Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Show HN: A website aiming to fix homelessness in SF
45 points by SeckinJohn on Jan 4, 2014 | hide | past | favorite | 68 comments
Hi everyone, I am organizing a crowdfunding campaign to give blankets/food/books/glasses and new year's postcards to 1000 homeless people in San Francisco.

Since we as the residents already spend a lot of money on the homelessness issue in SF via government(200MM+/year), I thought some of us would be willing to take a more active role in fixing this issue by donating to campaigns like this one(and to more sustainable ones). So, I am thinking of turning this campaign into a crowdfunding platform for activists and organizations that want to work on homelessness related issues in San Francisco.

I wanted to share the campaign here thinking you might like the idea & might want to share your thoughts on it: https://operationsflove.com

So far the supporters have been mostly my friends but I believe this could go viral with some improvement.

Would love hear what you all think, Thanks, Seckin




I recall a time at a community meeting I advocated finding a way of providing a facility that could house and treat the addicted and mentally ill, I was accused of wanting to "sweep the homeless under the rug and forget about them." I knew it was a difficult problem I just didn't realize that the problem wasn't the homeless, the problem has roots in our collective understanding of what is a 'better' versus 'not better' quality of life.

I have always held that it is one of the main purposes of government to maximize the quality of life for the governed. Whether they are rich, poor, sane, or insane. What I always find challenging is when someone chooses to define 'better' in a way that I cannot comprehend.

I strongly recommend that anyone who wants to help here start by looking at what we had, in terms of laws and institutions, which gave the state the ability to hold someone and treat their illness, and restrict their movements, and why those institutions were abolished and laws changed.

As a community we changed our position from it is 'better' to house these people and give them treatment, to it is 'better' that they live without constraints and someone trying to provide help they don't want.

When a person says they would rather sleep on a bench than be given drugs that make them feel "bad" and be forced to live with other people who are similarly afflicted, which is better? Homelessness or being institutionalized? Why?


You make interesting points.

I do, however, think that it is the right of the governed to make rules against sleeping on benches, that they paid for with their tax dollars. Same goes for sidewalks, doorways, etc. I suppose you could say such rules are "restricting of movements" (in the broadest sense), but they seem reasonable restrictions to me.

That said, I also think it is society's responsibility to provide another option.


That is a well understood argument for the common good. Which is that the vast majority of the citizens are served by available benches, not by occupied benches, (or other publicly supplied services) and so excluding people from sleeping on them makes sense in the context of the entire constituency.

   > That said, I also think it is society's responsibility
   > to provide another option.
I don't think many would disagree, the challenge comes with deciding what exactly is that option? I am an engineer so I find I tend to come up with practical but socially inept solutions.

At the time there was a discussion about how "we" (where we is the city of Sunnyvale) might use the Onizuka Air Force base facility (aka the 'Blue Cube') which was being decommissioned and turned over to the public sector for re-use. I was trying to figure out if there was a way we could convert part of that facility into what would essentially be caves, self heated concrete structures that were impervious to fire, contained internal pipes with a heat transfer fluid to maintain a livable temperature (cooling or warming), a dedicated latrine system that would periodically flush out all waste, and that were nominally "open" but could be enclosed with available materials. Something that people who were otherwise unwilling to live in a more traditional shelter/section 8 housing, might be able to survive in. This wasn't even a basic income kind of problem, these were people who are mentally non-functional adults. Was there any sort of place we could create that would make their lives better than it was today. They are an at risk group for whom it is very difficult these days to provide services for.

It was wildly derided as putting these people on a 'reservation' or 'in pens' or any number of things. Like I said earlier, socially inept. I don't know have any good solutions.


The reason there are many homeless in SF, is because there are many shelters in the Tenderloin that provide these things you are talking about. Think you should first ask why are they homeless, not just give them random things. They are homeless either because, they have drug problems, psychological issues, or the least likely -- they have a problem getting employment.


