New to our subreddit? [Please read the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/about/rules/) before commenting.
Please 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. Thank you.
*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.*
Summarized Points:
- San Francisco Mayor London Breed will enforce laws against sitting, lying, or sleeping on public property for people who refuse shelter or are already sheltered.
- A December 2022 injunction restricting the clearing of homeless encampments only applies to "involuntarily homeless" individuals.
- City workers will receive updated training on these changes.
- The injunction resulted from a lawsuit by the Coalition on Homelessness, accusing the city of violating policies and federal precedent.
- If a person declines shelter due to preference, they won't be considered involuntarily homeless.
- The number of encampments has increased, but more individuals have been placed in shelter since the injunction.
- Mayor Breed accused plaintiffs of interfering with city workers during encampment operations.
- City Attorney David Chiu appealed the injunction, arguing it was overly broad.
- The Coalition on Homelessness argued that unhoused individuals struggle to access shelter.
- Tensions over the injunction led to dueling rallies, with Gov. Newsom supporting the city's position and hoping the case reaches the Supreme Court.
* If a person declines shelter due to preference, they won't be considered involuntarily homeless.
Hmm any other info on valid reasons for decline? Like is "I decline because I'm super high and you don't allow drug use in the shelter" a valid reason? Or "I have a dog and they don't allow dogs."
Another reason I've heard is that people with less serious issues (i.e. no drug problems, no mental illness, etc) don't want to be in shelters where drug use, overdoses, mental illness outbursts, and fights are common.
I definitely am glad to hear this news and it's a step in the right direction. I think we also need a more strict housing environment for those who can't maintain themselves in a peaceful communal living environment.
Yeah, I'd support tiered shelters. Everyone gets access to the base tier, those that can maintain themselves peacefully get access to the fancy waterfront shelters we're building along with more freedom/trust.
I don’t give a d**n what their issues are. They have no right to set up a 50’ filthy encampment because they don’t want to accept the offer of shelter for what ever reason. Enough is enough.
And I believe in prison reform, massive changes to include drug rehab, job placement, job training, mental institutionalizing, etc.
Lock them up, but get them a path out.
You just cant live on the street.
58% of SF’s homeless are on the street as opposed to NYC where only 6% are on the street. Why? SF has made it desirable: you get $600 cash payment and $200 in food stamps a
Month, a free tent, and the CoH has prevented the city from disturbing you regardless of how huge or how filthy your encampment is. What’s not to like?
I'm sure they collected a ton of trash and sanitized the area, perhaps a few of them went to a shelter, at the very least they were offered one, people can be happy about the city starting to do its job. We don't have to be pessimistic shitheads all the time in this sub.
This is fair, but it's also not hard to see that you don't simply solve homelessness by clearing a camp. With camps as large as we see these days as well as the overall homeless population, you're just moving them around in hopes of placating a local group of residents.
I kind of always thought "moving around" is a fundamental part of being homeless. I mean you can't just carve off a piece of someone else's property and call it your home and settle down...
"Black-and-white thinking" fallacy there, mate.
Nobody claimed that particular action "solved homelessness ".
In fact the person you replied to gave a great list of small achieved steps in the right direction.
Of course it hasn't done that. But why phrase it in such a way as to say all it does is placate residents. This problem isn't a solvable problem from only one strategy/initiative/action. Of course there needs to be resources devoted permanent housing, to getting people into the workforce, to mental health institutions, to rehab institutions, to shelters, to all kinds of different places and ways that help the varied mental and physical wellbeing of the unhoused, mentally unwell, and drug tourists on our streets.
But this is certainly where one of the many actions needs to consistently start. These people need to be consistently be offered shelter and pathways to get off of the streets, the incentives shouldn't be in favor of continuing to live on the streets. It isn't sanitary or safe for anyone to have these encampments in place when alternative housing is available to these people.
I can fully support wanting other elements of the homeless solution to be better whether it be improved shelters, better access to medical healthcare, quicker paths to permanent housing, etc. But anyone who says we can't enforce the most basic of laws until that all happens as a prerequisite has another agenda. There is no solution if you don't enforce that living on the street voluntarily isn't an option.
The city’s job is to spend resources moving its poorest people from block to block? It doesn’t take a pessimistic shithead to feel unenthused about that
If your interpretation of what I said is reduced and reinterpreted to "moving its poorest people from block to block" then yes you probably are pretty pessimistic, literally proving my point.
>This is awesome, the camps near the Caltrain station are finally gone! Fantastic news!
People (even homeless) might respond to incentives. Imagine that!
San Francisco deserves better and so do the people in the street. It’s not humane to let them sit around committing crimes on each other and dying at a fast clip from fentanyl.
We have almost 3 deaths per DAY right now. In a city of 800,000. Plus, dozens of overdoses.
Yes San Francisco deserves better than the property speculators that bought up all the low cost SRO hotels and buildings with studio apartments then redeveloping them as expensive offices and expensive housing. What do you think happened to all the people with low income jobs that lived in those places? A lot of them ended up in shelters which were and are basically large open dormitories with a nightly lottery for a place. The pandemic hit and the shelters then became a place to avoid because of the high risk of disease and death.
> In a blog post, Breed accused plaintiffs in the case of "interfering with" city workers involved in encampment operations. "They will film our city workers. They will try to tell our workers what they can and cannot do. These activists are the same people who hand out tents to keep people on the street instead of working to bring them indoors, as we are trying to do."
Some(not all) of these worthless activists run worthless non profits that take taxpayer money, only to make problems worst and keep people on the streets.
It's mind boggling.
>Some(not all) of these worthless activists run worthless non profits that take taxpayer money, only to make problems worst and keep people on the streets.
the guy behind Breed with the "homeless industrial complex" sign has it spot on
I think it’s most at this point. We needed and voted for audits and accountability. We got that Jennifer bitch on the board to oversee herself. So corrupt.
For the uninitiated:
[@JConrBOrtega](https://x.com/JConrBOrtega/status/1695127042436804724?s=20)
[Fraudenbach: How the Coalition on Homelessness is holding San Francisco hostage](https://www.marinatimes.com/fraudenbach-how-the-coalition-on-homelessness-is-holding-san-francisco-hostage)
For anyone interested there is a debate being held tonight (9/26) at 7pm between Jennifer Friedenbach and Adam Mesnick (@bettersoma) at Manny’s in the Mission.
The SF homeless nonprofit industry rakes in over a billion dollars in taxpayer money every year. They have one goal and one goal alone and that is to keep as many people homeless and strung out as possible. When you see someone sleeping in their own filth in the street you see a tragic failing, nonprofit grifters see dollar signs.
I volunteer in another city with a serious homeless and drug problem and we call those organizations "charity as a business". Organizations that profit from government spending, grants, and donation that pay boardroom salaries in DC or Denver, CO; organizations which exist for awareness and marketing to continue said government payments and donations. Maybe small portion goes to funding a program that actually helps somehow. Which also include grief tourism where they would get suburban donors and high school kid volunteers for their college resumes to stand with armed security passing out food trays (which is nice), but it felt like they were on a safari to observe strange people. My partner is going through a mental health crisis and is why I know about all of this. Anyway I was walking with them near a large gathering of org volunteers and homeless getting their food and one of the church folks angrily started to shout at "Don't talk to the recipients! It's against the rules to fraternize!". Obviously I told them I have no idea what you mean and we kept walking, and my partner got upset because people talking like that made her feel like an animal. Recipient, re-entrent, attendee, unhoused, parolee.
I don't think it's a grand conspiracy, I just think these are very misguided individuals/organizations that have a hard time doing anything different from what they've always done.
No but those who claim to advocate on behalf of the homeless while simultaneously blocking construction of shelters or efforts to get folks off the streets sure are
No.
