SF tech bro: ‘I shouldn’t have to see the pain, struggle, despair of homeless’
305 points by gallerytungsten 9 years ago | 499 comments- Afforess 9 years agoTo play devil's advocate, he's right. He shouldn't have to see the pain, struggle, and despair of homeless - the city government should be providing affordable housing and shelters for the homeless. That it hasn't is a failure of the local government, and should be addressed. Much of the reason that affordable housing is out of reach of many in San Francisco is due to government regulation, not market capitalism. Extremely restrictive construction laws and absurd rent controls distort the housing market, which is driving the expensive home market and massive rents. A large portion of the blame for this situation falls to the government - they wrote the laws, they built this disaster.
- monkmartinez 9 years agoThis is a complex issue... but in my experience, most of the homeless are not looking for help to find jobs and/or contribute to society in manner that will lead them out of "homelessness." A lot of them prefer this "lifestyle"... we try very hard to help the people that want help. Most don't.
Go talk to your local EMS/Fire department personnel and most of them will have similar stories. I know the homeless people in my area better than I know my extended family. I have memorized their birthday's, the medications they should be taking, the street drugs they prefer, the kind of beer they drink, where they stash their stuff, where they have their main camp, what their childhood, and adult life were like, their medical history, what shelters they've been kicked out of and are not allowed back to... and more.
We are forced to talk with them, sometimes 3 or 4 times a shift. I lost sympathy for most of them a long time ago, that doesn't mean we treat them like sub-humans... we just have less patience with the shit they are inevitably going to give us.
Edit: here is an article specific to San Fran about EMS & the homeless: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/27/us/san-francisco-firefight...
- citizensixteen 9 years ago>A lot of them prefer this "lifestyle"
I used to also think that many homeless "preferred the lifestyle of homelessness" but I recently learned of a town in Canada (Medicine Hat) that found it more cost effective to house the homeless. This myth that people prefer to be homeless was shattered and this town found that nearly all homeless were able to reintegrated back into having their own places. The mayor was skeptical at first now, he says, “It makes financial sense. That’s how I had my epiphany and was converted. You can actually save money by giving somebody some dignity and giving them a place to live.”
Medicine Hat on brink of ending homelessness
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/medicine-hat-on-brink-...
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/medicine-hat-has-al...
- mabbo 9 years agoOur super-Conservative government for the last decade (now replaced by a young, hip, Liberal one) was actually really big behind the 'housing-first' method of helping the homeless (you get an apartment, no questions asked, then we work on your drug problems, etc later), and put a lot of money towards it.
At first, this seems very socially liberal and at odds with a Conservative party kind of thing until you look at the financials and realize it actually is fiscally very conservative- it saves a ton of money on policing and medical care.
All that said, have you been to Medicine Hat? That's not a place with a very relaxed 'homeless lifestyle'. It's -15C here in Toronto today, and we're like 700km further south. In the west coast of the USA, you can survive on the street without the air itself killing you.
- mc32 9 years agoThere are more than one kind of homeless person. There are the ones who simply fell on hard times and don't have money to pay for rent. There are the ones suffer addiction, there are the ones who suffer mental trauma there are the ones who have severe mental disorders, there are the ones avoiding regular society, etc.
Housing first works best for the fist class as well as those who have succumbed to addiction. Some of the others require intensive intervention, perhaps institutional. As someone pointed out, its complex, but it's something beyond any individual's purview, responsibility, etc., so inhabitants who do pay taxes, etc., should expect some kind of organization would be responsible for addressing the issue rather than the knee jerk public castigation for speaking one's opinion about a social issue.
- ktRolster 9 years agoUtah did the same thing:
http://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-chronic...
The article mentions that some people had trouble adapting to their new houses. Some slept in tents inside their house, others still slept on the street several days a week until they got used to having a house.
- aggieben 9 years agoWell, I think we might mean different things by "homeless". The kind of people who prefer homelessness (and I know a couple, even in my small town) don't prefer it because they don't have a house. If someone were to just provide them a house, they'd be perfectly happy with that. No, they prefer their lifestyle to the available alternatives because it frees them of any responsibility for themselves.
Naturally, though, not all homeless should be categorized this way. A great many of them surely have serious psychological disorders that prevent them from living normal independent lives. Surely many of them have suffered in many ways, and many of them are surely in the circumstances they're in due to factors they couldn't control. These are the ones that really do need help of _some_ kind.
I sympathize with people like the mayor of the town you use as an example, but he's wrong: you don't give people dignity by giving them a place to live. Housing isn't the source of human dignity. When you give people with no dignity things of value, they don't value those things, and then eventually they become valueless through abuse and neglect. That's why homeless shelters have to have volunteers to monitor when they house the homeless. That's why simply building a big apartment complex and giving keys to the homeless isn't a long-term solution and in all likelihood a fast-track to a destroyed property and a bunch of people spending some time in the clink.
Outside of personal interventions and great investment of resources into individuals, I'm not sure there are really any great solutions. It makes me sad, but I don't have any great ideas for how to help them better (writ large), than try to meet some basic material needs (food pantries, temporary shelters) and keep them safe.
- jonknee 9 years agoBeing homeless in Calgary is a lot different than the SF Bay area (you don't die in the Winter being a big one!). I'm positive there are many in SF who would benefit from a similar program, but there would still be a ton of homeless people.
- BurningFrog 9 years agoYour argument rests on the assumption that all homeless populations across the world are similar.
In reality, the homeless population in 2016 SF and in 2014 Medicine Hat are shaped by the specific conditions and incentives in those communities.
- middleq 9 years agoNot having a "home" might be a side effect of the homeless lifestyle. There is a difference between a free roof and working.
- ryanlol 9 years agoThe record low °C in SF is -3. I don't think there's anywhere in canada that's even remotely comparable.
- st3v3r 9 years agoPart of the difference in attitude might be the difference in climate between San Francisco and Medicine Hat.
- mabbo 9 years ago
- odonnellryan 9 years agoThe homeless often have mental illnesses. Forget less severe illness, 1/3 have been found to have severe illness: http://mentalillnesspolicy.org/consequences/homeless-mentall...
So, it isn't they are homeless because they like the lifestyle, but it is often because of an illness that they prefer that lifestyle.
We've all certainly felt extraordinary pressures related to common every-day life. Mental illness makes dealing with these pressures very difficult, often almost impossible. I would not blame someone for trying to escape those pressures.
- notthegov 9 years agoWhere I live, it is more the opposite. People come here with irrational dreams, get on the street, fall into bad things, and then through dehydration, stress and living on the street, they become more irrational, and eventually permanently changed.
- notthegov 9 years ago
- creshal 9 years ago> A lot of them prefer this "lifestyle"... we try very hard to help the people that want help. Most don't.
A lot of them are mentally handicapped or dealing with acquired mental illnesses. Even under good conditions, treating either is hard. Of course EMS/fire fighters/volunteers working in shelters aren't able to do that.
- monkmartinez 9 years agoI've loaded many a homeless into my fire engine to take to the local Crisis Resource Center/ Behaviour Rehabilitation center because they begged and pleaded that they want help. Great!
More often than not, we see them a few days later with Steel Reserve cans littered about after someone calls 911 for what appears to them a dead man on the side of the road.
Mental illness is brutal. I feel for these guys, especially as I get older and start seeing my age equivalent homeless folks with PTSD and the like. The Vietnam vets are being replaced with Gulf war and Afghanistan vets. It is heart breaking to be sure... especially because many of us have served. We try, again, to hook these guys up with the VA... but they must want the help. It will not work otherwise.
- progressive_dad 9 years agoRonald Reagan started this catastrophic failure when he was governor of California in 1967.
http://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/30/science/how-release-of-men...
- monkmartinez 9 years ago
- _b8r0 9 years ago> A lot of them prefer this "lifestyle"... we try very hard to help the people that want help. Most don't.
As someone who's been homeless twice, I appreciate that you don't intend to offend, but this is a very loaded and offensive statement. You appear to work with homeless people and have very little sympathy for their situation, which I can understand but it still makes me a little sad.
Becoming homeless is something that can happen to anyone for any number of reasons, and there are different kinds of being homeless. Once you become homeless it becomes harder as time goes on to move back to something permanent. Booze and drugs can sometimes be a simple manner of being able to sleep, or to get away from the situation you're in or how you got there. Choices that seem nonsensical for those who have a warm bed every night make perfect sense when you're worn down by the elements and incredibly poor sleep. After a while the prospect of having to deal with the build up of shit in your life and get shit together becomes a bigger mountain to climb than carrying on when you are, even though your everyday struggle is a mountain of shit in itself.
It's not that people choose a lifestyle as such, it's that sometimes it feels less painful to have a permanent known level of shit in your life than to fight all the way back up to get a permanent place to live and risk being knocked back when you're already pretty fragile. Being homeless is the suckiest thing you can probably reasonably imagine.
- monkmartinez 9 years agoI have empathy for everyone. Sympathy is completely different. Why should I feel sorry for <bob> my regular that I've known for years and absolutely does not want help? I empathize with his situation as I wouldn't choose that lifestyle. Beyond that, society doesn't owe him anything.
It is complex and every story is different. I am sure if I knew every story, there would be some that I would feel sympathy and perhaps compelled to act... but so far, those have been very rare.
> Booze and drugs can sometimes be a simple manner of being able to sleep, or to get away from the situation you're in or how you got there. Choices that seem nonsensical for those who have a warm bed every night make perfect sense when you're worn down by the elements and incredibly poor sleep. After a while the prospect of having to deal with the build up of shit in your life and get shit together becomes a bigger mountain to climb than carrying on when you are, even though your everyday struggle is a mountain of shit in itself.
I am not guaranteed a warm bed every night. No one is, if you really think about it.
Further, you just described being a police officer, fire fighter/ems person with the stresses of the job. Suicide[1], booze/drugs, divorce, anger management are all unfortunate parts of the job for many. How they choose to deal with these issues are another matter entirely.
