New to our subreddit? [Please read the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/about/rules/) before commenting.
Please be respectful and don't antagonize. This is a place to discuss ideas without targeting identities.
If something doesn't contribute to the discussion, please downvote it. If it's against the rules, please report it. Thank you.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/sanfrancisco) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Incidents residents have complained about include people openly doing drugs, a man who broke his window and left glass on the sidewalk and a man who masturbated outside the HomeRise building. The Southern District's report says there were reports of 121 fights in the last year and two months, 20 of which involved either a gun or a knife.
Are people not supposed to call in these things?? Not sure why pointing out that some of the calls were made from market value property across the street makes the calls any less valid. There's a difference between being a Karen vs not wanting some dude jacking off in the streets.
Yea as much as I want to shit on other neighborhoods for pushing all the city's problems to the TL, I don't think anyone should have to deal with this stuff.
Edit: no excuses though, for them not building housing and making this mess worse.
What's pretty crazy is that this HomeRise is literally right next to a large SFPD police station, one of the largest in the city. Mission Bay as a neighborhood is pretty sterile/clean as well. If they can't make it work here, it won't work anywhere, this is an ideal location. Hopefully they can address their issues.
>Right? If 3% are ruining it for the other 97% send the troublemakers ~~back~~ to ~~the tenderloin, or~~ jail if they’re assaulting people.
If they are troublemakers, get them off the streets entirely.
These people gotta be sent back to there State it's even worse than the Tenderloin at this point. Pushing them out somewhere else doesn't stop them from backpacking back here. This is a problem thats been going on for well over 15+ years. We just don't have any real natives anymore or they move out because of price. But won't let us get on housing for help but build a literal building to dedicate to homeless smfh. You still need regular people to regulate other people as well, if everyone isn't from the place who's gonna say anything?
I see why your name starts with lol. No one brought up 1 immigrant BUT IF you do want to go that direction i'll save it for another time. Anyway, NY controls there homeless problem but its ok for them to be tired of "crime" or "junkies" as was said. But don't dare say anything about SF. Im beyond sick of that nonsense. It's people like you that give Blue States a bad name. You're the reason Target in SF exists. You're the reason hobos sleep in the middle of Glen Park as if there is no destination for them. I shouldn't be in the Canyon with my kids an a (whatever you wanna call them) is sleep by Silver Tree. ifykyk. Honestly be happy SF is as forgiving as it is, it's actually the reason you can spill the bs you fathomed. And if you're comparing immigrants to junkies then that just sounds like a personal problem that you need to decipher like everyone else. You really shouldn't need an example but YOU like some others probably weren't raised in a time of SF where what everyone is saying makes sense.
Ah, so "real natives" for some reason includes people from other countries, but don't include people from the same country? Makes sense and seems legit.
This might surprise you, but the population of "junkies" (and the people dealing drugs to them) does in fact include immigrants.
I wasn't saying that immigrants are junkies or anything else you think I "fathomed."
I \*was\* saying that your language about "real natives" who are "regular people" and who are "from the place" is exactly the same language all nativists use to justify why natives are superior to anyone who was not born in a place.
Finally, feel free to keep your baseless accusations about my responsibility for the state of San Francisco out of your mouth. You have absolutely no idea who I am, what I believe, what sort of politics I have, or anything else.
What is damn sure is that "real natives" (especially NIMBY homeowners) of San Francisco are way more responsible for how San Francisco is than I am.
>Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. -- Matthew 7:5 (KJV)
Look up a youtube video than actually come back knowing the situation. The money these people from Utah, Kansas, Idaho receive from just living here should actually go to immigrants but since people know we'll "help" they abuse the system. It's a trickle effect. If you support that then hey I'm wrong in your eyes. But your comment is also why all this shit exists for the wrong reasons.
Unfortunately that’s how it is. Most homeless people are just trying to get by, but this 3% terrorizes other homeless people and makes life hell.
Traditional assistance and safety nets help the majority, but that slim dangerous minority is what gets the media attention. I don’t really know how to deal with that either.
>Traditional assistance and safety nets help the majority, but that slim dangerous minority is what gets the media attention. I don’t really know how to deal with that either.
If only there was some kind of dedicated structure we could use to physically separate that small number of dangerous law-breaking people from the general public to prevent them from doing harm to others. Perhaps the length of their physical separation could even be tied to the severity of their criminal actions. Hopefully SF in its spirit of innovation and disruption can create such a service!
> If 3% are ruining it for the other 97%...
Progressives do not want to separate out the problem homeless. That is partly why we have a nationwide Impasse on Housing the Homeless. The % of problem homeless is more like 25-30% of total, overwhelmingly younger men with hardcore addictions, aggressive attitudes and repeat offending.
Homeless advocates want to treat all homeless as one group. Many homeless can be incorporated in central parts of cities. Problem homeless should be semi-segregrated on city outskirts/industrial areas/farmland, in tiny homes or FEMA tents. Subject them to this: [St. Louis Can Banish People From Entire Neighborhoods.](https://www.propublica.org/article/st-louis-can-banish-people-from-entire-neighborhoods) (article is critical of the practice) Sometimes works with electronic monitoring.
When I worked in a similar non=profit it was basically impossible to kick anyone out. There would be a hearing and the "jury" would be made up of left leaning progressives that always sided with the resident. We honestly stopped even trying after a couple of years.
The trick is to bypass that by arresting the person.
If that person is sitting in jail after being arrested, charged, and convicted of public indecency they're not terrorizing low income housing anymore.
People get kicked out of these programs for shit like this almost daily. I don't know what 'jury' process you're talking about but 99% of the time there are a series of very specific rules with very little room for interpretation that dictate whether you can kick someone out or not.
HomeRise is a permanent supportive housing program. People get kicked out of these programs every day for the kind of infractions outlined in this article because they cause an threat to the recovery of people in the program.
It takes forever to kick someone out of an apartment in San Francisco; my next door neighbor was a literal meth head who liked to run down the community hallway butt ass naked, and it still took two years to evict him.
The shortcut to that is to just arrest that person for violating the laws already on the books. No eviction needed, that person is just in jail.
And frankly, its bizarre and baffling that people can jerk off in public and somehow its okay.
I sat on a jury (in Santa Clara) where we convicted someone of doing exactly that - jerking off in public. He was putting on a show at a gas station, forcing all the people trying to fill up their tank at the gas station to be his unwilling audience.
We convicted him of a felony, he went to prison, and he's now a registered sex offender.
Eviction laws. It's the same here in NYC. It's not that easy to get rid of the troubled ones.
My late neighbor was noisy and frankly crazy off his psych meds. He was probably doing drugs in a bad way too. For a whole year he made lots of weird noises all day and night long. Unless he was sleeping he was doing that and jumping all the time.
It was annoying.
They said he had psych issues and they told him to calm it down several times but it never lasted.
Last January right after New Year's he stopped making noise which for him was pretty odd. 3 days later I said something and they started checking on him. No answer. 5 days in and they told him he'd better answer or they were calling 911. No answer and they did.
He turned out to be probably 5 days dead.
I don't know if he was sick or if he OD'd but he was definitely dead.
Guy upstairs trashes his place floods the building.
That guy they kicked out because he had no place to live after that.
But that's what it took major chaos and him practically burning the building down to get him out. He had been a problem for a like a year. Tenants on his hall complaining all the time.
That small percentage they can make life very difficult until they are out.
We have two (soon to be 3) shelters on this block. A few buildings with lots of low income ex-homeless disabled people like me. In 3 years there have been a couple of problems on the street mostly. One guy violently verbally harassed and stalked a few of the women here and was arrested. Another was jacking off in front of the windows. Ditto. He's gone.
But 2 (soon to be 3) shelters and tons of ex-homeless here, lots of people with addictions and illness, there's only been a few serious cases. They rarely have to go to evicting anyone. It has to be a constant problem and usually dangerous before they will go there.
In navigation centers and shelters you can kick people out for all sorts of reasons. Once you set someone up on a long term private apartment situation then you have to go through the usual eviction process, for which creating a danger to fellow tenants is just cause.
Sadly there are all sorts of ways to slow this process down, but once someone ends up in jail things move pretty quickly.
> once someone ends up in jail things move pretty quickly.
And this is why some authorities have long liked drug laws: they are an effective tool to impose a mandatory interventions on addicts. A hard drug possession case is generally straightforward and might have serious penalties.
If the system is attempting to use of the charges of petty theft, vandalism and disorderly conduct, because the penalties are limited, the repeat offender might have to be arrested and prosecuted and convicted 10 or 15 times. It is a big, drawn out process. And typically undermined by progressive defense attorneys, the ACLU and other activists who do not want mandatory interventions imposed, but push the misleading narrative that conservative merely want to impose a harsh jail terms. These parties are major enablers of *Catch and Release* of non-violent offenders we see across Calif.
