SF Art gallery owner frustrated with homeless

[Remarkableriots]

 

[Biggie]

Won’t be long now

[Guest]

I get the frustration of the business owner, what a train wreck the situation is, but spraying another human being with a water hose like that is too much. Ultimately if the government doesn’t make running your business feasible because they won’t do anything about a particular issue, pack up and find a place that will provide you the situation needed to thrive.

[SuperSpreader]

6 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I get the frustration of the business owner, what a train wreck the situation is, but spraying another human being with a water hose like that is too much. Ultimately if the government doesn’t make running your business feasible because they won’t do anything about a particular issue, pack up and find a place that will provide you the situation needed to thrive.

Oh yeah that's easy to do in SF

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

That gallery owner's property should be expropriated and turned into a shelter.

[unogueen]

9 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

That gallery owner's property should be expropriated and turned into a shelter.

If business must demean humanity, the business should not exist.

[best3444]

Extremely degrading in what he did. I don't blame him for his frustration, though. In my city they just cleaned up nearly 3 blocks of homeless people just living on the sidewalks. It's absolutely ridiculous.

[TUFKAK]

Oh look, all these non SF people with opinions. You’re welcome to come volunteer with this population if you’re so highly concerned about them.

 

they get nothing but the bare minimum legal requirement from me.

[TUFKAK]

And ftr, I know the homeless person in this video, I’ve had several run ins with her.

[Remarkableriots]

I've had to kick out plenty of homeless people because they would like to camp out at the store. I couldn't leave them unattended to get stuff done in the back, like cleaning and stocking.

[AlwaysDyingX]

But hey, keep the borders open. 

[SuperSpreader]

1 minute ago, BasemntDweller2 said:

But hey, keep the borders open. 

 

lolwut

[unogueen]

12 hours ago, TUFKAK said:

Oh look, all these non SF people with opinions. You’re welcome to come volunteer with this population if you’re so highly concerned about them.

 

they get nothing but the bare minimum legal requirement from me.

Are you so married to personal choice that people should just be homeless elsewhere? Scream at the government for a solution that actually works. That's literally their job.

[legend]

Let's just give them housing.

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, legend said:

Let's just give them housing.

That largely is not the problem. I work with an organization here in Houston which provides all manner of assistance to the homeless population here. The percentage of folks who we get into free housing that are back on the street within 90 days is something crazy like 95%.

The two main drivers of the homelessness crisis are mental health issues and drug addiction, not the lack of housing itself.

 

One area that we could improve with more housing are single mother homelessness which is typically caused by a lack of financial resources for housing, though that tends to be a shorter term problem as we do have programs to assist with this demographic. It just can be difficult for a woman, often fleeing violence from a partner, to initially access these resources which leads to the short term things like sleeping in cars.

 

But there are still plenty of good reasons to build more housing 😊

[stepee]

8 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

That largely is not the problem. I work with an organization here in Houston which provides all manner of assistance to the homeless population here. The percentage of folks who we get into free housing that are back on the street within 90 days is something crazy like 95%.

The two main drivers of the homelessness crisis are mental health issues and drug addiction, not the lack of housing itself.

 

One area that we could improve with more housing are single mother homelessness which is typically caused by a lack of financial resources for housing, though that tends to be a shorter term problem as we do have programs to assist with this demographic. It just can be difficult for a woman, often fleeing violence from a partner, to initially access these resources which leads to the short term things like sleeping in cars.

 

But there are still plenty of good reasons to build more housing 😊

 

I wouldn’t push aside housing so quickly, and it might matter more in some areas than others, but it is important still along with other factors you mentioned. At some point, they will need a place to live, and likely will need assistance with that as just getting a place here is incredibly challenging and often strict. It’s a combination of factors and we should address them all and not dismiss any.

 

I find the most important thing to tackling this issue is to do something about it. SF has a big doing nothing about it problem. And that has been for decades, this is not new, and it has applied across all party lines, SF has just utterly failed to address this. 

 

I work with a non profit in the east bay that helps homeless people with housing, food, showers, job placement, drug treatment, counseling, domestic violence issues, etc. It might blow peoples minds but since someone has actually been doing something about it there, the cities homelessness situation has significantly improved. Crazy!

[legend]

55 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

That largely is not the problem. I work with an organization here in Houston which provides all manner of assistance to the homeless population here. The percentage of folks who we get into free housing that are back on the street within 90 days is something crazy like 95%.

The two main drivers of the homelessness crisis are mental health issues and drug addiction, not the lack of housing itself.

 

One area that we could improve with more housing are single mother homelessness which is typically caused by a lack of financial resources for housing, though that tends to be a shorter term problem as we do have programs to assist with this demographic. It just can be difficult for a woman, often fleeing violence from a partner, to initially access these resources which leads to the short term things like sleeping in cars.

