
Wealthy San Francisco tech investors bankroll bid to ban homeless camps - hobolobo
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/12/san-francisco-homeless-proposition-q-tech-investors
======
kldaace
Two big problems with just moving people into shelters:

1\. Homeless shelters are horribly funded and have long waiting lists for
beds. This proposal provides no additional funding. My guess is most people
will be forced to take the bus ticket option.

2\. Shelter beds themselves are poorly maintained, unsanitary, and often have
bed bugs. It sounds counter-intuitive but a lot of homeless people are
_choosing_ the streets over homeless shelters.

To be honest, I think the people bankrolling this bid know that moving people
into shelters is unfeasible, and they're cynically hoping to just bus the
homeless out of San Francisco.

~~~
M_Grey
The biggest issue with shelters is also that they're incredibly unsafe, much
of the time. Rape, robbery, and assault are commonplace.

~~~
Camillo

       Y: "There are too many homeless here, it feels unsafe."
       A: "How dare you! Those are human beings!"
       Y: "Why can't they stay in shelters?"
       A: "They feel unsafe, there are too many homeless there."
    

It would be funny if it weren't tragic.

~~~
M_Grey
What's tragic is that you think warehousing people who are overwhelmingly
addicts, or mentally ill would be workable. The term, 'Bedlam' springs to
mind.

Besides, it's almost like different homeless people are... different...
people.

~~~
Camillo
That is not what I think.

~~~
M_Grey
I can only read posts, not minds.

~~~
traek
And even your ability to read posts is questionable, given that ~Camillo
didn't write any of the words you're putting into their mouth.

------
fatdog
Why do homeless people camp on sidewalks? Because it works. The question
becomes, "works for what?" The proposition appears to mean to make camping
"not work," by imposing risk and cost on campers. It's responding to a
symptom, but it's like treating cancer with crutches.

What does the street provide an alley or park doesn't? I've said before, the
perceived security from non-underclass people walking by. Police protect non-
underclass people from violence, and the homeless get this additional benefit
by extension by being nearby. In shelters and tent cities, you are more likely
to be targeted for crime.

Sure people without addresses have a right to safety and security of person
like everyone else, but their behavior (often due to mental illness or drug
use or factors outside of their direct control) makes it extra
difficult/costly to provide it.

Other people pay a lot of money in tax to the state to reduce their daily
exposure to violence, regardless of the factors that might contribute to it.
Tent cities are a source of risk, and they are provocative symbols of the
limits of the ability of the local government to operate credibly.
Governments, mainly for their own sake, must remove tent cities when they pop
up, arguably because that's what they were originally chartered to do.

Some may say that the homeless are "just trying to live," but it could be said
they are hovering around public services without any sense of responsibility
to the local society that provides them.

They are human beings, but ones who take advantage of the lack of a continuous
tribal identity in cities, where they can live with people believing they are
someone else's problem. People who don't learn to get along get run out of
small towns (or worse). Add a drug addiction to severe mental illness, and you
basically get a municipal zombie problem.

To me, homelessness is only a complicated problem from the perspective of an
ideology that cannot tolerate examples of the limits to its power. Everyone
else has solutions, just not ones that reinforce the narcissism of
maternalistic policymakers.

~~~
pavlov
_... without any sense of responsibility ... ones who take advantage ...
people who don 't learn to get along ..._

All this sounds like you're blaming the homeless. Your last paragraph suggests
that you have solutions to the problem. What are they?

~~~
imagist
Call me crazy, but I think it's pretty obvious that the only solution to
homelessness is homes.

Of course that's the compassionate solution, but compassion holds little
weight in the libertarian idealist sociopathy of Silicon Valley. But even from
a cost perspective housing is the only solution.

You can make homelessness illegal, but then you're just housing the homeless
in prisons. If you're going to house people anyway, there are cheaper ways to
do it than with a prison.