Sleep issues are a major pain point for me. I choose this life so I have had to develop strategies to deal with it. Some people can't deal with the stress, so they quit/move on, mask it with booze/drugs, have significant behavioural (anger) issues, or kill themselves. Sound familiar?
[1]http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseac...
http://www.nbcchicago.com/investigations/Firefighters-Addres...
- yuudu_literal 9 years agoThese kind of responses have a chilling effect on debate and progress.
> this is a very loaded and offensive statement
So the fuck what? If you aren't allowed to consider anything offensive, we'd never discuss the difficult issues and make progress on them.
> something that can happen to anyone for any number of reasons, and there are different kinds of being homeless
Yeah blah blah blah he's not saying 'absolutely every homeless person is like this', he's suggesting that maybe the situation isn't as everyone assumes, which may be the case. But you've shut him down with some 'not every homeless' person bullshit.
> It's not that people choose a lifestyle as such
He didn't say choose did he? He said they prefer it - I presume he means prefer it to being institutionalised. You seem to suggest that he thinks they prefer it to being a millionaire, which of course they do not.
Have you ever heard of the idea of being charitable in how you interpret other people's thoughts?
> Being homeless is the suckiest thing you can probably reasonably imagine.
Who are you arguing with here? Who disagrees with you? All he said is that some of these homeless people may prefer being on the street to being taken into the care of the state.
You are destroying debate!
- monkmartinez 9 years ago
- jefurii 9 years ago> A lot of them prefer this "lifestyle"
For a number of years I helped run a Saturday morning soup kitchen at a church near the VA in West LA. Talked to a lot of people, mostly guys, and heard this a lot too, but for most of them it's not the whole story.
Most of the homeless people I encountered had a point in their lives when the system failed them. Many of them had some traumatic event and fell into alcoholism or drugs. Many of them either had a weak social net (family or friends) or burned through that net. Counselling was not available or came too late, and once they were far enough along unemployment ran out. Eventually they embraced homelessness because they could no longer imagine an alternative, so that they could think something positive about themselves.
My sense is that there was a window during which the system could have helped them with their problems when it became too much for their friends/family and before they went too far down that path. But certain elements in our society (cough Republicans/Libertarians) just don't want to help people at risk.
- stvswn 9 years ago"had some traumatic event and fell into alcoholism and drugs"
This phrase is doing a lot of work for your argument -- the implication is that alcohol and drugs are like open manholes, and people are just falling in.
I believe in treating addiction. I also believe in removing stigmas associated with drug crimes. I think we should help people. But we shouldn't all assume that drugs cause poverty, 100% of the time. Poverty sometimes causes drug use. Hopelessness and despair (economically, socially) lead to chemical escapism.
My point is that not every drug addict is a victim of a disease which keeps him from contributing to society. People use drugs for a lot of reasons.
I am a Republican/Libertarian, and I take a small amount of offense to the accusation that we "just don't want to help." On the contrary, I believe the current strategies -- house them, feed them, give them clean needles -- is doing more harm than good. It makes the lifestyle sustainable without giving them any hope for something better.
A better way forward: - Stop charging drug users with felonies that prevent them from getting jobs in the future - Legalize almost all drugs, except for those that put the public at harm by causing psychosis. - More mental health services, including committing more people. We're failing schizophrenics when we don't force them into treatment. - Grow the economy. We need more jobs for the lower rung of the labor force. The first step towards despair is often unemployment. - If we're going tax dollars, let's create public jobs for people. I don't mind if subsidized housing is part of the package. - Stop creating homeless havens. It's counterproductive. You can't allow people to defecate on the street in broad daylight and call it compassion. When you do that, people travel to that neighborhood from all over because it's a place where they won't be hassled. It becomes impossible to run a small business there, families leave, the neighborhood dies.
I'm not saying we should fill the jails with the homeless. But why not provide public restrooms, and then arrest and/or commit those who are using the sidewalk? If we need someone to maintain the restrooms -- pay the homeless.
- stvswn 9 years ago
- a-saleh 9 years agoSometimes I feel this "most of them prefer the way it is" is just a way to make excuses for us not solving a problem.
For example in my city of ~ quarter mil. people, there are approximately 1000 people living on the streets and another 1000 without home (no adress, permanently living in hostels, people in prisons that no longer have home).
Currently I know that there is project that focuses on the families without home (afaik 300-400 ppl?), where the plan is to move them into the city owned flats (there is more than 20 000 flats owned by the city with several hundred empty)
I like the logic behind that. To catch people without home before they end up on the street and give them an adress. What do you think?
- monkmartinez 9 years agoMaybe, but funding new programs for homeless/mentally ill is problematic for a lot of reasons; A lot municipalities have budget problems with structural deficits. This puts pressure on basic infrastructure like roads, water, and sewer. Public transportation is under severe stress due to the budgets. Public safety agencies have been relying on grants (SAFER) from the fed to get basic needs met as the cities are tapped out. Government employees in my area haven't had a raise in 10 years while the costs for insurance, medicare, and everything else has gone up more than 10%. To put it bluntly, asking voters to approve bonds/money for homeless will go over like a turd in a punch bowl.
- monkmartinez 9 years ago
- tim333 9 years agoThe issue my be complex but you don't see the same thing in most of Europe or Canada which suggests it's not immune to government action.
- rconti 9 years agoJust an anecdote, but when I studied in a mid-sized city in France a bit over a decade ago, one night after walking home from the bar, I commented to my host mom that I was surprised at the number of homeless people. She seemed confused, so I mentioned people sleeping in the doorways of businesses that were shuttered for the night.
Her reply has always stuck with me. "Oh! No, they're not homeless, they're Roma."
- Shivetya 9 years agoYou really need to read up on the issue more then. Even a simple browsing of Wikipedia will show the statement is wrong. What is primarily different is reporting by news sources. If the US is nearing a million or two homeless (numbers reported are lower) for the size of its population how does that put it in perspective of Canada listing around three hundred thousand out of thirty five million people. The EU reports nearly three million.
Worse is the homeless situation in third world countries where even less services are available. Being homeless in a Western nation is far different than anywhere else. It may be exaggerated in SF and LA simply because of two reasons, climate and more support for those in need. So the city may actually being doing a good job but is simply attracting more people because they are
tl;dr do not for a moment think that homelessness isn't as bad issue elsewhere, let alone countries where the US is equal to economically.
- icelancer 9 years agoWhat? Have you been to Paris or any major large city in Europe? It's not different than most of American large cities. SF and Seattle just happen to be two of the worst in the nation for homelessness issues and a lot of that is because they move there.
- BurningFrog 9 years agoOne common government action is to lock up or beat up vagrants.
- rconti 9 years ago
- Justsignedup 9 years agoDo you have any idea how taxing it is on the psyche to be homeless? Maybe there are one or two people who chose this lifestyle like developers mooching off Google. But overall this is the exception, not the rule.
Reasons many are homeless:
- Psychiatric problems. They can't fit in to normal working conditions because they are for lack of a better word crazy. They also don't get the necessary help due to poverty.
- Lost a job. In a city like New York where the cost of a studio apartment over an hour away by train can cost 1 grand a month, and minimum wage is still $9 an hour, and food is pricy, and metro isn't exactly cheap either, it can be very easy to fall into the homeless problem if you don't have friends and family helping. I know quite a few people who were fortunate to have had a car and able to get up and leave the state rather than sleep on the street.
- Being homeless often means no access to cleanliness which limits your ability to find a job. A self-fulfilling prophecy.
- If you are injured to a point where you can't work, it is not very easy to get government disability. My friend took 2 years to get the benefits while she was completely crippled. She was surviving on the generosity of her friends. When the government finally gave her money, she was able to afford a teensy apartment. If she ended up homeless the government wouldn't give her the benefits because you need an official place of residence.
- Speaking of a place of residence, a crippled homeless person cannot go to a shelter because they will be preyed upon. And they can't physically fight back. And so they also can't claim benefits because of this. I know one such person.
- huuu 9 years agoHomeless people lost trust in the system so they prefer to live without it. But they don't prefer to be homeless.
Try living on the streets and you will become an addicted asshole. I don't think there are a lot of people who can do it for years and stay 'normal'.
- wpietri 9 years agoFrom what I can tell your main complaint here is that homeless addicts are... addicts?
I really appreciate that you serve homeless residents just like other residents. But you might consider that the people who you are most frequently called to help are not representative of the homeless population. Look at the national stats:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_Sta...
That's a lot of families. It's a lot of kids. A friend of mine put years into making a documentary about homeless youth in Chicago. I got to meet some of them, and they are entirely different than the picture you paint:
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/films/homestretch/
I think it's also important to note that active addicts generally refuse help no matter what level of society they're in. That's part of the addictive cycle. Homeless addicts claim to prefer their "lifestyle" and will fight to keep it. But so do gainfully employed alcoholics. So do wealthy coke fiends. It's a disease that will kill all of them eventually unless they can start facing how much addiction has screwed up their lives. And as hard as facing that has to be for a well-off person, I expect it's way harder for someone who has fallen so low as to be sleeping under an overpass and living out of a trash can.
- dragonwriter 9 years ago> A lot of them prefer this "lifestyle"...
To the extent that's true, I suspect that says a lot more about the alternatives that they are presented with than anything else.
- mbrutsch 9 years ago> most of the homeless are not looking for help to find jobs and/or contribute to society in manner that will lead them out of "homelessness."
When I worked at a VA Medical Center 25 years ago, the problem was identical. You end up feeling more for the social workers than for the vets.
- borkabrak 9 years ago> that doesn't mean we treat them like sub-humans... we just have less patience with the shit they are inevitably going to give us.
While I have difficulty agreeing that the homeless generally want to be, it seems worth noting that they're not better than normal people, any more than they are worse - they are normal people, with the same charm and/or asshattery as the rest of us. They're just in a situation most of us (or so I think) find singularly undesirable.
