Go talk to your local EMS/Fire department personnel and most of them will have similar stories. I know the homeless people in my area better than I know my extended family. I have memorized their birthday's, the medications they should be taking, the street drugs they prefer, the kind of beer they drink, where they stash their stuff, where they have their main camp, what their childhood, and adult life were like, their medical history, what shelters they've been kicked out of and are not allowed back to... and more.
We are forced to talk with them, sometimes 3 or 4 times a shift. I lost sympathy for most of them a long time ago, that doesn't mean we treat them like sub-humans... we just have less patience with the shit they are inevitably going to give us.
Edit: here is an article specific to San Fran about EMS & the homeless: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/27/us/san-francisco-firefight...
I used to also think that many homeless "preferred the lifestyle of homelessness" but I recently learned of a town in Canada (Medicine Hat) that found it more cost effective to house the homeless. This myth that people prefer to be homeless was shattered and this town found that nearly all homeless were able to reintegrated back into having their own places. The mayor was skeptical at first now, he says, “It makes financial sense. That’s how I had my epiphany and was converted. You can actually save money by giving somebody some dignity and giving them a place to live.”
Medicine Hat on brink of ending homelessness
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/medicine-hat-on-brink-...
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/medicine-hat-has-al...
So, it isn't they are homeless because they like the lifestyle, but it is often because of an illness that they prefer that lifestyle.
We've all certainly felt extraordinary pressures related to common every-day life. Mental illness makes dealing with these pressures very difficult, often almost impossible. I would not blame someone for trying to escape those pressures.
A lot of them are mentally handicapped or dealing with acquired mental illnesses. Even under good conditions, treating either is hard. Of course EMS/fire fighters/volunteers working in shelters aren't able to do that.
As someone who's been homeless twice, I appreciate that you don't intend to offend, but this is a very loaded and offensive statement. You appear to work with homeless people and have very little sympathy for their situation, which I can understand but it still makes me a little sad.
Becoming homeless is something that can happen to anyone for any number of reasons, and there are different kinds of being homeless. Once you become homeless it becomes harder as time goes on to move back to something permanent. Booze and drugs can sometimes be a simple manner of being able to sleep, or to get away from the situation you're in or how you got there. Choices that seem nonsensical for those who have a warm bed every night make perfect sense when you're worn down by the elements and incredibly poor sleep. After a while the prospect of having to deal with the build up of shit in your life and get shit together becomes a bigger mountain to climb than carrying on when you are, even though your everyday struggle is a mountain of shit in itself.
It's not that people choose a lifestyle as such, it's that sometimes it feels less painful to have a permanent known level of shit in your life than to fight all the way back up to get a permanent place to live and risk being knocked back when you're already pretty fragile. Being homeless is the suckiest thing you can probably reasonably imagine.
For a number of years I helped run a Saturday morning soup kitchen at a church near the VA in West LA. Talked to a lot of people, mostly guys, and heard this a lot too, but for most of them it's not the whole story.
Most of the homeless people I encountered had a point in their lives when the system failed them. Many of them had some traumatic event and fell into alcoholism or drugs. Many of them either had a weak social net (family or friends) or burned through that net. Counselling was not available or came too late, and once they were far enough along unemployment ran out. Eventually they embraced homelessness because they could no longer imagine an alternative, so that they could think something positive about themselves.
My sense is that there was a window during which the system could have helped them with their problems when it became too much for their friends/family and before they went too far down that path. But certain elements in our society (cough Republicans/Libertarians) just don't want to help people at risk.
For example in my city of ~ quarter mil. people, there are approximately 1000 people living on the streets and another 1000 without home (no adress, permanently living in hostels, people in prisons that no longer have home).
Currently I know that there is project that focuses on the families without home (afaik 300-400 ppl?), where the plan is to move them into the city owned flats (there is more than 20 000 flats owned by the city with several hundred empty)
I like the logic behind that. To catch people without home before they end up on the street and give them an adress. What do you think?
Reasons many are homeless:
- Psychiatric problems. They can't fit in to normal working conditions because they are for lack of a better word crazy. They also don't get the necessary help due to poverty.
- Lost a job. In a city like New York where the cost of a studio apartment over an hour away by train can cost 1 grand a month, and minimum wage is still $9 an hour, and food is pricy, and metro isn't exactly cheap either, it can be very easy to fall into the homeless problem if you don't have friends and family helping. I know quite a few people who were fortunate to have had a car and able to get up and leave the state rather than sleep on the street.
- Being homeless often means no access to cleanliness which limits your ability to find a job. A self-fulfilling prophecy.
- If you are injured to a point where you can't work, it is not very easy to get government disability. My friend took 2 years to get the benefits while she was completely crippled. She was surviving on the generosity of her friends. When the government finally gave her money, she was able to afford a teensy apartment. If she ended up homeless the government wouldn't give her the benefits because you need an official place of residence.
- Speaking of a place of residence, a crippled homeless person cannot go to a shelter because they will be preyed upon. And they can't physically fight back. And so they also can't claim benefits because of this. I know one such person.
Try living on the streets and you will become an addicted asshole. I don't think there are a lot of people who can do it for years and stay 'normal'.
I really appreciate that you serve homeless residents just like other residents. But you might consider that the people who you are most frequently called to help are not representative of the homeless population. Look at the national stats:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_Sta...
That's a lot of families. It's a lot of kids. A friend of mine put years into making a documentary about homeless youth in Chicago. I got to meet some of them, and they are entirely different than the picture you paint:
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/films/homestretch/
I think it's also important to note that active addicts generally refuse help no matter what level of society they're in. That's part of the addictive cycle. Homeless addicts claim to prefer their "lifestyle" and will fight to keep it. But so do gainfully employed alcoholics. So do wealthy coke fiends. It's a disease that will kill all of them eventually unless they can start facing how much addiction has screwed up their lives. And as hard as facing that has to be for a well-off person, I expect it's way harder for someone who has fallen so low as to be sleeping under an overpass and living out of a trash can.
To the extent that's true, I suspect that says a lot more about the alternatives that they are presented with than anything else.
When I worked at a VA Medical Center 25 years ago, the problem was identical. You end up feeling more for the social workers than for the vets.
While I have difficulty agreeing that the homeless generally want to be, it seems worth noting that they're not better than normal people, any more than they are worse - they are normal people, with the same charm and/or asshattery as the rest of us. They're just in a situation most of us (or so I think) find singularly undesirable.
This is part of why I have this blog: http://sandiegohomelesssurvivalguide.blogspot.com/
Homeless people need the same things other people need: Work that works for them and other middle class solutions that are largely disappearing from an increasingly polarized America. But what they are offered is mostly contempt and really low quality options and services rooted in a broken, abusive, horrifying set of mental models. And then we are vilified for not being adequately grateful for the shit offered to us.
I don't want to be homeless. But, yeah, I prefer this to the vastly shittier alternatives available to me.
There are 25,000 homeless in my city. I don't know exact numbers but a lot come here to pursue their dreams and some to escape a bad situation back home.
But it is so expensive here. Housing is difficult. Deception is everywhere, in terms of convincing people they have a chance at a career. But more often, they fall into drugs and prostitution, and running the streets -- because it is fun and easy, at first.
So an 18 year old kid who wants to be a singer, can run around meeting interesting people, act like he/she is achieving their dream but really is just partying. Then their irresponsible ways get them on the street.
And a once bright kid becomes diminished by drugs, and stress, and the struggle and emotional pain and torture that living on the streets causes. They then look "mentally ill" but most, in my experience, are merely exhausted and are irresponsible.
I have young friends who are homeless, and I'd start my day drinking coffee with them at Starbucks and then later eating breakfast at my building (a 5-star hotel) with people who could afford to feed a million people for a year.
And my rich friends, a lot are on drugs, and some do insane illegal things, and are generally way worse for society than my homeless friends. And I could often trust my homeless friends more than my rich ones.
At the time, I lived in an $8 million condo for free. And through a conflict of over our philosophies on pandering and prostitution, I moved out abruptly, and was nearly homeless myself. I then got to experience first hand the atrocious public transportation services, the difficulty in renting an apartment and how the City just doesn't care about working class people or the homeless.
The City is inept and just not thinking about solving the problems in a valid way. Instead, they take away electrical outlets in most areas which just punishes tourists, commuters, regular working people etc.
And great institutions, like the pubic libraries, which Carnegie saw as a way to lift up all of society, become refugees for the homeless.
Of course, the majority of homeless people are too far gone. Most are lazy, selfish, destructive and just terrible people.
