I lived in SF for many years and fully absorbed the culture, and wow, getting out was a huge wake-up call. The bubble is extreme. Outside, streets colored by actual human shit, people living in extreme poverty, other people walking over sleeping bags to get to work. Inside, someone tweet-storming about how the guy on BART was manspreading and how this is a direct threat to our wellness as a society. Rough
I visited SF for the first time for a conference last year. Damn, what a shithole (good seafood, though - had some awesome halibut at Scoma's down by the wharf).
While you could pay me enough to live there, I assure you my price would be quite unreasonable :)
That's pretty much my reaction the first time I went to SF. My first BART experience was 16th and Mission and that left... quite an impression. It's surprising how people get used to it.
Mental illness is a huge issue. Previously, many homeless lived in mental hospitals but such institutions have been universally abandoned.
While only tangentially related to rising cost of living, it deserves as much merit as a solution as low-income housing, steeper property taxes, and steeper progressive taxation.
If you want to see mental illness improve in San Francisco, attend the San Francisco Mental Health Board meetings. If you can't be physically present, you can also call in. The website is: http://www.mhbsf.org/
You can call 415-255-3474 on Wednesday, November 15, 2017 before 6:30PM (and every month afterwards) and ask to be put on the conference call. Put it on your calendar. You can start by just listening in and hearing what people say. Everyone who calls in has a legal ability to comment on what's been said, after the board has spoken. You might have an idea no one else has heard.
I serve on a different mental health board. I can answer some questions if you have them.
Thank you for posting a way for members of HN to actually contribute to their community. It’s better to have an actionable item then to have opinions float about.
I had a personal experience with someone that made a serious attempt at suicide. Checked into the ER, released to the street 24 hours later with no options offered at all.
One reason for the decrease in state-run psychiatric beds was the rampant abuse most facilities hosted. As this was addressed, a replacement was not introduced.
I have my doubts as to whether that was the real driver or just the scapegoat. The real driver was probably the direct costs. Abuse existed, but the alternative is all of these people living on the street.
Isn't a better alternative to give people free access to early intervention (especially early intervention in psychosis services) and free access to treatment in the home?
I don't know the larger picture, but from my personal experience that would mean lots of adult schizophrenics (or similar) living with their parents. The sad fact is that there are just a lot of people that can't manage on their own. In today's system they are all homeless or in jail.
The replacement was the Mental Health Services Act, which gives more resources to local governments. Mental Health Boards play a part in figuring out what to do, even if it's only an advisory board.
Grew up in Berkeley and Oakland, lived in SF for years.. It has always been like that.. Thats where the crazies congregate. You get used to it. Im 32 and I have no other memory of SF being all that different from what it is now.. Homeless camps, crack zombies, poo streets..
The first time I saw human feces on the sidewalk surprised me. It's like the city is turning into Manhattan, but with a crazy mental illness problem on the streets.
Yeah Manhattan is nothing like that for at least 25 years. SF is like what NYC was in like 1975 only worse. I have no idea how the whole tech industry wants to be out there.
That was also my thought, people didn't really want to believe it though when I said "the shit on the street is quite likely not from an animal...".
After a walk around SoMa, I lost what the appeal of working there was to be honest. The touristy parts of the city are great, but you hear all this talk about the offices and startup culture around that area, but one block over from Twitter HQ and there's a rampant homeless issue with people doing all kinds of stuff in full daylight.
I used to love SF. Now I'm not sure how much of it is the city is going downhill, versus being older and bothered by different things. Then again, in the 90s people said the new crowd in the Marina were taking things downhill.
Yes. Perhaps this is what SF has to go through? I'm generally not a fan of trickle-down economics, but does the city have to go through such a long stretch of prosperity for there to be enough wealth to pay for everyone? If so, advocates for UBI may need to wait a while.
Is SF unique in such a large % of the population being mentally ill or addicts?
The difference in NYC (really, mostly Manhattan) wasn't really spending although the city had financial issues as well in the 80s. It was mostly a change in attitude. What some people now decry as "Disneyfication" for example was the political will to clean up areas like 42nd Street. Rudy Giuliani was nicknamed the proctor of New York for a reason.
The city already spends a ton of money on the issue - clearly the government just isn't great at putting that cash to use. So I don't think throwing more money at the problem will help. Truthfully the answers to the problem may make the situation worse before it gets better. You should look up an article by Nick Buckley, who runs an outreach service for homeless people in Manchester UK. It's obviously a different situation than SF but it piqued my interest because it's an angle you really never hear.
but does the city have to go through such a long stretch of prosperity for there to be enough wealth to pay for everyone?
