Why is San Francisco covered in human feces?(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Why is San Francisco covered in human feces?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/18/san-francisco-poop-problem-inequality-homelessness
12 comments
San Francisco is like a distopian future from an 80s movie where those with money have the latest technology and skate around on electric scooters while the ignored underclass don't even have access to basic amenities and live in tents.
A good analogy, but drive out to the Central Valley and you'll see a feudal divide that makes SF seem positively egalitarian.
For example all the farm owners' houses are on hills or birds and the workers' housing is in the flood planes. Think I'm exaggerating? Just drive through the Altamont pass and head down 205 towards Tracy. Get off the highway and the divide becomes even more extreme.
For example all the farm owners' houses are on hills or birds and the workers' housing is in the flood planes. Think I'm exaggerating? Just drive through the Altamont pass and head down 205 towards Tracy. Get off the highway and the divide becomes even more extreme.
San Francisco makes me wonder if it is proof that the policies of the Democrats are an egregious and proven failure. I don't know the answer, but it seems self evident, sadly.
I think at least the housing policy is an egregious failure (if a metric is that locals should be able to afford it), although other cities around the bay area should also get some credit. Even if you take being anti-development as reasonable, creating office space (jobs) without proportionate housing just seems like an inevitable disaster (unless you sell your property and/or are a landlord).
At least the democrats here aren't monolithic, there are frequent initiatives at the local or state level to increase the supply but they've (sometimes narrowly) lost.
Also some of California's unusual policies (like the special property tax system and very high income tax) are actually due to a political system where ballot initiatives have more influence and weren't top-down planned by the legislature to begin with.
Anyway, yeah it does seem self evident. I think San Francisco is somewhat extreme relative to the national level though.
At least the democrats here aren't monolithic, there are frequent initiatives at the local or state level to increase the supply but they've (sometimes narrowly) lost.
Also some of California's unusual policies (like the special property tax system and very high income tax) are actually due to a political system where ballot initiatives have more influence and weren't top-down planned by the legislature to begin with.
Anyway, yeah it does seem self evident. I think San Francisco is somewhat extreme relative to the national level though.
I think the city could have done a better job taxing the large tech companies and spending the money on supporting the displaced residents and building more public services.
Taxes would help slow their expansion and in turn the increasing rent. Unfortunately the city has been toothless in this regard for fear of loosing some of the businesses that are causing many of the problems. IMO the threat of of them actually leaving is low given the whole echosytem set up here to support them but they would likely grow a little slower which would actually be for the good of the city.
Taxes would help slow their expansion and in turn the increasing rent. Unfortunately the city has been toothless in this regard for fear of loosing some of the businesses that are causing many of the problems. IMO the threat of of them actually leaving is low given the whole echosytem set up here to support them but they would likely grow a little slower which would actually be for the good of the city.
At the end of the day, even extremely effective policy can't fundamentally undo the economic realities of San Francisco - there is not enough housing to meet demand. You can only do so much for the homeless when you can't actually give them homes or jobs.
The argument is that not enough housing to meet demand is because of the policies and politicians of SF. There are levers with which they can control both the demand and supply.
Right, taxing large corporations more and making their takeover of the city slower would have slowed the increasing demand for housing. SF's government could have chosen to not sell it's soul entirely to big tech while still supporting smaller startups and businesses. I would argue that the policies have not been left wing enough despite the perception that SF is very left wing. Reality is that the leadership of the city is in the pocket of the tech industry.
Let some of the money go elsewhere and boost some other city's economy rather than having it all focused in one place to the point of it causing major problems.
Let some of the money go elsewhere and boost some other city's economy rather than having it all focused in one place to the point of it causing major problems.
The Democrats are a center-right wing party by European standards. Even in SF they put business interests first. You don't see this problem to this extent in major European cities.
Policies of democrats? Who's failure was brought in itself by local government and lobbying constituents.
Such a sad place, makes me feel bad whenever I have to go there. This is one of the main reasons I cut my travels to SF, I just can see that poverty, it's against my life principles.
Same. I moved to the bay 4 years ago and initially loved the city. Now I avoid it like the plague unless there is some absolutely essential need, then I get in and out as fast as possible. How anyone can live in that city and think it’s a nice place to be just blows my mind. People eating $100 brunch as an insane deranged drug addict is dying on their stoop.
I visited a few years ago. Never again. Coming out of our BART station was like stepping into some third-world nation (no offense to third-world nations): garbage everywhere, homeless people struggling to live, cops carefully watching for gang violence to break out. Meanwhile, a block away, someone was getting a $50 basic men’s haircut.
