Why is San Francisco's homeless problem so atrocious?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another conservative bash California thread? Wow we really have you guys running scared!!

I live in Los Angeles and travel to San Francisco and Dallas every month - the homeless situation in Dallas is much worse. Conservative rags are always bashing California since it is doing so well. Only a true idiot would fall for this nonsense now.

OP here - this hasn't nothing to do with conservatives against CA. I love CA but happen to also love parts of CA that don't look like they're starring in an episode of the Walking Dead. Would you really want to pay $2-3 million for a house in the city and walk outside to a homeless encampment on the street?

No. Other cities get this, not sure why SF is so resistant.

Non-conservative mags who have pointed this out:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/san-francisco-homelessness-charts-data-causes/

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/san-francisco-homeless-project-mother-jones/

https://www.msnbc.com/jos--d-az-balart/watch/san-francisco--the-tale-of-two-cities-522935875813

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Diseased-Streets-472430013.html

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/04/616733821/san-franciscos-homelessness-is-a-big-issue-in-mayoral-special-election

https://www.bisnow.com/san-francisco/news/hotel/san-franciscos-homeless-crisis-is-turning-tourists-away-87174

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/06/us/-homelessness-housing-san-francisco.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/22/un-rapporteur-homeless-san-francisco-california

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wasn't there already a thread on this recently???

I can't stand the homeless problem in SF and the city is doing a shitty job dealing with it.

But why yet another thread...???

Did you read the OP before commenting? They linked an article from July 3rd. New article and OP wanted to discuss. Happens all the time on this site and is preferred over bumping old threads.

No, I did not read the article. I don't click on links on this website.
Especially from an OP starting another anti-California thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wasn't there already a thread on this recently???

I can't stand the homeless problem in SF and the city is doing a shitty job dealing with it.

But why yet another thread...???

Did you read the OP before commenting? They linked an article from July 3rd. New article and OP wanted to discuss. Happens all the time on this site and is preferred over bumping old threads.

No, I did not read the article. I don't click on links on this website.
Especially from an OP starting another anti-California thread.

Then why are you on this thread?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wasn't there already a thread on this recently???

I can't stand the homeless problem in SF and the city is doing a shitty job dealing with it.

But why yet another thread...???

Did you read the OP before commenting? They linked an article from July 3rd. New article and OP wanted to discuss. Happens all the time on this site and is preferred over bumping old threads.

No, I did not read the article. I don't click on links on this website.
Especially from an OP starting another anti-California thread.

Then why are you on this thread?

Because it's a free country and I can comment on a thread even I didn't click on the link.
Plus, I assume the bolded section in the OP is what we're discussing.
Plus, I have a nuanced view on the subject that I want to share.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wasn't there already a thread on this recently???

I can't stand the homeless problem in SF and the city is doing a shitty job dealing with it.

But why yet another thread...???

Did you read the OP before commenting? They linked an article from July 3rd. New article and OP wanted to discuss. Happens all the time on this site and is preferred over bumping old threads.

No, I did not read the article. I don't click on links on this website.
Especially from an OP starting another anti-California thread.

Then why are you on this thread?

Because it's a free country and I can comment on a thread even I didn't click on the link.
Plus, I assume the bolded section in the OP is what we're discussing.
Plus, I have a nuanced view on the subject that I want to share.

LOL

[Anonymous]

Because it's a scam to rob taxpayers. Who do you think pays for the health care and "wrap-around resources"? Doctors, dentists, sociologists, case-workers, shelters, non-profits, etc., etc. make BILLIONS off the homeless at the expense of middle class taxpayers.

[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.

Well they are fools. A teacher can easily get a job in another school district in a nearby town/city or in another state.

+1

Unemployment is is very low now - thank you Trump! I have little sympathy for these sob stories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well they are fools. A teacher can easily get a job in another school district in a nearby town/city or in another state.

If you think finding a teaching job in a new district is easy, you’ve clearly never tried it.

Disagree. You might have to move, but many, many states and school districts are desperate now for teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New job creation vs new housing in the Bay Area is something like 8:1. There are so many homeless people, because there isn't enough housing. Sometimes it really is that simple.

...those people aren’t in the jobs.

Actually, SF has a pretty sizable population of homeless people who also have steady jobs. But you are also missing the point. At some point, even housing becomes a simple supply and demand commodity. What used to be low cost housing is now being snapped up by tech workers earning six figures. You would be shocked at the conditions people would pay 4-figures/month to live in out here.

Oh please stop. No, homeless does not have to do with supply and demand. If that were it then every expensive city in the world would have the same problem. The problem in SF is unique and it really stands out coming from another city without a homeless problem.

Besides, if housing becomes expensive enough, people who don’t want to pay the rent will just move to another city and/or state.

Eh, it's not always that easy. You need to find a job in a cheaper city, not always possible, and then have the money to move, plus first/last/security for a new apartment if you aren't buying. And places around that have both good employment and affordable housing are becoming more and more scarce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well they are fools. A teacher can easily get a job in another school district in a nearby town/city or in another state.

+1

Unemployment is is very low now - thank you Trump! I have little sympathy for these sob stories.

Low paying retail and fast food jobs don't pay a living wage, and that's what most of the jobs are. Of course if you were dumb enough to vote for Trump facts don't matter to you...

[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?

Well before the tech boom in SF, around the time of 1984 Democratic Convention, SF began to slowly get rid of something that it pioneered, which is the single room occupancy hotel (SRO). The Tenderloin was once full of them, rooms you could pay for with what you scrounged up on the street. Not pretty, but also not on the sidewalk. Add to that, of course, the dumping and bussing of the mentally ill to states thought to offer better care. You'd think some smart tech entrepreneur would find some tiny home solution that mirrors the SRO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well they are fools. A teacher can easily get a job in another school district in a nearby town/city or in another state.

+1

Unemployment is is very low now - thank you Trump! I have little sympathy for these sob stories.

Low paying retail and fast food jobs don't pay a living wage, and that's what most of the jobs are. Of course if you were dumb enough to vote for Trump facts don't matter to you...

Saying this doesn’t make it true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another conservative bash California thread? Wow we really have you guys running scared!!

I live in Los Angeles and travel to San Francisco and Dallas every month - the homeless situation in Dallas is much worse. Conservative rags are always bashing California since it is doing so well. Only a true idiot would fall for this nonsense now.

I have lived in both northern CA and Texas.

You cannot even compare the two.

Northern CA has turned into a mecca for drugged out homeless.

Texas, not at all.

[Anonymous]

Nimbies make housing unaffordable by preventing new units from coming online to meet demand = no affordable housing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Well before the tech boom in SF, around the time of 1984 Democratic Convention, SF began to slowly get rid of something that it pioneered, which is the single room occupancy hotel (SRO). The Tenderloin was once full of them, rooms you could pay for with what you scrounged up on the street. Not pretty, but also not on the sidewalk. Add to that, of course, the dumping and bussing of the mentally ill to states thought to offer better care. You'd think some smart tech entrepreneur would find some tiny home solution that mirrors the SRO.

SF has bused 10,500 homeless people out of the city since 2005. Google it. People are not being bused into SF. A recent report has the data.