You can bus the homeless somewhere else, but there's a long history of other
places bussing people back to SF. Given the homeless want to be in SF because
of climate, opportunities, etc., the average is that they're more likely to
end up there.

Unless there's something else I haven't thought of, that really only leaves
housing.

Existing programs are intended to get people into a position where they can
obtain housing, but these de facto don't work very well, because they attempt
to get them other things _before_ housing. Housing before a job works better
than a job before housing. Housing before addiction treatment works better
than addiction treatment before housing. None of the existing solutions are
sustainable as long as the person isn't housed. It's unrealistic to expect
someone to hold down a job or kick their addiction while living on the
streets. Without housing, no auxiliary solution is sustainable.

So not only is the only solution to homelessness housing, but it's housing
_first_.

~~~
fatdog
Begs the question of, homes where. Public housing, hotel rooms, condominiums,
remote cabins, camps, shelters, the devil is in those details.

"Homeless" is a euphemism, more of a metonym for a cluster of issues that form
an identifiable other. It's a general problem of how should a society deal
with extreme exceptional minorities. From a majority rule perspective, there
are probably still more homeless people than millionaires (let alone
billionaires) in the bay area, so maybe they will organize and win the right
to camp anywhere.

Rich people need permits, licenses, planning permission, and community consent
to build homes. Tent dwellers, not so much. In fact, if the resolution doesn't
pass to prevent people from camping in the street, what's to stop anyone from
setting up pre-fab luxury sidewalk camps like those at burning man.

~~~
imagist
> Begs the question of, homes where. Public housing, hotel rooms,
> condominiums, remote cabins, camps, shelters, the devil is in those details.

There are a wide variety of options. One which has historically worked well in
Europe is to provide an area of shipping containers converted into simple
homes with a shower, toilet, cot, and padlock on the door.

> "Homeless" is a euphemism, more of a metonym for a cluster of issues that
> form an identifiable other.

No, "homeless" is not a fucking euphemism. It means "without a home", just
like "jobless" means "without a job" and "hopeless" means "without hope" and
"grasp-on-reality-less" means "without a grasp on reality".

> Rich people need permits, licenses, planning permission, and community
> consent to build homes. Tent dwellers, not so much.

These permits, licenses, planning permission, and are community consent are
necessary to prevent people with a wide variety of options from making
decisions that harm other people.

Tent dwellers arguably cause harm to others by being there, but they don't
have other options. The voluntarily homeless are few and far between.

The two kinds of laws are incomparable: one seeks to limit the harm done by
people with too much power, while the other tries to write out of existence
the only option a group of people have.

> In fact, if the resolution doesn't pass to prevent people from camping in
> the street, what's to stop anyone from setting up pre-fab luxury sidewalk
> camps like those at burning man.

When this becomes a problem let me know. Meanwhile, maybe we can talk about
current real problems that exist, like the people who we are literally forcing
to rot to death in our streets.

------
rm_-rf_slash
Forgive my crass naïveté, for I live in a chilly northeastern college town
where homelessness = death for half the year, but why are people so concerned
about keeping the poorest of the poor living at the tiny tip of the wealthiest
peninsula in America?

Homelessness and the situations that create it are great tragedies. But to me
it seems completely absurd that this problem is dealt with a municipal level.
Homeless shelters are good to have but there is so little space in the city of
San Francisco for the working people, let alone the tech workers forking over
several thousands of dollars each month in rent.

San Francisco is a tiny city. California is a very big state. I don't
understand this problem at all.

~~~
DominikR
I don't like having homeless people on the streets but even the homeless have
freedoms and the same rights that you and I enjoy.

What you are saying is that SF is only for certain people, all others should
be made to go.

~~~
Grishnakh
No, he's not saying that at all. He's asking why this problem should be
addressed at the municipal level, and why it isn't being addressed at the
state level or federal level instead. It's a valid question: the State of
California has a lot more resources to deal with a problem like this than any
single municipality within the state, and the Federal government even moreso.

