

Why are there so many crazy bums on San Francisco streets? - wslh
http://trythisroad.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/why-are-there-so-many-crazy-bums-on-sf-streets/

======
jonnathanson
California accounts for nearly a quarter of the entire homeless population in
the United States [1], largely due to its climate, its support programs, and
its dense network of municipal services and population centers. Approximately
14% of all homeless in the US are military veterans, many of whom suffer from
PTSD and were turned out of VA clinics in the 1970s and 1980s due to budget
cutbacks. The article is correct in placing a lot of the blame on Reagan, who
as governor of CA and president of the US, aggressively scaled back support
for both veterans in specific, and the homeless in general. As the article
mentions, he also closed a lot of psychiatric hospitals, whose inpatients were
turned out onto the streets, left to their own devices. Reagan wasn't the only
legislator responsible for this turn of events, but he was probably the most
powerful.

Perhaps homelessness is inevitable to some degree. Perhaps some proportion of
the population in a laissez-faire, competitive country like the modern US is
always going to fall through the cracks. Perhaps we lack the will or the
budget to solve the problem completely or permanently. Perhaps some people
just can't be saved. I'm not going to launch into an armchair, pollyannaish
prescription for solving this problem when I don't have a fantastic solution.
(That said, I suspect the best long-term solution is at least as preventive as
it is rehabilitative.)

Regardless, there's one thing we _can_ control on an individual level: the way
we view and treat the mentally ill and the homeless. Let's not further the
stigma, or wax poetic about the homeless in SF as some sort of quirky, fun
landmark. I suspect that's not the author's intention -- he's setting out to
celebrate the homeless, not to denigrate them -- but some of his language
lends itself to misinterpretation. As someone with a close friend who's been
homeless, and other friends who've been institutionalized, I don't find the
"crazy bums" characterization very constructive.

[1] [https://www.onecpd.info/resources/documents/pit-
hic_suppleme...](https://www.onecpd.info/resources/documents/pit-
hic_supplementalaharreport.pdf)

~~~
andrewpi
My understanding is that the story of deinstitutionalization is a bit more
complex: there was a movement in the 70s and 80s to have the mentally-ill
returned to the community, instead of being treated in state institutions.
However, many of the local facilities that the mentally ill were to receive
treatment in were never actually established. At the same time, commitment
laws were changed in many states, as part of a civil rights movement, to make
it almost impossible to commit someone against their own will unless they were
a physical danger to themselves or others.

Additionally, Reagan was never a legislator, but only served in an executive
capacity, as Governor of California and as President of the US.

~~~
jonnathanson
Fair points, especially about the commitment laws. And point noted about the
use of the term "legislator" w/r/t Reagan. Good catch.

------
pstuart
My mother was one of those "crazy bums". She spent the last 3 years of her
life on the streets there.

She lived in the East Bay before, so when she finally lost it it was natural
to migrate to the nearest large city where she could "live in peace" on the
streets.

I think a key problem is not just that the mental institutions are closed, but
that it's now impossible to detain them unless they are an immediate threat to
themselves or to anybody else. So you can be very sick but if you aren't lying
in a pool of your own blood or waving a knife or gun then you are free to do
your own thing.

The way I would like to address this would be to build micro communities out
in the sticks, fashioned as quasi-monasteries. The energy of the city is not
healthy for these people and the programs eat up a lot of cash. My
understanding is that SF spends ~$200M/year on homeless services.

~~~
ams6110
Why did you let your mom live on the streets?

~~~
pstuart
She was in a "care home" and checked herself out against doctor's orders. I
wasn't in a position to have her live with me, and had been dealing with her
illness for about 30 years and was, quite frankly, so frustrated and burnt out
that I had given up.

I had _no_ resources to work with, what the hell was I to do?

Edit: I shared my story for 2 reasons. The first was to point out that these
"bums" are somebody's family member -- it's easy to forget that. The other was
the bit about rethinking what to do with them. I think the "monastery"
approach is the most humane _and_ cost effective.

~~~
GuiA
I don't have anything to say- but just wanted to post to say that you have no
requirement whatsoever to defend your life circumstances to complete strangers
on the internet for whom it is very easy to judge you, comfortably behind
their screens.

------
brandur
Don't forget Greyhound Therapy either! (Over which SF is currently suing the
State of Nevada)

[http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/23/nevada-
sued...](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/23/nevada-sued-for-
greyhound-therapy-for-mentally-ill-patients.html)

The history in this article is very interesting, but I always figured that the
answer was more simple: (1) generous social programs compared to the country's
norm, and (2) mild climate.

~~~
garrettdreyfus
There's a great south park on that subject.

------
theorique
One answer that I had heard was that it's been standard practice for various
municipalities to buy vagrants one-way tickets to SF. (Don't know if it's true
or apocryphal.)

