Homeless Population Jumps by Thousands Across the San Francisco Bay Area

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-northern-california-homeless-count-20190517-story.html

by ilamont • 7 years ago

238 224 7 years ago

It seems to be funding, services and counting are all related. That is, open a new shelter and you're going to serve (read: count) more homeless.

I'm not disputing there have been increases in homelessness. And we are our brothers' / sisters' keeper, so I'm not taking a stand against funding such efforts. What I'm wondering (out loud) about is the accuracy of previous counting. That is, how much is an actual increase, and how much is due to the thoroughness of the counting?

mosdl• 7 years ago

Yup, there are lots of services in places like SF and San Jose for them, so they are flocking here.

shereadsthenews4• 7 years ago

The vast majority of homeless in SFBA were living here when they became homeless. They are not flocking here.

cheriot2• 7 years ago

From what I've seen of the canvasing, it's pretty thorough. They walk around all the neighborhoods with clipboards.

chiefalchemist2• 7 years ago

Yes. But that still doesn't support there are more. The depth and breadth of this canvasing could have improved (note: as it should). It's also possible the homeless are more willing to be seen and counted. That is, the stigma has softened.

shawndrost3• 7 years ago

This explanation doesn't seem to jibe with my understanding of the facts/trends surrounding % of homeless residents that came from outside the bay (generally pretty steady and a small %).

hirundo• 7 years ago

I'm feeding more bread crumbs to the pigeons than ever, but even more pigeons are coming. It's such a paradox.

moduspol2• 7 years ago

Have you tried safe injection sites?

dforrestwilson• 7 years ago

Hopefully, this does not get down-voted.

I have lived all over the US, and noticed that only in California do I find young homeless people. They generally seem happy and even have dogs.

I never saw this in NYC or anywhere else on the East Coast or in the Midwest.

Is there a reason why the demographics would be different?

klipt• 7 years ago

Weather?

lostgame2• 7 years ago

Weather. I used to be homeless in Toronto (at lived in the Don Valley forest for a time) and it's actually kinda fun - in the summer.

As soon as that first cold spike hits, you feel like death inside.

yostrovs• 7 years ago

Can you help clarify why so many of these young homeless with dogs also prefer camo as their clothing color of choice?

hn_throwaway_99• 7 years ago

Would you rather spend winter in NYC or SF? Would you rather spend summer in Atlanta or SF?

Arubis• 7 years ago

Anecdotally, you will also see this in Denver; however, we have Winter, so it is not year-round.

jameslk• 7 years ago

And Boulder. Take a walk down Pearl Street Mall and you'll see "lifestyle homeless"

ng122• 7 years ago

They have them in NYC. They hang out around Union Square during the summer.

Some (many? most?) of these kids are homeless by choice, it's a subculture as much as circumstance. They flock to the Bay Area (Berkeley/Oakland, and the Haight area) to be a part of the scene.

mcmoose752• 7 years ago

Yeah, they're often referred to as "crust punks" or "crusties" (and I think that's the name they use for themselves). Plenty of articles about them- absolutely homeless by choice, and migrate up/ down the East Coast (often by hopping freight rail) seasonally https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2018/07/27/summer-brings-wave-o...

robbyking• 7 years ago

"Homeless by choice" is a long disproven myth. There are exceptions, of course, but often young people experiencing homelessness are on the streets because they were explicitly forced out of their homes by their guardians or were forced out because of sexual abuse.

From an article in Hoodline, quoting Mary Howe, founder of the Homeless Youth Alliance,

[San Francisco's Haight Street] is an international destination for youth who come seeking refuge from abusive families, alienating foster care and group home situations, and juvenile justice system involvement. These homeless young people encounter constant threats to both their physical and mental health while on the streets.

https://hoodline.com/2015/03/getting-to-know-haight-street-k...

andreygrehov• 7 years ago

Agreed. There is one more interesting fact about this subculture. Some of those "homeless" people do actually have their own places that they don't want to live in. They rent out and live on the street by choice.

shereadsthenews4• 7 years ago

It's not just California. You see the same homeless population in Santa Cruz as you do in Eugene. But these visible homeless are a tiny fraction; what we're talking about here are people living in cars and RVs.

Gibbon1• 7 years ago

Yeah I think the problem with viability is also, some 'homeless' in SF are actually housed, they're just poor n scruffy.

Last three years though I'm seeing people that are homeless and not scruffy. Friend of a friend was living in a panel truck with her 6 year old daughter for a year.

My solution is fairly simple, force the tech companies to direct their firehose of free cash somewhere else like Detroit or Albuquerque.

hangonhn• 7 years ago

Uh... how many places have you lived in and for how long, and how much contact have you had with the homeless? And when we say homeless, what do you mean? Those who temporarily don't have homes, those don't want to live in a permanent structure, etc.