Given how much of a problem homelessness is throughout the state of
California, why is the state government not addressing it?

~~~
rm_-rf_slash
It's more like this: San Francisco is very expensive. It is also a nice place
to live.

Why not put shelters and programs to get people back on their feet in less
expensive places so that eventually the formerly homeless can live in San
Francisco by paying rent with the money they earn by working?

Just like everybody else.

~~~
s0rce
I agree with this. The fact is that to live in the bay area now is expensive
and many people (myself included) work hard to afford to live here. I don't
understand why someone who doesn't or can't work should be guaranteed a place
here. If I was injured or became a drug addict/mentally ill and needed to stop
working I would strongly consider moving back to where I lived for the past
few years in Eastern WA, life was exponentially cheaper. Problem is these
places where living is cheap probably have little to no services for the
mentally ill/ addicts. This is why I agree with your statement that the state
should establish services in more cost effective areas. I guess this seems
like shipping them off to camps away from rich people but at least the dollars
spent on services and shelters can serve more people more effectively.

~~~
DominikR
Oh you've got me completely wrong, I wouldn't guarantee anyone a place or
service anywhere in the world.

What I'm saying is that people are free to go and stay where ever they want in
their country as long as it isn't someones private property. That's a very
basic freedom that we all have.

You don't have a mandatory responsibility to care for the homeless and
homeless do not have a responsibility to accept any your care. Especially if
your care amounts to basically forcing them to live in a different place.

~~~
rm_-rf_slash
When your property taxes (or your landlord's property taxes that you pay in
rent) are used to pay for expensive public services that could be done much
cheaper elsewhere, homelessness is most certainly an infringement of private
property.

If a homeless person is robbed, your taxes pay for their police investigation.
If a homeless person is stabbed, your taxes pay for their medical treatment.

As far as this "very basic freedom" for people to "go and stay where ever they
want" goes - can you point out where this is guaranteed in the U.S.
Constitution?

~~~
DominikR
The costs for the examples you list are costs of having your own nation and
your own set of laws.

There's no point in having either of those if we collectively do not enforce
it.

Your position would allow to introduce arbitrary limits on freedom because you
can always show a direct or indirect cost caused by having freedom. (it would
certainly be cheaper to have everyone living in safe and orderly labour camps,
wouldn't it?)

Regarding the U.S. Constitution: I'm in the EU but from my basic understanding
the Constitution is a list of supreme laws limiting the governments power to
interfere with citizens freedoms and not the other way around. Compiling a
list of citizens freedoms would be senseless anyway as it would quickly
approach an infinite list. Since I have not heard about a Constitutional law
that allows the government to displace people internally it follows that the
government does not have this power.

------
scelerat
This article addresses a lot of the myths of homelessness which get repeated
in any discussion about SF homeless (with supporting citation).

[http://48hills.org/2016/02/16/five-myths-about-the-
homeless-...](http://48hills.org/2016/02/16/five-myths-about-the-homeless-
problem-in-san-francisco/)

Key point in my mind when it comes to talking about these tent cities, is that
most of SF's homeless -- over 70% -- were living in San Francisco at the time
they became homeless. And as much as 50% of the homeless had lived in SF for
ten years or more.

The people sleeping on the sidewalk are San Franciscans who have been priced
out of housing. San Francisco is their home. These people aren't going
anywhere just because you take away their tents.

~~~
Kalium
> over 70% -- were living in San Francisco at the time they became homeless

People should be very, very careful with this number. The criterion used to
measure it consider someone who has spent 30+ years in SF to be identical to
someone who got off a bus from Nevada, spent a month in a subsidized SRO, and
is now in a tent.