 

But there are still plenty of good reasons to build more housing 😊

 

I have no doubt mental health and drug issues plague the homeless. Giving them housing isn't going to suddenly cure everything about the homeless. But getting them off the street seems like a big win for *everyone*

 

I'm not sure why the homeless you're talking about are "back on the street in 90 days." That suggests to me they're not really being given a place to stay but adding a whole lot of hoops that make it impractical. Given the general attitude of the country regarding the homeless, it's easy for me to believe this is being poorly implemented at best.

 

But no, I don't have first hand experience to have a particularly nuanced opinion on the solution. But I do think far too much of the public resists just paying to help them because they don't like the idea of giving away basic needs, even if it ends up costing us more to not do it.

[TUFKAK]

11 hours ago, stepee said:

 

I wouldn’t push aside housing so quickly, and it might matter more in some areas than others, but it is important still along with other factors you mentioned. At some point, they will need a place to live, and likely will need assistance with that as just getting a place here is incredibly challenging and often strict. It’s a combination of factors and we should address them all and not dismiss any.

 

I find the most important thing to tackling this issue is to do something about it. SF has a big doing nothing about it problem. And that has been for decades, this is not new, and it has applied across all party lines, SF has just utterly failed to address this. 

 

I work with a non profit in the east bay that helps homeless people with housing, food, showers, job placement, drug treatment, counseling, domestic violence issues, etc. It might blow peoples minds but since someone has actually been doing something about it there, the cities homelessness situation has significantly improved. Crazy!

I have to disagree with SF not offering resources, we offer way more than any place I’ve ever worked including a city issued stipend, SROs are everywhere (the city fails at shelters), and so on.

 

My experience here is the homeless often refuse discharge to shelters, when offered SROs they decline, refuse medications when offered at no expense.

 

When I worked east bay the high thing I noticed is LE actually would clear areas of camps in residential areas so it’s more out of sight. But I worked out at that 24 off of Alameda by the Home Depot for years and there’s always been a massive camp there, but it’s industrial so OPD didn’t touch them. Was the same when I lived in alameda, they were cleared in the residential area but by the base, not at all.

[Jason]

Of course homelessness is primarily a lack of housing issue. Just lol to think otherwise.

 

'It’s a miracle': Helsinki's radical solution to homelessness | Cities | The Guardian

WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM

---

Finland is the only EU country where homelessness is falling. Its secret? Giving people homes as soon as they need them – unconditionally

 

Also plenty of people became mentally ill due to protracted homelessness, as opposed to having become homeless due to mental illness.

[CastlevaniaNut18]

As much as I enjoyed my time in the PNW, I couldn’t deal with the crazy numbers of homelessness on the west coast. It’s bad enough in my city, but living where I do, I don’t deal with them except for work. And those weren’t positive experiences for the most part. 

[Keyser_Soze]

Editorial: Yes, it really will take billions of dollars a year to solve homelessness in California

WWW.LATIMES.COM

---

Gov. Newsom has made record investments to ease homelessness. But ending the humanitarian crisis will require more money over a longer period of time.

 

[Guest]

9 hours ago, TUFKAK said:

My experience here is the homeless often refuse discharge to shelters, when offered SROs they decline, refuse medications when offered at no expense.

It’s exactly the reason why the folks I work with are out of the free housing given in less than 3 months. They aren’t thinking in a remotely rational way, and prefer the street life.

 

And yes, SF provides tons of resources which is why the city is an importer of homelessness from all over the country. LA doesn’t provide as many services, but it also has the weather resource pulling people there.

[Zaku3]

Gus Fring we are not the same

IMGFLIP.COM

---

An image tagged gus fring we are not the same

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Jason is right.

 

And there's a difference between the chronically homeless (those homeless for a year+ or 4 times in the past 3 years for a total of a year plus, account for approx 20% of the homeless population, are largely unsheltered, and often do have substance abuse and mental health issues but whose overall number hasn't changed all that much) and the sharply increasing number of people who experience homelessness on a temporary basis and is directly linked to high housing/rental prices.

 

 

SF and LA also don't provide the level of services needed. which is in sharp contrast to NYC which has established a right to shelter since the early 1980's (Callahan v. Carey) and while it falls short, it still has nearly a bed for every homeless person in NY. Contrast with LA, which has a similar homeless population (about 70k people) but has only 16k shelter beds available.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

And there's a difference between the chronically homeless (those homeless for a year+ or 4 times in the past 3 years for a total of a year plus, account for approx 20% of the homeless population, are largely unsheltered, and often do have substance abuse and mental health issues but whose overall number hasn't changed all that much) and the sharply increasing number of people who experience homelessness on a temporary basis and is directly linked to high housing/rental prices.