- Mz 9 years agoI am homeless. I have never spent a night in a shelter. I prefer sleeping in a tent. It is cleaner and more humane. The services aimed at helping the homeless are mostly pretty revolting. The free meals are lower quality than fast food. The emergency shelters have mold problems. And you get crowded in with other sick, poor, desperate people to have a shot at the dregs they are willing to provide you.
This is part of why I have this blog: http://sandiegohomelesssurvivalguide.blogspot.com/
Homeless people need the same things other people need: Work that works for them and other middle class solutions that are largely disappearing from an increasingly polarized America. But what they are offered is mostly contempt and really low quality options and services rooted in a broken, abusive, horrifying set of mental models. And then we are vilified for not being adequately grateful for the shit offered to us.
I don't want to be homeless. But, yeah, I prefer this to the vastly shittier alternatives available to me.
- notthegov 9 years agoI agree, most prefer the lifestyle because A) life is hard and B) they adapt and/or give-up.
There are 25,000 homeless in my city. I don't know exact numbers but a lot come here to pursue their dreams and some to escape a bad situation back home.
But it is so expensive here. Housing is difficult. Deception is everywhere, in terms of convincing people they have a chance at a career. But more often, they fall into drugs and prostitution, and running the streets -- because it is fun and easy, at first.
So an 18 year old kid who wants to be a singer, can run around meeting interesting people, act like he/she is achieving their dream but really is just partying. Then their irresponsible ways get them on the street.
And a once bright kid becomes diminished by drugs, and stress, and the struggle and emotional pain and torture that living on the streets causes. They then look "mentally ill" but most, in my experience, are merely exhausted and are irresponsible.
I have young friends who are homeless, and I'd start my day drinking coffee with them at Starbucks and then later eating breakfast at my building (a 5-star hotel) with people who could afford to feed a million people for a year.
And my rich friends, a lot are on drugs, and some do insane illegal things, and are generally way worse for society than my homeless friends. And I could often trust my homeless friends more than my rich ones.
At the time, I lived in an $8 million condo for free. And through a conflict of over our philosophies on pandering and prostitution, I moved out abruptly, and was nearly homeless myself. I then got to experience first hand the atrocious public transportation services, the difficulty in renting an apartment and how the City just doesn't care about working class people or the homeless.
The City is inept and just not thinking about solving the problems in a valid way. Instead, they take away electrical outlets in most areas which just punishes tourists, commuters, regular working people etc.
And great institutions, like the pubic libraries, which Carnegie saw as a way to lift up all of society, become refugees for the homeless.
Of course, the majority of homeless people are too far gone. Most are lazy, selfish, destructive and just terrible people.
Were they like that before or did they learn to be that way? Maybe if schools taught kids critical thinking skills and stoicism and how to separate themselves from the emotions, then we'd have a stronger society that knew how to deal with adversity better.
A lot of people, rich poor, smart or uneducated, are slightly fragile and weak. Life is hard, for us all, and society doesn't teach us how to live life very well.
- myblake 9 years agoI suspect also many of the homeless in San Francisco, especially the ones being complained about here, have pretty bad mental health problems going on treated. Government probably needs to step in and help on that front as well.
- citizensixteen 9 years ago
- Fede_V 9 years agoI completely believe in being the charity principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when interpreting what someone said, but in this case, I think you are being too generous.
He was not complaining about the suffering of those people and the lack of government intervention on their behalf - he was unhappy because poor people made his own personal life marginally worse by subjecting him to unpleasant views/smells.
- RodericDay 9 years agoyeah that's wildly charitable:
https://justink.svbtle.com/open-letter-to-mayor-ed-lee-and-g...
> Every day, on my way to, and from work, I see people sprawled across the sidewalk, tent cities, human feces, and the faces of addiction. The city is becoming a shanty town… Worst of all, it is unsafe.
> [...]
> I am telling you, there is going to be a revolution. People on both sides are frustrated, and you can sense the anger. The city needs to tackle this problem head on, it can no longer ignore it and let people do whatever they want in the city. I don’t have a magic solution… It is a very difficult and complex situation, but somehow during Super Bowl, almost all of the homeless and riff raff[1] seem to up and vanish. I’m willing to bet that was not a coincidence. Money and political pressure can make change. So it is time to start making progress, or we as citizens will make a change in leadership and elect new officials who can.
> Democracy is not the last stop in politics. In-fact, the order of progression according to Socrates via Plato in the Republic goes: timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and finally tyranny. Socrates argues that a society will decay and pass through each government in succession, eventually becoming a tyranny.
This guy knows there's sides, and he knows what side he's on.
- StavrosK 9 years agoThe GP didn't say the letter meant it that way, he said the letter is right in that there shouldn't be homeless people living in the streets, they should be taken care of by a stronger safety net.
- bonaldi 9 years agoI'm going to be pedantic, but only because I think that's how the letter guy is going to try and get out of this too. The letter did not say that "there shouldn't be homeless people living in the streets".
Both it and GP said he shouldn't have to see homeless people. The letter writer certainly wouldn't care if the homeless people were still homeless, so long as they were bussed somewhere he didn't have to gaze upon their poor faces.
- bonaldi 9 years ago
- RodericDay 9 years ago
- mc32 9 years agoIt's unfortunate people always have to play politics and angles. "'bro" is the new "thug". It's a label imposed on a person you disagree with in order to garner antipathy against them.
And yes, there should not be homeless people, they should be managed and taken care of by either government agencies, charities or families. It's a failure of society, rather than a failure of the people complaining about unhinged people who at times panhandle, sleep, urinate, defecate, scream, accost, spit, voice their inner monologues, eat, in public often times at the expense of the public.
And to be sure, this should not be a locally addressed problem but a national problem. Addressing it locally only attracts more homeless into homeless friendly areas.
Render homeless services to homeless based on where they lived the longest, from federal funds so you don't get concentrations in Santa Clara county, or Los Angeles county from people from all over.
- StavrosK 9 years agoI visited SF a few times, and I was always horrified to see how such a wealthy city leaves its homeless people to wander around, sleep in the cold and generally live in inhuman conditions. I won't claim I know enough about the city from two visits to propose any solutions, but I know that the fact that there are hundreds or thousands of people living like that is inexcusable. I've never seen this before to such extent.
- ctlby 9 years agoThe city spends $167 million [1] for a homeless population no larger than 15,000 (and probably closer to 7,000) [2]. The wealthy city isn't leaving anyone to his or her fate. To the contrary, it's expending vast amounts of wealth with precious little to show for it.
[1] http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/S-F-spendi...
[2] https://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/sfgov.org.lhcb/files/2015%20San...
- spikels 9 years agoAnd that $167 million is just services specifically for the homeless. It does not included other city services which are heavily used by the homeless such as medical, housing, police, sanitation, etc - probably well over another $100 million - or the extensive private, non-profit and church spending.
- mattlutze 9 years agoTo boot, that would be 6-7% of the city's 2.5B in receipts from 2012-2013:
http://sftreasurer.org/sites/sftreasurer.org/files/TTX_Annua...
That there's not a significant dent in the continuing issue raises some questions.
Expatistan's crowd-sourced info finds SF housing to be the most expensive in the world, and cost of living in general nearly there:
- zepto 9 years agoThat's between 12k and 20k per person. Way less than you'd need to provide accommodation and treatment for a person with mental illness. It's not surprising it doesn't work.
- spikels 9 years ago
- wlesieutre 9 years ago> sleep in the cold
Are we talking about the same city here? I'd call SF "occasionally chilly" at best. That's part of why so many homeless people gravitate to CA; if you're sleeping outdoors there are many, many worse climates for it.
> The coldest day of the year is December 26, with an average low of 44°F and high of 55°F.
https://weatherspark.com/averages/31587/San-Francisco-Califo...
Related: did you know that windows can crack from thermal stress like cookware that you cool too rapidly? I learned that last weekend! Windchill -30F, fun times here in New England.
- JoeAltmaier 9 years ago...and why we have few/no homeless in my town: it stays around 16F for weeks at a time. And goes negative overnight.
Also, the Emergency Housing Project, an Ecumenical service my UU Church started 20 years ago.
- DINKDINK 9 years ago>did you know that windows can crack from thermal stress like cookware that you cool too rapidly?
This is called thermal shock [1]. Basically thermal expansion mismatches cause internal stress beyond the material's Ultimate Tensile Stress and causes a fracture. It's the underpinning to how tattoo removal works too.
- JoeAltmaier 9 years ago
- runamok 9 years ago2000 chronic homeless from what I have read. However, the city spends about $40000 per person that is not on the streets. A good article on the last 10 years or so: http://www.sfchronicle.com/archive/item/A-decade-of-homeless... 1 reason there are so many is probably because the city does try to help them and not abuse them like many cities. That and the mild weather...
- knughit 9 years agoSF cares for a substantial fraction of the entire nation's homeless population, who migrate to SF for weather and public services. SF gets blamed because SF helps homeless folks the most, not the least.
- ctlby 9 years ago
- jimmytucson 9 years ago
You're not really agreeing with him though, are you? He's saying homeless people are an eyesore. You're saying the government should create more homeless shelters. I don't think you guys are even on the same planet in terms of your views.> To play devil's advocate, he's right.
- Lawtonfogle 9 years ago>He's saying homeless people are an eyesore. You're saying the government should create more homeless shelters.
I think the difference is found in empathy. Take two cases: One, I feel bad when I see a homeless person because my empathy makes me feel bad, and I want to remove that bad feeling and thus I help them. Getting them 'out of sight' might reduce the bad feeling a little, but any time I think of their being homeless people, I still feel bad for them.
Two, I feel bad because the homeless person is making the place look worse. So I want them to be gone. Once they are out of sight, I no longer feel bad.
I think the two above are more similar that many people treat them because of how selfishness and empathy interact, but I do also think their is still a significant difference because one is based off of empathy and the other is based off of pure selfishness.