Were they like that before or did they learn to be that way? Maybe if schools taught kids critical thinking skills and stoicism and how to separate themselves from the emotions, then we'd have a stronger society that knew how to deal with adversity better.
A lot of people, rich poor, smart or uneducated, are slightly fragile and weak. Life is hard, for us all, and society doesn't teach us how to live life very well.
He was not complaining about the suffering of those people and the lack of government intervention on their behalf - he was unhappy because poor people made his own personal life marginally worse by subjecting him to unpleasant views/smells.
https://justink.svbtle.com/open-letter-to-mayor-ed-lee-and-g...
> Every day, on my way to, and from work, I see people sprawled across the sidewalk, tent cities, human feces, and the faces of addiction. The city is becoming a shanty town… Worst of all, it is unsafe.
> [...]
> I am telling you, there is going to be a revolution. People on both sides are frustrated, and you can sense the anger. The city needs to tackle this problem head on, it can no longer ignore it and let people do whatever they want in the city. I don’t have a magic solution… It is a very difficult and complex situation, but somehow during Super Bowl, almost all of the homeless and riff raff[1] seem to up and vanish. I’m willing to bet that was not a coincidence. Money and political pressure can make change. So it is time to start making progress, or we as citizens will make a change in leadership and elect new officials who can.
> Democracy is not the last stop in politics. In-fact, the order of progression according to Socrates via Plato in the Republic goes: timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and finally tyranny. Socrates argues that a society will decay and pass through each government in succession, eventually becoming a tyranny.
This guy knows there's sides, and he knows what side he's on.
And yes, there should not be homeless people, they should be managed and taken care of by either government agencies, charities or families. It's a failure of society, rather than a failure of the people complaining about unhinged people who at times panhandle, sleep, urinate, defecate, scream, accost, spit, voice their inner monologues, eat, in public often times at the expense of the public.
And to be sure, this should not be a locally addressed problem but a national problem. Addressing it locally only attracts more homeless into homeless friendly areas.
Render homeless services to homeless based on where they lived the longest, from federal funds so you don't get concentrations in Santa Clara county, or Los Angeles county from people from all over.
[1] http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/S-F-spendi...
[2] https://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/sfgov.org.lhcb/files/2015%20San...
Are we talking about the same city here? I'd call SF "occasionally chilly" at best. That's part of why so many homeless people gravitate to CA; if you're sleeping outdoors there are many, many worse climates for it.
> The coldest day of the year is December 26, with an average low of 44°F and high of 55°F.
https://weatherspark.com/averages/31587/San-Francisco-Califo...
Related: did you know that windows can crack from thermal stress like cookware that you cool too rapidly? I learned that last weekend! Windchill -30F, fun times here in New England.
> To play devil's advocate, he's right.
I think the difference is found in empathy. Take two cases: One, I feel bad when I see a homeless person because my empathy makes me feel bad, and I want to remove that bad feeling and thus I help them. Getting them 'out of sight' might reduce the bad feeling a little, but any time I think of their being homeless people, I still feel bad for them.
Two, I feel bad because the homeless person is making the place look worse. So I want them to be gone. Once they are out of sight, I no longer feel bad.
I think the two above are more similar that many people treat them because of how selfishness and empathy interact, but I do also think their is still a significant difference because one is based off of empathy and the other is based off of pure selfishness.
He's also saying the government should fix it, what other options are there but homeless shelters?
I don't get why people are acting like this guy wants to send the homeless to concentration camps and gas them.
At first, you feel bad for these people. But, over time, it changes you and you stop feeling as much empathy towards them. They're the people yelling at 3am in the morning that make you tired at work the next day. They're the people shitting on the sidewalk and forcing you to jump around it or walk in the street. They're the people leaving uncapped needles on the sidewalks.
And add to this that the situation has gotten significantly worse lately. SF is a powder keg ready to explode. There are two SFs living in close proximity to each other and both headed in opposite directions. As the one SF has gotten richer and the other has gotten poorer and evictions have increased, there's a general feeling of combativeness that's very scary. It's common for people to try to intimidate me on the sidewalks as I walk to work. They stare at me and walk directly at me no matter which side of the sidewalk I attempt to walk on. My projection is that there's a message being delivered..."you may have everything else, but I'm taking the sidewalk." Homeless people will urinate/defecate in the middle of the sidewalk in ways that make it as difficult as possible to avoid. And while it's mostly passive aggression at the moment, it feels like we're not too far off from that aggression turning active. This deeply unhealthy dynamic is why I've chosen to leave SF.
It would take an extraordinary person to be dealing with this on an everyday basis and not try to compartmentalize it in ways that appear cold and unfeeling to people viewing it from the outside. You can't understand the fear, and fear will cause people to do and say things that others would consider unconscionable. You can't understand the hopelessness of the situation that leads you to write those people off a subhuman. Out of sight is really out of mind. And anyone that isn't experiencing this problem on a daily basis isn't going to really understand this open letter. They're going to attribute the tone and callousness of the letter to the individual who wrote it rather than the experiences they've been subjected to.
Only if people agree, offer their solidarity, and approve the city government of doing so (with their taxes etc too).
Which is exactly what people like him don't allow.
Paying more to the govt isn't what you should be asking for, rather, you should be asking for a more efficient and accountable govt.
How did you come to that conclusion?
California has the highest income tax in the entire United States. San Francisco is up there among county income tax. Its inexcusable that our star tech capital of the entire world is simultaneously infamous for its homelessness and mental health problems. You can phrase it "I hate looking at these people" or you can phrase it "these people need help"; the right solution remains the same. Fix it.
The article is interesting as it's attempting to vilify "rich tech bros". Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems weird to point out that he took his parents to a restaurant that serves Lobster (no word on if they ordered or considered ordering it) and that he once spent $20 on a ticket to a special theater. He's then called a tech bro nearly 10 times, always with the presumption that being a man who works in a tech job is both a "bro" and that because of that he's inherently responsible for everything wrong in the world.
He shouldn't have written his medium post, or at best he could have found a much better way to word it. The city DOES need to treat it's homeless in a more humane way. But I wonder if journalists don't also have some soul searching to do, and if they might want to back off the "All techies are evil" rhetoric which is really the basis of this article.
and very much about how someone who can afford the nice things in life, a luxurious / extravagant lifestyle by many standards, 'shouldn't have to be subjected to the unpleasantness thereof' and how uncomfortable / annoying it is -for him-.
He's not trying to solve the problem for them, he's trying to solve it for himself. He even says as much, talking about how easy it is to 'sweep the problem away' for Super Bowl. No-one thinks that SF temporarily solved the homeless issue for SB weekend, and he doesn't want it solved either (or makes no real mention of that in this letter), he just wants it swept.
There's already a myriad of local, state and federal housing programs already in place. Whether its temporary emergency housing, eviction protection, child care services, or in some cases, low income housing and federal subsidies for permanent housing.
There's plenty of safety nets in California, let alone the SF area. If people want to get off the streets, there's an abundance of resources at their disposal. Saying the government isn't doing enough is a bit myopic considering all the local, state and federal help readily available.
http://sf-moh.org/index.aspx?page=130
https://www.mercyhousing.org/california
http://www.homeless.org.au/directory/us-california.htm
http://www.freeprintshop.org/download/shelter_english.pdf
http://www.sfcenter.org/resources/housing
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/states/california/h...
http://ssa.ocgov.com/calfresh/calworks/emergency/homeless
http://www.needhelppayingbills.com/html/calworks_homeless_as...
And that's JUST for the homeless services. It doesn't even START to address the free addiction clinics, low cost prescriptions, free health care clinics, food shelves, and other resources homeless people might need help to get off the streets.
In my mind the government is going way above and beyond trying to solve this issue.
http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record...
SF spends $241 million per year on homeless, with no accountability and no ability to track results. They are NOT going above and beyond, they are wasting money with no improvement in results.
Homelessness, poverty are not San Francisco's problem, they are America's problem. If the rest of America takes issue with that, perhaps the Union should be questioned.
This helps the short term homeless. Long term homeless often have problems that can't be met just by giving them housing.
As a San Francisco with 5x his tenure, I am entirely proud that SF has not swept the homeless problem out of sight. I would rather that everybody were safe, whole, and housed. But as long as we have the problems we do, I would rather they be on public display. Because fixing them is going to require public action.
If that is uncomfortable for him, then good. He should be fucking uncomfortable that people are suffering in the streets. I am, and anybody with half a heart is. As long as the pain exists among his fellow residents, he should see it. We all should.
Honestly you come across as kind of callous by not seeming able to empathize with why he might be upset.
