So it’s better to not provide the people in this horrid situation with any dignity in the hopes that something changes and shames society into some unknown action?
Portland IS trying to provide public toilets and a cleaner environment on the streets at least. It sounds like the person profiled for this article actually was able to get her life together. It’s a step.
SF can learn a lot from Portland. For example, it is possible to provide people with the dignity of a toilet while fighting off a lot of the problems that are currently used as an excuse not to provide these: https://www.businessinsider.com/portland-loo-perfect-public-...
Providing these does not make the situation worse or less visible.
Many US cities have a lack of public toilet and sanitary facilities. And it is a problem for everyone, from homeless to tourists. Even NYC is not particularly good at this.
SF can learn a lot from Houston, Dallas, or San Antonio: they don’t have city blocks covered with shit, needles, or people living in tents on the sidewalks. The more SF “helps,” the more they attract. Houston is the 4th largest city and has a fraction of the homeless. Red districts seem to have less income inequality and fewer homeless and lower poverty.[1]
The San Francisco Approach seems to always be “let’s spend more money on the problem.” But basic economics suggests that subsidizing something gives you more of it. For example, unemployment benefits in France are extremely generous, and you have double and triple the unemployment than in the US. Many people in France stay on unemployment to the last possible moment before they seek a job because the system incentivizes just that. The problem as I see it is that liberals tend to make policies from a position of emotion, such as “we can’t cut <some program> because that’s cruel.” However, it is just like feeding stray cats: you feed them and that promotes more strays. If you raise a Lion in captivity, they never learn to hunt and thus they are forever destined to being the wards of the state.
This is a highly unpopular opinion around here to be sure, but if we are being honest, the current policies promote a society of dependency. San Franciscans often cite a pleasant climate as a reason for so many homeless choosing to live in the city, however, for a homeless person, San Francisco weather is a lot colder and more miserable than many other places in the US. So why does San Francisco have such an incredible addiction and homeless problem? Perhaps it’s policies that allow homeless people to shoot up on the street? Perhaps it’s the higher availability of homeless services from well-meaning, but naïve non-profits? One of the richest and most liberal cities in the world — and a profound homeless problem. Is there a correlation? Could the policies of liberal Portland and San Francisco actually be the problem? I had to spend some time in New Haven and Hartford and, as someone from Texas, I was amazed at the total slums right next to gated millionaire neighborhoods. Despite high taxes to “help” the problem, it only seems to make it worse.
What am I missing? I am not trying to throw gasoline on the issue, but I genuinely don’t understand. California is almost 80% Democrat, so supposedly, the state is unencumbered by pesky conservatives, yet the problem seems to be getting progressively worse. It isn’t the federal government’s fault because otherwise there’d be similar levels of problems everywhere else.
Disclaimer: I also don’t want to throw gasoline to the issue, but the above comment needs a response. This analysis is so wrong that where should I start. This is the exact same lazy thinking that is prevalent in conservative circles today that gave rise to trolls like Trump, Milo, and Alex Jones to conservative leadership.
1. Unemployment rate and generous welfare — Scandinavian countries have the most generous welfare state of any nation, but has among the lowest unemployment rates in Europe. How does that explain the correlation that you casually made ? Taking a step further, why is unemployment rate even a indicator of a true health of a society? I know the unemployment rate is artificially low in the US as a significant portion of the population is working in jobs that do not even provide basic living wage. And they have to work multiple jobs just to sustain. Aren’t a lot of Walmart employees on welfare?
2. Homelessness and liberal cities - this is a two pronged issue. Since red states see poor, homeless, mentally unstable and drug addicted people as essential criminals, a lot of them migrate from red states to liberal cities, who view them as human. Coupled with already dense cities where it is difficult to build housing in huge numbers it accentuates the problem. In European countries these decisions are made at a Federal level, hence a city like Amsterdam with even more liberal policies around drugs has zero homelessness issues. One option is to throw everyone is jail. But the American public has woken to be the fact that we are most incarcerated nation in the world and our prisons are >70% minorities. And clearly people have lost appetite in liberal states to put more people behind bars. But fear not my concerned red state friend. We will solve this problem too as we have solved a million other issues. As you forge ahead and sign heartbeat bills and take control of women’s vagina, and continue to build prisons, we will continue to take care of the most vulnerable Americans.
Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio all vote blue. We just don't have the urban density of Portland or SF, so our homeless camps are smaller and generally more manageable by traditional city services and law enforcement.
As someone who pays huge amounts of taxes to live in San Francisco, to be perfectly frank, I don’t think it’s necessary to walk through human feces to know we have a homeless problem. If my tax dollars aren’t going to be put to use fixing the problem (they arent) then at least let me walk through my own city that I pay to live in with some amount of decency.
The community benefit district folks, including the various “Clean Teams” don’t necessarily deal with the toilets or feces. Mayor Breed established initial funding for the “Poop Patrol” back in August [1], as well as slightly expanding the Pit Stop program (public toilet and needle drop off, with staffing).
You can call 311 to report issues like this to the city. However, I quickly realized that the crew isn't too happy about being called out for such matters. After reporting yet another dump on the sidewalk in front of our home, I saw the city crewman pull up, take his power sprayer, and blast the feces under my fence and all over my side yard - effectively rendering it no longer his problem.
It feels pretty silly to call 311 when I can literally see a group of police at the end of the block clearly making sure that the dealers addicts are right here instead of on the main road that gets most of the tourist foot traffic.
I'm curious, does anyone from Portugal or Amsterdam have any comments on this story? Obviously, easy access to drugs is one side of this story. But, that's also the case in Portugal and Amsterdam, right?
Are narcoterrorists from Central and South America the difference? Is this a new heroin, why the 10x leap in needles in five years?
Is the difference that mental health is left to someone other than the state?
As a native Portlander and someone that thinks the city should be involved in helping people get out of addiction and homelessness, this story is riveting, tragic, hopeful and maddening all at once.
> Is this a new heroin, why the 10x leap in needles in five years?
1. Hand out opioids like candy. Everyone has pain now and then(backpain, dentist, etc), so everyone gets to try them.
2. People become habitual users and in some cases junkies.
3. Restrict the supply of OTC opioids, while continuing to lose the war on illegally supplied drugs.
4. Addicts and people looking to avoid getting dopesick look to heroin for its low-cost and relative abundance.
Now you have a major spike in heroin users. From what I've heard, a lot of people switch to heroin because it's available. They switch to shooting up because it's cost effective.
When you're high as a kite, sleeping in the street or being covered in shit really doesn't bother you. When you're obsessed with getting another fix, you tend to lower the priority of 'non-essential' activities like bathing or eating.
Note that not all addicts end up sleeping in gutters. I learned via a friend that there are many hidden addicts in society. There are professionals who shoot H just to maintain and avoid getting dope sick. I think the perceived lack of opportunities for low-skilled and older workers has contributed to a situation where many would rather get high and be homeless than struggle holding down a 9-5 just to go broke at their first health crisis.
> I learned via a friend that there are many hidden addicts in society. There are professionals who shoot H just to maintain and avoid getting dope sick.
A typical daily heroin addiction costs $100-$200 a day, or ~55k/yr. Some professions can cover the expense, but it costs serious money. When continuing with your career while addicted the user is put into a hard situation. Too many sick days from an empty bank account, a bad deal, or a lack of access can cost someone their career.
This is someone talking about a "typical addiction", which is not a thing that actually exists. There is a wide range of maintenance doses and they don't all cost the same.
In the Netherlands everyone is required to have healthcare by law. It's less likely that people with mental illnesses end up on the street. For people who do end up on the street or addicted there are safe places to use drugs, recovery programs, employment services, and public housing. Almost all of this is run by the government.
Have (a few) here in Berlin as well. Basically, it’s a room to inject. There’s usually a social worker to help guide people to programs, medical assistance, etc. when asked.
There are also “needle exchanges” where you can get new ones when you return used ones, to keep them off the street. Some may be operated in those rooms, but there are also automated boxes (basically vending machines) out on the streets.
My guess is an increase in drug use is only part of the reason. I imagine another is an increase in homelessness in Portland. (probably due to a combination of increased rents and just being a cool destination for 20 somethings)
Does Seattle has services like this? It seems that lately there has been garbage literally all over the entire city and no one seems to care or clean it.