Does SF get prosperous? Serious question; I don't know how SF's taxes work. Does SF get a piece of everyone's income, such that as the people make more money the city gets more money? What actually puts more money into SF's pocket when people in SF get richer?
NYC of the 70s-90s was considerably different from today: much less safe, bankrupt, gritty, dirty...while you might have seen and smelled some trash, it's not at all like it used to be.
The areas of Manhattan you'd be likely to visit are very dense and there are generally no back alleys so, even with the system working as intended, there can be a lot of trash that ends up on the sidewalk waiting to be collected. Yes, in the summer especially, Manhattan gets hot and smelly. There's a reason that a "house in the Hamptons" is something of a meme for wealthy New Yorkers.
When I lived in Manhattan one summer, during a time when the city was "rougher around the edges" than today, I was definitely ready to get out of town on a number of weekends.
> there can be a lot of trash that ends up on the sidewalk waiting to be collected.
Correct my if I'm wrong, but they still put bags of trash out don't they? Those things also attract rats who can easily chew through the bags or they can not be tied up properly in the first place, allowing he smell to escape. Why don't they use tidier, less smelly wheelie bins: https://duckduckgo.com/?t=chakra&q=wheelie+bins&iax=images&i...
I live in Brooklyn and a homeless person keeps pooping on the steps at my subway stop, but compared to what I saw in SF a month ago, it's not the worst that can happen
With the growing inequality gap, the US is headed toward its own destruction. Everyone hates taxes, but when those taxes are used reasonably efficiently to make life generally better for most of the population, it's a net gain.
What is the value of being King of the Ghetto? At what point is enough excess enough? At that point, the rest should go back into the community.
I now live in a country on the higher end of the taxation rankings. While I don't enjoy giving up 40% of my income, I do enjoy a lot of benefits (good public transport being the most useful perk for me) that I simply didn't have in the US.
However, I am not going to blame the US entirely for its rising rent problem. Yes a lot of it has been due to the excessive pay of dot.com and other Wall Street windfalls (since when people can afford something they want, they ultimately don't care what the price is... which drives prices up rapidly). However, another major factor is the enormous influx of foreign property purchases. Chinese nationals now own a huge percentage of the properties in the city center. Rental rates are going up at an incredible clip. Unfortunately, rent controls are only a little successful (because people take advantage of that system, just like people do many things to avoid paying taxes).
I really don't see any solution for now. Even providing a living income to all members of society won't prevent some regions having rental rates well beyond what "normal" people can afford. However, try to imagine SF or Manhattan with no low-wage workers. There would be no restaurants, no road repair crews, no public transport drivers, etc. etc. Who would pick up your trash?
> imagine SF or Manhattan with no low-wage workers. There would be no restaurants, no road repair crews, no public transport drivers, etc. etc. Who would pick up your trash?
Rather than subsidizing rich lives with low paid waiters, or somehow taking low-wage workers out of the mix, imagine paying those functions a locally livable wage. Yes, there would be fewer of them, and probably fewer and more expensive restaurants.
But low wage exploitation is not the only way.
Or, if you don't like seeing human tragedy on the streets, you could leave the area. That would tend to depress rent costs, and other costs would follow.
I don't see why you gloss over the "there would be fewer of them" problem with your reasoning. How is this line of thought supposed to move the needle on homelessness in SF? You're expecting them to just go away because they can't find jobs?
I wasn't clear. I'm suggesting that one possible change among many is for the elite to move away, creating less competition for housing, and moving the area back to a livable environment for the average person. Bonus, the departed elite likely won't have to step over sleeping bags wherever they end up. For awhile.
You're basically asking for no new cities to arise. A working theory in this discussion is that SF is NYC 50 years ago. Cities arise through concentration of industry, is that something you just not want to see happening?
Well we did pretty well after world war 2 with really high taxes on income. I don't know how we'd get back to that, but there are huge pay offs in investing in things like child nutrition and headstart programs, these have been shown to reduce later criminal behavior and increase median income.
Well, we'd reintroduce massive tax loopholes that allow for real tax rates to be less than they currently are - that's how we'd get back to that, because that's what we had then. We'd also cut payroll taxes back to 3% and have them apply to the first 30,000 instead of over 6% and applying to the first 106k of income.
We'd also raise taxes on the poorest quintile - you know, the people that currently don't pay any, and repeal medicare taxes.
