Hacker News Reader

Comment by beatpanda | Hacker News Reader

It's hilarious to me that this exact same newspaper ran an article less than a week ago showing that by all available measures, homelessness is improving and there are fewer people on the streets in San Francisco. (https://projects.sfchronicle.com/sf-homeless/2018-state-of-h...)

Just like our current national hysteria around crime or immigration, the notion that homelessness is somehow getting worse, or that San Francisco is doing a bad job handling it, are flatly contradicted by the data. San Francisco is in fact doing a better job handling homelessness than most of its peer cities in the United States.

Readers of Hacker News should go to the data first. Matier & Ross have a long history of this kind of ugly sensationalism and it has no place here.

View on HN

Things have gotten worse in the last decade, with homeless invading hotel lobbies and scaring people checking in.

Market St. is a war zone.

The city spends $300 - $400 million a year on the homeless industry, but virtually none trickles down to the actual homeless.

Going to need a citation here, because all of the data says things are getting better. I live in SF, I have worked in mid-market and I edited the Street Sheet and worked directly with homeless people for several years. I'm not super interested in your one anecdote about the one time a homeless person scared you.

Please don't turn uncivil, even if someone is wrong about homelessness. It helps nothing to damage the site you're contributing to.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Spreading misinformation is cool though huh

There is currently a well-funded political campaign, backed by VC money, to change conservatorship laws in California to snatch homeless people off the street and involuntarily institutionalize them. You are doing serious harm by allowing people to spread misinformation here without challenging them, and punishing people doing the thankless work of correcting them.

Of course it isn't cool, but it's impossible to prevent people from being wrong on the internet. The question is how to correct misinformation when it appears. If you blame people and snark at them, that reinforces them in the error. Worse, you discredit the truth in the eyes of the neutral audience who might be persuadable, but react adversely to the hostility. Your comment upthread was much better, especially because it provided an alternate source.

Having walked Market Street at night and during the day, I believe its seediest part is Civic Center. Everything before that seems fine due to increased police presence, a.k.a. it's the tourist zone.

I would agree that two slums sandwich this narrow band.

In 2017 SF had about 7500 Homeless people, if your numbers are correct (cannot find the source), then it means city spends per homeless person annually somewhere between $40K to $53K, which seems to be insane amount of money.

It is and its worse than you think. Here's a 2016 article https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-recor...

> none trickles down to the actual homeless.

Trickle down doesn't work for people who do not contribute to the society in any way. Why do many homeless don't? I don't know, but that's what any government effort should focus on. Spending money and hoping it will trickle down without addressing the root cause is stupid.

The data in the article you linked shows that there has been a continued increase in the amount of human waste, used needles, and encampments. Even the primary positive figure they cite, a drop in population of 8,640 in 2004 to 7,499 in 2017, is not a substantial improvement. Given the impression that many residents have that things have gotten worse, some of it may be accounted for by factors mentioned in the article (i.e. the perception of increase by people who are simply in areas that the homeless have been displaced to), but I'm also inclined to believe that housing the chronically homeless to reduce the official population count might not actually have too much of an impact. For example, what if the entirety of those 7,500 were given a permanent residence, so that the homeless population drops to 0? I'm not so sure it would be easy to distinguish between the severely mentally ill or drug addicted individual who was technically homeless vs technically not. I suspect that much of the day to day activity would remain unchanged.

If you just look at the homeless population number that is a 13.2% drop versus a population growth in San Francisco of approximately 17.9% over the same period. I would call that significant.

In 2004 the homeless made up 1.15% of the population. In 2017 it was 0.08%. A 30.5% reduction. Definitely significant.

I see two issues that are driving the false perception regarding homelessness.:

As you reduce the overall homeless population the significantly mentally ill and drug addicted make up a higher percentage of the homeless that remain.

The policies enacted have concentrated the homeless into fewer areas which makes it seem that their numbers are higher rather than lower.

At the risk of comparing the homeless to wildlife, perhaps the apparent increase is because of the homeless being driven out of former lower-profile "habitats" by development.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com