
Despite money and effort, homelessness in SF as bad as ever - rafaelc
http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Despite-money-and-work-homelessness-in-SF-as-bad-11242946.php
======
davidf18
The high cost of housing and commercial real estate in SF, NYC, Boston, DC,
LA, London, ....all have the same underlying cause which was fixed in Japan by
the Japanese federal government.

It is a market inefficiency caused by zoning density restrictions and overuse
of historic landmark status which creates a politically induced artificial
scarcity in housing (scarcity = rising prices). These "rent-seeking"
restrictions are a regressive tax transferring income from renters to wealthy
landlords including Donald Trump. It is wrong, and Japan has fixed the problem
removing zoning density restrictions at the local level. The result, in 2014
there were 140,000 homes built in Tokyo compared with about 90,000 for all of
California and 20,000 in NYC.

Economist David Ricardo wrote about this phenomenon of "rent-seeking" about
200 years ago related to the Corn Laws. Corn Laws taxed the import of all
grains which benefited not farmers but landowners. Ricardo joined Parliament
and managed to overturn the "rent-seeking" law.

The solution is a federal law in the US following the example of Japan.

~~~
rsj_hn
I understand the desire to convert a discussion of homelessness to a
discussion of high house prices, but homelessness is not caused by high house
prices. 99% percent of the population cannot afford to buy a house in
Manhattan. That doesn't mean that they are living on the streets there. They
move to where they can afford to live, and the U.S. has many areas where
housing is quite cheap. If you are able to maintain a steady income, then you
can also maintain housing. But if you are not able to maintain a steady
income, then there is no price at which you can afford to buy a house. Even if
free, you would not be able to pay property taxes, maintenance, or utilities.
San Francisco has a high homelessness problem because of the mild climate,
large amounts of city services, and the liberal attitude.

The homeless people here expect and receive a steady income from people on the
street as well city services. I remember the first time I was in San Francisco
and someone came up to me and demanded money for food. He said "I don't eat
meat!". I was stunned, both at a stranger coming up to me and asking for money
and also about why they can be so picky about their diet. I gave him $1. He
looked at me like I insulted him and said "Salads cost more than meat". The
homeless in San Francisco are really quite aggressive in comparison to other
cities, and just like the rest of my fellow San Franciscans, there is a strong
feeling of entitlement. There is just no price at which the number of homeless
will decrease -- only when we start paying the homeless to live in houses will
that happen.

The only thing I can think of is fully funded group homes that are mandatory
to live in -- basically prisons with nice amenities and educational programs
that you can graduate out of based on demonstrating a track record of being
able to provide for yourself. Because as long as we give people the option of
living on the street, there is a certain small subset of the population that
will prefer to do that over the other options available to them, and San
Francisco will be home to an outsized share of that population.

~~~
Mz
_but homelessness is not caused by high house prices._

I have had an actual college class on homelessness and public policy. There is
no single cause of homelessness, but sky high housing costs definitely
contribute to homelessness. There has been a serious and growing lack of
affordable housing in the U.S. going back decades, about 80% of SROs were torn
down in the 60s and 70s at a time when they weren't really needed for
demographic reasons but they were never replaced, and average housing size has
more than doubled while average number of occupants has dropped. Meanwhile,
homelessness has been on the rise nationwide for years.

No, high housing costs do not single handedly and directly cause homelessness.
But that's because there is no single cause of homelessness. But high housing
costs are absolutely a contributing factor.

Your dystopian solution of basically imprisoning the poor is outlandish.

~~~
rsj_hn
It's nice that you've took an actual college class on homelessness. I've
logged about 10 years in volunteering for programs to feed the homeless, and
have shared my home with homeless people for almost 7 years (until I stopped).
I've talked to many, many homeless people and every single one of them could
have stayed in a shelter but chose not to because of the restrictions on
personal freedom. Every single one had some sort of serious mental issue,
often compounded by physical disabilities, and was simply unable to care for
themselves. Every single one had serious attitude problems to where they
basically gave up on trying to make it in this society.

Here, I am talking about the chronic homeless, which are the root of the
problem. Not families that may need to sleep in the car because they are in
between housing or people crashing on couches while they straighten themselves
out. I mean people with tents.

The one person I knew the longest was basically camping out around Palo Alto.
The reason why you don't see so many homeless in the suburbs is because the
Police are fairly effective at driving them out with beatdowns and destroying
their property. This is the reality of not forcing them into group living
situations -- let them live on the streets creating a lot of quality of life
issues or have an unspoken policy of police brutality. So I would say that
what we have now is dystopian.

The last homeless man I let live with me I ended up asking to leave, because
he was unable to keep steady work. I just asked him to do something, anything
-- it didn't have to be full time -- and he could keep the money himself. But
he was able bodied and needed to work. I drove him to his job. At the end of
the day, he was pretty blunt in telling me that at his age -- he was in his
50s -- he couldn't stand doing menial work and being ordered around by some
kid. For him, it was either a high paying job or camping out. So I finally
asked him to leave and he's been camping out (assuming he's still alive at
this point -- it's been a while).

I think it's cute you took a college class and now understand the issue. But
housing costs have nothing to do it. You can today find a place to live in the
U.S. for a few hundred a month. No, not in San Francisco or Manhattan or
Monaco, but most of the country is incredibly cheap.

Look at rent prices in the middle of the country. For example, in Phoenix,
real rental costs have not increased for 30 years. They've been basically
flat. But in Phoenix, the homeless don't have the same access to city services
as in San Francisco, or NYC.

~~~
nickthemagicman
It's true. Homeless people have no money. The difference between 200 and 2000
a month doesn't matter, they can't afford either.

~~~
Mz
This is not true. Some homeless people have no money. Others have a social
security check and nothing else or a military retirement check and nothing
else. Some even have jobs. For people like me, if we could find a decent (not
hell hole) place for $200, that would absolutely get us off the street.

I could afford about $400 a month in the near future. I am trying to find a
way to get off the street now that my student loan is paid off and that frees
up enough money where I could afford that much for shelter in the near future.

~~~
nickthemagicman
Not trying to be critical or anything just curious. Why not get like a Van
with a 300 dollar note? At least you have shelter and can park near city
services.

~~~
Mz
I'm sure you mean well, but one-off comments from internet strangers are not
going to solve my problems. I am solving them. It is just much slower than I
would like. I did not comment on my situation in order to solicit advice. I
did so in order to make it clear what the basis of my opinions are.