The difference is our tax code is designed to hide just how much money people are actually paying. Inefficiency and corruption also drastically reduces the benefits people get from the government. https://b-i.forbesimg.com/theapothecary/files/2013/06/OECD-P...
EX: US government spends 3,967$ per person (2010) on healthcare and has massive issues. Switzerland spends less than 1/2 as much at 1,628$/person (2010) and has high quality universal healthcare.
Given how much gun violence is blamed on mental health issues (though if that was the issue, you'd have to assume americans have more mental health issues than other developed countries, considering we have more gun deaths per capita, but I digress) and given the national emergency of the opiod epidemic, maybe we'll see some money go towards mental health that might help the people on the street, but I somehow doubt it.
If you live in California once you hit 91k you will start paying 45% in taxes ( 28% Federal, 9.3% State , 7.6 OASDI) So clearly you are advocating a decrease in taxes since from your experience you can get taxed less and still have better services the you get in San Fransisco
It is both, the Federal rate of 28% starts at 91k, but 25% starts at 31k. Since California starts their 9% tax at 51k I can change my comment to be that those making 51k get taxed at 41%. Even with a "progressive" tax system you are still paying more taxes then people assume.
I bring this whole thing up not because I don't understand marginal tax rates, but because the issue isn't "tax brackets" or marginal tax rates, but its deductions and other loopholes that allow people to pay far less then that in "effective tax rates". Lets not even get into the spending side of things and how much waste there is in the system that effectively funnels those funds to a federal contractors.
People have extremely naive perceptions of how taxes are used. It shocks me. The "throw tax money at it" attitude towards problems, especially in cities where people are reasonably wealthy, is very lazy.
This California tax predictor suggests a single person earning 51K will pay 40.65% marginal income tax rate, 22.5% effective income tax and only 29% effective including sales, fuel and property tax.
it really depends on the tax steps, it's quite likely they'd pay less taxes in the US cause the higher rates kick in later (and hit 40% in their host country long before reaching $91k).
E.g. in Germany you would already reach 47.5% (42% income tax + 5.5% solidarity surcharge) as a single person at €52k.
You can't compare absolute incomes. $52K in Germany is probably equivalent to $100K in the US, if you take into account that you don't have to pay $250K/child in college tuition, $25K/year in health care premiums, etc. You can think of these as taxes, because that's how you pay for these in Germany.
Also, the "US has low taxes" mantra is a bit of a myth.
Please add:
- State taxes (usually 6-8%) on top of federal taxes.
- Real estate taxes - in a major metropolitan area in NE US, you pay $12K/year for an average house in a decent (but not top) neighborhood.
- Excise taxes - for every car/boat you own.
- Taxes on every almost every service - cable/Internet, land/cell phone (FCC), airline tickets (FAA), etc.
We also get very low return on our money, paying twice as much for everything (education and healthcare in particular) and getting lower quality in return, compared to Europe.
This is exactly my point. Paying "high" taxes if you're getting something good for your money can be worth doing.
Call me a pacifist, but I don't like paying taxes for military equipment that the military leaders themselves have said is not useful for them. But Congress keeps doing it because Boeing and Lockheed keep paying them to do it. I would MUCH rather a good percent of my "defense contribution" go toward lowering education costs for ALL Americans.
Regarding all the taxes you mention, those really are regressive taxes. They make up a greater percentage of poor people's incomes than they do rich people's. Back when gas in the US was over $4/gal, the poor people suffered immensely. The rich people already were able to choose Tahoes with 13mpg and not care, so the extra gasoline bill was not something that affected them. But poor people suddenly had to choose whether they drove to work (to earn minimum wage), or whether they replaced a shoe with a hole in it.
I firmly believe that the reason we get less quality in return for our taxes is because of the absolute corporate control over the majority of Congress. And since elections are driven almost entirely by money, to win a seat you have to accept corporate money and then return the favor (else you're out next election).
To anyone thinking "I can't do anything, it's gotta be legislated to make any lasting changes" I just want to say
Yes! you can do something: get involved with your local community and put your time to a morally good use by changing those regulations. Get laws passed that make the situation better for everyone. Any improvement is better than bickering, stand in solidarity and push everything that can help.
The median selling price of a single-family house in San Francisco spiked by $113,000 from the crazy spike and peak in May, to a new record of – fasten your seat belt – $1.588 million
I don't need to fasten my seat belt, this makes perfect sense. The supply and demand of homes drives the prices, as well as some other factors, and this is simply what people who are paid a lot of money are willing to pay.
