San Francisco takes harder line against homeless camps, defying its reputation

Pre-election optics? Governor Newsom cited this summer’s SCOTUS ruling against homeless encampments and issued an executive order to clean them up statewide. (Cities have some level of autonomy in complying.)

I can enjoy unfalsifiable beliefs as much as the next zealot, but not when such a clear provable reality exists too.

The problem is that homeless are unreliable and can use bussing programs as free transportation without proper verification that they actually have family in the other side. Ya, they get someone to vouch for them, but when they arrive, that was always a farce only lasts a week or so. Bussing isn’t really a solution, their drug or whatever problems actually need to be solved.

The real issue is that cities are expected to solve its homeless problems with local resources when they are never local at all (homeless are pretty mobile, and wind up in liberal fair weather cities for good reasons).

In my mind there are three solutions to deal with the homelessness crisis.

1. You beat, intimidate, and throw people in jail for doing drugs or living on the street. (The old way)

2. You let these people live untouched and degrade public order, decency, and safety. (The current way)

3. You force people with mental health and drug addiction problems into healthcare and rehab facilities. (What you are suggesting)

Out of these three options I do agree that the third one sounds the best for society, and for those who have these addictions and illnesses.

> My unpopular opinion: If someone continuously refuses services that offer a _life of decency_ (private room/bath, food, etc, not just a shelter but of comfort), then they become a ward of the state and given the rights and amenities of a child, because, regardless of their age, they simply cannot take care of themself. We have many laws and protections for minors for this exact reason.

> I don't care how much it costs. Our current strategy costs a lot and solves nothing.

Perhaps it would be good to start by making those services (including a private room/bath, etc.) to homeless people and seeing how it affects the numbers before worrying about whether we need to take people's rights away? Currently, I don't think most homeless people have access to anything close to that in most places.

Homeless shelters have tons of limitations that make them difficult to use and are by reputation not very safe or comfortable, so improving that situation could do a lot to eliminate homelessness before you even need to start worrying about whether to compel people.

The problem on the streets in SF is 99% drugs and mental illness, maybe 1% housing. Almost all of the people in camps refuse services and shelter when offered.

SF builds less than 20 new housing units a year. That's not a typo. They're great at virtue signalling, not so great at doing what needs to be done to get people housed, unlike say Austin Texas where rents have fallen almost 10% over the year due to new housing.

From a national standpoint, it's housing, but SF (and Oakland) specifically has a much different problem. The politicians run their political experiments in SF and they completely ignore the secondary and tertiary effects. You can't make it easy for people to live outside and not think it will not attract people from all over the country. Now it's guaranteed they won't have enough housing because of all the people it has attracted. Otherwise there's no reason to go to an expensive city if you can't afford it.

To be fair, there’s a large delta between homeless shelters and the Fairmont. I’ve read a lot of women feel unsafe in them as it’s not exactly private and secure. Of course neither is the streets, but you can try and create more distance.

I have a lot of sympathy for those in this situation. It’s a tough place to be, and many won’t get out of it for a wide variety of reasons.

Homeless shelters really do suck from what I’ve read. Theft in particular is an issue.

I don’t think it’s fair to extrapolate from that statement that people wouldn’t take up the offer of shelter if quality and safety were improved.

There will always be holdouts, but a practical solution will make those the outliers rather than the common case.

That is a highly dubious opinion.

I am not homeless and I never have been, but I would MUCH rather sleep in a car or a tent (placed in a spot of my choosing, near people I trust and away from people I distrust) than in a typical homeless shelter surrounded by strangers who might assault me or steal from me in the night. It's not even close.

However, I'd MUCH rather sleep in a hotel room than in a car or a tent. Again, not even close.

All you people trashing shelters as they exist:

is there ANY definition of "housing" under which you'd be willing to compel homeless people to take it, under penalty of fines & jail? Please tell us.

I’ve stayed at a shelter once in my life. It was horrible. I had to line up with scary people at like 6pm, wait hours, make it to my cot at 8ish, lights out at 9pm and then they wake you up at 5:30 in the morning and cast you away to figure out how to keep warm in below freezing weather. Couldn’t bring my stuff in with me; I had to leave my backpack in a shed that relied on the honor system (and getting to it ASAP when they unlocked the shed in the morning) to prevent theft. I couldn’t bring a snack in with me. It felt like jail. If I had more stuff than a little bag, they simply could not accommodate storage. If I had a sleeping bag I’d 100% have preferred to find some safer quiet spot to sleep, and sleep in until the sun came up.