SF is at .787% (not much difference). And on the surface, it does appear that NY does a better job of dealing with the problem. I'd be curious if anyone has the info on homeless shelters in both cities as a comparison (i.e the amount of people each city houses of homeless people as a percentage of total homeless).

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by roadwarrior101

I was in NYC a couple months ago. Yes, I did see some homeless people, but not the sheer concentration that we have here in SF. I also didn't experience the urine smell when I was walking out of the subway, as I always do coming out of BART.

Not surprising that NYC has a higher number of homeless, given that the city has 10x the number of people that SF has. My personal observation was that it wasn't as bad, even if there was a higher number. However, I would say that its gotten worse vs. previous times I've visited there.

Originally Posted by JJonesIII

Agree. We should be talking apples to apples here. On a percentage basis, NYC is at .896% and SF is at .787% (not much difference). And on the surface, it does appear that NY does a better job of dealing with the problem. I'd be curious if anyone has the info on homeless shelters in both cities as a comparison (i.e the amount of people each city houses of homeless people as a percentage of total homeless).

NYC has more homeless ... and ... a higher rate of homelessness, both, compared to SF.
Same goes for LA. And Seattle. And Wash. D.C. And .....

Correct, NYC does a better job at sheltering their homeless ...
... as I wrote: they have to ... weather being what it is.

NYC shelters approximately ⅔ of their homeless.
San Francisco shelters a little under ½ of their homeless.

[skygazer1]

Originally Posted by TR95

Ok, and as I repeat again and again, I mentioned leaving work and seeing this in the Financial district. And as I repeat again there has not been any other city that I have visited or worked in that you see the kind of **** you see in SF where people work. Maybe open your eyes and learn how to read what I said. Obviously you can’t comprehend since I never extrapolated anything as you claim. Hey, if you like seeing that **** then by all means enjoy!

Well maybe people should LIVE in a city before making blanket judgments of the entire picture? As I said before, the problem is isolated to the compact downtown area, where most jobs are, and most tourists visit. Therefore, this "impression" forms from this limited subset of people who just go to that little area.

I don't mean to belittle the hassles of meeting homeless constantly, if you work down there. I never worked in that part of the city, and lived in other neighborhood, hung around most everywhere else, except those bad parts of downtown, so I rarely if ever ran across homeless.

So, its obviously a judgment issue of the severity and impact, whether you are a specific area of downtown live/worker, or a part of the rest of the city. Whose views are more relevant and important? But, lets not generalize one bad problem, assume it applies to the vast rest of the city, it doesn't.