When good jobs of a certain industry are concentrated to such a small area of the country, "stop moving there" really isn't much of an option. We need to find a way to spread the jobs out a bit, because it should be obvious that the companies employing those professionals have no incentive to do so without outside intervention.
They're really not that concentrated. The idea that, if you're in a tech-related field, your life is effectively over if you don't move to the Bay area is complete nonsense.
In the UK, there's a yearly fund raising drive called Byte Night https://www.bytenight.org.uk/ that is targeted primarily at the tech industry. People help raise funds by sleeping rough for a night in a park at various cities. The money goes to Action for Children, who aim to tackle the root causes of homelessness by trying to help prevent vulnerable young people from becoming homeless in the first place.
I did my first one this year, and will look at doing it again next year. While the night is nothing compared to what people really face (we at least can have a sleeping bag, get a decent meal beforehand, and you're relatively safe during the night), it's a great cause, and really changes your perspective on how people become homeless, and what they face.
San Francisco has too many problems which is why I moved to NY:
Dangerous & Dirty:
I have been verbally and physically abused walking in San
Francisco. My wife can't walk around by herself because of such problems. My friends were physically assaulted while biking. Each week I'd walk to work and someone would be screaming obscene language at others. I've sat in coffee shops where someone would walk in and grab my food, destroy the public restroom or have to be kicked out by cops. Streets are littered with people, garbage, human waste and more. My family refuses to visit after what they saw the first time.
Theft:
I have had my car broken into several times mid day in very public places. My bike lock clipped and bike stolen on Market street mid day. I have people break into my elder's home even in San Jose and steal many items.
Nudity:
I understand this is an 'open city' but I've seen men expose themselves while walking by the park of children at Dolores. I've seen a tremendous amount of nude people walking around different streets of the city exposing themselves to tourists, kids, strangers and more yearly. I've seen people publicly masturbate on public transportation and different parts of the city.
Cost:
The pricing for apartments are astronomical. The quality for most are horrendous. I've always had to share apartments with others. It's a problem for rich and poor. My relatives had to move out of the city because they'll never be able to afford a decent home in the bay area because they make a average american wage. I've had friends that are quant traders that refuse to bring their families to SF because it's too expensive - they fly back every weekend to their family because it's cheaper. My uncle sits on a duplex with no yard in south San Jose, that hasn't been touched for 30 years, has eroded greatly and it's somehow still worth more the $1M.
Nothing will change anytime soon. People of all backgrounds are moving out of the bay area. Startups will move out of the city. Larger companies will move. I hope it gets better but I don't think it will. Which is why I left. Best of luck to those still there.
If tech geniuses with massive resources and brain power can't solve basic problems at their door step its far reach to claim to solve world problems. Of course its posturing but a lesson for those who drink the koolaid.
There is no point being wealthy if most around you are suffering and and in desperate conditions. This can't make anyone happy, except sociopaths.
You have to care for other people and society beyond just your immediate interest and benefit. Unlike what Thatcher said you need a society for basic civilized life. This is where self centric individualism falls apart.
Trillions of dollars are being squandered on wars and bailouts to benefit entrenched interests, all these 'individual achievers' worshiped by the neoliberal ideology. This is not how a democracy works.
"If tech geniuses with massive resources and brain power can't solve basic problems at their door step its far reach to claim to solve world problems. Of course its posturing but a lesson for those who drink the koolaid."
I get that the goal nowadays is to be a snarky jerk to everyone around you but this is just extremely bizarre. So lets say some kid from Missouri gets a job working at Pinterest. He or she work 50-60 hours a week and then try to have a life. This seems pretty normal, except to throw2016, who is angry at this supposed "genius" not solving San Francisco's homeless problem.
Also this burden is only on tech people, not on anyone in finance or any other industry in SF. Got it.
There is more point to being wealthy if being poor is a likely reality: the wealthier you are, the more insulated you are as well. And you don't have to be a sociopath either - humans are pretty good at looking away (how often do you look at pictures of starving people?)
Also you assume that a person who is good at solving one class of problems is also good at solving other classes of problems. This is not so.
Anyway there are solutions that are not hard, but they mostly involve putting these people under guardianship and getting them of the streets, then into assisted living for those with mental issues and some for of work program for those who are just on drugs.