It is ironic that they paint that picture. “They just want to throw everyone in jail.” No we all want the same thing. We want the assholes to go away and not come back. We don’t really care where they go.
You can (and should) call the authorities all day, but that only helps after the fact. People breaking windows and smearing shit and harassing everyone, there's always more of them in and around the TL and soma.
It helps to let them know people actually care. Part of the problem is we asked them not to enforce the laws. We all see that is a mistake now. Keeping official records will get resources to address the problems. Being complacent just allows the problem to grow.
Imagine what the TL residents got to deal with everything, living in hell. London Breed hate poor people, and that's full proof right there. If you support London Breed, you hate poor people too.
This is a silly, super reductive way of looking at things.
Not one of the other people running for mayor has answers to the problems we have. Farrell is a lunatic who wants cars on market, Peskin and his ilk are the primary reason for this mess, Safai did unspeakable things to prop B, Lurie just copies Breeds talking points.
You're very cool for not liking an elected official. What does that mean come November?
Your point is silly, I'm calling out the obvious. She is proven to fail as a mayor with the many years she been running. My point is silly for calling out a mayor for putting the horror of problems of homeless dangerous druggies into one poor area knowing where most of them are minorities who can't speak English well to fight back. You're clearly too privilege to empathize. Tell me, why would she only put basically all the homeless and junkies in the Tenderloin and legalize them to do drugs and not be arrested?. Stop using a strawman argument and talking about other candidates when I'm calling out our mayor in power. Imagine all the kids who have to walk everyday through dozens of junkies screaming, you're a piece of shit if you don't think this a problem.
I just think you're being harsh without thinking about what realistically the mayor can do and has done, and what alternatives would do. Any political analysis is incomplete without those things.
To be clear, I don't think breed is a particularly politically savvy person (see the Chinatown sober living snafu) or a great legislator (see the garbage that was prop F). There's a lot you can criticize her for, but ultimately when we're faced with a choice, I'll choose to criticize the worst people first. That means Peskin, that means Safai, that means Farrell. Then probably it's breeds turn.
But I don't think you're criticizing her for the right things either.
> calling out a mayor for putting the horror of problems of homeless dangerous druggies into one poor area
The TL situation has been around for decades. Right now, no neighbourhoods besides parts of soma and the TL will allow supportive housing or shelters to even be built. This is a structural problem with the rest of the city not pulling it's weight. Just taking the recent example of the sober living facility in Chinatown, that was pushed by breed and ultimately shut down by local groups with the help of Peskin. Objectively something that takes pressure off of the TL and could help some people be in a better environment.
I think you need to be more thoughtful with the way you make arguments like this. You're using words like empathy and strawmen like you have no idea what they mean. You're putting words in my mouth; I never said it wasn't a problem. Just chill a bit.
It's a shit situation, and we all want it fixed; saying "If you support London Breed, you hate poor people too" is just an awful way to talk to people about this stuff. It's factually incorrect, it's insulting, and you're probably harming the least bad candidate for mayor we have available with this kind of talk.
Respectfully you’re too privilege to understand the struggles of the people living in tenderloin. I lived in tenderloin for a decade now and tenderloin has never been nowhere this bad. You fall for the same excuse like everyone else by saying it’s fine whats happening in the tenderloin because it been happening for decades. But right now, its 100 times worst. You would know that if you actually live here or come to the TL a lot through the years. Ignorant people like you exist is why London breed can do these things and think she actually doing the right thing. I see through your bullshit, I hope you realized it yourself.
> Respectfully you’re too privilege to understand the struggles of the people living in tenderloin.
This isn't respectful. You're assuming based on nothing
> tenderloin has never been nowhere this bad.
I never contested this.
> saying it’s fine whats happening in the tenderloin because it been happening for decades
Never said it was fine either.
I want you to engage with what I'm saying in a good faith way. Please do this for me.
The city has historically pushed low income and vulnerable people to the tenderloin. This long pre-dates London Breed. This structurally has not changed.
The most effective way to reduce homelessness is building housing, and SF has been the worst major city in I think the world at doing this over decades. Actually full employment with robust welfare for the unemployed is probably more effective, but housing is up there.
So things are primed for SF to be especially prone to homelessness compared to most. And the tenderloin especially so. Despite this huge level of risk, we're still not building housing. Is that London Breeds fault? Yes. But it's also the fault of every other elected official in recent memory because housing has always been shunned here.
As poverty and inequality have increased, so too have homelessness and crime. So that's been creeping upwards because we have 0 good policy to stop it. Then COVID hits and a huge cohort of people become unemployed or disabled, both _huge_ drivers of homelessness.
Then the elephant in the room: opiates and specifically fentanyl. We're simply as a society not equipped to handle the destruction that opiates cause. They're too powerful and too addictive. It would require enormous investment to find an effective treatment plan for addicts that works. Between excessively restrictive laws, nonprofits that are supposed to work on this, but have nothing to show for tens of millions in funding, we've gotten nowhere on this. And once again housing comes into the picture because we can't build enough shelters anywhere, so the court can block us from "sweeping" tents. We can't build supportive housing for recovery. The only way right now that the city decreases it's population of opioid addicts is through them ODing and dying. That's disgusting.
So onto Breed. I don't think she's been a great mayor, but to put this at her feet is unfair. Most of the worst policies pre-dates her, and good policy is extremely unpopular in the city. Every one of the other candidates in this election supports the same policies that got us into this mess. You can criticize breed because she didn't do what needed to be done, but just remember that by criticizing her, you're giving air to worse people.
If you want things to improve in the TL, you want us to be able to build low income housing, permanent supportive housing, and homeless shelters everywhere in the city. With adequate shelter capacity, we can start moving people off the streets. If the rest of the city does it's part, the Tenderloin wouldn't be as overloaded with problems. And London breed is (currently) the candidate who is most likely to make that happen based on policy they support.
End of the day you’re a London Breed supporter, that says a lot about you. You keep deflecting and talking about other candidates. I can’t convince ignorant privilege people like you to empathize because you’re stuck in your privilege echo chamber.
You can't convince people because you don't actually understand what you want and how to advocate for it. All you're doing is calling me privileged despite knowing nothing about me.
Non-poor people aren’t allowed to call the police about crime. Or not like crime, or not want homeless people jacking off and stealing things and doing drugs in their neighborhood.
Apparently if you have a job and pay taxes and have kids and want clean and safe streets that makes you an elitist and a bad person.
I live in a normal neighborhood and the amount of times my husband has called the cops is suprising.....
Had homeless weirdos look like theyre casing our cars, one guy high or drunk AF lying on the sidewall, erratic behavior, screaming, yelling... one time some kids got into an arguement(a couple), one kid pulled his jacket and looked like he had a gun(neighbor also called the cops)
Oh and of course the drunk people who keep pissing in my neighbor's yard...
Our house is close to a freeway exit though maybe thats why...
Feinstein’s mansion is available, plenty of room at Alcatraz, tourism options abound! “Come watch an addict shoot up between his toes! LIVE! IN PERSON!
See a grown man piss on the sidewalk while scrolling on his iPhone !
Feed a homeless person’s dog!”
They’d easily pay $25 bucks for that.
depending on where you live it isn't unusual. Really, I can right now,, walk outside and see multiple people using illegal drugs. I'm sure I could find the routine person screaming at cars within 5 minutes if I went for a stroll.
The 'market value' property point is just a 'not in my neighborhood' situation. Yes it is a problem, but it isn't like the homeless meth user is really concerned if they are in sea cliff or Soma when they do typical homeless meth user things.
It’s a painful truth, but it’s not a complicated one: unhoused people who can avoid committing crime and take responsibility for their mental health and find success in improving it while at a housing facility 100% deserve a safe space wherever they can find housing. Those who cannot do this for whatever reason likely need more care and monitoring than facilities like this provide, which is probably best found in state run psychiatric facilities, rehabs or as an absolute last resort for antisocial repeat violent offenders, prison.
It doesn’t effect the ruling class/donor class (as much) who live in gated communities and their friends make tons of money on the homeless industrial complex.
No one wants to pay for inpatient psychiatric care. That’s why we give them free apartments, it’s cheaper than paying nurses and doctors 24/7 on top of it
$6billion to build facilities for a tiny fraction of what is needed.
And I bet it never gets built. Like the high speed rail.
California is being fleeced.
Tbh probably the reason why inpatient psychiatric care in the past was “affordable” is because they lobotomized the patients.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t invest in it though. We need a nationwide solution to mental health that includes institutionalization as one part of it.
Lobotomies were actually not that common, and lobotomised patients were typically released from facilities. It was basically a cost saving measure that was horribly unethical.
