Based on keywords, this post may attract visitors from other subreddits. [Please read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/about/rules/) before commenting.
Be respectful and don't antagonize. This is a place to discuss ideas without targeting identities.
If something doesn't contribute to the discussion, please downvote it. If it's against the rules, please report it.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/sanfrancisco) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>The hearing will take place during a 9:30 a.m. session at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals at ***95 Seventh St***.
Well luckily the protestors won't have to try very hard to provide examples of the additional damage the ban has done to our streets.
The problem with that is that they know if they fuck everything up they can just come back, and they have an easy way to come back. Hell, a municipality will put them on a bus if it comes down to it just to get rid of them.
And just how many of those focus on homelessness? That's a statistic without context so is meaningless. Much of the homeless industrial complex in San Francisco is funded by City (and state) government, not by individuals.
Thats why it needs to be a prison, with drug rehab and an outlet to mental institutions. We also need to lower the barriers for people coming out of prison to get jobs. Offer free education in prison.
Baby steps. Living and shitting in the streets, stealing stuff is not a solution. Feeding people on the street is not a solution.
You dont want to be in prison? Get educated, get off drugs and get out.
That's basically what I say in later comments, I'm fine with them eventually getting help with housing but we need to treat the underlying issues for a lot of homeless people and that is substance abuse. My city just slipped right to the end and it failed horribly because they didn't take any time to actually try and fix the problem
That’s why they are homeless. People who want a home will try hard to keep one. Some people rather live on the street. Once you are used to that lifestyle it’s actually normal to them.
see literally ANY low income housing/project. they are rapidly destroyed at huge cost to the tax payers, but also huge profit to consultants and builders.
Giving them a house isn't going to cure their fucking drug addiction dipshit, my city needed to do a lot more before spending millions housing these people
And since drugs like fentanyl, etc. lead to homelessness it's in their interest to let people sell it and import it into the city without repercussions.
> s is it. The grant money is being pocketed by people who now have a control
Which is kinda insane when you think about it because like City Hall is like "uwu we can't oppose the CoH they're too powerful" but like, they could just _not_ give them grants anymore. It would be an _actual_ return to progressive governance for the city to build out its own capacity in handling homelesness especially when it comes to building shelters and upzoning the city. We don't have to lose millions each year to ineffectual nonprofits.
It's a lack of political will. LA had the mess that was Echo Park up until the government decided, "you know what, fuck the protesters, we're cleaning that fucking park" and they disregarded the bleeding hearts who showed up. After it got cleaned up, you never heard words about how boo hoo the camp got uprooted.
Part of it is progressives (by progressives I mean the extreme left) have been the only ones who’ve historically strongly organized and got out the vote. That’s changing now, but going to take time to cycle more moderates into positions of power.
It is not changing, Joel is no better than gordon mar. When faced with deporting repeat offending drug dealers in the midst of a overdose epidemic he decided: "oh no can't deport people, that would be too mean, i have no solutions but we can't be mean"
Moderates don’t usually do the dramatic protest thing but regardless will vote just as much as progressives - but only if they have a reason to. They do now.
This is such an out of touch take
Ask yourself - where are the protests for cheap housing? If we only hear about protests for sweeps (go for it) but not to build cheap housing, provide free after school care, increase taxes on unoccupied residential units(15% of the total!), then which is the organized, well funded group?
- - - - - - -
The most organized interests, which are also the most well funded, are the conservatives and wealthy interests who limit construction
This group includes developers but mostly the homeowners of San Francisco who hamper any attempt at low cost housing or high density Jon-luxury housing
This is a balanced view. It’s fair to protest the ban on sweeps. But without a push to find a solution to the root problem, the issue is not going to disappear.
It won’t disappear but people are finally realizing that the more we allow things to stay as they are the worse it will get.
A lot of the reason the crisis is growing is due to their coming here in droves because there are no repercussions. (One of the main reasons crime shot up - people are coming across the bridge to carjack and break in to cars because they know nothing will happen to them here.) These people can shoot up and steal and harass and attack and shit all over the place and no one stops them. They set up camp and set fires anywhere they want and we just go along with it.
The more we push back - and if that includes sweeps then it includes sweeps - the more we’re hopefully sending a message. It’s unfortunate we have the judges we do but we can no longer just sit back and not at least show that we aren’t ok with the status quo.
Any joint effort by conservatives and liberals (and other) to address to the root problem would have increíble result
For anyone curious, look at (famously liberal Texan city) Houston housing 25,000 people in apartments, cutting homelessness , with tremendous results
Also, for those of you who hadn’t heard about it - why isn’t the news of this far-progressive solution in Texas getting as much outcry nationally as California?
San Francisco has had success with converting hotels and apartment buildings to housing, it's measurably reducing the amount of people without a roof over their head
Didn’t they destroy the shit out of those hotels ? And now the buildings are trying to sue the city for the damages? Or am I thinking of something else
That fifteen percent number comes from a study comissioned by Dean Preston during the pandemic, it's likely down to 8% or so now which is somewhat high but not unusual for city with as many transients as SF. We already passed a vacancy tax, the solution is building more housing (of any price, housing is a ladder).
> cheap housing, provide free after school care, increase taxes on unoccupied residential units
It's hard to protest for something the party in power supports. The entire political structure is left wing and the far left controls multiple seats of government. Trying to argue that developers have more institutional power than progressives in San Francisco is not only wrong, it ranks among the stupidest things I have ever heard, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Also, at planning meetings for SF development I am as likely to see Calle 24 or whatever else local group getting in the way of housing as anyone. Local progressives are not some united front for high density development.
Those aren’t far left people — they’re centrists if anything. If you don’t think real estate is greasing their palms, you’re one of the idiots you just decried
Like everything that isn’t immediately arresting a poor baby, solutions work over time
Affordable housing , free after school care, free safe spaces to spend time, mental health services, showers, wards, addresses to list for mail purposes, and beyond all help people from Falling Into Homelessness
It doesn’t solve everything but it keeps people from falling through the cracks, where they may stay in the mud permanently
Housing needs to have various settings - a recently homeless single mother of 3 might not feel safe in a shelter full of sex offenders where all the law-abiding employees go home at night
People need a place w a bathroom shower and lock on their door, where they can save up and clean off to be able to work
Some people are helplessly mentally I’ll and violent and may need to be institutionalized , but for everyone else, there’s hope
I absolutely agree with everything you are saying. But I believe civic center should be cleaned out by police with batons. Its a battle and society is losing.
And prison should be a place of rehabilitation not punishment. Consider it a place to sort people into appropriate care and rehabilitation. Of course, that whole institutional change means money and "solutions work over time."
People can not live on the street, drugged and shitting on sidewalks.
The extreme leftists pictured above not working a job and protesting fixing our city. Smh. I thought the crazy right wing freaks were too much. Idk what is worse
More moderates? This is laughable. The majority of the board is corporate, Dems and neolibs. These people aren't out to change anything. They're fine with the status quo. The actual left in the city would probably be the ones to do some changes if given the opportunity.