No it doesn't. Watch this for a full picture of what's happening in Seattle and a proposed, humane and actually effective solution at the end.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpAi70WWBlw
Another approach to reducing discarded needles is to open needle-exchanges and safe-injection sites (e.g. Vancouver[1]). This also reduces infection from sharing needles, overdose deaths, and paramedic resources.
Clean and Safe only works in downtown and often works in service to businesses who complain, and homelessness is an issue across the city. Portland police often resort to ineffective sweeps to clear camps, and are prone to deploying force when their limited de-escalation skills fail (most often when faced with mentally ill people, some of whom aren't homeless).
The Street Response proposal pitches teams comprised of a firefighter (unsafe heating and electrical hacks are common) and a person specifically trained in de-escalation and dealing with behavioral health issues. A centralized dispatch would send these teams to respond to non-violent calls--like sleeping campers, noise disturbances, minor medical incidences, and illegal fires--intentionally without police backup to assess and address the situation. The teams would roll in SUVs capable of reaching off-road sites and can help carry belongings to a shelter, legal campsite, family member, or treatment.
Being poor isn’t a crime. Many homeless people never commit crimes.
Your tough-guy jingoism also just ignores all the evidence that shows that just punishing people at the lowest end of society simply doesn’t work. Send them to jail (which costs more than college) and they don’t get out and say “oh, now I have the skills to get my life back in order”.
Being homeless is terribly uncomfortable and punishing already. Nobody who operates on your simplistic sticks-and-no-carrots approach would ever be homeless in the first place.
If you want people to be arrested for theft and rape, do that. Merely sleeping without a roof over one’s head should never be illegal, and I applaud anyone who fights against it being so, at any level.
The rape and thievery would lessen if camping laws were enforced. The vagrants would be pinched for trespass and illegal camping and drugs and whatever else.
I have reconsidered my nomenclature, and because many of these "homeless" have homes, I am going to substitute the word vagrant.
Many people take a more pragmatic, evidence-based approach that leads to a better outcome.
In the interests of not being passive-aggressive, I'm saying that your absolutist approach is a bad idea and in many cases makes things worse.
I do recognise that there are people who prefer a worse outcome, because they want to see people directly punished, and also people who prefer a worse overall outcome if it makes their lives any better at all (effectively offload all the bad outcome onto other people).
I*m working from memory here, but evidence generally finds that having an actual safety net and giving folks homes to live in works. Making sure folks have mental health care works. Even with folks that insist on trying to stay on the streets ... it seems simply taking them home enough time works.
You could also build centers with toilet facilities for people to live outside if they choose - like campsites, only nicer.
If the people are criminals, the solution is to have better re-integration programs and focus much of the criminal justice system on helping folks instead of being cruel and punishing folks.
You are correct, however, that it is outrageous and an absolute failure of government.
At no point will we be able to accomodate every desperate person who shows up in a top-tier city with a good apartment there quickly. Supply, density, and affordable housing programs can all be drastically increased, but not enough for the literal billions of people in the world who would take you up on that. Even the Soviets had to assign people to live in less desirable places.
Letting everything else fall apart (libraries, parks, transit, sidewalks, bike paths, etc) as we hold out for this to change doesn't strike me as pragmatism.
We have a person who has no other place to sleep. Right now we turn a blind eye to their sleeping in a park, and spend some time and money cleaning up afterwards[0]. Instead you would like to throw this person into a prison where we will spend even more time and money taking care of them from sunup to sunup? I don't see that as an effective solution to any of the problems at hand.
[0]:Which I agree, it would be better we didn't have to.
If they consume 100 square feet of land that would cost $1500 per square foot, the value is $150,000. (normal Manhattan prices, which should be less than the prime spots taken by these tents) It is unimproved, pushing the rent down, but small, pushing the rent up. Calling those even, a month of rent should be about $1,000.
That comes to something like $33 per day, or $12,000 per year. A possible solution presents itself: sell camping permits.
50 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 94.4 ms ] threadCan we have a few of these squads?
Portland IS trying to provide public toilets and a cleaner environment on the streets at least. It sounds like the person profiled for this article actually was able to get her life together. It’s a step.
SF can learn a lot from Portland. For example, it is possible to provide people with the dignity of a toilet while fighting off a lot of the problems that are currently used as an excuse not to provide these: https://www.businessinsider.com/portland-loo-perfect-public-...