The temporarily homeless aren’t the ones building tent encampments in front of businesses. The temporarily homeless aren’t the ones creating open air drug markets. The temporarily homeless aren’t the ones using the sidewalks as their restrooms.

 

The issue going on in this story isn’t about a down on their luck person who is between jobs and living out of their car after they were evicted.

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Just now, sblfilms said:

The temporarily homeless aren’t the ones building tent encampments in front of businesses. The temporarily homeless aren’t the ones creating open air drug markets. The temporarily homeless are using the sidewalks as their restrooms.

 

The issue going on in this story isn’t about a down on their luck person who is between jobs and living out of their car after they were evicted.

 

you dont see how a massively increased burden on housing and homeless services generally due to an increasing number of temporarily* homeless population might trickle down into worse services for those with deeper issues? like if you're an agency or nonprofit focused on helping the homeless or other vulnerable populations with limited dollars who are you going to prioritize your spending and outreach: on the family recently evicted because mom lost her job or the asshole (at best) guy who has been living in a tent for the past 15 months? 

[Jason]

1 hour ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Jason is right.

 

And there's a difference between the chronically homeless (those homeless for a year+ or 4 times in the past 3 years for a total of a year plus, account for approx 20% of the homeless population, are largely unsheltered, and often do have substance abuse and mental health issues but whose overall number hasn't changed all that much) and the sharply increasing number of people who experience homelessness on a temporary basis and is directly linked to high housing/rental prices.

 

 

SF and LA also don't provide the level of services needed. which is in sharp contrast to NYC which has established a right to shelter since the early 1980's (Callahan v. Carey) and while it falls short, it still has nearly a bed for every homeless person in NY. Contrast with LA, which has a similar homeless population (about 70k people) but has only 16k shelter beds available.

 

And the idea that homeless people are some huge export to California from other states is a myth. For LA County about 75% of homeless people in the county became homeless here. And to the extent that other states do ship their homeless here, we also put homeless people on one-way buses back to where they came from, so it's not just a one-way street.

 

On the Finland thing, note that they also have the various wraparound services for those who do need help beyond a roof over their heads. But the number one thing is getting people into housing. In terms of building housing, the housing crisis is a huge driver of why so many people live paycheck to paycheck. If we had significantly more housing those people would actually be able to save up some money and be able to afford to stay in their apartments after getting fired while they look for another job.

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

you dont see how a massively increased burden on housing and homeless services generally due to an increasing number of temporarily* homeless population might trickle down into worse services for those with deeper issues? like if you're an agency or nonprofit focused on helping the homeless or other vulnerable populations with limited dollars who are you going to prioritize your spending and outreach: on the family recently evicted because mom lost her job or the asshole (at best) guy who has been living in a tent for the past 15 months? 

From my experience in the space, two vastly different types of orgs assist with these vastly different populations. The org I work with isn’t spending resources on the evicted mom, it is on the asshole-y guy.

 

But I’m sure there is crosstalk happening between these populations and the services being offered. I simply don’t believe there is evidence that suggests more housing makes a dent in the issues that lead to the woman in the video camping in front of the business.
 

There are other populations for which it would be helpful, though even those populations tend to have better options for services that tend to avoid them actually sleeping on the streets.

[Jason]

Why look at the actual evidence out of Finland when we have our anecdotes and vibes.

[stepee]

Cleaning up the shelters in SF and having better security and paying more attention to how they are grouping people and making them safe so that some of the homeless don’t opt to stay in the street because they feel safer would be a good start.

 

There’s a whole bunch that can be done on many levels, and SF has programs but it’s obviously not enough and the answer is never to just keep doing the same thing and complain about the problem hoping that will somehow solve it.

 

[Remarkableriots]

11 hours ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

As much as I enjoyed my time in the PNW, I couldn’t deal with the crazy numbers of homelessness on the west coast. It’s bad enough in my city, but living where I do, I don’t deal with them except for work. And those weren’t positive experiences for the most part. 

I had to deal with a lot of homeless in Reno.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

2 hours ago, sblfilms said:

From my experience in the space, two vastly different types of orgs assist with these vastly different populations. The org I work with isn’t spending resources on the evicted mom, it is on the asshole-y guy.

 

But I’m sure there is crosstalk happening between these populations and the services being offered. I simply don’t believe there is evidence that suggests more housing makes a dent in the issues that lead to the woman in the video camping in front of the business.
 