Which is to say 48hills is playing a little fast and loose with the truth, but
you probably already knew they tend to do that.

~~~
scelerat
This is a quote from the source, the 2015 San Francisco Housing Count Report:

"Seventy-one percent (71%) of respondents reported they were living in San
Francisco at the time they most recently became homeless, an increase from 61%
in 2013. Of those, nearly half (49%) had lived in San Francisco for 10 years
or more. Eleven percent (11%) had lived in San Francisco for less than one
year. "

[http://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/default/files/2015%20San%20Franc...](http://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/default/files/2015%20San%20Francisco%20Homeless%20Count%20%20Report_0.pdf)

So, no it's not "fast and loose," they actually did make a distinction between
short- and long-term residents.

~~~
Kalium
You're absolutely, completely, 100% correct in your statements. The 2015 San
Francisco Homeless Count Report makes _precisely_ that distinction! They do so
because it matters.

Should you choose to check it, you will find that the 48hills page you linked
to does not make any such distinction. In fact, it omits the 49% figure
altogether and states "That means seven out of ten homeless people used to be
your neighbors – before the tech boom and the eviction epidemic".

I think some reasonable people might choose to describe this phrasing as
perhaps potentially slightly misleading.

------
CPLX
To an outsider, San Fransisco's policy towards the homeless seems literally
insane.

Despite the negative frame of the headline, is this obviously a bad idea? It
does mention requiring that people be offered a shelter bed.Or if this is a
horrible/insensitive/bad idea as stated, what's the smart, thoughtful, and
progressive way to change the status quo?

~~~
andlarry
San Francisco spends $241 million[0] of it's $8.9 billion budget[1] on
programs to help the homeless and to help folks avoid becoming homeless
(through housing assistance, etc). The 2015 count of homeless people in San
Francisco is 7,539[2].

This measure doesn't increase spending on the homeless issue but, honestly,
the San Francisco govt has shown the ability to absorb funding increases
without noticeable impact in services. This is especially true of homeless
services.

My impression is that this measure is born of frustration with the
governmental inaction on the homeless problem in SF.

[0] [http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-
record...](http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-
record-241-million-on-homeless-6808319.php) [1]
[http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-budget-increase-
aim...](http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-budget-increase-aimed-at-
homeless-safety-7955697.php) [2]
[http://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/default/files/2015%20San%20Franc...](http://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/default/files/2015%20San%20Francisco%20Homeless%20Count%20%20Report_0.pdf)

~~~
heymijo
From your [0] link.

"Eight city departments oversee at least 400 contracts to 76 private
organizations"

That says a lot about how spending $31,967.10 for every homeless person can
amount to, well, no one seems to know.

I'm curious what happened in New Orleans and the other places referenced that
have seen success helping their homeless populations. Knowing even a little
bit about systems, layering more complexity (and money) on top of a
dysfunctional effort in SF isn't going to meaningfully help.

~~~
andlarry
Yeah, and those private organizations (mostly non-profits) are very effective
at lobbying, so it's hard to terminate contracts to consolidate services.

One thing to clarify is that, because some (~$60 Million in 2015 [3]) goes to
housing assistance. The people helped by the budget includes more than 7,539
represented by the point in time count, so the $31K/person number is a bit
high.

That said, SF spends a lot of money on homeless and the homeless population
hasn't significantly decreased in over a decade.

[3]
[http://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/FileCenter/Documents/56...](http://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/FileCenter/Documents/56163-061316%20Homeless%20Services%20in%20SF_Bud%26LegAnalyst.pdf)
page 6

~~~
heymijo
That's a good clarification on the number of people the funds are going to
help. Thanks.

------
convolvatron
Its already the case that as the camps get larger, the police come in with
city trucks to force everyone out, then they remove the trash and sometimes
seem to steam wash the area.

Removal seems to be roughly based on the proximity of the camp to
retail/residential, and the size of the camp. This has been going on since at
least the 90s, although the camps are larger and more visible in the last few
years.

As a result the homeless kind of blow around, try to find an inconspicuous
spot, and hang on until they are ousted again. I've known several people with
palette and tarp covered homes tucked away in corners in light industrial
areas hang onto a spot for 3 or more years. But usually, a tent on the
sidewalk (or a barely running tan RV) establishes a safe place for more
tents/RVs/vans/etc and the cycle continues.