- patorjk 9 years agoI think a lot of people fall into both categories. Most people have empathy and most people like beautiful things. What differs is the weight of one feeling vs the other in these types of situations.
- patorjk 9 years ago
- ryanlol 9 years agoHe's saying homeless people are an eyesore and trashing the city, that's unquestionably true.
He's also saying the government should fix it, what other options are there but homeless shelters?
I don't get why people are acting like this guy wants to send the homeless to concentration camps and gas them.
- dsaint-pierre 9 years agoWell, repealing the Ellis Act, for one. You (and he) are looking at this as if the homeless spontaneously came to exist as NPCs in the RPG that is his wonderful techie San Francisco existence rather than identifying the things that led them to this place in life like the Ellis Act, skyrocketing inflation, lack of lower-middle income jobs, etc.
- knughit 9 years agoThe article specifically coted the Super Bowl as a positive example. The Super Bowl bullied people away from the venue, didn't help them into homes.
- dsaint-pierre 9 years ago
- curun1r 9 years agoThe thing that people are missing is how much dealing with this on a day-to-day basis changes you. You can't walk past/through that much human misery without hardening your heart towards it. My commute to work for the past 4 years has taken me through the 6th st corridor. I walk past homeless people, SRO hotels and what I believe is a methadone clinic. People in wheelchairs with diabetic amputations are disturbingly common. And even those with all their limbs seem broken physically in a way that means they'll never be productive members of society, even if they could get past the mental illness/drugs. Any money spent on them is simply softening their descent into death rather than helping them live.
At first, you feel bad for these people. But, over time, it changes you and you stop feeling as much empathy towards them. They're the people yelling at 3am in the morning that make you tired at work the next day. They're the people shitting on the sidewalk and forcing you to jump around it or walk in the street. They're the people leaving uncapped needles on the sidewalks.
And add to this that the situation has gotten significantly worse lately. SF is a powder keg ready to explode. There are two SFs living in close proximity to each other and both headed in opposite directions. As the one SF has gotten richer and the other has gotten poorer and evictions have increased, there's a general feeling of combativeness that's very scary. It's common for people to try to intimidate me on the sidewalks as I walk to work. They stare at me and walk directly at me no matter which side of the sidewalk I attempt to walk on. My projection is that there's a message being delivered..."you may have everything else, but I'm taking the sidewalk." Homeless people will urinate/defecate in the middle of the sidewalk in ways that make it as difficult as possible to avoid. And while it's mostly passive aggression at the moment, it feels like we're not too far off from that aggression turning active. This deeply unhealthy dynamic is why I've chosen to leave SF.
It would take an extraordinary person to be dealing with this on an everyday basis and not try to compartmentalize it in ways that appear cold and unfeeling to people viewing it from the outside. You can't understand the fear, and fear will cause people to do and say things that others would consider unconscionable. You can't understand the hopelessness of the situation that leads you to write those people off a subhuman. Out of sight is really out of mind. And anyone that isn't experiencing this problem on a daily basis isn't going to really understand this open letter. They're going to attribute the tone and callousness of the letter to the individual who wrote it rather than the experiences they've been subjected to.
- Lawtonfogle 9 years ago
- sandworm101 9 years agoAnd let's see his opinion on the evils of regulations when the city taxes him and/or turns his favourite ping pong parlour into a shelter.
- SideburnsOfDoom 9 years agoAsking for homeless people to be moved out is basically asking for regulations and enforcement which has to be funded from taxes, isn't it. Not all that different from a shelter, except much crueller.
- SideburnsOfDoom 9 years ago
- sheri 9 years agoTo be fair, he's wrong and you're wrong. It's not about what he wants to see or not see. He says homelessness is bad because it affects him and his lifestyle. To couch this problem in such a narcissistic way leads to solutions like Super Bowl city (a solution he mentions and actively endorses). It leads to solutions to just resolve the rich lifestyles, and not actually help the homeless. His letter doesn't highlight the problem (like so many commenters here are saying), but just highlights the impact it has to his lifestyle.
- coldtea 9 years ago>To play devil's advocate, he's right. He shouldn't have to see the pain, struggle, and despair of homeless - the city government should be providing affordable housing and shelters for the homeless.
Only if people agree, offer their solidarity, and approve the city government of doing so (with their taxes etc too).
Which is exactly what people like him don't allow.
- ves 9 years agoYou shouldn't have to pay any more. Cali already takes an insane amount of your income, and it's not like the spending isn't happening. I think SF spent something like 240mm on homeless last year, which works out to something like 30-70k pp if just handed out as cash.
Paying more to the govt isn't what you should be asking for, rather, you should be asking for a more efficient and accountable govt.
- return0 9 years ago> Which is exactly what people like him don't allow.
How did you come to that conclusion?
- coldtea 9 years agoFrom actual experiences talking to multiple upper class people who "don't want to see those homeless" that are invariably anti-taxes/government spending for such issues.
- coldtea 9 years ago
- ves 9 years ago
- 010a 9 years agoHis wording might have been harsh and maybe he's coming from the wrong viewpoint, but he's ultimately right. Fixing homelessness and mental illness in the right way would be a net benefit to both people like him and the people on the street.
California has the highest income tax in the entire United States. San Francisco is up there among county income tax. Its inexcusable that our star tech capital of the entire world is simultaneously infamous for its homelessness and mental health problems. You can phrase it "I hate looking at these people" or you can phrase it "these people need help"; the right solution remains the same. Fix it.
- viscanti 9 years agoOf course the city should do more to help the issue. Turning a blind eye to tents on the street (which are illegal) isn't doing enough. It just makes the issues of a poor mental health system even more obvious.
The article is interesting as it's attempting to vilify "rich tech bros". Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems weird to point out that he took his parents to a restaurant that serves Lobster (no word on if they ordered or considered ordering it) and that he once spent $20 on a ticket to a special theater. He's then called a tech bro nearly 10 times, always with the presumption that being a man who works in a tech job is both a "bro" and that because of that he's inherently responsible for everything wrong in the world.
He shouldn't have written his medium post, or at best he could have found a much better way to word it. The city DOES need to treat it's homeless in a more humane way. But I wonder if journalists don't also have some soul searching to do, and if they might want to back off the "All techies are evil" rhetoric which is really the basis of this article.
- FireBeyond 9 years agoIt's because if you read the article, or his letter, there's very little about "what can be done to help fix or solve this issue" or help these people, and their plight...
and very much about how someone who can afford the nice things in life, a luxurious / extravagant lifestyle by many standards, 'shouldn't have to be subjected to the unpleasantness thereof' and how uncomfortable / annoying it is -for him-.
He's not trying to solve the problem for them, he's trying to solve it for himself. He even says as much, talking about how easy it is to 'sweep the problem away' for Super Bowl. No-one thinks that SF temporarily solved the homeless issue for SB weekend, and he doesn't want it solved either (or makes no real mention of that in this letter), he just wants it swept.
- FireBeyond 9 years ago
- at-fates-hands 9 years agoNot sure what kind of solution the government should have.
There's already a myriad of local, state and federal housing programs already in place. Whether its temporary emergency housing, eviction protection, child care services, or in some cases, low income housing and federal subsidies for permanent housing.
There's plenty of safety nets in California, let alone the SF area. If people want to get off the streets, there's an abundance of resources at their disposal. Saying the government isn't doing enough is a bit myopic considering all the local, state and federal help readily available.
http://sf-moh.org/index.aspx?page=130
https://www.mercyhousing.org/california
http://www.homeless.org.au/directory/us-california.htm
http://www.freeprintshop.org/download/shelter_english.pdf
http://www.sfcenter.org/resources/housing
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/states/california/h...
http://ssa.ocgov.com/calfresh/calworks/emergency/homeless
http://www.needhelppayingbills.com/html/calworks_homeless_as...
And that's JUST for the homeless services. It doesn't even START to address the free addiction clinics, low cost prescriptions, free health care clinics, food shelves, and other resources homeless people might need help to get off the streets.
In my mind the government is going way above and beyond trying to solve this issue.
- joosters 9 years agoHow many of these myriad services are already running at full capacity? Just because there are homelessness support groups out there doesn't magically mean that there is enough support.
- nxzero 9 years agoMore to that point, most public resources are not required to report that they have exhausted their capacity. Further, such resources often actively waste the time of those looking for support under the pretext that resources are available and they need to prove there is demand that exceeds their capacity; even when year after year it's clear that documenting demand will not result in additional resources.
- nxzero 9 years ago
- SomeStupidPoint 9 years agoIn my city, most of the programs to help homeless people have waitlists on the order of years.
- kefka 9 years agoI live in Bloomington, IN.
We have (Way) better than average care for homless in probably a 3 hour driving distance. There's tons of services available. And that too is a problem. Every service we provide means that more homeless come and flock to our city. Ideally, we'd like to provide for everyone, out of a sense of human decency.
The only problem with that is we could provide for everyone in the county, we cannot do the same for south central indiana, parts of Kentucky, parts of Ohio, and parts of Illinois, and wherever they come from via bus. What started as a problem of 100 people disenfranchised now is a perpetual 400.
The solution, as ugly as it may seem, needs to be a cross-country (national level) anti-homelessness mission. That means comprehensive low/no barrier essentials, possibly even a minimum income. Until a national answer happens, any community that offers above and beyond will get punished with multiplying numbers that far exceed any local budgets.
- kefka 9 years ago
- pfarnsworth 9 years agoYou forgot the most important link:
http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record...
SF spends $241 million per year on homeless, with no accountability and no ability to track results. They are NOT going above and beyond, they are wasting money with no improvement in results.
- at-fates-hands 9 years agoFunny, I did some research and found this article which seems to know where most of the money is going. So what happened in two years between my article in 2014 and your article that came out in 2016?
How are you able to track this and then in two years, you suddenly have no idea where all the money is going?
http://archives.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/sf-spends-1657-m...
The lion’s share of the funding goes toward supportive housing, which provides specialized and intensive services to the recently homeless as they adjust to a new way of life, with some combating drug addiction and receiving mental health care.