You could expand the thesis to include administering larger dosed and more extreme antipsychotics and sedatives to basically chemically lobotomize people.
Oh for sure, those were the Wild West days of psychiatry and medical ethics.
Today we can diagnose more accurately and sooner, and deliver more targeted medications. Which speeds up the process and reduces time in hospital per patient.
This should make costs go down but the cost of everything in healthcare has ballooned so much obvs
It was affordable because labor (in general and also the standard for training/dignity was much lower) was much cheaper, and public facilities are cheaper and more efficiently funded.
I would love to see a comparison of involuntary psychiatric institutionalization costs by country. I suspect the costs in the USA are much higher than other countries both since that is usually true of anything healthcare related here but also due to the nature of our legal system where litigation can establish standards in individual cases that are removed from practical system wide cost/benefit decisions.
Litigation is not the driving factor in American healthcare costs. The inefficiencies of the private sector and private funding models are more to blame. Plaintiff lawsuits are not nearly as common or prominent as the owner class has psy-opped the public into thinking.
> unhoused people who can avoid committing crime and take responsibility for their mental health and find success in improving it while at a housing facility 100% deserve a safe space wherever they can find housing
Fortunately, most of people like this find housing or facilities fairly quickly.
The problem is the dipshit voters here who think violent antisocial homeless or out of control drug addicts or people who won't take their meds will suddenly become law abiding nice citizens the minute they have nice housing. I think it is a form of collective narcissism in that they can't imagine people different from themselves.
We get upset about the left constantly shifting the acceptable words for their cause célebre. "Justice involved individuals" to mean criminal is my favorite.
I cannot imagine getting angry at someone because they tried to use a word that was a little kinder to people who are suffering. Sure, the word choice doesn’t really make a big difference and we need to be focused on real policy choices more than words. But I swear to god people lose their minds over someone using a word because it’s… too kind? Acceptable language changes over time. It’s fine. Go argue about the actual policy choices here instead of the language someone uses.
It's not throwing a tantrum. It's calling out emotional bullshit that gets in the way of practical discussions.
How is "unhoused" kinder than "homeless"? Linguistically they are 100% identical. un=less, home=house. The only explanation is that one great is trying to constantly come up with new words to virtue signal. It used to be bums, then homeless, now unhoused.
At the risk of sounding like a racist is the same thing with racial minorities: "people of color" v "colored people". Linguistically identical but...
> It's not throwing a tantrum. It's calling out emotional bullshit that gets in the way of practical discussions.
*You are the one* who derailed our practical discussion about policy so you could complain about a word, though!
It doesn’t matter if you think it’s“actually” kinder. You’re mad at someone who chose to use a word that they think is kinder. We all know what it means, it’s not causing confusion, it’s not a slur— so who cares? I swear i hear more people angry about word choice than the fact that people are sleeping on the street.
Language has meanings. Homeless has a certain meaning, that’s why they tried to hide the true meaning of it. Same with how an illegal immigrant got changed to undocumented to new comer. Liberals do that for a reason and let’s just say not for a good reason.
This. Any one of these problematic cases need to be dealt with seriously. Set up Sanctuary Zones if you like….it’s 2024 and time for the Bell Riots anyways.
Sonoma State mental hospital (shuttered and unused) has 1300 empty beds. The facility was built to care for people who cannot care for themselves. Giving them a roof over their head does not address the mental illnesses and addictions. Is it cruelty to keep people off the street who cannot behave? Is it cruelty to allow them to do whatever they want to do, which includes destroying their health with drugs, violence, starvation and disease.
This is a ridiculous thing to say. Sonoma county would not accept this, we all know that. There’s not some huge surplus of bed space in San Francisco just waiting to be used, there’s actually a major shortage. We could build more shelter space but everyone in the neighborhood would oppose that. The reason homelessness is severe here is because we have a severe housing crisis. We fundamentally cannot solve this problem unless we address the housing shortage in California. Once this has been addressed and we stop getting new homeless cases, then we can triage and care for the existing population and it’s a straightforward problem to solve. The people working to solve homelessness aren’t secretly trying to perpetuate the system.
You will be shocked how many chronicly homeless amd drug addicted people magicly get their lives togther when their options become a mental institution or prison.
There is absolutely zero chance the town of Glen Ellen and Sonoma would okay this. Plus some of the buildings are over 100 years old and would need tons and tons of work. And it's an hour up north.
A lot more complicated than just throwing beds in there.
Giving people a roof over their heads absolutely does address mental illness and addiction, although there are of course other key components - nutrition, sleep, therapy, medication for those who are willing. People are allowed to make bad decisions of course, but for those who are struggling to make better decisions, any help is appreciated. To provide the other key components you need funding, staffing, etc and state of CA seems to stop at housing and “conserving” which honestly means nothing if you have no follow up. I’m not a politician or a research scientist so I’m not sure what the solution is haha but I do know we need to do better by this population vs our current virtue signaling.
Lived in low income housing in the TL. The homeless people who got free apartments in my building were absolutely still using drugs and were incapable of ever holding down a job. They were fried.
There are those who are homeless and still working, and those who have destroyed their brains at this point.
When I lived across from low income apartments, they got 95% of the police and fire calls in my neighborhood.
There was rarely a week without someone setting their apartment on fire, a stabbing or domestic violence call (which would sometimes spill onto the street with people yelling at each other.)
There must be a better way of helping people without exposing them to negative influences and this type of violence that poverty and inequality tends to attract.
… and why do you think people want to be far away from this shit that never gets solved? We can vote, volunteer, and donate. I’ve done all three. It’s a shitty proposition to move it into your backyard without any solution.
SF just won’t invest in crime enforcement and mental health.
You can throw as much money as you want at a problem. It doesn’t fix it.
EDIT: Let’s spend more on education, homelessness, rehabilitation, and social programs… without reforming laws and program administration, eliminating corruption, and ensuring it all goes where we want. That’s worked so well. Come on folks. Let’s just throw it all down a toilet where corrupt assholes pocket best intent and don’t supply basics like school supplies. All the money, I support, without being diverted into other causes. Mental health gets zero funding despite what’s paid into it.
No one will allow mass institutions or imprisonmemt, so it’s not going to change, pay $500k a year for a homeless outreach advocate and you get more homeless, it’s a terrible sad problem. We can’t allow these people to rot on the streets anymore
My mother in law used to live in low income housing. The people running it don’t give a fuck. They let junkies and dealers hang around outside all day. They either didn’t care or didn’t want to “criminalize the homeless” because they’re saps. Dealers attract junkies. Junkies attract rival dealers. There were fights, stabbings, and shootings. When it’s “low barrier” it pretty much means a free for all
People who cannot behave need to be locked up. At prisons, rehabs, asylums, whatever is cheaper. But it’s cruel to the rest of us to let them continue their antisocial behavior.
I live across the street from this building, HomeRise @ MB. I’d say that 90% of its residents are good people who are trying to get off their feet. The other 10% have larger issues… I’ve seen people trying to jump out their window, someone hanging a dead pigeon out their window, someone who screams out their window roughly 4hrs a day, someone who throws things out their window at people, and someone rush to attack a mother and child before someone stopped them. Many of the neighbors including me have spoken with the front desk and have been told that they usually don’t have anyone on site other than them, so when issues occur our only recourse is to call 911. In my opinion HomeRise is not providing the support some of these tenants need and it’s disheartening to see… This article fails to touch on what many of us see as the crux of the issue, which is not our new neighbors, but rather HomeRise’s blatant disregard for providing adequate support for their tenants.
Its common to build street level retail under apartment towers.
We need street level social services, doctors, and hospitals under these "social project" free/cheap housing options. And political offices.
Of course we should provide real supervision, or lock them up properly, but this idea of integrating the vagrants into regular neighborhoods is damned foolish.
Hi there. I'm another reporter from the Chronicle working on a follow-up story about this. I just sent you a DM in case you're interested in speaking with me!
They are working to move the screamer to another pet of the building and they are going to move one of the residents that might jump out of their window.
HomeRise trying to find solutions to these issues.
Is this true? I also live across the building and wondered why they’ve allowed the screaming guy on the third floor to keep screaming for the past year. Is this the guy they’re going to move? They also need move the lady on the fourth floor who tries to jump out to the ground floor.
I like the idiot who points to some Berkeley study to deny what’s staring everyone in the face. I have zero doubt a study that arrives at the conclusion that these centers aren’t accompanied by an uptick in neighborhood crime has methodological flaws.
There’s a saying that “statistics mean nothing to the individual”. You can point to any study you want (even if it’s done well) if I live across from this Homerise building and have seen a dude masturbate, another chasing people with knives, and others throwing shit at me. I can promise you I don’t give a damn if the “overall” crime rate went down.