It's kind of amazing how you can stereotype huge amounts of people in two sentences.

And it's ALL THEIR FAULT.

Not the economy, not the insane cost of higher education to gain job skills, not the outsourcing and automation of modern society.

It's the homeless who are failures.

That's why I propose Gladiator hobo fights to the death.

Only the strongest hobo's survive.

Make them earn their cheeseburgers like a good capitalist.


Oh get off that pedestal. OP was talking about the Tenderloin. Have you ever walked through the Tenderloin? A large fraction of the homeless people there clearly have severe psychological or drug issues. They're not there because of the economy.


For some those issues (mental health, substance abuse) are the causes of their homelessness (e.g. financial struggles), but for others, they are a symptom. Reduce the amount of people falling through the cracks, reduce mental health and substance abuse issues.


Maybe, but do you feel proud to live in a city where those unfortunates who have drug or "psychological" issues lie in the streets? It's shameful that you feel that those stricken by bad fortune should be left to rot out there.


> It's shameful that you feel that those stricken by bad fortune should be left to rot out there.

Where are you getting this from? I didn't imply it at all.


I AGREE!

I'm sure every single person in the Tenderloin is there because they're just losers!

That's why I'm proposing Bumfights.

It could be an awesome startup.

Pit them against each other Hunger Games style.

Fuck those loser homeless.


You seem to be the only one in this thread calling them losers. I'm not sure where you're getting that from my comment.


No You're right! I know you weren't implying that the homeless should LOSE out on OP's offer due to detrimental qualities like "psychological or drug issues".

Indeed, these are WINNING qualities!

That's why I think we should name our bum fighters after their winning qualities.

Find out which winning quality is the best!!

(But you know you would bet on 'Junkie' Bob over 'Lazy Hammock' Steve any day.)


what don't you get? He's making fun of the assumption you seem to make that none of the residents of the area are there due to economic reasons, and then you cite anecdotal evidence (a walk through) as evidence as such.


I wrote an incredibly angry reply to you, but I've calmed down enough that I can try to explain my point without attacking you.

mrharrison stated that the root cause of much of our poor handling of homelessness comes from our poor handling of the disabled. To avoid going with anecdotes, I'll simply point out that 13% of the homeless population are veterans. Physical and mental disabilities are quite common and our society has decided to just dump these people on the streets as opposed to helping them.

However, then nickthemagicman comes along and makes the implication that stating that a homeless person is disabled is equivalent to stating that the person deserves to be homeless. That's the most offensive thing that I've ever seen on the Internet, and I've been to 4chan. Just because a person has a disability doesn't mean that they don't deserve basic human dignity.

Though I am descending into anecdote here, my wife was homeless when I met her. She also has a physical disability which cost her her job and her home. There was a wonderful government program to help her out of poverty by letting her haul 40lb bags of sand around, but it's not much use to a woman who walks with a cane and can't carry more than 20lb without needing a week of bed rest. If we were willing to talk about the root cause, then she'd be getting the treatment she needs to be healthy again and be happy to carry those 40lb bags. Unfortunately, the system was designed by bigots like nickthemagicman. When she applied for disability, she was told that they would only pay for her medical treatment if she agreed to never work again under punishment of jail time. After all, basic dignities like the joy of contributing to society aren't allowed for the disabled. Just the able bodied homeless, I guess.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_Baby_Athletic_Association


First "Faith + 1" then this.

The South Park guys always one step ahead with capitalism.


I don't think it's somebodies fault that he has psychological issues or that it turned out that he is prone to addiction to drugs.


You're not making a good case for your point of view here.


I'm really committed to startup culture.


I agree that there are multiple complex causes of homelessness and that we need to address those issues. I have been thinking about this for a while and I have talked with a lot of social workers and activists to learn the details of the issue, yet, I am not the best person to work on actively solving those main causes. So, with this first campaign, I am trying to reach the people who are passionate about fixing this problem by directly designing/executing campaigns or by donating. I believe that the people who have been working on this for years will be the ones that will come up with the most sustainable solutions. I will try my best to help them reach potential donators through this website.