Of course saying that just sweeping people away is an acceptable solution is incredibly heartless. That's where he lost my sympathy. At the same time, embracing the status and also kinda heartless. It doesn't help anyone, except for people who are neither living on the street nor being confronted by people living on the street.
People often seem to think we should give the homeless and drug addicts and mentally ill free reign to do whatever they want as some sort of act of kindness. I think that's belittling and infantalizing. Nobody should punished harshly for acting a little obscene in public from time to time, but we should do something so that people actually can get help while also enforcing laws that ensure public space can be shared and enjoyed by everyone.
http://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/sfgov.org.lhcb/files/2015%20San%...
70% of homeless people in San Francisco were housed residents of San Francisco before the became homeless, and most of the remaining 30% were in a city adjacent to San Francisco before coming to SF after becoming homeless.
Also, the idea that social services are "widely available" to homless people in San Francisco is a farce. For example, there is only 1 available shelter bed for every 5 homeless people.
Source: I worked as a service provider for homeless people in SF and I've seen our supposed "generous benefits" up close.
There are a lot of activists (mostly behind the scenes) trying to increase the supply the side of the economics. However, the weird alliance between the NIMBY's and progressives in the city keep pointing at the entitled techies (like the author of the article) to show how the techie's are part of the problem.
In the end, it still comes back to the people. It's not the government's fault.
If you were to ask me, I'd say "not me". And not because I don't want it done, but because I already pay taxes with the assumption that this is what a government of a supposedly enlightened society should be spending it on. I.e. to care for its weakest members, the ones that need it the most.
I live in SF too; for ~10 years. I have never seen it this bad. The City passed a "sit/lie" law a couple of years ago.. but it's never enforced. The City is spending $1M/month ... for housing 225 people[1]. Do the math, and you'll see how ridiculous is that. At that rate, how much do you think the City can spend on the homeless? It has 7000 homeless, and counting.
Many of the homeless used to live in City housing, but got kicked out due to drug and alcohol habits. What's the solution here? You can't incarcerate them. You can't force them to use detox clinics, etc.
If the person refuses help, and refuses to follow the rules of whichever shelter they're in, then s/he has no more right to live in SF! As a last resort, the City is within rights to just kick you out. No one is entitled to live in SF. You can't just show up and setup tent in a public space; that public space belongs to the rest of us too!
[1] http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/02/10/san-franciscos-p...
Firstly, you need to examine the reason why people are on the streets. Generally, it falls into three categories:
1. 'Normal' People with mental illness, and no support network
2. 'Normal' People who have lost their financial stability.
3. Rest (Choice, Addiction, etc. by far the smallest group)
The key thing to note here is that with very, very few exceptions, everyone living on the street was a 'normal' person. The line of being 'normal' and 'homeless' is startlingly slim.
For the majority of people, foundations are job, family and health. Most people can survive losing one, because the others elements support it. Two elements, most people will have problems bouncing back. Three, and you're on the street. Ask yourself: If tomorrow you lost your job and had significant health problem, could you survive? What if you had no family to support you?
Likewise, once on the street, mental health deteriorates rapidly. People wither in a matter of weeks and months. No matter how stoic, strong and determined you think you are - the streets will cripple you.
Once you're on the streets, getting back on your feet is hard. Try getting a job, an apartment, or even a document without a fixed address. It's a vicious circle.
Finally - yes, there are shelters. Unfortunately, most homeless people avoid shelters - as they are notorious spots for theft and abuse; most prefer to risk it on the streets. People aren't refusing help, they're refusing to be sexually assaulted, or have the very few posessions that have left being stolen.
Finally: you're totally right - SF is expensive. You suggest the homeless should leave, but forget the how: buy a plane / train / bus? Or, perhaps they should risk jumping without a ticket, then being arrested, and then having a felony against their name.
The take away message is this: homeless people are 'normal' people. The difference between you, me, and anyone with the homeless is that we're incredibly lucky to not have faced significant problems in life, or be burdened with mental illness.
It's a tough subject, and noone likes the results, but it's worth remembering you're human, and applying empathy.
That is where you are dead wrong. I would highly recommend you walk down 13th street (aka Duboce or Division, can't remember) and talk to the people living in the tent colony lining it. I have; it used to be my way to work till the hassle became too much and I started taking a detour. I would posit and say 100% of them are there by some sort of choice (not following the rules of the shelter is a huge #1). Drugs, alcohol and theft (bike, specially) are rife there.
I live in SF, and just can't stand the holier-than-thou approach taken by those who have not experienced SF's homeless firsthand. These are not your "lost my job and house and am forced to live out of my car" homeless; these are people, most of whom made a conscious decision to come to SF because they're attracted by the generous benefits, or got hounded out of whatever city they were in.
I did some work with a bay area organization that runs reduced rate housing for transitionally housed people and families when I was in college. First, I should say that you're completely correct about the numbers at any given time, but this also misses the larger picture.
Homelessness, broadly speaking, breaks down into two categories: temporary and chronic. The vast majority (~90% by the number of people) are 'temporary' (generally just called homeless). These are people who lose housing for a short period, then find housing again. Around 10% of the homeless are 'chronically' homeless - which means they have been homeless repeatedly over a number of years.[0]
I bring this up because I think your impression of where our social safety net is failing is incorrect. We do pretty well when dealing with the 90% of non-chronically homeless people. I think we could do a lot better, but most of those people are homeless for a short time, get help and find housing and stability again. When you talk about 'normal' people who have had a run of bad luck - they are the group we do best at helping.
The chronically homeless, on the other hand, need a totally different set of services. Being homeless for a long period of time often changes your entire outlook on life. The idea of investing in the future, or of any long term planning, can start to seem absurd if you're not sure where your next meal will come from. In general, the idea of living 'in society,' where there are shared rules and expectations looses its value if society places no (or almost no) value on you. Chronically homeless people can prefer homelessness to free housing, they can refuse to participate in a process that will feed, cloth and employ them because they don't believe it will be better than their current lives. They often have PTSD. In many ways, we are still working to understand how to best help this population.
I point this out because it's important to understand the kinds of things we do well and the kinds of things we do poorly. The kinds of interventions that help the recently unhoused will often be useless to the chronically homeless. All people are people and deserve dignity and compassion, but we shouldn't focus too much on how much like us many homeless people are. The failures of our system and what most people think of as 'homeless' people, are often facing a totally different set of problems and have a very different outlook on life. They are just as much people are you or I, but we don't do them favors by pretending they're one missed paycheck away from self-sufficiency.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_Sta...
It's $4444 per person per month. Why is that ridiculous? They need to employ people to manage the program as well as run shelters, pay rents, etc. $4444 is not so high that it's obviously too much.
Who will they pay rent to? The pier belongs to the City.
That much money gets a homeless basically a cot in a large warehouse. How is that worth $4K/month? And which other city spends $50K/homeless person?
Maybe it is not possible yet legally, but why shouldn't we allow this? The courts can already force people to be commited for mental afflictions when they are a danger to themselves or others. Why not do the same for (heavy) drug addicts who start becoming a liability?
I hate the climate of hostility towards anyone who remotely points this problem out. The reaction and tone of this article is exactly why I hate looking at Twitter now. It has become a platform for lecturing and shaming other people for stepping out of a very oppressive and narrow range of opinion or expression.
I now find articles like this and these daily recurrent societal witch hunts to be infinitely more offensive than anything this guy wrote. I don't want to live in a self imposed culture of toxic silence so no, Hacker News, I will not join in with your witch hunt and participate in group shaming of some random guy who wrote a bad letter.
He clearly doesn't care that people who are being priced out of the city they've lived in longer than he has are helped, just that they're gone. What a disgusting attitude.
> Worst of all, it is unsafe.
> The residents of this amazing city no longer feel safe.
> I shouldn’t have to worry about being accosted.Vote for city officials that will do something about it. Participate in city council meetings. Work at homeless shelters. Talk to people in your city who try and can do something about it, if it means that much to you.
You're allowed to point out problems on a worldwide platform. But when you can't even make your argument without using pejorative language, you've failed. And this reaction is what you get, so the rest of us can see this isn't how you fix the problem.
>But we don't publish it on the internet because of some grandiose vision that our words will suddenly shine light on the issue and spur someone to action.
Sure, we all just step over the homeless, ignore the problem, and go about our day. Justin expressed his frustration, and guess what we're all talking about now - that uncomfortable thing we all choose to ignore.
>But when you can't even make your argument without using pejorative language, you've failed.
Then the author of the Washington Post article failed as well. Wielding the might of a nationally syndicated newspaper to rant about "tech bros" and publicly eviscerate a single individual is disgusting.