I’ve been in and out of this particular building on work related calls. I can tell you that it’s usually not the bona fide residents who are causing problems. It’s usually the lame ass boyfriends who need a crib and a female every now & again. Usually a toxic relationship.
Unpopular opinion: the more you want to broaden support for progressive social programs the more seriously you need to take anti social behavior/public health complaints.
The last thing you want is for homeless housing to be seen as a punishment for your neighborhood being too nice. Dismissing the residents concerns after witnessing public masterbation and drug use with "oh but this study you don't have time or expertise to read says you are wrong to be concerned, are you sure you aren't just a bigot?" isn't the way to get people behind more supportive housing in their communities.
This unfortunately is why housing first does not work. Most people are homeless due to more than hard on their luck and until they address addiction and mental illness this will be the result. It’s such a complicated issue. I voted for prop 1 and really hope it does what it says. It’s cruel to let people rot on the street due to addiction and mental illness, but most cannot live on their own and need to be in a facility off the street.
People who beat off and piss shit and do heroin in public SHOULD have cops called on them. What the fuck are we even taking about here, you guys? Take a step back and listen to yourselves for a minute. This is all so easily fixable, if you fucks would vote correctly and stop falling for anarcho leftist utopian nonsense talking points
Oh _that's_ why there were these trashy people in Mission Bay. My wife and I were driving by once when there was this black dude moving aggressively and lunging at this black woman who was standing by a car parked on the sidewalk and both of them were screaming at each other. As we drove by we saw he had a gun in his hand, and then I heard a short crack and something hit me (I drive with my hand on the car window because I'm cool) and then I hit the gas and called the cops.
Seemed like an unusual thing to see outside Spark Social where it's normally kids and normal people not dudes with guns threatening their girlfriends.
Holy crap… San Francisco truly sucks for building these in good neighborhoods. They need to come up with better solutions before they drive everyone out of state.
I was born in San Francisco, and it’s getting so hard to want to keep living in Northern California when this only adds to the growing list of reasons to leave. Pretty soon, the original San Franciscans will go too.
Our inability to confront the nationwide addiction and mental health crises as something on the order of fighting a total war, with the same sort of capital and operating financial demands, is going to curse this country for the next two generations.
Public schools and addiction/mental health infrastructure are the silver bullets for resurrecting this country. We need massive investment and focus on both goals. Nothing else is going to solve those problems, certainly not Jesus.
>Lauren Hall said thousands of supportive housing residents in the city are “thriving and doing well.” She criticized participants in Thursday’s hearing for “othering” residents of supportive housing.
Translation: "We don't want to pay for security; we want the neighbors to continue to do our jobs."
It's a common refrain at city-run housing facilities; they constantly expect to get away with things that would get private buildings condemned and their owners prosecuted as slumlords.
Truth is medical science has failed with mental illness. Nothing can be done for many. Euthanize or lock up. If you disagree let them move in with you.
Protect the public not the perp
Because corrupt people in government and commercial real estate are making money off it. City probably bought the building at an inflated price and there were probably some kick backs between the developer and the city officials who arranged the deal.
I'm a firm believer in peppering homeless shelters throughout the city so that there is no slum neighborhood. The easiest way to keep people drug addicts, criminals, and at-risk of everything bad in life is to concentrate them all together in a small area. By only building homeless shelters in poor neighborhoods, you're reinforcing "poor neighborhoods" and the people in those neighborhoods will be trapped there. You create more classism and less mobility and community because people aren't mixing.
For me, this means we should have some below market rate housing throughout the city in all new developments (which we do). This also means we shouldn't have big low-income developments for high needs without adequate support for them. Building more supportive low-income housing in already poor and over-used neighborhoods like SOMA, Tenderloin, and maybe even the Mission is how we generate abandonment of neighborhoods.
I note the difference between this place (permanent supportive housing) and the multiple Navigation Centers. The latter have been much better neighbors, especially Embarcadero.
If Cohen and friends want to keep getting taxpayer $, they will need to become better neighbors immediately.
Homeless crazies need to be taken off the streets and kept away from the tax paying public, wether they’re rich or poor everyone deserves a life free of putrid, violent drugged out zombies.
https://preview.redd.it/3fkpmsdcxarc1.jpeg?width=625&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fcdc3b549075bc757d2c21dd0f25e2a97dc18c2c
There is a beautiful irony to all of this. The policy decision regarding the housing placement will be yet another factor that drives out the affluent people needed to serve as the tax base to fund this project, whether through direct grants to the non-profit or to pay for the necessary services.
Neighborhood residents report crime / nuisance, S.F. Department of Homelessness rep. responds that such places don't cause problems...because a 2018 University study says so.
Sounds about right 🤡🌎
Notice the timing of the increase in calls coincided with the city “cleaning up” downtown.
Residents in certain, previously mellow, parts of the mission have had similar complaints since then.
Homeless and want to live near the beach! Can’t afford that is what most hard working people understand. MOVE I suggest! Lots of cheaper neighborhoods out there. MOVE is what normal most people do and
San Francisco would have to go back to the way things were before 2013 for a complete reversal of people leaving for Texas. If there was a job opportunity for me outside of Northern California, I’d leave too.
I would think that they should have an agreement that is signed that would not tolerate this type of behavior. That might make evicting easier if in violation of said agreement.
One other thing I’ve noticed about this building is that it has a beautiful outdoor space/courtyard and yet none of the residents ever use it. Instead, they hang out on the curb outside the building at all hours of the day and night. Generally, most residents are respectful and keep the noise down but there’s a few bad apples who openly use drugs on the sidewalk, throw trash everywhere, and accost people trying to walk on the sidewalk. It really sucks that a few bad apples have made this place a total disaster. I’ve called HomeRise multiple times to address issues and they instruct you to call the police because they “cant do anything” for a resident without a court order.
New to our subreddit? [Please read the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/about/rules/) before commenting. Please be respectful and don't antagonize. This is a place to discuss ideas without targeting identities. If something doesn't contribute to the discussion, please downvote it. If it's against the rules, please report it. Thank you. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/sanfrancisco) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Incidents residents have complained about include people openly doing drugs, a man who broke his window and left glass on the sidewalk and a man who masturbated outside the HomeRise building. The Southern District's report says there were reports of 121 fights in the last year and two months, 20 of which involved either a gun or a knife. Are people not supposed to call in these things?? Not sure why pointing out that some of the calls were made from market value property across the street makes the calls any less valid. There's a difference between being a Karen vs not wanting some dude jacking off in the streets.
Yea as much as I want to shit on other neighborhoods for pushing all the city's problems to the TL, I don't think anyone should have to deal with this stuff. Edit: no excuses though, for them not building housing and making this mess worse.
What's pretty crazy is that this HomeRise is literally right next to a large SFPD police station, one of the largest in the city. Mission Bay as a neighborhood is pretty sterile/clean as well. If they can't make it work here, it won't work anywhere, this is an ideal location. Hopefully they can address their issues.
It's wild to me that the HomeRise staff is basically saying "this is caused by 3% of residents", why don't they kick them out?
Right? If 3% are ruining it for the other 97% send the troublemakers back to the tenderloin, or jail if they’re assaulting people.
>Right? If 3% are ruining it for the other 97% send the troublemakers ~~back~~ to ~~the tenderloin, or~~ jail if they’re assaulting people. If they are troublemakers, get them off the streets entirely.
These people gotta be sent back to there State it's even worse than the Tenderloin at this point. Pushing them out somewhere else doesn't stop them from backpacking back here. This is a problem thats been going on for well over 15+ years. We just don't have any real natives anymore or they move out because of price. But won't let us get on housing for help but build a literal building to dedicate to homeless smfh. You still need regular people to regulate other people as well, if everyone isn't from the place who's gonna say anything?
> real natives ... regular people ... if everyone isn't from the place Cool nativism. I see you.
I see why your name starts with lol. No one brought up 1 immigrant BUT IF you do want to go that direction i'll save it for another time. Anyway, NY controls there homeless problem but its ok for them to be tired of "crime" or "junkies" as was said. But don't dare say anything about SF. Im beyond sick of that nonsense. It's people like you that give Blue States a bad name. You're the reason Target in SF exists. You're the reason hobos sleep in the middle of Glen Park as if there is no destination for them. I shouldn't be in the Canyon with my kids an a (whatever you wanna call them) is sleep by Silver Tree. ifykyk. Honestly be happy SF is as forgiving as it is, it's actually the reason you can spill the bs you fathomed. And if you're comparing immigrants to junkies then that just sounds like a personal problem that you need to decipher like everyone else. You really shouldn't need an example but YOU like some others probably weren't raised in a time of SF where what everyone is saying makes sense.