~~~
nickthemagicman
No man I hear you about the homeless who have potential like yourself.
Homelessness is a huge trap. I mean I feel like simply providing showers and
some sort of basic amenities to help the homeless who are trying to work their
way out of it would help enourmously.

But these homeless programs that just keep the homeless subsisting are better
than nothing but sill aren't helping the ones who could escape.

~~~
Mz
I only went to homeless services when I was truly destitute for basically the
first six months. If I can find another solution, I do. Most homeless services
are incredibly crappy and often counterproductive.

~~~
nickthemagicman
I'm with you. I've been homeless before. I would never use a shelter. But if
there had been free showers I would have used them lol. I had to use the
shower bus riding around SF. Also, if there had been free toothpaste and soap
that would have been nice.

~~~
Mz
Sorry, I mistook your original query. It was amongst a bunch of such comments
and some seemed to not be getting made in good faith.

The super short version is that I don't want to live in a van because I no
longer drive due to my medical condition. There are other factors, but that's
a big one.

------
narrator
I interviewed a few homeless for a project for this social justice class I
took as an undergrad requirement. Bought em' a meal and asked them to tell me
their life stories.

Yes there was drinking, drugs and mental health issues, but there was also
this sort of resignation where once they'd got used to sleeping and defecating
in the street and they knew where they could get food and maybe some cheap
liquor they kind of stopped caring about improving their lives. They didn't
want to move into a shelter with dangerous people who would steal their meager
posessions or attack them. They had basically accepted they had failed at life
and had come to terms with an existence of scraping along the bottom of city
existence.

I think the main thing that attracts them to San Francisco is the nice
climate, progressive politics that doesn't persecute them and that they can
walk to services, walk to begging spots, walk to the liquor store, and walk to
where they sleep. Notice how there are no homeless up at the top of hills in
S.F?

~~~
matt_wulfeck
> _They had basically accepted they had failed at life and had come to terms
> with an existence of scraping along the bottom of city existence._

At that point they have a job, it's working at being homeless full time.

~~~
klenwell
Reminds me of one of my favorite short stories:

 _I’ve been homeless for six years now. If there’s such a thing as an
effective homeless man, then I suppose I’m effective. Being homeless is
probably the only thing I’ve ever been good at. I know where to get the best
free food. I’ve made friends with restaurant and convenience-store managers
who let me use their bathrooms. And I don’t mean the public bathrooms, either.
I mean the employees’ bathrooms, the clean ones hidden behind the kitchen or
the pantry or the cooler. I know it sounds strange to be proud of this, but it
means a lot to me, being trustworthy enough to piss in somebody else’s clean
bathroom. Maybe you don’t understand the value of a clean bathroom, but I do._

[http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/04/21/what-you-
pawn-i...](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/04/21/what-you-pawn-i-will-
redeem)

------
ThrustVectoring
A huge, unmentioned part of the problem is that SF has settled on housing
policies that makes low-end housing unavailable or unaffordable. The people
who can only afford to live in a single-room occupancy aren't going to
magically disappear when you restrict the number of SROs available. They're
going to go onto the street.

Yes, it's bad that someone can only afford a 60 square foot room to live in.
The solution isn't to make it illegal to let out a 60 square foot room to
them, or to force market-rate housing to subsidize a few lucky winners.

~~~
dsl
The policies that would solve the supply/demand problem are things people
don't want. The cities aren't priding themselves on unaffordable housing, it's
the NIMBYs that are the problem.

A 10 story building blocking MY view? No way!

You want to add 1,500 more cars to the street in front of my house? But my
children play in the front yard!

We can't tax or deny foreign ownership of property! That unfairly targets
immigrant entrepreneurs!

(I'm not saying these arguments aren't valid in some peoples minds, but they
are the root of the problem)

~~~
pmoriarty
_" A 10 story building blocking MY view? No way!"_

There are quite a few skyscrapers in SF, actually. A new huge one was built
for Salesforce recently. Building affordable housing isn't a priority, though,
apparently.

~~~
5thaccount
> Building affordable housing isn't a priority,

But why should it be? Why is creating low cost housing in the bay area better
than spending that money in, say, Sacramento? What are the individual,
societal and area benefits of doing it on the bay area vs anywhere else in the
state of California?

I am being contrarian to be sure, Full disclosure: Australian with no dog in
this fight.

So I ask because Tyler Cowan ([https://medium.com/conversations-with-
tyler/patrick-collison...](https://medium.com/conversations-with-
tyler/patrick-collison-stripe-podcast-tyler-cowen-books-3e43cfe42d10)) made
the point that the Bay Area makes a lot of great global goods, and loosening
housing regulation is effectively a tax on the current, extremely productive
people that live in the Bay Area.

Given that these people pay taxes in California, why not find somewhere else
to house less well to-do people? Somewhere less expensive, less productive and
less likely to be problematic for the residents, would seem ideal.

$1,000,000 in SF buys sweet FA, but that would 3 median priced houses in
Sacramento, and it is less than 100 miles away.

So I just wonder what the correct level is to do these things at: country,
State, City, Suburb or street? I just think there are only so many dollars,
why is the argument about where they are spent, rather than how effectively?

~~~
nix0n
> loosening housing regulation is effectively a tax on the current, extremely
> productive people that live in the Bay Area

No, it's a tax on the landlords. How many producers of value are homeowners
and not renters? (At least one person on HN, but I mean proportionally.)

~~~
muninn_
Figure out a way of discouraging renters and landlords then. Disallow people
from renting homes out or something.

------
ProfessorLayton
I can't help but wonder if 275M would be better spent by the city if they
created a facility somewhere - anywhere - that is cheaper than the SF Bay.

I'm not saying ship the poor away and make them someone else's problem. I mean
caring for people in a more cost-effective manner, and in a way that isn't
just treating the symptoms.

There are 6,686 homeless people in SF [1]. With a budget in the hundreds of
millions, it is conceivable that all of these people can be housed and treated
in an inland community in perpetuity. Many homeless suffer from mental
disorders that require treatment, not just housing and food.

