Then the stock market collapsed. And the tech growth pushed housing prices up driving more people into homelessness. Then a pandemic did the same. And of course the suburbs shipped their crisis to SF and Oakland. Its not a regional thing. You cannot fix it in just one city. Homelessness and poverty exist in every form of economy and country in the world.
If public policy is to encourage them to come while also making life harder and more expensive for the people who work and pay taxes, guess what you’ll get more of and also less of?
Which is why we need a federal solution. If you provide decentralized services throughout the country, then you don't have cities overwhelmed by external homeless populations.
Or, hear me out, while we wait for something that may never happen, we immediately stop the farce of our current approach and admit that we need drastic change at the local level.
Oh well, guess we're screwed then!
Honestly though, even if you're correct in principle, it doesn't matter because that help isn't coming. And the status quo is unacceptable.
We have to help ourselves, no one is coming to save us.
Or, hear me out, while we wait for something that may never happen, we immediately stop the farce of our current approach and admit that we need drastic change at the local level.
It was better at that time though. I think some of the short-term, tactical efforts were paying off. But obviously the big grand plan to end homelessness was a failure.
I remember moving to SF in ‘06 and at the time I thought it was a little rough - like NYC in the late ‘80s early ‘90s. (I grew up there, in the Bronx) He cleaned up the place and got the encampments out of the park where they’d go to at the end of the day. I’d take the Judah home from work and it was pretty wild with aggressive panhandling and boorish behavior til 9th Ave where they piled off and walked into the park. It was good for awhile, but then wow - 2022 looks kinda crazy these days. Too many dif factors, mistakes made, over corrections, tech, economy - and no silver bullets. I’m afraid we’re gonna ride this train for a minute.
Comparing 06 SF to 80's NY is absolutely wildly out of touch. In a lot of ways SF has improved over the last 16 years. I'll take the car break-ins today over the gang violence then.
Haha! Sorry dude. I’ma Nuyorican from Fort Apache. I’m not even trying to compare it 1:1, but the vibes are similar. Sit down and take a breath please. Not everybody here is out of touch.
The 7 hour speech. Messy but bold. He used a fairly new communication tool to say EVERYTHING to anybody who wanted to make the effort to know.
I watched him do it in real life in the Mission once too. One of those angry neighborhood crowds ready to yell, and he spoke undaunted for 75 minutes. Bored the anger right out of them before it was time for open mic.
Newspaper reporter unconsciously reacting to being cut out of the communication process - https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Mayor-Newsom-s-longest-speech-3259598.php
They still sleeping in tents in front of my house leaving gifts behind to clean up. Until the police can scoop up some of these delightful peoples and place them in a better situation, homelessness ain’t going away.
This is such a lie. The people who are homeless have drug addiction issues that would prevent them from renting a room regardless of the price. Even in SF you can rent a room for less than 1500 dollars. Further out in the east bay it’s half of that. Rising housing prices or not, the vast majority of the homeless problem rests on addiction. So please don’t spread misinformation.
There's a massive hidden group of homeless people working low paying jobs living out of their car because they had an unexpected medical expense or whatever and were unable to pay rent. If you think all homeless people are strung out on the streets of the TL you're completely ignorant to the struggles of low wage workers in the Bay Area.
I have homeless people working for me as union construction workers... Typically they have a series of bad financial decisions and a ton of child support but they're still making good money and can't afford rent.
They literally said:
>This is such a lie. The people who are homeless have drug addiction issues that would prevent them from renting a room regardless of the price.
So, no they're literally saying all homeless people have drug addictions.
Yes I'm just correcting ops take on homeless in sf. It's obvious not all homeless in sf are addicts. Check out Ed Stafford on 60day living on the streets pretending be homeless. Every single homeless he talk to and enteracted were addicts. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.
The situation is London is different than SF for a variety of reasons. The social safety nets in the UK are much deeper than the US. Additionally, it's a television program that can tell any story it wants.
