Why is San Francisco's homeless problem so atrocious?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I saw a PBS segment and one woman went from the east coast to SF in the 60s and has been homeless since. She said she chooses to live that way because she has no rules or boundaries to limit her and just wants to be a free spirit. She believes she was meant to live this way and can't see any other way.

I read an article recently about LAs hiking trails are turning onto homeless camps right on the path itself. for miles and miles all you could see was tent after tent and dogs everywhere.

But there are many cities in California with good weather, public parks etc.

What is it which has enabled that woman to live year-round for 50 years as a homeless person in San Francisco? Are they giving out public buffets of food for breakfast, lunch, and dinner? Why are you giving them crazy levels of medical care? What about money for small expenditures and large ones like drugs - is theft rampant?

Grace Cathedral serves meals to homeless, as do a few other churches in the city. There are a few needle exchange places, and there are outreach orgs that walk around handing out free clean needles to those who want them. I believe about 60% of the needles handed out come back.

Also, there are a lot of tourists here. I, as a local, have problem saying "No, sorry" several times a day to homeless people asking for food or money. But many tourists can't do that, or get flustered because they've never been out of their suburban community and don't know WHAT to say so they give money.

As for why we're giving homeless people medical care - why shouldn't we? Should we let them painfully die on a street corner from something treatable?

No. They should be functioning members of society like the rest of us. Have jobs, put a roof over our heads and pay taxes.

But when they're too severely mentally ill to hold a job they don't have health insurance, they can't pull their shit together enough to get MediCal, and here we are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the SF Local poster, and there ARE teachers who are living in their car and showering at a gym before teaching kids, then coaching, then tutoring. It's heartbreaking. I have rent-control, and even with that the percentage of my income that goes towards rent is already creeping up to one I'm not super comfortable with.

You are arguing about probably less than 5% of the homeless population in San Francisco. And they would be the ones most likely to be able to get a space in a shelter. The homeless described in the article citied in the OP, and what posters are responding to, do not fit your definition and are the vast majority of the homeless in San Francisco.

Shelters are REALLY dangerous. Homeless teachers are NOT living in homeless shelters. Which by the way, only allow temporary stays.

[Anonymous]

There was a great bog written by a Google new hire who was living in a former Uhaul truck that he had purchased. Kept it parked in the Google parking lot until the blog was featured in an SF Chronicle article and Google asked him to find another location to park over night. The guy was saving a fortune between his Google salary and his low cost of living. Upper class homeless.

That is not the person sitting on the sidewalk begging for change. He probably showered in the personal employee-only gym as well.

The homeless problem driving away people from conventions are the ones who haven't bathed, are doing drugs, are wearing three layers of clothes, and look like they'll shiv you for chips.

Get real.

No shit? Thanks for clearing that up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There was a great bog written by a Google new hire who was living in a former Uhaul truck that he had purchased. Kept it parked in the Google parking lot until the blog was featured in an SF Chronicle article and Google asked him to find another location to park over night. The guy was saving a fortune between his Google salary and his low cost of living. Upper class homeless.

That is not the person sitting on the sidewalk begging for change. He probably showered in the personal employee-only gym as well.

The homeless problem driving away people from conventions are the ones who haven't bathed, are doing drugs, are wearing three layers of clothes, and look like they'll shiv you for chips.

Get real.

No shit? Thanks for clearing that up.

Then why are you complaining about clearly UMC issues on a thread about homelessness in San Francisco?

[Anonymous]

Then why are you complaining about clearly UMC issues on a thread about homelessness in San Francisco?

Please show me where I complained about anything.

[Anonymous]

California’s homeless contributes to 25% of the overall US homeless despite the fact that CA is only 12% of the US. It’s madness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:California’s homeless contributes to 25% of the overall US homeless despite the fact that CA is only 12% of the US. It’s madness.

I don’t think that percentage is that surprising when you factor in the weather being more conducive to living outside. I think the better comparison would be San Fran to other CA cities.

[Anonymous]

I live in a coastal town in CA with a sizable homeless population. The problem in the last few years isn't the mentally ill homeless it is the increasing numbers of vagrants/ drug addicts that are destroying the quality of life with non-stop petty crime. CA was under pressure from the courts to reduce the prison population. CA voters passed proposition 47 which made many crimes misdemeanors instead of felonies. The problem is that when a drug addict would steal and get caught they would often be offered a deal to go into treatment in order to get their crime reduced to a misdemeanor. Now any property crime under $950 is s misdemeanor. So someone can steal one day from a grocery store, get arrested and released the same day because it is a misdemeanor. The next few day they can steal from cars over and over again because it isn't a cumulative total it is each incident. Then they can steal packages from porches, etc. my neighbors don't even report it when packages get stolen of their car is broken into because police no longer care. It takes too long to book the criminals for a misdemeanor.