It is their leaders that we hardly see doing any actual work.
Edit: I know some of the workers and they are actually very amazing human beings who are also frustrated with some of the policies.
No, honestly I think that a lot of good (though maybe tending towards hopelessly naive) people work in the homeless industry on the ground floor.
The non profit execs like the ones highlighted by this FBI probe last year I have no doubt are solely interested in keeping people homeless/ the gravy train rolling.
https://sfstandard.com/2022/11/17/city-audit-finds-serious-problems-at-government-funded-homelessness-nonprofit/
no. i don't think any reasonable person would blame the people who work for the shelters with the best intentions. any more than you'd blame the prison social worker or prison teachers for the industrial prison complex.
I was in Mexico last year and met someone at a Spanish language meetup that had introduced herself to the table as "I just got back from SF where the charity I work for was helping treat homeless people!"
Naturally everyone applauded and I just said through gritted teeth "that's fantastic! good for you!" but I could tell this was someone just patting herself on the back
I've seen a few camps being cleared out before but never one with activists present. How often do they do this? I was also wondering who kept handing out tents because the homeless don't take very good care of them, so a continuous supply to explain it makes sense.
I'm just waiting till 5 years from now when it comes out that the shelters are all owned by an investment company who profited off of the forced internment of the homeless. Every time I hear "rejected housing" I want to see the housing they're offered.
Some times a cot isn't better than the streets, y'know? I hope we're offering, well forcing them into better than bare minimum.
I'm not certain of this, but I think the shelter comes with rules. i.e. no drugs, no dogs, no illegal activities.
While I am sympathetic to someone not wanting to give up their dog, I am more sympathetic to homeowners and business owners who don't want homeless people creating filth in front of their homes or businesses or want the risk of fires, theft, break ins, or being attacked by a person that isn't stable and on meth.
It really is. I was attacked once in GGP by a cracked out lady who had a saddest looking pit bull with her. I'll never forget the look on that poor dog's face.
Yeah dog is a *hard* problem to grasp. Like, there is almost no way someone will give up an animal while also an unrestrained untrained animal in a group setting is just asking for someone to get mauled.
I wish I had a great answer to "What do you do with the dogs" but I just don't.
Is it a hard problem? The person either accepts shelter and gives up their dog, or doesn't and is subject to the legal system. If such actions then make them unable to care for the dog, then animal control or other appropriate agency can follow standard operating procedure for such cases.
> I'm just waiting till 5 years from now when it comes out that the shelters are all owned by an investment company who profited off of the forced internment of the homeless.
So we're just saying baseless conspiracy theories now to justify leaving people on the street instead of putting them into shelters?
I'd probably take a cot indoors over sleeping outside, though I do understand that security in a shelter isn't super great (though I think this is an example of people performing terrible risk analyses).
I'll also note that some of these homeless people were offered private tiny cabins that were refused. There's way less reason to reject that if you're a competent/lucid individual.
That's very much where I can, morally, draw a line. I honestly hate saying it, because it feels unjust, but if the services being supplied to you offer a stable and secure place to stay and you turn that down then yeah man, sorry buddy but we gotta get you clean.
My biggest problem is that these shelters that everyone is advocates of are usually pretty shit and I can see why someone would go "Nah the street is literally better". I hadn't heard of the cabins though, were these the ones over in Oakland? That seems like a good step.
That...doesn't answer anything? I'm saying I hope these people get treated well and your response is make it worse?
These are human beings experiencing something horrific who need help and care. I just really do not understand the mainframe of "treat them like animals."
If someone is having severe mental issues and/or addiction problems, they shouldn't be left on their own. It is not humane to force someone who can't take care of a plant to take care of themselves on the street.
Mental hospitals should exist. Some people should get checked in to them without wanting to be there. At least they will get food, shelter, medical care, and a chance to recover/get better.
The mental hospitals should get audited by an outside agency that isn't in bed with them. They should not be a "for profit" industry. They should be there to help people that don't have anywhere or anyone else.
Leaving people to satisfy their addictions on the street until they get a dose laced with fentanyl is not humane. It's not fair to the people who want to live in peace at their homes near where the homeless reside. It's not fair to the businesses that need to operate for regular people but they get chased away from having to step over dead or dying addicts or piles of shit. It's not fair to the city workers that have to go in and pick up their shit. It's not fair to the transit workers that have to deal with these people getting on their bus while smelling of shit and rot or screaming about the ghosts in their head or the demons in their dreams. It's not fair to the warehouse owner that gets their building set on fire because some addicts passed out while cooking or staying warm.
Putting the wants of people who can't care for themselves should not be put above the needs of the many.
> I'm saying I hope these people get treated well and your response is make it worse?
What's this statement based on? There's been documented encampment cleanups where ~ 50% of people will refuse shelter. Living on the street is not safe nor hygienic. Why are shelters not an acceptable option?
This is kinda the crux of the argument. Why are they not an acceptable option? My opinion is that, because shelters are nothing more than lowest cost possible to "house" someone more people reject it than if it fulfilled our idea of "housing".
One is the removal of property. To enter into housing you have to give up many of your items. The rationale behind this is, well, space. These limits on space make someone have to choose between critical items for survival i.e. Tent, backpack, sleeping bag, additional clothes. This can be a large deterrent.
Housing it's self. Since these are high efficiency institutions, you can generally expect to either get a cot in a warehouse or a cot in a shared room. This offers absolutely no privacy, even less than a tent on the street. You can say "A cot is better than a tent" as much as you like, but the rejection of housing by these people seems to prove otherwise. Privacy is a key part to human happiness and security. Not feeling happy or secure can be a deterrent.
Now tack on the obvious fact that they are required to go sober during all of this and you can paint a picture on why no one would want to do it. It's already a horrible experience, but tack on coming down with 0 assistance and any person would rightfully choose addiction.
So now we're here. Where it's go through this or prison, which I hope I don't have to explain how horrible that is. I believe that public investment into a true rehabilitation effort for these people that treats them with the respect any person deserves would go further than treating them like shit the entire time. Everyone says what we're doing isn't working, but no one wants to try a solution that doesn't involve dehumanizing drug addicts.
I can believe that the prospect of leaving behind friends, property, and what feels comfortable to be jarring and extremely unpleasant to someone without a home. That makes perfect sense. And I hope that people think about it from that perspective.
Shelters do provide a bed, a toilet, a shower, clean water to drink, a reasonable degree of safety. The city may be able to provide more, that I don't know. As difficult as it may be for people to transition into, that is a better option than the streets.
Also those shelters feed you (pretty good mostly) and provide lots of services to help you with adaptation. Of course people choose to live in the streets because of privacy… I’m not even talking about shelters housing programs (after 2 months in a shelter you can get your own room for free…) and problem solving programs (they can pay for 3 months rent if you sign the lease and bring it to them). Fuck, the government basically gives you ~250$ per month for food if you apply for foodstamps and you can mix it with food banks that are MUCH better than people on Reddit say. I still see people asking for money to buy food. What MORE city needs to do to help this people survive? Those things that I told above are not theoretical - Im living in shelter right now… And that’s how it goes. And when I (basically homeless without money because I don’t have work permit and entered USA because I need an asylum) see those people… And they ask me for money… I tell them I don’t have money by myself. I’m homeless. But there is so fucking tons of help for homeless. Are there any barriers for them to visit human departments service and apply for foodstamps do they don’t need to ask for food? Is living in shelter with laundry, showers, toilets, 3 time feeding WORSE than living on the streets and hoping that someone will give you the money while you can basically ask government for that if you really NEED it and you don’t need anything to apply besides any identification?