Amen. My fiance is a social worker and has been working with homeless for the past 5 years.


Never been to SF but I remember reading this article recently on HN: http://priceonomics.com/what-its-like-to-fail/?src=longreads


How does this "fix homelessness in SF?"

Same number of homeless but now they have blankets and books too?


I'm not sure how it's sustainable either. Sustainable via getting people to continue donating blankets and books?


Think bigger.


In many discussions like this I see the argument that some/most/all homeless people are drug addicts or mentally ill or otherwise not deserving of help.

I have always been of the opinion that I don't care why someone is homeless, I would like to help them. There is nobody that deserves to live on the street in a nation with as much wealth as America, even if they've made bad decisions (drugs, alcohol, crime, etc.). I think it's our job as a society to put a roof over everyone's head to the best of our abilities, it's inhuman to pick and dodge among homeless people and go about our lives like it is normal.

If I could solve any problem in my lifetime, it would be homelessness in America. I wish I had any idea where to start. I know it's not as noble of a cause as curing cancer or helping the needy who live in true poverty around the world, but it's something that's in my face every day and I think it's a failure of our modern society.


There is nobody that deserves to live on the street in a nation with as much wealth as America, even if they've made bad decisions (drugs, alcohol, crime, etc.).

I'm not sure what you mean by, "even if," here. The Fundamental Attribution Error holds that it's a mistake to attribute someone's circumstances more to choices than to luck. There are tons of rich people who have chosen drugs, alcohol and crime, with extremely few, if any, turning up homeless as a result. There are also homeless who are not addicted nor incapacitatingly mentally ill (I'm sure we can agree that homelessness could predictably lead to depression at the very least).

Likewise, the way economic policy in many capitalist countries is oriented toward maintaining certain levels of unemployment (full employment being seen as bad, weakening the negotiating power of business owners, etc.) ensures that homelessness and poverty are actual government policy. Your Tax Dollars At Work.

Generally and socially, I contend that the problems of education and homelessness, in the US at least, are directly attributable to prioritizing commerce and the military over domestic care. Let's ask why a country with as much wealth as America deserves to engage in war, shall we?


I agree with you on most points. The "even if" was a reference to what others give as reasons for not helping the homeless.


>In many discussions like this I see the argument that some/most/all homeless people are drug addicts or mentally ill or otherwise not deserving of help.

I don't think the conclusion is drug addicts and the mentally ill don't deserve compassion. It is that trying to help the homeless while ignoring the drug and mental health issues is unlikely to be as productive as providing treatment options for the underlying causes.


This could be a good place to start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_co...


Am I missing something? Are you suggesting that we put homeless people on an aircraft carrier? Or that we spend less on the military? Overall I'm confused by your response.


My only advice is to provide socks too. Socks get gross and/or wet or hard if you can't easily wash them.. and they're not too expensive.


Funny. My son's Cub Scout pack worked with a local homeless group and the top requested things they packed in gift bags for them were cheap flashlights and tube socks. They use the socks for everything.


Absolutely. You can't do much with messed-up feet and body from dirty/wet/nonexistent socks and underwear. These discomforts strike to the core of basic human functioning.


Go out and talk to some social workers, figure out what tech could actually help with. This is just silly.


I would love to talk with more social workers/activists/organizations working on this and similar issues. Please feel free to send an email to me at seckincansahin@gmail.com

I have been iterating on this campaign for at least a month now according to feedback I have received from 50+ people in all walks of life, but I agree that there is still a huge room for improvement. And I would love to hear more about the campaigns that you think we could work on after this one.


I had a long coffee with HandUp's founder Rose Broome, who's done a boatload of legwork in this space (and just had Jason Calicanis ask to lead an investment round). Was intro'd to her product by a homeless guy in my hood and immediately had to know more. It's the first piece of tech that really wowed me with regards to making some headway on some of these issues - I'd highly encourage anyone who thinks about the space a lot to connect with her team. They're pretty responsive @handup on twitter.


http://streetlifeministries.org/ is run by an ex-homeless (David), you can ask him.