The City spends $81.5 million annually for 6,355 supportive units, or about $13,000 per unit. Of the 6,436 homeless individuals counted in last year’s homeless count, 3,401 were on the streets without shelter while the other homeless people counted resided in shelters, transitional housing, resource centers, residential treatment, jail or hospitals.
And
Even though The City has built 3,000 new supportive-housing units since 2002, the homeless population has remained mostly flat. The population has ranged from 6,248 to 6,514 since 2005, after dropping from 8,640 in 2002.
You claim "zero accountability" but there's several paragraphs and a large graph showing where the money goes in your article. Not sure how you fix "accountability" if your city continues to build housing for these people and continue toe expand their budget to help them. What else do you want them to do???? Most other cities would see this and spend the money elsewhere and cut the spending on these programs in a heartbeat.
- at-fates-hands 9 years ago
- joosters 9 years ago
- cylinder 9 years agoI disagree. Handling this on a city level is absolutely wrong. That's how it is in NYC and why taxes are so high in the city. This needs to be a shared expense and program on the federal level. Otherwise, you increase the tax burden in SF and other cities/states compete in a race to the bottom, luring away businesses with their lower taxes.
Homelessness, poverty are not San Francisco's problem, they are America's problem. If the rest of America takes issue with that, perhaps the Union should be questioned.
- Lawtonfogle 9 years ago>the city government should be providing affordable housing and shelters for the homeless.
This helps the short term homeless. Long term homeless often have problems that can't be met just by giving them housing.
- tim333 9 years agoIf you give them housing they may still have problems but at least they won't be homeless.
- leshow 9 years agoby definition giving them housing would make them not homeless.
- Lawtonfogle 9 years agoAssuming they would accept it and stay in it. As I said, that would work great for the short term homeless, but for many (not all) of the long term homeless, they have mental issues strong enough that they would end up homeless again.
- Lawtonfogle 9 years ago
- tim333 9 years ago
- wpietri 9 years agoThe devil doesn't seem to need more help, so maybe you should question your hobbies. That aside, what both you and he miss: the problem with the pain, struggle and despair of homelessness is not a comfortable person having to see it. It is a person having to experience the pain, struggle, and despair of homelessness.
As a San Francisco with 5x his tenure, I am entirely proud that SF has not swept the homeless problem out of sight. I would rather that everybody were safe, whole, and housed. But as long as we have the problems we do, I would rather they be on public display. Because fixing them is going to require public action.
If that is uncomfortable for him, then good. He should be fucking uncomfortable that people are suffering in the streets. I am, and anybody with half a heart is. As long as the pain exists among his fellow residents, he should see it. We all should.
- skewart 9 years agoHis post was incredibly tone-deaf, and he comes across as an entitled jerk. That said, there's a big difference between being reminded of other peoples' suffering and being assaulted. Leaning on someone's car, yelling at someone, and interrupting a theater are all acts of aggression. It's understandable that he's upset. Nobody should be subjected to this kind of behavior.
Honestly you come across as kind of callous by not seeming able to empathize with why he might be upset.
Of course saying that just sweeping people away is an acceptable solution is incredibly heartless. That's where he lost my sympathy. At the same time, embracing the status and also kinda heartless. It doesn't help anyone, except for people who are neither living on the street nor being confronted by people living on the street.
People often seem to think we should give the homeless and drug addicts and mentally ill free reign to do whatever they want as some sort of act of kindness. I think that's belittling and infantalizing. Nobody should punished harshly for acting a little obscene in public from time to time, but we should do something so that people actually can get help while also enforcing laws that ensure public space can be shared and enjoyed by everyone.
- wpietri 9 years agoBeing upset is reasonable, and I do empathize with that. Asking the police to make the homeless disappear because wealthy market winners feel uncomfortable is not reasonable.
> Leaning on someone's car, yelling at someone, and interrupting a theater are all acts of aggression.
He describes exactly none of those instances as even directed at him or his family. I get why people find mental illness to be troubling, and why they might feel unsafe. But he described nothing that was aggressive. Your feelings, although important, do not prove anything about what other people intend.
> People often seem to think we should give the homeless and drug addicts and mentally ill free reign to do whatever they want as some sort of act of kindness.
That is a ridiculous straw man. If they "seem" to think that to you, I don't believe you're trying very hard to understand what they actually think.
- wpietri 9 years ago
- skewart 9 years ago
- st3v3r 9 years agoBlaming it solely on government is a pretty meaningless and shallow look at it. There are many, many actors at play who have all made decisions of their own volition which has lead to this. Land developers, tech companies, VCs, zoning commissions, they all have a hand in it.
- Shivetya 9 years agoEvery consider that both the climate and the abundance of social programs could be exaggerating SF homeless issue for many? Simply put, its a good place to go and this word gets around. In other words, its good having such support systems but residents must understand that for that all people gravitate to cities that meet their needs. Techies and the like want the climate, the history, and high tech goods and services they desire. The homeless want the climate and access to the social services provided. One city can be the same refuge to vastly different social levels.
- beatpanda 9 years agoYes, people often consider that, and then they look at the data:
http://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/sfgov.org.lhcb/files/2015%20San%...
70% of homeless people in San Francisco were housed residents of San Francisco before the became homeless, and most of the remaining 30% were in a city adjacent to San Francisco before coming to SF after becoming homeless.
Also, the idea that social services are "widely available" to homless people in San Francisco is a farce. For example, there is only 1 available shelter bed for every 5 homeless people.
Source: I worked as a service provider for homeless people in SF and I've seen our supposed "generous benefits" up close.
- beatpanda 9 years ago
- knughit 9 years agoThe government is our employees, not some Other power above is. We need to make the changes. Make demands , build consensus, and run for office if needed.
- pj_mukh 9 years agoYou are right, except we can't have that conversation till the entitled techies in the bay area just shut up for a sec. Our flooding of the market has showed how the lack of supply is the problem, but like you correctly pointed out, the deportation of techies is not the solution. But we certainly should not be writing articles like this, it makes solving the problem that much harder.
There are a lot of activists (mostly behind the scenes) trying to increase the supply the side of the economics. However, the weird alliance between the NIMBY's and progressives in the city keep pointing at the entitled techies (like the author of the article) to show how the techie's are part of the problem.
- joosters 9 years agoSo how many people are going to pay more taxes to raise the money for the government to do all these things?
In the end, it still comes back to the people. It's not the government's fault.
- refurb 9 years agoSan Francisco has a $156M annual budget to address homelessness. That's not a small amount of money. First let's make sure that it's being spend efficiently.
- rahimnathwani 9 years agoThat's over $20k per homeless person, per year[0]
[0] http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-homeless-populatio...
- sandworm101 9 years agoOr, rather than get bogged down in never-ending "efficient government" debates, we can increase spending today and simultaneously address efficiencies. Far too often the demand "efficiency first" is just a means to delay the actual commitment of resources.
- joosters 9 years agoMost of which is spent on rent, so it ends up in the pockets of the landowners. And it doesn't go as far as it needs, thanks to the crazy high rents. It's a vicious circle.
- rahimnathwani 9 years ago
- zo1 9 years ago>"So how many people are going to pay more taxes to raise the money for the government to do all these things?"
If you were to ask me, I'd say "not me". And not because I don't want it done, but because I already pay taxes with the assumption that this is what a government of a supposedly enlightened society should be spending it on. I.e. to care for its weakest members, the ones that need it the most.
- refurb 9 years ago
- 9 years ago
- jboggan 9 years agoMaybe this isn't a city government problem but a federal one. What would you think about re-enacting homesteading? About half the land in this country is federally owned. Why not offer 50 acres and a trailer to whomever would be willing to work and improve it?
- x1024 9 years agoYep, he's right. But like many a programmer, he just does not have a way with words.
- leshow 9 years agohe's not right. his position is that he shouldn't have to 'see' homelessness. he doesn't care if it exists or not, just so long as it's out of his view.
- curun1r 9 years agoNot having to see homelessness sounds harsh.
But what about not having to dodge shit, piss and uncapped needles on the street? What about not having to be asked for money constantly? What about not having to hear people yelling at the top of their lungs at 3am? What about not having to feel unsafe?
If it were just seeing people being unobtrusively homeless, there would be no problem, even if they were plainly visible. His phrasing may seem harsh to people that aren't not exposed to the situation on a daily basis. But let's try to not look for reasons to be offended in this situation and, instead, search for the meaning behind the words. Because there's a serious problem that needs fixing in San Francisco.
- curun1r 9 years ago
- leshow 9 years ago
- kaonashi 9 years agoHomelessness is a byproduct of capitalism in the first place, in feudal societies there is no homelessness.
- monkmartinez 9 years ago
- discardorama 9 years agoI think he does have a point... but he could have put it better.
I live in SF too; for ~10 years. I have never seen it this bad. The City passed a "sit/lie" law a couple of years ago.. but it's never enforced. The City is spending $1M/month ... for housing 225 people[1]. Do the math, and you'll see how ridiculous is that. At that rate, how much do you think the City can spend on the homeless? It has 7000 homeless, and counting.
Many of the homeless used to live in City housing, but got kicked out due to drug and alcohol habits. What's the solution here? You can't incarcerate them. You can't force them to use detox clinics, etc.
If the person refuses help, and refuses to follow the rules of whichever shelter they're in, then s/he has no more right to live in SF! As a last resort, the City is within rights to just kick you out. No one is entitled to live in SF. You can't just show up and setup tent in a public space; that public space belongs to the rest of us too!
[1] http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/02/10/san-franciscos-p...
- kweks 9 years agoThe subject is more nuanced than this.
Firstly, you need to examine the reason why people are on the streets. Generally, it falls into three categories:
1. 'Normal' People with mental illness, and no support network
2. 'Normal' People who have lost their financial stability.
3. Rest (Choice, Addiction, etc. by far the smallest group)
The key thing to note here is that with very, very few exceptions, everyone living on the street was a 'normal' person. The line of being 'normal' and 'homeless' is startlingly slim.