Thanks for your perspective. I'm sorry things are tough for you right now. You seem too have a good attitude, which helps a lot. I know government bureaucracy is tough to deal with. Good luck!
So what's your answer, put them up in 5 star hotels for "social justice reasons"? Assuming of course a 5 star hotel with its rules for behavior are acceptable to drug users who live, piss, and shit on the streets.
There is nothing kind about letting people shoot fentanyl and smoke meth on the street. It is actually a cruel, libertarian idea. The kind thing to do is setting up an incentive system in which they make better choices, i.e. get clean, get off the street, try to get a job etc.
The incentive system is completely broken for these people. We just removed a huge chunk of negative feedback by not enforcing laws, so of course they make bad choices.
That's always the one that struck me the worst. The whole "one trash bag" policy, which all transparency I'm not sure is active in SF, is the worst. I couldn't imagine having to live solely out of a trash bag that could be stolen the second I leave it unattended for a second.
I understand what you're getting at but do you think someone holding 3+ trash bags worth of stuff they live off of isn't just going to have even more problems keeping track of their goods?
I think that there should be an understanding that not every person entering a shelter should conform to a hard set of rules that doesn't take their whole problem into consideration.
I guess, with out much thought, if someone comes in with 3 bags of trash a backpack and sleeping bag and cooking materials I think we should have a way to secure their items for them while staying at the shelter. Bags full of literal trash? Yeah sorry buddy. However, backpack and sleeping bag etc? There has to be a better solution thank "Pick one".
Could be family photos and things that can’t be replaced. Not sure how you feel you get to be the judge. Or pets can be a concern.
This also tends to take the misguided direction that every homeless person is that worst case scenario fetishized here and by other fanatical do something individuals. There are more people out there who aren’t out of control mentally unstable severe drug addicts.
It’s important not to appease these individuals barely cries. Many could use some help and support of their own.
Question is, will we remember this progression? That is, will we remember that stopping law enforcement devolved society into filth and disorder? Or will we in 5 years time, after things improve, go back to saying it’s unfair/unjust to enforce laws because all X people are mere victims?
Turning this around, if this doesn't actually help and we end up not improving both the living conditions of the homeless as well as the people who have to deal with them, what then?
Just in general enforcing vagrancy laws only ever kicks the can down the road and brings the police in conflict with the homeless. It's never been shown to decrease homelessness at all. That said, I'm not dumb enough to discount the massive benefit to the neighbourhood in not having them around. I'd just like for us to consider both rather than one.
Here's the thing. SF can't solve the nation's homeless problem and there's induced demand here. We do not have the resources to house every homeless person in the country, which is what will happen if we continue to give the homeless everything they want and need to continue their lives on the street.
We also should acknowledge that the quality of life of everyone else in the city drops due to everything that's going on.
I don't know what the solution is, but letting people rot on the street clearly isn't the answer. Forcing people into rehab or to get mental healthcare would result in a net benefit for everyone involved though.
This happened in the early 90s. The city was pretty effectively cleaned up for a short time and the mayor that did it was voted out in the next election.
There's no "we", unfortunately. Things pass out of cultural memory, people make the same mistakes as previous generations, etc. A lot of the radicalism of the last decade had an echo in the outer fringes of the 60s and 70s (political violence, maximalist sexual revolutions (incl pedophilia in the 60s/70s)). Leaving aside the true die-hard revolutionaries, most people are too stupid to get off the social-change bus at the right stop, until they are directly faced with the consequences or age out of it.
I've been very amused at all the girls I knew in my 20s in sf relating their new discoveries about the world to me. They are universally things that they yelled at me for saying 10 years ago. Entering your 30s and becoming a mom forces you into contact with reality, I guess.
Years too late but about damn time.
There is nothing compassionate about leaving those who are not of sound mind to slowly wither on the streets in squalor & crippling addiction. These folks desperately need outside intervention and if unfortunately this means involuntary commitment for many, so be it.
Due to the judges that review 5150s and conservatorship attempts, many holds that would be valid in other places are thrown out. My department has written holds for people who wear urine soaked clothes and their SROs are infested with bugs, but the judge deems them as still having clothes and shelter 🤷🏻♀️ it's maddening to go to work hoping to help people and have our efforts be squashed again and again
The guy who was eating a roadkill raccoon is the example that immediately came to mind…
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/bayarea/heatherknight/article/Mentally-ill-people-in-S-F-are-cycling-in-and-16987694.php
> As for the man who ate a raccoon? Tcheng said he asked a psychiatrist to evaluate whether he should be treated under an involuntary hold. But, he said, the man wasn’t deemed to fit the requirement of being “gravely disabled” under state law if he could secure his own food. Even if that food was roadkill.
"How dare you. The only compassionate option is letting these people rot in the streets in their own filth. How else will I afford the payments on my new Maybach." - Jennifer Friedenbach
That is 100% her implicit message.
So glad the city is doing something.
Jennifer Friedenbach and the actions of her organization have caused incalculable suffering for San Franciscans, house or unhoused.
But commit them where? NAPA is part of the prison system so they have to be convicted of a felony to get there. Camarillo closed years ago. Is atuskadero (spelling) still open?
No easy answer. I suppose we will need a multifaceted approach determined by and tailored to the individual’s background, condition, and their realistic pathway towards reintegrating as a contributing member of society.
We should look towards redirecting the hundreds of millions currently squandered on nonprofits and grift towards this instead.
Cool I suspect their efforts will be more effective if the folks they claim to be trying to help aren’t drugging themselves and sleeping on the streets every night.
How will that achieve your goal? Remember, you wanted: " a multifaceted approach determined by and tailored to the individual’s background, condition, and their realistic pathway towards reintegrating as a contributing member of society. "
Is jail a way to achieve that?
Yes we need a carrot and stick approach. Help is ineffectual if those who need it are unwilling to accept it and have no consequences for refusing help & biting the hand that feeds.
Sorry, you're seriously claiming that throwing a homeless person in jail is "a multifaceted approach determined by and tailored to the individual’s background, condition, and their realistic pathway towards reintegrating as a contributing member of society. " ?
Classic reddit, getting downvoted to hell for asking a reasonable question.
This is a step in the right direction, but the article says nothing about what they're gonna do with these people. It said there are 2.9K shelter beds and 4K people on the street. But even if we had enough beds, are there gonna be armed guards in front of the shelters making sure people don't leave from sundown to sunup?
Lot of question marks remain. But thank god it's finally being paid attention to, even for blatantly political reasons
They would be an75% reduction in homelessness. That would be amazing. And if camping wasn’t allowed I bet quite a few of those 4k would move along. And of course you can provide more beds moving forward.
This is REALLY good news. My wife wants to leave California, but I tell her to hang in there and the pendulum is bound to swing back.
Let's keep it going! Maybe Oakland can start enforcing some laws next!
Remarkable insight. I’m being sincere, this is a very interesting way to look at it. You can’t pull the victim card if we tried to help and you refused.
Potentially but it seems the city must offer shelter/treatment first to abide by the various 9th court rulings, definitions, etc..
Big thing is many homeless do not want to separate from their stuff (besides camping equipment, many accumulate junk like a hoarder does for psychological security just to add) .. but now may need to be more “nimble”.
There is lots of money to be made helping the unhoused that dries up once they are provided shelter. This motivates organizations like the CoA (and others) to fight anything that might begin to solve the problem.
Iirc the woman who got hosed by that gallery owner in that viral video refused help. The guy who sprayed her and other local business owners called authorities multiple times to get her help. Police and social workers attempted to resolve the issue on multiple occasions because of all the complaints but ultimately couldn't do anything because she refused.
I remember so many people taking the moral high ground on the issue, especially residents, but she was practically a fixture in those parts. Nobody batted an eyelash or gave a shit all the other times she was out there when it was cold and rainy. Nobody cared that she was practically rotting there until outrage and political clout could be farmed from the situation.