>And this reaction is what you get, so the rest of us can see this isn't how you fix the problem.
So unless we can provide the solution to a problem we're not allowed to complain about it or expression frustration about it? That sounds like a great way to suppress any conversation about the problem. And judging by the current situation in SF this is exactly what has happened.
Well guess what - by writing that article this "tech bro" has brought more attention to the problem of homelessness than has been paid in years, and although it all could have been written with more nuance, it's a hell of a lot more than most people are doing; which is exactly nothing.
That seems unfair. Shkreli made the news for doing things that would have a tangible effect on peoples lives, and doing those things with a smile. Let's compare Shkreli raising the prices on life-saving drugs to the first paragraph of Keller's blog post:
>> "I am writing today, to voice my concern and outrage over the increasing homeless and drug problem that the city is faced with. I’ve been living in SF for over three years, and without a doubt it is the worst it has ever been. Every day, on my way to, and from work, I see people sprawled across the sidewalk, tent cities, human feces, and the faces of addiction. The city is becoming a shanty town… Worst of all, it is unsafe."
It's ridiculous and frankly narcissistic the way that he makes it about him and how it effects his life, to be sure. But, his three personal examples (from just this past weekend!) did a good job of driving home for me how interactions with the homeless are different in SF than they are in my area (northeast).
The guy could use a talking to about punching down but I haven't really heard too many people defending SF's handling of these types of issues either so I can't rip him for trying to bring more attention to the topic.
Edit - replaced the word 'pumped' with 'lumped'.
The most recent clear definition I have heard is anyone born between 1980 and 2000. So anyone ~16 and under is a new generation, currently called Gen. Z, but they may get another name soon.
It does seem like the media is absorbing Gen X into millennials now for some reason. I don't know why. Baby Boomers vs everyone else?
As I said in my post in this thread, journalists (keypressers) have it in for us. That's why we're "coders," "techies," and now "tech bros" in their articles. They probably resent the fact that low social status geeks are making more money than them, even if few us are actually rich.
To hell with these keypressers. Never, ever lift a finger to help them. They are our enemy.
I spend a couple of weeks in SF this month, and was shocked at the level of homelessness that we find even in very well off districts. This is not something that is common in the big cities of the world. The city is OK with tents everywhere, but that's not really that good for the people that are now homeless either: Living on a tent on the street will not help their mental health, their self esteem, or their chances of getting out of that hole.
I don't think the problem is really the fault of the tech people moving in, and I sure don't blame the homeless themselves. The problem, once again, falls into the people that want to keep the city the way it was, and to avoid building, when the city faces other pressures that are unavoidable. San Francisco MUST build.
Until people change their mind, we'll see both more gentrification and more homelessness, until the city reaches a point where the combination of prices and homelessness makes the city life into a dystopia: Maximum inequality, brought in by policies trying, but failing, to make the city be inclusive. I sure hope San Francisco voters change their mind before it gets to that.
The problem with housing the homeless in SF is where to build housing. SF is built out; you have to tear something down to build anything. There are some housing projects, but they tend to house families with kids, and they don't want large numbers of single druggies dumped on them.
Any ideas?
I'm not claiming to know much about homelessness or poverty, but I'm pretty sure I'd become a less productive developer if I was stuck living on the fringe.
I've lived in many places but my home is (and always will be) New York City. What you wrote here does not reflect my experience at all. When I moved into a non-gentrified part of Brooklyn, and then watched it gentrify in front of my eyes, it was only after this whole endeavor concluded that I began to see homeless people on my streets.
There's a lot of loot that upper-middle class transplants from Ohio are willing to shell out of their nice, warm winter jackets.
SF has the worst homeless problem I've ever seen in the first world, and it rivals the worst of what I've seen in the third world.
It's a disgrace and it sucks and I don't have to like it. Whatever the local/state government is doing isn't working. And sure, maybe a lot of the homeless are just normal folks down on their luck.
But as others have pointed out in this thread, a lot of the homeless are also:
* There by choice
* Violent criminals
* From out of state
* Mentally unstable
I can have empathy for them and also want them not to piss and shit in public, beat me up, steal from me, turn a quaint downtown into a war zone (Santa Cruz), ad infinitum.
If this author had merely eliminated all mention of homelessness and replaced it with discussion of crime and criminals, it would have ditched all the heartless idiocy while still getting to the problems they care about.
If a lot of homeless people are violent criminals then IMO the relevant question for that particular aspect is not why homeless people are allowed to live on the streets, but why violent criminals aren't being arrested and prosecuted. The fact that they're homeless is irrelevant.
It's the combination of the tragedy that so many live on the streets and the crime that such a population brings to the rest of us that is the issue. These people are often mentally unstable, violent, drug addicted, disturbed, etc.
Throwing them in jail is a waste of their potential and our money. Instead of only providing soup kitchens and free beds (which combined with the weather simply incentivizes out of state folks to come to SF), we should also provide some sort of long term, institutional mental care for these people - the present two options aren't working (a bed and some soup or if you get convicted of a crime a cage and some nutraloaf).
> A homeless person walked up and punched me in the face.
He is being self centred in his viewpoint but he's also not unique. Most people pay extra, and as a result work harder and longer, to live and work in neighbourhoods which allow them to ignore the plight of others.
I do hope the response to this is genuine agreement that things need to change because it benefits everyone, followed by associated action, instead of just hysterical and shallow "omg I can't believe he said that".
If it's (at least partly) from compassion for people reduced to such circumstances, hopefully the solution will go some way to improving their lot.
But if it's purely from indignation at the inconvenience suffered by the observers, then the "solution" may simply involve shifting the problem elsewhere: viz. Keller's approval of the way the "homeless and other riff raff" temporarily vanished during the Super Bowl.
I can't even begin to describe to you how difficult it is to wade through the pervasive ignorance on this issue, ignorance that is expressed by basically anybody who has not had direct contact with San Francisco's homeless population.
You need to understand that unless you have studied San Francisco's problem specifically, you are very likely harboring some ignorant, harmful opinion about homeless people, and you owe it to yourself and to them to educate yourself. This report is a good place to start: http://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/sfgov.org.lhcb/files/2015%20San%...
If you care at all about fixing this issue, don't sit around with your other tech industry friends and try to be boy-genius saviors. Seek out the people who have been working on this issue for a long time, who understand it, who can explain to you why it's a problem and why it's so hard to fix.
The Coalition on Homelessness in San Francisco is a really good start. They've been doing so much with so little for so long that they can now do everything with nothing, and they would welcome help from people who are willing to humble themselves and get to work.
We can make this city a better place if we just decide to work together.
A: Allowing people trapped in unproductive countries to move to US/Canada/Europe would significantly improve their quality of life.
B: But think of burden to the welfare state! We wouldn't be able to afford the flood of people moving here for benefits.
A: Simple, just don't allow them benefits. Many people would still move to US/Canada/Europe even if excluded completely from the social safety net (or voting, etc.).
B: The thought of so many destitute people being in my country and not receiving help makes me uncomfortable.
The predominant attitude people hold toward the poor/disadvantaged outside their country is no different than Keller's: I simply do not want to be confronted with this. I'd prefer to not see it and pretend it wasn't there.
(Please do not take this as an argument for open borders, it is just an attempt to highlight a hypocrisy.)
The people towards the right care about their family, or their community. The people on the left care about a slightly wider circle.
On the far "right" you get sociopaths that only care about themselves. On the far "left" you get utopian hippies that care about people suffering on the other side of the world.
What this frame of reference shows is how close together the traditional left-right are in a wider view. Someone who wants to tax the rich to help the poor doesn't often mean using money from Americans to help Mexicans or Ethiopians, they mean taxing rich Americans to give to the sligthly less rich Americans.
There's a reason why the right is like that IMO, and it gets down to this diagram:
http://33.media.tumblr.com/e1aaee07d8101970433020eee016ff9b/...
It is my opinion that people naturally care mostly about themselves, then the people closest to them, and less about people on the other side of the world. It is also my opinion (referring to the diagram) that the closer you are to being the person with the "need", the more effectively and efficiently you can address the need.
So in general, a person is best able to help themselves, less able to help the people closest to them, and even less able to help others. This can be envisioned as rings of concentric circles, where each larger circle represents more and more people, but less and less sphere of influence or ability to understand the "needs".
Along with that goes trust. The closer you are to someone (literally and figuratively) the more trust you will have. So these concentric rings are also rings of trust. I can count on my wife to be there for me when it's time to have my butt wiped. You, who I've never met, probably won't even offer help out. When my BFF tells me something, I automatically believe it, because after 30 years, AFAIK he's never lied to me. When a stranger on the street tells me something, I'm hard-pressed to even pay attention.