Once there are a few people living in a spot, the police become regular
visitors because of all the fighting, human waste, theft, etc. Residents
constantly call in complaints hoping to raise the bar enough to get them
removed.

Since the police are already spending a huge amount of time trying to manage
and break down camps, how is this law going to help?

------
DominikR
Something similar was actually tried already in the Soviet Union and in other
Communist/Socialist countries with regards to Gypsies. (it didn't target them
specifically and instead all homeless, but policy makers had this group in
mind)

Laws were implemented that would force them to live in (free) government
assigned apartments and accept government assigned jobs.

This policy failed because you can't force someone to like or accept a
lifestyle they don't want. They just run away at the first opportunity. You
can offer them different opportunities and some might accept it, but as far as
I know this is already being done.

What is funny though about this article is that many of the SF tech
billionaires are themselves immigrants from former Communist countries or
children of these immigrants. Many of their statements seem to indicate that
they believe in technocrat rule and some kind of artificial betterment of
people that can be achieved through education and policy. (which often
translates into propaganda and use of force if you ask me)

It's interesting how values can persist throughout generations, even if you
move to a different continent.

~~~
lucker
I find it more plausible that tech billionaires are just more likely, as a
group, to believe in technocrat rule, etc. than are people who are not tech
billionaires. Being an immigrant from Communist countries or a child of such
immigrants is just as likely or more likely to make one despise top-down
solutions as it is to make one favor them. People with such backgrounds have
direct experience of the sorts of problems that arise from heavy-handed
government involvement in society. Based on what I've seen, I speculate that
financially successful immigrants from Communist countries actually tend, as a
group, to favor hands-off government.

------
M_Grey
Build a mental health infrastructure, reform the prison system, and you'll be
solving more than half of your homeless "problem"... which is mostly an
addiction and mental health problem at its core.

------
autognosis
CTRL+F "Minimum wage" yields no results in either the OP, or the comments.

That tells me that SF is going to have a homelessness problem for loooong
time.

CA has told everyone that they CANNOT work if their time is not worth at least
$21/hour. $15 for minimum wage, and ~$7 for taxes on the business to provide
that employment. Of course you are going to have these problems.

Downvote me if you like. But you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring
reality. if you really cared about these people, you'd abolish the minimum
wage yesterday.

~~~
bm1362
So you're saying that a high minimum wage prevents homeless people from
getting jobs? That opinion seems overly simplistic -- I'm inclined to believe
homelessness isn't a result of the lack of opportunity.

~~~
autognosis
Yes, that is a fact. Minimum wage increases unemployment. Ispso facto.

No job ---> no self-reliance.

Homelessness is only a short leap from that point.

Simple does not imply over simplification.

~~~
rm_-rf_slash
Minimum wages also correlate with higher economic growth, as higher wages mean
more people can buy more stuff, and so more people are employed to sell those
people that stuff.

Also you leave out mental illness and addiction which are impossible-to-ignore
factors when comparing homelessness to impoverishment.

------
kafkaesq
_“I strongly believe that it is not compassionate to allow human beings to
live on our city streets,” wrote the measure’s author, supervisor Mark
Farrell, in an op-ed. “Let’s help get the homeless into housing, not tents.”_

By passing a measure that bans the tents -- but doesn't actually do anything
to help get these people into housing. Or for that matter, any _meaningful_
promise of a safe place to sleep at night (because without funding -- and
that's precisely where the crux of the issue lies, behind this problem -- the
phrase "offer shelter for all tent residents" has precisely zero chance of
seeing a viable implementation).