I once walked down Mission St and for blocks the whole thing was like some kind of homeless bazaar. Two women were fighting at one point, and I passed a gentleman in a doorway who I’m pretty sure was dead (he eventually moved, but he was skin and bones..)
Something is terribly, terribly wrong in the Bay Area, and I’m unfortunately not surprised that it continues to get worse. I refuse to ever go back.
I once walked down Mission St and for blocks the whole thing was like some kind of homeless bazaar. Two women were fighting at one point, and I passed a gentleman in a doorway who I’m pretty sure was dead (he eventually moved, but he was skin and bones..)
Something is terribly, terribly wrong in the Bay Area, and I’m unfortunately not surprised that it continues to get worse. I refuse to ever go back.
friends are shocked when I tell them that the plight of beggars on the streets of Mumbai - in terms of mental and physical health, hygiene, and support systems - is far better than that of the homeless in S.F.
From when I lived there it basically boils down to two opposing forces:
1. People believe that there should be support systems in place so that homeless people don’t just die all the time. 2. (Kind of General American thing): the government must never give money, healthcare, welfare sufficient to have a place to live, etc to anyone. Because handouts result in “dependence”, “welfare cheats”, etc
Anyway, part 1 means that if you are homeless, for whatever reason, you’re better off being homeless in a place like SF (esp given its relatively mild climate). But once you are homeless it’s incredibly hard to stop being homeless.
That’s ignoring other issues :
* the group that wants to ensure homes for the homeless intersects heavily with the group that fights against new housing/“gentrification” * many of the well off mostly want to force the homeless to go somewhere else, and don’t want any of “their” money being spent on providing homes
Etc, etc
1. People believe that there should be support systems in place so that homeless people don’t just die all the time. 2. (Kind of General American thing): the government must never give money, healthcare, welfare sufficient to have a place to live, etc to anyone. Because handouts result in “dependence”, “welfare cheats”, etc
Anyway, part 1 means that if you are homeless, for whatever reason, you’re better off being homeless in a place like SF (esp given its relatively mild climate). But once you are homeless it’s incredibly hard to stop being homeless.
That’s ignoring other issues :
* the group that wants to ensure homes for the homeless intersects heavily with the group that fights against new housing/“gentrification” * many of the well off mostly want to force the homeless to go somewhere else, and don’t want any of “their” money being spent on providing homes
Etc, etc
>"2. (Kind of General American thing): the government must never give money, healthcare, welfare sufficient to have a place to live, etc to anyone. Because handouts result in “dependence”, “welfare cheats”"
Yeah that's not at all a "general American thing" - that's a one particular political party thing.
Yeah that's not at all a "general American thing" - that's a one particular political party thing.
We are talking about San Francisco here.
I am not following, the parenthetical part of the OPs comment was "Kind of General American thing." The myth of the welfare queen was very much a Ronald Regan invention, as the then Governor of California [1] and has pretty much endured in the GOP right up through the present day[2].
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/1976/02/15/archives/welfare-queen-be...
[2] https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/06/trumps-work-require...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/1976/02/15/archives/welfare-queen-be...
[2] https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/06/trumps-work-require...
You invoked an off-topic political rant in a discussion about San Francisco. Just what does the GOP have to do with SF politics ?
Many many techies are libertarian, which very much aligns with the GOP (especially these days, even if in theory they shouldn't). E.g. the mantra of the welfare cheat, pulling themselves up by their shoestrings, self made, etc, etc...
My intention was not to invoke an off-topic political rant. The OP's comment indicated that lack of interest in social welfare programs is "a general American thing" and it most certainly is not a "general" thing at all. In fact it's a very "specific thing" espoused by a specific group.
I don't think that disputing the OPs assertion constituted a rant or was off-topic. I had no interest in taking sides either.
I don't think that disputing the OPs assertion constituted a rant or was off-topic. I had no interest in taking sides either.
So you claim that democrats do believe in helping the homeless, unlike republicans. Doesn’t that imply that the Democrats who have ruled San Francisco for the last 40 or more years are grossly incompetent?
But many democrats, while believing in "helping X" still have the American "you can't give people money" ideal.
SF has many incredibly good systems for helping the homeless - medical care, varying amounts of temporary shelter (SROs are kind of required in SF, but it's terribly implemented, and doesn't actually give people a place to live, just sleep). But the help for the homeless does not involve giving money, but you need money to pay rent, so your only real option is to remain homeless.