Very awesome.

One thing I love about Watsi is that I can actually see (and pick) who I'm donating to. There's something cool about being able to read their stories and see their pictures -- it almost makes me feel bad going to the site and not donating.

Good luck!


Someone else mentioned this site, which is exactly what I was thinking:

https://handup.us/


It's a nice gesture, but it won't 'fix' homelessness. There are some homeless who will stay that way; you can see them roaming around in packs. And then there are the mentally ill; they need medications and structure.

There's too much money to be made by the established people, so chances of fixing homelessness are negligible. It's a corrupt system.


I agree than the term "fixing homelessness" is probably not appropriate. As you said some homeless might want to stay homeless, and that is fine. But for the homeless who want to get out of homelessness, there should be a clear path to get back. That could start with basics (shelter, bathroom, medical and social help).


I don't live in SF but I work for a Bay Area company and have often wondered, while waiting to get onto one of those shiny buses, why a city with such a high concentration of rich, smart people is failing its least fortunate residents so miserably and obviously. Why are the technological elite so helpless in the face of this problem on their own doorstep?

Reading the comments here it seems that there is a massive gap in understanding, empathy and plain old data - are there no studies answering the questions being speculated on here?

If you could find a way to address that gap of understanding - provide the technologists with data, and fully describe the constraints - perhaps there can be a useful discussion in the technology community.


I think the mistake you are making is when you talk about it as failing "its least fortunate residents," without regard for the fact that those residents may only be there because of how well it does treat them.


Spending $200M/year on ~15,000 homeless, that's ~$1,000/month for each homeless. I don't think we need more money. We need to spend it better.

Why not build public bathrooms ? That could be used by homeless and others (like people renting a bedroom w/o shower, poor, students, etc.). Actually that could be a way to reach homeless people, to provide them medical and social help.

To integrate homeless to society you need to provide them the basics that they don't have (bathroom, shelter, laundry, food, medical and social help, and even bank account, internet, phone). Not all will grab the opportunity, but at least they will have a chance to.


I applaud efforts like these for at least doing something to address the problem, even if it doesn't turn out to be the most effective use of capital in the end as some suggest here.

That said, I think some of the best projects fighting homelessness are supportive housing projects that help people get an apartment and provide additional services for medical/psychiatric treatments, food stamps, etc. [1]

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supportive_housing


Housing First has been shown to be fiscally prudent, generate good outcomes, as well as just being plain compassionate (of course we shouldn't base whether or not you have access to a home on whether or not you have a substance abuse issue). Salt Lake City has had some huge successes implementing it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_first

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=18984066


It seems a bit like trying to fix the pigeon problem in the city by putting out pigeon food.

The harsh reality is that the more accommodating to the homeless the city is, the more homeless there will be.

I think there are solutions, and they can be compassionate, but simply making life easier for the homeless has long term drawbacks that are greater than the short term upsides.


I disagree. We should not make life more difficult than it is already for homeless people. We should provide them a path to integrate to society (access to shelters, bathrooms, education, medical and social help). Some homeless might grab the opportunity to leave homelessness, but let's not fool ourselves, some will remain homeless. The remaining homeless would be at least healthier and less outcast.

That will attract more homeless in SF, sure! (actually, some cities pay to send their homeless to SF already http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/09/11/2602391/san-franc...). But that is not a sufficient reason to not make what is right.

If every city in the Bay would do the same, there would less incentive for homeless to congregate in SF.


> If every city in the Bay would do the same, there would less incentive for homeless to congregate in SF.

So then any such program shouldn't be city specific. Why would residents of a city do things that result in more homeless in their own city? Basic game theory.


It is not a game. The goal is not put homeless under the carpet. Because they are out of sight does not mean that the problem is solved.