Now _that 's_ compassionate.

~~~
zlynx
Isn't San Francisco the same city that used made-up housing code to reject all
attempts to build cheap "tiny houses" for the homeless? I seem to recall a
tech multi-millionaire offering to build them FOR FREE and being denied.

You would think that a fully functional tiny house with plumbing and
everything needed for one person would be far better than living on the
street. But nooooo, it has to be full size houses or nothing I guess.

------
allsystemsgo
I was just in San Diego. Homeless people were everywhere. I heard that Vegas
is literally busing homeless people out of Vegas and into San Diego.
Apparently the homeless problem is even worse in San Francisco. That's insane
to me.

~~~
ng12
The difference is SF doesn't have a skid row like like San Diego and LA do. I
lived in SD for years and almost never saw any homeless because I spent most
of my time in the northern parts. The "sketchy" parts of SF where these camps
are (SOMA, TL, parts of the Mission) are only a stones-throw from the hot tech
companies and million dollar condos.

~~~
allsystemsgo
Ah, makes sense. I personally have never been to SF. I have this idealized
vision of what it's like just from knowing that all the major tech firms are
there but, I'm sure that vision is not entirely accurate.

~~~
rm_-rf_slash
I have to say it is rather jarring to see homeless people in SF living in
tents and cardboard boxes on streets lined with skyscrapers and around
pristine parks and plazas.

So while the city does have a ritzy tech feel in the right parts, it is
disconcerting to know that amidst so much concentrated wealth there are a lot
more homeless people than you would expect. Really, a lot.

Unfortunately it's not as if these are all down-on-their-luck folks in between
attempts at The American Dream. A lot of homeless people - in SF and in
general - have mental illnesses and addiction problems and they do need help.

~~~
ng12
There's also the third group -- the guys who hang out around Cesar Chavez and
run a chop shop for stolen bikes in their tent city. Unfortunately they suck
away a lot of the goodwill for the first two groups.

------
xenihn
My hometown is Anaheim, CA. I recently visited to go biking along the Santa
Ana river, and I was shocked at the large numbers of homeless people
throughout the stretch between the Angel Stadium and Santa Ana. Even more
shocking was the fact that most of them seemed to be under 30. Every freeway
overpass had encampments beneath and around it -- at least 30-40 tents total
in the smaller encampments, and 60+ in the larger ones.

The river and the county seat (which also has encampments surrounding it) have
become the only place where homeless encampments are allowed any sort of
permanence, since police departments in cities throughout Southern California
have adopted increasingly aggressive policies towards them. From what I
understand, the river and county seat fall under the County Sheriff's
jurisdiction, so city police can't evict them or seize possessions, and the
Sheriff has realized that there is literally no where else for these people to
go, and is currently allowing them to stay.

This year's ACLU report on homeless in Orange County is interesting:

[https://www.aclusocal.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/10/Nowhere...](https://www.aclusocal.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/10/Nowhere-to-Live-ACLU-SoCal-Report.pdf)

I honestly had no idea how bad things are. I feel horrible about it.

------
Spooky23
Its ridiculous that supposed advocates endorse having people live in sidewalks
as a compassionate policy.

~~~
pyrophane
I think you are missing the point. No one wants the homeless to live on the
sidewalks, but there isn't a better place for them to go right now. Given
that, any proposal removing them from the sidewalks is only going to make
their lives more difficult unless it also provides for a alternative, which
this bill doesn't do.

------
LesZedCB
Meanwhile, unused homes outnumber the homeless 6-1 [1], and in Detroit, they
bulldoze unused homes because it is more profitable to destroy and rebuild
homes that are palatable for 'civilized' people than to let people live in
them.[2]

[1] [http://www.mintpressnews.com/empty-homes-outnumber-the-
homel...](http://www.mintpressnews.com/empty-homes-outnumber-the-
homeless-6-to-1-so-why-not-give-them-homes/207194/)

[2] [http://www.businessinsider.com/the-mayor-of-detroits-
radical...](http://www.businessinsider.com/the-mayor-of-detroits-radical-plan-
to-bulldoze-one-quarter-of-the-city-2010-3)

~~~
sankyo
It is not simply a matter of providing homes. Most of the street people in San
Francisco have serious mental illness and drug addiction problems. They cannot
take care of themselves. Giving those people a home will not solve their
problems.