I've lived in the South, New England, Texas, and California. There are homeless people every where. Before you conclude that the demographics are actually different (I'm not disputing it is -- California is different but not as stark as you may think), ensure that your observations aren't biased (I don't mean personal bias but some places put more effort into hiding their homeless population).

colechristensen4• 7 years ago

There is a spectrum of choice when it comes to homelessness. One extreme are those with severe mental and physical disabilities and the other is... https://vanlifecustoms.com/vans

There are quite a few people who actively aspire to live in vans on the streets of the bay area. There are more who are on the end of having other options (but don't want to, say, have a connivance store job in a small midwest town) but don't take them for whatever reason. If you had a few resources, wouldn't you rather try to make your way to live in SF instead of NY, especially in January?

Being young makes it more likely that the lifestyle is a choice and when it isn't, being young makes it easier to migrate to the best possible place to be homeless.

samsolomon• 7 years ago

We can debate about definitions, but I wouldn't call people living out of expensive, customized vans homeless.

Those people still have a roof over their heads. They just don't have a mailing address.

EDIT: I stand corrected. Apparently, San Francisco does count those among the homeless.

The number of people living in cars and campers grew — a big part of the reason the number of unsheltered people increased, the city said.

pixelrevision• 7 years ago

I lived in SF for 20 years and now live in NYC. I see young homeless people here all the time but they generally look very down and out. The ones you see that are care free with the dogs are more "travelers" that benefit from the good weather on the west coast.

A lot of the more permenant homeless population in SF are mentally ill with nowhere to go.

benatkin5• 7 years ago

It's mostly the weather. I prefer the weather in Miami to the weather in SF by just a little bit, but if I were homeless, it wouldn't even come close. I would vastly prefer the weather in SF.

The weather is a big factor in peoples' decisions to move places. It's near the top of the list in any discussion on which city people would prefer to live in on the city-data forums. People who aren't homeless take the air conditioning or heating for granted when comparing the weather in two different cities.

microtherion• 7 years ago

The weather in the Bay Area in general is pretty pleasant, but San Francisco in particular seems to be a bit of a local minimum, with the foggy and frequently quite cold weather even in summer. As we used to remind our guests before taking them to SF: "There's a reason why there are so many tourists wearing San Francisco branded fleece jackets".

joelrunyon• 7 years ago

Also very prevalent in Boulder.

benatkin5• 7 years ago

Boulder and Denver have cold, but it's mild enough that it can be dealt with somewhat using coats, blankets, sleeping bags, and tents. It doesn't have heat in the summers like New York City or Chicago do, or most of the year like Atlanta, Houston, and Miami do. 20 degrees below room temperature is much easier to handle than 20 degrees above room temperature, because there isn't anything wearable that protects people from heat like coats protect people from cold.

hawaiian• 7 years ago

It happens in Hawai'i, too. I volunteer at a homeless shelter and routinely serve young people. Some of them have nicer clothes than I do.

There is an episode of Portlandia satirizing young homeless people too, so I'd imagine that is another example.

orblivion• 7 years ago

I saw young homeless people in Montréal about 15 years ago. I don't remember if they were happy or if they had dogs. But I think they were anarchists living out some sort of lifestyle choice. I don't recall seeing any of this when I visited last year.

nradov3• 7 years ago

Yes there are very few visible homeless people or beggars in downtown Montreal.

luckydata• 7 years ago

some of the younger homeless folks are that by choice. The largest % of the population isn't though.

metalliqaz• 7 years ago

The abundance of young homeless with dogs also appears to be a thing in France.

charlesju• 7 years ago

This is a national problem (ie. anyone in the US can be homeless anywhere), and yet it's trying to be solved at a city level.

Logistically that is impossible and makes no sense.

As for why there are so many young people homeless in SF, it's probably because SF is one of the most willing cities trying to solve a national problem by itself. We also have great weather (not too hot in the summer, not too cold in the winter). And probably a lot of generous people walking the streets.

It's really horrible what our national government has allowed to happen in our country and it's impractical for our city to hold the burden to solve this nation's problems.

TbobbyZ3• 7 years ago

What makes you think it can be solved at the national level when it can't even be solved at the city level?

ReGenGen• 7 years ago

It is extremely difficult to clean up and heal surrounded by the problems of the city (drugs, violence, lack of entry level jobs & housing) but services are concentrated in city...

clairity3• 7 years ago

only defense, interstate commerce, international relations, and the like are national problems.

the state is the canonical unit for a problem like homelessness, and each state is free to delegate to local jurisdictions or to coordinate with other states on solutions.

by the way, san francisco has about 8000 homeless folks, and LA has ~55,000 (~40% of the 130,000 homeless in the state). if we wanted to build new housing for all of these folks, we'd need about $50B (state budget is about $200B/year). LA, for instance, spent $0.6B on homelessness last year, or about 3% of what is needed just in LA.

we either continuously pay for homelessness indirectly (and ineffectively), through police, crime, social services, drugs, non-profits, governmental programs, emergency services, etc. or actually tackle the problem directly by raising and allocating that $50B.

(obviously talking about first-order effects here. this is not an in-depth policy paper.)

conanbatt5• 7 years ago

I do think mental health is a national problem, but if the homeless people are san franciscans, its definitely a city level issue.