For the majority of people, foundations are job, family and health. Most people can survive losing one, because the others elements support it. Two elements, most people will have problems bouncing back. Three, and you're on the street. Ask yourself: If tomorrow you lost your job and had significant health problem, could you survive? What if you had no family to support you?
Likewise, once on the street, mental health deteriorates rapidly. People wither in a matter of weeks and months. No matter how stoic, strong and determined you think you are - the streets will cripple you.
Once you're on the streets, getting back on your feet is hard. Try getting a job, an apartment, or even a document without a fixed address. It's a vicious circle.
Finally - yes, there are shelters. Unfortunately, most homeless people avoid shelters - as they are notorious spots for theft and abuse; most prefer to risk it on the streets. People aren't refusing help, they're refusing to be sexually assaulted, or have the very few posessions that have left being stolen.
Finally: you're totally right - SF is expensive. You suggest the homeless should leave, but forget the how: buy a plane / train / bus? Or, perhaps they should risk jumping without a ticket, then being arrested, and then having a felony against their name.
The take away message is this: homeless people are 'normal' people. The difference between you, me, and anyone with the homeless is that we're incredibly lucky to not have faced significant problems in life, or be burdened with mental illness.
It's a tough subject, and noone likes the results, but it's worth remembering you're human, and applying empathy.
- 1024core 9 years ago> The key thing to note here is that with very, very few exceptions, everyone living on the street was a 'normal' person.
That is where you are dead wrong. I would highly recommend you walk down 13th street (aka Duboce or Division, can't remember) and talk to the people living in the tent colony lining it. I have; it used to be my way to work till the hassle became too much and I started taking a detour. I would posit and say 100% of them are there by some sort of choice (not following the rules of the shelter is a huge #1). Drugs, alcohol and theft (bike, specially) are rife there.
I live in SF, and just can't stand the holier-than-thou approach taken by those who have not experienced SF's homeless firsthand. These are not your "lost my job and house and am forced to live out of my car" homeless; these are people, most of whom made a conscious decision to come to SF because they're attracted by the generous benefits, or got hounded out of whatever city they were in.
- kweks 9 years agoI've not worked with the homeless in SF, but I have seen it first hand.
Noone is contesting the infiltration of alcoholism, drugs, etc that is a huge part of the homeless puzzle.
However, it's important to consider that the abuse comes as a result of being on the streets, and the desire to numb against the hardship, or if it was the catalyst that placed the people in that situation. My experience is that it's more the former than the latter.
Call it holier-than-thou, but I've been working with homeless for over 5 years, 2 nights per week. I am sure that SF's situation has its nuances, but I'd be surprised if it was totally different.
- beatpanda 9 years agoSerious question: how many people working in the software industry do you know who don't use drugs or alcohol?
If everybody in San Francisco was held to the insane standards shelter clients are held to, nobody would be able to stay in an apartment for more than a week.
- kweks 9 years ago
- aeturnum 9 years ago> The key thing to note here is that with very, very few exceptions, everyone living on the street was a 'normal' person. The line of being 'normal' and 'homeless' is startlingly slim.
I did some work with a bay area organization that runs reduced rate housing for transitionally housed people and families when I was in college. First, I should say that you're completely correct about the numbers at any given time, but this also misses the larger picture.
Homelessness, broadly speaking, breaks down into two categories: temporary and chronic. The vast majority (~90% by the number of people) are 'temporary' (generally just called homeless). These are people who lose housing for a short period, then find housing again. Around 10% of the homeless are 'chronically' homeless - which means they have been homeless repeatedly over a number of years.[0]
I bring this up because I think your impression of where our social safety net is failing is incorrect. We do pretty well when dealing with the 90% of non-chronically homeless people. I think we could do a lot better, but most of those people are homeless for a short time, get help and find housing and stability again. When you talk about 'normal' people who have had a run of bad luck - they are the group we do best at helping.
The chronically homeless, on the other hand, need a totally different set of services. Being homeless for a long period of time often changes your entire outlook on life. The idea of investing in the future, or of any long term planning, can start to seem absurd if you're not sure where your next meal will come from. In general, the idea of living 'in society,' where there are shared rules and expectations looses its value if society places no (or almost no) value on you. Chronically homeless people can prefer homelessness to free housing, they can refuse to participate in a process that will feed, cloth and employ them because they don't believe it will be better than their current lives. They often have PTSD. In many ways, we are still working to understand how to best help this population.
I point this out because it's important to understand the kinds of things we do well and the kinds of things we do poorly. The kinds of interventions that help the recently unhoused will often be useless to the chronically homeless. All people are people and deserve dignity and compassion, but we shouldn't focus too much on how much like us many homeless people are. The failures of our system and what most people think of as 'homeless' people, are often facing a totally different set of problems and have a very different outlook on life. They are just as much people are you or I, but we don't do them favors by pretending they're one missed paycheck away from self-sufficiency.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_Sta...
- kweks 9 years agoThanks for the well balanced, well informed reply.
You're completely right on every single point - you highlight a lot more of the 'nuance' that I was referring to.
Obviously, and luckily, the majority of people would not be permanently on the street if they missed a paycheck, mainly because they have other support structures in place: good health, shelter, family and friend network.
However if these elements are lost simultaneously, or weren't strong to begin with, the chances of the individual recovering decrease.
And, obviously - the longer on the street, the longer the recovery - it's definitely not a case of giving out a job, suit and tie and a paycheck and expecting the trauma to evaporate.
- kweks 9 years ago
- 1024core 9 years ago
- foldr 9 years ago>Do the math, and you'll see how ridiculous is that.
It's $4444 per person per month. Why is that ridiculous? They need to employ people to manage the program as well as run shelters, pay rents, etc. $4444 is not so high that it's obviously too much.
- discardorama 9 years ago> They need to employ people to manage the program as well as run shelters, pay rents, etc. $4444 is not so high that it's obviously too much.
Who will they pay rent to? The pier belongs to the City.
That much money gets a homeless basically a cot in a large warehouse. How is that worth $4K/month? And which other city spends $50K/homeless person?
- foldr 9 years agoIf you have a breakdown of the various expenditures showing that money is being wasted, then by all means post it. Otherwise, the amount really does not seem that high.
- foldr 9 years ago
- njharman 9 years agoThat's not even that high of rent for SF.
- discardorama 9 years ago
- Coding_Cat 9 years ago>You can't force them to use detox clinics, etc.
Maybe it is not possible yet legally, but why shouldn't we allow this? The courts can already force people to be commited for mental afflictions when they are a danger to themselves or others. Why not do the same for (heavy) drug addicts who start becoming a liability?
- DanBC 9 years agoIt doesn't work unless the person wants to recover. That's apart from the human rights violation.
- ryanlol 9 years agoHuman rights clearly aren't a big deal to most governments, the involuntary commitment mentioned by the GP is a perfect example.
- Shivetya 9 years agoClue me in, what is the human rights violation? Or better yet, in descending order what are they in regards to those needing help but refusing it and possibly endangering themselves or others?
- ryanlol 9 years ago
- danharaj 9 years agoForced mental treatment has been the source of a great many atrocities by the state over the decades.
- basseq 9 years agoEspecially considering the alternative is forced incarceration. Mandatory treatment at least focuses on improvement.
- BinaryIdiot 9 years agoMandatory treatment can also mean forced incarceration though. It's hard to get out of a mental hospital if the government picked you up and put you there.
Not saying I know the answer though.
- BinaryIdiot 9 years ago
- DanBC 9 years ago
- kweks 9 years ago
- dederp 9 years agoI read his article. He is right, San Francisco has severe, unbelievable problems with homelessness and drugs which are so painfully obvious to anyone who has ever visited I felt like I was reading something out of the twilight zone.
I hate the climate of hostility towards anyone who remotely points this problem out. The reaction and tone of this article is exactly why I hate looking at Twitter now. It has become a platform for lecturing and shaming other people for stepping out of a very oppressive and narrow range of opinion or expression.
I now find articles like this and these daily recurrent societal witch hunts to be infinitely more offensive than anything this guy wrote. I don't want to live in a self imposed culture of toxic silence so no, Hacker News, I will not join in with your witch hunt and participate in group shaming of some random guy who wrote a bad letter.
- allworknoplay 9 years agoDude, he didn't say "we should ensure that we offer social programs and housing supply to address the needs of the poor, mentally ill, addicted, or otherwise disadvantaged", he said (literally) "I shouldn't have to see the pain".
He clearly doesn't care that people who are being priced out of the city they've lived in longer than he has are helped, just that they're gone. What a disgusting attitude.
- daenz 9 years agoYou can cherry-pick from his letter, but it's obvious that his first concern is about safety:
> Worst of all, it is unsafe. > The residents of this amazing city no longer feel safe. > I shouldn’t have to worry about being accosted.
- allworknoplay 9 years agoIf that's his central message, he's wrong. Aside from some dips in 2013-2014, most crime rates in the city are lower than over the past ~15 years.
Anecdotally, I live here now and I also lived here in 2006-2007, and most of downtown feels much safer. I am not a mind reader, but I think the guy sees poverty and feels threatened, and lacks the empathy to understand that the poors are human beings getting fucked by surging costs they literally have no control over.
His comment that the city's wealthy people earned their spots implies that he thinks that the less wealthy who've lived here longer and simply can't afford current prices didn't. Like I said above, not a very nice attitude.
- chris_wot 9 years agoNice cherry-picking.
- allworknoplay 9 years ago
- daenz 9 years ago
- shopkins 9 years agoThe hostility is warranted when you think you're solving a problem by whining about it on Medium. We all have homeless problems in our cities. We get accosted by mentally ill people, drunk people, high people, strung out people, dirty people. We smell piss on the street corners. But we don't publish it on the internet because of some grandiose vision that our words will suddenly shine light on the issue and spur someone to action.