Honestly though, I feel there's so much accumulated cruft it would take decades to deal with homelessness in America. For instance, if you turn around and give money to the homeless tomorrow the first problem you'll hit is there are now a few thousand additional people competing for the already limited housing in SF. The decades of mismanagement of mental health in CA mean that you have a huge population of mentally ill who are homeless and may not have cognitive resources to make use of (or even get) the money. You also have to deal with decades of drug [ab?]use in the long term homeless - simply having access to a home isn't going to resolve that.
SF has many incredibly good systems for helping the homeless - medical care, varying amounts of temporary shelter (SROs are kind of required in SF, but it's terribly implemented, and doesn't actually give people a place to live, just sleep). But the help for the homeless does not involve giving money, but you need money to pay rent, so your only real option is to remain homeless.
Honestly though, I feel there's so much accumulated cruft it would take decades to deal with homelessness in America. For instance, if you turn around and give money to the homeless tomorrow the first problem you'll hit is there are now a few thousand additional people competing for the already limited housing in SF. The decades of mismanagement of mental health in CA mean that you have a huge population of mentally ill who are homeless and may not have cognitive resources to make use of (or even get) the money. You also have to deal with decades of drug [ab?]use in the long term homeless - simply having access to a home isn't going to resolve that.
That's a strawman. Competency and belief systems are orthogonal concepts. One can be very passionate about a cause and not posses the management skills to achieve a successful or desire outcome regarding that cause.
Democratic Mayor Art Agnos developed a comprehensive program to deal with the homeless problem back in 1989/90 called "Project Shelter"[1] so yes he very much believed in helping the homeless. Unfortunately the Loma Prieta earthquake strikes. He's defeated in the following Mayoral election by another Democrat, Frank Jordan, who shelved the Agnos plan and created his own task force to try to address the homeless problem. So clearly he believed in helping the homeless as well.
However at that same time you had NIMBYs who were upset about the encampment across from City Hall and it was cleared. And you also have have a Republican Governor, Pete Wilson cutting welfare grants.
And it goes way beyond this - the rapid decline in federal public housing development began under Nixon in the early 1970s[2]. The underfunding of the Napa State Mental Hospital was a state issue.
So yes there have been no great successes racked up by Democratic mayors but the problem far more complex and nuanced to lay at the feet of one particular political party and at only the city level.
And again my original comment was not about left vs right, it was about the OPs assertion that a lack of interest in social welfare programs was a "general American thing."
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/1990/07/19/us/san-francisco-treating...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_the_United_S...
Democratic Mayor Art Agnos developed a comprehensive program to deal with the homeless problem back in 1989/90 called "Project Shelter"[1] so yes he very much believed in helping the homeless. Unfortunately the Loma Prieta earthquake strikes. He's defeated in the following Mayoral election by another Democrat, Frank Jordan, who shelved the Agnos plan and created his own task force to try to address the homeless problem. So clearly he believed in helping the homeless as well.
However at that same time you had NIMBYs who were upset about the encampment across from City Hall and it was cleared. And you also have have a Republican Governor, Pete Wilson cutting welfare grants.
And it goes way beyond this - the rapid decline in federal public housing development began under Nixon in the early 1970s[2]. The underfunding of the Napa State Mental Hospital was a state issue.
So yes there have been no great successes racked up by Democratic mayors but the problem far more complex and nuanced to lay at the feet of one particular political party and at only the city level.
And again my original comment was not about left vs right, it was about the OPs assertion that a lack of interest in social welfare programs was a "general American thing."
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/1990/07/19/us/san-francisco-treating...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_the_United_S...
IOW, that's not real communism^Wdemocrats.
In fairness, the first sentence is 100% true: beliefs and competence are very different things, as any real competent person would know ;D
SF needs to deploy the Motocrotte. They used to drive down my street in Paris and were surprisingly effective. Perhaps we could upgrade to an automated one.
(actually what spurred me to write was the surprise that the Guardian, a UK newspaper/web site used the American spelling for faeces).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motocrotte
(actually what spurred me to write was the surprise that the Guardian, a UK newspaper/web site used the American spelling for faeces).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motocrotte
Wow - I have been thinking about these devices for years. I didnt know a city has done them.
Sidewalk-Roomba is what I was picturing in my head, and their design has been a walk-ing exercise I do when walking around the city... basically I just observe the city as I walk through it and think about what it would take to make these feasible.
I was picturing stations where they would go to dock and dump and reload. You would have them assigned to a particular block radius and would monitor the conditions of each given area.
Perform cleanup and what not.
I was picturing something with a bunch of sensors on it, a clean/dirty water tank, tankless water heaters and a preassure washer with a battery pack.
The sensors could track the amount of foot traffic they see pass by them at all times - and you would know the ebb and flow of foot traffic throughout the city as well as the available walking space, timings of lights and buildup of foot traffic for a given intersection for each hour... lots of data.