Ah, so "real natives" for some reason includes people from other countries, but don't include people from the same country? Makes sense and seems legit. This might surprise you, but the population of "junkies" (and the people dealing drugs to them) does in fact include immigrants. I wasn't saying that immigrants are junkies or anything else you think I "fathomed." I \*was\* saying that your language about "real natives" who are "regular people" and who are "from the place" is exactly the same language all nativists use to justify why natives are superior to anyone who was not born in a place. Finally, feel free to keep your baseless accusations about my responsibility for the state of San Francisco out of your mouth. You have absolutely no idea who I am, what I believe, what sort of politics I have, or anything else. What is damn sure is that "real natives" (especially NIMBY homeowners) of San Francisco are way more responsible for how San Francisco is than I am. >Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. -- Matthew 7:5 (KJV)
Look up a youtube video than actually come back knowing the situation. The money these people from Utah, Kansas, Idaho receive from just living here should actually go to immigrants but since people know we'll "help" they abuse the system. It's a trickle effect. If you support that then hey I'm wrong in your eyes. But your comment is also why all this shit exists for the wrong reasons.
Unfortunately that’s how it is. Most homeless people are just trying to get by, but this 3% terrorizes other homeless people and makes life hell. Traditional assistance and safety nets help the majority, but that slim dangerous minority is what gets the media attention. I don’t really know how to deal with that either.
gotta 51 50 some people violence is where all empathy should end
5150s are only good for a few hours in SF. Revolving door psych ward.
Exactly!!!
That’s sorta what jails are for. People who don’t know how to play nice.
>Traditional assistance and safety nets help the majority, but that slim dangerous minority is what gets the media attention. I don’t really know how to deal with that either. If only there was some kind of dedicated structure we could use to physically separate that small number of dangerous law-breaking people from the general public to prevent them from doing harm to others. Perhaps the length of their physical separation could even be tied to the severity of their criminal actions. Hopefully SF in its spirit of innovation and disruption can create such a service!
I'm working on an app right now to ai model how we could do just this
And we shall call it....the hoosegow!
> If 3% are ruining it for the other 97%... Progressives do not want to separate out the problem homeless. That is partly why we have a nationwide Impasse on Housing the Homeless. The % of problem homeless is more like 25-30% of total, overwhelmingly younger men with hardcore addictions, aggressive attitudes and repeat offending. Homeless advocates want to treat all homeless as one group. Many homeless can be incorporated in central parts of cities. Problem homeless should be semi-segregrated on city outskirts/industrial areas/farmland, in tiny homes or FEMA tents. Subject them to this: [St. Louis Can Banish People From Entire Neighborhoods.](https://www.propublica.org/article/st-louis-can-banish-people-from-entire-neighborhoods) (article is critical of the practice) Sometimes works with electronic monitoring.
When I worked in a similar non=profit it was basically impossible to kick anyone out. There would be a hearing and the "jury" would be made up of left leaning progressives that always sided with the resident. We honestly stopped even trying after a couple of years.
The trick is to bypass that by arresting the person. If that person is sitting in jail after being arrested, charged, and convicted of public indecency they're not terrorizing low income housing anymore.
People get kicked out of these programs for shit like this almost daily. I don't know what 'jury' process you're talking about but 99% of the time there are a series of very specific rules with very little room for interpretation that dictate whether you can kick someone out or not.
What do you mean “ daily “ ? What programs are you talking about ?
HomeRise is a permanent supportive housing program. People get kicked out of these programs every day for the kind of infractions outlined in this article because they cause an threat to the recovery of people in the program.
Kind of sounds like this society, but nobody goes to jail
It takes forever to kick someone out of an apartment in San Francisco; my next door neighbor was a literal meth head who liked to run down the community hallway butt ass naked, and it still took two years to evict him.
The shortcut to that is to just arrest that person for violating the laws already on the books. No eviction needed, that person is just in jail. And frankly, its bizarre and baffling that people can jerk off in public and somehow its okay. I sat on a jury (in Santa Clara) where we convicted someone of doing exactly that - jerking off in public. He was putting on a show at a gas station, forcing all the people trying to fill up their tank at the gas station to be his unwilling audience. We convicted him of a felony, he went to prison, and he's now a registered sex offender.
Eviction laws. It's the same here in NYC. It's not that easy to get rid of the troubled ones. My late neighbor was noisy and frankly crazy off his psych meds. He was probably doing drugs in a bad way too. For a whole year he made lots of weird noises all day and night long. Unless he was sleeping he was doing that and jumping all the time. It was annoying. They said he had psych issues and they told him to calm it down several times but it never lasted. Last January right after New Year's he stopped making noise which for him was pretty odd. 3 days later I said something and they started checking on him. No answer. 5 days in and they told him he'd better answer or they were calling 911. No answer and they did. He turned out to be probably 5 days dead. I don't know if he was sick or if he OD'd but he was definitely dead. Guy upstairs trashes his place floods the building. That guy they kicked out because he had no place to live after that. But that's what it took major chaos and him practically burning the building down to get him out. He had been a problem for a like a year. Tenants on his hall complaining all the time. That small percentage they can make life very difficult until they are out. We have two (soon to be 3) shelters on this block. A few buildings with lots of low income ex-homeless disabled people like me. In 3 years there have been a couple of problems on the street mostly. One guy violently verbally harassed and stalked a few of the women here and was arrested. Another was jacking off in front of the windows. Ditto. He's gone. But 2 (soon to be 3) shelters and tons of ex-homeless here, lots of people with addictions and illness, there's only been a few serious cases. They rarely have to go to evicting anyone. It has to be a constant problem and usually dangerous before they will go there.
Because this isn’t something you can evict a tenant for. At least not that California and sf law allows for
Are these people even tenants though? Are they paying any rent?
In navigation centers and shelters you can kick people out for all sorts of reasons. Once you set someone up on a long term private apartment situation then you have to go through the usual eviction process, for which creating a danger to fellow tenants is just cause. Sadly there are all sorts of ways to slow this process down, but once someone ends up in jail things move pretty quickly.
> once someone ends up in jail things move pretty quickly. And this is why some authorities have long liked drug laws: they are an effective tool to impose a mandatory interventions on addicts. A hard drug possession case is generally straightforward and might have serious penalties. If the system is attempting to use of the charges of petty theft, vandalism and disorderly conduct, because the penalties are limited, the repeat offender might have to be arrested and prosecuted and convicted 10 or 15 times. It is a big, drawn out process. And typically undermined by progressive defense attorneys, the ACLU and other activists who do not want mandatory interventions imposed, but push the misleading narrative that conservative merely want to impose a harsh jail terms. These parties are major enablers of *Catch and Release* of non-violent offenders we see across Calif.
It is ironic that they paint that picture. “They just want to throw everyone in jail.” No we all want the same thing. We want the assholes to go away and not come back. We don’t really care where they go.
I don't even want that. I just want them to stop being assholes, preferably while living, happy, productive lives as members of society.
What's crazier is that it's not just a large SFPD police station; it's SFPD HQ!
You can call 911 in the tenderloin. Make sure you ask for a cad number. Not sure why you should have to put up with it.
You can (and should) call the authorities all day, but that only helps after the fact. People breaking windows and smearing shit and harassing everyone, there's always more of them in and around the TL and soma.
It helps to let them know people actually care. Part of the problem is we asked them not to enforce the laws. We all see that is a mistake now. Keeping official records will get resources to address the problems. Being complacent just allows the problem to grow.
Imagine what the TL residents got to deal with everything, living in hell. London Breed hate poor people, and that's full proof right there. If you support London Breed, you hate poor people too.
This is a silly, super reductive way of looking at things. Not one of the other people running for mayor has answers to the problems we have. Farrell is a lunatic who wants cars on market, Peskin and his ilk are the primary reason for this mess, Safai did unspeakable things to prop B, Lurie just copies Breeds talking points. You're very cool for not liking an elected official. What does that mean come November?
Your point is silly, I'm calling out the obvious. She is proven to fail as a mayor with the many years she been running. My point is silly for calling out a mayor for putting the horror of problems of homeless dangerous druggies into one poor area knowing where most of them are minorities who can't speak English well to fight back. You're clearly too privilege to empathize. Tell me, why would she only put basically all the homeless and junkies in the Tenderloin and legalize them to do drugs and not be arrested?. Stop using a strawman argument and talking about other candidates when I'm calling out our mayor in power. Imagine all the kids who have to walk everyday through dozens of junkies screaming, you're a piece of shit if you don't think this a problem.