So if someone is close to you, then not only can you assess / relate to that person's needs, but you can also trust that person not to abuse your generosity.
So in a family or among close friends, communism (from each according to ability, to each according to need) is usually the norm and usually works fine. What's mine is yours. Mi casa es su casa. I know you, you know me, we won't hurt each other.
But in the world, capitalism / plutocracy / might makes right is the norm. As distasteful as it is, and as much as I understand that the people on the other side of the world desperately need my money, I'm much more inclined to give it to my wife, or friend, because I have far more trust that it will be used effectively and efficiently. And I have to also consider that, being someone very foreign to me, that you might be hostile to me, and use my generosity against me. So sorry, if I don't know you, you're on your own.
That's why I like to call myself a "micro communist" and "macro capitalist."
Now in reality of course I offer kindness to strangers because I'm not a sociopath.
But let's be honest: the kindness I show a homeless man (a dollar or two, or a meal) is not the kindness I show my wife or child (my kidney, my home, my life).
If you're single w/ no dependents and making $54k or more a year, you are already in the top 1% of the global population by income.[1] Makes a lot of the anti-1% stuff come off as extremely hypocritical.
[1] https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/get-involved/how-rich-am-i/
~50% of the world's population has a negative, or a zero net worth - I guess the homeless person with two dollars in his pocket is better off then a janitor who owns an underwater house, or a freshly graduated doctor.
This is simply untrue. You'll find that those of us opposed to open borders keep our mouths shut specifically because our opinions make us persona non grata with our peers.
Make no mistake, pro-border-control people are extremely persecuted and marginalized anywhere in the coastal US, just as much as the author of this piece.
I live in an area affectionately known as the 'tender knob'. We've had people defecate on our steps, tear open our garbage bins and leave litter everywhere, and shoot up drugs and leave dirty needles in our outside stairwell. Before moving to SF from NY, I had never seen people defecate on the middle of the sidewalk in the afternoon. The owners of our duplex live upstairs and they've been brought to tears having to deal with this on a weekly basis. I wouldn't feel safe having children in this area.
Yes there are homeless people who had some bad luck and are just trying to get back on their feet. Most people are sympathetic to that. But it's different in SF. Walking around you can't help but feel that many, if not most, of the people are chronically homeless drug addicts who have passed the point of no return. That's the problem we need to deal with.
Moreover, there seem to be strong network effects at work here. You might argue that by not 'pushing out the homeless', that you're actually maintaining a dangerous, self-reinforcing, social environment that is constantly attracting new members. In effect, are we making the problem far worse?
It's not clear what the solution is to this complex problem.
A part, but not a big part :)
Ah, to see the American Dream expressed in such clarity in a comment on the internet. /me wipes a tear
Let's fight for the right of people, who are mostly struggling with mental illness and addiction to live in the street.
That sure feels noble I guess.
How about making appropriate institutional care available so these folks wouldn't have to sleep in the streets?
In my town, there's an article in the paper today decrying the fact that a local institution is no longer venting waste heat that kept vent grates warm, so people cannot sleep outside.
Taking it away is literally dehumanizing. So if it is to be done, it should be done with great care.
(I'm addressing your 2,3,4th paragraphs, I think not heating the outdoors is fine)
Is nobody trying to treat or house these people?
Shouldn't people take this piece and use it as further evidence that there is a problem that needs to be fixed, rather than merely a culture war they can take part in?
As usual, everybody want's to talk about how much of a 'bro' this guy is, but nobody gives a shit about improving the lives of the homeless.
I left SF in 2014 after living there since 1999. It's a very different city these days, the "cost of living" to "quality of life" ratio is perhaps the worst of any city in America.
In my experience, most do not want to put in the effort to kick the habits, contribute to society in a meaningful way, or tell you it is too late. The reality is a lot of them prefer the "lifestyle" and "freedom" to do whatever the hell they want whenever the hell they want to do it. They have a completely different take on life than "most" people.
Basically they shut down psychiatric facilities instead of fixing them. Now no one has a good solution for people who need care but don't qualify current programs.
Also, I think we are judging this guy too harshly because of his privilege status. But I cant tell you that I live in Mexico, the third freaking world, and even people living on $4 don't want to see homeless people showing their genitals at them.
I saw the quote in the headline and thought, that is some seriously unfortunate wording. I get what they mean, but putting it in the first person like that makes it sound like the problem is the seeing, not the pain, struggle, etc.
Then I read the actual letter. It's not unfortunate wording! They actually intend to say that the problem is the seeing! This person doesn't care in the least about these people, he just wants them out of sight!
It's really a specifically Bay Area, or maybe a West Coast problem. It's utterly out of control. It's complex, it's hard to solve, it involves many many factors. But at the end of the day, it's still true that Bay Area natives are completely oblivious to just how ridiculous the homeless problem is, here. It's the first thing EVERYONE notices when they visit here, and we all just ignore it like it's normal.
I'm sick of it too, though I hope for a compassionate solution, on the other side of it, if I had run out of money and was living on the streets, I would most likely leave the Bay Area on foot and head for some place that isn't the most expensive city in the fucking country. I mean, is it surprising people can't afford places to live, here?
I don't know what the solution is, but after living here for 18 years and seeing the problem only get worse, not better, I completely agree something has to change, here.
In this context it seems to be intended as some kind of slur, or there is at least some negative connotation here. It's a man who works in tech who... what exactly?
It's a scapegoat boogieman. A tool of techies in SF to manage their cognitive dissonance.
There are things everyone else in the city hates the startup/tech scene at large for. There are also people progressives hate for their not-progressive-enough views, and some of them have the gall to work in tech. When either of those (or any other number of criticisms) are stereotypically "bro" (or close enough), the people within startups/tech can blame it on the "tech bros."
It is meant as a slur. But bros are just a convenient and useful stereotype to blame. If it wasn't them, it'd be something else. "Tech bros" just happens to be OK to openly deride, because the identity has no social power within "tech" (whatever that means).
-Obscure startup -Worships tech people who made it big -Fond of quotes from leaders in technology -General enthusiasm for tech/robots/etc and hobbies
[0]: I've actually volunteered at a soup kitchen (not the same thing as a shelter, I know) for a time and spoken to many of the people there. Many are just single parents, older/infirm people, struggling immigrants, and many just recently lost their jobs. (One was even a former college professor) There was one time when a very drunk person had to be denied, but that was a rare occurrence.
He really seems to think that homeless people grow on trees or something instead of realizing that they lived in the city before he did.
1: San Francisco is a great city and the winters won't kill you, so it's an attractive destination for everyone, especially the homeless.
2: Some people prefer to be homeless. No amount of detox or "good drugs" will ever change them.
I have a radical idea: pay homeless people to be homeless somewhere else. Give them a monthly income, distributed at a location outside of the city (and has to be picked up in person so people can't game the system), under the condition that they are never to return unless they can show any proof of residence. They can request limited exceptions to visit friends and so on, but once their city visa expires, they leave on their own recognizance. Honor system with one strike to lose their benefit permenantly.
Tech folk, instead of sinking tens of millions into fucking glyphy and Yo and other pointless shit that won't make money, try investing in this instead. You don't need a government program to make this happen, just money. You can use arrest records or other public info to spot violators, and it's not like you're preventing their freedom of movement, you're just giving them an incentive to keep getting free money.
Doesn't even have to be that much. Life is cheap when you don't pay rent.
The "enforcement" aspect isn't even really necessary - just give out this income often enough and far enough away from the city that traveling back and forth every time is impractical.
I'm imagining SF opening a sizable homeless shelter in LA, busing people down there, and then giving them some sort of BI there. (Yes, such busing has gotten a bad wrap, but bear with the thought experiment). Meanwhile, LA can do the same thing to get rid of their homeless. Each city would be incentivized to spend more, efficiently, on maintaining shelters in each other's cities.
There's a gradient where infrastructure-poor towns in the middle of nowhere would be cheaper. And who would want to move to a majority homeless city to own/work business to serve them? But could this be softened with the return trip being guaranteed, contractually obligated with independent oversight?
The problem with this open letter is it is written with contempt and a complete lack of awareness of the author's own privilege. The "I don't want to see it, I earned my right to be here, make it go away" sentiment shows how little the author has thought about the problem and his own standing in the world.
Has he ever tried hanging out and having a conversation with any of these people? I do it all the time here in New York and used to do it a lot in SF (a city I now avoid because of people like the author). I recently had a great conversation about physics with a homeless man on Skid Row. The point is maybe he needs to stop, have a conversation, and find some empathy.