[1][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)

~~~
dragonwriter
> I can't help but wonder if 275M would be better spent by the city if they
> created a facility somewhere - anywhere - that is cheaper than the SF Bay.

Probably not.

> I'm not saying ship the poor away and make them someone else's problem.

But you are saying “ship the poor away”. Which is problematic, historically,
to implement even _locally_ , which is why much of that money is spent
reaching then in the community.

> I mean caring for people in a more cost-effective manner, and in a way that
> isn't just treating the symptoms.

If you want to treat more than symptoms of poverty, you need to restructure
the economy and society, not move the victims.

> There are 6,686 homeless people in SF [1]. With a budget in the hundreds of
> millions, it is conceivable that all of these people can be housed and
> treated in an inland community in perpetuity.

The number (and, even moreso, the identity of the individuals that are
homeless) isn't static. Though forced relocation without any clear plan for
improving the ability of people to escape homelessness will probably make the
condition stickier.

~~~
ProfessorLayton
I'll concede that it does indeed sound like "shipping the poor away".
Historically, it meant making it someone else's problem (1-way ticket to SF)
which I agree is indeed problematic, and is not what I'm advocating for.

I _do_ want to treat more than just the symptoms, but I don't think handwaving
for socioeconomic restructures is a realistic way get anything done. I'm
advocating for a way to make the ~30K/person go farther by not being in one of
the most expensive areas of the country.

Many of these people need long term mental healthcare, and is the main reason
they are homeless. Our current system is not well suited at helping people
with mental disorders.

Perhaps I'm ill-informed and I don't pretend to have the answer, but evidenced
by the fact that homelessness is a growing problem despite throwing more and
more money at it. I do think we need to try another approach.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Historically, it meant making it someone else's problem (1-way ticket to SF)
> which I agree is indeed problematic

No, even local relocation (like forcing people into shelters for services) has
been problematic historically.

> Many of these people need long term mental healthcare, and is the main
> reason they are homeless.

Yes, a minority do, and institutionalization (which, generally, might as well
be outside of SF) may help a fraction of that minority.

Forced dislocation would also probably _aggravate_ mental health problems for
some others in (and out) of that that minority.

> Our current system is not well suited at helping people with mental
> disorders.

Sure, but “ship people elsewhere”, even if the responsibility doesn't shift,
isn't a solution to that.

~~~
ProfessorLayton
A cursory google search reveals that 1 in 4 of those in homeless shelters have
a severe mental disorder. Nearly 1 in 2 have severe mental disorders _and_
substance abuse problems.

These numbers do not paint a small minority that could benefit from
institutionalization or other forms or long-term care, and our current system
is poorly setup to handle these issues.

~~~
dragonwriter
> A cursory google search reveals that 1 in 4 of those in homeless shelters
> have a severe mental disorder.

The number I'm familiar with is 35%, but either is a minority.

> These numbers do not paint a small minority

Which is probably why I never qualified “minority” with “small”.

~~~
ProfessorLayton
I got my numbers from here:

[https://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Mental-Health-By-the-
Numbers](https://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Mental-Health-By-the-Numbers)

> ...may help a fraction of that minority. > Which is probably why I never
> qualified “minority” with “small”.

I believe we're now arguing about semantics, so lets agree to disagree.

------
cjlars
One success story in homelessness has been Utah's Housing First program [1].
Is there any effort to do something similar here?

At first glance it appears very affordable. Rents in the city center appear to
be about $5 per square foot per month judging from a quick perusal of
craigslist listings. So to give all 7500 homeless in the city a 100 sq foot
efficiency would have plausible annual expenses of about $45 million -- a
small fraction of the $300M plus mentioned in the parent article. Obviously
there are many problematic details, such as there are almost no appropriate
apartments currently available, but ultra-small units do exist [2] and seem to
be a favorable alternative to sleeping on the street.

[1] [http://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-
chronic...](http://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-chronic-
homelessness-by-91-percent-heres-how) [2]
[http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/truly-tiny-4-apartments-
unde...](http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/truly-tiny-4-apartments-
under-100-square-feet-213282)

~~~
trangi
Real estate prices (buying) in the city range from $400 to $1000 a sq ft.
That's probably a better estimate, as you'd have to create new spaces. Taking
the average of that range, you get $700 * 100 * 7500 = $525M.

I'm all for just setting the more salvageable homeless up in a 900 sq ft
condo, and subsidizing it for them (i.e. free), then let them sell it in 3+
years. They can pay back the subsidies, and take the equity and move
elsewhere. There would be other requirements as well (attending substance
abuse programs, staying out of jail, etc)

~~~
cjlars
You're calculating the cash flow of an all-cash financing scenario, but not
the real cost. Since the buildings are durable you need to amortize their
benefit over the life of the structures. Using the standard depreciation
schedule on the $525M gives only $18M per year + maintenance & tax -- close to
the figure derived from rents.

------
perfectstorm
I started getting off at Powell station and I can attest to this article. I've
commuted to NYC stations for over 4yrs and even though i've seen my share of
homelessness inside the NYC subway stations, it's nowhere as bad as SF BART
station (Powell).

Every day I see some weird stuff going on (it's at a point where it's no
longer weird to me).

~~~
cassieramen
I moved to SF from New York a couple years ago. A huge difference in the
homeless populations for me has been the aggressiveness of the SF homeless. I
can't recall a single time in New York where a homeless person got in my face
or yelled at me or anything of the like. Since being here I've had a full cup
of (hopefully) soda thrown on me and been yelled at from a 3ft range multiple
times. It's a surreal experience. I'm not sure what led to cultural
difference.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
What would happen if you threw a cup of soda on someone in NYC or Boston,
Trenton or Baltimore? I think you'd learn very quickly not to do that.
Cultivating a culture where that sort of response by the person on which soda
is thrown is frowned upon certainly doesn't help.

~~~
ryanjodonnell
A homeless woman spit on me in SOMA a few months ago for no apparent reason.
Just walked up to me squawking like a bird and spit on me. Probably was on
something.

My immediate reaction was to jump out of my chair and aggressively move
towards her - I'm actually not sure what I would've done next because it all
happened so quickly. Probably shoved her? That seems like a legitimate
response to someone walking up and spitting on you. Thankfully I was with a
few friends and they restrained me before I could do anything and the woman
ran away unscathed.

The entire experience left me so confused. I am legitimately concerned that if
I had shoved her I would've been considered the 'bad guy' here be the absurd
SF hyper liberals and could've ended up in jail been fired if my employer
found out.

What are you supposed to do in this situation? There needs to be some sort of
disincentive to this behavior but it seems like the way things are in SF it's
actually socially acceptable behavior.