There are other populations for which it would be helpful, though even those populations tend to have better options for services that tend to avoid them actually sleeping on the streets.

yeah, there's a lot of 'specialization' in terms of orgs and how and who they help. But your contention would naturally lead us to believe that the temporarily unhoused does not affect the services offered to those more chronically homeless. there's still limited resources for both groups, as even the disparate orgs working on different types of homelessness get their money from roughly the same places (government being a very large if not the largest part of it) which is very finite. It's not going to be 1:1 but there's a lot of resources that could be moved from column a to column b at the policy level (and I will contend that current combined support still isn't enough)

 

at the end of the day, California especially but the government generally needs to vastly increase the housing supply at the very lowest levels to the middle income and above. getting people in permanent housing before anything else beats a shelter (which should be triage, but even still CA doesn't have nearly enough of it) but that still beats the street, and you can't look anyone in the face and say the vast majority of people on the street want to stay there, but there's plenty of valid reasons for not wanting to be in a shelter as things are now. But most importantly helping people before the point of homelessness (and running the risk of long term homelessness) requires having affordable housing, as increases in real median rent, which has and is vastly outpacing income, generally correlates with upticks in homelessness. When including housing costs in calculations of poverty (the supplemental poverty measure per the census bureau), CA has the highest rate in the country.

 

1 hour ago, stepee said:

Cleaning up the shelters in SF and having better security and paying more attention to how they are grouping people and making them safe so that some of the homeless don’t opt to stay in the street because they feel safer would be a good start.

 

There’s a whole bunch that can be done on many levels, and SF has programs but it’s obviously not enough and the answer is never to just keep doing the same thing and complain about the problem hoping that will somehow solve it.

 

SF has about ~8k homeless but only ~3k shelter beds per SF Chronicle article this week! there is *literally* nowhere for many people to go if they wanted to! Math just doesn't add up! 

[stepee]

3 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

yeah, there's a lot of 'specialization' in terms of orgs and how and who they help. But your contention would naturally lead us to believe that the temporarily unhoused does not affect the services offered to those more chronically homeless. there's still limited resources for both groups, as even the disparate orgs working on different types of homelessness get their money from roughly the same places (government being a very large if not the largest part of it) which is very finite. It's not going to be 1:1 but there's a lot of resources that could be moved from column a to column b at the policy level (and I will contend that current combined support still isn't enough)

 

at the end of the day, California especially but the government generally needs to vastly increase the housing supply at the very lowest levels to the middle income and above. getting people in permanent housing before anything else beats a shelter (which should be triage, but even still CA doesn't have nearly enough of it) but that still beats the street, and you can't look anyone in the face and say the vast majority of people on the street want to stay there, there's plenty of valid reasons for not wanting to be in a shelter as things are now. But most importantly helping people before the point of homelessness (and running the risk of long term homelessness) requires having affordable housing, as increases in real median rent, which has and is vastly outpacing income, generally correlates with upticks in homelessness. When including housing costs in calculations of poverty (the supplemental poverty measure per the census bureau), CA has the highest rate in the country.

 

SF has about ~8k homeless but only ~3k shelter beds per SF Chronicle article this week! there is *literally* nowhere for many people to go if they wanted to! Math just doesn't add up! 

 

Im not arguing against more housing and shelter for the homeless at all, as I am saying, it’s several things that need to happen and that’s one of them. But they need to repair the current shelter system and make better shelters that are more safe for the people staying in them. If the idea is to actually improve the lives of these people, building more shelters doesn’t help that much if it’s less safe than in the street. There needs to be comprehensive reform in how we deal with the entire situation.

[Jason]

3 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

yeah, there's a lot of 'specialization' in terms of orgs and how and who they help. But your contention would naturally lead us to believe that the temporarily unhoused does not affect the services offered to those more chronically homeless. there's still limited resources for both groups, as even the disparate orgs working on different types of homelessness get their money from roughly the same places (government being a very large if not the largest part of it) which is very finite. It's not going to be 1:1 but there's a lot of resources that could be moved from column a to column b at the policy level (and I will contend that current combined support still isn't enough)

 

From what I've seen, in the US, homeless services generally seem to be structured around the assumption that all homeless people are the meth addicts smearing their poop on the sidewalk.

 

4 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

and you can't look anyone in the face and say the vast majority of people on the street want to stay there, there's plenty of valid reasons for not wanting to be in a shelter as things are now.

 

Two reasons I'm aware of:

1. Many homeless people (rightfully) view shelters as unsafe (even before COVID).
2. If accepting a bed means going to the other side of town, they view it as extremely risky to move away from their current support network of other homeless people in the immediate vicinity of where they currently are.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

I think the underlying assumption to my post is that few would say no to safe and easily accessible/nearby shelters as I alluded to there are valid reasons for not going to a shelter