
San Francisco Orders Homeless to Leave Tent Camp - wrongc0ntinent
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/us/san-francisco-wants-homeless-to-leave-tent-camp-but-some-vow-to-fight.html?_r=0
======
1024core
Every time the topic comes up, people from across the country start commenting
on SF's homelessness woes. I live in SF, and consider our homeless situation
unique. There are lots of mentally ill people, who have been hanging around
for many years, thanks to good weather and generous people (and the easy
availability of some drugs). Most of these people are NOT your typical "lost
my job, lost my apartment, and hence am homeless" types. Many of them are so
mentally ill that putting them in a mental institution is the only option.
They simply cannot take care of themselves.

~~~
martinshen
The most visible homeless and those we consider "the problem" certainly may be
those who "cannot take care of themselves". However, the majority do not fit
this category.

I may be naive but I think we should be tackling the homeless with mental
problems first. While I certainly have more empathy to those who have "lost my
job, lost my apartment, and hence am homeless", I am unconfident that
traditional support services can put them back on their feet without drastic
improvements to the housing crisis in San Francisco. Furthermore, the mentally
ill make everyone (especially those homeless who have fallen on hard times)
less safe.

~~~
gearoidoc
> the mentally ill make everyone (especially those homeless who have fallen on
> hard times) less safe.

Statistics please.

~~~
1024core
You'd be hard pressed to find any, other than anecdata.

Yesterday, a small woman was assaulted (just pushed hard, luckily she did not
fall) in front of me by a woman who was clearly off kilter (rambling to
herself, shouting periodically to noone, etc.).

One day, a similarly off-balance gentleman started hurling obscenities at me
and threatened to punch me. He was a foot away from me, and I was on the MUNI
train, so nowhere to go. I stared him down as his spittle flew in my
direction, and he walked away. Coincidentally(?) I came down with the worst
throat infection a few days later.

And then another time a guy who had severely bad hygiene problems got on the N
train, which was already crowded.... and then the train goes into the tunnel
before Inner Sunset. I have never felt so nauseated in my life. As soon as the
train got out of the tunnel, half the carriage emptied, with people gasping
for air.

And then one time a mentally ill person (from appearance) got on the bus,
stood behind a young woman and started slowly humping her. I would have done
something, but he was huge.

And then there was this time a mentally ill guy was walking down the sidewalk,
totally in his own world... but the asshole grabbed my crotch as I walked by.

In contrast, I have never seen such a thing being done by a non-mentally-ill
person.

Make up your own mind.

------
towy
Just looked up some numbers to shed some light on the proportions of these
problems:

\- SF has had a homeless population of 6200~6500 over the last 15 years

\- SF spends $~240M per year on homeless services, about $35k per person
(excluding police, medical and other indirect services)

* $112M of that on supportive housing, $40M on shelters/transitional housing, $27M rental subsidies/eviction prevention

\- spending has increased by $84M since 2011 when Ed Lee took office

\- NYC spends about $1B but seems to have a homeless populat of about 60,000
(~10x that of SF)

Pretty disheartening to see the amount of resources that have already poured
into solving the problem without seeming very successful.

~~~
pj_mukh
Yea. What's going wrong? Would just GIVING them a place to live work? It would
be cheaper.

[http://umanitoba.ca/outreach/evidencenetwork/archives/16127](http://umanitoba.ca/outreach/evidencenetwork/archives/16127)

------
martinshen
Housing and the homeless topics keep coming up on HN and in my social circles.
It's frustrating.

My real frustration is in fact with our cities are incentivizing businesses to
create jobs while not creating more housing supply nor using that capital to
improve our city like solve homelessness. This is unethical and despicable.

The city is not run by the techies who work here. The city is run by rich
companies AND entrenched groups.