Its not a poor city that needs national help: it spends 10 billion dollars a year for a shitty bus and a poop patrol.

chaostheory2• 7 years ago

I thought that this was an issue on the entire West Coast and not just California.

dsfyu404ed3• 7 years ago

The people of CA exporting their failed public policy is an issue that covers the entire west coast (and Nevada, Colorado and parts of Texas) to it's no surprise that the homelessness problem follows.

neilv• 7 years ago

You can still sometimes see groups of young (teen-ish to 20-ish) homeless people in Harvard Square, including with dogs sometimes, though not as much as you used to. There at least used to be a mobile health clinic that would visit "The Pit" area around the Harvard Square subway station, where young homeless kids would congregate. (Also, non-homeless kids, such as from affluent suburbs, hanging out and being cool/punk/real with the homeless. But some of them actually are homeless, maybe escaping from rough family situations.) I understand there recently is/was a dotcom-y charitable homeless shelter in Harvard Square (unless it already disappeared; sometimes projects fail, or are career steps).

Cambridge, Boston, and Massaschusetts are wealthy, and good about social programs and safety nets for the poor, by overall US standards. But the winters get cold, so a lot of homeless who are able might go to the SF Bay Area.

Sevii• 7 years ago

We see a good number of young homeless people in Denver.

MisterOctober• 7 years ago

This phenomenon exists in Phoenix / Tempe as well. Most likely due to weather [as noted below] and relatively high population

scythe• 7 years ago

The young homeless people I knew on the East Coast were almost universally "travelers". They'd hop trains to Florida in the winter and migrate north in the summer. Most of the East Coast is inhospitable at one time of the year or another -- when the low temperature is above 70 F (20 C) or below 30 F (0 C) it can be very hard to sleep outside.

roguecoder8• 7 years ago

Other cities building shelters on the outskirts, and often in areas without public transit access, so that people get off the streets and are out of sight. The weather patterns almost everywhere else in the country also drive people into those shelters, either with extreme heat or cold.

Here, there is never a time of year when people have to get off the streets, and we don't have enough beds for them even if they did. The Bay Area is also a huge sprawl, so it isn't clear where we would build such housing to be out of sight and out of mind even if we were going to.

task_queue• 7 years ago

I never saw this in NYC or anywhere else on the East Coast or in the Midwest.

Human beings have a tough time surviving when exposed to the elements, and winter lasts for 6 months in the North East and Midwest. It is difficult to live when you are soaking wet and it is 34 degrees outside.

Hope this helps.

sneakernets• 7 years ago

San Francisco has seen rental prices skyrocket

Add deinstitutionalization on top of that, The Opioid epidemic, And that the majority of the population still think in bootstraps,

You're going to see it only get worse. Remember, you are your brother's keeper, whether you want to be or not.

lostgame2• 7 years ago

> Remember, you are your brother's keeper, whether you want to be or not.

I've never heard is phrase and I really like how you phrased it. There's no way to determine the apathy of humanity more than being homeless and seeing just how little people give a damn. We're trained to ignore these people, and then when we become one, we see just how awful we have been.

There was actually a 1985 Twilight Zone episode about this...

red_admiral• 7 years ago

I've never heard is phrase

Based off Genesis 4:9.

b_tterc_p5• 7 years ago

It is a biblical quote. Cain kills his brother. Then God asks where his brother is, and Cain says idk, he’s not my problem.

bsder• 7 years ago

Remember, you are your brother's keeper, whether you want to be or not.

However, you need to be careful not to apply that with too heavy a hand.

"When do you take someone's freedom of choice away?" should always be a heavy decision.

quxbar• 7 years ago

My brother lives in Humboldt county, I thought he was exaggerating the situation there but now I can't help but believe him. The stats are staggering - Humboldt's homeless population is up 157% in two years!

sgt• 7 years ago

I initially read this as "Homeless population jumps by thousands across the San Francisco Bay".

roseway4• 7 years ago

It would be great to understand why the Bay Area is seeing this increase. I haven't seen any studies that attempt to quantify this viz. the effects of local cost of housing increases vs arrivals from elsewhere vs mental health system failures vs ? It strikes me that understanding the root cause-through interviews etc-would be an important input to a policy response.

shawndrost3• 7 years ago

SF does a homeless census every 2 years. It answers many of the questions you might have. Eg in the 2017 census:

* 69% were from SF and 21% from elsewhere in CA (10% out of state) * 39% reported psychiatric or emotional conditions

http://hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/2017-SF-Poin...

sfkdjf9j3j• 7 years ago

Where have you looked? I followed the citations on the wikipedia page about homelessness in the Bay Area and found this in about 30 seconds: https://www.spur.org/publications/urbanist-article/2017-10-2...

deathanatos2• 7 years ago

vs arrivals from elsewhere

This particular attribute (what was the person's place of residence at time of homelessness) is answered by the study. (Called the PIT Count or Point-In-Time count). As the article notes, the study that the article is referencing is not released yet, so we can't see the stats for this particular iteration of the study. However, in the previous study[1] (2017, these are done every two years), 69% of respondents were from SF, and another 21% from some other county in CA.