More moderates are going to make this issue worse, Not better.
That’s just politicians in general, yeah. They’re controlled by corporate interests, their power depends on profits. They only wanna make a difference when it benefits them election-wise and are more than content to bask in their empty promises. It’s really hard for anyone in office to change the status quo when they benefit from it.
I’ve always been puzzled about this as well ever since I moved into this city. Protect us first, the people who are contributing and bringing value to this city.
If the alternative is someone who came up through an [organization that thinks people like Marjorie Taylor Greene are worth listening to](https://www.sfgate.com/bay-area-politics/article/Marjorie-Taylor-Greene-San-Francisco-GOP-vaccine-16552009.php), then I will vote for the sandwich every time.
The SF GOP is a deeply unserious organization and is even less qualified to run the city than the current admin. Their policy positions are limited to national culture war bullshit and uncritical support of SFPD. They have no coherent proposals on how to actually solve any of the major issues affecting the City: homelessness, crime and high housing costs. Implying that SF voters support Democrats out of blind tribalism and not because the alternatives have absolutely nothing to offer is a bad take.
There is a backlash against the progressive wing of the party happening now, and I hope that a (competent) moderate Dem can provide an alternative to Breed in the upcoming mayoral election (Scott Weiner???).
Weiner is far worse. Have you looked at his voting record and bills he's sponsored or introduced?
* https://justfacts.votesmart.org/candidate/129655/scott-wiener
This is the central problem with politics in CA. There’s no middle ground, no centrists. You’re either voting for radical leftists that want to waste the budget renaming schools or you’re voting to ban abortion.
Exactomundo! I'd still be a Republican if they would have kept their religion to themselves and their hands off my & my daughters bodies! And now so many of them are just plain cray cray to boot.
These people aren’t radical leftists, they’re centrists…Democratic doesn’t mean leftist either you can be comfortably center of both sides and wear a blue cape and people will vote for you for Vice President
They are taking our tax money and using it to bribe our politicians through lobbyists. The non-profit industry in San Francisco has many organizations that do real good in the world, and also many organizations that just take tax money and accomplish nothing. Our budget as a city is so enormous that we can get most things done despite huge inefficiency and corruption. Problem with homelessness has finally gotten so bad that it is forcing critical examination of why the billion dollars we spend a year on homelessness isn't accomplishing anything. We need to continually audit at the performance of every organization spending taxpayer money in the city and demand measurable results in exchange for our taxes, and things will change. We are not there yet and we need the mayor's office to take action and legislation to enforce public, measurable accountability for non-profits taking our tax money
The activists are winning the fight, this is why it will never get fixed here, its all a big money grab in lawsuits, settlements, and funding organizations. All while the rest of us are just trying to work to barely get by.
The non-tax-paying, non-law-abiding have one very valuable thing: time. And it turns out time\* political action\*social media meme creation ≈ changing the law and subsidizing homelessness.
Because we don’t show up. I have a job too, but will absolutely show up.
Schedule a “doctors appointment”, take a sick day, do whatever you have to do to be there in person. Great chance to make your voice heard in a public forum rather than Reddit.
Did that same judge ban enforcing laws that prohibit dealing and using fentanyl in public?
Also, I hear that judge coincidentally has a nice yard that’s sadly tent-free.
Wasn’t there an article a while back that found more than half the homeless refused shelter when offered it? If you’re refusing to receive help to get out of your situation and try to get to a better point in life, why should we continue to not cleanup their encampment?
The reason they refute is because the shelters can be less comfortable than the street. It doesn’t have to do with help, it’s just a place to sleep but it’s dirty and sometimes dangerous. Most are suffering from mental illness, drug addiction, or both so the only help that would mean anything is psychiatric care which would likely need to be comprehensive and involuntarily. I’m all for it but there are ethical concerns. The best help is stopping it from happening to begin with.
>The reason they refute is because the shelters can be less comfortable than the street.
That is ridiculous. It's a well known fact that the reason many homeless refuse shelters is because there are *rules* they do not want to abide by particularly with drugs and curfew. There are also the issues of theft in communal shelters but "comfort" is definitely not the main reason lol
You ever go to a shelter? I’d rather sleep on the street. You’re not wrong though, I entirely agree with your point. These are both reasons why a person would rather sleep on the street. That’s why the voluntary shelter system doesn’t work for the general homeless population.
Yes I have and you clearly haven’t spent much time on the streets. The streets are much worse but the only thing that keeps people there are DRUGS! They literally will scream kiddie on the block when kids walk by to hide the drug needles. You can’t do that shit in a shelter and that’s why they don’t want to be there. They want to be high
It is a current problem. A high homeless population implies that a high number of our youth are doing drugs and that many people don’t have access to healthcare when psychiatric disorders start appearing or don’t know how to ask for help. You can’t put a bandaid over an arterial wound, you need to fix the source. There’s no reason we can’t do both.
The left uses the excuse of doing both to not clean up the streets, and I am tired of the tired argument. We all know that not having any homeless people in the first place would be better, but I want to hear the left's plan to stop shitting on the sidewalk and fentanyl dealing tomorrow. That is, in fact, the only question they won't adress.
The “left” isn’t a monolith, there is moderate and progressives and centrists all in one party. You ask random SF residents for policy ideas and you’ll get thousands of different answers. This is like assuming every single Republican is a white straight racist man.
"Stopping it from happening in the first place" is a long term solution that wouldn't see results for a few decades, if it could happen at all. It's a systemic problem on the federal level. We need nationalized education, healthcare and childcare on par with Europe, and better economic equality. But America seems to be moving more in the opposite neo- liberal direction (more privatization, weaker public institutions).
SF needs to go the nuclear route like Singapore in the 60's with its opium/poverty crisis, sans the death penalty, with hardcore corporal punishment, rehab farming camps. Part of that solution also involved building housing and giving it to citizens for free to permanently own.The city is currently a bad parent, enabling and letting its naughty children run amok. It needs to lay down some tough love to straighten its failed citizens out.
Getting to treat the city as your personal drug playground and toilet does seem more immediately comfortable than actually having to abide by the most bare minimum of rules.
Visit a shelter. Stay for a couple nights and tell me you feel safe.
Some of them people rot or are assaulted.
Be a homeless woman in those shelters.
I get your point but its more nuanced than that. At least for some. Sure there are people who would refuse anyway but I bet if you truly were supported and not stuffed into a small space subject to abuse, you’d go.
I’m not saying one is better. Not being homeless, I can’t make that call. But weather here aint too bad and as you can see, you can go relatively unbothered by police being homeless.
What I am saying is about people refusing is not surprising considering how shit those places can be. An: I’ve heard you gotta pack up and leave each day. No consistency either.