Entrenched groups are the older long-time homeowners looking to push the value
of their own homes, the non-profit communities that want to protect their
neighborhood's culture and the longtime renters who want to keep their rent
control. There are countless entrenched players who push the status quo and
the majority of them don't have that much money. Whether you agree that
"keeping neighborhood culture" is important or not, we must first acknowledge
that doing so is contributing in some way to housing prices.

I believe rich companies are not inherently evil. Many wish to help their
employees by encouraging cities to build new housing alongside their new
offices. However, when push comes to shove, companies will prioritize their
office over new housing projects. New offices are also a lot easier to sell to
many of the entrenched players.

How do we combat this all? We vote! Oh wait...

Unfortunately, those who have recently moved here (who tend to be techies)
tend not to vote and many cannot simply because they haven't yet lived here
long enough. Additionally, those who commute (most people) cannot vote in the
locations where may be truly relevant. For example, if I work at Twitter but
live in Oakland, I cannot vote to encourage more housing to be built in San
Francisco.

The other big problem that many ignore is that many of us cannot vote in
cities because frankly, we're not American. At last I counted there are over
250,000 Canadians alone that live in the San Francisco Bay Area. Don't forget
all the other TN, H-1Bs, L-2, non-visa aliens and families that live (and more
than likely, rent) here. The Bay Area likely has the most non-voting capable
residents in the US. I would guess that up to 10% of Bay area residents cannot
vote.

~~~
fosk
I live in SF and the problem with housing here is that although the
residential neighborhoods are very extended (think of the Richmond), most of
the residential buildings are 2/3 story houses that cannot accomodate many
people.

We need to start replacing these little residential houses with 10 story
buildings. There is nowhere else to build, we need to start upgrading the
existing buildings.

Will that change the city? Well yes, but cities evolve and some of the houses
built after the earthquake are anachronistic and of out place in this time.

~~~
aetherson
While I do support infill development, San Francisco is already a dense city
(the second-densest city in the US after New York City, unless you count much
smaller municipalities), and the idea that everyone must, must, must be given
the opportunity to live in San Francisco proper is naïve, as is the idea that
any but a tiny minority of the homeless in the city would ever be able to
afford any kind of market-rate housing even with a wholesale program of infill
development.

You say "there is nowhere else to build." Sure there is. There is Daly City
and Colma and Millbrae and so forth down to San Jose and out into the east bay
and even the north bay. Not everyone is going to live in the 49 square miles
of SF, even if it becomes considerably more dense.

Now, we should also build higher-density housing in SF. But that's not going
to change the homelessness situation in any meaningful way.

~~~
fosk
> There is Daly City and Colma and Millbrae and so forth down to San Jose

Sure, but then the city better start spending some billions to improve the
infrastructure and public transportation: BART is a joke by modern standards,
slow and dirty; the Caltrain is even worse with its diesel-powered locomotives
like it's 1899.

~~~
jkyle
> Sure, but then the city better start spending some billions to improve the
> infrastructure and public transportation

Now you're onto the crux of the issue.

People, generally, don't want to commute more than 30m each way. The further
away you get from that time frame, the more people "drop out" or start
sacrificing in other areas (e.g. housing). Having reliable passive transit
such as trains or subways extends this time window some.

Build a bullet train that gets you from Modesto (random town 90 miles away) to
S.F. in 30m and watch how many families are perfectly willing to buy a 4
bedroom house for 350k and commute every day. Not to mention all the towns in
between.

 _edit_

The LA -> SF bullet train's a good start if it lives up to the hype.