[1] The results of previous studies: http://hsh.sfgov.org/research-reports/san-francisco-homeless... ; I presume the new one will be posted there once it is released. The article says that will be in July

misiti3780• 7 years ago

Does anyone know where the data came from that made this plot ?

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a3xdae/more-people-poopin...

I could not it in the pages or article ?

bradlys• 7 years ago

https://sfmayor.org/article/mayor-breed-announces-new-homele...

The increase in unsheltered people was driven largely by people living in vehicles, accounting for 68% of the increase in unsheltered people.

Seems people are using vehicles more and that looks to be the largest contributor. Me and my SO have considered such an idea because we've been open to the idea of living in tiny houses, etc. (We live in a 400sqft in-law unit now) We also know people who have lived out of them. Quite happily btw.

Things like this don't really give you an idea if it's forced or willing homelessness. Sure, maybe everyone would love a $3m home in Palo Alto (also known as "a home" in the rest of the country) but they're willing to suffer a bit to save some serious $$$ like we all do in various ways.

Anyway - would like more insight and look forward to the full report coming out whenever it does.

roguecoder8• 7 years ago

There's a continuum of "forced" versus "willing": raising the cost of rent beyond what someone can comfortably afford, but maybe they could manage if they didn't buy anything else and ate only beans and rice is only slightly less coercive than raising the rent beyond what they can afford at all.

the_economist• 7 years ago

San Francisco gives homeless people $520/month in cash. Unclear whether other Bay Area cities do the same. This is quite the incentive for homeless from around the state to move here, though. Whether or not it causes people to move here, it certainly funds much of the drug-fueled insanity we see on the streets.

This program gives out around $25 mil/year: https://www.sfhsa.org/services/jobs-money/county-adult-assis...

Most of the money is given out in the Tenderloin: https://www.sfhsa.org/file/7161/download?token=ywGXXXRl

More info: https://www.sfhsa.org/about/reports-publications/human-servi...

shawndrost3• 7 years ago

The phenomenon you're talking about wouldn't explain much of the problem, given that most homeless people lived here before they were homeless. In the 2017 census, 69% of SF homeless were from SF, and 21% were from elsewhere in CA. 10% out of state.

sologoub• 7 years ago

Are these self-reported numbers or from some sort of verifiable source?

It’s plausible to consider that people being asked would be reluctant to say they are not from the locality for fear of being told to leave and “go back to where you came from”.

While resources are limited, if this cash program is shown to make improvements, then it should be considered to be scaled out to other areas, not contracted for fear of additional migration.

floren• 7 years ago

By your own numbers, 31% of homeless in SF, nearly a third, came from either elsewhere in the state (as OP posits) or another state entirely. That's a pretty big chunk of the problem.

geebee3• 7 years ago

Got a link to the methodology? I'd be interested in knowing what timeframe they use for "lived here". 3 years, 5 years? Also, how long were they housed, and what kind of housing was it (public assistance, private room rental).

rb808• 7 years ago

This surprised me so I checked, the detail is: "Sixty-nine percent (69%) of respondents reported they were living in San Francisco at the time they most recently became homeless. Of those, over half (55%) had lived in San Francisco for 10 or more years. Eight percent (8%) had lived in San Francisco for less than one year. "

So comes to 38% of homeless had previously been living in SF for 10 years.

Is Page 22 here: http://hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/2017-SF-Poin...

cavisne3• 7 years ago

These stats are nonsense.

* it’s self reported

* it ignores that people drift in and out of shelters and public housing, they move to SF for that exact reason!

Homeless people absolutely come to SF and Seattle from elsewhere, because there are the best drugs, no enforcement, and the biggest community

throwawaysea• 7 years ago

Isn’t this based on self-answered surveys and not hard verifiable information to establish residency? The homeless and activists/nonprofits advocating on their behalf have an incentive to make it look like they’re mostly local.

ben_jones• 7 years ago

It's on an EBT card [1] but can be used to withdraw cash from fee-less ATMs.

[1] https://www.sfhsa.org/services/jobs-money/county-adult-assis...

cududa2• 7 years ago

$500 doesn’t get you very far on an opioid addiction.

thorwasdfasdf• 7 years ago

Well, they've gotta spend that 300 million dollars a year somehow ( i think that was increased recently to 500 million? ). i know some of it goes to housing assistance.

conanbatt5• 7 years ago

The guardian made a piece that SF is a net exporter of homeless people.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/dec/...

mesozoic• 7 years ago

We've solve the mystery of where the poop is coming from!

dang• 7 years ago

Please don't do this here.

itsaidpens• 7 years ago

Someone please smash together a chart of Tesla vehicle sales and homelessness rates in California. I think it would be very interesting.

homeless_sad• 7 years ago

We can't really reckon with our homeless problem without reckoning with the way we treat the severely mentally ill. At this point, we don't treat them. Many of the homeless, and a majority of the chronically homeless, are people who are severely mentally ill.

We used to have a state psychiatric hospital system. That system has been destroyed. Now, the severely mentally ill, when they get any treatment at all, are primarily treated in American prisons.

https://www.governing.com/topics/health-human-services/gov-m...

https://www.npr.org/2017/11/30/567477160/how-the-loss-of-u-s...