~~~
istorical
I guess NYC and SF have more in common than we realized.

We have our own spitting lady: [http://nypost.com/2017/04/24/notorious-
spitting-lady-loses-i...](http://nypost.com/2017/04/24/notorious-spitting-
lady-loses-it-in-court/)

------
prewett
I think it was Deming who said "your system is set up perfectly to produce the
results you are getting." SF has:

\- a mild climate (attractive if you don't have shelter)

\- our society has no place for mentally ill. They may not ever be able to
live life by themselves.

\- a $250 million of subsidies for being homeless, apparently

\- a culture of spending money on the symptoms rather than solving the
problem. For instance, a number of comments here suggest paying for them to
live in a house/apartment somewhere. Now you're stuck paying their rent
forever, because the underlying problem of they aren't making enough money to
live is still there. Plus, if I'm homeless, now SF looks like a good place to
move, because they'll pay for my apartment!

\- a culture of permissiveness. Why do homeless people get to act with
different standards? If a "homed" person defecated on their neighbor's
sidewalk they would call the police, but it's okay for the homeless to do it?
If a "homed" person throws liquids at you, it's probably grounds for charging
them with assault. But it's okay for homeless people?

\- persistent lack of housing, which means that some people who might not be
homeless can't afford housing. Combined with the above, there isn't much
incentive to move to a place they could afford.

I think the attitude of entitlement by some of the homeless (see rsj_hn's
comment, for instance) suggests that SF's structure is enabling homelessness,
rather than caring for the homeless.

------
dmode
I have come to the realization that SF's homeless problems cannot be solved.
It is simply because this is probably the only city in America that is willing
to not unleash the police on homeless population and tries to take care of
them. After all they are citizens of this country as well. In my suburban city
in the Bay Area, homeless people are not tolerated in any of the
neighborhoods. In a way I applaud that SF is doing something to help poor and
mentally ill folks, but the price is degradation of quality of life for
everyone else.

~~~
corysama
I see SF cops interacting with the homeless regularly. And, what I've
personally seen has been overwhelmingly positive. I see friendly conversations
on street corners. I see cops checking up on people who in especially bad
shape. Lately, I've several times seen cops driving by sidewalk-sitters where
both yell back and forth to each other. It looks angry if you don't pay close
attention. All parties are smiling.

~~~
jshevek
This is absolutely wonderful to hear. Constant harrasment by angry police
officers (as I've seen in other locales) can be very damaging to the psyche if
those who already have so much to deal with.

------
jakelarkin
I've seen estimates that it costs up to $80k/year in the Bay Area to give a
homeless person housing and treat their underlying mental illness, substance
addiction and other health issues. So for 8,000 homeless we're taking about
$700million per year liability. You can't solve homelessness in the Bay Area
by throwing money at the problem. The underlying issue is the cost of housing,
health care and law enforcement or how those things are applied - all are deep
political issues.

My own running list of root problems that underly the homeless epidemic in
California:

\- zoning. we have technology to build inexpensive micro-apartments, theres
just no cost-effective way to gain approval for tens thousands of them
convenient to health care facilities and economic opportunities.

\- building codes. to build cheap micro-apartments, they need to be
prefabricated. building codes enforce customized busy work for individual
plumbers, electricians, inspectors and other contractors on each installation.
The systems resists pre-fabrication which would be safer and much cheaper
overall.

\- local attitudes about state power. police use of force. crimes of poverty
aren't often prosecuted. City attorneys/prosecutors are highly disincentivized
to tackle quality of life crimes. cost of jury trials.

\- high cost and poor state of prisons

\- lack of police headcount, expense of police salaries/benefits.

\- high cost of health care & related labor. regulatory capture by licensed
professionals, hospital companies, drug/equipment companies. cost of
healthcare liability insurance.

\- lack of regional coordination between low-cost and high-cost areas within
the state

\- lack of state-wide mental health and drug abuse treatment policy

\- lack of money for preventative care and early intervention for new homeless
- don't tackle problems till its far too late and more costly / impossible to
fix

------
godot
I hold what could be an unpopular opinion and what some might call irrelevant,
but I think a big factor here is tech. To preface what I'm about to state, I
work in tech myself and I know many of you are, and I'm not blaming tech from
an outsider point of view.

There is a disproportionate amount of companies starting or moving into SF
over even just the past 5 years. Before, if you're starting a tech company, it
could be equally common to start it in the peninsula (maybe even more so), say
Palo Alto or Mountain View and the like. Nowadays, the default choice is SF
and that's majority of the cases by far.

I think collectively, the whole environment is pushing towards building SF
into the New York of the west, except instead of banks and the financial
industry filling up the town, it's tech companies. I'm not saying it's the
agenda of anyone in specific (in government or otherwise) to build out SF that
way, I'm saying it's what we're all collectively doing, whether intentional
for some of us or simply riding the waves for others.

SF is a city that used to support many industries. Tech is obviously the one
industry that is almost the top earner overall (or might even be the absolute
top earner by industry). It seems like an obvious factor (and a big one)
that's driving anyone not in tech away. In some cases, at the lowest end of
the income spectrum, they might not have anywhere to be driven away to other
than to the streets. Another anecdotal point is that recent popular article
about how <$105k is considered low income in SF.

If this is indeed a factor, one of the things we collectively as part of the
tech industry can do, is to intentionally spread ourselves away from SF, into
other areas of the bay area. I get it that people want to live in the bay area
for its climate and all the conveniences. There's no reason why there can't be
tech companies HQ'ing in East Bay, for example. (and I'm not talking about
just Oakland, but everywhere from San Leandro down to Fremont, or further east
like Pleaston, Livermore, Walnut Creek, etc.)

~~~
sgslo
I want to voice an opinion that I've held in secret, I'm curious if you think
that this is completely overboard...(downvotes are appropriate here, people).

While a lot of these startups might be useless Tinder clones or Uber for X,
there are also startups that quite literally change the world ~for the better~
in objective ways. Don't we have a moral imperative to cater to these
companies at the expense of all else? Isn't it better for the long term to
ensure they have all the resources available?

Yes, some of the startups are scum money grabs, but for every cancer
researching, ag developing, energy innovation startup shouldn't we extend them
every benefit possible?