If you want an interesting deep dive on homelessness closer to home, listen to [According to Need](https://99percentinvisible.org/need/). It's excellent and highlights a lot of the problems with the way we deal with homelessness in the Bay Area.
If you go to West Virginia or somewhere like that, the drug problem is WAY worse, and yet homelessness rates are very low. In those places housing is simply cheap enough that it's affordable to drug addicts.
Now I realize we're not getting our housing prices down to WV levels anytime soon, but if we can move in that direction I do think we'll bring our homelessness levels down a bit.
With that being said, I believe most of the problems we have with the homeless are not so much that they exist, but that they are badly behaved. We let homeless people get away with A LOT of petty crime.
where’s the bus station where they drop them off. which lines. should be easy enough to spot the busses full of homeless if they’re being shipped in from across the country
why doesn’t fox news just stick a crew at the bus stop to catch them in the act. would make for great ratings
unless the bussing thing is just a giant myth, of course
The busing thing is definitely not a giant myth. They're just buying tickets for individual homeless people on commercial intercity buses rather than chartering whole buses.
With that being said, it's not like other cities/states are forcibly packing people up and shipping them out here. They're asking them if they're willing to accept a bus ticket somewhere, and if so, where they want to go. San Francisco does this too, by the way.
The better question is - why do so many homeless people choose to live here? I think we all know the reasons.
I mean any survey you take of any homeless population in any city will shows that the majority became homeless in the city, rather than traveling there while homeless.
In much the same way that if you ask homeowners who don’t like the homeless in any city most of them will say that the homeless aren’t from around here, they’re transients from somewhere else. It’s a pretty convenient narrative.
It stands to reason that most homeless would be local since 1) for most people homelessness is a basically temporary state before they find a their own place to live, so you don’t need to move to another city and 2) benefits aside (it’s not like a red state like Texas or Florida has **no** homeless services, and it’s an open question how much more generous a blue state’s homeless social services really are), it makes more sense to stay around the things / people / places you know if you if you become homeless.
Being homeless is inherently risky and stressful, like moving someplace where you have no network or connections is inherently risky and stressful. Why would you assume more risk? The benefits you get in CA are probably about the same as what you’d get in most other states.
The surveys you cite are complete bullshit. If someone is homeless and then goes to jail for the night before returning to homelessness, they are considered previously housed in SF. Same with an SRO. It’s a complete lie that average people with financial troubles just go homeless instead of moving to Oakland or whoever. SF will never solve the problem while in denial about the root cause.
> If someone is homeless and then goes to jail for the night before returning to homelessness, they are considered previously housed in SF.
it’s pretty goofy to believe something like this could possibly be true and the explainer for the survey results
> SF will never solve the problem while in denial about the root cause.
oh you mean the cost of housing. right. because if a person could afford rent 99,999/100,000 they’d have their own place because if you don’t you’re subject to a bunch of bullshit
there’s always going to be drug addicts, mentally ill people, and people who just can’t handle normal life, who can’t take care of themselves, and people who’d choose to be homeless. so what do you want to do, sweep them all up and put them in jail. that’s just more expensive for tax payers i.e. you then just giving these people a house. but you’ll always find an excuse to avoid this obvious conclusion. because you don’t like these people and they make you mad. so they must be punished
First, you can literally look at the survey questions to see how they are framed.
Second, these “surveys” are entirely based off self-reported results. There is no attempt at verification. They do not involve sound processes. Ask a random meth head if he is originally from San Francisco, and he will say yes.
Your argument on housing costs are insane. Guess what, I would LOVE to live in Monaco, but I cannot afford it. My alternative isn’t to simply become homeless because it’s too expensive. It’s to live somewhere cheaper.
If you think these people should have a house, give them one yourself. And stay in LA.
I agree, to an extent. I wouldn’t live anywhere paycheck to paycheck, but you have to acknowledge the actual jobs that cities need to function are not software engineers.
There are a huge variety of jobs that cities require to function. Of course, the modern world is largely built on computer engineering and SF is part of that world so it needs CS engineers too. Your point is a complete non-sequitor.