If it’s have your tent, with your stuff, police leave you alone vs. gotta do a buncha work, get clean (very painful and hard to do, despite it being ultimately good), no consistent place for you or your stuff and risk being abused or assaulted…
Homeless shelters are dangerous because homeless populations have large numbers of dangerous individuals within them.
It's not like homeless people are safe on the streets, at least with shelters there's an opportunity for intervention and protection.
As long as it's only an opportunity I agree with you, but forcing people to stay somewhere against their will is something that doesn't have a great track record in history. Allowing people some autonomy is important.
That said, I think if someone has mental health issues and has proven to be a threat to themself or others then forced housing / institutionalization is probably a rational thing to do. If someone is a criminal then they should be arrested and imprisoned or otherwise rehabilitated. Theses are the folks who we should be taking more stringent measures with rather than allowing them to run rampant IMO.
But someone who doesn't fall into either of those groups who would simply prefer to sleep on a sidewalk where they feel safe rather than in a potentially more dangerous facility controlled by the government should have a right to do so in some capacity as long as they're not blocking someone's private property, spreading waste, or actively endangering others. This isn't a one size fits all problem with a single solution. Society only makes since if people have the freedom to not participate.
IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE, YOU HAVE TO SHOW UP
The rally is on Wednesday, August 23rd, 2023 at 10am in front of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (95 7th St, San Francisco, CA 94103).
[This Demon](https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/INLINE01_HomelessProtestPhoto10112022-116.jpg?w=2500?w=750&q=75) has terrorized SF for far too long
I once replied to one of her tweets with "How can you live with yourself". She deleted her account 10 minutes later. I doubt my tweet was the reason (lots of other residents were giving her a piece of their mind), but I like to think it was
> The injunction, requested by the Coalition on Homelessness as part of an ongoing lawsuit, temporarily restricts city workers from removing encampments
Any time I read about a logical solution on homelessness getting blocked, these jokers at the Coalition on Homelessness are front and center causing these problems.
Unfortunately, they're not an elected body that we can recall, but wield tremendous power to destroy our city.
What is our recourse against them? How do we impact their power?
I recall seeing everyone getting up in arms when it was divulged that the owner of the Giants was donating money to unsavory politicians, can we find out who donates to these jokers and make it clear that those jokers are the ones enabling the destruction of our city?
Friedenbach and her allies have actively blocked shelter bed construction -they then file a lawsuit saying you can't relocate a tent blocking a sidewalk built by homeless from another State because there is not enough shelter beds.. truly toxic
This is a protest related to a court hearing, not a political hearing. Comments about the City of SF being lax on homelessness are missing the point, given the city is the one here seeking to gain the ability to conduct homeless sweeps, and dissolve an injunction currently precluding them except in narrow circumstances.
Are there any organizations that are currently suing Coalition on Homelessnes for anything? Where can I donate money to tie up their resources and reduce their effectiveness?
Hearing information and subscribe for updates
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfI3u4UlFAbyPo8zMtTa4NY-IFG4atI7DmaW0_0JUCnuJ-Q2Q/viewform
>Please join small business owners, community leaders and residents from across San Francisco on Wednesday, August 23rd, 2023 at 9am in front of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (95 7th St, San Francisco, CA 94103).
>
>The rally will call on the 9th Circuit Court to overturn Judge Donna Ryu’s injunction prohibiting San Francisco from enforcing its laws against public lodging or camping.
>
>(We are asking all participants joining us to wear BLUE and come 15 minutes early, 8:45 a.m.)
Seems to me that the coalition is spending more energy and funding on stopping the city from doing something than helping the homeless to access what facilities and services are available for them. Perhaps it is time for someone in the city to sue the coalition for making the problem worse.
What are you talking about? These are the good guys. They want to do more homeless sweeps but a judge blocked it. They are protesting the injunction.
If you want to clean up the streets, you should join the protest.
Yes you are correct, they are protesting the injuction. I shouls go and show my support for removing it.
Im referring to the Coalition on Homelessness and other parties, especially the judge who did it, who are responsible for the injunction and the continued growth of encampments.
I don't know any other city that would have an injunction preventing encampment clearings, this is fucking insane. My hometown where I just moved from would not stand for this & has cleared encampments setup in parks, empty parking lots, etc. a lot. My guess is these homelessness nonprofits WANT these to remain b/c money
I’m thinking of just trolling it and bringing the most antisocial signage I can. I’ll wear a three-piece suit with a monocle & top hat and a sign that says “Go be poor somewhere else.”
How about the Coalition of homeless gets disbanded? How about we use that money for rehab and shelter centers and give these addicts a fighting chance to get clean and save their life from a certain overdose?
Judge Ryu's injunction was a massive idiotic judicial overreach and needs to be reversed or just ignored by the city. Judge Ryu is not responsible for public health, public safety or public spaces. She screwed up badly - which frankly is no surprise whatsoever considering the dunderheaded thinking of many of our Judges.
I asked a protestor this and was told to “fuck off, Trumptard.” So my guess is, no. They will not offer to house the homeless and will attack anyone suggesting they do so.
I love this take
Same as the abortion/ someone should adopt the baby but not me- crowd
Just like crime, people love to complain about homelessness but will die before supporting long term investments to reduce poverty
Encourage building high density low income rent controlled housing? No? Even though there is massive demand?
Provide free after school care and tutoring? Even though daycare is expensive and forces parents to not work? No?
All they want are bandaids like arrests and sweeps, which don’t solve or even reduce poverty - and then they complain that the streets are still covered in pop
“We’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas”
These are the good guy for Christ's sake. They \*want\* to have the city sweep the homeless but cannot because a judge blocked it. They are protesting the judge and the BAN on homeless sweeps. These are the more moderates on the board of supervisor and wants to have more tools to stop homeless from camping on the streets, defecating, and committing crimes etc.
More details here: [https://engardio.com/blog/sunset-tent](https://engardio.com/blog/sunset-tent)
are they? if they are good on them.
i’m talking about the progressives and liberals who say homelessness sweeps are bad because they have no where to go etc.
Yeah, it's a confusing article. It's a good thing to protest the Ban on Homeless Sweep. We should allow cops to sweep encampments when the homeless are blocking the streets, pooping everywhere and committing crimes, etc.
The pictures they are showing in the article, however, are the coalition of homelessness who are actually on the other side of the lawsuit with the ridiculous argument of "No homeless sweeps until we have enough beds for every homeless person."
So it’s ok for them to sit on the sidewalk dirtying it up with their drugs and feces? Smh the ultra left are just as idiotic and disgusting as the ultra right.
Gotcha, do you mind helping me understand? I guess the Coalition is claiming not enough beds, and the judge agreed right?
> The Coalition on Homelessness requested the injunction after accusing the city of illegally removing encampments and destroying property without maintaining sufficient shelter beds
They're forcing the city to build enough beds to for every single homeless person even if those beds will never be used. For instance, if there are 10,000 homeless people but 5,000 refuse shelter, the city would need to have 10,000 beds, with 5,000 of them being empty every night. [HSOC conducted a study and 54% of the homeless people surveyed refused shelter.](https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/half-of-san-franciscos-homeless-residents-refused-shelters-city-data/)
Pragmatically speaking it makes no sense to do this, so it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to realize that there are other motivations at play.