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/deinstitutional...

https://www.amazon.com/American-Psychosis-Government-Destroy...

"Many times individuals who really do require intensive psychiatric care find themselves homeless or more and more in prison," Sisti says. "Much of our mental health care now for individuals with serious mental illness has been shifted to correctional facilities."

The percentage of people with serious mental illness in prisons rose from .7 percent in 1880 to 21 percent in 2005, according to the Center for Prisoner Health and Human Rights.

A consensus of other experts estimates that the total number of state beds required for acute and long-term care would be more like 50 beds per 100,000 in the population [5]. At the peak of availability in 1955, there were 340 beds per 100,000 [5]. In 2010, the number of state beds was 43,318 or 14.1 beds per 100,000 [7].

geebee3• 7 years ago

There is an ambiguity in the term "homeless" that can obscure discussion.

I believe the term "homeless" was adopted in part to avoid more pejorative terms like "bum" or "vagrant". However, there may be some differences. You may not notice the majority of the homeless. They may very well hang out in libraries, coffee shops, and park benches, but these folks may be people with no mental illness or addiction, victims of the economy, or a restrictive housing supply. Alternatively, they may be people with personal health (including mental health) challenges that do severely impede their ability to work (or just cope with the world), but they have no immediate outward appearance of distress or addiction, and they don't pass out on city streets or, worse, intimidate, berate, threaten, stalk, harass, or assault fellow citizens.

The term homeless has come in the vernacular to refer to the people I referenced in that last sentence as the "homeless", almost to the point where the word is detached from home and less. It means a severely addicted and mentally ill person who lives on the street.

I don't know which one is increasing. I've lived in SF my whole life (SF, not the Bay Area, I took urban muni routes home from middle school), I'm in my late 40s, and I've never seen it so bad. I've always been a big public transportation taker, but I'm less enthusiastic about it now. What were occasional bad moments in the 80s and 90s have become an every other ride experience in some locations, and the lows are starting to get really, really low.

harlanji2• 7 years ago

I'm one of the homeless you speak of, since last year. I came to the BA in 2011 after graduating Uni and worked as a programmer, to SF in 2014, and then had my reputation destroyed in 2016 by a false assault allegation by my old boss to HR--limiting job prospects via black list. I've an uncommon name and rare specialization.

I think of "destitute" as the keyword, at various layers of Maslow's hierarchy. The ones you talk about are destitute socially but probably have food and temporary sleeping provisions, seldom rising above the 3rd layer into esteem tho. I have a bit of my old network supporting me, and I sometimes think I'll get off the street.

I work as a waiter 30hr/wk in Mountain View at minimum wage, and don't make enough money yet to have housing prospects. Answering interview questions without needs being met sends overwhelmingly negative signals. I have all my professional stuff like books and computers in a storage unit, but rarely have a place to use it.

I don't apply for high paying jobs in my field because I know that I lack the basic necessities to make a good impression. I've tried and do entertain opportunities that fall on my lap, but I always make a blunder due to not having the resources I need and they fade away. It feels safter to not try, given domino effects of interviewing poorly (permanent record, data). "Learned helplessness" for sure. I was hired to my current job on the spot, thankfully, and almost didn't get it due to logistic issues that I'm intentionally vague about.

Personally I was not a supporter of Prop C and take no government assistance, instead fasting and meditating when I can't earn money and nobody in my network can help me out.

We'll get through this. I'm staying strong.

jimbob45• 7 years ago

Thanks for sharing your story. Your contribution greatly illuminates this conversation for the rest of us.

waveforms3• 7 years ago

I was just at the Mountain View Walmart last night and I noticed a lot of campers in the parking lot. Maybe that could be an option for you?

exabrial• 7 years ago

I would get a bus ticket and get out. Start with a government job in a smaller city perhaps, and get yourself on your feet. Small steps instead of big leaps. Good luck, and thanks for sharing your story.

greiskul• 7 years ago

This is the problem right here.

A person working a job 30 hours a week, does not make enough money to afford a place to live. And it's not that they have to live in a shitty place, it's not that they need roommates, they just don't have anywhere to stay. This should be unacceptable for a society.

Wages are too low, and housing prices are too high. Those are the 2 problems that need to be fixed. And for the housing problem the only way to get rid of it,is build, build, build. Make building new houses cheaper, and development worth it, and prices will go down.

denimnerd42• 7 years ago

your online presence paints you as crazy, especially your twitter. your personal website would make me avoid hiring you for sure too. take all that crap down and send some resumes out in a different part of the country. there's no sense killing yourself to make it in the bay area.

gisely2• 7 years ago

Thanks so much for sharing your story. I believe you can get through it.

