Dogs/children are the biggest trick in the book. As someone who has traveled a lot you just have to turn the other direction and as hard as it is, ignore.

Funny how instead of talking about the dire issue in SF or homelessness in general, this thread is mostly about how "Stupid" and "naive" and "wrong" the OP is.

Keep being awesome DCUM.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How stupid are you to actually give money to these people?? Grow a backbone and walk on by!

Why is giving money to someone who appears to be in need stupid? Especially someone with innocent dogs in tow. Why so rude to the OP? I think it is clear that they were not aware that this was a problem in the northwest.

Giving money to people on the street is very dumb and useless. Most homeless advocates will tell you "your change doesn't make change"-- its better to give to an organization that works to help people with mental illnesses, homelessness etc. People like the "travelers" are just fuck ups who choose to live this way. The more you give the more you support this idiotic life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have not been to SF in 10 years. I saw nothing like OP described when I was there. I don't recall seeing a single homeless person.

I agree with PPs that it's not a good idea to give cash to anyone on the street. I've been told over and over again that you are enabling them to stay on the street if you give them cash. Food is OK, but I've had food thrown in my face, so I don't offer food either. I just don't make eye contact and walk quickly away. Most of the cash they collect is going to drugs and alcohol, not food, OP.

I guess no one should be helpful or try to be compassionate anymore. Just walk away.

I walk away from them, but I buy and prepare meals for about 100 people who come during the hypothermia shelter. Then, I sit and eat and talk with them. I've also dropped off a small portion of a meal for an organization that feeds 500-700 people per meal. If I could afford it, I'd pay for and prepare a bigger portion of the dinners for them. I have given cash to people in need because I knew their story and their need, but never to panhandlers. I make less than $20/hr and affording the work takes planning. I save for months to do the meal for 100 people.

Your definition of compassion is seriously flawed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huh? I live in SF and can't figure out where you were. The Haight? The Mission? That's where most of the crusties are.

BTW, I never ever give money. When they ask, I say "No, sorry" without stopping. If I'm carrying leftovers from a restaurant I will offer them. I've been turned down once in ten years.

You were giving too much. Give a dollar or two. Not a $20.

+1

$20??? That blows my mind, even by SF standards. These kids are not truly needy, as a pp said, it is a lifestyle choice. It's not new, either. I am almost 40 and I remember seeing the same deal in Harvard square when I was in college (I did not go to Harvard, but it wasn't SF). Anyhow, I also remember these same kids calling mom on the payphone at the end of the day to come pick them up from the burbs.

Do give to the needy, but don't waste your money on these kids.

Yep. I grew up in the bay area and encountered these kids in Berkeley. A lot. Usually with a dog.

I was reading the Crustie forum and apparently "dogs, girls, and face tattoos" help bring to bring in more money when panhandling. The dogs primarily eats scraps of food from the garbage, so it's not like they're using the money to go buy Purina from the grocery store.

Anonymous wrote:No one is saying being compassionate = stupid. But most people here understand that giving $20 to young, able bodied panhandlers is naive, at best.

OP didn't know they were able bodied. This was the first time they had ever encountered this counterculture. I think if I say four dirty/hungry young people with a couple of hungry dogs, I might give them money and inquire about food and the animals welfare too. I'd also not expect to be followed and threatened in a tourist spot during the day. I'd be a bit alarmed about that.

Omg are there really people who are surprised by or scared of crusties and gutter punks or claim to have never seen a homeless person in SF? Homelessness of all types is woven into the fabric there. I concede that it can be surprising to people who have an image of homeless people as an old back guy sleeping on a grate.

No one is saying being compassionate = stupid. But most people here understand that giving $20 to young, able bodied panhandlers is naive, at best.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do we always victim shame/blame or judge someone trying to help?

OMG you gave too much, YOU are the problem!

Nobody said OP was "the problem." IMO, she got what she asked for. So no, she's not entitled to feel outraged

Oh do tell, what did she ask for?