~~~
woot01
Except it's really hard to provide treatment for those illnesses if you can't
find them regularly, so giving them a home, first, and then bringing services
to that home is the only policy that makes sense. Seems to be working in Utah.

------
cloudjacker
People don't have a coherent idea of what they think of the encampments.

Propose a measure like this and the most empathic of the privileged people
point out how insensitive it is.

Embrace reality and call San Francisco the peninsula's biggest camp ground,
and the same people call it insensitive.

Both statements ignore the security issues and circumstances that many campers
endure so not mutually exclusive of insensitivity, but at a certain point you
are just turning a blind eye in your own special way.

If living in a tent actually is a viable option, then we should stop treating
it like it is the most sensitive topic to even talk about casually.

People should be taking as much censorship pity for all the people that live
in old walkups or luxury apt in liquification zones of SF. A tent would most
likely fair better during an earthquake.

------
Temposs
I want to point out that this measure does not take effect until there is
actual open housing in which to send homeless folks. They cannot be told to
leave otherwise. Since there is no funding for new housing in this measure,
there is some chance the removal measures outlined here will never get to be
used. This means shelter will be guaranteed to anyone who is told to leave.

That said, my political club voted against this measure because the 24 hour
time frame is way too short and does not meet federal standards for managing
homeless population. It takes more time to engage with a homeless person and
negotiate what sort of help would be best for them.

~~~
dpark
> _I want to point out that this measure does not take effect until there is
> actual open housing in which to send homeless folks. They cannot be told to
> leave otherwise._

The text of the measure isn't that specific. [1] It just says that the city
has to offer shelter. In no way does it state that shelter must be actually
available or secured before removing the tent.

The pessimistic interpretation is that the police will be able to tell a tent
dweller that they need to go to a shelter and just give them directions to the
nearest one, and the requirements of the law will be satisfied.

[1]
[https://ballotpedia.org/San_Francisco,_California,_Prohibiti...](https://ballotpedia.org/San_Francisco,_California,_Prohibiting_Tents_on_Public_Sidewalks,_Proposition_Q_\(November_2016\))

------
mattnewton
This looks really bad. Any chance anyone has another side to the story?

~~~
forthefuture
> “I strongly believe that it is not compassionate to allow human beings to
> live on our city streets,” wrote the measure’s author, supervisor Mark
> Farrell, in an op-ed. “Let’s help get the homeless into housing, not tents.”

I guess this would be the other side.

~~~
inetsee
However, the article also points out that the measure doesn't provide any
additional funding to pay for the housing that would be needed.

~~~
aliston
San Francisco spends roughly 35k/year per homeless person. Funding is not the
issue. There are all sorts of issues around mental health, drugs, tolerance in
certain neighborhoods, political corruption, inefficiencies in government etc.
that contribute to the situation we have today. I guarantee you, though, that
if a bunch of homeless people started camping out in Pac Heights, the issue
would get "resolved" pretty quickly.

~~~
balance_factor
> Funding is not the issue. There are all sorts of issues around mental
> health, drugs, tolerance in certain neighborhoods, political corruption,
> inefficiencies in government

Ho-hum. People become homeless because they don't have money. I've worked
alongside more than one tech who has been homeless at some period in their
lives. Some slept in their cars, some slept on park benches. Jim Carrey talks
about how he was homeless as a teenager, what was the "mental health, drugs"
etc. problem he had? He was actually working a full time job as a janitor
after school.

San Francisco is full of white, upper middle class prep school assholes who
have been handed everything their whole lives, who are parasites like Ron
Conman, sucking vampirically off the labor of the young people working at the
various startups. They sit in Atherton with their trophy wives and little
brats and think up ways to fuck over the homeless people in the city. This is
what the czar and his family did in Russia before the Bolsheviks lined those
parasites up against the wall in 1918.