Would you be willing to explain why you don't take government assistance? Is it because the sort of assistance available isn't helpful to you or is it because you disagree with idea of government assistance in principle? From what you say about needing to meet basic needs before you can make a good impression in job interviews, it seems like some temporary assistance from the government or otherwise could have a big impact in getting you back on your feet. It would be nice to know whether you are someone the government could help if the programs were structured right or someone who just refuses to take government assistance on principle.

roguecoder8• 7 years ago

Why not take the food stamps you are entitled to? I bet you none of the people here who bought homes are forgoing their mortgage interest deductions and just fasting and meditating instead. And you'll probably qualify for the EITC too.

Those programs are there for a reason, and there is no nobility in starving yourself to avoid some paperwork.

therealx• 7 years ago

You can use an alias, you'd be surprised how easy it is. Or use your middle name as your go by name.

fouc• 7 years ago

Did you just get the job and don't have enough savings for rent? I see rooms for rent from $500-700/mo in mountain view.

Hydraulix9894• 7 years ago

Not that I'm disputing what you are saying at all, but I do really wonder whether a "black list" really exists. There are plenty of people hiring software engineers here, I don't think word-of-mouth is THAT powerful that a low-level engineering manager who didn't like you can completely ruin your future job prospects. As long as you do not have a criminal record or bad publicity from the false allegation, you should be all right.

If you feel comfortable reaching out, I am more than happy to refer you to a couple of really great companies that I have personal connections to that are hiring! I also know some people personally that were in similar "down on their luck" situations as you that were able to rebound that can definitely help.

There are many companies here that would love to be portrayed as doing positive social good by hiring homeless.

natalyarostova• 7 years ago

I agree. Grouping together "Mentally ill and/or severely drug addicted homeless person dropping syringes and trash across the city" with "Reasonably normal person who has had really bad luck, or has some weaknesses in maintaining employment but is otherwise a functioning adult" does a huge disservice to any conversation on homelessness.

closeparen4• 7 years ago

Maybe, but it’s disturbingly easy for the latter to become the former.

Kye2• 7 years ago

What purpose does this distinction serve? It's not obvious that it's better to set them apart. Homelessness is a spectrum of states people can move between. This distinction makes it easier for people to only care about the "good" homeless and forget about the rest.

kelnos8• 7 years ago

It means a severely addicted and mentally ill person who lives on the street.

To whom? To me, "homeless" is "someone without a home" (I'd also consider someone living in a car to be homeless). It doesn't matter to me how they got there or whether or not they suffer from a mental illness or some ailment that makes it difficult or impossible to find work. Bottom line is that they don't have stable shelter, and that alone is a huge problem.

The solution for any individual who is homeless certainly varies based on their physical and mental condition, but I don't see a problem with counting all categories of people together.

devoply2• 7 years ago

The problem with counting them altogether is that there are many in that group, even a majority that can be rehabilitated to not being homeless. And lumping them altogether and then labeling solutions which are applied to the entire group as having failed because they did not help those who could not be helped gives us a convenient excuse to not help those that could be helped.

Also someone who is initially down on their luck may be helped, but if you let them continue in this situation they may soon become someone beyond help. Immediate intervention is needed if someone becomes homeless to see if you can get them out of it as quickly as possible, before their bad luck multiplies and they become a lost cause. Someone on the street for a month is still employable, someone on the street for 2-3 years much less so.

ChuckMcM• 7 years ago

I certainly agree, what gets lost in the discussion is that people who have no permanent address are a population not a type. That population has many different types of people among it (as does any population). One need only volunteer at a food bank or a shelter to see how widely variable these types are.

The discussion for helping different types need different solutions. We need substance abuse clinics and counselling for the folks whose addictions have resulted in them becoming non-functional. We need housing assistance for the under employed who are working but cannot afford to both feed themselves (and often their families) and pay rent for a place to live. We need mental health services for people who are suffering with mental health issues, both genetic and non-genetic (for example someone who is diagnosed schizophrenic needs a different support system than someone suffering from PTSD or TBI. We need to create meaningful and functional communities for people whose challenges or disabilities make it impossible to participate in the existing communities.

There isn't "one" fix that we can apply because there isn't "one" type of person associated with the label "homeless."

What I have observed, is that people who are opposed to any state assistance of any kind to anyone (and there are people across the political spectrum in this group) will argue against any fix by holding it up against the type of homeless person for which it provides no benefit. They will argue against drug rehab using people who need housing assistance. They will argue against mental health services using people who need drug rehab. They will argue again housing assistance using people who need mental health services. It is sadly easier to get people to say 'no' because the solution is not generalized than it is to get people to agree to move forward because at least it helps someone.

cavisne3• 7 years ago

I still remember the first tram I caught in SF, an elderly asian man boarded the tram and bumped into a homeless person. He apologized profusely, and the man turned around and the punched him directly in the face.

No one (including me) did anything or even looked twice.

Disgusting place.

dsfyu404ed3• 7 years ago

I can't help but notice that all the people saying they have similiar symptoms in non-CA cities are mentioning cities that are popular places for people moving out of CA to go to and cities where there is a lot of complaining about the newcomers enacting the kind of public policy that gave CA it's problem. I know this is just correlation and doesn't mean anything by itself but I can't help but notice it.

hhanesand• 7 years ago

Wouldn’t more spending homelessness at the state level incentivize homeless migration into the state, therefore possibly counteracting the effects of the spending? To me it seems like this is something which needs to be addressed at the federal level.