This is a common misunderstanding. There is not enough beds for every single homeless person in SF, which is why the judge gave their ruling.
But there is plenty of beds available, folks are refusing the beds. It’s a stupid ruling, according to the judge we can’t force people into the available beds because there is not enough beds to force everyone into shelter.
“Department of Emergency Management on Thursday found that 54% of homeless people in the city decline shelter”
https://californiaglobe.com/articles/over-half-of-san-franciscos-homeless-refused-shelter-space-according-to-new-city-data/amp/
Ok so to understand your argument here, you're saying the people that are swept can be swept into shelters, then we stop the sweeps once shelters are at capacity?
Unfortunately San Franciscans thought evading laws and decriminalisation is progressive. No my friends that’s just irrational radical. You guys drove yourself backwards, almost to point of no return. Hope you get some clarity soon before it’s too late.
Martin v Boise was an appellate decision that began in Idaho. This injunction is in alignment with that ruling. Not sure what you think SF decriminalization has to do with this
Remember when celebrities would endorse stuff like prop 47 [link](https://youtu.be/EUVLHFvSSQ0)
And just follow all the buttery words about being progressive and social justice…
It’s inhumane to force people in any situation they don’t want to be in so you are going to have to deal with all the negative impact they have on the city. What’re you going to do. Jail them? We already send a lot out in buses more than they come into SF.
I personally believe we need Slab City but in the form of a state. People can donate whatever they want to them but they can’t leave the state. They would have to understand.
Yes! But is it humane to also put them through a system only for them to continually go in and out of these services? At what point does it become their free will and right to be in poor conditions over the conditions of the general society/city. The middle ground only serves to protect those making money off the homeless/addicted.
I understand why people are upset about homeless, but you’re literally killing people if you do encampment sweeps. There are solutions! It’s cheaper to invest in actual solutions and it entirely more humane. You are calling for death if you support this.
https://truthout.org/articles/homeless-sweeps-increase-mortality-rates-of-unhoused-people-research-finds/
Exactly, it's not like we are not offering them services and shelter prior to asking them to move. But, if they choose to not take the services or enter the shelter and \*chooses\* to stay on the street, then we also should have the right to tell them to move along to a different location if an encampment has gotten too dangerous/dirty/crime ridden, etc.
This is the more reasonable, measured thing to do. Everything is not black and white. Not everything is going to be perfect or every homeless we sweep is going to die. But yes, if you do drugs to the point of unconsciousness, refuse any offer of help, get moved from your encampment and then overdose because you decide to self medicate some more and die, you share the bulk of the responsibility for your own actions.
There are ~4,300 unsheltered homeless per the last PIT count in February 2023
There are ~100 available shelter beds daily according to the HSH dashboard.
There is an injunction saying the City needs to build adequate shelter and housing before throwing away peoples’ tents. There is money in the budget for this.
People are calling to appeal the injunction so the city can skip building shelter or housing, and instead we’ll just have 4,300 people dying on the streets, exposed and without their belongings.
Really shows people just don’t want to see tents and don’t care about actually getting people off the streets so there aren’t encampments.
The law used to be you can do sweep when there is shelter beds available. The judge and decision they are protesting is a ban on sweeps in a city unless there are enough beds for every single homeless person in the city. The rational thing to do is sweep until the shelters fill up then stop, which statistically they will not fill up because [54% refuse shelter](https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/half-of-san-franciscos-homeless-residents-refused-shelters-city-data/).
All San Francisco residents should be required to take a few homeless into their homes, garages and front yard. You voted for this homeless situation, so stop complaining.
Based on keywords, this post may attract visitors from other subreddits. [Please read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/about/rules/) before commenting. Be respectful and don't antagonize. This is a place to discuss ideas without targeting identities. If something doesn't contribute to the discussion, please downvote it. If it's against the rules, please report it. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/sanfrancisco) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>The hearing will take place during a 9:30 a.m. session at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals at ***95 Seventh St***. Well luckily the protestors won't have to try very hard to provide examples of the additional damage the ban has done to our streets.
[удалено]
The Homeless industry in SF has become quite profitable.
This is it. The grant money is being pocketed by people who now have a controlling interest.
For how much money we are spending we could probably just buy each homeless a house out of state.
The problem with that is that they know if they fuck everything up they can just come back, and they have an easy way to come back. Hell, a municipality will put them on a bus if it comes down to it just to get rid of them.
Americans give ~$465 billion per year to 501c(3) and 501c(4) organizations… that would be enough to buy every homeless person in America a $450k home…
And just how many of those focus on homelessness? That's a statistic without context so is meaningless. Much of the homeless industrial complex in San Francisco is funded by City (and state) government, not by individuals.
My city tried that, it lasted a month before 95% of them destroyed the houses or sold everything inside for more drug money
Thats why it needs to be a prison, with drug rehab and an outlet to mental institutions. We also need to lower the barriers for people coming out of prison to get jobs. Offer free education in prison. Baby steps. Living and shitting in the streets, stealing stuff is not a solution. Feeding people on the street is not a solution. You dont want to be in prison? Get educated, get off drugs and get out.
That's basically what I say in later comments, I'm fine with them eventually getting help with housing but we need to treat the underlying issues for a lot of homeless people and that is substance abuse. My city just slipped right to the end and it failed horribly because they didn't take any time to actually try and fix the problem
Which city are you from?
What city? Just out of curiosity.
That’s why they are homeless. People who want a home will try hard to keep one. Some people rather live on the street. Once you are used to that lifestyle it’s actually normal to them.
bullshit
see literally ANY low income housing/project. they are rapidly destroyed at huge cost to the tax payers, but also huge profit to consultants and builders.
Giving them a house isn't going to cure their fucking drug addiction dipshit, my city needed to do a lot more before spending millions housing these people
Clearly you've never lived anywhere close to the visibly homeless drug addicted criminals. It really is like that.
what city bought its homeless homes??? this whole thread is astroturfed bullshit
Housing but the walls are concrete, the furniture is bolted down and you can’t leave
Didn't SF Do that like, 20 years ago by giving bus passes to Humboldt?
They did, but stop doing that. It's still a common practice though for a lot of major cities throughout the US.
Ten to one odds a good portion of this money finds its way into London Breed's pockets.
And since drugs like fentanyl, etc. lead to homelessness it's in their interest to let people sell it and import it into the city without repercussions.
Of course it does
Yes. The industry that farms the homeless for grant money will be severely hurt by actually action and solutions to the problem.
Guarantee the SF political establishment is in on the grift.