~~~
Mz
I'm homeless. I have been for 5.5 years. I am author of the blogs "What helps
the homeless" and "San Diego homeless survival guide."

I have a bunch of blogs because of the free service BlogSpot. I have an earned
income because of an online writing service. I have social contact and an
intellectual outlet because of free forums, like Hacker News. I do most of my
banking online. I am paying down debt and my earned income is gradually going
up.

I could really use more traffic for my websites, more customers for my resume
editing service and access to decent basic housing that doesn't cost an insane
amount. If I could find a simple 2 bedroom place for about $400/month, I could
get off the street in the very near future. I can't seem to find that. I am in
the Central Valley, not SF and I am willing to potentially move to another
state, though not just ANY state. I am still finding it incredibly hard to
locate a potential viable housing solution for me.

While I agree that some things add more value to the world than others, there
aren't really any clear cut boundaries. Some of the people on the street are,
for example, cancer survivors who are broke in part because they got treatment
that saved their life (so far) but it cost a helluva lot. We really need a few
more basic things solved, like universal access to basic healthcare. More
cancer solutions can potentially just put more people on the street. It
doesn't necessarily fix this problem.

Homelessness isn't a simple problem space to solve. There is no one thing that
causes it. Some things that would help enormously:

More affordable housing, which has been in short supply for decades and
getting worse.

More middle class employment options. These seem to be going the way of the
dinosaur.

Single payer health care system to provide universal coverage.

~~~
ameister14
Why are you unwilling to move to certain states? I know that in kentucky, for
example, you could find a 2 bedroom for 400 a month fairly easily- I know that
because I lived there.

~~~
Mz
I have serious health problems that are significantly impacted by things like
climate and local vegetation. It is vastly cheaper and more cost effective for
me to not be deathly ill. Most homeless people have challenging personal
problems of that sort. It is a significant contributing factor to homelessness
and it doesn't help when people act like we are just being unreasonable or
something.

~~~
erubin
I'm not sure of the specifics and it may not be very easy to get there, but I
know Hawaii has a single payer system and a similar climate. It might be
something to look into.

~~~
Mz
Hawaii is very expensive. It would require airfare to get there. Volcanos emit
sulfur, to which I am allergic, and other fumes, which are contraindicated for
my respiratory condition.

I am looking basically at West Coast states and other Western states. Nevada
and Idaho are two I am looking at very closely at the moment. I am inclined to
simply leave California for various reasons, but I also am looking at the
possibility of finding something here.

But thank you for your concern.

------
anovikov
That sounds so obvious - these funds have to be used to deter people from
becoming homeless or squeeze them out of city if they became so - but they
seem to be used to make life of bums more comfortable, obviously you have more
and more of them.

I guess experience of Belarus in eliminating bums should serve as example.
There are no bums in Belarus. Why? You aren't supposed to ask, they won't tell
you. People are happy, and the government is doing its job. Everyone knows
that wandering in the street dressed and smelling like a bum is a bad idea and
won't last for long.

~~~
bjl
> There are no bums in Belarus. Why? You aren't supposed to ask, they won't
> tell you.

It sounds like you're advocating for killing homeless people.

~~~
pound
Of course there are no killings. Mostly they were moved to small/half
abandoned villages out of sight.

When society on all levels is really not-welcoming to homeless that may force
some people to try much harder not to end-up as bum on the streets.

~~~
bjl
> Mostly they were moved to small/half abandoned villages out of sight.

That's not a whole lot better.

~~~
anovikov
They are supposed to be sent to forced labor to chemical plants and other
harmful conditions work (Belarus also has a lot of work to do on contaminated
Chernobyl lands, so maybe there as well).

Thing is, bumming is a _crime_. As far as i know, it is a felony in just about
every country. It is just that cops are closing their eyes on this crime so
frequently that most people even forgot that it was against the law.

~~~
pound
It is not a crime on its own, unless you live in opressive country. Against
the law should be actions making it not safe for others

------
treeseat
This is _nuts_. $275M and no results? Seriously? The city really needs to
rethink this.

The homeless in SF are disgusting. Why does the city dump so much money into
them? Is it really worth the amount spent per person? Why not spend that money
on improving public schools, the efficiency of public transit, and things that
useful members of the society would actually benefit from?

~~~
pvnick
> The homeless in SF are disgusting.

Why don't you tell us how you really feel?

------
pessimizer
I wonder what the editorial reasoning is behind publishing a story spurred by
a recent homeless count, and omitting the number of homeless counted.

Instead, we get numbers about how expensive programs are, how many needles
have been cleaned up, and how many complaints made about the homeless on a
neighborhood by neighborhood basis with a map, with a special highlight of
human excrement complaints.

If I were cynical, I'd say that this is an anti-homeless piece with the
summary: "Our spending is going up 10% a year, and homelessness is barely
going down (take our word for it.)"

My cynical take on why the number of homeless was omitted: it's 7,499.
$275MM/7,499 = $36,700 for each homeless person. This is obviously more than
enough to house every homeless person directly, but the money is being drained
away by subcontractors and salaries. Instead, the paper is implying that more
money isn't the answer, policing is (notably not implying that spending be
reduced, either.) Shifting emphasis to more policing of the poor will create a
material benefit for the people who've decided to live in a gated community
but forgot to put up a gate, while maintaining spending will keep up the flow
of money that is going to a network of graft that results in little material
gain for the supposed object of that spending.

~~~
gozur88
San Francisco took this thinking to its logical conclusion years ago. "We're
spending tens of thousands on services for homeless people. Why don't we just
give them the money and let them buy what they need?"

So the city got rid of the "subcontractors" and started handing out cash. The
homeless people (as a group - I'm sure there were exceptions) pretty much
treated the assistance as extra money for booze and drugs. Also, you can
imagine what happened when homeless people living in _other_ cities learned
about cash benefits.

Gavin Newsom rose to prominence by changing the system _back_ to what it had
been before cash assistance. So we're back to having bureaucrats administering
services, because it turns out a whole lot of homeless people are homeless for
reasons that go beyond bad luck.

------
redm
I used to live in SF near a camp at 10th and mission. I saw the homeless
daily; it's very sad to see and people just walk around them. I moved out of
SF because it is so damn expensive and I didn't have to be there.

$275 million is a lot of money. Instead of trying to help the homeless survive
in SF, why not help them relocate somewhere more affordable. There's lots of
space in the country and almost all of them are cheaper than SF. 275 million
goes a very long way to help people resettle and their quality of life would
surely go up.

Disclosure: To be clear, I did just what I'm suggesting: I relocated due to
the high cost to somewhere more affordable for me. I've met many others over
the years that have as well.