Providing these does not make the situation worse or less visible.
SF can learn a lot from Houston, Dallas, or San Antonio: they don’t have city blocks covered with shit, needles, or people living in tents on the sidewalks. The more SF “helps,” the more they attract. Houston is the 4th largest city and has a fraction of the homeless. Red districts seem to have less income inequality and fewer homeless and lower poverty.[1]
The San Francisco Approach seems to always be “let’s spend more money on the problem.” But basic economics suggests that subsidizing something gives you more of it. For example, unemployment benefits in France are extremely generous, and you have double and triple the unemployment than in the US. Many people in France stay on unemployment to the last possible moment before they seek a job because the system incentivizes just that. The problem as I see it is that liberals tend to make policies from a position of emotion, such as “we can’t cut <some program> because that’s cruel.” However, it is just like feeding stray cats: you feed them and that promotes more strays. If you raise a Lion in captivity, they never learn to hunt and thus they are forever destined to being the wards of the state.
This is a highly unpopular opinion around here to be sure, but if we are being honest, the current policies promote a society of dependency. San Franciscans often cite a pleasant climate as a reason for so many homeless choosing to live in the city, however, for a homeless person, San Francisco weather is a lot colder and more miserable than many other places in the US. So why does San Francisco have such an incredible addiction and homeless problem? Perhaps it’s policies that allow homeless people to shoot up on the street? Perhaps it’s the higher availability of homeless services from well-meaning, but naïve non-profits? One of the richest and most liberal cities in the world — and a profound homeless problem. Is there a correlation? Could the policies of liberal Portland and San Francisco actually be the problem? I had to spend some time in New Haven and Hartford and, as someone from Texas, I was amazed at the total slums right next to gated millionaire neighborhoods. Despite high taxes to “help” the problem, it only seems to make it worse.
What am I missing? I am not trying to throw gasoline on the issue, but I genuinely don’t understand. California is almost 80% Democrat, so supposedly, the state is unencumbered by pesky conservatives, yet the problem seems to be getting progressively worse. It isn’t the federal government’s fault because otherwise there’d be similar levels of problems everywhere else.
[1] https://www.axios.com/income-inequality-blue-red-districts-6...
1. Unemployment rate and generous welfare — Scandinavian countries have the most generous welfare state of any nation, but has among the lowest unemployment rates in Europe. How does that explain the correlation that you casually made ? Taking a step further, why is unemployment rate even a indicator of a true health of a society? I know the unemployment rate is artificially low in the US as a significant portion of the population is working in jobs that do not even provide basic living wage. And they have to work multiple jobs just to sustain. Aren’t a lot of Walmart employees on welfare?
2. Homelessness and liberal cities - this is a two pronged issue. Since red states see poor, homeless, mentally unstable and drug addicted people as essential criminals, a lot of them migrate from red states to liberal cities, who view them as human. Coupled with already dense cities where it is difficult to build housing in huge numbers it accentuates the problem. In European countries these decisions are made at a Federal level, hence a city like Amsterdam with even more liberal policies around drugs has zero homelessness issues. One option is to throw everyone is jail. But the American public has woken to be the fact that we are most incarcerated nation in the world and our prisons are >70% minorities. And clearly people have lost appetite in liberal states to put more people behind bars. But fear not my concerned red state friend. We will solve this problem too as we have solved a million other issues. As you forge ahead and sign heartbeat bills and take control of women’s vagina, and continue to build prisons, we will continue to take care of the most vulnerable Americans.
But also: yes, feces, needles, etc.
https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Mid...
[1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/hea...
They already know.
It's also worth noting the homeless are not being run out of town.
Things could be worse.
Are narcoterrorists from Central and South America the difference? Is this a new heroin, why the 10x leap in needles in five years?
Is the difference that mental health is left to someone other than the state?
As a native Portlander and someone that thinks the city should be involved in helping people get out of addiction and homelessness, this story is riveting, tragic, hopeful and maddening all at once.
1. Hand out opioids like candy. Everyone has pain now and then(backpain, dentist, etc), so everyone gets to try them.
2. People become habitual users and in some cases junkies.
3. Restrict the supply of OTC opioids, while continuing to lose the war on illegally supplied drugs.
4. Addicts and people looking to avoid getting dopesick look to heroin for its low-cost and relative abundance.
Now you have a major spike in heroin users. From what I've heard, a lot of people switch to heroin because it's available. They switch to shooting up because it's cost effective.