The once whoes only issue is that they don't have place to stay need help too, but they are typically not the one you see on the street, because they are sane enough to sleep in cars, behave normally during the day, have a place to shower at a gym or similar, etc. I doubt enough housing could be constructed to help them, as it seems the more housing there is, the more people come there in search of better oppertunities - a potential solution (although diabolical) would be to raise the minimum wage enough that there aren't jobs for the people who can't afford to live there (less diabolically minded people would point out that it would make it more attractive to have a longer commute and that some of the people who are able to maintain their jobs would now be able to afford housing).
Money isn't the problem nor the complete solution to this particular problem. San Francisco spent a quarter billion dollars to combat homelessness last year, 70 million more than the year before, and it clearly hasn't improved.
Not everyone is intelligent enough to be a coding hacking ninja. Every area needs a lower, middle, and upper class. When the lower class of an area isn't given enough to survive, this is what happens.
Or they could be using the money ineffectively. Knowing what I know about social services (although limited to Denmark) they are amazing at pissing away money on studies that they then don't use and classifying people into groups, rather than looking into what individual needs (which may be psych help or a kick in the butt). To be clear, this is a systemic issue, most of the front people do actually want to help.
But to no surprise given the fact that the created west cost wealth is not re-distributed but marginalized at the top. The internet economy favorites monopolies.
I've talked to a few SF natives about this, and the consensus seems to be: people who came from other(/nicer) towns and went to good schools moved here for the software revolution and gave no shits about our city or it's problems. I'm sure everyone remembers the Justin Keller blog post.
"Finally, the homelessness advocates pulled out their trump card: associating supporters of the Civil Sidewalks law with “business interests.” San Francisco “progressives” regard businessmen as aliens within the body politic whose main function is to provide an inexhaustible well of funds to transfer to the city’s social-services empire. "
SF Gate is pretty bad. The Chronicle site (sfchronicle.com) tends to be slightly better, though it doesn't seem to have this story. Outline.com helps tremendously.
I just don't understand how a city that has so many millionaires and billionaires can let this happen.
Silicon valley has been shamelessly monopolising the media and presenting itself as a meritocracy in order to attract desperate people to work there...
But the promise almost always falls short. VCs and executives of SV companies have been conspiring to attract as many people as possible to SV,
filtering out all the 'bad ones' and then dumping them onto the streets like garbage.
What's ironic is that the people who are causing the problem are often the ones who like to think of themselves as being morally irreproachable.
I was surprised when I realized that a lot of people in SV believe that capitalism is some sort of moral code in itself; one in which profit is a quantifiable manifestation of societal improvement.
To me, profit has always been about being in the right place at the right time and then finding some shady way to squeeze yourself between various counterparties.
Middlemen are catalysts for the system; they speed things up in the short term but you end up with something of lower quality in the end.
Let this happen? You’re acting like it’s some easy problem to fix when it’s not. Many of the homeless here are suffering from mental illnesses.. what should a millionaire walking down the street do for them? What about drug addicts? Speaking from first hand experience, even people with the resources to deal with it struggle to properly help friends and family with drug addictions.
The people of San Francisco pay a lot in taxes, and a lot of those tax dollars are used in an effort to curb homelessness, yet it feels like the problem is only getting worse, not better. How do we know our taxes are being used fruitfully? Should every millionaire go into the streets and inspect how homeless shelters and kitchens are being run?
Do you expect every millionaire to make it their life’s work to address the issue? Do you expect them to give up their current interests and ambitions and try to setup new rehab clinics for all of the addicts and mental health clinics for those who aren’t well mentally?
Because I really don’t understand what you’re asking of them.
This is what happens when you use zoning to suppress residential construction across an entire state. All those people have to end up somewhere, and if you don't allow enough apartments to be built then, well, they won't be living in apartments. The psychiatric and substance problems mostly appear afterwards.
This really doesn't mean anything to me without a citation. Wikipedia led me to this [1] article, that states "Nearly half of the homeless money, $81.5 million, goes for rent subsidies and programs to assist the 6,355 people living in "permanent supportive housing" - long the cornerstone of the city's program for helping the down and out.".
I'm not sure if the 6,355 in the supportive housing contributes to the 7000 "homeless" statistic, but dollar spent per homeless person seems like a measurement that's at best misleading and at worst a propaganda soundbyte.
That's not nearly half the money at this point. That article was from 2014 - SF spent 271 million this past year. So spending is up over a hundred million dollars, but it doesn't seem to have solved anything.
It really isn't, though - if you spend 270 million to combat homelessness, shouldn't some of that go to making sure people stay off the streets after you get them off?