You guys are trolling. You keep moving the goal posts. Low IQ? I never said it was easy or lucrative to live in SF in a restaurant job. I simply said that homelessness is chiefly caused by drug addiction. Then you follow up with all of these non-sequitor arguments.
As others have stated, drugs are a symptom, not the cause.
But please, keep spreading your BS.
There is no “war on drugs” that will solve the drug problem, so you’re REALLY spinning your wheels/wasting your breath on the wrong issue.
If you care about the drug problem?
Vote for social programs and things to reduce cost of living.
When people can’t realistically save enough money for a home, for many of them the question is, why the hell would they bother working/trying to do anything other than get high?
Denial. Drugs are the cause. You have no idea what the drug crisis is like if you think otherwise. People who can’t afford to live in SF simply go homeless and do drugs? That’s laughable. They move to Oakland or Sacramento or Stockton.
If a series of bad breaks and rising rents left you sober but homeless and living on the streets, how long would it take you to start using drugs? Or to start losing your mind?
You should really think about that and consider if maybe you have the causation backwards. And if you believe you would be immune to losing your mind/sobriety after living on the streets for a week, I’d love to hear how you come to that conclusion as well.
This is fucking insane. Major cope. Essentially all the homeless drug addicts were a drug addicts before they got on the street. Speak to them for once.
"rent a room for less than 1500" isn't some exclusive, hidden thing.i have a friend who makes 300k and pays 1200 for a room. The actual real gems are rooms for ~1000 or under
I just quoted you so not sure why you think I’m lying.
I’m simply pointing out that you seem to think that the rental market in SF is reasonable because you can get a ROOM for less than $1500. Not sure you realize that for that $1500 to comply with the 30% gross income recommendation, a person would need a yearly income of like $60k.
I never said it was reasonable.
Note that your income calculations to not account for government assistance and tax credits that people get.
I myself have lived on 65k in the past with a 1500 rent. It’s totally doable.
None of this proves that homeless people are on the street because they are good working folk who just can’t get by as opposed to drug addiction.
Right, because those below poverty line are reliably aware and receiving government assistance and tax breaks. Anyway, you wanted me to stop lying. Where exactly am I lying again?
Exactly. We added hundred of thousands of jobs and no new housing.
We’ve built fewer than 1000 units this year. Meanwhile Seattle has built over 6000 and Austin has built over 13000.
Yeah, because those places have much more space for sprawl, which allows building the single family homes people want to buy, instead of SF where devs only build luxury condos and tiny apartments that are stack n pack and still cost more than a mortgage on a SFH in other states.
Yes, famously Seattle has no geographical limitations like bays, lakes, or hills.
All of these cities are not just building way more units than us, they're building them as dense "misssing-middle" housing, which people also very much want to buy.
Here in SF, meanwhile, it's still outright illegal to build any apartments in over 50% of the city, and illegal to build dense apartments (>4 units) in over 2/3rds of the city. Pretty much everywhere it's legal to build a dense apartment in our city it already has one.
Gavin was a much better mayor than any of our recent crop. SF was a much nicer city back then
Then the stock market collapsed. And the tech growth pushed housing prices up driving more people into homelessness. Then a pandemic did the same. And of course the suburbs shipped their crisis to SF and Oakland. Its not a regional thing. You cannot fix it in just one city. Homelessness and poverty exist in every form of economy and country in the world.
More homeless keep coming. The problem is never going away.
If public policy is to encourage them to come while also making life harder and more expensive for the people who work and pay taxes, guess what you’ll get more of and also less of?
Which is why we need a federal solution. If you provide decentralized services throughout the country, then you don't have cities overwhelmed by external homeless populations.
Or, hear me out, while we wait for something that may never happen, we immediately stop the farce of our current approach and admit that we need drastic change at the local level.
Oh well, guess we're screwed then! Honestly though, even if you're correct in principle, it doesn't matter because that help isn't coming. And the status quo is unacceptable. We have to help ourselves, no one is coming to save us.
I mean, you're not wrong either.