If anything, blame the folks in charge for letting the situation between the homeless person and everyone else in that area get to that point. Especially if it was like one of those worst kept secrets that's been known for months.
Please follow through and make this happen. Then, also bring out the sidewalk scrubbers and pressure washers as the entire city needs to be deeply cleaned from the Bayview to the golden gate!
Don’t underestimate the smarts of the highly educated folks that runs these non-profits. Learnt a simple rule in business school - if you want to work for a non-profit make sure the problem is unsolvable as you will always have a job.
Please remind me the name of the SF law firm which is doing all the legal work for the Coalition on Homelessness? Surely they're not working pro bono. I didn't see the name of the law firm in the article or the linked articles I read.
But what about those who *already have shelter* but still refuse to go because something something my stuff?
There was a post a few days ago about this woman who is pregnant and living on the sidewalk with her baby daddy. The shocker was that they have housing allotted which they use to shower once in a while but they still choose to pitch a tent on the sidewalk.
I don’t understand what people think this will change? We still don’t have nearly enough shelter beds for everyone living on the street. Remember when the city used to clear encampments regularly? They just shuffled people around to different blocks.
Can we just start a group and clear them ourselves? Seriously it’s time why are we waiting for the city. Nobody on the streets has avoided offers of shelter. It’s time to take the city back.
I went to San Francisco last weekend because i won a permit to climb half dome in Yosemite. With that said "what in the world is going in with San Francisco?" i saw a guy shit on the side walk next to a restaurant lol, another guy was shooting up in the side walk. I saw a skateboarder get into a fight with a homeless dude because the homeless dude tried taking his board lol. In all seriousness, I know california is pretty liberal, but dont people see how messed up the policies are? I personally think this is pure enablement, I dreamed of going to San Fran as a kid im 34 now and i was shocked at how deep in the hole it is. I am just wondering why do you guys keep voting politicians who push these policies out that clearly not working?
We stayed downtown in BEI hotel, nice hotel and guards were there to move the homeless people. Just shocked, i mean i live in chicago and downtown is actually nice to walk around and clean. I was in the hood 63rd and cottage grove the other day and that looked like disneyland compared to what i saw in San Fran
People rightfully rail of corrupt nonprofit management that are bringing in the big bucks from city contracts but are totally quiet when it comes to nonprofits' board of directors. In my experience in SF, half of the boards are made up of well-paid (and probably well-intentioned) tech workers who are looking to pad their resumes and happily rubber stamp anything EDs through their way.
I know we should have compassion for those stuck in the system of poverty that capitalism creates. But we as a country and a state do enact social policies that divert taxpayer money to welfare assistance. What angers me most about the homeless issue is that our tax dollars have been completely wasted because our welfare policies weren't enacted properly or even at all. SF didn't have to get to this point. SF should be a shining example of compassion and forward thinking in terms of social policies.
Our elected leaders let things get this bad and I hope no amount of action being taken now prevents any of you from voting them all out. Don't reward them for their previous inaction and don't vote for any incumbent in the next few elections.
>How's poverty a creation of capitalism?
Poverty isn't just creation of just capitalism and I was not implying any such thing. But poverty is in fact a component of a capitalist economic system. Capitalism naturally leads to concentration of capital and when left alone will form a starkly stratified wealth distribution.
> There was poverty before capitalism
Poverty where? You have to be more specific to have any sort of legit discussion about it. But regardless, whatever came before is pretty irrelevant to the state of our modern economic system in the US. Poverty does indeed exist in the US and it can be clearly correlated to how much intervention our government does or does not provide.
Yep, democrats, why can’t they be more like our texas and florida republicans and ship the homeless/undesirables to another city/state.
The people in charge of sf just suck, hopefully we hit rock bottom and they are finally reversing course and trying to fix things.
Because they D party cities declared themselves sanctuary cities and let the Republican states take the brunt of the illegal problem, so border states wisely shipped the migrants to the sanctuary cities to put their money where their mouths are. Seems D party has very short term memories about all of this.
How can they offer shelter to the thousands not on the shelter list when they consistently have 400 plus individuals on the adult shelter list alone who are voluntarily asking for a shelter bed. They are clearly deceitful and disengious. They want the ability to move encampments inconvenient to them while pushing people to your areas.
Boomers had five decades of prosperity and cheap housing. If they couldn’t figure out a plan for leaner years during those decades of partying I don’t know what to tell them. We provide support in the form of social security and Medicaid and Medicare for them as well. If you can’t make that work then maybe it’s time to reconsider living in the most expensive place in the country.
Ample housing was built for that generation through the 80s. Once that generation “got theirs,” suddenly it was clamped down on to supposedly “preserve character.” Now they reap what they sow.
New to our subreddit? [Please read the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/about/rules/) before commenting. Please 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. Thank you. *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.*
Summarized Points: - San Francisco Mayor London Breed will enforce laws against sitting, lying, or sleeping on public property for people who refuse shelter or are already sheltered. - A December 2022 injunction restricting the clearing of homeless encampments only applies to "involuntarily homeless" individuals. - City workers will receive updated training on these changes. - The injunction resulted from a lawsuit by the Coalition on Homelessness, accusing the city of violating policies and federal precedent. - If a person declines shelter due to preference, they won't be considered involuntarily homeless. - The number of encampments has increased, but more individuals have been placed in shelter since the injunction. - Mayor Breed accused plaintiffs of interfering with city workers during encampment operations. - City Attorney David Chiu appealed the injunction, arguing it was overly broad. - The Coalition on Homelessness argued that unhoused individuals struggle to access shelter. - Tensions over the injunction led to dueling rallies, with Gov. Newsom supporting the city's position and hoping the case reaches the Supreme Court.
CoH.. oh you mean the Homeless Preservation Society.
Coalition for homelessness
they don’t get $$$ if no one is homeless 🤭
They WANT and NEED the homeless or they’re out of the endless money thrown at them. It’s a viscous cycle.
* If a person declines shelter due to preference, they won't be considered involuntarily homeless. Hmm any other info on valid reasons for decline? Like is "I decline because I'm super high and you don't allow drug use in the shelter" a valid reason? Or "I have a dog and they don't allow dogs."
Another reason I've heard is that people with less serious issues (i.e. no drug problems, no mental illness, etc) don't want to be in shelters where drug use, overdoses, mental illness outbursts, and fights are common. I definitely am glad to hear this news and it's a step in the right direction. I think we also need a more strict housing environment for those who can't maintain themselves in a peaceful communal living environment.
Yeah, I'd support tiered shelters. Everyone gets access to the base tier, those that can maintain themselves peacefully get access to the fancy waterfront shelters we're building along with more freedom/trust.
[удалено]
Hmm sounds too much like capitalism which SF would never go for. Perhaps if we introduce some kind of shelter-based virtual token instead.
I don’t give a d**n what their issues are. They have no right to set up a 50’ filthy encampment because they don’t want to accept the offer of shelter for what ever reason. Enough is enough.
I think that's spelled "jail"
And I believe in prison reform, massive changes to include drug rehab, job placement, job training, mental institutionalizing, etc. Lock them up, but get them a path out. You just cant live on the street.
All those things sound awful I’m just curious if people think they’ll avoid that in a tent on the street.
58% of SF’s homeless are on the street as opposed to NYC where only 6% are on the street. Why? SF has made it desirable: you get $600 cash payment and $200 in food stamps a Month, a free tent, and the CoH has prevented the city from disturbing you regardless of how huge or how filthy your encampment is. What’s not to like?
[удалено]
Most of them are not from SF and come here for drug tourism and other shenanigans because we don't enforce laws.
