San Francisco homeless issue is being exaggerated in the media (Richmond: dangerous, vs.)

[skygazer1]

Originally Posted by Dapper Zoom

Nothing you've provided does anything to support any of your claims. What does the heat map show other than the relative frequency of 311 reported issues? Any heat map of anywhere on any issue whatsoever is going to have different colored areas....that's what a heat maps is. You could put together a heat map of crimes in yemen and get the same effect! And besides, who calls 311 to report a homeless issue in SF? Most people are both so used to it and understand the futility of making a report.

But you suggestion that homeless problems are almost all confined to a very limited area around the civic center and tenderloin is laughably off the mark. What about Haight Street (upper and lower), the Mission, the design center, Union Square, SOMA, Hayes Valley, etc?

A heat map color codes the number of reported homeless complaints in a given small area. The least number of reports are in green, the most are in dark red. It's just an easy way to visualize the numbers vs. looking at a numerical list.

Sure, the reported incidents are less than the actual incidents, but there is no reason to believe that the ones reported are anything different from all of the incidents. Maybe they are the worst ones?

The vast majority of problems are in the red areas, civic ctr, tenderloin, inner mission. In the last 2 wk map I posted, Haight has a light yellow, indicating some reports, as well as Castro/Market. But the vast majority of issues are where the color indicates.

You, as a resident, should find the map to be a good quantified indicator of the problem areas. I also agree completely with the data. The vast majority of negative homeless interactions I experienced are in the red areas, very rare anywhere else.

[Dapper Zoom]

Originally Posted by skygazer1

A heat map color codes the number of reported homeless complaints in a given small area. The least number of reports are in green, the most are in dark red. It's just an easy way to visualize the numbers vs. looking at a numerical list.

Sure, the reported incidents are less than the actual incidents, but there is no reason to believe that the ones reported are anything different from all of the incidents. Maybe they are the worst ones?

The vast majority of problems are in the red areas, civic ctr, tenderloin, inner mission. Haight has some reports, depending on the time span selected. But the vast majority of issues are where the color indicates.

You, as a resident, should find the map to be a good quantified indicator of the problem areas. I also agree completely with the data. The vast majority of negative homeless interactions I experienced are in the red areas, very rare anywhere else.

Yes, I know what a heat map is, but my point was that a heat map doesn't do much for speaking about whether or not there is a homeless problem in the city as a whole. Your thread title states that the city's homeless problem is being exaggerated in the media - but showing a heat map is irrelevant to the defense of this claim. Relative concentrations of incidents says absolutely nothing about SF as a whole.

I've had four direct confrontations with the homeless in the past 20 years, three of them recently and only one in the brighter areas of the heat map. Although this probably says more about where I spend my time than the relative extent of the problem in various areas. But I've had many, many "indirect" confrontations, where a homeless guy was walking down the street making menacing and threading gestures and yelling at people to the point where I had to be prepared for a possible physical confrontation.

Your very use of the phrase "the vast majority of negative homeless interactions I experienced" should make you reconsider the strength of your conviction that there is not much of a homeless problem in San Francisco! Where else do people speak of a "vast majority" when discussing negative interactions with the homeless?

[jade408]

People are desensitized to it now. I see homelesx people all over the denser parts of town. Lots of vidible homelessness in SOMA and Chinatown.

[skygazer1]

Originally Posted by Dapper Zoom

Yes, I know what a heat map is, but my point was that a heat map doesn't do much for speaking about whether or not there is a homeless problem in the city as a whole. Your thread title states that the city's homeless problem is being exaggerated in the media - but showing a heat map is irrelevant to the defense of this claim. Relative concentrations of incidents says absolutely nothing about SF as a whole.

I've had four direct confrontations with the homeless in the past 20 years, three of them recently and only one in the brighter areas of the heat map. Although this probably says more about where I spend my time than the relative extent of the problem in various areas. But I've had many, many "indirect" confrontations, where a homeless guy was walking down the street making menacing and threading gestures and yelling at people to the point where I had to be prepared for a possible physical confrontation.

Well, yes if you spend most of your time in the green areas and rarely in the red ones, your relative likelihood of an interaction will increase in those good areas, BUT:

Looking at the raw data of total homeless complaints in the 311 dashboard app, here is what we find:
85,100 in Tenderloin+SOMA+Mission (more or less equally in all 3)
1,591 in Lower Haight
1,491 in upper Haight
491 in inner Sunset
308 in Cole Valley.