Reality check.

Being generous, compassionate or concerned = stupid. Gotcha.

Could you try being a little more dense? I don't think you're fully there yet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huh? I live in SF and can't figure out where you were. The Haight? The Mission? That's where most of the crusties are.

BTW, I never ever give money. When they ask, I say "No, sorry" without stopping. If I'm carrying leftovers from a restaurant I will offer them. I've been turned down once in ten years.

You were giving too much. Give a dollar or two. Not a $20.

+1

$20??? That blows my mind, even by SF standards. These kids are not truly needy, as a pp said, it is a lifestyle choice. It's not new, either. I am almost 40 and I remember seeing the same deal in Harvard square when I was in college (I did not go to Harvard, but it wasn't SF). Anyhow, I also remember these same kids calling mom on the payphone at the end of the day to come pick them up from the burbs.

Do give to the needy, but don't waste your money on these kids.

Yep. I grew up in the bay area and encountered these kids in Berkeley. A lot. Usually with a dog.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have not been to SF in 10 years. I saw nothing like OP described when I was there. I don't recall seeing a single homeless person.

I agree with PPs that it's not a good idea to give cash to anyone on the street. I've been told over and over again that you are enabling them to stay on the street if you give them cash. Food is OK, but I've had food thrown in my face, so I don't offer food either. I just don't make eye contact and walk quickly away. Most of the cash they collect is going to drugs and alcohol, not food, OP.

I guess no one should be helpful or try to be compassionate anymore. Just walk away.

Stow the cynicism.

You could donate that chance or money to a recognized legitimate charity of your choice. There are litterally thousands of charities to choose from; surely one of them fits your personal beliefs or political bent and could benefit the population of young able bodied transients we are discussing in this case.

Literally, litterally.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have not been to SF in 10 years. I saw nothing like OP described when I was there. I don't recall seeing a single homeless person.

I agree with PPs that it's not a good idea to give cash to anyone on the street. I've been told over and over again that you are enabling them to stay on the street if you give them cash. Food is OK, but I've had food thrown in my face, so I don't offer food either. I just don't make eye contact and walk quickly away. Most of the cash they collect is going to drugs and alcohol, not food, OP.

I guess no one should be helpful or try to be compassionate anymore. Just walk away.

Stow the cynicism.

You could donate that chance or money to a recognized legitimate charity of your choice. There are litterally thousands of charities to choose from; surely one of them fits your personal beliefs or political bent and could benefit the population of young able bodied transients we are discussing in this case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huh? I live in SF and can't figure out where you were. The Haight? The Mission? That's where most of the crusties are.

BTW, I never ever give money. When they ask, I say "No, sorry" without stopping. If I'm carrying leftovers from a restaurant I will offer them. I've been turned down once in ten years.

You were giving too much. Give a dollar or two. Not a $20.

+1

$20??? That blows my mind, even by SF standards. These kids are not truly needy, as a pp said, it is a lifestyle choice. It's not new, either. I am almost 40 and I remember seeing the same deal in Harvard square when I was in college (I did not go to Harvard, but it wasn't SF). Anyhow, I also remember these same kids calling mom on the payphone at the end of the day to come pick them up from the burbs.

Do give to the needy, but don't waste your money on these kids.

I agree $20 for one would be excessive, though generous if they were in need. But as OP said, this was 4 kids and a couple of dogs. Sounds like her DH was hoping the dogs were being fed too.

Anonymous wrote:Crusty Punks good read....crustypunks.blogspot.com

Looking at this, I have two thoughts:

- one group of kids are from upper middle class homes with helicopter parents who wanted the best for their kids, blah, blah, blah and the kids are spurning that

- the other, smaller group, are really kids and adults from homes without stability and issues and/or they have true underlying mental health issues.

Saw the exact same thing the minute I got out of a cab in Austin, 2007.

Has nobody bothered to point out that this is absolutely the result of failed liberal policies?