When you're high as a kite, sleeping in the street or being covered in shit really doesn't bother you. When you're obsessed with getting another fix, you tend to lower the priority of 'non-essential' activities like bathing or eating.
Note that not all addicts end up sleeping in gutters. I learned via a friend that there are many hidden addicts in society. There are professionals who shoot H just to maintain and avoid getting dope sick. I think the perceived lack of opportunities for low-skilled and older workers has contributed to a situation where many would rather get high and be homeless than struggle holding down a 9-5 just to go broke at their first health crisis.
A typical daily heroin addiction costs $100-$200 a day, or ~55k/yr. Some professions can cover the expense, but it costs serious money. When continuing with your career while addicted the user is put into a hard situation. Too many sick days from an empty bank account, a bad deal, or a lack of access can cost someone their career.
There are also “needle exchanges” where you can get new ones when you return used ones, to keep them off the street. Some may be operated in those rooms, but there are also automated boxes (basically vending machines) out on the streets.
Another approach to reducing discarded needles is to open needle-exchanges and safe-injection sites (e.g. Vancouver[1]). This also reduces infection from sharing needles, overdose deaths, and paramedic resources.
[1] https://vancouver.ca/people-programs/safe-injection-site-and...
Clean and Safe only works in downtown and often works in service to businesses who complain, and homelessness is an issue across the city. Portland police often resort to ineffective sweeps to clear camps, and are prone to deploying force when their limited de-escalation skills fail (most often when faced with mentally ill people, some of whom aren't homeless).
The Street Response proposal pitches teams comprised of a firefighter (unsafe heating and electrical hacks are common) and a person specifically trained in de-escalation and dealing with behavioral health issues. A centralized dispatch would send these teams to respond to non-violent calls--like sleeping campers, noise disturbances, minor medical incidences, and illegal fires--intentionally without police backup to assess and address the situation. The teams would roll in SUVs capable of reaching off-road sites and can help carry belongings to a shelter, legal campsite, family member, or treatment.
Your tough-guy jingoism also just ignores all the evidence that shows that just punishing people at the lowest end of society simply doesn’t work. Send them to jail (which costs more than college) and they don’t get out and say “oh, now I have the skills to get my life back in order”.
Being homeless is terribly uncomfortable and punishing already. Nobody who operates on your simplistic sticks-and-no-carrots approach would ever be homeless in the first place.
I am correct for wanting criminals held responsible for their crimes.
You want thieves and rapists to freely live on my public pathways.
Some homeless I've met say they moved to Portland because the camping laws are not enforced.
Every illegal camper is breaking the law. The local government decided not to enforce the law.
Those are some pretty extreme accusations to make at an umbrella group term such as "Homeless".
If your point of not prosecuting illegal campers is true, how does this relate to "Rapists and Thieves" not facing usual criminal proceedings?
In a personal side note, in many jurisdictions your blanket statements could be seen as incendiary towards a very vulnerable community.
I have reconsidered my nomenclature, and because many of these "homeless" have homes, I am going to substitute the word vagrant.
In the interests of not being passive-aggressive, I'm saying that your absolutist approach is a bad idea and in many cases makes things worse.
I do recognise that there are people who prefer a worse outcome, because they want to see people directly punished, and also people who prefer a worse overall outcome if it makes their lives any better at all (effectively offload all the bad outcome onto other people).
Currently, criminals are allowed to live on public pathways and in neighborhood parks.
It's normal to see mountains of feces and needles and water bottle caps.
It's outrageous and absolutely a failure of government.
You could also build centers with toilet facilities for people to live outside if they choose - like campsites, only nicer.
If the people are criminals, the solution is to have better re-integration programs and focus much of the criminal justice system on helping folks instead of being cruel and punishing folks.
You are correct, however, that it is outrageous and an absolute failure of government.
Letting everything else fall apart (libraries, parks, transit, sidewalks, bike paths, etc) as we hold out for this to change doesn't strike me as pragmatism.
[0]:Which I agree, it would be better we didn't have to.
That comes to something like $33 per day, or $12,000 per year. A possible solution presents itself: sell camping permits.