------
sytse
I live close to the area (I'm on 8th and Howard) and the situation for the
homeless there is horrible. We walked past the tent camp while going to the
local spca to see if they had a cat we could adopt. The spca has a great
facility and it is great that their animals are treated so well. But the
contrast between the animals and humans on the street made my heart sink. I
hope that we can keep the great facilities for the animals but we find a
better solution for the people living on the street. As mentioned in the
article many are mentally ill and it is sad to see them scream and yell at
ghosts. I've never heard someone say something about throwing feces so this
doesn't seem frequent. I'm sure many of the homeless want to keep their place
clean but there is a lack of public sanitation to do so. Reports say many went
to this area after being told to do so during the super bowl
[http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/S-F-
mayor-...](http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/S-F-mayor-
Homeless-have-to-leave-the-6465209.php)

------
20years
This is very similar to the homeless situation where I live. We had to
recently break up a camp in one of the beach communities too. Many, many drug
addicts (especially meth) and mentally ill (possibly due to drugs). Simply
providing shelter is not the solution imo. The challenge is so much bigger
than that. Drug rehab services need to be provided or even required. The easy
access to drugs also needs to be addressed.

I am all for helping people that need our help. I am not for enabling certain
behaviors though such as drug use. It is going to be hard to empower drug
addicted homeless people if they can't hold down a job or relationships due to
their addiction.

I am not saying this is the case for all homeless but at least in my area, it
is the majority.

If we want to solve this problem, we need to provide shelter along with drug
rehab services & require weekly clean drug tests as a requirement to keep the
shelter.

Now the costs for all of that, I am sure is just as big of a challenge.

~~~
iamnothere
This is directly contrary to what has been found to work in practice. Mental
illness and drug addiction can take years to treat successfully, and it's
impossible to treat people who don't live in a fixed location. "Housing first"
policies treat housing as the first priority, necessary for even gaining
access to help people with other problems.

Without housing, many of these people gradually become worse off and
eventually die. Housing should be treated as a human right, without any
special conditions imposed.

~~~
20years
"we need to provide shelter along with drug rehab services"

~~~
iamnothere
Yes, but treatment should be sought voluntarily, not imposed as a condition of
housing.

*edit: Treatment should be readily available and highly encouraged, obviously.

~~~
20years
I am curious why you feel it should be voluntarily?

If we are doing our part by providing resources and money for
shelter/food/rehab, shouldn't they be doing their part to get & stay clean?

We need to be accountable in providing shelter, food, rehab. They need to be
accountable for staying clean.

Otherwise, I fear it will not work. It should be a 2 way street.

~~~
iamnothere
People need a home before any kind of treatment would be effective.
Unfortunately, treatments for _both_ mental illness and drug and alcohol abuse
require a long time to work, and relapses are extremely common. Further, these
treatments aren't usually effective unless the recipient feels that any needed
lifestyle changes are made of their own volition; if they feel "forced" into
it, treatment won't work long-term.

This "housing first" approach, when implemented properly, has proven effective
in many areas.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First)

~~~
20years
I appreciate your view point. Thanks!

------
tropo
Meanwhile, houses in Detroit can be purchased for the cost of a month's rent
in SF. The solution is obvious, no?

It seems that people want so badly to live in some of the nation's most
expensive real estate that they are willing to be homeless. That's a choice.
The quarter billion spent on them is an enabler. It encourages them to stay
homeless.

~~~
jpindar
I get your point, but Detroit is a really bad example. Who _would_ want to
live with undrinkable water and the highest murder rate in the country, with
essentially no municipal services, in a house so run down that it'd be
condemned in any other city?

~~~
SeoxyS
You must be thinking of St. Louis and Flint, MI…

That, plus I hear Detroit is bouncing back a bit. The homeless would probably
become jobless, there. A slight improvement, I guess.

~~~
jpindar
Oops, yeah the contaminated water thing is in Flint. But Detroit does have
high crime, even if the exact rankings vary slightly from year to year.

------
pjlegato
What San Francisco needs is a free, high quality, in-patient psychiatric
hospital.

No, I am not talking about a stereotypical 1960s Nurse Ratchett type dungeon
psych ward. I am talking about a modern and caring facility where homeless
people with severe mental problems and drug/alcohol addiction can check in and
get help. If they need it, they should be able to live there on a long-term
basis.

It says the city of San Francisco spends $242 million a year on homeless
services. That'd build and operate a very nice psych hospital.