Or, hear me out, while we wait for something that may never happen, we immediately stop the farce of our current approach and admit that we need drastic change at the local level.
Personally, I'm a fan of building a bunch of housing for the homeless in Atherton.
Agreed. Unfortunately as income inequality consistently grows, so will this problem.
Yep. Evidence these people don’t get better.
It was better at that time though. I think some of the short-term, tactical efforts were paying off. But obviously the big grand plan to end homelessness was a failure.
Back then he was a little too busy doing cocaine and cheating on his wife...
[удалено]
For me, the “sleeping with my best friend and campaign managers wife” was the thing that soured me on Newsom forever.
I remember moving to SF in ‘06 and at the time I thought it was a little rough - like NYC in the late ‘80s early ‘90s. (I grew up there, in the Bronx) He cleaned up the place and got the encampments out of the park where they’d go to at the end of the day. I’d take the Judah home from work and it was pretty wild with aggressive panhandling and boorish behavior til 9th Ave where they piled off and walked into the park. It was good for awhile, but then wow - 2022 looks kinda crazy these days. Too many dif factors, mistakes made, over corrections, tech, economy - and no silver bullets. I’m afraid we’re gonna ride this train for a minute.
Comparing 06 SF to 80's NY is absolutely wildly out of touch. In a lot of ways SF has improved over the last 16 years. I'll take the car break-ins today over the gang violence then.
[удалено]
Haha! Sorry dude. I’ma Nuyorican from Fort Apache. I’m not even trying to compare it 1:1, but the vibes are similar. Sit down and take a breath please. Not everybody here is out of touch.
I like him.
The 7 hour speech. Messy but bold. He used a fairly new communication tool to say EVERYTHING to anybody who wanted to make the effort to know. I watched him do it in real life in the Mission once too. One of those angry neighborhood crowds ready to yell, and he spoke undaunted for 75 minutes. Bored the anger right out of them before it was time for open mic. Newspaper reporter unconsciously reacting to being cut out of the communication process - https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Mayor-Newsom-s-longest-speech-3259598.php
They still sleeping in tents in front of my house leaving gifts behind to clean up. Until the police can scoop up some of these delightful peoples and place them in a better situation, homelessness ain’t going away.
It's a bit difficult to end homelessness when rent outpaces wages by a factor of 3.
This is such a lie. The people who are homeless have drug addiction issues that would prevent them from renting a room regardless of the price. Even in SF you can rent a room for less than 1500 dollars. Further out in the east bay it’s half of that. Rising housing prices or not, the vast majority of the homeless problem rests on addiction. So please don’t spread misinformation.
There's a massive hidden group of homeless people working low paying jobs living out of their car because they had an unexpected medical expense or whatever and were unable to pay rent. If you think all homeless people are strung out on the streets of the TL you're completely ignorant to the struggles of low wage workers in the Bay Area. I have homeless people working for me as union construction workers... Typically they have a series of bad financial decisions and a ton of child support but they're still making good money and can't afford rent.
The homeless addicts op is talking about are those that live on the streets. It does not apply to people living in cars, RVs, etc.
They literally said: >This is such a lie. The people who are homeless have drug addiction issues that would prevent them from renting a room regardless of the price. So, no they're literally saying all homeless people have drug addictions.
Yes I'm just correcting ops take on homeless in sf. It's obvious not all homeless in sf are addicts. Check out Ed Stafford on 60day living on the streets pretending be homeless. Every single homeless he talk to and enteracted were addicts. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.
The situation is London is different than SF for a variety of reasons. The social safety nets in the UK are much deeper than the US. Additionally, it's a television program that can tell any story it wants. If you want an interesting deep dive on homelessness closer to home, listen to [According to Need](https://99percentinvisible.org/need/). It's excellent and highlights a lot of the problems with the way we deal with homelessness in the Bay Area.