Anyone have any research they can point to about this possible issue?

throw20163• 7 years ago

There is a homeless epidemic. Anyone who lives in the US can see it. But these issues are being closely tracked and discussed widely in political problem solving contexts, and HN is more of an observer reacting to the most extreme examples that make news usually with very little empathy focused mainly on the consequences to others, so the discussions are weirdly 'disconnected' and stuck in 'first principles'.

Look at every single homeless discussion on HN over the last 5 years, its homeless people are bums, weirdoes who enjoy living in poverty without homes or people who are 'choosing this lifestyle' based on anecdotal evidence mostly focused on how they negatively impact the commentators life, untill the next article. Is having this same discussion over and over again helpful to anyone?

The software community used to be associated with freedom, liberty and not being jerks, more connected to the human experience and with empathy. Now they build surveillance systems, are increasingly authoritarian in their outlook and are snarky about others suffering. There may be a serious problem of homelessness but it seems this absence of empathy is a much more serious problem for any society leaving it unequal to any social challenge.

closeparen4• 7 years ago

It’s easy to preach empathy from a leafy suburb. I certainly used to. When you are actually inhaling piss, stepping over feces, and weaving through tents every time you go outside, the situation is a bit different. Much of HN lives in urban SF and moves around the city without a glass and steel cage. In that light, homelessness moves down Maslow’s hierarchy from a moral reasoning problem to a visceral disgust/fear, a threat to the safety and dignity of home.

It’s one thing to be “against” mass incarceration and the criminalization of the poor, another to be okay with zero police response to your own assault/burglary. It’s one thing to be pro legalization, another to be okay with street dealers on your block. One thing to believe homeless people have a right to go where they please, another to stay committed when they decide to camp at your doorstep.

Maybe I am the only fake/uncommitted liberal but I get the sense that this kind of right-shifting after a few years in SF is not uncommon.

the_snooze• 7 years ago

Indeed, I feel the Bay Area has made me more hard-hearted and conservative when it comes to the homeless over years. I'm happy to donate to local charities that try to give them the help they need, but it's best for me to keep my distance from street folks day-to-day, as they produce in me a deep instinctive threat response with their smell and unpredictable behavior.

tamalesfan• 7 years ago

I get the sense that this kind of right-shifting after a few years in SF is not uncommon.

I'll believe it when it shows up in voting behavior. Nothing is going to improve until you change who you elect. Nothing at all.

FYI; someone camps out on my doorstep they're gone with one call; no debate. Your "homeless" problem is not a nation wide phenomena. This is you; the government you chose, the policies you voted for. No one else is at fault for this. It's you. Look around at what you made.

funkjunky• 7 years ago

You're not the only one. The daily grind of dealing with this shit on the streets and homeless/muggers on muni is giving me a noticeable rightward shift from my typically progressive politics. And I used to BE homeless!

My homeless friends in Berkeley pine about the good old days before the nuts, tweakers, dope fiends, and dirtbags started to multiply and swarm the community. If HOMELESS people are complaining about the homeless people in your city, you have a big problem.

Anecdotally, a crazy homeless lady was stabbing random people with scissors in my neighborhood last year, and I just checked up on what happened with her. Charges reduced to misdemeanors and set loose back on the streets. Meanwhile uppity rich liberals complain about police treatment of the homeless, and launch anonymous opposition to shelters and new housing development when they come to their neighborhoods. That basically sums up everything going wrong here from my perspective.

throw20163• 7 years ago

Its easy to label those who advocate for more empathy as 'leafy liberals' or hypocrites. But this this just a ruse to justify the lack of empathy for those who make this argument.

The immediate shift of the focus from those who are homeless and suffering to the consequences just confirms their priorities. They don't care about anyone else, they just feel entitled to a life without homeless people and that's what bugs them about homelessness. But no one promised you that. 100 years ago poverty and suffering was widespread but this got solved, not by complaining about their existance but with better policies and concern. Thats why modernity is associated by a more humane caring society compared to the past.

Dehumanizing others carries a great cost, you are just dehumanizing yourself and a society that has no value or concern for human beings is not a civilization. Homelessness cannot force anyone from left to right, these people were nowhere near left or liberal to start with. These are not labels for your personal living convenience, they stand for values and ideas.

roguecoder8• 7 years ago

My local camp is great: no drug use, good structures, waste disposal and a portapotty provided by the city. And because there are always people around, we have less crime otherwise.

The problem comes when there aren't better options for people: neighborhoods break down and rather than get to know the people of their community, the haves come to see their neighbors, many of whom were here before the haves moved in and jacked up rents, as somehow less than human. When someone's very existence is seen as a threat, yeah, you'll end up opposing the effective policy solutions and instead look to ineffective punitive solutions that further destroy the basic bonds of society.