~~~
xienze
Giving the homeless a one-way ticket to the city of their choice is a very
effective homeless removal strategy that a lot of cities employ. Guess where a
lot of homeless people choose to go. SF would literally be paying to ship the
Horne less away to a city that will simply ship them back.

------
com2kid
Looking online, it seems like there are around 7000 homeless in SF. 300
million is over 42k per person per year.

Housing is certainly the problem. If there was a glut of housing, the city
could just hand out 30k per person, save a lot of money, and the homeless
could just rent a place. With the remainder of the money, people could get
back on their feet. Give people back hope.

~~~
throwaway54654
>city could just hand out 30k per person, save a lot of money, and the
homeless could just rent a place.

Have you ever tried heroin?

~~~
tkxxx7
i'm sure it's easier to get off heroin when you're already off the streets

------
randyrand
Want to solve 90% of homelessness?

Fund an infinite supply of government make-work jobs with included housing,
legal drugs, and okay pay.

Model the make-work towns off of coal towns of old. On cheap land so housing
is cheap.

Have a minimum age of 30 to prevent kids/teens/young adults from moving to
these towns and being employed at these subsidized (read: un-profitable for
the government) jobs.

~~~
zanny
I'm sure that more than 10% of the homeless are under 30. Some random stats I
looked up on google - 650k recorded homeless in a study in 2014, 130k were
children, and another study says the mode age ranges from 21-23.

It isn't just people who fall through the cracks when they lose their jobs,
its also those who never could get a start to begin with.

~~~
randyrand
Make the minimum age 25 then. A minimum age may not even be necessary, but we
should have some incentive to not be in these make-work towns. But we don't
want the incentive too high that the homeless don't want to go to them.

The promise of these towns for the homeless should be legal drugs, guaranteed
income, and something to do.

------
hcwctw
Having a property or house should be our natural birthright, period. Once you
die this property or house should be released and made available in a system
where you can move to another/better place when it's available.

But, as it is now you don't even get a square inch. Everything is owned by
government, landlords, businesses etc.. The result is that once a man starts
to earn a little money, it all flows back to the owners. Earning enough to buy
and really own a property yourself is only for the lucky few. Even after 20 or
30 years of hard work you can end up in the streets if you lose your job. And
if you are unlucky enough having a (mental) illness, your chance to succeed is
near zero.

Homeless are a product of the system we live in. And the best way to describe
this system is a pyramid game. In the end there will be a few owning (and
controlling) almost everything. It is sad to see that democracy totally fails
to address this problem.. Maybe even more sad is that most children are not
properly educated, especially when it comes to the system we live in and
homelessness. I learned in primary school that homeless people are just lazy,
and being on the streets was their own punishment.

It would be a miracle if a new generation really understands the problem and
can solve it politically by changing the system we live in.

~~~
toomanybeersies
How does that work for people who don't live in the same place all their life?

Do you release your property and get given property in a new city when you
move?

~~~
hcwctw
The system I propose does not exist yet and needs to be designed properly,
just as we design a software system. It should of course be flexible enough to
allow for people moving to another place.

As the situation with property and ownership is now, it is random chaos. Even
a rudimentary design has never been made. A financially successful billionaire
(who says not by criminal act) can buy and own thousands of houses forever,
and the income from that will grow tremendously, which allows him/her/progeny
to buy even more property. This is just insane, how can this ever scale for
the benefit of all people considering the greed we all have built in?

------
notadoc
SF, Seattle, Portland... What is it with the trendy west coast cities in
particular that struggle with vast homelessness?

The cost of housing and living in the west coast states has increased
astronomically over the years and continues to do so, is it that simple?

~~~
ocschwar
See the reasons listed in the other responses. Another one, which used to be
much more significant, is the dark side of the west coast culture's radical
acceptance ethic.

Port cities were all about radical acceptance once upon a time, because they
needed laborers. It didn't matter who you were or what you did: if you could
carry goods off a ship, you had a place as a dock worker. And if you couldn't,
you could still cook or launder for dock workers. So radical accpetance
predates the 60's, though it became more of a thing afterwards.

Well, it's nice to know you have a city to go to if your home town cannot
accept you. If you're gay, or bookish, or artsy, et cetera.

But if what the people around you are not accepting is the erratic behavior
that your incipient schizophrenia is getting you to engage in (or the lack of
acceptance is actually a delusion induced by it, and your family does still
accept you), and you've heard of San Francisco, well, you go there. You cut
off ties to your home. And then the schizophrenia kicks in full blast.

A nice thing about social media is that people having mental breakdowns tend
to make it obvious on Facebook and invite intervention. And, it makes it
harder to cut your old ties, when once upon a time it was harder to maintain
them.

But when you see 50 year olds in the streets around the Mission, holding
debates with the voices in their heads, well, this is how they got there.

~~~
bluGill
Port cities didn't need the workers (though they are important), they needed
the foreign ships.

As a result whatever background your dock workers are, they have to get along
with the crews of all those ships coming in.

------
Mz
A few factors here:

First, housing in SF is insane. I have seen lots of articles about how bad it
is and that $50k or even $100k is considered "low income" in these parts.

Second, the weather in the Bay Area is very homeless-friendly. If you need to
sleep outside year-round, it is best to be someplace where you will neither
die from the heat in summer nor from the freezing cold in winter.

Third, homelessness is on the rise nationwide. Homeless people can relocate
relatively easily due to not having to give notice at their apartment and
having lost most or all of their material possessions. So, the odds are good
that some people are simply coming out here for the weather.

