

More people on S.F. streets newly homeless - bootload
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/16/BA5N14OGCD.DTL&type=printable

======
wyclif
Truly sad, esp. the stories of small children sleeping on the street with no
food. It's also frightening to me. You've all read recently about major
knowledge workers (significant people with Flickr/Yahoo!) who have been pink
slipped. I'm sure the supremely skilled will find other offers of employment,
but the bottom line is that it can happen to anyone.

I want to do something to help, and have volunteered at the soup kitchen-type
ministries, but I just keep wishing it could be more than just a meal. I want
a long-term solution that would end with capable people becoming productive,
paid, and employed again. It's a staggering problem, and I don't know how to
get there.

My parents visited San Francisco for the first time around 2000. When I asked
them how they liked the place, expecting to hear stories of beautiful weather,
Golden Gate park, Alcatraz, the cable cars, or the scenic vistas, all they
could talk about was how many homeless people there were. Literally, when I
tried to change the subject, it went like this:

 _Me_ : So did you go to Lombard Street?

 _Mom_ : Yes, but we didn't stay long because there were so many homeless
people.

And so on.

~~~
defunkt
I've lived in SF for three years. Whenever I visit other cities (Seattle,
Austin, New York) I'm always surprised by how few homeless there are.

------
car
It makes me very sad to read this. Especially the thought of a child in this
situation, when I have a child at the same age.

Some people chose the street, I've seen it in places where the government
provides for everyone. And many are mentally ill, often schizophrenics off
medication. Sad enough that it is hard to help them. But to see families hit
by the economic crisis to be pushed to the street is appalling.

How about we raise taxes a little bit for everyone, so that people who have
fallen on hard times can be caught by a 'social net'?

~~~
netcan
It'd be hard to do without catching the schizophrenics too. They're about the
same size as the recently unemployed.

~~~
gb
Is that a problem though? Do they deserve less help than the recently
unemployed?

~~~
netcan
I was being sarcastic about making the distinction.

~~~
gb
Sorry, I should have spotted that!

------
andr
I spent a week in S.F. in March 2007 and another in May 2008. I spent most of
the time in the same areas (Market St., SoMa, Yerba Buena and Fisherman's
Wharf) the increase in the number of homeless people in 2008 was staggering.

~~~
aristus
Some of what you saw is seasonal. May is nearer to tourist season and those
areas are some of the prime spots.

This article is kind of annoying in how it implies large jumps (50 sandwiches
to 500, "59 percent of those requests came from families", 62% of 136 on the
waiting list are new, etc) but they don't actually say what the homeless rate
is and how it has changed.

In 2002 there were 8,600 homeless. By 2005 it had dropped to 6,300. So let's
say it's really bad and there are 9,000 homeless people now. That feels like a
lot in a city of 700K.

------
anamax
Perhaps one of the reasons that SF seems to have so many homeless is that SF
provides a lot of benefits to the homeless. (Another reason is that SF's
weather doesn't kill them.)

Google "homeless benefits sf" and you'll find that things aren't as simple as
one might think.

FWIW, the "lots more, with children" story runs every few years.

Let the "downmodding the mean" begin.