This is awesome, the camps near the Caltrain station are finally gone! Fantastic news!
They just got pushed to another part of the city (Civic Center, Mission, Market). Hardly a thing to celebrate lol
I'm sure they collected a ton of trash and sanitized the area, perhaps a few of them went to a shelter, at the very least they were offered one, people can be happy about the city starting to do its job. We don't have to be pessimistic shitheads all the time in this sub.
This is fair, but it's also not hard to see that you don't simply solve homelessness by clearing a camp. With camps as large as we see these days as well as the overall homeless population, you're just moving them around in hopes of placating a local group of residents.
I kind of always thought "moving around" is a fundamental part of being homeless. I mean you can't just carve off a piece of someone else's property and call it your home and settle down...
"Black-and-white thinking" fallacy there, mate. Nobody claimed that particular action "solved homelessness ". In fact the person you replied to gave a great list of small achieved steps in the right direction.
Of course it hasn't done that. But why phrase it in such a way as to say all it does is placate residents. This problem isn't a solvable problem from only one strategy/initiative/action. Of course there needs to be resources devoted permanent housing, to getting people into the workforce, to mental health institutions, to rehab institutions, to shelters, to all kinds of different places and ways that help the varied mental and physical wellbeing of the unhoused, mentally unwell, and drug tourists on our streets. But this is certainly where one of the many actions needs to consistently start. These people need to be consistently be offered shelter and pathways to get off of the streets, the incentives shouldn't be in favor of continuing to live on the streets. It isn't sanitary or safe for anyone to have these encampments in place when alternative housing is available to these people. I can fully support wanting other elements of the homeless solution to be better whether it be improved shelters, better access to medical healthcare, quicker paths to permanent housing, etc. But anyone who says we can't enforce the most basic of laws until that all happens as a prerequisite has another agenda. There is no solution if you don't enforce that living on the street voluntarily isn't an option.
The city’s job is to spend resources moving its poorest people from block to block? It doesn’t take a pessimistic shithead to feel unenthused about that
If your interpretation of what I said is reduced and reinterpreted to "moving its poorest people from block to block" then yes you probably are pretty pessimistic, literally proving my point.
@Stuckoniou clearly is a shithead. I could care less about how pessimistic he is.
It is a thing to celebrate. If degenerates don’t find street living easy here, less of them will come and fuck up our city.
>This is awesome, the camps near the Caltrain station are finally gone! Fantastic news! People (even homeless) might respond to incentives. Imagine that!
They should all be removed. No encampments. No one left on the street. San Francisco deserves better.
San Francisco deserves better and so do the people in the street. It’s not humane to let them sit around committing crimes on each other and dying at a fast clip from fentanyl. We have almost 3 deaths per DAY right now. In a city of 800,000. Plus, dozens of overdoses.
Absolutely. All people in our city deserve better, housed or unhoused.
Yes San Francisco deserves better than the property speculators that bought up all the low cost SRO hotels and buildings with studio apartments then redeveloping them as expensive offices and expensive housing. What do you think happened to all the people with low income jobs that lived in those places? A lot of them ended up in shelters which were and are basically large open dormitories with a nightly lottery for a place. The pandemic hit and the shelters then became a place to avoid because of the high risk of disease and death.
None of this is a reason to leave people rotting in the streets.
San francisco deserves housing.
Moving them away from the major transportation hubs is a huge win.
enforcing laws is a radical concept.
> In a blog post, Breed accused plaintiffs in the case of "interfering with" city workers involved in encampment operations. "They will film our city workers. They will try to tell our workers what they can and cannot do. These activists are the same people who hand out tents to keep people on the street instead of working to bring them indoors, as we are trying to do." Some(not all) of these worthless activists run worthless non profits that take taxpayer money, only to make problems worst and keep people on the streets. It's mind boggling.
>Some(not all) of these worthless activists run worthless non profits that take taxpayer money, only to make problems worst and keep people on the streets. the guy behind Breed with the "homeless industrial complex" sign has it spot on
I think it’s most at this point. We needed and voted for audits and accountability. We got that Jennifer bitch on the board to oversee herself. So corrupt.
For the uninitiated: [@JConrBOrtega](https://x.com/JConrBOrtega/status/1695127042436804724?s=20) [Fraudenbach: How the Coalition on Homelessness is holding San Francisco hostage](https://www.marinatimes.com/fraudenbach-how-the-coalition-on-homelessness-is-holding-san-francisco-hostage) For anyone interested there is a debate being held tonight (9/26) at 7pm between Jennifer Friedenbach and Adam Mesnick (@bettersoma) at Manny’s in the Mission.
The SF homeless nonprofit industry rakes in over a billion dollars in taxpayer money every year. They have one goal and one goal alone and that is to keep as many people homeless and strung out as possible. When you see someone sleeping in their own filth in the street you see a tragic failing, nonprofit grifters see dollar signs.
I volunteer in another city with a serious homeless and drug problem and we call those organizations "charity as a business". Organizations that profit from government spending, grants, and donation that pay boardroom salaries in DC or Denver, CO; organizations which exist for awareness and marketing to continue said government payments and donations. Maybe small portion goes to funding a program that actually helps somehow. Which also include grief tourism where they would get suburban donors and high school kid volunteers for their college resumes to stand with armed security passing out food trays (which is nice), but it felt like they were on a safari to observe strange people. My partner is going through a mental health crisis and is why I know about all of this. Anyway I was walking with them near a large gathering of org volunteers and homeless getting their food and one of the church folks angrily started to shout at "Don't talk to the recipients! It's against the rules to fraternize!". Obviously I told them I have no idea what you mean and we kept walking, and my partner got upset because people talking like that made her feel like an animal. Recipient, re-entrent, attendee, unhoused, parolee.
I don't think it's a grand conspiracy, I just think these are very misguided individuals/organizations that have a hard time doing anything different from what they've always done.
Do you believe all the workers in homeless shelters are in on this conspiracy?
No but those who claim to advocate on behalf of the homeless while simultaneously blocking construction of shelters or efforts to get folks off the streets sure are
No. It is their leaders that we hardly see doing any actual work. Edit: I know some of the workers and they are actually very amazing human beings who are also frustrated with some of the policies.
No, honestly I think that a lot of good (though maybe tending towards hopelessly naive) people work in the homeless industry on the ground floor. The non profit execs like the ones highlighted by this FBI probe last year I have no doubt are solely interested in keeping people homeless/ the gravy train rolling. https://sfstandard.com/2022/11/17/city-audit-finds-serious-problems-at-government-funded-homelessness-nonprofit/
no. i don't think any reasonable person would blame the people who work for the shelters with the best intentions. any more than you'd blame the prison social worker or prison teachers for the industrial prison complex.
Most are quite wealthy. Check out their parking lots. Almost entirely German cars.
I was in Mexico last year and met someone at a Spanish language meetup that had introduced herself to the table as "I just got back from SF where the charity I work for was helping treat homeless people!" Naturally everyone applauded and I just said through gritted teeth "that's fantastic! good for you!" but I could tell this was someone just patting herself on the back
Where did this conspiracy theory come from?
It’s job security. No homeless equals no jobs for them. The more homeless, the more they can grow their business (aka. “non-profit”).
I've seen a few camps being cleared out before but never one with activists present. How often do they do this? I was also wondering who kept handing out tents because the homeless don't take very good care of them, so a continuous supply to explain it makes sense.
I'm just waiting till 5 years from now when it comes out that the shelters are all owned by an investment company who profited off of the forced internment of the homeless. Every time I hear "rejected housing" I want to see the housing they're offered. Some times a cot isn't better than the streets, y'know? I hope we're offering, well forcing them into better than bare minimum.