You can always move to Walnut Creak. San Francisco has always been thus (or worse), and the expectation that it's going to transform into your shiny polished city of glass and steel is a remarkably clear description of the entitlement behind gentrification. This was their city: you are the interloper here.

nradov3• 7 years ago

People tend to focus on San Francisco because the homeless sleeping on sidewalks are so visible, but it seems like the situation in San Jose is getting worse at an accelerating rate. The problem just isn't as visible there because the city is less dense and more spread out. Take a ride along the Guadalupe River Trail, Los Gatos Creek Trail, and the Coyote Creek Trail, and look carefully under the bushes: you'll be shocked at the number of homeless encampments. I don't have population numbers but subjectively it's noticeably worse than it was 5 years ago.

It's a terrible situation for people, but at the same time after helping out with a few river cleanup efforts my sympathy is wearing thin (I do continue donating to several local charities serving the homeless population). Even when there are public garbage cans within walking distance many of the homeless population have been throwing their garbage on the ecologically sensitive river banks — including drug paraphernalia and other hazardous waste. Our rivers are turning into landfills and the city crews can't keep up.

I was in Reno a few weeks ago and the banks of the Truckee River are one solid homeless encampment for several miles. They've completely taken over several public parks. Locals complained that they no longer felt safe going there.

downrightmike4• 7 years ago

The situation has been around for a long time, what we're seeing is a bum-rush. Groups of people just come in and take over areas: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bum-rush

purplezooey• 7 years ago

Wow double digit growth. Meanwhile AB50 is stalled. This is probably the worst part of the BA which is otherwise wonderful. Its utter helplessness in confronting it's housing problem.

jondubois• 7 years ago

I don't understand how a country can maintain a coherent system of law when there are so many homeless people and almost 1% of the entire population is in prison.

downrightmike4• 7 years ago

The percent is only so high because JFK closed the mental wards and expected communities to pick up the difference.

downrightmike4• 7 years ago

https://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/01/opinion/out-of-the-asylum...

weeksie3• 7 years ago

Build. More. Shelters.

I live in New York and we have more homeless people per capita than San Francisco but we don't have the same kinds of problems. The very simple solution is to build shelters. The rate of homeless that are sheltered in NY is WAY higher and as a result we don't have the same kind of problems.

In SF 492/100k residents sleep on the street. In NYC the rate is 45/100k.

Source: https://medium.com/@josefow/new-york-decided-to-end-street-h...

(among others, these aren't controversial numbers)

demosthenes142• 7 years ago

Seems like this could be heavily correlated with weather.

weeksie3• 7 years ago

Weather has something to do with the amount of shelters? I'm not sure I follow.

heimatau3• 7 years ago

Weather is a driving factor that one shouldn't overlook. SV has a massive housing problem. Let's not defer the issue. It's a substantial issue.

diogenescynic• 7 years ago

It's honestly an epidemic and people have to admit it's mostly due to meth and heroin--it's not all due to housing prices. Yes, housing affordability is absolutely a real issue and there are people being displaced and actually are homeless from it--but that's not the real source if this crisis. We literally have THOUSANDS of mentally ill and criminally insane drug addicts all over the city in a constant state of anarchy.

For example, I live in a decent area (near Noe Valley) and constantly have homeless people in our carport area of our building. The landlord refuses to install a security camera, and actually removed the dummy security cameras which is now making the problem worse. I have had my car broken into like 8 times in 5 years. Every single night there are 2-3 of the same tweakers and addicts down there doing drugs, screaming all night, leaving needles and feces all over. I call the cops 2-3x a day and the cops show up probably 1/50 times but they never actually do anything but shoo them along and then they come back in 2 hours.

I've left messages for the local SFPD Sergeant, I've gone to community meetings and asking for more patrols, I've written my supervisor. NOTHING has changed. This is a miserable way to live when you already have a stressful job and have hard work. I truly do not want to live my life in a city like this. The cops do nothing, DAs don't prosecute, juries don't convict, and judges don't sentence--yet housing prices are $2.5M for the privilege of having a tweaker camp outside your house. I just don't get it. This video is of Seattle, but it's basically the same situation in SF but 25% worse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpAi70WWBlw

heimatau3• 7 years ago

From my personal experience from helping actual homeless people and being one (with my family). I find the homeless population is struggling. The numbers are GROWING...all around the greater bay area (up to Sacramento, where I currently reside). The majority aren't suffering from mental health problems, which to me, is terrifying for our society.

If the US has a 'growing economy' what will happen when we start to see this recession/depression that many are saying is eminent? I can't help but agree with the world leaders that the entire global economy is very fragile.

We can build our way out of this but I'm skeptical that California could build it's way out due to the private interests of powerful people (even single/one home-owners).

shereadsthenews4• 7 years ago

It’s not unthinkable that a recession could indirectly help by lowering construction costs.

heimatau3• 7 years ago

It's not unthinkable

It's highly unlikely. SV is an economic engine for Cali and the USA. Unions and bureaucracies (local govt red tape) are the driving forces to high construction costs.

conanbatt5• 7 years ago

No, this wont happen. A recession will push the ones on the bottom to unemployement which spirals them into poverty.

Recessions are most cruel to the poor.

Homeless Population Jumps by Thousands Across the San Francisco Bay Area

Related Stories