Why are there so many crazy bums on San Francisco streets? | Hacker News Reader

Why are there so many crazy bums on San Francisco streets?

trythisroad.wordpress.com

42 pointswslh51 comments

California accounts for nearly a quarter of the entire homeless population in the United States [1], largely due to its climate, its support programs, and its dense network of municipal services and population centers. Approximately 14% of all homeless in the US are military veterans, many of whom suffer from PTSD and were turned out of VA clinics in the 1970s and 1980s due to budget cutbacks. The article is correct in placing a lot of the blame on Reagan, who as governor of CA and president of the US, aggressively scaled back support for both veterans in specific, and the homeless in general. As the article mentions, he also closed a lot of psychiatric hospitals, whose inpatients were turned out onto the streets, left to their own devices. Reagan wasn't the only legislator responsible for this turn of events, but he was probably the most powerful.

Perhaps homelessness is inevitable to some degree. Perhaps some proportion of the population in a laissez-faire, competitive country like the modern US is always going to fall through the cracks. Perhaps we lack the will or the budget to solve the problem completely or permanently. Perhaps some people just can't be saved. I'm not going to launch into an armchair, pollyannaish prescription for solving this problem when I don't have a fantastic solution. (That said, I suspect the best long-term solution is at least as preventive as it is rehabilitative.)

Regardless, there's one thing we can control on an individual level: the way we view and treat the mentally ill and the homeless. Let's not further the stigma, or wax poetic about the homeless in SF as some sort of quirky, fun landmark. I suspect that's not the author's intention -- he's setting out to celebrate the homeless, not to denigrate them -- but some of his language lends itself to misinterpretation. As someone with a close friend who's been homeless, and other friends who've been institutionalized, I don't find the "crazy bums" characterization very constructive.

[1] https://www.onecpd.info/resources/documents/pit-hic_suppleme...

My understanding is that the story of deinstitutionalization is a bit more complex: there was a movement in the 70s and 80s to have the mentally-ill returned to the community, instead of being treated in state institutions. However, many of the local facilities that the mentally ill were to receive treatment in were never actually established. At the same time, commitment laws were changed in many states, as part of a civil rights movement, to make it almost impossible to commit someone against their own will unless they were a physical danger to themselves or others.

Additionally, Reagan was never a legislator, but only served in an executive capacity, as Governor of California and as President of the US.

Fair points, especially about the commitment laws. And point noted about the use of the term "legislator" w/r/t Reagan. Good catch.

Considering that veterans make up 8.9% of all US adults [1] and that both veterans and homeless people are overwhelmingly male, 14% doesn't sound very high. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if veterans were actually underrepresented in the homeless population as compared to the general population with similar demographics.

[1] http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/...

> California accounts for nearly a quarter of the entire homeless population in the United States

And, just for reference, 12% of the US population lives in California.

So around double what you would expect.

don't forget "export" from other states:

http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2021804212_mentally...

"The state of Nevada and its primary psychiatric hospital “intentionally and wrongfully” foisted the cost of caring for indigent mentally ill people onto California cities and counties by issuing patients bus tickets out of town without making proper arrangements for their care, a lawsuit filed Tuesday in San Francisco charges."

"Greyhound therapy" has been around for many, many yesrs. I heard of it ca. 1980 and it wasn't new then--somebody was talking about it adding to the troubled population of Washington, DC.

My mother was one of those "crazy bums". She spent the last 3 years of her life on the streets there.

She lived in the East Bay before, so when she finally lost it it was natural to migrate to the nearest large city where she could "live in peace" on the streets.

I think a key problem is not just that the mental institutions are closed, but that it's now impossible to detain them unless they are an immediate threat to themselves or to anybody else. So you can be very sick but if you aren't lying in a pool of your own blood or waving a knife or gun then you are free to do your own thing.

The way I would like to address this would be to build micro communities out in the sticks, fashioned as quasi-monasteries. The energy of the city is not healthy for these people and the programs eat up a lot of cash. My understanding is that SF spends ~$200M/year on homeless services.

Why did you let your mom live on the streets?

A fair question, I suppose, but before judging too harshly it's worth remembering that many people do not want to be helped.

If we are getting deeply and uncomfortably honest, some people simply don't like their parents, and dont want anything to do with them. Not all parents are particularly great to their kids, to greater or lesser extents.

In no way am I suggesting this is the case with the example bravely given.

I heard a good few years ago that Denmark had 16 homeless people. 16.

I think these are probably the few that don't want to be helped. "Many don't want to be helped" is probably an overstatement.

The number is more likely around 5000.

[2011] http://www.english.umd.edu/sites/default/files/interpolation...

[2007] http://udenfor.dk/uk/Menu/News/The+number+of+homeless+people...

I'm pretty sure you missed the "impossible to detain" line in his post, or misunderstood it. There is not necessarily a way to commit a mentally ill person in CA if they're not a threat to themselves or others.

i think you interpreted the question in the least favorable light.

i read it as "why didn't you take care of her yourself?" not "why didn't you call for big burly men to stuff her in a box?"

She was in a "care home" and checked herself out against doctor's orders. I wasn't in a position to have her live with me, and had been dealing with her illness for about 30 years and was, quite frankly, so frustrated and burnt out that I had given up.

I had no resources to work with, what the hell was I to do?

Edit: I shared my story for 2 reasons. The first was to point out that these "bums" are somebody's family member -- it's easy to forget that. The other was the bit about rethinking what to do with them. I think the "monastery" approach is the most humane and cost effective.

I don't have anything to say- but just wanted to post to say that you have no requirement whatsoever to defend your life circumstances to complete strangers on the internet for whom it is very easy to judge you, comfortably behind their screens.