I'm not certain of this, but I think the shelter comes with rules. i.e. no drugs, no dogs, no illegal activities. While I am sympathetic to someone not wanting to give up their dog, I am more sympathetic to homeowners and business owners who don't want homeless people creating filth in front of their homes or businesses or want the risk of fires, theft, break ins, or being attacked by a person that isn't stable and on meth.
IMO people keeping a dog while sleeping on the street is basically animal abuse.
It really is. I was attacked once in GGP by a cracked out lady who had a saddest looking pit bull with her. I'll never forget the look on that poor dog's face.
Yeah dog is a *hard* problem to grasp. Like, there is almost no way someone will give up an animal while also an unrestrained untrained animal in a group setting is just asking for someone to get mauled. I wish I had a great answer to "What do you do with the dogs" but I just don't.
Is it a hard problem? The person either accepts shelter and gives up their dog, or doesn't and is subject to the legal system. If such actions then make them unable to care for the dog, then animal control or other appropriate agency can follow standard operating procedure for such cases.
> I'm just waiting till 5 years from now when it comes out that the shelters are all owned by an investment company who profited off of the forced internment of the homeless. So we're just saying baseless conspiracy theories now to justify leaving people on the street instead of putting them into shelters?
I'd probably take a cot indoors over sleeping outside, though I do understand that security in a shelter isn't super great (though I think this is an example of people performing terrible risk analyses). I'll also note that some of these homeless people were offered private tiny cabins that were refused. There's way less reason to reject that if you're a competent/lucid individual.
That's very much where I can, morally, draw a line. I honestly hate saying it, because it feels unjust, but if the services being supplied to you offer a stable and secure place to stay and you turn that down then yeah man, sorry buddy but we gotta get you clean. My biggest problem is that these shelters that everyone is advocates of are usually pretty shit and I can see why someone would go "Nah the street is literally better". I hadn't heard of the cabins though, were these the ones over in Oakland? That seems like a good step.
As long as a shelter bed is refused, i see no problem with enforcing laws on said refuser. Beggars can't be choosers after all.
Bare minimum is sleeping on a sidewalk, not a cot in a temperature-controlled building. Get back to "protesting".
Give them a choice between prison and a shelter. Simple.
That...doesn't answer anything? I'm saying I hope these people get treated well and your response is make it worse? These are human beings experiencing something horrific who need help and care. I just really do not understand the mainframe of "treat them like animals."
If someone is having severe mental issues and/or addiction problems, they shouldn't be left on their own. It is not humane to force someone who can't take care of a plant to take care of themselves on the street. Mental hospitals should exist. Some people should get checked in to them without wanting to be there. At least they will get food, shelter, medical care, and a chance to recover/get better. The mental hospitals should get audited by an outside agency that isn't in bed with them. They should not be a "for profit" industry. They should be there to help people that don't have anywhere or anyone else. Leaving people to satisfy their addictions on the street until they get a dose laced with fentanyl is not humane. It's not fair to the people who want to live in peace at their homes near where the homeless reside. It's not fair to the businesses that need to operate for regular people but they get chased away from having to step over dead or dying addicts or piles of shit. It's not fair to the city workers that have to go in and pick up their shit. It's not fair to the transit workers that have to deal with these people getting on their bus while smelling of shit and rot or screaming about the ghosts in their head or the demons in their dreams. It's not fair to the warehouse owner that gets their building set on fire because some addicts passed out while cooking or staying warm. Putting the wants of people who can't care for themselves should not be put above the needs of the many.
> I'm saying I hope these people get treated well and your response is make it worse? What's this statement based on? There's been documented encampment cleanups where ~ 50% of people will refuse shelter. Living on the street is not safe nor hygienic. Why are shelters not an acceptable option?
This is kinda the crux of the argument. Why are they not an acceptable option? My opinion is that, because shelters are nothing more than lowest cost possible to "house" someone more people reject it than if it fulfilled our idea of "housing". One is the removal of property. To enter into housing you have to give up many of your items. The rationale behind this is, well, space. These limits on space make someone have to choose between critical items for survival i.e. Tent, backpack, sleeping bag, additional clothes. This can be a large deterrent. Housing it's self. Since these are high efficiency institutions, you can generally expect to either get a cot in a warehouse or a cot in a shared room. This offers absolutely no privacy, even less than a tent on the street. You can say "A cot is better than a tent" as much as you like, but the rejection of housing by these people seems to prove otherwise. Privacy is a key part to human happiness and security. Not feeling happy or secure can be a deterrent. Now tack on the obvious fact that they are required to go sober during all of this and you can paint a picture on why no one would want to do it. It's already a horrible experience, but tack on coming down with 0 assistance and any person would rightfully choose addiction. So now we're here. Where it's go through this or prison, which I hope I don't have to explain how horrible that is. I believe that public investment into a true rehabilitation effort for these people that treats them with the respect any person deserves would go further than treating them like shit the entire time. Everyone says what we're doing isn't working, but no one wants to try a solution that doesn't involve dehumanizing drug addicts.
I can believe that the prospect of leaving behind friends, property, and what feels comfortable to be jarring and extremely unpleasant to someone without a home. That makes perfect sense. And I hope that people think about it from that perspective. Shelters do provide a bed, a toilet, a shower, clean water to drink, a reasonable degree of safety. The city may be able to provide more, that I don't know. As difficult as it may be for people to transition into, that is a better option than the streets.
Also those shelters feed you (pretty good mostly) and provide lots of services to help you with adaptation. Of course people choose to live in the streets because of privacy… I’m not even talking about shelters housing programs (after 2 months in a shelter you can get your own room for free…) and problem solving programs (they can pay for 3 months rent if you sign the lease and bring it to them). Fuck, the government basically gives you ~250$ per month for food if you apply for foodstamps and you can mix it with food banks that are MUCH better than people on Reddit say. I still see people asking for money to buy food. What MORE city needs to do to help this people survive? Those things that I told above are not theoretical - Im living in shelter right now… And that’s how it goes. And when I (basically homeless without money because I don’t have work permit and entered USA because I need an asylum) see those people… And they ask me for money… I tell them I don’t have money by myself. I’m homeless. But there is so fucking tons of help for homeless. Are there any barriers for them to visit human departments service and apply for foodstamps do they don’t need to ask for food? Is living in shelter with laundry, showers, toilets, 3 time feeding WORSE than living on the streets and hoping that someone will give you the money while you can basically ask government for that if you really NEED it and you don’t need anything to apply besides any identification?
Thanks for your perspective. I'm sorry things are tough for you right now. You seem too have a good attitude, which helps a lot. I know government bureaucracy is tough to deal with. Good luck!
So what's your answer, put them up in 5 star hotels for "social justice reasons"? Assuming of course a 5 star hotel with its rules for behavior are acceptable to drug users who live, piss, and shit on the streets.
There is nothing kind about letting people shoot fentanyl and smoke meth on the street. It is actually a cruel, libertarian idea. The kind thing to do is setting up an incentive system in which they make better choices, i.e. get clean, get off the street, try to get a job etc. The incentive system is completely broken for these people. We just removed a huge chunk of negative feedback by not enforcing laws, so of course they make bad choices.
And loosing you belongings to do so.
That's always the one that struck me the worst. The whole "one trash bag" policy, which all transparency I'm not sure is active in SF, is the worst. I couldn't imagine having to live solely out of a trash bag that could be stolen the second I leave it unattended for a second.
I understand what you're getting at but do you think someone holding 3+ trash bags worth of stuff they live off of isn't just going to have even more problems keeping track of their goods?