Sidewalk-Roomba is what I was picturing in my head, and their design has been a walk-ing exercise I do when walking around the city... basically I just observe the city as I walk through it and think about what it would take to make these feasible.
I was picturing stations where they would go to dock and dump and reload. You would have them assigned to a particular block radius and would monitor the conditions of each given area.
Perform cleanup and what not.
I was picturing something with a bunch of sensors on it, a clean/dirty water tank, tankless water heaters and a preassure washer with a battery pack.
The sensors could track the amount of foot traffic they see pass by them at all times - and you would know the ebb and flow of foot traffic throughout the city as well as the available walking space, timings of lights and buildup of foot traffic for a given intersection for each hour... lots of data.
Speaking of Paris, it recently also rolled out sidewalk urinals [0]. Poop is a different matter though.
[0]: https://www.npr.org/2018/08/14/638512558/nope-those-arent-ma...
[0]: https://www.npr.org/2018/08/14/638512558/nope-those-arent-ma...
BTW they have had a variety of public urinals for over a century.
Really difficult to find public restrooms in San Francisco as well. just as a visitor there there were multiple times I needed to use the restroom and it was incredibly difficult to find a business that would let me use the restroom.
Los Angeles has a lot of homeless people as well but there's tons of public restrooms and also businesses are a lot more generous with the restrooms.
Los Angeles has a lot of homeless people as well but there's tons of public restrooms and also businesses are a lot more generous with the restrooms.
When SF businesses allow public restroom access they tend to find heroin addicts passed out in there.
I reject the notion that this problem is even remotely unsolvable. I'm not saying it's easy, I'm not saying it'd be profitable, but it's not that hard.
The reason it feels hard is that it gets politicized and PC'd super fast, which quickly penalizes any form of brainstorming.
Here's some off-the-top-of-my-head brainstorming, that promises nothing, but is infinitely closer to fixing the problem than all the other comments I've heard on this topic in my life put together:
1. Move homeless shelters out of the city proper. This will improve the disease/sanitation problem of homeless living in the subway, for example.
2. Collect accurate data. Do this by finger-printing at food banks and other measures. Accurate data on the role of drugs+schizophrenia is important.
3. Solicit experimental ideas. Could these homeless people be farm hands? Would they want to? Could you create a digital trash-can that pays rewards to homeless who actively clean?
The reason it feels hard is that it gets politicized and PC'd super fast, which quickly penalizes any form of brainstorming.
Here's some off-the-top-of-my-head brainstorming, that promises nothing, but is infinitely closer to fixing the problem than all the other comments I've heard on this topic in my life put together:
1. Move homeless shelters out of the city proper. This will improve the disease/sanitation problem of homeless living in the subway, for example.
2. Collect accurate data. Do this by finger-printing at food banks and other measures. Accurate data on the role of drugs+schizophrenia is important.
3. Solicit experimental ideas. Could these homeless people be farm hands? Would they want to? Could you create a digital trash-can that pays rewards to homeless who actively clean?
San Francisco used to be one of the great American cities. It's a shame how the incompetent and dysfunctional city government has allowed it to decay into a literal shithole.
I'm really mystified as to why tech entrepreneurs seem so enamored of SF. Does being close to good restaurants compensate for all the negatives?
I'm really mystified as to why tech entrepreneurs seem so enamored of SF. Does being close to good restaurants compensate for all the negatives?
Being close to that caliber and density of other tech people compensates.
The Mozilla foundation wants to "do good in the world" but it hires interns in San Francisco; anyone who wants to hire people in San Francisco should be able to do it, but they should also sponsor a bed at the homeless shelter as an offset.
It's interesting that one of the brightest cities of the world can't be bothered to tackle and fix the problem of homelessness.
The city spends a lot on homelessness, but the issue is not so easily solved.
I've lived in SF downtown (right by Mission and 5th) for a few years and know some of this first hand. Some of the reasons I've heard directly are:
1. The only city with so many shelters for homeless. Other cities would just let people die of cold, heat or hunger or send them to SF.
2. Besides homeless shelters, there are absolutely zero places for homeless to go to. At least in third world countries, poverty is acknowledged and there are charitable organizations which help keep people fed and pooped (example Churches, temples, charitable individuals). But in America, churches only get tax breaks and serve the middle class. They don't really do as much social service as their tax breaks should enable them to do.
3. SF is crazy expensive. There is no f-ing way an average homeless person can find a job, make $500 this month and can actually find a home. Why don't they go to a cheaper city/town? Most cities/towns won't allow them to sleep on the street until they find a job. The flight/bus to cheap town is expensive. Cheap town usually looks down on them even more. No shelters in cheap town.