Vote for city officials that will do something about it. Participate in city council meetings. Work at homeless shelters. Talk to people in your city who try and can do something about it, if it means that much to you.
You're allowed to point out problems on a worldwide platform. But when you can't even make your argument without using pejorative language, you've failed. And this reaction is what you get, so the rest of us can see this isn't how you fix the problem.
- marknutter 9 years agoThere is simply no justification for the level of backlash he is receiving. None.
>But we don't publish it on the internet because of some grandiose vision that our words will suddenly shine light on the issue and spur someone to action.
Sure, we all just step over the homeless, ignore the problem, and go about our day. Justin expressed his frustration, and guess what we're all talking about now - that uncomfortable thing we all choose to ignore.
>But when you can't even make your argument without using pejorative language, you've failed.
Then the author of the Washington Post article failed as well. Wielding the might of a nationally syndicated newspaper to rant about "tech bros" and publicly eviscerate a single individual is disgusting.
>And this reaction is what you get, so the rest of us can see this isn't how you fix the problem.
So unless we can provide the solution to a problem we're not allowed to complain about it or expression frustration about it? That sounds like a great way to suppress any conversation about the problem. And judging by the current situation in SF this is exactly what has happened.
Well guess what - by writing that article this "tech bro" has brought more attention to the problem of homelessness than has been paid in years, and although it all could have been written with more nuance, it's a hell of a lot more than most people are doing; which is exactly nothing.
- shopkins 9 years agoYes, that's what it's about: changing the things you're frustrated by. Because the world expects more from the people who build the hardware and software they depend on everyday than some petulant whining. This evisceration is a testament to that. It should be celebrated.
So if you're frustrated, great. Write it in your diary, and then tell us all when you come up with a good solution. But if you have to dehumanize people to get your point across, then yes, to the rest of the world you're just a "tech bro" sitting behind your computer screen who can't handle the realities of human life.
P.S. being offended by the term "tech bro" is like being offended by the word "nerd" or "geek." Come on. We're not being oppressed here.
- shopkins 9 years ago
- m1sta_ 9 years agoI don't have that problem. I've lived in lots of cities and have never had that problem.
- BinaryIdiot 9 years agoPerhaps you just never went into the "right" areas to experience it but I've seen it in many cities.
Instead of basing your thoughts on personal anecdotes you should look towards statistics. For instance the New York City Department of Homeless Services estimated, in 2013, they had almost 50,000 homeless living in the city[1]. But this is just an example; you can look at a huge variety of statistics for many types of places to see how widespread the issues are.
Overall there are over 500,000 homeless people in America on any given night[2]. There are real problems.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_Sta... (shitty source I know; it references a dead article but this is mostly just an example).
[2] http://www.endhomelessness.org/library/entry/the-state-of-ho... (though perhaps a little bit of a bias source; sorry didn't feel like reading too deeply into the government documents to find their data)
- FanaHOVA 9 years agoYou never lived in NYC, SF, LA, Philly, Rome, London or Paris then (And I'm just talking from personal experience, must be many more)
- shopkins 9 years agoSo it doesn't exist, eh?
- BinaryIdiot 9 years ago
- marknutter 9 years ago
- allworknoplay 9 years ago
- anoonmoose 9 years ago>> "Move over Martin Shkreli. You now have competition for the title of America’s most reviled millennial."
That seems unfair. Shkreli made the news for doing things that would have a tangible effect on peoples lives, and doing those things with a smile. Let's compare Shkreli raising the prices on life-saving drugs to the first paragraph of Keller's blog post:
>> "I am writing today, to voice my concern and outrage over the increasing homeless and drug problem that the city is faced with. I’ve been living in SF for over three years, and without a doubt it is the worst it has ever been. Every day, on my way to, and from work, I see people sprawled across the sidewalk, tent cities, human feces, and the faces of addiction. The city is becoming a shanty town… Worst of all, it is unsafe."
It's ridiculous and frankly narcissistic the way that he makes it about him and how it effects his life, to be sure. But, his three personal examples (from just this past weekend!) did a good job of driving home for me how interactions with the homeless are different in SF than they are in my area (northeast).
The guy could use a talking to about punching down but I haven't really heard too many people defending SF's handling of these types of issues either so I can't rip him for trying to bring more attention to the topic.
- toxican 9 years agoAlso, what on earth are the limits for a millennial? My late-20s self, a 9th grader and a man in his 30s should not all be classified the same...
- hluska 9 years agoThis reminds me of 'generation X'. When I was in my early twenties, that badge made absolutely no sense as I was lumped into a group with my mid-thirties cousins and people who were still in high school. As I've aged, it has started to make more sense. Maybe the term millennial will be the same??
Edit - replaced the word 'pumped' with 'lumped'.
- vatotemking 9 years agoThere is a term used about older generations always hating newer generations but I forgot.
- 9 years ago
- vatotemking 9 years ago
- Practicality 9 years agoIt does seems like anyone under 40 is now a millennial.
The most recent clear definition I have heard is anyone born between 1980 and 2000. So anyone ~16 and under is a new generation, currently called Gen. Z, but they may get another name soon.
It does seem like the media is absorbing Gen X into millennials now for some reason. I don't know why. Baby Boomers vs everyone else?
- morganvachon 9 years ago> So anyone ~16 and under is a new generation, currently called Gen. Z
Wait, I thought those were "digital natives", i.e. never having known life without ubiquitous computers/tablets/cellphones? I've mostly heard the progression as Gen X (born in the 70s), then Gen Y (born in the 80s). After Gen Y it's supposed to be Millennials (born in the 90s/coming of age in the 00s), then Digital Natives (aforementioned "raised by the Internet").
But really, I think they just make it all up to suit their current viewpoint. I'm 38 and I've been told I straddle the line between Gen X and Gen Y. I jammed to Pearl Jam and Alice in Chains in 9th grade while wearing flannel shirts and combat boots, so I'm Gen X...wait I also had an 80s electro revival phase wearing all black the following year, so I'm Gen Y...
You get the picture.
- doki_pen 9 years agoI'm 38. I can relate to millennials, but I'm not one. I know many people my age that can't relate at all.
- morganvachon 9 years ago
- k-mcgrady 9 years agoSeems to me it should be people who grew up with the internet. So late 90's/early 2000's onwards. As someone who was born in 1990 and had exposure to the world pre-internet it seems like there's a clear divide between my culture/outlook and those who have only ever known a world with internet.
- Practicality 9 years agoWhat you are describing (late 90s, early 2000s onwards) is the definition of generation Z: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Z
Millennials are the group born in the 80s/early 90s and were introduced the internet at some point while they were growing up, rather than it having always existed as part of their life.
Nobody is really sure what generation Z is like yet, but they are definitely different than millennials.
- elliotec 9 years agoYeah, you and I are millenials, we were born in the same year and grew up with the internet, not necessarily being raised by it like the generation after us.
- Practicality 9 years ago
- anoonmoose 9 years agoI don't like using such a US-centric definition for this type of thing, but I generally think of Millennials as "people who were students when 9/11 happened". It really does seem to have been that sort of defining event.
- datalus 9 years agoWhen you consider that people physically age at different rates generation cutoffs make even less sense.
- hluska 9 years ago
- gregp4 9 years ago> That seems unfair. Shkreli made the news for doing things that would have a tangible effect on peoples lives, and doing those things with a smile.
As I said in my post in this thread, journalists (keypressers) have it in for us. That's why we're "coders," "techies," and now "tech bros" in their articles. They probably resent the fact that low social status geeks are making more money than them, even if few us are actually rich.
To hell with these keypressers. Never, ever lift a finger to help them. They are our enemy.
- toxican 9 years ago
- hibikir 9 years agoThe sad part about the blog post is that it does identify a big homelessness problem, but does so in a way that is callous and doesn't really help.
I spend a couple of weeks in SF this month, and was shocked at the level of homelessness that we find even in very well off districts. This is not something that is common in the big cities of the world. The city is OK with tents everywhere, but that's not really that good for the people that are now homeless either: Living on a tent on the street will not help their mental health, their self esteem, or their chances of getting out of that hole.
I don't think the problem is really the fault of the tech people moving in, and I sure don't blame the homeless themselves. The problem, once again, falls into the people that want to keep the city the way it was, and to avoid building, when the city faces other pressures that are unavoidable. San Francisco MUST build.
Until people change their mind, we'll see both more gentrification and more homelessness, until the city reaches a point where the combination of prices and homelessness makes the city life into a dystopia: Maximum inequality, brought in by policies trying, but failing, to make the city be inclusive. I sure hope San Francisco voters change their mind before it gets to that.
- Eric_WVGG 9 years agoOne of the (many) things that Keller — and many of the folks here who sound like newcomers to SF — don’t get is that the homeless population is not a new thing in San Francisco. It was just like this during the 1990’s, and some say it goes all the way back to when Reagan shut down California mental health services in the 70’s.
- Animats 9 years agoSF didn't have a large visible homeless population until about 1985. There used to be a lot of SRO (Single Room Occupancy) hotels in SF, in the Tenderloin and SOMA. That's where the poor people lived. There are still SRO hotels, but fewer, and many are owned by nonprofits now. The areas containing those hotels are being gentrified. Many of them were in the Tenderloin near Market, across from what's now Twitter HQ. Others were on 6th St, which has stubbornly resisted gentrification for decades. Now there are construction cranes at work there.
The problem with housing the homeless in SF is where to build housing. SF is built out; you have to tear something down to build anything. There are some housing projects, but they tend to house families with kids, and they don't want large numbers of single druggies dumped on them.
Any ideas?
- Animats 9 years ago
- danbolt 9 years agoI think your second paragraph makes a really good point. If you live in a tent where the world around you expects you to be in a house and make enough money, the mental stress is going to be huge.
I'm not claiming to know much about homelessness or poverty, but I'm pretty sure I'd become a less productive developer if I was stuck living on the fringe.