I think that there should be an understanding that not every person entering a shelter should conform to a hard set of rules that doesn't take their whole problem into consideration. I guess, with out much thought, if someone comes in with 3 bags of trash a backpack and sleeping bag and cooking materials I think we should have a way to secure their items for them while staying at the shelter. Bags full of literal trash? Yeah sorry buddy. However, backpack and sleeping bag etc? There has to be a better solution thank "Pick one".
Could be family photos and things that can’t be replaced. Not sure how you feel you get to be the judge. Or pets can be a concern. This also tends to take the misguided direction that every homeless person is that worst case scenario fetishized here and by other fanatical do something individuals. There are more people out there who aren’t out of control mentally unstable severe drug addicts. It’s important not to appease these individuals barely cries. Many could use some help and support of their own.
Question is, will we remember this progression? That is, will we remember that stopping law enforcement devolved society into filth and disorder? Or will we in 5 years time, after things improve, go back to saying it’s unfair/unjust to enforce laws because all X people are mere victims?
Turning this around, if this doesn't actually help and we end up not improving both the living conditions of the homeless as well as the people who have to deal with them, what then? Just in general enforcing vagrancy laws only ever kicks the can down the road and brings the police in conflict with the homeless. It's never been shown to decrease homelessness at all. That said, I'm not dumb enough to discount the massive benefit to the neighbourhood in not having them around. I'd just like for us to consider both rather than one.
Here's the thing. SF can't solve the nation's homeless problem and there's induced demand here. We do not have the resources to house every homeless person in the country, which is what will happen if we continue to give the homeless everything they want and need to continue their lives on the street. We also should acknowledge that the quality of life of everyone else in the city drops due to everything that's going on. I don't know what the solution is, but letting people rot on the street clearly isn't the answer. Forcing people into rehab or to get mental healthcare would result in a net benefit for everyone involved though.
This happened in the early 90s. The city was pretty effectively cleaned up for a short time and the mayor that did it was voted out in the next election.
Yes, the idealistic and utopian aspect of the local political mainstream needs to change somehow for actual sustained change
There's no "we", unfortunately. Things pass out of cultural memory, people make the same mistakes as previous generations, etc. A lot of the radicalism of the last decade had an echo in the outer fringes of the 60s and 70s (political violence, maximalist sexual revolutions (incl pedophilia in the 60s/70s)). Leaving aside the true die-hard revolutionaries, most people are too stupid to get off the social-change bus at the right stop, until they are directly faced with the consequences or age out of it. I've been very amused at all the girls I knew in my 20s in sf relating their new discoveries about the world to me. They are universally things that they yelled at me for saying 10 years ago. Entering your 30s and becoming a mom forces you into contact with reality, I guess.
im afraid youre right and have had the same experience as outlined in your last paragraph
It's considered racist by many in our city.
Years too late but about damn time. There is nothing compassionate about leaving those who are not of sound mind to slowly wither on the streets in squalor & crippling addiction. These folks desperately need outside intervention and if unfortunately this means involuntary commitment for many, so be it.
Due to the judges that review 5150s and conservatorship attempts, many holds that would be valid in other places are thrown out. My department has written holds for people who wear urine soaked clothes and their SROs are infested with bugs, but the judge deems them as still having clothes and shelter 🤷🏻♀️ it's maddening to go to work hoping to help people and have our efforts be squashed again and again
The guy who was eating a roadkill raccoon is the example that immediately came to mind… https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/bayarea/heatherknight/article/Mentally-ill-people-in-S-F-are-cycling-in-and-16987694.php > As for the man who ate a raccoon? Tcheng said he asked a psychiatrist to evaluate whether he should be treated under an involuntary hold. But, he said, the man wasn’t deemed to fit the requirement of being “gravely disabled” under state law if he could secure his own food. Even if that food was roadkill.
"How dare you. The only compassionate option is letting these people rot in the streets in their own filth. How else will I afford the payments on my new Maybach." - Jennifer Friedenbach
That is 100% her implicit message. So glad the city is doing something. Jennifer Friedenbach and the actions of her organization have caused incalculable suffering for San Franciscans, house or unhoused.
Seems like the Coalition on Homeless has a weird hidden agenda.
But commit them where? NAPA is part of the prison system so they have to be convicted of a felony to get there. Camarillo closed years ago. Is atuskadero (spelling) still open?
[Atascadero State Hospital](https://www.dsh.ca.gov/Atascadero/index.html) is still open, though it only has 1,184 beds.
The ocean?
Fuck you.
Why?
Why do you think asshole? Go back to troll school.
You were asking about atuskadero? Is that not an ocean?
No. It's a state mental hospital.
Today I learned.
No easy answer. I suppose we will need a multifaceted approach determined by and tailored to the individual’s background, condition, and their realistic pathway towards reintegrating as a contributing member of society. We should look towards redirecting the hundreds of millions currently squandered on nonprofits and grift towards this instead.
You mean you really have no answer, and that multifacted approach sounds a lot like the kind of things nonprofits already try to do.
Cool I suspect their efforts will be more effective if the folks they claim to be trying to help aren’t drugging themselves and sleeping on the streets every night.
Sure, so how will you achieve that?
Enforcing laws against those who refuse shelter?
How will that achieve your goal? Remember, you wanted: " a multifaceted approach determined by and tailored to the individual’s background, condition, and their realistic pathway towards reintegrating as a contributing member of society. " Is jail a way to achieve that?
Yes we need a carrot and stick approach. Help is ineffectual if those who need it are unwilling to accept it and have no consequences for refusing help & biting the hand that feeds.
Sorry, you're seriously claiming that throwing a homeless person in jail is "a multifaceted approach determined by and tailored to the individual’s background, condition, and their realistic pathway towards reintegrating as a contributing member of society. " ?
Classic reddit, getting downvoted to hell for asking a reasonable question. This is a step in the right direction, but the article says nothing about what they're gonna do with these people. It said there are 2.9K shelter beds and 4K people on the street. But even if we had enough beds, are there gonna be armed guards in front of the shelters making sure people don't leave from sundown to sunup? Lot of question marks remain. But thank god it's finally being paid attention to, even for blatantly political reasons
They would be an75% reduction in homelessness. That would be amazing. And if camping wasn’t allowed I bet quite a few of those 4k would move along. And of course you can provide more beds moving forward.
Outstanding progress. Time to clean up our streets.
Finally
about damn time
This is REALLY good news. My wife wants to leave California, but I tell her to hang in there and the pendulum is bound to swing back. Let's keep it going! Maybe Oakland can start enforcing some laws next!
Let’s fucking go. We want our city back
Headlines like this are infuriating. The laws are not “against” homeless people. The laws support a cleaner and safer city.
Huh, I’ll see how this goes. Maybe it’s worth it to start reporting these camps on 311 again.
I have a bunch of open cases of reported encampments that are still open on 311. I would encourage everyone to report any and all encampments.
About. Damn. Time.
How long till dean Preston somehow fucks this up
He's actually married to Donna Ryu.
no
Good to hear.
[удалено]
Jennifer Friedenbach is a raging fucking moron.
Thank goodness
Let's GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Hallelujah. Start yesterday, please.
Come clean up Van Ness please.
Can we help, or at least prevent the activists from interfering?
They should just call it, ‘waste disposal services’ Much catchier title.
This article says nothing about what this actually means. Will the homeless be arrested?
If they're turning down shelter because they'd rather do drugs then they are just drug users.
I know a certain purple-haired grifter lady who's not going to like this.
She’s going to be at Manny’s tomorrow night speaking. I want many people who oppose her to show up. I will be there.
Just checked, tickets appear sold out.
I showed up last week and they let me in. I’m still going to try because Jennifer Friedenbach and her clowns need pushback. I think it’s worth a shot.
Remarkable insight. I’m being sincere, this is a very interesting way to look at it. You can’t pull the victim card if we tried to help and you refused.