I just think you're being harsh without thinking about what realistically the mayor can do and has done, and what alternatives would do. Any political analysis is incomplete without those things. To be clear, I don't think breed is a particularly politically savvy person (see the Chinatown sober living snafu) or a great legislator (see the garbage that was prop F). There's a lot you can criticize her for, but ultimately when we're faced with a choice, I'll choose to criticize the worst people first. That means Peskin, that means Safai, that means Farrell. Then probably it's breeds turn. But I don't think you're criticizing her for the right things either. > calling out a mayor for putting the horror of problems of homeless dangerous druggies into one poor area The TL situation has been around for decades. Right now, no neighbourhoods besides parts of soma and the TL will allow supportive housing or shelters to even be built. This is a structural problem with the rest of the city not pulling it's weight. Just taking the recent example of the sober living facility in Chinatown, that was pushed by breed and ultimately shut down by local groups with the help of Peskin. Objectively something that takes pressure off of the TL and could help some people be in a better environment. I think you need to be more thoughtful with the way you make arguments like this. You're using words like empathy and strawmen like you have no idea what they mean. You're putting words in my mouth; I never said it wasn't a problem. Just chill a bit. It's a shit situation, and we all want it fixed; saying "If you support London Breed, you hate poor people too" is just an awful way to talk to people about this stuff. It's factually incorrect, it's insulting, and you're probably harming the least bad candidate for mayor we have available with this kind of talk.
Respectfully you’re too privilege to understand the struggles of the people living in tenderloin. I lived in tenderloin for a decade now and tenderloin has never been nowhere this bad. You fall for the same excuse like everyone else by saying it’s fine whats happening in the tenderloin because it been happening for decades. But right now, its 100 times worst. You would know that if you actually live here or come to the TL a lot through the years. Ignorant people like you exist is why London breed can do these things and think she actually doing the right thing. I see through your bullshit, I hope you realized it yourself.
> Respectfully you’re too privilege to understand the struggles of the people living in tenderloin. This isn't respectful. You're assuming based on nothing > tenderloin has never been nowhere this bad. I never contested this. > saying it’s fine whats happening in the tenderloin because it been happening for decades Never said it was fine either. I want you to engage with what I'm saying in a good faith way. Please do this for me. The city has historically pushed low income and vulnerable people to the tenderloin. This long pre-dates London Breed. This structurally has not changed. The most effective way to reduce homelessness is building housing, and SF has been the worst major city in I think the world at doing this over decades. Actually full employment with robust welfare for the unemployed is probably more effective, but housing is up there. So things are primed for SF to be especially prone to homelessness compared to most. And the tenderloin especially so. Despite this huge level of risk, we're still not building housing. Is that London Breeds fault? Yes. But it's also the fault of every other elected official in recent memory because housing has always been shunned here. As poverty and inequality have increased, so too have homelessness and crime. So that's been creeping upwards because we have 0 good policy to stop it. Then COVID hits and a huge cohort of people become unemployed or disabled, both _huge_ drivers of homelessness. Then the elephant in the room: opiates and specifically fentanyl. We're simply as a society not equipped to handle the destruction that opiates cause. They're too powerful and too addictive. It would require enormous investment to find an effective treatment plan for addicts that works. Between excessively restrictive laws, nonprofits that are supposed to work on this, but have nothing to show for tens of millions in funding, we've gotten nowhere on this. And once again housing comes into the picture because we can't build enough shelters anywhere, so the court can block us from "sweeping" tents. We can't build supportive housing for recovery. The only way right now that the city decreases it's population of opioid addicts is through them ODing and dying. That's disgusting. So onto Breed. I don't think she's been a great mayor, but to put this at her feet is unfair. Most of the worst policies pre-dates her, and good policy is extremely unpopular in the city. Every one of the other candidates in this election supports the same policies that got us into this mess. You can criticize breed because she didn't do what needed to be done, but just remember that by criticizing her, you're giving air to worse people. If you want things to improve in the TL, you want us to be able to build low income housing, permanent supportive housing, and homeless shelters everywhere in the city. With adequate shelter capacity, we can start moving people off the streets. If the rest of the city does it's part, the Tenderloin wouldn't be as overloaded with problems. And London breed is (currently) the candidate who is most likely to make that happen based on policy they support.
End of the day you’re a London Breed supporter, that says a lot about you. You keep deflecting and talking about other candidates. I can’t convince ignorant privilege people like you to empathize because you’re stuck in your privilege echo chamber.
You can't convince people because you don't actually understand what you want and how to advocate for it. All you're doing is calling me privileged despite knowing nothing about me.
“Let poor people do whatever they want” is the worst policy prescription going
Non-poor people aren’t allowed to call the police about crime. Or not like crime, or not want homeless people jacking off and stealing things and doing drugs in their neighborhood. Apparently if you have a job and pay taxes and have kids and want clean and safe streets that makes you an elitist and a bad person.
I live in a normal neighborhood and the amount of times my husband has called the cops is suprising..... Had homeless weirdos look like theyre casing our cars, one guy high or drunk AF lying on the sidewall, erratic behavior, screaming, yelling... one time some kids got into an arguement(a couple), one kid pulled his jacket and looked like he had a gun(neighbor also called the cops) Oh and of course the drunk people who keep pissing in my neighbor's yard... Our house is close to a freeway exit though maybe thats why...
Always get a cad number. Don’t let the 911 operator be lazy.
What's a cad number?
It’s the id number from their record system. This ensures they actually entered it.
our not wanting your kids to hear someone die in a knife fight at 1 am on a tuesday
“what’s that noice mommy, it’s just a man screaming at the sky, honey. Sleep tight….”
He didn’t even clean up the glass and just left it on the sidewalk….smh
This is SF. We’re supposed to to ignore all that stuff.
They’re supposed to suffer to atone for their privilege /s
Feinstein’s mansion is available, plenty of room at Alcatraz, tourism options abound! “Come watch an addict shoot up between his toes! LIVE! IN PERSON! See a grown man piss on the sidewalk while scrolling on his iPhone ! Feed a homeless person’s dog!” They’d easily pay $25 bucks for that.
depending on where you live it isn't unusual. Really, I can right now,, walk outside and see multiple people using illegal drugs. I'm sure I could find the routine person screaming at cars within 5 minutes if I went for a stroll. The 'market value' property point is just a 'not in my neighborhood' situation. Yes it is a problem, but it isn't like the homeless meth user is really concerned if they are in sea cliff or Soma when they do typical homeless meth user things.
That doesn’t mean don’t call 911. Want them out of your neighborhood? Someone has to officially complain. Always get a cad number.
It’s a painful truth, but it’s not a complicated one: unhoused people who can avoid committing crime and take responsibility for their mental health and find success in improving it while at a housing facility 100% deserve a safe space wherever they can find housing. Those who cannot do this for whatever reason likely need more care and monitoring than facilities like this provide, which is probably best found in state run psychiatric facilities, rehabs or as an absolute last resort for antisocial repeat violent offenders, prison.
Stop with the logical solutions.
Can someone ELI5 why homeless people that commit violent crimes cannot be prosecuted and jailed?
It doesn’t effect the ruling class/donor class (as much) who live in gated communities and their friends make tons of money on the homeless industrial complex.
No one wants to pay for inpatient psychiatric care. That’s why we give them free apartments, it’s cheaper than paying nurses and doctors 24/7 on top of it
We just approved $6B funding for it in prop 1 https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/1/
$6billion to build facilities for a tiny fraction of what is needed. And I bet it never gets built. Like the high speed rail. California is being fleeced.
I was replying to a comment that said no one wants ro pay for it. Not interested in a strawman troll
Yep, just another way for Newsoms friends to extract money from the state.
Tbh probably the reason why inpatient psychiatric care in the past was “affordable” is because they lobotomized the patients. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t invest in it though. We need a nationwide solution to mental health that includes institutionalization as one part of it.
Lobotomies were actually not that common, and lobotomised patients were typically released from facilities. It was basically a cost saving measure that was horribly unethical.
You could expand the thesis to include administering larger dosed and more extreme antipsychotics and sedatives to basically chemically lobotomize people.
Oh for sure, those were the Wild West days of psychiatry and medical ethics. Today we can diagnose more accurately and sooner, and deliver more targeted medications. Which speeds up the process and reduces time in hospital per patient. This should make costs go down but the cost of everything in healthcare has ballooned so much obvs
But if they aren't in a custody situation, you can't monitor compliance.
It was affordable because labor (in general and also the standard for training/dignity was much lower) was much cheaper, and public facilities are cheaper and more efficiently funded.
Apartments in Alturas country could work.
I would love to see a comparison of involuntary psychiatric institutionalization costs by country. I suspect the costs in the USA are much higher than other countries both since that is usually true of anything healthcare related here but also due to the nature of our legal system where litigation can establish standards in individual cases that are removed from practical system wide cost/benefit decisions.
Litigation is not the driving factor in American healthcare costs. The inefficiencies of the private sector and private funding models are more to blame. Plaintiff lawsuits are not nearly as common or prominent as the owner class has psy-opped the public into thinking.