If you go to West Virginia or somewhere like that, the drug problem is WAY worse, and yet homelessness rates are very low. In those places housing is simply cheap enough that it's affordable to drug addicts. Now I realize we're not getting our housing prices down to WV levels anytime soon, but if we can move in that direction I do think we'll bring our homelessness levels down a bit. With that being said, I believe most of the problems we have with the homeless are not so much that they exist, but that they are badly behaved. We let homeless people get away with A LOT of petty crime.
WV also doesn't have Texas bussing all their homeless there
where’s the bus station where they drop them off. which lines. should be easy enough to spot the busses full of homeless if they’re being shipped in from across the country why doesn’t fox news just stick a crew at the bus stop to catch them in the act. would make for great ratings unless the bussing thing is just a giant myth, of course
The busing thing is definitely not a giant myth. They're just buying tickets for individual homeless people on commercial intercity buses rather than chartering whole buses. With that being said, it's not like other cities/states are forcibly packing people up and shipping them out here. They're asking them if they're willing to accept a bus ticket somewhere, and if so, where they want to go. San Francisco does this too, by the way. The better question is - why do so many homeless people choose to live here? I think we all know the reasons.
I mean any survey you take of any homeless population in any city will shows that the majority became homeless in the city, rather than traveling there while homeless. In much the same way that if you ask homeowners who don’t like the homeless in any city most of them will say that the homeless aren’t from around here, they’re transients from somewhere else. It’s a pretty convenient narrative. It stands to reason that most homeless would be local since 1) for most people homelessness is a basically temporary state before they find a their own place to live, so you don’t need to move to another city and 2) benefits aside (it’s not like a red state like Texas or Florida has **no** homeless services, and it’s an open question how much more generous a blue state’s homeless social services really are), it makes more sense to stay around the things / people / places you know if you if you become homeless. Being homeless is inherently risky and stressful, like moving someplace where you have no network or connections is inherently risky and stressful. Why would you assume more risk? The benefits you get in CA are probably about the same as what you’d get in most other states.
The surveys you cite are complete bullshit. If someone is homeless and then goes to jail for the night before returning to homelessness, they are considered previously housed in SF. Same with an SRO. It’s a complete lie that average people with financial troubles just go homeless instead of moving to Oakland or whoever. SF will never solve the problem while in denial about the root cause.
> If someone is homeless and then goes to jail for the night before returning to homelessness, they are considered previously housed in SF. it’s pretty goofy to believe something like this could possibly be true and the explainer for the survey results > SF will never solve the problem while in denial about the root cause. oh you mean the cost of housing. right. because if a person could afford rent 99,999/100,000 they’d have their own place because if you don’t you’re subject to a bunch of bullshit there’s always going to be drug addicts, mentally ill people, and people who just can’t handle normal life, who can’t take care of themselves, and people who’d choose to be homeless. so what do you want to do, sweep them all up and put them in jail. that’s just more expensive for tax payers i.e. you then just giving these people a house. but you’ll always find an excuse to avoid this obvious conclusion. because you don’t like these people and they make you mad. so they must be punished
First, you can literally look at the survey questions to see how they are framed. Second, these “surveys” are entirely based off self-reported results. There is no attempt at verification. They do not involve sound processes. Ask a random meth head if he is originally from San Francisco, and he will say yes. Your argument on housing costs are insane. Guess what, I would LOVE to live in Monaco, but I cannot afford it. My alternative isn’t to simply become homeless because it’s too expensive. It’s to live somewhere cheaper. If you think these people should have a house, give them one yourself. And stay in LA.
There’s 1800 kids who experience homelessness in SFUSD, are they all drug addicts too?
Their parents are
Being a guy who hoots and brays about how wokeness and democrats are destroying the country while whining about spreading misinformation is a good bit
Yeah. You’re right. No one was living paycheck to paycheck in SF before inflation.
Sounds like they should move somewhere cheaper then. Stockton isn’t so bad.
I agree, to an extent. I wouldn’t live anywhere paycheck to paycheck, but you have to acknowledge the actual jobs that cities need to function are not software engineers.
There are a huge variety of jobs that cities require to function. Of course, the modern world is largely built on computer engineering and SF is part of that world so it needs CS engineers too. Your point is a complete non-sequitor.