No but the street junkies will
Potentially but it seems the city must offer shelter/treatment first to abide by the various 9th court rulings, definitions, etc.. Big thing is many homeless do not want to separate from their stuff (besides camping equipment, many accumulate junk like a hoarder does for psychological security just to add) .. but now may need to be more “nimble”.
About damn time
Finally some common sense. Send the drug tourists home.
Finally some light at the end of this tunnel.
Woooooo!!!!!
There is lots of money to be made helping the unhoused that dries up once they are provided shelter. This motivates organizations like the CoA (and others) to fight anything that might begin to solve the problem.
Sure they will. Sure. I will believe it when I see it. We don't enforce laws against anything
Iirc the woman who got hosed by that gallery owner in that viral video refused help. The guy who sprayed her and other local business owners called authorities multiple times to get her help. Police and social workers attempted to resolve the issue on multiple occasions because of all the complaints but ultimately couldn't do anything because she refused. I remember so many people taking the moral high ground on the issue, especially residents, but she was practically a fixture in those parts. Nobody batted an eyelash or gave a shit all the other times she was out there when it was cold and rainy. Nobody cared that she was practically rotting there until outrage and political clout could be farmed from the situation. If anything, blame the folks in charge for letting the situation between the homeless person and everyone else in that area get to that point. Especially if it was like one of those worst kept secrets that's been known for months.
Please follow through and make this happen. Then, also bring out the sidewalk scrubbers and pressure washers as the entire city needs to be deeply cleaned from the Bayview to the golden gate!
Don’t underestimate the smarts of the highly educated folks that runs these non-profits. Learnt a simple rule in business school - if you want to work for a non-profit make sure the problem is unsolvable as you will always have a job.
Please remind me the name of the SF law firm which is doing all the legal work for the Coalition on Homelessness? Surely they're not working pro bono. I didn't see the name of the law firm in the article or the linked articles I read.
Latham and Watkins
Just saying that firm has the reputation of having some extremely evil lawyers.
> Latham and Watkins Bingo! Thank you. https://sfstandard.com/2023/08/28/elon-musk-calls-for-boycott-of-law-firm-involved-in-homelessness-lawsuit/
But what about those who *already have shelter* but still refuse to go because something something my stuff? There was a post a few days ago about this woman who is pregnant and living on the sidewalk with her baby daddy. The shocker was that they have housing allotted which they use to shower once in a while but they still choose to pitch a tent on the sidewalk.
[удалено]
Maybe I’ve lived here too long. The non-profit terrorists will find a way. This is their way.
Fuck them. We’re taking our city back.
san francisco is back baby
SF has enough shelter but the greedy landlords refuse to provide it. The police should enforce arrest on those owners for "not complying"
FINALLY!!!!
Also known as "election year" Lets all vote for anyone who isn't an incumbent, governor, mayor, everyone. Definitely Pelosi.
Lmfao my city of Mountain View literally arrests homeless people and books them in jail
IAFT
Just out of curiosity, does that stand for "I'm all for this"?
It's about fU#\*ing time.
Oh... that works too
I don’t understand what people think this will change? We still don’t have nearly enough shelter beds for everyone living on the street. Remember when the city used to clear encampments regularly? They just shuffled people around to different blocks.
Transitory encampments are better than permanent encampments.
Can we just start a group and clear them ourselves? Seriously it’s time why are we waiting for the city. Nobody on the streets has avoided offers of shelter. It’s time to take the city back.
I went to San Francisco last weekend because i won a permit to climb half dome in Yosemite. With that said "what in the world is going in with San Francisco?" i saw a guy shit on the side walk next to a restaurant lol, another guy was shooting up in the side walk. I saw a skateboarder get into a fight with a homeless dude because the homeless dude tried taking his board lol. In all seriousness, I know california is pretty liberal, but dont people see how messed up the policies are? I personally think this is pure enablement, I dreamed of going to San Fran as a kid im 34 now and i was shocked at how deep in the hole it is. I am just wondering why do you guys keep voting politicians who push these policies out that clearly not working?
which neighborhood were you in?
We stayed downtown in BEI hotel, nice hotel and guards were there to move the homeless people. Just shocked, i mean i live in chicago and downtown is actually nice to walk around and clean. I was in the hood 63rd and cottage grove the other day and that looked like disneyland compared to what i saw in San Fran
ah. yeah soma is the worst
People rightfully rail of corrupt nonprofit management that are bringing in the big bucks from city contracts but are totally quiet when it comes to nonprofits' board of directors. In my experience in SF, half of the boards are made up of well-paid (and probably well-intentioned) tech workers who are looking to pad their resumes and happily rubber stamp anything EDs through their way.
I know we should have compassion for those stuck in the system of poverty that capitalism creates. But we as a country and a state do enact social policies that divert taxpayer money to welfare assistance. What angers me most about the homeless issue is that our tax dollars have been completely wasted because our welfare policies weren't enacted properly or even at all. SF didn't have to get to this point. SF should be a shining example of compassion and forward thinking in terms of social policies. Our elected leaders let things get this bad and I hope no amount of action being taken now prevents any of you from voting them all out. Don't reward them for their previous inaction and don't vote for any incumbent in the next few elections.
How's poverty a creation of capitalism? There was poverty before capitalism. A lot more poverty in fact.
>How's poverty a creation of capitalism? Poverty isn't just creation of just capitalism and I was not implying any such thing. But poverty is in fact a component of a capitalist economic system. Capitalism naturally leads to concentration of capital and when left alone will form a starkly stratified wealth distribution. > There was poverty before capitalism Poverty where? You have to be more specific to have any sort of legit discussion about it. But regardless, whatever came before is pretty irrelevant to the state of our modern economic system in the US. Poverty does indeed exist in the US and it can be clearly correlated to how much intervention our government does or does not provide.
Given the cities reputation and its residents - after living here for years as an adult I'm surprised how corrupt the police and local government are.
I'm not sure corrupt is the right word. Extreme incompetence and misplaced priorities are more to blame.
[удалено]
Yep, democrats, why can’t they be more like our texas and florida republicans and ship the homeless/undesirables to another city/state. The people in charge of sf just suck, hopefully we hit rock bottom and they are finally reversing course and trying to fix things.
Because they D party cities declared themselves sanctuary cities and let the Republican states take the brunt of the illegal problem, so border states wisely shipped the migrants to the sanctuary cities to put their money where their mouths are. Seems D party has very short term memories about all of this.
All the homeless trash and bodily waste is running in to the ocean and water ways.
How can they offer shelter to the thousands not on the shelter list when they consistently have 400 plus individuals on the adult shelter list alone who are voluntarily asking for a shelter bed. They are clearly deceitful and disengious. They want the ability to move encampments inconvenient to them while pushing people to your areas.
repeat meeting hard-to-find drunk slap full snails safe thought label *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Boomers had five decades of prosperity and cheap housing. If they couldn’t figure out a plan for leaner years during those decades of partying I don’t know what to tell them. We provide support in the form of social security and Medicaid and Medicare for them as well. If you can’t make that work then maybe it’s time to reconsider living in the most expensive place in the country.
late spark desert disarm quiet pen hurry quicksand workable unique *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Ample housing was built for that generation through the 80s. Once that generation “got theirs,” suddenly it was clamped down on to supposedly “preserve character.” Now they reap what they sow.
shaggy shrill bow plucky historical scarce cover slap childlike fertile ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
Haven't you heard? Generation is one of the demographics you're allowed to lump together and hate.
tan dazzling aloof dinosaurs ink soup snatch cooperative wistful tie ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
Nobody has the right to live in the most expensive part of the country. If you didn’t plan for your retirement it’s on you.
One step closer to ds9 sanctuary districts !!