Most homeless shelters are dangerous places and are filled with restrictions, so many homeless people prefer the freedom of the street. Urge your local government to invest in long term housing for the homeless and not just shelters. Lift restrictions on building in SF to create more housing in general. Support mental health facilities. There is a lot of work to be done, but saying you earn a good living and therefore shouldn't have to see it isn't good enough. If you want that life move to a gated community, not a major city.
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/leo-the-homeless-coder-2015-2...
Seriously, fuck all this misplaced outrage and fuck these kinds of character assassinations of people with differing opinions. We're entering an age where it will be impossible to take a position that goes against the mob's mentality. The chilling effect will be severe and we will all be worse for it.
It's possible to write a letter to the mayor demanding solutions. It's possible to roll up your sleeves and try to do something, to marshal some force, to push the rock uphill a little for your fellow man.
It's also possible to write a whiny letter demanding that the homeless be made to vanish.
Which did your friend do? Which would you rather he did?
Many homeless people are down on their luck, have mental illness problems or both. Many homeless people can also be rude, aggressive, and can deteriorate the quality of life in a city by littering, urinating publically, etc. The two aren't exclusive. Many people are caught in a form of dialectical thinking between privileged/unprivileged oppressor/oppressed. Life is more complicated.
What strikes me as ridiculous with the situation in San Fransico is that it's so economically wasteful given that the city has become one of the most desirable place to live in the country,
The Coasian solution would be for the residents to pay the existing homeless to move out of the city and then proceed to police it more thoroughly. I'm convinced there is a price at which everyone involved, including the homeless would be better off. The problem is that, besides the coordination cost involved, the idea feels icky and unconscionable.
Have you tried getting a homeless person's opinion on the subject?
Given the choice between a society where slaves don't serve you, and a society where they do, most slaveowners would probably choose the latter, too.
http://valleywag.gawker.com/startup-stud-hates-homeless-peop...
http://valleywag.gawker.com/happy-holidays-startup-ceo-compl...
Semi-surprised to see this crop up again when the outrage over these incidents was pretty severe and infamous.
Justin Keller is a terrible "face" for the debate (and so is Edna Miroslava Raia for the opposition). The facts are that San Fran has an economic problem and a homeless problem. Those problems are not mutually exclusive, but neither are they the same thing. Justin shouldn't have to worry about being accosted, and he shouldn't "have to see the pain, struggle, and despair of homeless people"—but because the problem should be solved, not swept under the rug.
The homeless don't have a whole lot of say in the policies that affect them, such as affordable housing, policing that concentrates them in particular areas (most noticeable recently with the super bowl) and so on.
One reason among many that tech folk are noticing more homeless people is that the techies are moving into poorer neighborhoods (eg Market street and the TL) and causing rents to go up. Police officially or unofficially try to create homeless zones, and these become concentrations of addiction, disease, and filth.
[1] https://www.stanthonysf.org/san-franciscos-2015-homeless-cou...
I have lived in major cities all my life that had varying degrees of homelessness. From my trips to SF I have been shocked to see the consistent and prevalent anti-social behaviour of the homeless.
Mental illness is obviously a large problem, but I would expect to see similar levels between the SF homeless and comparable cities.
Not trying to bait or take sides here, genuinely interested in what causes the difference in behaviour of SF homeless and their equivalents in other major cities.
1. SF is a city with high population density. It is only second to NYC.
2. Mild climate. Without harsh winters, you can sleep outside year round.
3. High cost of living. If someone falls under hard times and does not have the means to relocate, the high cost of living could be crushing.
The mayor should be held accountable. And there is a problem with homeless people throughout downtown San Francisco. If such a massive amount of money weren't being spent, then I would understand but their budget is huge with no results.
http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record...
None of us like seeing homeless people but the problem is not that they are unsightly or annoying - the problem is why are they homeless to begin with and what is such a wealthy city doing to help? If you're only thinking of your own selfish needs then it makes sense to just "sweep up" people on the streets and send them somewhere out of site. Perhaps a good whack on the head with a night stick will dissuade them from returning. If you have no heart or compassion then it probably seems like a great idea. But if you have any sense at all then perhaps you can try to use some of your privilege to find real solutions to homelessness and perhaps lend a hand rather than try to swat them away.
I hope to god this guy didn't come from affluence.
This guy seems thoroughly unsavoury.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy:_The_God_That_Failed
It's a straight up ad-hominem attack against Justin Keller, instead of criticising his writing it attacks his character.
I sincerely hope this is the end of Michael E. Millers career as a reporter.
And before you downvote me, read the article and focus on the parts that aren't quotes. The author goes to great lengths to paint Keller as an asshole while completely ignoring what he actually wrote.
San Francisco, like many other towns, is a troubled place if you look closely. Homelessness is a complex and overwhelming problem with no easy solution. Addressing it in a practical, effective, and humane way will take concerted action by government and the residents of this city together. There's no other way.
As real as the author's discomfort and frustration may be, his words stink. Here is someone who neither recognizes the full potential of his undeniable privilege, nor sees its true limitations. He wants change, but having already paid for it, is entitled to it (he seems to say), and so the burden rests on others to fix the problem.
Justin Keller knows what a good society should (literally) look like, but he doesn't understand how to get there. I'm hoping he doesn't lack the empathy and humanity his words and tone suggest.
That was quite the zinger!
There are also some who just want to be left alone. Around here they live in the National Forests up in the Cascade Mountains. The problem for them is age. Right now the reclusive Vietnam Vets are coming out of the woods. They are just too old to survive out there on their own out there.
On the whole safe housing is showing to be very important first step. Homeless life does include a community on the street. It is typically a community that is not going to be supportive of positive change. Each member is experiencing their own untreated issues.
Removing the negative social elements and temptations first appears to be one of the important benefits. If you're an addict having friends offering you a hit is not very helpful.
Thus, for my wife, building relationships with housing agencies and businesses is a big deal. The landlords/managers with endless patience, understanding, and strong boundaries seem to do best.
This really is a good example of how toxic outrage culture gets in the way of solving problems. Maybe this guy was self-centered talking only about how much trouble the homeless cause him. Okay, say he was. And? If he's cowed into silence by the great armies of Twitter, has that put one more street person into an apartment or methadone clinic?
I'm reminded of that flap about a British business that had homeless people sleeping on the benches on their property, and switched them out for benches it was not possible to sleep on, and was lambasted for it. It really is a singularity of modern awfulness: we won't do anything to make people not be homeless, but we'll yell at (some other) hapless person across the city until they surrender and make sure the homeless have cold metal benches in front of their building to freeze to death on, as is their human right.
I can't help but think the Bay Area's escalating tension over income disparity, and the politics surrounding it, is a seed for far uglier conflicts in the coming years. Thankful I'm a distant bystander and not a participant.
Once I almost got mugged in a VTA train station, by two teenagers. Thankfully I escaped the situation on arrival of an elderly couple in time.
Like always I understand these people aren't there by choice and might have their own reason for why things turned out that way. Can anybody give a socio economic perspective on why these people are like this in a first world rich country like the US?
Also the more I learn about the American culture, the more I realize the only change I see between India and the US is the infrastructure, everything else, all other problems seem to be the same. We are not so different after all.
cognitive dissonance is high in that post
I think the vilification is comical. Not super impressed with the need to dig into his background to find examples of how much of a "tech bro" he is.
This reads differently if it's not coming from the mouth of a hated-elite.
I don't want to go back to the ole 80's DARE drug war but I have to wonder if opioid abuse was even mitigated a little or rehab improved what kind of impact that might have on the homeless population.
I guess what do people think is fueling SF's homeless population increase?
He's asking for the city to address homelessness problem, how could possibly interpret that as lack of empathy?
If you combine that with 'homeless policing', you're then saying that if you don't work hard, you'll be abused by society.
I don't have an answer for this but I dislike euphemisms like 'they prefer this lifestyle'. If you can't work (anyone who understands mental health will realise that "can't" actually is a meaningful word in this context) then you have no other options.
This is an appalling, narcissistic rant that attracted scorn towards an entire class of workers from journalists across the world. There should be a strong effort to combat the stereotype that all workers in the tech industry share Justin's lack of empathy and tone-deaf view towards social affairs.
Before you write angry (mostly useless) blogs.