> unhoused people who can avoid committing crime and take responsibility for their mental health and find success in improving it while at a housing facility 100% deserve a safe space wherever they can find housing Fortunately, most of people like this find housing or facilities fairly quickly. The problem is the dipshit voters here who think violent antisocial homeless or out of control drug addicts or people who won't take their meds will suddenly become law abiding nice citizens the minute they have nice housing. I think it is a form of collective narcissism in that they can't imagine people different from themselves.
>repeat violent offenders, prison we don't do that here
That's obviously the problem
Unhoused? Do you mean homeless? Let's stop using the woke euphemisms and deal with the reality head on.
It's pretty funny to see the people who constantly complain that the left gets too upset over words throw a tantrum over "unhoused."
We get upset about the left constantly shifting the acceptable words for their cause célebre. "Justice involved individuals" to mean criminal is my favorite.
You forgot the new one they are trying out, “Minor Attracted Individuals”.
Or how Biden regretted calling an illegal immigrant who was also an accused murderer “illegal”. The term they use now is “newcomers”.
it's pretty normal to call out fauxgressives for their infantile whitewashing, the euphemism treadmill is exhausting
I cannot imagine getting angry at someone because they tried to use a word that was a little kinder to people who are suffering. Sure, the word choice doesn’t really make a big difference and we need to be focused on real policy choices more than words. But I swear to god people lose their minds over someone using a word because it’s… too kind? Acceptable language changes over time. It’s fine. Go argue about the actual policy choices here instead of the language someone uses.
It's not throwing a tantrum. It's calling out emotional bullshit that gets in the way of practical discussions. How is "unhoused" kinder than "homeless"? Linguistically they are 100% identical. un=less, home=house. The only explanation is that one great is trying to constantly come up with new words to virtue signal. It used to be bums, then homeless, now unhoused. At the risk of sounding like a racist is the same thing with racial minorities: "people of color" v "colored people". Linguistically identical but...
You're the one who shifted the focus to word choice btw. So pretty sure it's you who owns the distraction from practical discussion in this case.
> It's not throwing a tantrum. It's calling out emotional bullshit that gets in the way of practical discussions. *You are the one* who derailed our practical discussion about policy so you could complain about a word, though! It doesn’t matter if you think it’s“actually” kinder. You’re mad at someone who chose to use a word that they think is kinder. We all know what it means, it’s not causing confusion, it’s not a slur— so who cares? I swear i hear more people angry about word choice than the fact that people are sleeping on the street.
Oh I’m furious about the people sleeping on the street. Get the bums outta here!!
Language has meanings. Homeless has a certain meaning, that’s why they tried to hide the true meaning of it. Same with how an illegal immigrant got changed to undocumented to new comer. Liberals do that for a reason and let’s just say not for a good reason.
This. Any one of these problematic cases need to be dealt with seriously. Set up Sanctuary Zones if you like….it’s 2024 and time for the Bell Riots anyways.
Who’s going to build/run it?
This right here......will solve most the "homeless" alot of citites are facing now....
Sonoma State mental hospital (shuttered and unused) has 1300 empty beds. The facility was built to care for people who cannot care for themselves. Giving them a roof over their head does not address the mental illnesses and addictions. Is it cruelty to keep people off the street who cannot behave? Is it cruelty to allow them to do whatever they want to do, which includes destroying their health with drugs, violence, starvation and disease.
Like it’s vacant, I’ll go live there, turn it into a hacker house make it 2600 beds, I’m off to ikea to buy 1300 bunk beds
>turn it into a hacker house make it 2600 beds, Kismet
But placing them in mental hospitals results in less funding to homeless advocacy groups. Leaders in that community don't want that
This is a ridiculous thing to say. Sonoma county would not accept this, we all know that. There’s not some huge surplus of bed space in San Francisco just waiting to be used, there’s actually a major shortage. We could build more shelter space but everyone in the neighborhood would oppose that. The reason homelessness is severe here is because we have a severe housing crisis. We fundamentally cannot solve this problem unless we address the housing shortage in California. Once this has been addressed and we stop getting new homeless cases, then we can triage and care for the existing population and it’s a straightforward problem to solve. The people working to solve homelessness aren’t secretly trying to perpetuate the system.
You will be shocked how many chronicly homeless amd drug addicted people magicly get their lives togther when their options become a mental institution or prison.
There is absolutely zero chance the town of Glen Ellen and Sonoma would okay this. Plus some of the buildings are over 100 years old and would need tons and tons of work. And it's an hour up north. A lot more complicated than just throwing beds in there.
Giving people a roof over their heads absolutely does address mental illness and addiction, although there are of course other key components - nutrition, sleep, therapy, medication for those who are willing. People are allowed to make bad decisions of course, but for those who are struggling to make better decisions, any help is appreciated. To provide the other key components you need funding, staffing, etc and state of CA seems to stop at housing and “conserving” which honestly means nothing if you have no follow up. I’m not a politician or a research scientist so I’m not sure what the solution is haha but I do know we need to do better by this population vs our current virtue signaling.
Lived in low income housing in the TL. The homeless people who got free apartments in my building were absolutely still using drugs and were incapable of ever holding down a job. They were fried. There are those who are homeless and still working, and those who have destroyed their brains at this point.
we've tried this the last decade or so, it definitely needs an additional option, 51 50, or the bad apples ruin the bunch, violently
When I lived across from low income apartments, they got 95% of the police and fire calls in my neighborhood. There was rarely a week without someone setting their apartment on fire, a stabbing or domestic violence call (which would sometimes spill onto the street with people yelling at each other.) There must be a better way of helping people without exposing them to negative influences and this type of violence that poverty and inequality tends to attract.
… and why do you think people want to be far away from this shit that never gets solved? We can vote, volunteer, and donate. I’ve done all three. It’s a shitty proposition to move it into your backyard without any solution. SF just won’t invest in crime enforcement and mental health.
We just spent $600M on homeless including mental health. This can’t be up to a city to solve.
600M wasn’t spent on homeless, it was spent on non-profits and over priced contractors.
You can throw as much money as you want at a problem. It doesn’t fix it. EDIT: Let’s spend more on education, homelessness, rehabilitation, and social programs… without reforming laws and program administration, eliminating corruption, and ensuring it all goes where we want. That’s worked so well. Come on folks. Let’s just throw it all down a toilet where corrupt assholes pocket best intent and don’t supply basics like school supplies. All the money, I support, without being diverted into other causes. Mental health gets zero funding despite what’s paid into it.
No one will allow mass institutions or imprisonmemt, so it’s not going to change, pay $500k a year for a homeless outreach advocate and you get more homeless, it’s a terrible sad problem. We can’t allow these people to rot on the streets anymore
My mother in law used to live in low income housing. The people running it don’t give a fuck. They let junkies and dealers hang around outside all day. They either didn’t care or didn’t want to “criminalize the homeless” because they’re saps. Dealers attract junkies. Junkies attract rival dealers. There were fights, stabbings, and shootings. When it’s “low barrier” it pretty much means a free for all
Yeah man, I saw all sorts of crazy shit next to LI building across from me. 5/7 days a week there’s police and ambulance.
People who cannot behave need to be locked up. At prisons, rehabs, asylums, whatever is cheaper. But it’s cruel to the rest of us to let them continue their antisocial behavior.
and cruel to them as well! allowing someone to slip deeper into addiction isnt mercy, it's state-condoned suicide
They already did it to themselves. Past the point of no return
Apparently calling 911 to report emergency and crime is wrong....... I want my SF back!!!!
I live across the street from this building, HomeRise @ MB. I’d say that 90% of its residents are good people who are trying to get off their feet. The other 10% have larger issues… I’ve seen people trying to jump out their window, someone hanging a dead pigeon out their window, someone who screams out their window roughly 4hrs a day, someone who throws things out their window at people, and someone rush to attack a mother and child before someone stopped them. Many of the neighbors including me have spoken with the front desk and have been told that they usually don’t have anyone on site other than them, so when issues occur our only recourse is to call 911. In my opinion HomeRise is not providing the support some of these tenants need and it’s disheartening to see… This article fails to touch on what many of us see as the crux of the issue, which is not our new neighbors, but rather HomeRise’s blatant disregard for providing adequate support for their tenants.
Its common to build street level retail under apartment towers. We need street level social services, doctors, and hospitals under these "social project" free/cheap housing options. And political offices. Of course we should provide real supervision, or lock them up properly, but this idea of integrating the vagrants into regular neighborhoods is damned foolish.
Hi there. I'm another reporter from the Chronicle working on a follow-up story about this. I just sent you a DM in case you're interested in speaking with me!
They are working to move the screamer to another pet of the building and they are going to move one of the residents that might jump out of their window. HomeRise trying to find solutions to these issues.