Rent? I am pretty sure that would cover a mortage in plenty of places[1], which is less than 500 usd month[2] over 30 years. But even if it was not, we generally buy things where they are cheap, not where they are expensive - that naturally brings up the local price.
> Are you saying SF city money should go directly to other area's rent markets?
If SF isn't able to handle the issue themselves, then why shouldn't they use their money to help them? Should it only be the poorer areas of the country that handle the issues that the rich areas cause?
Now that I think about it, it isn't such a bad idea after all. You're basically moving transient welfare programs from municipal to state concerns. It would be really nice if the government of California could set something up.
Nothing like a good old oversimplification to brush away a proposal to improve the lives of people.
Poverty and homelessness are complex issues, especially when regional inequality gets involved. If a certain city or state is too expensive for the poor to comfortably live in, why would it be bad to send them somewhere that would be easier to live? Why could it not be part of a number of steps to tackle the problem of poverty and homelessness?
It states in the article that many of the homeless people already have jobs or other income that would pay for housing in a less onerous property market. The problem is that they can't or don't want to move.
For anyone wondering what they can do to help homeless people, a first step (that costs you nothing) is to simply treat them like normal people. If they speak to you, reply like you would any other person. If they ask you for money, respond to them politely. Don't simply ignore them as if they don't exist. Don't be afraid to smile and make eye contact. Just be nice, and remember that they're people too.
There isn't much, other than luck and some privilege, which separates most of us elites from someone who finds themselves living on the street.
> For anyone wondering what they can do to help homeless people, a first step (that costs you nothing) is to simply treat them like normal people. If they speak to you, reply like you would any other person. If they ask you for money, respond to them politely. Don't simply ignore them as if they don't exist. Don't be afraid to smile and make eye contact. Just be nice, and remember that they're people too.
And be prepared for any of the things you are suggesting to backfire in some exciting ways.
I agree with the general sentiment and indeed do everything you suggest. Based on my experience 99% of the time this is the right approach but there is a small minority of people who are severely damaged. I live in London, UK and despite being polite I've had homeless people be aggressive to me, loud swearing and yelling, but nothing physical so far. Also there was a recent story where a kind woman tried to help a homeless person and invited him to live in her home and tragically he ended up murdering her, her son, and almost the husband (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41484206). Obviously that particular incident is extremely rare but the point, yes everyone is a human, yes everyone should be treated with respect but be cautious, it's impossible to know how damaged and ill someone might be and I think it's best to keep interactions to a minimum but be polite.
Small minority is understating it by quite a bit, though I appreciate your tact. Over half of homeless people suffer some form of mental illness, and a quarter are severely mentally ill. (Perhaps in the UK the figures are less extreme owing to better public health care.)
> There isn't much, other than luck and some privilege, which separates most of us elites from someone who finds themselves living on the street.
It's not entirely random. This might be a good reminder to get good disability insurance, life insurance, and a living will to protect your family if something big happens like a car accident or the development of a mental health disorder.
Maybe a nice society-wide way to do this would be to have a government-supported healthcare system which doesn't beggar people for an MRI or some simple meds.
I was encouraging everyone to protect their loved ones in any case. There are some things we can be proactive about. Whether someone has a life insurance policy and a will specifying custody for their kids isn't luck. Whether (at least white collar) people have long-term disability insurance isn't luck either.
I've had some truly fascinating (and heart-wrenching) conversations with homeless people just standing around on the BART. Sometimes people just start talking to me. Even years later, I still remember many of those talks.
It makes me so sad that we just discard these people, step over them, joke about the Tenderloin and refer to them as if they were trash, in one of the richest and most "liberal" cities in the world. Recently, I sat with a homeless woman who was mugged and beaten for her last remaining belongings. She cried because somebody had finally noticed her pain and helped her call an ambulance instead of standing on the opposite side of the platform.
We have more resources than we know what to do with but can't even help people who are literally dying on our doorstep.
> We have more resources than we know what to do with but can't even help people who are literally dying on our doorstep.
Who's this "we?" The vast majority of people are barely getting by, and are a handful of missed paychecks away from poverty. The middle class is shrinking fast. There are a small number of people who "have more resources than they know what to do with". But, they're off yachting over to Belize to buy their fifth vacation home and figuring out how to shelter their wealth so their families remain perpetually among the elite. Ask them to fix homelessness--the rest of us are busy trying to survive.
I'm tired of being asked to sacrifice while the ultra-rich are buying their pet dogs $20K diamond encrusted iPhones.