I know the poster before you got a lot of down votes. But I thank you both for asking and answering a serious question. It's hard to comprehend that situation until you are stuck in the middle of it.

That is an incredibly insensitive and provocative question, one that doesn't seem to take into account the simple information contained in the comment to which you replied.

That must have been an extremely painful situation. Sincere thanks for sharing your story and some real-world perspective that's sometimes lacking in policy discussions here.

How would a monastery work successfully? We still have the issue that people can't be compelled to stay in residence.

I think the primary way of compelling people is to make it a nice place to live. A private tiny home for privacy and security, a large garden to work in, a group kitchen, library, rec room, crafts, and of course tv/internet.

Most of these people in question are repeat offenders, so they could be offered the choice of a year in jail or 2 years in the country.

This wouldn't be free for the taxpayers, but remember, they are already paying a lot. I erred in the other post -- apparently it's ~$100M on homeless services. That's a nice chunk of change for servicing ~7000 homeless people.

http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2013/06/04/sf-homeless-services...

http://www.sfgov3.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=4...

Don't forget Greyhound Therapy either! (Over which SF is currently suing the State of Nevada)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/23/nevada-sued...

The history in this article is very interesting, but I always figured that the answer was more simple: (1) generous social programs compared to the country's norm, and (2) mild climate.

There's a great south park on that subject.

One answer that I had heard was that it's been standard practice for various municipalities to buy vagrants one-way tickets to SF. (Don't know if it's true or apocryphal.)

(edit: TIL it is called "greyhound therapy" as described in brandur's comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6830558)

That, combined with the mostly hospitable climate for homelessness, and the municipal tolerance for ... unconventional ... lifestyles, would explain at least part of it.

Also, it's where the 60s "happened", so at least some of the head cases can be attributed to taking too many strange drugs.

The first estimates I found on Google show 130,000 homeless in California with 500-1,500 sent here via "greyhound therapy". It's not a small amount, but it's still only ~1% of the homeless population.

This article offers the best, most detailed explanation for why there are so many homeless in the streets of SF and why that's not going to change anytime soon: http://www.modernluxury.com/san-francisco/story/arise-tender...

Wow, that article is fantastic, and provides an amazing degree of background and depth to the picture I'd already had of the TL. Thanks for linking to it!

Good article, only issue I have with it is Downtown Los Angeles is definitely not a success story. From dusk to dawn skid row is a total tent city. Thats not an exaggeration, people set up tents up and down the sidewalk. I was seriously shocked when I first saw it.

Life-long Boston area resident here. On my only visit to SF, what I observed was that the homeless people I saw were much more aggressive than their Boston counterparts. They were very much in the face of the people they were interacting with. Also, I saw a lot more of them. Weather? Generosity? I don't know.

I guess there's just not enough $3,000 studio apartments in the Mission to go around.

They are just javascript programmers who realized the truth sooner than others ...

"food not bums"? i think you mean "food not bombs"

3 decades back ,in the state of Kerala in India,the govt built houses for the poor, under a scheme called Laksham Veedu(hundred thousand houses).Now, most of these houses are in a pathetic state due to lack of repair.Here is what the govt agency website says http://www.kshb.kerala.gov.in/index.php?option=com_content&v...

I recall a period during my stint in SF where they started allowing drinking in the parks because "the homeless live in parks and should be allowed to drink at home"

I think they're there because they don't freeze and an idealistic population allows it.

Drinking alcohol in public places has always been illegal in San Francisco.

Perhaps it was police at the time deciding to take a less aggressive stance? This was ~15 years ago.

"Criminals thrive on the indulgence of society's understanding."

I had my first trip to SF last week. I knew ahead of time there was a problem of large numbers of homeless, and some of the underlying reasons for it. Even though, I was completely unprepared for the sheer scale of the issue - it was way beyond anything I'd ever imagined. It felt like everywhere I looked there was at least 1, and often, if I looked again closer there were 2-3. Walking around some areas of Market Street felt intimidating as there was a virtual "gauntlet" of homeless to walk through.

It didn't really take away from my trip, but it was certainly an eye-opener. The links in this thread will be good further reading in preparation for my next visit!

Vancouver (Canada) has a similar problem to SF. I think it's the climate, since compared to the rest of Canada it is quite mild. I think the causes here are different though, and mostly drug related, but someone with more knowledge can correct me.

Because the political climate allows it.

Court rulings made crimes used to arrest homeless people illegal. That's why a ranting maniac can soil himself in the public library and not be booted. Back in ye olden days, the cops would arrest him and sober him up for a day or two.

Even with that, there are more homeless in San Francisco, and I'd say that it's a combination of opportunity, a sympathetic environment and the fact that it's a real life city! (Vs a car suburb)

The author has quite a "Grapes of Wrath" style of writing.

[edit: Grammar. Oh, the irony.]

Surely it's better asked as two questions. Why are bums often crazy, and why are so many in SF? Answer to the first part is pretty obvious and supposedly part of the answer to the second comes down to climate and buck-passing by other states.

My initial impression of SF when I first visited in 2009, Damn, motherfuckers trying to be the "king of homeless"!

San Francisco native here. We have homeless in San Francisco for the same reason that Burning Man is in the Black Rock desert and we have the Folsom Street Fair. We want to make it a little uncomfortable for the fussy intolerant people who tend to show up in this great city on a regular basis. I'm kidding, but only sort of. :)

Toronto has a similar problem. It isn't just Regan.

One possible answer:

http://theprofoundprogrammer.com/post/31260129412/

What does that mean?

It seems he's saying/joking they're all failed startup founders.

Joking ... and getting downvoted into oblivion for it. Perhaps I struck a nerve? ;)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com