~~~
dpark
Long term homelessness is generally not _just_ a result of lack of money.
Healthy individuals can usually get out of homelessness with a bit of help.
People suffering from severe mental illness or severe substance abuse have a
much more difficult time escaping homelessness because they often have no
support network and no way to rebuild one, and they have difficulty retaining
any sort of employment.

~~~
mancerayder
... and the police are their de facto social workers / case workers.

------
abrkn
Is it currently legal to build makeshift homes on the sidewalk?

------
AndyMcConachie
I'm so glad I left that horrible place called the bay area. These inhumane
rich jerks just don't want to see poor people. What a disgusting culture.

~~~
product50
Oh yeah - what if there is a homeless colony right next to your current house?
Would you say the same thing then?

~~~
odonnellryan
> Oh yeah - what if there is a homeless colony right next to your current
> house? Would you say the same thing then?

So, there is actually one near me. Not next to my house, but near me:
[http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/04/01/shantytown-in-
hoboken...](http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/04/01/shantytown-in-hoboken-
hills-houses-nearly-50-homeless-people/)

Weird, right? This is in Hoboken...extremely (bay-area-levels) rich area.

SF median household income: $65,519.00 Hoboken: $105,710 (population
difference between Hoboken and SF is an order of magnitude, fyi)

Weird stuff. Anyway... it's definitely not "a good feeling" to see homeless
people around. I donate and try to help, but I definitely get a big pang when
asked for some cash for food, and the conversation goes like this:

"I don't have any cash on me, can I buy you something from this pizza place
with my card?"

"No I don't want pizza."

~~~
mancerayder
I live in a similar situation in Brooklyn, in an area ripe for shantytown-
living.

The commenters who are disgusted at the lack of compassion, while on the
morally-correct side of the equation, fail to consider the practical aspects
of streets saturated with homeless people. It's at best 'tolerable', often
'kinda scary' and very often 'downright dangerous'[1]. Seeing this every
morning and every night, in a walking city, is a drag on public safety and,
yes, neighborhood value and progress. Retail and housing suffer when people
have to step over passed-out zombies on their way out of their apartments or
into their stores.

I don't know what the right answer is, but from my observation it seems that
the police and the prisons play the role of the mental health worker and the
shelter. The former is more expensive than the latter, but it's easier.

In the article below, it took several dozen overdoses before the police
finally cleared the homeless off the street. It's not a coincidence that in
New York City, the homeless (and associated social problems like aggressive
panhandling and threatening behavior, as well as sexual assaults) tend to hang
out not too far from their shelters. The location being referenced below is
near several shelters (in a neighborhood that has a huge percentage of all the
shelters of the city).

1 [http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/NYC-K2-Synthetic-
Mariju...](http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/NYC-K2-Synthetic-Marijuana-
Drug-Use-Brooklyn-Intersection-Epidemic-384801001.html)

~~~
fatbird
The answer is engagement. Vancouver's safe injection site has an amazing
record of 1) reducing the transmission of expensive diseases like HIV and Hep,
2) reducing crime (the Vancouver police are 100% behind the site), and getting
users into rehab and having them be clean a year later. Basically, it's a
public policy win all around--it more than pays for itself in reduced health
care and police spending.

------
Grishnakh
I have an idea: they should pass a law which forbids homeless people from
setting up tents anyplace except certain zones. Those zones will be located in
and around the very wealthiest neighborhoods in SF. Any violators will be
simply moved to these locations. No funding is even necessary, only the
designation of various places (like parks) in the wealthy neighborhoods as OK
for homeless people to set up tents and camps.

I predict this would solve the homelessness problem in SF pretty quickly.

------
bertiewhykovich
God damn these people.

Regulations are pointless bullshit -- unless, of course, there are homeless
people dirtying up your view.

------
banusaur
Fuck the poor!