4. American background check system is brutal. One felony record and you are instantly eliminated from many jobs. So, many of these folks with a small time felony charge are can't just walk into a safeway to find a job.
5. There are too many ways to fail in a society with no safety net. A lot of SF homeless were once good citizens. They either got divorced or had a healthcare trauma or lost a job or a combo of things and their nice $50k savings account dropped down to zero in an instant. This is how quick poverty in America is.
6. Poor person penalties are too large. $600 penalty for car getting towed in SF? Are you f-ing kidding me? This will literally cause a poor family to be thrown on the streets.
There could be more reasons but these are ones I'm familiar with. Most homeless weren't homeless from childhood. They were forced into homelessness by some circumstance. At the end, we (including me) are all responsible for this. SF needs to acknowledge their strategies are not long term sustainable. Rest of America needs to stop exporting their homeless and needs to set up retraining and rehabilitation centers. We are all to blame.
1. The only city with so many shelters for homeless. Other cities would just let people die of cold, heat or hunger or send them to SF.
2. Besides homeless shelters, there are absolutely zero places for homeless to go to. At least in third world countries, poverty is acknowledged and there are charitable organizations which help keep people fed and pooped (example Churches, temples, charitable individuals). But in America, churches only get tax breaks and serve the middle class. They don't really do as much social service as their tax breaks should enable them to do.
3. SF is crazy expensive. There is no f-ing way an average homeless person can find a job, make $500 this month and can actually find a home. Why don't they go to a cheaper city/town? Most cities/towns won't allow them to sleep on the street until they find a job. The flight/bus to cheap town is expensive. Cheap town usually looks down on them even more. No shelters in cheap town.
4. American background check system is brutal. One felony record and you are instantly eliminated from many jobs. So, many of these folks with a small time felony charge are can't just walk into a safeway to find a job.
5. There are too many ways to fail in a society with no safety net. A lot of SF homeless were once good citizens. They either got divorced or had a healthcare trauma or lost a job or a combo of things and their nice $50k savings account dropped down to zero in an instant. This is how quick poverty in America is.
6. Poor person penalties are too large. $600 penalty for car getting towed in SF? Are you f-ing kidding me? This will literally cause a poor family to be thrown on the streets.
There could be more reasons but these are ones I'm familiar with. Most homeless weren't homeless from childhood. They were forced into homelessness by some circumstance. At the end, we (including me) are all responsible for this. SF needs to acknowledge their strategies are not long term sustainable. Rest of America needs to stop exporting their homeless and needs to set up retraining and rehabilitation centers. We are all to blame.
There are too many ways to fail in a society with no safety net. A lot of SF homeless were once good citizens.
There's a youtube channel called "Invisible People" that interviews homeless people. https://www.youtube.com/user/invisiblepeopletv Many of them are sane and not addicts, who simply became poor for one reason or another.
These interviews are really heartbreaking. Especially how so many feel the need to emphasize that they are actually human beings, just like the rest of us.
There's a youtube channel called "Invisible People" that interviews homeless people. https://www.youtube.com/user/invisiblepeopletv Many of them are sane and not addicts, who simply became poor for one reason or another.
These interviews are really heartbreaking. Especially how so many feel the need to emphasize that they are actually human beings, just like the rest of us.
Number 1 isn’t true [1]. Sf has far fewer homeless than LA and NYC and far fewer shelters. In fact sf has one of the lowest shelter rates among cities with high numbers of homeless (<50% compared to NYC which is over >75%)
[1]https://m.ranker.com/list/top-10-u-s-cities-with-a-high-home...
[1]https://m.ranker.com/list/top-10-u-s-cities-with-a-high-home...
For all of its faults, the Catholic church does a huge amount of service for low income people.
https://catholiccharitiessf.org/our-programs/#1
https://catholiccharitiessf.org/our-programs/#1
The rest of America isn’t exporting the homeless to SF.
Some stats on California and homelessness:
https://streetlifesolutions.blogspot.com/2018/05/california-...
https://streetlifesolutions.blogspot.com/2018/05/california-...
Where are startups to disrupt homelessness. It would be rather easy to at the very least figure out a sub-population of the homeless that are capable of being rehabilitated into society and specifically design programs to help those get off the street.
Kinda working on it. It's not easy though.
The plastic bag ban.
https://www.pacificresearch.org/is-states-plastic-bag-ban-ca...
https://www.pacificresearch.org/is-states-plastic-bag-ban-ca...