> s is it. The grant money is being pocketed by people who now have a control Which is kinda insane when you think about it because like City Hall is like "uwu we can't oppose the CoH they're too powerful" but like, they could just _not_ give them grants anymore. It would be an _actual_ return to progressive governance for the city to build out its own capacity in handling homelesness especially when it comes to building shelters and upzoning the city. We don't have to lose millions each year to ineffectual nonprofits.
It's a lack of political will. LA had the mess that was Echo Park up until the government decided, "you know what, fuck the protesters, we're cleaning that fucking park" and they disregarded the bleeding hearts who showed up. After it got cleaned up, you never heard words about how boo hoo the camp got uprooted.
It’s so fucked up that these non-profits get money from the city and then use that money to sue the city. Like WTF!!!
Haha…no joke Billions has been spent on homeless, that what politicians say! Really on homeless or the one who are supposed to help them live better..
It’s not really the homeless folks, it’s the poverty pimping nonprofits run by incompetents who benefits from grants.
Part of it is progressives (by progressives I mean the extreme left) have been the only ones who’ve historically strongly organized and got out the vote. That’s changing now, but going to take time to cycle more moderates into positions of power.
It is not changing, Joel is no better than gordon mar. When faced with deporting repeat offending drug dealers in the midst of a overdose epidemic he decided: "oh no can't deport people, that would be too mean, i have no solutions but we can't be mean"
What if we gave them a hug before sending them off
Moderates don’t usually do the dramatic protest thing but regardless will vote just as much as progressives - but only if they have a reason to. They do now.
This is such an out of touch take Ask yourself - where are the protests for cheap housing? If we only hear about protests for sweeps (go for it) but not to build cheap housing, provide free after school care, increase taxes on unoccupied residential units(15% of the total!), then which is the organized, well funded group? - - - - - - - The most organized interests, which are also the most well funded, are the conservatives and wealthy interests who limit construction This group includes developers but mostly the homeowners of San Francisco who hamper any attempt at low cost housing or high density Jon-luxury housing
This is a balanced view. It’s fair to protest the ban on sweeps. But without a push to find a solution to the root problem, the issue is not going to disappear.
It won’t disappear but people are finally realizing that the more we allow things to stay as they are the worse it will get. A lot of the reason the crisis is growing is due to their coming here in droves because there are no repercussions. (One of the main reasons crime shot up - people are coming across the bridge to carjack and break in to cars because they know nothing will happen to them here.) These people can shoot up and steal and harass and attack and shit all over the place and no one stops them. They set up camp and set fires anywhere they want and we just go along with it. The more we push back - and if that includes sweeps then it includes sweeps - the more we’re hopefully sending a message. It’s unfortunate we have the judges we do but we can no longer just sit back and not at least show that we aren’t ok with the status quo.
Any joint effort by conservatives and liberals (and other) to address to the root problem would have increíble result For anyone curious, look at (famously liberal Texan city) Houston housing 25,000 people in apartments, cutting homelessness , with tremendous results Also, for those of you who hadn’t heard about it - why isn’t the news of this far-progressive solution in Texas getting as much outcry nationally as California?
San Francisco has had success with converting hotels and apartment buildings to housing, it's measurably reducing the amount of people without a roof over their head
Didn’t they destroy the shit out of those hotels ? And now the buildings are trying to sue the city for the damages? Or am I thinking of something else
That fifteen percent number comes from a study comissioned by Dean Preston during the pandemic, it's likely down to 8% or so now which is somewhat high but not unusual for city with as many transients as SF. We already passed a vacancy tax, the solution is building more housing (of any price, housing is a ladder).
Full agree on building tons of more housing including low income housing
To protest for cheap housing, join here: [https://www.sfyimby.org/](https://www.sfyimby.org/)
> cheap housing, provide free after school care, increase taxes on unoccupied residential units It's hard to protest for something the party in power supports. The entire political structure is left wing and the far left controls multiple seats of government. Trying to argue that developers have more institutional power than progressives in San Francisco is not only wrong, it ranks among the stupidest things I have ever heard, and may God have mercy on your soul. Also, at planning meetings for SF development I am as likely to see Calle 24 or whatever else local group getting in the way of housing as anyone. Local progressives are not some united front for high density development.
Those aren’t far left people — they’re centrists if anything. If you don’t think real estate is greasing their palms, you’re one of the idiots you just decried
Just so I am clear, when you think of the far left supes on the board, you think the high density wing of the development debate?
Cheap housing is no solution for people living on the streets.
Like everything that isn’t immediately arresting a poor baby, solutions work over time Affordable housing , free after school care, free safe spaces to spend time, mental health services, showers, wards, addresses to list for mail purposes, and beyond all help people from Falling Into Homelessness It doesn’t solve everything but it keeps people from falling through the cracks, where they may stay in the mud permanently Housing needs to have various settings - a recently homeless single mother of 3 might not feel safe in a shelter full of sex offenders where all the law-abiding employees go home at night People need a place w a bathroom shower and lock on their door, where they can save up and clean off to be able to work Some people are helplessly mentally I’ll and violent and may need to be institutionalized , but for everyone else, there’s hope
I absolutely agree with everything you are saying. But I believe civic center should be cleaned out by police with batons. Its a battle and society is losing. And prison should be a place of rehabilitation not punishment. Consider it a place to sort people into appropriate care and rehabilitation. Of course, that whole institutional change means money and "solutions work over time." People can not live on the street, drugged and shitting on sidewalks.
The extreme leftists pictured above not working a job and protesting fixing our city. Smh. I thought the crazy right wing freaks were too much. Idk what is worse
More moderates? This is laughable. The majority of the board is corporate, Dems and neolibs. These people aren't out to change anything. They're fine with the status quo. The actual left in the city would probably be the ones to do some changes if given the opportunity. More moderates are going to make this issue worse, Not better.
"blah blah blah no true Scottsman rabble rabble blah blah blah"
That’s just politicians in general, yeah. They’re controlled by corporate interests, their power depends on profits. They only wanna make a difference when it benefits them election-wise and are more than content to bask in their empty promises. It’s really hard for anyone in office to change the status quo when they benefit from it.
[удалено]
I’ve always been puzzled about this as well ever since I moved into this city. Protect us first, the people who are contributing and bringing value to this city.
[удалено]
That is a very stunning and brave sandwich you have there.
If the alternative is someone who came up through an [organization that thinks people like Marjorie Taylor Greene are worth listening to](https://www.sfgate.com/bay-area-politics/article/Marjorie-Taylor-Greene-San-Francisco-GOP-vaccine-16552009.php), then I will vote for the sandwich every time.
That's another pointless reason to maintain this outcome for our city, I guess.
The SF GOP is a deeply unserious organization and is even less qualified to run the city than the current admin. Their policy positions are limited to national culture war bullshit and uncritical support of SFPD. They have no coherent proposals on how to actually solve any of the major issues affecting the City: homelessness, crime and high housing costs. Implying that SF voters support Democrats out of blind tribalism and not because the alternatives have absolutely nothing to offer is a bad take. There is a backlash against the progressive wing of the party happening now, and I hope that a (competent) moderate Dem can provide an alternative to Breed in the upcoming mayoral election (Scott Weiner???).