(edit: TIL it is called "greyhound therapy" as described in brandur's comment:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6830558](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6830558))

That, combined with the mostly hospitable climate for homelessness, and the
municipal tolerance for ... _unconventional_ ... lifestyles, would explain at
least part of it.

Also, it's where the 60s "happened", so at least some of the head cases can be
attributed to taking too many strange drugs.

~~~
benmccann
The first estimates I found on Google show 130,000 homeless in California with
500-1,500 sent here via "greyhound therapy". It's not a small amount, but it's
still only ~1% of the homeless population.

------
brandnewlow
This article offers the best, most detailed explanation for why there are so
many homeless in the streets of SF and why that's not going to change anytime
soon: [http://www.modernluxury.com/san-francisco/story/arise-
tender...](http://www.modernluxury.com/san-francisco/story/arise-
tenderloin?page=2&src=longreads)

~~~
rosser
Wow, that article is fantastic, and provides an amazing degree of background
and depth to the picture I'd already had of the TL. Thanks for linking to it!

------
zequel
Life-long Boston area resident here. On my only visit to SF, what I observed
was that the homeless people I saw were much more aggressive than their Boston
counterparts. They were very much in the face of the people they were
interacting with. Also, I saw a lot more of them. Weather? Generosity? I don't
know.

------
bonemachine
I guess there's just not enough $3,000 studio apartments in the Mission to go
around.

------
gesman
They are just javascript programmers who realized the truth sooner than others
...

------
greggawatt
"food not bums"? i think you mean "food not bombs"

------
jimgardener
3 decades back ,in the state of Kerala in India,the govt built houses for the
poor, under a scheme called Laksham Veedu(hundred thousand houses).Now, most
of these houses are in a pathetic state due to lack of repair.Here is what the
govt agency website says
[http://www.kshb.kerala.gov.in/index.php?option=com_content&v...](http://www.kshb.kerala.gov.in/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26:mn-
laksham-veedu-renovation&catid=21:mn-laksham-veedu-renovation)

------
mathattack
I recall a period during my stint in SF where they started allowing drinking
in the parks because "the homeless live in parks and should be allowed to
drink at home"

I think they're there because they don't freeze and an idealistic population
allows it.

~~~
avree
Drinking alcohol in public places has always been illegal in San Francisco.

~~~
mathattack
Perhaps it was police at the time deciding to take a less aggressive stance?
This was ~15 years ago.

------
__chrismc
I had my first trip to SF last week. I knew ahead of time there was a problem
of large numbers of homeless, and _some_ of the underlying reasons for it.
Even though, I was completely unprepared for the sheer scale of the issue - it
was way beyond anything I'd ever imagined. It felt like everywhere I looked
there was at least 1, and often, if I looked again closer there were 2-3.
Walking around some areas of Market Street felt intimidating as there was a
virtual "gauntlet" of homeless to walk through.

It didn't really take away from my trip, but it was certainly an eye-opener.
The links in this thread will be good further reading in preparation for my
next visit!

------
cclogg
Vancouver (Canada) has a similar problem to SF. I think it's the climate,
since compared to the rest of Canada it is quite mild. I think the causes here
are different though, and mostly drug related, but someone with more knowledge
can correct me.

------
Spooky23
Because the political climate allows it.

Court rulings made crimes used to arrest homeless people illegal. That's why a
ranting maniac can soil himself in the public library and not be booted. Back
in ye olden days, the cops would arrest him and sober him up for a day or two.

Even with that, there are more homeless in San Francisco, and I'd say that
it's a combination of opportunity, a sympathetic environment and the fact that
it's a real life city! (Vs a car suburb)

------
ceautery
The author has quite a "Grapes of Wrath" style of writing.

[edit: Grammar. Oh, the irony.]

------
prawn
Surely it's better asked as two questions. Why are bums often crazy, and why
are so many in SF? Answer to the first part is pretty obvious and supposedly
part of the answer to the second comes down to climate and buck-passing by
other states.

------
readmylist
My initial impression of SF when I first visited in 2009, Damn, motherfuckers
trying to be the "king of homeless"!

------
narrator
San Francisco native here. We have homeless in San Francisco for the same
reason that Burning Man is in the Black Rock desert and we have the Folsom
Street Fair. We want to make it a little uncomfortable for the fussy
intolerant people who tend to show up in this great city on a regular basis.
I'm kidding, but only sort of. :)

------
macspoofing
Toronto has a similar problem. It isn't just Regan.

------
duncan_bayne
One possible answer:

[http://theprofoundprogrammer.com/post/31260129412/](http://theprofoundprogrammer.com/post/31260129412/)

~~~
yetanotherphd
What does that mean?

~~~
Fishkins
It seems he's saying/joking they're all failed startup founders.

~~~
duncan_bayne
Joking ... and getting downvoted into oblivion for it. Perhaps I struck a
nerve? ;)