His main fault here is assuming that this also means, while ironically citing free market economics, that he's rich enough to have some sort of right not to see homelessness, mental illness, and poverty, day to day. That's a whole other level of wealth and power right there. Mid-priced (in San Francisco, anyway) restaurant? $20 theater tickets? That gives him some sort of insulating privilege from life? If you're Barack Obama, yes, the intrusion of a drug-addled crazy person bursting past secret service and into the restaurant you're dining in may be cause of serious concern. If you're a Saudi oil merchant, you can pay to stay at and go to places with tighter security, or bring your own. Heck, you can afford move to and work from areas with fewer of these problems in the first place, commuting around on your own private jet, being carefully shuttled from one multi-million dollar private residence to the other.
Your personal wealth doesn't give you the right to see and interact only with people who are within your same circles of success. If you want to start judging the personal success of others, holding yourself above them, and claiming your right to class insularity, there are probably some billionaires out there who would laugh in your face, if they cared enough, which they don't, because they'd rather they didn't see you at all.
Uh, it doesn't? Why not? That's certainly not how wealth stratification manifests itself IRL... especially in the SF area.
The media, collectively, has it in for us. They keep using borderline derogatory labels for us in their articles like "coder" and "techie," and they publish hit pieces like the linked article smearing us as if we were some evil 1%, despite almost none of us making as much as the average dentist.
They are stripping us of what little prestige and respect we once had, and we are just letting them do it. And there's no shortage of programmers willing to argue with you that it's not even happening, and that there's nothing wrong non-technical English majors with an ax to grind attempting to re-brand us "coders" and our profession "coding."
This article (and the comments) are relevant:
http://chickenwing.software/scratches/programming/on-coders-...
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/45wzup/on_code...
Life is easier for 'us' than the mentally ill, the addicts, and those with less luck in life. When a self aggrandizing 20 something white guy working in a prosperous industry starts complaining like this, with the intent of attracting attention, it promotes a stereotype of a lack of sensitivity, and compassion for those around us.
Prestige and respect? Earn it, as a person. Compassion is part of that equation. You don't earn it by becoming a programmer or working in tech.
I know of no lawyer, personally, that I think would be capable of writing a blog post as insensitive and lacking in subtlety as the one referenced by this article. They know better. I know plenty of tech people who I think are perfectly capable of doing so.
If we don't learn, and quickly, our reputation will soon be no better than that of Wall Street bankers.
In all my years in living in SF, or the bay area at large, I have never once had an altercation or otherwise problem with a homeless person.
In fact, I give them stern talkings to occasionally; Two days ago there was a homeless person on Market whos pants were falling down - I told him very sternly "Pull your pants up" and he did so.
There was a drunk guy wobbling down by the ball park and I commanded him to drink some water and gave him a bottle of water.
I almost always give away any left over food I have to homeless people I pass if I have left a restaurant.
I've told homeless people to not pee on certain places etc...
I have found when you interact with them in a straightforward way, and dont act fearful or contemptuously of them - they are just people who have a shitty support system (gov and people included) - but they still need a bit of direction.
Obviously it's fucked that so many people are homeless in San Francisco. Everybody blames us (techies with loads of money) for the homeless problem because we gentrifying the shit out of the place with all our money. And then this guy comes out and says this shit, and that only reinforces the narrative that we're the problem. And that's shit for us.
But why don't we do something about it? We don't want to be seen as the cause of the homeless problem, and surely we don't want assholes like this speaking for us. But people are right that we are rich compares to most people. Why not use this as an opportunity to show people that we can be part of the solution? Being rich doesn't have to make us evil, and anyway what's the point of being rich if we can't use our wealth to help the people who need it?
And it's not just our wealth: what about our skills? Take Homes Not Jails, for example. They're one organisation off the top of my head that does work that directly houses homeless people. They're renowned by squatters all over the world for the work they do to get homes for homeless people in San Francisco. But I just checked, and it looks like their website (http://homesnotjailssf.org/) is down? Surely one of us techies could get in contact with them and offer to help fix their website, or even just pay their hosting costs and domain name renewal for a few years? I've been involved in organisations like that and that kind of stuff can be a real hassle.
I'm sure there are countless grassroots organisations like this that are already working to help homeless people that probably don't even have proper websites and shit, that desperately need money. Fuck this guy, it's not worth wasting our time arguing over his stupid words. Let's show people that he doesn't represent us with our actions!
again, I hope he was joking but honestly probably wasn't - I fear this lackadaisical 'tech can solve all of MY problems' attitude is prevalent (we should also consider how we can solve the problems of others)
After high school, for about four and a half years, I was homeless.
I'm really good at programming computers, if it wasn't for that I might be homeless still.
I had emotional and social problems that I've been able to overcome. I'm one of the lucky ones. Many of the people I knew are dead, but in this age of instant connectivity and paranoia about surveillance I'll never know the fates of most my friends. We might as well be a lost tribe, uncontacted in the primeval forest. Except of course, that we weren't lost. Our lives played out in the same great concrete jungle/stage that yours does. Very few people wanted to find us.
That brings up an important thing, and this is as good a place to say it as any.
From the utmost bottom of my heart: Thank you.
To all those who gave of themselves and helped a random, smelly, weird homeless kid who you'll never see again, THANK YOU. I owe you my life. If it wasn't for the people who live the truth of our inherent connection with each other, who are moved by compassion and empathy to help selflessly, without asking for anything in return, I would certainly be dead, or worse: homeless and crazy in San Francisco. (heh heh)
I'll never cease from helping everyone around me so long as I draw breath because I owe the world my life.
If you have not been as fortunate as I have then here is the reason why you should do the same anyway:
We are one.
That homeless person there? That's YOU.
She's your mother, he's your father, that guy mumbling and shitting over there, he's your own son.
This is both metaphysical and very physical and real. The idea that we are separate individuals who can cordon off the parts of the world that we don't like is not real, not true. It's a "category one" error.
Here's a secret I learned on the street: The single most horrible sin we commit daily is to pass by a homeless person without acknowledging that person's humanity.
It's a monstrous crime.
You feel it every time, deep down, and it hurts, right there in your very soul.
It hurts.
There's nothing you can do or say, no ration argument you can make, that can obviate that bond. Nothing breaks it. As long as you draw breath you are owned and owed, one of us. Truly there are no individuals, to think so is fantasy, to live it, nightmare.
It seems like you grow callous but you don't, not really. Down under all that other B.S., not even that deep really, you feel it still. To turn away from another is like killing a part of yourself.
Homelessness is a symptom of a sick society. It's not the city government's problem, it's the whole city's problem, indeed the whole nation, the whole planet. We have emotional scars that prevent us from forming a coherent response to the situation (that's the only way so much money could be spent and have so little effect on the problem.) The issue isn't a matter of money (we have SO MUCH) it's a matter of spirit.
The individual homeless people would disappear as if by magic if we could just get our minds aligned with our hearts, because there is plenty of actual help and resources.
The very essence of the homelessness problem is that we, as a society, have to "break ourselves" and become humble. That's the only way for us to be vulnerable enough to reach out and heal the psychic and spiritual wounds at the root of it. An example: Try to imagine D. Trump manning a homeless food serving line. He's wearing an apron and spooning out hearty soup to people and he really gets it. What doea THAT do for your noggin?
P.S. Bonus campfire story: Here's hoping YOU never get, like, schizophrenia or something and wind up homeless yourself. It could happen. One of the scariest things that can happen to you is to get to know a few homeless people who were once JUST LIKE YOU! Mwoooo-hahhahahaha! Homelessness is something that only ever happens to someone else. Right? Nothing so tragic could ever happen to YOU to break you down and leave YOU shambling and covered in your own mess in a city full of people who don't care. Of course not, you're a good person. Homeless never happens to good people. That wouldn't make sense, would it? That wouldn't be fair. We all know the world is a fair place, right?
Let's talk about something else.
Some comments here use a lot of words to essentially say they don't feel any collective duty to help homeless people. Fine, if that's what you believe. But I'd ask you say that loud and clear, stand up and be judged.
Because I believe we collectively have a responsibility to each other, and government is one institution that reflects that responsibility (among its other roles). As a friend once said, simply: "I believe you can judge a society by how it treats its least-fortunate."
Now, the situation in SF is special; yes, it's got mild weather and a decent social safety net (by US standards, not European), which makes it a destination of sorts. But this is also why Justin K addressed his post to the wrong people: this isn't an SF issue, it's a state and national issue. And it's an issue that's heavily entangled with substance abuse and mental illness.[1]
And it's only made worse by bad behavior and bad politics. For example, Nevada bused mentally ill homeless people to SF (often without medication or any contact person):
http://www.sacbee.com/news/investigations/nevada-patient-bus...
The reason California in particular has such a large population of mentally ill homeless people is thanks to a few extra years of Reagan, who famously shuttered all the mental hospitals in California while governor (before defunding initiatives for mental health care and research at the federal level as president):
http://www.salon.com/2013/09/29/ronald_reagans_shameful_lega...