> If they ask you for money, respond to them politely.
Offering them food instead wont hurt if you truly want to help them but don't trust them with your money. If they circle back to money just politely decline and move on. I've ran into a couple different types. Some want any help, others want money.
not sure about the US, but in Europe you often have people begging on streets who are actually working for a group of (often foreign) criminals, who then collect the money and maybe provide the beggars with modest shelter/protection. There were speculations it could be a case of human trafficking.
Obviously that's a whole different kind of homelessness to what the article above is describing.
Because when an addict wants something, they'll lie. Even if they should really use the money for a sandwich, they'll buy the 40 first. Not to say all homeless are addicts, but when they're asking you within walking distance of a liquor store...
I'd rather buy them food or a (non-alcoholic) drink. I rarely have cash on me anyway so I've just had a guy throw his food on my bill when I went into a convenience store before.
I've literally told a guy I'd go into Wawa with him and buy his lunch, but he admitted to my face he wanted the money for the liquor store next door.
When you feel like shit and your life isn't going so great, your self-control isn't exactly great. I'd rather be a positive influence than an enabler.
EDIT: and just for some perspective, I unfortunately used to work in a liquor store in Ortley Beach, NJ where I saw a lot of shit and also have lots of, uh, substance abuse issues in my family. Not to mention NJ has a pretty bad heroin problem in general and it's currently fucking up my hometown.
It doesn’t matter what they’ll spend it on. Don’t pretend to be a micro-political arbiter of societal health or the well-being of someone you don’t even know, and just afford them the bare minimum of dignity. Give them money if you can: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/10/why-you-sho...
“But what if they are part of a gang, or spend the money on $thing_i_disapprove_of?” You can’t know that. Don’t pretend to. Just treat them like humans, not guilty-until-proven-innocent caricatures of social maladies.
In Seattle my friend and I used to always give these two homeless guys our change from the supermarket.
Once my buddy asked them, instead, what they needed from inside. The guy asked for a drink, and he bought them a drink: "Man, are you kidding me? I asked you for a drink. And you went and got me this ! I don't want that . I want a drink."
Some woman in the parking lot saw us and explained to us that they often sleep at a nearby shelter, and that they have access to meals every day.
I guess we thought we were really helping them, but realized we weren't really doing much more than encouraging their behavior.
I wish there were code camps for homeless. Or xyz_marketable_skill camps for the homeless. I know these wouldn't help everyone, but I would feel a lot more sure about the marginal benefit they provide.
I know it is sad. But there is a lot of value in an approach which provides opportunity.
Up on Cap Hill, there used to be this homeless guy that would walk up and down the street, picking up all the garbage on the sidewalks and the gutters. I offered to buy him lunch and he refused--he said he didn't want to be any trouble and could get meals. I told him I'd buy him whatever he wanted from the undercover-Starbucks that is up there, and he agreed. I always remember that guy's eyes and smile when he sat down and drank that coffee.
I sometimes I wanted to cry for him. I wish there was a better way for him; he deserved it.
Are you sure patronizing is the right word here? Treating someone as you would yourself betrays the definition of patronizing.. So I'm not sure what you mean by that? It however does seem patronizing to assert, as you say, that they are not people just like you but who 'have serious problems that put them there.'
The argument has been made that a majority of people in their life will experience an episode of what can be called mental illness. Why does America have higher instance of homelessness than other countries? It cannot only be that we necessarily are genetically have greater predisposition to mental illness.
Some people suffer more than others, and for those that are truly disabled, I would hope that our society will truly care for them, but everyone should first be given opportunities.
> It however does seem patronizing to assert, as you say, that they are not people just like you
Depends what you mean. If you mean "they are not people" I don't assert this at all. If you mean "they are people who are not like you" I did assert this. How is that patronising, especially given that they are homeless, and you are not - It is attributing the difference to small, surmountable differences that find partonising.
Consider whether you also find "white man's burden" problematic. Treating other people like inferior versions of yourself doesn't help them.
> a majority of people in their life will experience an episode of what can be called mental illness
That's a very general statement. I can just as well claim that a majority of people in their life will experience an episode of what can be called "problems".
But are the types of mental illness that many american experience, the same as those affecting homeless people?
> Why does America have higher instance of homelessness than other countries
I don't really agree with you about all of this. Everyone has their own journey, but we are not so different. We are all just people. I think your view is actually closer to patronizing--well, by definition it takes a view that, while being nice to them, that these people are less equal, which is exactly what patronizing is.