And the other issue is that people are coming for drug rehab centers in CA that are paid for by the affordable care act. When they are sitting watching TV or are online googling drug rehab centers, ads for paid drug rehab centers appear. Once you are in CA -it doesn't matter that you just moved- you become eligible for expanded health benefits thanks to the affordable care act and CA taxpayers. So drug addicts come to CA for rehab, they start using again, they get kicked out of rehab and become homeless.

[Anonymous]

It’s interesting to consider perception vs numbers (and, of course, perception is often reality). The number of homeless has actually gone down 13% (1000 people) over the last decade (now at 7,500) ; it is now not that much higher than, say, DC (6,900). I wonder if location, concentration, and provided shelter all contribute to heightened visibility? They tend to be in tourist/high-density areas, and distribution of tents over the past few years increase their physical footprint.

https://projects.sfchronicle.com/sf-homeless/2018-state-of-homelessness/
https://wamu.org/story/18/05/08/d-c-homeless-population-decreases-second-year-advocates-worry-many-still-risk/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I saw a PBS segment and one woman went from the east coast to SF in the 60s and has been homeless since. She said she chooses to live that way because she has no rules or boundaries to limit her and just wants to be a free spirit. She believes she was meant to live this way and can't see any other way.

I read an article recently about LAs hiking trails are turning onto homeless camps right on the path itself. for miles and miles all you could see was tent after tent and dogs everywhere.

But there are many cities in California with good weather, public parks etc.

What is it which has enabled that woman to live year-round for 50 years as a homeless person in San Francisco? Are they giving out public buffets of food for breakfast, lunch, and dinner? Why are you giving them crazy levels of medical care? What about money for small expenditures and large ones like drugs - is theft rampant?

Grace Cathedral serves meals to homeless, as do a few other churches in the city. There are a few needle exchange places, and there are outreach orgs that walk around handing out free clean needles to those who want them. I believe about 60% of the needles handed out come back.

Also, there are a lot of tourists here. I, as a local, have problem saying "No, sorry" several times a day to homeless people asking for food or money. But many tourists can't do that, or get flustered because they've never been out of their suburban community and don't know WHAT to say so they give money.

As for why we're giving homeless people medical care - why shouldn't we? Should we let them painfully die on a street corner from something treatable?

No. They should be functioning members of society like the rest of us. Have jobs, put a roof over our heads and pay taxes.

People with severe mental illness simply can't be functioning members of society...at least not without treatment, housing and support.

[Anonymous]

Re: the stats from a pp - you need to drill down.

DC has 3,770 homeless adult individuals (that number doesn't include adults in families who you don't see on the street). And DC counted 9 unaccompanied homeless youth.

SF has well over 5.5k homeless adult individuals plus well over 1k unaccompanied homeless youth.

I have worked in the homeless advocacy arena for two decades, and I do think it's odd that SF and other parts of CA continue to have such issues with visible street homelessness despite having invested so much money to address the problem. San Diego and LA similarly have significant issues--as does the Orange Couny area. Seattle does, too---and Seattle is widely heralded for its innovative strategies to address homelessness.

It does make me wonder if the generous infrastructure attracts or enables street homelessness---particularly when it comes to youth. SF, LA and Seattle have big homeless youth populations (in excess of 1k). DC only counted 9---yet as a pp pointed out, SF only has 1k more homeless people than DC. Why is that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in SF, and actually live in SoMa, one of the neighborhoods considered worst for homelessness after the Tenderloin/Civic Center. I live a few blocks from Moscone Convention Center.

Other cities are (were?) bussing their homeless here. I believe there were lawsuits about this.
We have the lure of good weather sure, but also the lure of the hippie counter-culture in the Haight. People come to be near Janis Joplin's spirit or whatever and get stoned, run out of money and stay.
There's a lack of personal responsibility that didn't used to be a problem. DD and I walk by so many people who look 16-26 with signs begging for money to get home. I've told DD numerous times "You don't leave for a trip unless you have the money to also get home AND emergency money for things that may come up.
Homelessness is worse all over the U.S. - mentally ill people don't have health insurance or have a lot less. They can't get medication or therapy they need.
Gulf War - homeless vets.