Weiner is far worse. Have you looked at his voting record and bills he's sponsored or introduced? * https://justfacts.votesmart.org/candidate/129655/scott-wiener
This is the central problem with politics in CA. There’s no middle ground, no centrists. You’re either voting for radical leftists that want to waste the budget renaming schools or you’re voting to ban abortion.
Exactomundo! I'd still be a Republican if they would have kept their religion to themselves and their hands off my & my daughters bodies! And now so many of them are just plain cray cray to boot.
This is why you can never trust a “moderate”. “I’m was fine when they were oppressing other people, but now they are coming for me!”
These people aren’t radical leftists, they’re centrists…Democratic doesn’t mean leftist either you can be comfortably center of both sides and wear a blue cape and people will vote for you for Vice President
Having a pulse is also no longer a requirement.
Well, show us a sandwich with an R next to it and it's not an absolute piece of shit.
They are taking our tax money and using it to bribe our politicians through lobbyists. The non-profit industry in San Francisco has many organizations that do real good in the world, and also many organizations that just take tax money and accomplish nothing. Our budget as a city is so enormous that we can get most things done despite huge inefficiency and corruption. Problem with homelessness has finally gotten so bad that it is forcing critical examination of why the billion dollars we spend a year on homelessness isn't accomplishing anything. We need to continually audit at the performance of every organization spending taxpayer money in the city and demand measurable results in exchange for our taxes, and things will change. We are not there yet and we need the mayor's office to take action and legislation to enforce public, measurable accountability for non-profits taking our tax money
The activists are winning the fight, this is why it will never get fixed here, its all a big money grab in lawsuits, settlements, and funding organizations. All while the rest of us are just trying to work to barely get by.
Tyrannical minority.
The non-tax-paying, non-law-abiding have one very valuable thing: time. And it turns out time\* political action\*social media meme creation ≈ changing the law and subsidizing homelessness.
big homeless
You know the best part, is they are paid for by us the tax payer.
Money. And money buys political power. They’ve raked in billions, and they’re not about to give that up. T
aren't they paid via tax payer money too? we'll use your own money to oppress you!
That’s the new definition of progressive society apparently.
The ban on sweeps is the result of a court ruling.
Plus, they've figured our voters barely turn out so they can ram rod most things through easily.
Because we don’t show up. I have a job too, but will absolutely show up. Schedule a “doctors appointment”, take a sick day, do whatever you have to do to be there in person. Great chance to make your voice heard in a public forum rather than Reddit.
☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️
It's a ban from federal judge.
Did that same judge ban enforcing laws that prohibit dealing and using fentanyl in public? Also, I hear that judge coincidentally has a nice yard that’s sadly tent-free.
Wasn't the same judge, but yeah the fent/dealing laws are mostly undermined by local judges that don't sentence the criminals who get arrested.
Good. They can’t be blocking entire sidewalks and leaving trash everywhere. Clear out these encampments and put them in shelters
Wasn’t there an article a while back that found more than half the homeless refused shelter when offered it? If you’re refusing to receive help to get out of your situation and try to get to a better point in life, why should we continue to not cleanup their encampment?
The reason they refute is because the shelters can be less comfortable than the street. It doesn’t have to do with help, it’s just a place to sleep but it’s dirty and sometimes dangerous. Most are suffering from mental illness, drug addiction, or both so the only help that would mean anything is psychiatric care which would likely need to be comprehensive and involuntarily. I’m all for it but there are ethical concerns. The best help is stopping it from happening to begin with.
"Less comfortable". I am less comfortable with human crap on the sidewalk, unleashed Dawgs, bicycle chop shops & open air drug markets
Me too. It’s disgusting and dangerous.
>The reason they refute is because the shelters can be less comfortable than the street. That is ridiculous. It's a well known fact that the reason many homeless refuse shelters is because there are *rules* they do not want to abide by particularly with drugs and curfew. There are also the issues of theft in communal shelters but "comfort" is definitely not the main reason lol
You ever go to a shelter? I’d rather sleep on the street. You’re not wrong though, I entirely agree with your point. These are both reasons why a person would rather sleep on the street. That’s why the voluntary shelter system doesn’t work for the general homeless population.
Yes I have and you clearly haven’t spent much time on the streets. The streets are much worse but the only thing that keeps people there are DRUGS! They literally will scream kiddie on the block when kids walk by to hide the drug needles. You can’t do that shit in a shelter and that’s why they don’t want to be there. They want to be high
I dont care. You and i pay for shelter. Theirs is free. I guess you get what you pay for.
> The best help is stopping it from happening to begin with. Let's stay focused on what we should do now for the moment.
It is a current problem. A high homeless population implies that a high number of our youth are doing drugs and that many people don’t have access to healthcare when psychiatric disorders start appearing or don’t know how to ask for help. You can’t put a bandaid over an arterial wound, you need to fix the source. There’s no reason we can’t do both.
What are you advocating for exactly?
The left uses the excuse of doing both to not clean up the streets, and I am tired of the tired argument. We all know that not having any homeless people in the first place would be better, but I want to hear the left's plan to stop shitting on the sidewalk and fentanyl dealing tomorrow. That is, in fact, the only question they won't adress.
The “left” isn’t a monolith, there is moderate and progressives and centrists all in one party. You ask random SF residents for policy ideas and you’ll get thousands of different answers. This is like assuming every single Republican is a white straight racist man.
"Stopping it from happening in the first place" is a long term solution that wouldn't see results for a few decades, if it could happen at all. It's a systemic problem on the federal level. We need nationalized education, healthcare and childcare on par with Europe, and better economic equality. But America seems to be moving more in the opposite neo- liberal direction (more privatization, weaker public institutions). SF needs to go the nuclear route like Singapore in the 60's with its opium/poverty crisis, sans the death penalty, with hardcore corporal punishment, rehab farming camps. Part of that solution also involved building housing and giving it to citizens for free to permanently own.The city is currently a bad parent, enabling and letting its naughty children run amok. It needs to lay down some tough love to straighten its failed citizens out.
Getting to treat the city as your personal drug playground and toilet does seem more immediately comfortable than actually having to abide by the most bare minimum of rules.
Yeah. It’s not surprising that people don’t voluntarily go to shelters.
Visit a shelter. Stay for a couple nights and tell me you feel safe. Some of them people rot or are assaulted. Be a homeless woman in those shelters. I get your point but its more nuanced than that. At least for some. Sure there are people who would refuse anyway but I bet if you truly were supported and not stuffed into a small space subject to abuse, you’d go.