Fourth, big cities like SF tend to have more services for the homeless. There
are meal kitchens and the like. If you are completely destitute, you go to
where you can get free meals and other services. I know because that is
exactly why I went to downtown San Diego for six months as a homeless person.
I left and went elsewhere when I was no longer outright destitute and did not
need access to things like soup kitchens to have any hope of surviving.

So, I think if you want to solve homelessness in SF, you need to work on
homelessness across the nation.

~~~
StephanTLavavej
> Third, homelessness is on the rise nationwide.

That's incorrect according to "The 2016 Annual Homeless Assessment Report
(AHAR) to Congress" at
[https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/2016-AHAR-P...](https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/2016-AHAR-
Part-1.pdf) . Page 8 has a graph of all homeless people, which has been on a
downward trend from 2007 to 2016.

~~~
Mz
Thank you for the source. I will look at it some more when I have time. But on
initial skim, it is a count for a single night in January from which they
extrapolate for the whole year. Furthermore, it outright states that actual
unsheltered people has risen by 2%. What has gone down is people in the
shelter system.

I have been seeing a lot of articles about the rise in evictions, among other
things, and I left downtown San Diego when I did in part because homeless
services were suffering distress and were less and less useful to me because
they were overwhelmed. But I will dig into this and see if I can come up with
a more nuanced and accurate means to convey my point.

We have a very serious housing crisis on our hands. People who are homeless
per se are merely the tip of the iceberg.

------
Shivetya
How in the hell did they blow through three hundred million dollars in one
year on this? According to figures they have to provide the Federal government
for assistance this is for a population of approximately 7500. Seven thousand
five hundred.

Utah took a decade but slashed their numbers by making sure the homeless had
an apartment and phone. For the amount of money SF is spending they could buy
them homes. The real crime here is the wasteful spending. They are burning
close to 40k per person. People harp about wasteful spending on incarceration
need to start looking here.

So how is that for even a third of this they cannot house the thousand that
still need a bed each night? That number should have been taken care of in the
first few months. Sorry for the hyperbole but if we want an example of a
government needing a expose on waste and bureaucracy this is an ideal
candidate.

Hard numbers as provided by the city.[1].

7,499: 2017 total homeless population 7,539: 2015 total homeless population
(The number was 6,436 in 2013, and 6,455 in 2011.)

5,518: 2017 single homeless adults 5,342: 2015 single homeless adults

1,363: 2017 unaccompanied homeless youth 1,567: 2015 unaccompanied homeless
youth

1,100: 2017 approximate waiting list for shelter bed 900: 2016 approximate
waiting list for shelter bed

[1][http://sfist.com/2017/06/26/2017_san_francisco_homeless_cens...](http://sfist.com/2017/06/26/2017_san_francisco_homeless_census.php)

~~~
stevenwoo
They couldn't buy them a home in California. Utah didn't slash homelessness,
they slashed chronic homelessness. They still have about 14000 homeless as of
2015. [http://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-
chronic...](http://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-chronic-
homelessness-by-91-percent-heres-how)

[https://jobs.utah.gov/housing/scso/documents/homelessness201...](https://jobs.utah.gov/housing/scso/documents/homelessness2015.pdf)

The 2016 Utah report doesn't have the same graph showing the homeless
population in state over the decade (it did not show a slashing of the
homeless population in 2015 just a slight downward trend) but it does show the
cost for housing a homeless person across the country - it's roughly
40,000-50,000 per year almost everywhere they surveyed.

[https://jobs.utah.gov/housing/scso/documents/homelessness201...](https://jobs.utah.gov/housing/scso/documents/homelessness2016.pdf)

------
curtis
It seems unlikely to me that the homelessness problem in SF has anything at
all to do with high housing prices. It's certainly not software engineers
living on the streets, and I'd bet that even the people that work at Starbucks
in SF have homes, even if they're crappy apartments shared with roommates
outside the city.

~~~
opportune
How do you get a job at Starbucks starting as a homeless person though? It
could be a hill too high to climb out of, not only purely economically, but
socially. For example, how do you convince an employer or prospective roommate
to give you a chance when you're a homeless alcoholic without an address?

~~~
ygaf
The thing is, it's not just giving someone a chance, it's giving someone a
chance at the expense of someone else. It's simple to hire the optimal person,
it's impossible to decide who should get to be employed in the grand scheme of
things.

------
bmson
Why is no one talking about healthcare?

I work in the tenderloin and it seems that quality of life would increase
dramatically if they would get mental health and medication, seems pretty
obvious to me. How about spending all of those millions on free healthcare for
the bottom 5% ?

------
pfarnsworth
$300M/year on homelessness for 7500 people! That's utterly unbelievable,
that's >$3000/month/homeless person. Where is the money going??

------
alexandercrohde
I really don't buy the "cost of living" explanation. Are we suggesting that
these homeless people can't afford $1800 a month per rent, but are somehow
going to get a more reasonable $1000/month apartment?

Exactly what job are you going to get if you smell, are missing teeth, have an
alcohol problem, don't own clean clothes, and potentially have mental health
issues?

I think we need to think outside the box on this one.

~~~
glangdale
You seem to think that you wake up one day and you are a stereotypical 'high
visibility homeless person'. Plenty of homeless people are struggling on the
edge of normality (especially women) and are sleeping in cars, looking
relatively clean and well-behaved.

Aside from the hard-core mentally ill, a lot of people might be relatively
easily intercepted _before_ they wind up looking/acting like the person you
describe.

------
sattoshi
I read a comment here that there is slightly less than 7000 homeless people
there.

I ask not why they are homeless, but why are they there rather than in a
cheaper area?

~~~
ArlenBales
Cheaper? They're homeless, the cost of living in SF doesn't mean much if you
have no money and live on the streets.

As the article mentioned, homeless like SF because of how much the city spends
on them:

> _The city spent $275 million on homelessness and supportive housing in the
> fiscal year that ends Friday, up from $241 million the year before. Starting
> Saturday, that annual spending is projected to hit an eye-popping $305
> million._

Also the moderate climate, and there's so much wealth it's excellent for
panhandling.

~~~
sattoshi
It means a LOT actually. The 20$ a nice stranger gives won't even feed you for
a day in some places.

Compare it with a more rural area where you could survive on it for a week. In
terrible conditions but not starving.

------
hkmurakami
Are there reports on the manner in which the funds are being used by the
various organizations whose mission it is to reduce/end homelessness and and
analysis on the effectiveness of each of the avenues and levers they are
using?

