As if is not stealing if you are a druggie or homeless.
It's arguably a different thing if you're stealing out of necessity or because you're systematically stealing in a large fashion for personal enrichment. Yes, both is a loss, but the latter one is arguably more malicious.
That being said, if stores need to close down because your homeless/addict population is so large that they're basically raiding the stores, you have a far bigger problem on your hands.
But sure, you're welcome to be as cynical as you'd like.
I don't live in SF, but homeless shelters are oftentimes disgusting and terrible places. I don't blame anyone that doesn't want to stay in them if they can figure out other accommodations. Nonreligious based shelters sometimes provide very little in terms of hygiene/necessities/food, sometimes basically nothing other than a small cot or gym mat (aka no food, no shower, etc).
Religious shelters often require religious involvement. Forced praying as an example.
There is also the issue of frequent abuse/sexual assault in homeless shelters.
> Being homeless or poor is only an excuse for stealing if you cannot reasonably get your basic needs met in a legal way.
I don't really think shoplifting food to survive is an "excuse". Again, they're not stealing CD players.
https://www.npr.org/2012/12/06/166666265/why-some-homeless-c...
A specific account of sexual abuse in a shelter here:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/mayor-orders-probe...
There's plenty of reporting on it. As with all news, it's tough to get realistic accounts of what's going on in shelters because a lot of the people being asked are involved with shelter administration, so obviously there wouldn't be as much emphasis on the bad living conditions. Getting more info from actual homeless people would be helpful, but obviously the entire point is a lot of them are battling substance abuse issues and/or mental health problems, so there are complications on getting decent information out of them.
If there was a specific location in which sexual abuse was prevalent, and you had to decide whether to go to that place or not, would you?
> Is it even logical to assume that there would be less sexual abuse in the streets than in a shelter?
Is this a serious question? "There is a place with a high percentage of sexual abuse, are you more likely to experience sexual abuse there or not-there?"
After all the public bathrooms were eliminated, the city made an app so you can send them pictures of human feces. That way they can send someone out to clean it up. I guess that’s cheaper than maintaining actual restrooms.
The reason public bathrooms were eliminated is because they become dens for heroin use. Always fun going to the bathroom with your kids to find druggies rolling on the floor with heroin needles scattered about. How do you maintain a bathroom with homeless people injecting heroin? You need police for that, not simple bathroom cleaners. I'm ultra leftist, but this degeneracy of enabling drug addiction and encouraging crime and homelessness only serves to produce more crime, more homelessness, and more suffering.
In European countries, it’s quite common to find public bathrooms with attendants who charge a nominal fee.
In Japan, public bathrooms are common and amazing. (Public trashcans are a different story.)
In cities near SF (excluding Palo Alto), perfectly nice public bathrooms are common in parks.
The sad truth is the easiest way for a homeless person to get a place to sleep and a reliable food supply is to be incarcerated. It is something I don't hear a lot of people talking about but a non-trivial part of our absurdly large prison population are people who habitually reoffend because they have nowhere else to go to begin with. Once you've got a criminal record and you already have no support system on the outside, breaking the cycle is damn near impossible.
We end up paying for it either way so it is a problem worth addressing, at least in my opinion.