SF is "the homeless capital of the United States"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_Stat...). So, SF must be doing something right, for homeless to come in the City. I wish other cities would do the same, for the homeless's wellbeing not necessarily to attract more homeless. But if every city would do the same, homeless would not need to travel, so no more no less homeless. Right now some cities do nothing (or even make life more difficult) for homeless, hoping they leave...

I don't think it is the right strategy.


"My point is that from many SF residents' perspectives, spending their tax dollars to make the city the "homeless capital of the united states" is not a smart strategy."

I guess this is where we disagree. As a SF resident, I want my tax dollars to serve every residents including the homeless. I don't want my tax dollars to be used to push the "problem" out.


Game Theory is not about games. Please don't blame me if the name is confusing to you. It is about strategies and incentives.

My point is that from many SF residents' perspectives, spending their tax dollars to make the city the "homeless capital of the united states" is not a smart strategy.


I agree that the goal shouldn't be making the life too easy for the homeless - instead I believe that we should focus on helping them re-integrate back to the society, at least for the ones that would like to.

Homelessness is the main concern for resident of San Francisco according to recent polls, and it would be a shame if this stayed like this for another 10 years.

With this campaign, we can start creating campaigns that are funded and lead by the citizens who are most passionate about solving this. Then, the idea that something like this could work would ideally propagate to other people that are more skeptic.

We need to also note that we are already paying around $20 per month each on fixing homelessness in San Francisco through the government. The main difference is that with a crowdfunding platform, we would be the ones that are choosing which campaigns make sense and which activists we would like to support.


Making it 'easy' for the homeless?

Lol you think basic fundamental survival goods like food and blankets are making it easy?

Are you SERIOUS?

Because I completely agree! You guys are absolutely right on. If you encourage homelessness EVERYONE will become one.


"Easy" is a relative term. The issue is whether you want to make it easier than it previously was.


You are implying that homelessness is a calculated choice, and that if it becomes unpleasant enough, an individual will decide to stop being homeless.

This is absurd because it fails to recognize that homelessness is not a choice, it is the default when no choice is available. It is literally the bottom of the list, lower even than jail (many homeless people try to get in jail on purpose, especially during the winter).

Making life more difficult (and dangerous) for homeless people won't stop them from being homeless. It might, however, get them to go be homeless in someone else's town - which is the real motivation for inhumane policies. Make human suffering someone else's problem, not in my back yard.


Well, I could suggest lots of ideas better than giving them stuff while leaving them living on the streets.


Semi-related: I recently watched this video on $20 homeless backpack care kits (http://youtu.be/Y6fkyf9UGAE), thought it was a neat idea. Figured it might be useful for those looking for simple ways to help out a bit.


I've seen homeless people abuse entitlements (turn down jobs because they'd loose their handouts, etc.)

On the other hand, some of them would get laughed at in an interview without being "cleaned up" to look presentable, which a hand out could help with.


I think its a great idea.


OP after reading all the comments in this thread, I've determined that your idea for mercy and compassion is a flawed concept and is not good capitalism.

What you should do instead is turn your web site into a bumfights startup!!!

Make them fight to the death hunger games style for tons of swag.

The profit potential is huge, the homeless population will be decreased, AND the leftover hobos will have tons of good swag!


I don't have downvote power on here, but I think you should re-consider your comment - as it's snarky, doesn't add anything, and doesn't really follow the ethos of HN.


I'm really commited to start up culture! I think this a great idea.


I also wish I could downvote you into oblivion. You're mischaracterizing others to an extreme, and in such poor taste.


I'm mischaracterizing ignorance?

Mischaracterizing dehumanization of entire swathes of people with a simplistic black and white view of the world.

It could be literally Hitler posting these comments.

There's no taste too low for people like that no matter what side of the aisle you're on.


By now, it's extremely difficult to figure out what your perspective is, much less any points you may be trying to make.


Please upvote!!!

This is a great startup idea!!




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: