San Francisco is imploding

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:San Francisco is NEVER going to solve the homeless crisis because if they house 10,000 people overnight by some miracle, then 10,000 more will arrive from across the country. This is why places like California, New York, DC, Portland, etc. are going to always have homeless people. Lax laws such as no drug enforcement, cheap cost of drugs - fentanyl is cheaper in SF than other areas, plus generous handouts means people from across the country will continue to pour into SF and other cities like it.

Doesn't help that all of the western red states are sending their own homeless, their own drug addicts and so on to San Francisco rather than dealing with it themselves. And then they have the gall to point at the people THEY SENT THERE and say "oh look, how disgusting San Francisco is with all those homeless and drug addicts on the streets."

This is just false and is being pushed as a narrative to try to somehow make excuses for the homeless problem in SF.

Seventy-one percent of those surveyed reported living in San Francisco, 24% in other California counties and 4% outside California.

Of those with a prior residence in the city, 17% said they had lived in San Francisco for less than one year, while 35% said they had been in the city for 10 or more years. The remaining 52% of those respondents said they lived in the city between one and 10 years before becoming homeless.

https://sfstandard.com/public-health/san-francisco-homeless-people-from-the-city/#

The chief of police just said out of the last 45 people arrested for public drug use in SF (there behavior must have been atrocious to get arrested ) only 3 out if the 45 had SF addresses. Even the article states:
Others argue that the data is flawed because it’s self-reported and that it still finds that more than 2,200 people of the city’s total 7,754 unhoused population were homeless before they moved to San Francisco.

My brother lives there and says must residents know that homeless are encouraged to say they are from SF even when they are not. There are plenty of journalists who have filmed themselves asking homeless where they are from and if the response is SF. But then they ask them what high school they went to and they don’t respond or then admit they aren’t from SF and recently arrived. Often they add how easy it is to be homeless there 650 dollars in general assistance plus $250 in food stamps every month. To get that money you have to be a CA resident, so of course people are going to report they are from CA.

The homeless go to SF on their own free will because it is a magnet for homeless people. They receive benefits that other states don't provide. They have access to free drug paraphernalia and they know they won't be arrested for public vagrancy. It is the policies there that is making this problem worse - not other states "sending" their homeless there.
When you make it "comfortable" for homeless to stay drug addicted and to live the way they want, more homeless will come.

How uncomfortable do you think it should be? Should they not get food assistance? No financial assistance? Should they be arrested and jailed? If they ever get back on their feet it will be more difficult for them to find work and housing if they have arrest records. I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think the answer is less support, starvation, or jail.

Institution, hospital, or jail

There is not enough funding for institutions and hospitals, and the jails are already full of people with mental illness and substance use issues. Please explain how your suggestion will be paid for.

Instead of funding the homeless NGOs and others who apparently profit from the funding with absolutely no positive results, let's put that funding into hospitalization, treatment, institution, or something that will work. The funding of the homeless agencies now seems like nothing more than a racket.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:San Francisco is NEVER going to solve the homeless crisis because if they house 10,000 people overnight by some miracle, then 10,000 more will arrive from across the country. This is why places like California, New York, DC, Portland, etc. are going to always have homeless people. Lax laws such as no drug enforcement, cheap cost of drugs - fentanyl is cheaper in SF than other areas, plus generous handouts means people from across the country will continue to pour into SF and other cities like it.

Doesn't help that all of the western red states are sending their own homeless, their own drug addicts and so on to San Francisco rather than dealing with it themselves. And then they have the gall to point at the people THEY SENT THERE and say "oh look, how disgusting San Francisco is with all those homeless and drug addicts on the streets."

This is just false and is being pushed as a narrative to try to somehow make excuses for the homeless problem in SF.

Seventy-one percent of those surveyed reported living in San Francisco, 24% in other California counties and 4% outside California.

Of those with a prior residence in the city, 17% said they had lived in San Francisco for less than one year, while 35% said they had been in the city for 10 or more years. The remaining 52% of those respondents said they lived in the city between one and 10 years before becoming homeless.

https://sfstandard.com/public-health/san-francisco-homeless-people-from-the-city/#

The chief of police just said out of the last 45 people arrested for public drug use in SF (there behavior must have been atrocious to get arrested ) only 3 out if the 45 had SF addresses. Even the article states:
Others argue that the data is flawed because it’s self-reported and that it still finds that more than 2,200 people of the city’s total 7,754 unhoused population were homeless before they moved to San Francisco.

My brother lives there and says must residents know that homeless are encouraged to say they are from SF even when they are not. There are plenty of journalists who have filmed themselves asking homeless where they are from and if the response is SF. But then they ask them what high school they went to and they don’t respond or then admit they aren’t from SF and recently arrived. Often they add how easy it is to be homeless there 650 dollars in general assistance plus $250 in food stamps every month. To get that money you have to be a CA resident, so of course people are going to report they are from CA.

The homeless go to SF on their own free will because it is a magnet for homeless people. They receive benefits that other states don't provide. They have access to free drug paraphernalia and they know they won't be arrested for public vagrancy. It is the policies there that is making this problem worse - not other states "sending" their homeless there.
When you make it "comfortable" for homeless to stay drug addicted and to live the way they want, more homeless will come.

How uncomfortable do you think it should be? Should they not get food assistance? No financial assistance? Should they be arrested and jailed? If they ever get back on their feet it will be more difficult for them to find work and housing if they have arrest records. I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think the answer is less support, starvation, or jail.

Institution, hospital, or jail

There is not enough funding for institutions and hospitals, and the jails are already full of people with mental illness and substance use issues. Please explain how your suggestion will be paid for.

Instead of funding the homeless NGOs and others who apparently profit from the funding with absolutely no positive results, let's put that funding into hospitalization, treatment, institution, or something that will work. The funding of the homeless agencies now seems like nothing more than a racket.

+1 I agree

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:San Francisco is NEVER going to solve the homeless crisis because if they house 10,000 people overnight by some miracle, then 10,000 more will arrive from across the country. This is why places like California, New York, DC, Portland, etc. are going to always have homeless people. Lax laws such as no drug enforcement, cheap cost of drugs - fentanyl is cheaper in SF than other areas, plus generous handouts means people from across the country will continue to pour into SF and other cities like it.

Doesn't help that all of the western red states are sending their own homeless, their own drug addicts and so on to San Francisco rather than dealing with it themselves. And then they have the gall to point at the people THEY SENT THERE and say "oh look, how disgusting San Francisco is with all those homeless and drug addicts on the streets."

This is just false and is being pushed as a narrative to try to somehow make excuses for the homeless problem in SF.

Seventy-one percent of those surveyed reported living in San Francisco, 24% in other California counties and 4% outside California.

Of those with a prior residence in the city, 17% said they had lived in San Francisco for less than one year, while 35% said they had been in the city for 10 or more years. The remaining 52% of those respondents said they lived in the city between one and 10 years before becoming homeless.

https://sfstandard.com/public-health/san-francisco-homeless-people-from-the-city/#

The chief of police just said out of the last 45 people arrested for public drug use in SF (there behavior must have been atrocious to get arrested ) only 3 out if the 45 had SF addresses. Even the article states:
Others argue that the data is flawed because it’s self-reported and that it still finds that more than 2,200 people of the city’s total 7,754 unhoused population were homeless before they moved to San Francisco.

My brother lives there and says must residents know that homeless are encouraged to say they are from SF even when they are not. There are plenty of journalists who have filmed themselves asking homeless where they are from and if the response is SF. But then they ask them what high school they went to and they don’t respond or then admit they aren’t from SF and recently arrived. Often they add how easy it is to be homeless there 650 dollars in general assistance plus $250 in food stamps every month. To get that money you have to be a CA resident, so of course people are going to report they are from CA.

The homeless go to SF on their own free will because it is a magnet for homeless people. They receive benefits that other states don't provide. They have access to free drug paraphernalia and they know they won't be arrested for public vagrancy. It is the policies there that is making this problem worse - not other states "sending" their homeless there.
When you make it "comfortable" for homeless to stay drug addicted and to live the way they want, more homeless will come.

There are also many many instances that have been documented where mentally ill people and drug addicts were sent to San Francisco and Sacramento and other places. Here is an example where a Nevada mental institution was dumping patients on the streets of San Francisco.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/21/nevada-california-patient-dumping/2681593

That piece is 10 years old. Any more recent pieces?

dp... even if it was 10 yrs ago, do you think these homeless people have since left SF? And there are probably more of these incidents than this article found.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a shocking lack of empathy towards the homeless and people with addiction on this thread. It's, quite frankly, revolting. You're a bunch of ignorant, selfish, cruel fuXXs.

One main reason is that Dems and Repubs view the homeless very differently--it's almost like there are two completely different world views shaped by political preferences (or perhaps leading to those political preferences). We see the world differently and ascribe blame to different causes. According to a 2022 poll on attitudes towards the homeless,

"Democrats and Republicans disagree on some potential causes of homelessness. Unlike Democrats — who mostly view homelessness as stemming from society-wide issues, such as poverty and a lack of housing supply — Republicans also attribute homelessness to causes that may be classified as individual weaknesses, such as a lack of financial planning or personal responsibility."

Further, when assigning blame for homelessness,

"When it comes to assigning blame for homelessness, Democrats and Republicans are most likely to point the finger at members of the other party. In addition, Republicans are more likely than Democrats to place blame on homeless people themselves, while Democrats are more likely to blame billionaires, real estate developers, and landlords."

As for solutions to homelessness,

"Republicans are more likely than Democrats to support measures that make life difficult for homeless people, such as banning homeless camps and building defensive architecture. Democrats, on the other hand, are more likely to favor funding social services, offering housing support, and incentivizing the building of new housing."

Interestingly, the poll also shows that women are more likely to be sympathetic toward homelessness than men (as a woman, no surprise there).

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/05/17/american-attitudes-on-homelessness-poll

[Anonymous]

They should do what Houston did and put them in apartments.

What about all the unused office space? Start there. Convert to studio apartments and start giving them to currently unhoused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should do what Houston did and put them in apartments.

What about all the unused office space? Start there. Convert to studio apartments and start giving them to currently unhoused.

People really need to stop parroting this really bad idea. You can't just magically covert office space into living space they meets code. You have to basically entirely gut buildings, run new electrical, new piping, etc..it's a brand new building that makes it not cost effective. Cities also lose massive amounts of revenue because commerical space is taxed way higher than residential space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:San Francisco is NEVER going to solve the homeless crisis because if they house 10,000 people overnight by some miracle, then 10,000 more will arrive from across the country. This is why places like California, New York, DC, Portland, etc. are going to always have homeless people. Lax laws such as no drug enforcement, cheap cost of drugs - fentanyl is cheaper in SF than other areas, plus generous handouts means people from across the country will continue to pour into SF and other cities like it.

Doesn't help that all of the western red states are sending their own homeless, their own drug addicts and so on to San Francisco rather than dealing with it themselves. And then they have the gall to point at the people THEY SENT THERE and say "oh look, how disgusting San Francisco is with all those homeless and drug addicts on the streets."

This is just false and is being pushed as a narrative to try to somehow make excuses for the homeless problem in SF.

Seventy-one percent of those surveyed reported living in San Francisco, 24% in other California counties and 4% outside California.

Of those with a prior residence in the city, 17% said they had lived in San Francisco for less than one year, while 35% said they had been in the city for 10 or more years. The remaining 52% of those respondents said they lived in the city between one and 10 years before becoming homeless.

https://sfstandard.com/public-health/san-francisco-homeless-people-from-the-city/#

The chief of police just said out of the last 45 people arrested for public drug use in SF (there behavior must have been atrocious to get arrested ) only 3 out if the 45 had SF addresses. Even the article states:
Others argue that the data is flawed because it’s self-reported and that it still finds that more than 2,200 people of the city’s total 7,754 unhoused population were homeless before they moved to San Francisco.

My brother lives there and says must residents know that homeless are encouraged to say they are from SF even when they are not. There are plenty of journalists who have filmed themselves asking homeless where they are from and if the response is SF. But then they ask them what high school they went to and they don’t respond or then admit they aren’t from SF and recently arrived. Often they add how easy it is to be homeless there 650 dollars in general assistance plus $250 in food stamps every month. To get that money you have to be a CA resident, so of course people are going to report they are from CA.

The homeless go to SF on their own free will because it is a magnet for homeless people. They receive benefits that other states don't provide. They have access to free drug paraphernalia and they know they won't be arrested for public vagrancy. It is the policies there that is making this problem worse - not other states "sending" their homeless there.
When you make it "comfortable" for homeless to stay drug addicted and to live the way they want, more homeless will come.

How uncomfortable do you think it should be? Should they not get food assistance? No financial assistance? Should they be arrested and jailed? If they ever get back on their feet it will be more difficult for them to find work and housing if they have arrest records. I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think the answer is less support, starvation, or jail.

If one of my kids becomes an addict, yeah I want it to be uncomfortable to use. Other states don’t hand out cash and food stamps totaling over $900 a month. I would rather he be in jail not using than in the streets with a really high chance of OD’ing on fentanyl. Or offered mandatory treatment vs. a jail sentence. That’s how it used to be in CA a few years ago when they had drug courts. But voters decided against that so now there is no threat of jail if you don’t go into treatment and no jail to stay least get you clean.

It is a miserable existence on the streets. Why are we letting so many people live like this and OD? 110,000 people died of an overdose on 2022; 100,000 people died in 2021. That’s insane! Ask family members if they wish their lives one was in jail or confined treatment facility or dead.

The more money spent on homelessness, the more homelessness there will be. Cities like SF are actively encouraging it by giving money to the homeless. If you build it, they will come.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:San Francisco is NEVER going to solve the homeless crisis because if they house 10,000 people overnight by some miracle, then 10,000 more will arrive from across the country. This is why places like California, New York, DC, Portland, etc. are going to always have homeless people. Lax laws such as no drug enforcement, cheap cost of drugs - fentanyl is cheaper in SF than other areas, plus generous handouts means people from across the country will continue to pour into SF and other cities like it.

Doesn't help that all of the western red states are sending their own homeless, their own drug addicts and so on to San Francisco rather than dealing with it themselves. And then they have the gall to point at the people THEY SENT THERE and say "oh look, how disgusting San Francisco is with all those homeless and drug addicts on the streets."

This is just false and is being pushed as a narrative to try to somehow make excuses for the homeless problem in SF.

Seventy-one percent of those surveyed reported living in San Francisco, 24% in other California counties and 4% outside California.

Of those with a prior residence in the city, 17% said they had lived in San Francisco for less than one year, while 35% said they had been in the city for 10 or more years. The remaining 52% of those respondents said they lived in the city between one and 10 years before becoming homeless.

https://sfstandard.com/public-health/san-francisco-homeless-people-from-the-city/#

The chief of police just said out of the last 45 people arrested for public drug use in SF (there behavior must have been atrocious to get arrested ) only 3 out if the 45 had SF addresses. Even the article states:
Others argue that the data is flawed because it’s self-reported and that it still finds that more than 2,200 people of the city’s total 7,754 unhoused population were homeless before they moved to San Francisco.

My brother lives there and says must residents know that homeless are encouraged to say they are from SF even when they are not. There are plenty of journalists who have filmed themselves asking homeless where they are from and if the response is SF. But then they ask them what high school they went to and they don’t respond or then admit they aren’t from SF and recently arrived. Often they add how easy it is to be homeless there 650 dollars in general assistance plus $250 in food stamps every month. To get that money you have to be a CA resident, so of course people are going to report they are from CA.

The homeless go to SF on their own free will because it is a magnet for homeless people. They receive benefits that other states don't provide. They have access to free drug paraphernalia and they know they won't be arrested for public vagrancy. It is the policies there that is making this problem worse - not other states "sending" their homeless there.
When you make it "comfortable" for homeless to stay drug addicted and to live the way they want, more homeless will come.

How uncomfortable do you think it should be? Should they not get food assistance? No financial assistance? Should they be arrested and jailed? If they ever get back on their feet it will be more difficult for them to find work and housing if they have arrest records. I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think the answer is less support, starvation, or jail.

Institution, hospital, or jail

There is not enough funding for institutions and hospitals, and the jails are already full of people with mental illness and substance use issues. Please explain how your suggestion will be paid for.

Instead of funding the homeless NGOs and others who apparently profit from the funding with absolutely no positive results, let's put that funding into hospitalization, treatment, institution, or something that will work. The funding of the homeless agencies now seems like nothing more than a racket.

Absolutely. Address the root causes. If it's drugs, get them into a treatment and rehab program. If it's mental health, get them the healthcare, medication, treatment or institutionalization they need. If it's joblessness, help them find a job. If it's the cost of housing, find them a job and housing somewhere that is more affordable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:San Francisco is NEVER going to solve the homeless crisis because if they house 10,000 people overnight by some miracle, then 10,000 more will arrive from across the country. This is why places like California, New York, DC, Portland, etc. are going to always have homeless people. Lax laws such as no drug enforcement, cheap cost of drugs - fentanyl is cheaper in SF than other areas, plus generous handouts means people from across the country will continue to pour into SF and other cities like it.

Doesn't help that all of the western red states are sending their own homeless, their own drug addicts and so on to San Francisco rather than dealing with it themselves. And then they have the gall to point at the people THEY SENT THERE and say "oh look, how disgusting San Francisco is with all those homeless and drug addicts on the streets."

This is just false and is being pushed as a narrative to try to somehow make excuses for the homeless problem in SF.

Seventy-one percent of those surveyed reported living in San Francisco, 24% in other California counties and 4% outside California.

Of those with a prior residence in the city, 17% said they had lived in San Francisco for less than one year, while 35% said they had been in the city for 10 or more years. The remaining 52% of those respondents said they lived in the city between one and 10 years before becoming homeless.

https://sfstandard.com/public-health/san-francisco-homeless-people-from-the-city/#

The chief of police just said out of the last 45 people arrested for public drug use in SF (there behavior must have been atrocious to get arrested ) only 3 out if the 45 had SF addresses. Even the article states:
Others argue that the data is flawed because it’s self-reported and that it still finds that more than 2,200 people of the city’s total 7,754 unhoused population were homeless before they moved to San Francisco.

My brother lives there and says must residents know that homeless are encouraged to say they are from SF even when they are not. There are plenty of journalists who have filmed themselves asking homeless where they are from and if the response is SF. But then they ask them what high school they went to and they don’t respond or then admit they aren’t from SF and recently arrived. Often they add how easy it is to be homeless there 650 dollars in general assistance plus $250 in food stamps every month. To get that money you have to be a CA resident, so of course people are going to report they are from CA.

The homeless go to SF on their own free will because it is a magnet for homeless people. They receive benefits that other states don't provide. They have access to free drug paraphernalia and they know they won't be arrested for public vagrancy. It is the policies there that is making this problem worse - not other states "sending" their homeless there.
When you make it "comfortable" for homeless to stay drug addicted and to live the way they want, more homeless will come.

How uncomfortable do you think it should be? Should they not get food assistance? No financial assistance? Should they be arrested and jailed? If they ever get back on their feet it will be more difficult for them to find work and housing if they have arrest records. I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think the answer is less support, starvation, or jail.

Institution, hospital, or jail

There is not enough funding for institutions and hospitals, and the jails are already full of people with mental illness and substance use issues. Please explain how your suggestion will be paid for.

Instead of funding the homeless NGOs and others who apparently profit from the funding with absolutely no positive results, let's put that funding into hospitalization, treatment, institution, or something that will work. The funding of the homeless agencies now seems like nothing more than a racket.

Absolutely. Address the root causes. If it's drugs, get them into a treatment and rehab program. If it's mental health, get them the healthcare, medication, treatment or institutionalization they need. If it's joblessness, help them find a job. If it's the cost of housing, find them a job and housing somewhere that is more affordable.

I agree, but it’s far more complex than your short list…which is precisely why communities that have invested in the appropriate solutions have struggled. Why? Two primary reasons:

1. You can’t force people (particularly those with mental and behavioral health issues) to seek help. (The carrot of treatment and housing won’t work; you need a stick such as a treatment court…which advocates hate, which isn’t a silver bullet, and which comes with costs and scalability issues.)

2. Scalability. There are tons of highly effective interventions and housing programs. But they serve a very small group of people. When you say we need more affordable housing, that begs the question, “Affordable for whom?” Look around the streets of DC or any city and ask yourself what the frail mentally ill person can afford. Hint: zero. Thanks to the influx of addicts, poor senior citizens, and mentally ill young people dropping out of society, the numbers are exploding. You’ll never have enough housing vouchers or units for everyone to have a free apartment for life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:San Francisco is NEVER going to solve the homeless crisis because if they house 10,000 people overnight by some miracle, then 10,000 more will arrive from across the country. This is why places like California, New York, DC, Portland, etc. are going to always have homeless people. Lax laws such as no drug enforcement, cheap cost of drugs - fentanyl is cheaper in SF than other areas, plus generous handouts means people from across the country will continue to pour into SF and other cities like it.

Doesn't help that all of the western red states are sending their own homeless, their own drug addicts and so on to San Francisco rather than dealing with it themselves. And then they have the gall to point at the people THEY SENT THERE and say "oh look, how disgusting San Francisco is with all those homeless and drug addicts on the streets."

This is just false and is being pushed as a narrative to try to somehow make excuses for the homeless problem in SF.

Seventy-one percent of those surveyed reported living in San Francisco, 24% in other California counties and 4% outside California.

Of those with a prior residence in the city, 17% said they had lived in San Francisco for less than one year, while 35% said they had been in the city for 10 or more years. The remaining 52% of those respondents said they lived in the city between one and 10 years before becoming homeless.

https://sfstandard.com/public-health/san-francisco-homeless-people-from-the-city/#

The chief of police just said out of the last 45 people arrested for public drug use in SF (there behavior must have been atrocious to get arrested ) only 3 out if the 45 had SF addresses. Even the article states:
Others argue that the data is flawed because it’s self-reported and that it still finds that more than 2,200 people of the city’s total 7,754 unhoused population were homeless before they moved to San Francisco.

My brother lives there and says must residents know that homeless are encouraged to say they are from SF even when they are not. There are plenty of journalists who have filmed themselves asking homeless where they are from and if the response is SF. But then they ask them what high school they went to and they don’t respond or then admit they aren’t from SF and recently arrived. Often they add how easy it is to be homeless there 650 dollars in general assistance plus $250 in food stamps every month. To get that money you have to be a CA resident, so of course people are going to report they are from CA.

The homeless go to SF on their own free will because it is a magnet for homeless people. They receive benefits that other states don't provide. They have access to free drug paraphernalia and they know they won't be arrested for public vagrancy. It is the policies there that is making this problem worse - not other states "sending" their homeless there.
When you make it "comfortable" for homeless to stay drug addicted and to live the way they want, more homeless will come.

There are also many many instances that have been documented where mentally ill people and drug addicts were sent to San Francisco and Sacramento and other places. Here is an example where a Nevada mental institution was dumping patients on the streets of San Francisco.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/21/nevada-california-patient-dumping/2681593

That piece is 10 years old. Any more recent pieces?

dp... even if it was 10 yrs ago, do you think these homeless people have since left SF? And there are probably more of these incidents than this article found.