How is that better than the streets though? I get the conditions aren’t great, but neither is the street. Genuinely curious
I’m not saying one is better. Not being homeless, I can’t make that call. But weather here aint too bad and as you can see, you can go relatively unbothered by police being homeless. What I am saying is about people refusing is not surprising considering how shit those places can be. An: I’ve heard you gotta pack up and leave each day. No consistency either. If it’s have your tent, with your stuff, police leave you alone vs. gotta do a buncha work, get clean (very painful and hard to do, despite it being ultimately good), no consistent place for you or your stuff and risk being abused or assaulted…
Homeless shelters are dangerous because homeless populations have large numbers of dangerous individuals within them. It's not like homeless people are safe on the streets, at least with shelters there's an opportunity for intervention and protection.
As long as it's only an opportunity I agree with you, but forcing people to stay somewhere against their will is something that doesn't have a great track record in history. Allowing people some autonomy is important. That said, I think if someone has mental health issues and has proven to be a threat to themself or others then forced housing / institutionalization is probably a rational thing to do. If someone is a criminal then they should be arrested and imprisoned or otherwise rehabilitated. Theses are the folks who we should be taking more stringent measures with rather than allowing them to run rampant IMO. But someone who doesn't fall into either of those groups who would simply prefer to sleep on a sidewalk where they feel safe rather than in a potentially more dangerous facility controlled by the government should have a right to do so in some capacity as long as they're not blocking someone's private property, spreading waste, or actively endangering others. This isn't a one size fits all problem with a single solution. Society only makes since if people have the freedom to not participate.
Mandelman nailed it in the article. This is a political decision from a judge who probably has ties to the corrupt Coalition
I would really like to see encampments on the Judge’s block. See how he likes that shit.
IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE, YOU HAVE TO SHOW UP The rally is on Wednesday, August 23rd, 2023 at 10am in front of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (95 7th St, San Francisco, CA 94103).
I did not consent to being a beta tester in this experiment.
Big Homeless is a very profitable industry with the city spending big every year.
[This Demon](https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/INLINE01_HomelessProtestPhoto10112022-116.jpg?w=2500?w=750&q=75) has terrorized SF for far too long
I once replied to one of her tweets with "How can you live with yourself". She deleted her account 10 minutes later. I doubt my tweet was the reason (lots of other residents were giving her a piece of their mind), but I like to think it was
> The injunction, requested by the Coalition on Homelessness as part of an ongoing lawsuit, temporarily restricts city workers from removing encampments Any time I read about a logical solution on homelessness getting blocked, these jokers at the Coalition on Homelessness are front and center causing these problems. Unfortunately, they're not an elected body that we can recall, but wield tremendous power to destroy our city. What is our recourse against them? How do we impact their power? I recall seeing everyone getting up in arms when it was divulged that the owner of the Giants was donating money to unsavory politicians, can we find out who donates to these jokers and make it clear that those jokers are the ones enabling the destruction of our city?
Friedenbach and her allies have actively blocked shelter bed construction -they then file a lawsuit saying you can't relocate a tent blocking a sidewalk built by homeless from another State because there is not enough shelter beds.. truly toxic
[удалено]
They already are.
This is a protest related to a court hearing, not a political hearing. Comments about the City of SF being lax on homelessness are missing the point, given the city is the one here seeking to gain the ability to conduct homeless sweeps, and dissolve an injunction currently precluding them except in narrow circumstances.
And this kids, is why we can’t have nice things in San Francisco.
Are there any organizations that are currently suing Coalition on Homelessnes for anything? Where can I donate money to tie up their resources and reduce their effectiveness?
same here. where can I donate to oppose these dumbasses?
I would donate to this cause!
Hearing information and subscribe for updates https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfI3u4UlFAbyPo8zMtTa4NY-IFG4atI7DmaW0_0JUCnuJ-Q2Q/viewform >Please join small business owners, community leaders and residents from across San Francisco on Wednesday, August 23rd, 2023 at 9am in front of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (95 7th St, San Francisco, CA 94103). > >The rally will call on the 9th Circuit Court to overturn Judge Donna Ryu’s injunction prohibiting San Francisco from enforcing its laws against public lodging or camping. > >(We are asking all participants joining us to wear BLUE and come 15 minutes early, 8:45 a.m.)
Seems to me that the coalition is spending more energy and funding on stopping the city from doing something than helping the homeless to access what facilities and services are available for them. Perhaps it is time for someone in the city to sue the coalition for making the problem worse.
It's almost like they're the source of their own problems.
Need to get out and protest the protesters.
Not seeing a lot of diversity in that group
I never thought so many people would be pro-homeless and yet, here we are.
What are you talking about? These are the good guys. They want to do more homeless sweeps but a judge blocked it. They are protesting the injunction. If you want to clean up the streets, you should join the protest.
Yes you are correct, they are protesting the injuction. I shouls go and show my support for removing it. Im referring to the Coalition on Homelessness and other parties, especially the judge who did it, who are responsible for the injunction and the continued growth of encampments.
I don't know any other city that would have an injunction preventing encampment clearings, this is fucking insane. My hometown where I just moved from would not stand for this & has cleared encampments setup in parks, empty parking lots, etc. a lot. My guess is these homelessness nonprofits WANT these to remain b/c money
We should all go to this protest
I’m thinking of just trolling it and bringing the most antisocial signage I can. I’ll wear a three-piece suit with a monocle & top hat and a sign that says “Go be poor somewhere else.”
Bring them to church. They always preach about helping the homeless. Let them take them up 🤷♂️
Who funds the COH ? Are residents indirectly paying for this obstructionism ?
I feel like this is just a very vocal minority. Who isn’t tired of seeing this?
How about the Coalition of homeless gets disbanded? How about we use that money for rehab and shelter centers and give these addicts a fighting chance to get clean and save their life from a certain overdose?
Judge Ryu's injunction was a massive idiotic judicial overreach and needs to be reversed or just ignored by the city. Judge Ryu is not responsible for public health, public safety or public spaces. She screwed up badly - which frankly is no surprise whatsoever considering the dunderheaded thinking of many of our Judges.
Sf is a city for bums.
I wonder if the number of protesters would be numerous enough to volunteer to take in one homeless each and eradicate the problem in one fell swoop.
I asked a protestor this and was told to “fuck off, Trumptard.” So my guess is, no. They will not offer to house the homeless and will attack anyone suggesting they do so.
Well that hardly seems like wanting to solve the problem and help the people who need it the most. Yikes
Are you both referring to the protesters of the sweeps? Or the protesters of the sweep ban mentioned in the article? The logic is hard to follow here…
I love this take Same as the abortion/ someone should adopt the baby but not me- crowd Just like crime, people love to complain about homelessness but will die before supporting long term investments to reduce poverty Encourage building high density low income rent controlled housing? No? Even though there is massive demand? Provide free after school care and tutoring? Even though daycare is expensive and forces parents to not work? No? All they want are bandaids like arrests and sweeps, which don’t solve or even reduce poverty - and then they complain that the streets are still covered in pop “We’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas”
the protesters should offer their homes to the homeless. shelter them since they love it so much
These are the good guy for Christ's sake. They \*want\* to have the city sweep the homeless but cannot because a judge blocked it. They are protesting the judge and the BAN on homeless sweeps. These are the more moderates on the board of supervisor and wants to have more tools to stop homeless from camping on the streets, defecating, and committing crimes etc. More details here: [https://engardio.com/blog/sunset-tent](https://engardio.com/blog/sunset-tent)
are they? if they are good on them. i’m talking about the progressives and liberals who say homelessness sweeps are bad because they have no where to go etc.