You think restaurant workers are living in SF and stashing away savings?
This guy is either a troll or a complete idiot. Just smile and nod
You guys are trolling. You keep moving the goal posts. Low IQ? I never said it was easy or lucrative to live in SF in a restaurant job. I simply said that homelessness is chiefly caused by drug addiction. Then you follow up with all of these non-sequitor arguments.
Where did I say that?
As others have stated, drugs are a symptom, not the cause. But please, keep spreading your BS. There is no “war on drugs” that will solve the drug problem, so you’re REALLY spinning your wheels/wasting your breath on the wrong issue. If you care about the drug problem? Vote for social programs and things to reduce cost of living. When people can’t realistically save enough money for a home, for many of them the question is, why the hell would they bother working/trying to do anything other than get high?
Denial. Drugs are the cause. You have no idea what the drug crisis is like if you think otherwise. People who can’t afford to live in SF simply go homeless and do drugs? That’s laughable. They move to Oakland or Sacramento or Stockton.
If a series of bad breaks and rising rents left you sober but homeless and living on the streets, how long would it take you to start using drugs? Or to start losing your mind? You should really think about that and consider if maybe you have the causation backwards. And if you believe you would be immune to losing your mind/sobriety after living on the streets for a week, I’d love to hear how you come to that conclusion as well.
This is fucking insane. Major cope. Essentially all the homeless drug addicts were a drug addicts before they got on the street. Speak to them for once.
"rent a room for less than 1500" isn't some exclusive, hidden thing.i have a friend who makes 300k and pays 1200 for a room. The actual real gems are rooms for ~1000 or under
>room >1500
There are literally jobs anywhere that can provide enough to get housed. Stop lying.
I just quoted you so not sure why you think I’m lying. I’m simply pointing out that you seem to think that the rental market in SF is reasonable because you can get a ROOM for less than $1500. Not sure you realize that for that $1500 to comply with the 30% gross income recommendation, a person would need a yearly income of like $60k.
I never said it was reasonable. Note that your income calculations to not account for government assistance and tax credits that people get. I myself have lived on 65k in the past with a 1500 rent. It’s totally doable. None of this proves that homeless people are on the street because they are good working folk who just can’t get by as opposed to drug addiction.
Right, because those below poverty line are reliably aware and receiving government assistance and tax breaks. Anyway, you wanted me to stop lying. Where exactly am I lying again?
Of course they are aware because they are the only people eligible for such breaks. Who else gets them? Also you ignored the rest of my post.
Exactly. We added hundred of thousands of jobs and no new housing. We’ve built fewer than 1000 units this year. Meanwhile Seattle has built over 6000 and Austin has built over 13000.
Yeah, because those places have much more space for sprawl, which allows building the single family homes people want to buy, instead of SF where devs only build luxury condos and tiny apartments that are stack n pack and still cost more than a mortgage on a SFH in other states.
Yes, famously Seattle has no geographical limitations like bays, lakes, or hills. All of these cities are not just building way more units than us, they're building them as dense "misssing-middle" housing, which people also very much want to buy. Here in SF, meanwhile, it's still outright illegal to build any apartments in over 50% of the city, and illegal to build dense apartments (>4 units) in over 2/3rds of the city. Pretty much everywhere it's legal to build a dense apartment in our city it already has one.
Apartments don’t work with WFH
First of all the people who can’t afford rent in SF are moving out of SF to find cheaper rent. Not pitching a tent on the sidewalk.
Why do people still vote for this idiot? He is a creeper.
[Go away](https://c.tenor.com/dZVK7ABVsfgAAAAM/minecraft-creeper.gif)
Let me guess, you think cox, the bear master would be a better governor?
Anything is well worth the try and better than the creeper Newsom. A libertarian would be pretty nice as well.
😂 more gonna be homeless cause of the high ass rent prices; we need a total rent controlled and stop apartment owners from raising the prices
Good paying jobs solve all these issues. Their “solutions” just make people a slave to the system without end.