------
romanovcode
What I've learned in Germany is that many homeless are homeless by choice.

------
ransom1538
Being homeless in SF is awesome:

0) Free muni passes,

1) great social & free housing programs - some even have stipends & phone
service

2) a few decent shelters,

3) close by methadone clinics,

4) friendly 420 doctors (police don't arrest for 420),

5) tons of crack/meth on eddy street,

6) great places to pan (market),

7) weather is amazing (no hot days, no snow),

8) huge! public parks.

9) super friendly locals

10) a pretty liberal police department

SF hilariously always takes the wrong approach to things. If you want a city
full of homeless, make it awesome. This would definitely be my plan G.

~~~
jonknee
> SF hilariously always takes the wrong approach to things

Compassion isn't hilariously wrong

~~~
WalterSear
$250,000,000 a year for an industry that is at least partially responsible for
importing 1 in 5 of San Francisco's homeless from the rest of the state and
country and dumping them on the streets isn't compassion - it's trafficking in
human misery.

I'll post my source (a SF gov census) later today, when I'm not on my phone.

~~~
djrogers
[http://sfist.com/2017/06/26/2017_san_francisco_homeless_cens...](http://sfist.com/2017/06/26/2017_san_francisco_homeless_census.php)

It's more than 1 in 5, in fact it's almost 1/3rd of the homeless that have
'moved' to SF.

~~~
WalterSear
That may be closer to the current number of 'non-resident' homeless. The
figure I had for that is 23% - 1 in 4 - from 2015.

1 in 5 is the number of homeless (from the same survey) whose first place of
residence in San Francisco was a homeless shelter. It's buried under figure 16
in this survey:

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

So 1 in 4 ( or 1 in 3) people are coming here directly to use the services.
The 1 in 5 figure is significant because it strongly suggests that homeless
nonprofits are actively seeking referrals from other parts of the state and
country. We know that in some cases people are literally being sent here:

[http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/10/nevada-settles-
busin...](http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/10/nevada-settles-busing-
homeless-lawsuit-san-francisco)

Yes, that was found to be illegal and some wrists were slapped. I find it hard
to conceive that this is the only homeless bussing program - there's no other
conceivable way that so many of them are arriving, and immediately finding
places in homeless shelters that typically have waiting lists, and definitely
have plenty of underserved former tenants.

Ultimately, the organizations involved have no incentive to stop referrals
from other parts of the country. The more people they serve, the more money
they can ask for from the city, and the more 'successful' they are as a non-
profit business.

And just as serving more people is in their interests, so is dumping the most
troubled, and consequently, most costly onto the streets in order to serving
another round of newcomers. Once they've outstayed their welcome, or become
too costly, they are shunted onto the streets. And the worse the crisis gets,
the more money they can ask for from the city.

I'm not suggesting that this is some kind of intentional human trafficking. I
am sure that (almost) everyone involved is doing so because, in a small minded
way, they think that they are improving the world. However, the end result is
a travesty.

My thesis is that our current environment is is the result non-profits being
run in a capitalist business environment, with a capitalist, MBA-style
mindset. Eventually, the business model achieves stasis with it's environment,
which, in this case, involves letting the city be a dumping ground for human
tragedy, and letting the city's tax payers pay $250 million dollars a year for
the privilege. The crisis is the side effect of this expanding bureaucracy
achieving homeostasis and justifying its existence.

------
LarryMade2
All the maps illustrate is an increase in complaints not necessarily an
increase in homelessness on a similar scale.

------
pmarreck
Perhaps San Francisco can be a perfect test case for UBI:
[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/finland-
univ...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/finland-universal-
basic-income-lower-stress-better-motivation-work-wages-salary-a7800741.html)

~~~
pizza
It's already a hotbed of basic income for the rich: VCs earn huge capital
gains :p

------
cartercole
Houston has a homeless problem too... I dont know what we can do. Im thinkign
about starting some volunteer work program

------
carsongross
Despite?

------
stupidcar
I'm willing to bet that this will not get better. It's going to get worse.
Much, much worse. As mass employment disappears, you're going to have millions
of people become destitute across the country, and many rural, semi-rural and
suburban settlements will simply no longer be viable. Some families will
return to subsistence farming, but many others will flee to the larger cities.
The current homeless camps will expand into large slums and shanty towns,
while gated communities connect into upper class enclaves. When you see in
Powell Station will be the general situation across all US cities in twenty
years.

~~~
djrogers
This has been feared with every technological advancement for a couple of
centuries now, from textile automation in the late 1700s to the 'robots' in
the 80s and more. The thing is, it has yet to come true - not even close.

Most of the jobs being done by the people reading this weren't even invented
when they were born...

~~~
SerpentJoe
That's fair, but on the other hand, none of those other waves of automation
have empowered machines to do knowledge work, the last refuge of human
productivity. That's the barrel our generation is staring down.

------
bmson
Why are people

------
hockeybias
My wife and I moved to the Midwest 23 years ago because the homelessness and -
less importantly - the traffic (in SF) were getting bad back then (relative to
the previous ten years).

One of the changes at that time was having to pay a homeless person to 'watch
our car for us' when we went to get a bite or see a band south of market.

Awfully sad scenario and well-documented in this article.

------
wankerrific
I'm not sure how the homelessness issue in SF has any relationship to housing
costs.

The root cause was losing a lot of funding for mental health services during
the Gov. Reagan years.

But go ahead with your strawman.

~~~
davidf18
Homelessness comes from high cost of housing. It is emotionally convenient to
blame other causes, but there is still mental health support in cities through
federally funded community health centers.

~~~
ZanyProgrammer
Housing definitely helps the working class and mentally healthy people who are
trying to work themselves out of homelessness. I fail to see how the housing
crisis will help severely mentally ill people with addiction issues,
schizophrenia, etc. Such people need long term hospitalization. The de-
institutionalization of mental health care was exacerbated by, but did not
originate with Reagan. Personally I think it has to do with an over correction
against the abuses of early/mid 20th century psychiatry, and the mania for
freedom from the 60s onward. A lot of mental health professionals, even in
liberal west coast cities, sound downright libertarian when describing patient
freedom. The freedom to die in prison or on the streets if you ask me.