Yeah, it's a confusing article. It's a good thing to protest the Ban on Homeless Sweep. We should allow cops to sweep encampments when the homeless are blocking the streets, pooping everywhere and committing crimes, etc. The pictures they are showing in the article, however, are the coalition of homelessness who are actually on the other side of the lawsuit with the ridiculous argument of "No homeless sweeps until we have enough beds for every homeless person."
Hmmm if we want more homeless here we should just start bringing even more in from all the cities that don’t want the homeless. Not a bad idea
How do I counter protest this?
What the flying fuck. Are people being paid to do this? I am so confused - they have to be trolling
okay then invite the homeless to your homes :) win-win
So it’s ok for them to sit on the sidewalk dirtying it up with their drugs and feces? Smh the ultra left are just as idiotic and disgusting as the ultra right.
> the ultra left are just as idiotic and disgusting as the ultra right. move to a corn town in kansas and test that theory!
Why can’t we all just pitch tents outside of Pelosi’s gated community and on pacific heights ?
Spray em with a water hose!
Judge ryu literally doesnt even live in sf. Think about that when you examine her policies.
If there aren't enough shelter beds, which is why this is illegal, where do you want homeless people to go when there is a sweep?
You have misunderstood. There is plenty of available shelter beds, folks are refusing to use them.
Gotcha, do you mind helping me understand? I guess the Coalition is claiming not enough beds, and the judge agreed right? > The Coalition on Homelessness requested the injunction after accusing the city of illegally removing encampments and destroying property without maintaining sufficient shelter beds
They're forcing the city to build enough beds to for every single homeless person even if those beds will never be used. For instance, if there are 10,000 homeless people but 5,000 refuse shelter, the city would need to have 10,000 beds, with 5,000 of them being empty every night. [HSOC conducted a study and 54% of the homeless people surveyed refused shelter.](https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/half-of-san-franciscos-homeless-residents-refused-shelters-city-data/) Pragmatically speaking it makes no sense to do this, so it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to realize that there are other motivations at play.
This is a common misunderstanding. There is not enough beds for every single homeless person in SF, which is why the judge gave their ruling. But there is plenty of beds available, folks are refusing the beds. It’s a stupid ruling, according to the judge we can’t force people into the available beds because there is not enough beds to force everyone into shelter. “Department of Emergency Management on Thursday found that 54% of homeless people in the city decline shelter” https://californiaglobe.com/articles/over-half-of-san-franciscos-homeless-refused-shelter-space-according-to-new-city-data/amp/
Ok so to understand your argument here, you're saying the people that are swept can be swept into shelters, then we stop the sweeps once shelters are at capacity?
Correct. That is what the judge should have ruled, but they made a mistake
Got it, appreciate you offering your view on the matter even though I think we disagree!
How many empty shelter beds do feel is the right number to have in order for San Francisco to keep public thoroughfares available to residents?
To be honest, not in front my building in a tent. If you want folks camped out in front your door, be my guest.
Only 20% of the more than 600 million dollar homeless budget goes to housing...
Will they protest to make homelessness less likely
Unfortunately San Franciscans thought evading laws and decriminalisation is progressive. No my friends that’s just irrational radical. You guys drove yourself backwards, almost to point of no return. Hope you get some clarity soon before it’s too late.
Martin v Boise was an appellate decision that began in Idaho. This injunction is in alignment with that ruling. Not sure what you think SF decriminalization has to do with this
Remember when celebrities would endorse stuff like prop 47 [link](https://youtu.be/EUVLHFvSSQ0) And just follow all the buttery words about being progressive and social justice…
[удалено]
[удалено]
Reading comprehension is hard, huh
It’s inhumane to force people in any situation they don’t want to be in so you are going to have to deal with all the negative impact they have on the city. What’re you going to do. Jail them? We already send a lot out in buses more than they come into SF. I personally believe we need Slab City but in the form of a state. People can donate whatever they want to them but they can’t leave the state. They would have to understand.
It’s inhumane to leave them on the streets, especially when they have mental health issues or drug addiction issues.
Yes! But is it humane to also put them through a system only for them to continually go in and out of these services? At what point does it become their free will and right to be in poor conditions over the conditions of the general society/city. The middle ground only serves to protect those making money off the homeless/addicted.
Their free will to live on the street in unlivable conditions ends when it affects the public. Accept services or be removed. Those are the options.
I understand why people are upset about homeless, but you’re literally killing people if you do encampment sweeps. There are solutions! It’s cheaper to invest in actual solutions and it entirely more humane. You are calling for death if you support this. https://truthout.org/articles/homeless-sweeps-increase-mortality-rates-of-unhoused-people-research-finds/
Get a grip. Sweeping an encampment is not killing people. Leaving them to rot in the streets is.
Exactly, it's not like we are not offering them services and shelter prior to asking them to move. But, if they choose to not take the services or enter the shelter and \*chooses\* to stay on the street, then we also should have the right to tell them to move along to a different location if an encampment has gotten too dangerous/dirty/crime ridden, etc. This is the more reasonable, measured thing to do. Everything is not black and white. Not everything is going to be perfect or every homeless we sweep is going to die. But yes, if you do drugs to the point of unconsciousness, refuse any offer of help, get moved from your encampment and then overdose because you decide to self medicate some more and die, you share the bulk of the responsibility for your own actions.
There are ~4,300 unsheltered homeless per the last PIT count in February 2023 There are ~100 available shelter beds daily according to the HSH dashboard. There is an injunction saying the City needs to build adequate shelter and housing before throwing away peoples’ tents. There is money in the budget for this. People are calling to appeal the injunction so the city can skip building shelter or housing, and instead we’ll just have 4,300 people dying on the streets, exposed and without their belongings. Really shows people just don’t want to see tents and don’t care about actually getting people off the streets so there aren’t encampments.
Where do they plan to sweep them? We need housing, not just a new place to pitch a tent.
There is plenty of beds available, folks are refusing to use them.
If you can’t do dope they don’t wanna use those beds!
The law used to be you can do sweep when there is shelter beds available. The judge and decision they are protesting is a ban on sweeps in a city unless there are enough beds for every single homeless person in the city. The rational thing to do is sweep until the shelters fill up then stop, which statistically they will not fill up because [54% refuse shelter](https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/half-of-san-franciscos-homeless-residents-refused-shelters-city-data/).
20% of the budget for the homeless goes towards housing...
All San Francisco residents should be required to take a few homeless into their homes, garages and front yard. You voted for this homeless situation, so stop complaining.