So, the problem is 27 times worse in those 3 worse areas compared to all of Haight! And 107 times worse there than in inner sunset and Cole valley combined.

The actual numbers paint the extent of the concentration of the problem even more so than the heat map.

[likealady]

Oh boy, you again. The guy who doesn't even live here and when he comes only spends his time in the Sunset.



Nevermind those of us who commute into the city on a daily or weekly basis and are tired of being harassed.

[skygazer1]

Originally Posted by likealady

Oh boy, you again. The guy who doesn't even live here and when he comes only spends his time in the Sunset.



Nevermind those of us who commute into the city on a daily or weekly basis and are tired of being harassed.

Well thanks for the kind words, what do you mean "doesn't even live here"? No, I am not currently a resident 365 days/year, but I was in the past. I divide my time between SF and other places, but am here enough to know what's goin' on!

[Matadora]

Your posts don't reflect it.

[candalf]

A local of the Bay Area for a couple of decades here:

According to my personal experiences, OP is overall correct.

Homelessness is largely concentrated in the central areas of SF, mostly around Market St. Since that is where most people arrive to SF, that homelessness produces a big impression. I have known people who, just by vurtue of staying near Civic Center, would firmly conclude that this city entire is a cesspool.

There are large swathes of the city, on the other hand, where the issue is barely seen at all. Sunset, Richmond, Marina or Merced are some places like that coming to mind. We often entertain out of town visitors and they are usually mesmerized by this city's beauty and vibrancy.

At the same time, it is very fair to say that much of the area surrounding Market St is out of control and the level of human decay has reached disasterous proportions. Also, it has absolutely gotten worse over the years. Dante's circles of hell come to my mind when I watch the broken human beings occupying the area.

I also think SF's image is affected by its openness and tolerance. While Eastern cities seem cleaner and more orderly, the overall poverty rates are often much higher than here. They seemingly adopted an out of sight/out of mind approach to social issues. Social problems are confined to horrendous ghettoes so visitors are under the false impression of those cities' wellness. Here we don't hide our ills, on the other hand-- I guess that is just part of our more open and honest California attitude.

Whatever anyone says, the West is the best

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by candalf

A local of the Bay Area for a couple of decades here:

According to my personal experiences, OP is overall correct.

Homelessness is largely concentrated in the central areas of SF, mostly around Market St. Since that is where most people arrive to SF, that homelessness produces a big impression. I have known people who, just by vurtue of staying near Civic Center, would firmly conclude that this city entire is a cesspool.

There are large swathes of the city, on the other hand, where the issue is barely seen at all. Sunset, Richmond, Marina or Merced are some places like that coming to mind. We often entertain out of town visitors and they are usually mesmerized by this city's beauty and vibrancy.

At the same time, it is very fair to say that much of the area surrounding Market St is out of control and the level of human decay has reached disasterous proportions. Also, it has absolutely gotten worse over the years. Dante's circles of hell come to my mind when I watch the broken human beings occupying the area.

I also think SF's image is affected by its openness and tolerance. While Eastern cities seem cleaner and more orderly, the overall poverty rates are often much higher than here. They seemingly adopted an out of sight/out of mind approach to social issues. Social problems are confined to horrendous ghettoes so visitors are under the false impression of those cities' wellness. Here we don't hide our ills, on the other hand-- I guess that is just part of our more open and honest California attitude.

Whatever anyone says, the West is the best

Excellent, fair, balanced post. Thanks for a sane contribution. I have moved to San Diego and central coast as of a few years ago now. Prior I maintained SF and Bay Area as home base since the late 1960’s. Last residence was years in the Marina district. The problem is crisis proportion in areas noted by the you and the OP. Other than those areas? Some here. Some there. Eclectic, wonderful city overall.

Some contributors to these threads participate in the manner of a pi**ing match. Both sides of the issue. None of that is helpful to defining the issues properly in ways that contribute to the kinds of understandings and considerations required to create solutions and civic support for solutions.

[Commonproject]

Depends what you call "issue". There are homeless people all over the city; walk down the Embarcadero at night and you'll find sleeping bags all over. They don't bother anyone (at least most of the time), so it may not be seen as an issue to some, but it's still an issue to a certain extent.