That was just one of the more known and notorious cases of a psych ward being shut down and all of the mental patients just dumped onto the streets of San Francisco. There are many more instances.

[Anonymous]

I was told by the head of a DC homeless shelter where I volunteered, that something like 95% of the homeless are mentally ill.

A friend's father is homeless. She grew up in an upper middle class home in Westchester. Her father had some mental break and left the family. She and her siblings have been trying for years to get him housed and with a job, but no matter what they do, he abandons the apartment and job and ends up back on the street. They are at a loss.

My point is that a lot of this is mental health and we need huge resources to fix it.
To those who say lock up all the homeless and the addicts, then what? The police could round up everyone on the streets of SF and then the court and jail systems are overrun and most will be let out on bail or technicalities anyway. Prison is no place for the mentally ill. And addicts need their own treatment.
It's about so much more than finding homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was told by the head of a DC homeless shelter where I volunteered, that something like 95% of the homeless are mentally ill.

A friend's father is homeless. She grew up in an upper middle class home in Westchester. Her father had some mental break and left the family. She and her siblings have been trying for years to get him housed and with a job, but no matter what they do, he abandons the apartment and job and ends up back on the street. They are at a loss.

My point is that a lot of this is mental health and we need huge resources to fix it.
To those who say lock up all the homeless and the addicts, then what? The police could round up everyone on the streets of SF and then the court and jail systems are overrun and most will be let out on bail or technicalities anyway. Prison is no place for the mentally ill. And addicts need their own treatment.
It's about so much more than finding homes.

Well yeah, you become mentally ill when you fry your brains out using drugs and alcohol.

There are also a.lot of homeless in SF that do it out of choice. They want to live a bohemian lifestyle outside of society and conventional norms..because don't you know, they're sticking it to the man? The kids in the street with their dogs they put sunglasses in while begging for money and who have dreadlocks. You know the type. They're everywhere in SF and shoot up on the sidewalks. Why should I have sympathy for them because they choose and go out of their way to kive in the gutters? Why should taxpayers give them any kind of stipend and housing to reinforce their terrible behaviors and choices?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a shocking lack of empathy towards the homeless and people with addiction on this thread. It's, quite frankly, revolting. You're a bunch of ignorant, selfish, cruel fuXXs.

One main reason is that Dems and Repubs view the homeless very differently--it's almost like there are two completely different world views shaped by political preferences (or perhaps leading to those political preferences). We see the world differently and ascribe blame to different causes. According to a 2022 poll on attitudes towards the homeless,

"Democrats and Republicans disagree on some potential causes of homelessness. Unlike Democrats — who mostly view homelessness as stemming from society-wide issues, such as poverty and a lack of housing supply — Republicans also attribute homelessness to causes that may be classified as individual weaknesses, such as a lack of financial planning or personal responsibility."

Further, when assigning blame for homelessness,

"When it comes to assigning blame for homelessness, Democrats and Republicans are most likely to point the finger at members of the other party. In addition, Republicans are more likely than Democrats to place blame on homeless people themselves, while Democrats are more likely to blame billionaires, real estate developers, and landlords."

As for solutions to homelessness,

"Republicans are more likely than Democrats to support measures that make life difficult for homeless people, such as banning homeless camps and building defensive architecture. Democrats, on the other hand, are more likely to favor funding social services, offering housing support, and incentivizing the building of new housing."

Interestingly, the poll also shows that women are more likely to be sympathetic toward homelessness than men (as a woman, no surprise there).

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/05/17/american-attitudes-on-homelessness-poll

They can both be correct. The problem is the Democrats treat all homeless as those who are there because of poverty, such as the working poor. These types can be uplifted through housing benefits etc. The Republicans treat all homeless as the ones there from drug addiction and are correct that those types need medication rather than just put into housing with no supports. Basically we need housing benefits as well as institutions for those who aren't going to comply with housing requirements.

[Anonymous]

Reports of SF demise are about as accurate as other Fox tropes like the stolen election.

So proud of Sf! London Breed is one of the most dynamic leaders in our country.