So, do you think this is all of our problems, or somehow this is an example of individual responsibility? I venture how you feel about that question is probably heavily correlated with whether you think success in business is a product of pure hard work, or if there's a contribution from luck and civil institutions. And this isn't some low-stakes game of political philosophizing; the policies that have exacerbated homelessness in SF and California in general are rooted in the same political philosophy that motivated this short-sighted, self-centered, fundamentally heartless post. Politics matter.
In other words: if you think like Justin that SF is 'ruined' for you by problems of homelessness, and the city should do more to fix it... then you're simply not thinking hard enough, and not taking responsibility for your role as a citizen of San Francisco, California, the US, and the world.
And as a Bay Area native and SF resident for 10 years, I'd kindly ask you to leave, or at least stop writing stupid things publicly, and leave the debate over difficult civil and social issues to people who are more thoughtful and compassionate -- a couple of core San Franciscan values that I particularly treasure.
[1] "Almost two out of three respondents (63%) reported one or multiple disabling conditions." from here: http://www.sfgov3.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=4...
Reagan was the governor of California 40 years ago, and has been dead for 12 years. Why hasn't anyone undone what he did 40 years ago?
In reality this is an example of the law of unintended consequences, not a case of "Reagan did it." I think the best way to view our current homelessness problem is as a vast failed social experiment, not a case of partisan politics. Everyone thought deinstitutionalization was a good idea at the time.
Deinstitutionalization was pushed for by mental health professionals, who believed that treating mentally ill people in the community with newly developed drugs would be more effective than mental hospitals. Patients were being pushed out of the mental hospitals before Reagan even took office, and Reagan was happy to go along with the recommendations of the mental health professionals since the state saved money. Win-win, right?
In California there was also the Lanterman–Petris–Short Act (written by two Democrats and a Republican, signed by Reagan), which limited the ability of the state to involuntarily confine people to mental hospitals. This act was hailed by the ACLU as a positive step forward, and again Republicans were also willing to sign on for the cause of smaller government.
The policy of deinstitutionalization continued under Reagan's successor, Pat Brown (a Democrat and father of current governor Jerry Brown).
Anyone thinking of moving to SF should simply be shown this thread so they can see what kind of people they will be around all day.
Hey Washington Post, why not write an article about this site. Start with this thread.
Here's a winner https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11127645 (I hope I'm not oppressing him by linking to it)
(that link is clearly satire)
Also, can people just move out of SF? I don't care which group it is (tech, or the people who have been displaced directly or indirectly by tech), but it seems like at least one group needs to just move out.
The other issues also need to be treated. Those are comparatively complex issues... Homelessness is, by comparison, not complex. Put people in houses. As evidenced by examples in Utah (and apparently Canada too, about which I was unaware until this thread), this is the fiscally smart move. The smart move and the right move aren't always in alignment, so this should be a no-brainer.
There are likely no homeless people who actually prefer to be homeless. There are people whose lives have been so massively changed by their circumstances that adjusting to a more comfortable housing situation might take some adjustment, and probably some therapy, assistance, and monitoring.
The sticker shock of doing this is what seems to keep it from getting fixed at once, as it's apparently much easier to periodically ask for money to develop ineffective piecemeal solutions.
The letter to Ed Lee reads like a parody. It will doubtless be forgotten, but I hope that's not the case. It should be one of a few artifacts used to encapsulate the historic moment we're living in.
'Worst of all, it is unsafe.' Sure, it sucks that it's a safety hazard to area residents. Is that really the worst part though? If you think the worst part of the homeless crisis is that it makes you and your well-to-do neighbors unsafe, you should probably ask yourself what exactly makes you so important.
'My girlfriend was terrified and myself and many people ran out of the theater.' I can't judge anyone for what scares them, and sure, the incident sounds like it would have been a surprise... But this guy makes it sound like an actual monster came into the theater and ran everyone out. A homeless person came in and did something that interrupted the film. Things like this will occasionally happen in a city that has a terrible homeless problem. Justin Keller's reaction is everything you need to know that he doesn't have the emotional or psychological maturity necessary to process homelessness as an issue separate from the effect it has on himself.
San Francisco is a city rich with ideas and capital, but I don't know how you can incentivize tech-community participation in solving this crisis. I keep thinking that we've reached peak obliviousness, and then something like this letter comes along, and frankly I didn't expect to find so many people here basically affirming the sentiments. I really worry that this is how a sizable portion of SF's tech community feels, whether they admit to it or not.
To highlight how bad the problem has become: just yesterday I was out walking in the streets when two homeless men began to harass me for cigarettes and coin. Of course - not being obliged to share either the men proceeded to become irate and things escalated into a pushing and shoving altercation.
Yet another time, when I was leaving Tadich Grill in the cities' financial district - a distraught, and clearly high man was standing right in front of the restaurant, yelling and screaming about cocaine. He even attempted to pull his pants down to show his genitalia before the police finally arrested him.
I may be able to tolerate the foul smelling clothes, the colorful language, and the general indecency - but what I cannot stand is having to watch as the city I once loved is destroyed by human rif-raf. It has honestly gotten to the point where I can't even enjoy a movie without being harassed and no one seems to care.
But I'm not going to let them continue to flood our streets with crime and human filth. If nobody wants to help solve this problem then I'll do everything myself, and I think I know the perfect way to do it. I have all the tools I need at my disposal. Bitcoin will provide the means to secure resources and onion routing will cover my tracks. The problem is: I need access to a vast dataset to track the exact where-abouts of the cities' homeless population so that I can identify and eliminate them - which is where you come in.
I need everyone who reads this to install my app and tag where you last saw a homeless person. If everyone in SF uses this app I'll be able to produce a real-time map of all the homeless in the city (and as we know - homeless people can't afford phones so the data will even out.) This is phase 1. Phase 2 requires a little explanation. In phase 2 a network of weaponized drones will be controlled remotely and used to eliminate the homeless problem. Since this will obviously cause public outcry -- it is paramount that the operators of these drones aren't arrested. Fortunately, the app also creates an onion-based meshnet that allows the drones to be controlled with low-latency from any point in the city -- and you can't arrest an entire city for using an app so you will all have plausible deniability.
This plan might seem drastic but we no longer have a choice. The residents of this amazing city no longer feel safe, and I know people are frustrated about gentrification happening in the city, but the reality is: we live in a free market society. The wealthy working people have earned their right to live in this city. They went out, got an education, worked hard, and earned it. I shouldn’t have to worry about being accosted. I shouldn’t have to see the pain, struggle, and despair of homeless people to and from my way to work every day. I want my parents when they come to visit to have a great experience, and enjoy this special place.
The city needs to tackle this problem head on because it can no longer ignore it and let people do whatever they want. It is a very difficult and complex situation, but somehow during Super Bowl, almost all of the homeless and riff raff seem to up and vanish. I’m willing to bet that was not a coincidence. Money and political pressure can make a difference. So it is time to start making progress ourselves, or we as citizens will make a change in leadership and elect people who can.
Democracy is not the last stop in politics. In-fact, the order of progression according to Socrates via Plato in the Republic goes: timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and finally tyranny. Socrates argues that a society will decay and pass through each government in succession, eventually becoming a tyranny.
“The greater my city, the greater the individual.”
Welcome to the revolution.
http://themindunleashed.org/2014/02/18600000-vacant-homes-un...
And that Detroit is/has bulldozed 20 or more square miles of empty homes.
http://michiganradio.org/post/detroit-has-tons-vacant-land-f...
The ones they bulldoze are not fit for use.
We think SF is ideal due to the culture, weather, and resources. We also believe that an influx of homeless can assist in lowering property value/home prices which is much necessary in SF.
911, in my area, is used for a lot more than "emergencies" unfortunately... we are the ultimate real-time problem solvers. "Man down" & "sick person" calls are generally not emergencies and they tend to be our regulars, which are generally homeless.
monkmartinez has made higher-quality contributions to this conversation than we could ever hope to see in so controversial a thread. Because of that, what would normally have been a trainwreck discussion has, astonishingly, been pretty good. Let's not disparage that as "anecodotal".
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11126175 and marked it off-topic.
I'm simply embarrassed by my techie cohorts, who think they just KNOW why homeless people are homeless. The bottomline is that there are far more qualified people (homeless activists/workers) who have told me otherwise and the average HN'er will have to provide data to convince me otherwise.
Maybe a publicity stunt that backfired a little.
On the other hand maybe he is so sheltered as to think this is an actual problem he's helping solve...