But you are right about that homeless statistic for Americans. I personally can't even believe it is right given what I have seen with my own eyes--and I've been to those countries, and volunteered at homeless shelters in America.
I've met and helped provide food for plenty of homeless people. Not in a shelter or similar, but out where they are at night when they're going to sleep on the concrete, sometimes we'd wake some of them up so they know we're there to help them however we can. Many of them accepted our food, a small enough number refused and kept asking for money. Sometimes we went out of our way to buy them a bus ticket if they asked for money for the bus ticket, and never found them again after that. Other times it was obvious what they'd do with money if we gave it to them because they spoke as if they were drunk and smelled like it. We did more than just provide food but the point is, sometimes the people helping the homeless have known them for over a year and have noticed their habits, and know when not to give money.
But the bigger point is most people assume money to be the only way to help someone, sometimes offering food and water is helpful too. We've ran into families that asked us for food when we were not even out feeding the homeless as well.
> Don’t pretend to be a micro-political arbiter...
By the fifth time a friend or family member hits me up for cash, I'm going to start talking to him about the root cause of his cash flow issues. There may be advice, help, references, etc. that I can help with. Because that's what friends and neighbors do, not because I'm political.
Not always. I've had homeless family. I've had homeless friends.
Regardless, if a stranger hits you up for money five times on five different weeks, you still have similar issues. At some point they don't need a meal, they need a way to feed themselves.
I think the linked article answers your statements more effectively than I could. You should read it. But I'll try anyway.
> begging undignified
That's the point. It's so undignified that the people doing it likely do not consider it a choice. Saying "I won't give you what you want because I know what's best for you" is compounding that situation with infantilization/patronization.
> Kantian BS/"Do no harm"
The categorical imperative doesn't help you decide one way or the other here, because you have no information other than someone asking you for money. Giving the money could hurt or help. Not giving it could hurt or help. There is no clear "rational" (Kantian) or Hippocratic ("Do no harm") choice here. Absent that clarity, unless you want to defend defaulting to inaction, make a moral choice to preserve someone's dignity.
> I don't give random strangers money normally.
Maybe you should, especially when they are literally begging you for it on a street full of people who ignore them or treat them like shit all day.
If a person is an addict, not giving them the object of their addiction is best for them. I do know this. If you want to call that "infantilization", fine - but you already agree they have little choice - so it is you choosing for them; So which is infantilization?
The basis of "patronizing" is an invalid assumption of incompetence - in this case the assumption that an addict cannot rationally control their addition is perfectly valid. As for " I know what's best for you" - I'm sure the addict know what's best for themselves too - they just can't control the impulse to do not do it.
> There is no clear "rational" (Kantian) or Hippocratic ("Do no harm") choice here
> unless you want to defend defaulting to inaction, make a moral choice to preserve someone's dignity
This appears to be a contradiction - there is no clear choice, but we should default to action?
I don't see why "dignity" (which I don't agree with btw - I feel being drunk/high is just as undignified) is a winner over Hippocratic inaction.
> Maybe you should
You are ignoring the context of what I said. You suggested denying homeless money is not treating them like "people", but I don't give none-homeless strangers money either, so why would you consider refusing to giving a stranger money on demand as inhumane?
Doesn't a person have a right to escape his miserable circumstances for a short time?
Sure, food or shelter are certainly the more wholesome option. But who am I to judge a person's morality for what he does with a couple francs that I just gave him?
I don't think the expectation is that they may budget a measured amount for alcohol or other drugs, but that by providing them with the means to get more of those things, one may play a small part in what prevents their escape from said miserable circumstances.
> Doesn't a person have a right to escape his miserable circumstances for a short time?
Yes but not on my dime. I'm entirely happy to pay (directly or via taxes) to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, get them medical care and clean clothes.
But I really don't think buying them cigarettes and light beer is improving their situation in a meaningful way.
It's sad that this is getting downvoted here. We are talking about people in miserable circumstances, and while vices are a longterm negative, I, an educated disciplined and well off person, still can't reliably resist them when I'm feeling down. To begrudge these people their vices is inhuman.
Well, if I am giving my money to a homeless guy begging on the street/public transport, I for sure will not encourage him in his destructive behavior. It means me contributing to his self-destruction with my money. Simply no. How hard is it to understand this?
Personally, I give sometimes few coins to street musicians, but that's it. Homeless in Europe never struggle for life, there is a vast social net that can help them in various ways, if they want. Giving money means confirming that this is affordable lifestyle, and something they should continue doing.