If you're homeless for too long, you become more comfortable on the street than housed.
In SF there's a law that you can't arrest a homeless person who has a pet dog unless you can bring the dog to a no-kill shelter. So many homeless people here have dogs as companions and as a way to avoid getting arrested, yet if they DID get arrested they might get some of the help they need.
Homeless shelters don't allow dogs.

How can you say that thought when people have been complaining about homeless in San Francisco since the 80s?

For weeks, a tent city for homeless people flourished in the middle of San Francisco's Civic Center Plaza as city officials withstood mounting criticism for the highly visible eyesore while trying to find a humane solution to the problem.

http://articles.latimes.com/1989-07-21/news/mn-4233_1_tent-city

Richard Hunter, a 22-year-old from Boston who has been hustling in the area for three years, said in a sidewalk conversation that he worries about friends who are ruining their minds with the drug. But he continues to use it himself.

http://articles.latimes.com/1986-07-27/news/mn-1497_1_polk-street

Homeless people, encouraged by generous local welfare grants and the fine climate, have long gravitated toward San Francisco and are believed to number about 10,000 in a population of about 730,000.

https://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/20/us/homeless-in-san-francisco-a-new-policy.html

After months of charges that he was waffling on the matter, Mayor Art Agnos has ordered the police to break up a sprawling encampment of homeless people just outside City Hall.

https://www.nytimes.com/1990/07/06/us/san-francisco-s-mayor-ousts-homeless-camp.html

More homeless people died in San Francisco in the last 12 months than in any year since tracking began in 1985, an increase that has alarmed and frustrated advocates for the homeless and city health workers.

https://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/21/us/homeless-deaths-are-rising-in-san-francisco.html

Before the 80's. The Summer of Love was in 1968.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Re: the stats from a pp - you need to drill down.

DC has 3,770 homeless adult individuals (that number doesn't include adults in families who you don't see on the street). And DC counted 9 unaccompanied homeless youth.

SF has well over 5.5k homeless adult individuals plus well over 1k unaccompanied homeless youth.

I have worked in the homeless advocacy arena for two decades, and I do think it's odd that SF and other parts of CA continue to have such issues with visible street homelessness despite having invested so much money to address the problem. San Diego and LA similarly have significant issues--as does the Orange Couny area. Seattle does, too---and Seattle is widely heralded for its innovative strategies to address homelessness.

It does make me wonder if the generous infrastructure attracts or enables street homelessness---particularly when it comes to youth. SF, LA and Seattle have big homeless youth populations (in excess of 1k). DC only counted 9---yet as a pp pointed out, SF only has 1k more homeless people than DC. Why is that?

The differences in population between DC and San Francisco can be attributed to the differences in overall population. SF proper is bigger than DC proper and SF metro area is bigger than DC metro area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I saw a PBS segment and one woman went from the east coast to SF in the 60s and has been homeless since. She said she chooses to live that way because she has no rules or boundaries to limit her and just wants to be a free spirit. She believes she was meant to live this way and can't see any other way.

I read an article recently about LAs hiking trails are turning onto homeless camps right on the path itself. for miles and miles all you could see was tent after tent and dogs everywhere.

But there are many cities in California with good weather, public parks etc.

What is it which has enabled that woman to live year-round for 50 years as a homeless person in San Francisco? Are they giving out public buffets of food for breakfast, lunch, and dinner? Why are you giving them crazy levels of medical care? What about money for small expenditures and large ones like drugs - is theft rampant?

Grace Cathedral serves meals to homeless, as do a few other churches in the city. There are a few needle exchange places, and there are outreach orgs that walk around handing out free clean needles to those who want them. I believe about 60% of the needles handed out come back.

Also, there are a lot of tourists here. I, as a local, have problem saying "No, sorry" several times a day to homeless people asking for food or money. But many tourists can't do that, or get flustered because they've never been out of their suburban community and don't know WHAT to say so they give money.

As for why we're giving homeless people medical care - why shouldn't we? Should we let them painfully die on a street corner from something treatable?

No. They should be functioning members of society like the rest of us. Have jobs, put a roof over our heads and pay taxes.

Much of the homeless population is due to mental health issues. Mental healthcare is very expensive and not readily available in this country to many who need it. It's hard to be a functioning member of society without being mentally stable.

[Anonymous]

In China, you can see some homeless people on the streets but it is not explicitly common because the Chinese authorities are very strict with them. But this does not mean that there are very few homeless people in China. Another reason why it is not commonly seen is the perception of homelessness as a shame and a taboo in the Chinese society. Real homeless people may hide their status as they do not want other people to know that they are homeless for fear of being looked down upon.