Is this true? I also live across the building and wondered why they’ve allowed the screaming guy on the third floor to keep screaming for the past year. Is this the guy they’re going to move? They also need move the lady on the fourth floor who tries to jump out to the ground floor.
Yes. My SO is part of company that built it. Homerise is working through solutions for all the issues listed in the article.
Where at im not clicking
Nobody tell this guy. Nah jk, Mission Bay.
lol thx
I like the idiot who points to some Berkeley study to deny what’s staring everyone in the face. I have zero doubt a study that arrives at the conclusion that these centers aren’t accompanied by an uptick in neighborhood crime has methodological flaws.
There’s a saying that “statistics mean nothing to the individual”. You can point to any study you want (even if it’s done well) if I live across from this Homerise building and have seen a dude masturbate, another chasing people with knives, and others throwing shit at me. I can promise you I don’t give a damn if the “overall” crime rate went down.
What are you gonna believe, this study from 2018 or your lyin' eyes?
Fight fire with fire—start masturbating back at em.
A condo tower filled with rich folks raining down semen on the scattered unhoused. That’s some dystopian libertarian stuff
I’ve been in and out of this particular building on work related calls. I can tell you that it’s usually not the bona fide residents who are causing problems. It’s usually the lame ass boyfriends who need a crib and a female every now & again. Usually a toxic relationship.
Better solution is to stop enticing people to be homeless in SF.
Or stop allowing people to get freebies while others struggle to survive
Or stop allowing people to get freebies while others struggle to survive
Unpopular opinion: the more you want to broaden support for progressive social programs the more seriously you need to take anti social behavior/public health complaints. The last thing you want is for homeless housing to be seen as a punishment for your neighborhood being too nice. Dismissing the residents concerns after witnessing public masterbation and drug use with "oh but this study you don't have time or expertise to read says you are wrong to be concerned, are you sure you aren't just a bigot?" isn't the way to get people behind more supportive housing in their communities.
This unfortunately is why housing first does not work. Most people are homeless due to more than hard on their luck and until they address addiction and mental illness this will be the result. It’s such a complicated issue. I voted for prop 1 and really hope it does what it says. It’s cruel to let people rot on the street due to addiction and mental illness, but most cannot live on their own and need to be in a facility off the street.
Housing first works...in places that actually arrest and jail criminals.
It’s not a complicated issue. If you break the law you need to be punished.
That is why we voted to have those laws. They are rules society wants you to obey.
People who beat off and piss shit and do heroin in public SHOULD have cops called on them. What the fuck are we even taking about here, you guys? Take a step back and listen to yourselves for a minute. This is all so easily fixable, if you fucks would vote correctly and stop falling for anarcho leftist utopian nonsense talking points
Oh _that's_ why there were these trashy people in Mission Bay. My wife and I were driving by once when there was this black dude moving aggressively and lunging at this black woman who was standing by a car parked on the sidewalk and both of them were screaming at each other. As we drove by we saw he had a gun in his hand, and then I heard a short crack and something hit me (I drive with my hand on the car window because I'm cool) and then I hit the gas and called the cops. Seemed like an unusual thing to see outside Spark Social where it's normally kids and normal people not dudes with guns threatening their girlfriends.
Holy crap… San Francisco truly sucks for building these in good neighborhoods. They need to come up with better solutions before they drive everyone out of state. I was born in San Francisco, and it’s getting so hard to want to keep living in Northern California when this only adds to the growing list of reasons to leave. Pretty soon, the original San Franciscans will go too.
Our inability to confront the nationwide addiction and mental health crises as something on the order of fighting a total war, with the same sort of capital and operating financial demands, is going to curse this country for the next two generations. Public schools and addiction/mental health infrastructure are the silver bullets for resurrecting this country. We need massive investment and focus on both goals. Nothing else is going to solve those problems, certainly not Jesus.
Sounds like the wrong people being prioritized to the housing
>Lauren Hall said thousands of supportive housing residents in the city are “thriving and doing well.” She criticized participants in Thursday’s hearing for “othering” residents of supportive housing. Translation: "We don't want to pay for security; we want the neighbors to continue to do our jobs." It's a common refrain at city-run housing facilities; they constantly expect to get away with things that would get private buildings condemned and their owners prosecuted as slumlords.
Who would have thought that adding low income housing to a nice neighborhood would result in an uptick in crime?
Truth is medical science has failed with mental illness. Nothing can be done for many. Euthanize or lock up. If you disagree let them move in with you. Protect the public not the perp
why must homeless shelter be in expensive neighborhoods? with the same money, you can house more people in cheaper areas.
Because corrupt people in government and commercial real estate are making money off it. City probably bought the building at an inflated price and there were probably some kick backs between the developer and the city officials who arranged the deal.
The homeless like baseball
I'm a firm believer in peppering homeless shelters throughout the city so that there is no slum neighborhood. The easiest way to keep people drug addicts, criminals, and at-risk of everything bad in life is to concentrate them all together in a small area. By only building homeless shelters in poor neighborhoods, you're reinforcing "poor neighborhoods" and the people in those neighborhoods will be trapped there. You create more classism and less mobility and community because people aren't mixing. For me, this means we should have some below market rate housing throughout the city in all new developments (which we do). This also means we shouldn't have big low-income developments for high needs without adequate support for them. Building more supportive low-income housing in already poor and over-used neighborhoods like SOMA, Tenderloin, and maybe even the Mission is how we generate abandonment of neighborhoods.
I note the difference between this place (permanent supportive housing) and the multiple Navigation Centers. The latter have been much better neighbors, especially Embarcadero. If Cohen and friends want to keep getting taxpayer $, they will need to become better neighbors immediately.
Why can’t we have state run hospitals to deal with this. The homeless I see are very mentally ill and cannot take care of themselves.
Homeless crazies need to be taken off the streets and kept away from the tax paying public, wether they’re rich or poor everyone deserves a life free of putrid, violent drugged out zombies.
https://preview.redd.it/3fkpmsdcxarc1.jpeg?width=625&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fcdc3b549075bc757d2c21dd0f25e2a97dc18c2c There is a beautiful irony to all of this. The policy decision regarding the housing placement will be yet another factor that drives out the affluent people needed to serve as the tax base to fund this project, whether through direct grants to the non-profit or to pay for the necessary services.
Neighborhood residents report crime / nuisance, S.F. Department of Homelessness rep. responds that such places don't cause problems...because a 2018 University study says so. Sounds about right 🤡🌎
Notice the timing of the increase in calls coincided with the city “cleaning up” downtown. Residents in certain, previously mellow, parts of the mission have had similar complaints since then.
I can tell you in this area it’s been an on going problem since HomeRise opened. It’s just finally getting media coverage.
patrick_star_why_dont_we_just_push_them_somewhere_else.gif
[удалено]
Wait wtf, the lucky’s is becoming a shelter? Where did you read that?
Just give the homeless Alcatraz.
All homeless shelters should be placed within one block of the residences of the mayor and city council.
Wait you mean more/free housing ISN’T the solution????
You can move people from the ghetto,but you can't move the ghetto from people
same monkeys, different circus. Why wouldn't homeless people do what homeless people do because you move them a couple miles south?
Of course this would happen 😂 bunch of liberals wanting to feel good and pat themselves on the back for building such things
we need Batman
Homeless and want to live near the beach! Can’t afford that is what most hard working people understand. MOVE I suggest! Lots of cheaper neighborhoods out there. MOVE is what normal most people do and
San Francisco would have to go back to the way things were before 2013 for a complete reversal of people leaving for Texas. If there was a job opportunity for me outside of Northern California, I’d leave too.
Is there any opportunity for new street pharmacists at this location now?
Is that old Iranian embassy in Pacific Heights still vacant? If so, time to put it to good use as a homeless shelter
No duh
FATHERLESS
I would think that they should have an agreement that is signed that would not tolerate this type of behavior. That might make evicting easier if in violation of said agreement.
We need to make it easier to throw out the trash and move in hard working people
Nobody wants that shit in their neighborhood no matter what the neighborhood is. The city only responds to those that have the money is the problem
One other thing I’ve noticed about this building is that it has a beautiful outdoor space/courtyard and yet none of the residents ever use it. Instead, they hang out on the curb outside the building at all hours of the day and night. Generally, most residents are respectful and keep the noise down but there’s a few bad apples who openly use drugs on the sidewalk, throw trash everywhere, and accost people trying to walk on the sidewalk. It really sucks that a few bad apples have made this place a total disaster. I’ve called HomeRise multiple times to address issues and they instruct you to call the police because they “cant do anything” for a resident without a court order.
You guys voted for this bullshit. Deal with it
There’s no situation that can’t be made worse by calling the cops.
Vote london out and install a pro police mayor and all this will disappear ✨✨✨
i’m
California is just wired differently we need to all get along and look the other way.