- AndrewUnmuted 9 years ago> I spend a couple of weeks in SF this month, and was shocked at the level of homelessness that we find even in very well off districts. This is not something that is common in the big cities of the world.
I've lived in many places but my home is (and always will be) New York City. What you wrote here does not reflect my experience at all. When I moved into a non-gentrified part of Brooklyn, and then watched it gentrify in front of my eyes, it was only after this whole endeavor concluded that I began to see homeless people on my streets.
There's a lot of loot that upper-middle class transplants from Ohio are willing to shell out of their nice, warm winter jackets.
- Eric_WVGG 9 years ago
- joeguilmette 9 years agoI was in Chinatown talking to my grandmother on my cellphone. A homeless person walked up and punched me in the face.
SF has the worst homeless problem I've ever seen in the first world, and it rivals the worst of what I've seen in the third world.
It's a disgrace and it sucks and I don't have to like it. Whatever the local/state government is doing isn't working. And sure, maybe a lot of the homeless are just normal folks down on their luck.
But as others have pointed out in this thread, a lot of the homeless are also:
* There by choice
* Violent criminals
* From out of state
* Mentally unstable
I can have empathy for them and also want them not to piss and shit in public, beat me up, steal from me, turn a quaint downtown into a war zone (Santa Cruz), ad infinitum.
- mikeash 9 years agoYour post made me realize that most of the complaints in this open letter aren't about homelessness, they're about crime. Quickly re-reading it, I see fights, indecent exposure, public disturbances, trespassing, harassment, assault.
If this author had merely eliminated all mention of homelessness and replaced it with discussion of crime and criminals, it would have ditched all the heartless idiocy while still getting to the problems they care about.
If a lot of homeless people are violent criminals then IMO the relevant question for that particular aspect is not why homeless people are allowed to live on the streets, but why violent criminals aren't being arrested and prosecuted. The fact that they're homeless is irrelevant.
- joeguilmette 9 years agoOf course nobody with half a heart harbors any animosity towards a person who who for whatever reason is homeless and just wants to eat and live their life.
It's the combination of the tragedy that so many live on the streets and the crime that such a population brings to the rest of us that is the issue. These people are often mentally unstable, violent, drug addicted, disturbed, etc.
Throwing them in jail is a waste of their potential and our money. Instead of only providing soup kitchens and free beds (which combined with the weather simply incentivizes out of state folks to come to SF), we should also provide some sort of long term, institutional mental care for these people - the present two options aren't working (a bed and some soup or if you get convicted of a crime a cage and some nutraloaf).
- rconti 9 years agoI'm sympathetic with the parent post, of course, but the blog post repeated said he felt "unsafe" and then didn't bother to mention anything remotely dangerous that happened.
- mikeash 9 years agoSomeone leaning on your car and then getting into a street fight ought to qualify, I'd say. The other incidents don't seem safety related, just weird and possibly uncomfortable.
- mikeash 9 years ago
- joeguilmette 9 years ago
- vinhboy 9 years agoMy friend got punched in the face by a homeless person. Unprovoked, for no apparent reason.
- SeoxyS 9 years agoMe too. It really is a huge problem.
- SeoxyS 9 years ago
- ktRolster 9 years ago
Did he steal your phone, or just didn't like you?> A homeless person walked up and punched me in the face.
- MrMullen 9 years ago> Did he steal your phone, or just didn't like you?
Does it matter?
- Lawtonfogle 9 years agoYes. You have to know what the victim did so you know what to tell them not to do next time. Stolen cell phone means that the victim shouldn't been out on their cellphone in the area. If it was because he didn't like the victim, it must have been some communication, I'm guessing non-verbal, that triggered the homeless person to attack. This is basic material that we go over in Victim Blaming 101.
(/s, because last time I thought the sarcasm was heavy enough, people still thought I was being serious.)
- ktRolster 9 years agoNothing matters nihilistically,
but from a practical standpoint I'd like to know if this is something I have to worry about now when I'm in San Francisco - getting punched by random homeless people.
- x3n0ph3n3 9 years agoIntentions matter.
- Lawtonfogle 9 years ago
- 9 years ago
- MrMullen 9 years ago
- mikeash 9 years ago
- m1sta_ 9 years agoIs there anyone here who does want a group of homeless persons lining the streets of their commute, or outside their homes and workplaces?
He is being self centred in his viewpoint but he's also not unique. Most people pay extra, and as a result work harder and longer, to live and work in neighbourhoods which allow them to ignore the plight of others.
I do hope the response to this is genuine agreement that things need to change because it benefits everyone, followed by associated action, instead of just hysterical and shallow "omg I can't believe he said that".
- koolba 9 years agoI don't want to see homeless people, drug deals, vomiting drunks, or pantless vagrants on my commute to work either. Does that make me heartless? I would hope not because otherwise these problems are not going to be solved. You need people who do NOT want to see that kind of crap on a daily basis to do something about it.
- dghf 9 years agoBut the reason why people don't want to see them affects the outcome.
If it's (at least partly) from compassion for people reduced to such circumstances, hopefully the solution will go some way to improving their lot.
But if it's purely from indignation at the inconvenience suffered by the observers, then the "solution" may simply involve shifting the problem elsewhere: viz. Keller's approval of the way the "homeless and other riff raff" temporarily vanished during the Super Bowl.
- leshow 9 years agoHe's being callous and saying that he doesn't want to look at those grubby stinky people. It's not an argument from a place of sympathy. That's very different from seeing a problem and shedding light on it.
- allworknoplay 9 years ago"That kind of crap" are generally people who have lived here significantly longer than he has and have been priced out due to factors not under their control. He doesn't care if _their_ problems are solved, only that _his_ problem is solved. It's a fairly disgusting attitude.
- dghf 9 years ago
- beatpanda 9 years agoI was the editor of the Street Sheet in San Francisco for a little over a year before going back into software engineering.
I can't even begin to describe to you how difficult it is to wade through the pervasive ignorance on this issue, ignorance that is expressed by basically anybody who has not had direct contact with San Francisco's homeless population.
You need to understand that unless you have studied San Francisco's problem specifically, you are very likely harboring some ignorant, harmful opinion about homeless people, and you owe it to yourself and to them to educate yourself. This report is a good place to start: http://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/sfgov.org.lhcb/files/2015%20San%...
If you care at all about fixing this issue, don't sit around with your other tech industry friends and try to be boy-genius saviors. Seek out the people who have been working on this issue for a long time, who understand it, who can explain to you why it's a problem and why it's so hard to fix.
The Coalition on Homelessness in San Francisco is a really good start. They've been doing so much with so little for so long that they can now do everything with nothing, and they would welcome help from people who are willing to humble themselves and get to work.
We can make this city a better place if we just decide to work together.
- kauffj 9 years agoIt's ironic that Keller will get so much shit dumped on him for making the same exact argument that people make against more permissive immigration. Compare:
A: Allowing people trapped in unproductive countries to move to US/Canada/Europe would significantly improve their quality of life.
B: But think of burden to the welfare state! We wouldn't be able to afford the flood of people moving here for benefits.
A: Simple, just don't allow them benefits. Many people would still move to US/Canada/Europe even if excluded completely from the social safety net (or voting, etc.).
B: The thought of so many destitute people being in my country and not receiving help makes me uncomfortable.
The predominant attitude people hold toward the poor/disadvantaged outside their country is no different than Keller's: I simply do not want to be confronted with this. I'd prefer to not see it and pretend it wasn't there.
(Please do not take this as an argument for open borders, it is just an attempt to highlight a hypocrisy.)
- ZeroGravitas 9 years agoI have a theory that "left" and "right" can be replaced with how a big a circle of humanity you care about.
The people towards the right care about their family, or their community. The people on the left care about a slightly wider circle.
On the far "right" you get sociopaths that only care about themselves. On the far "left" you get utopian hippies that care about people suffering on the other side of the world.
What this frame of reference shows is how close together the traditional left-right are in a wider view. Someone who wants to tax the rich to help the poor doesn't often mean using money from Americans to help Mexicans or Ethiopians, they mean taxing rich Americans to give to the sligthly less rich Americans.
- civilian 9 years agoYeah! It's why it's so weird to see politicians and their supports protest efforts to reduce trade tariffs. With more trade, we will be literally creating new wealth. It will be helping lower the cost of the related goods in the first world, and it'll be giving more and slightly better jobs to the third world, where it'll be helping the poorest there. So why is it a bad thing again?
- m3rc 9 years agoIt's not good to end statements by throwing your hands up in the air and going "golly gee I just can't possibly fathom why anyone would think differently than ME!"
Right off the bat, never regulating trade means you only create short term wealth. You can't possibly think that no one would ever take issue with trade deals that take advantage of countries participating in human rights violations, or countries whose economic situation means they can offer manufacturing for drastically less and undervalue key industries
- m3rc 9 years ago
- js8 9 years agoI have a more complicated theory: What you're talking about (size of the circle) is liberal/conservative/libertarian distinction. Left vs. right is more about if you care about power imbalances (such as economic inequality) within the circle.
- aback 9 years agoI have long agreed with this theory.
There's a reason why the right is like that IMO, and it gets down to this diagram:
http://33.media.tumblr.com/e1aaee07d8101970433020eee016ff9b/...
It is my opinion that people naturally care mostly about themselves, then the people closest to them, and less about people on the other side of the world. It is also my opinion (referring to the diagram) that the closer you are to being the person with the "need", the more effectively and efficiently you can address the need.
So in general, a person is best able to help themselves, less able to help the people closest to them, and even less able to help others. This can be envisioned as rings of concentric circles, where each larger circle represents more and more people, but less and less sphere of influence or ability to understand the "needs".
Along with that goes trust. The closer you are to someone (literally and figuratively) the more trust you will have. So these concentric rings are also rings of trust. I can count on my wife to be there for me when it's time to have my butt wiped. You, who I've never met, probably won't even offer help out. When my BFF tells me something, I automatically believe it, because after 30 years, AFAIK he's never lied to me. When a stranger on the street tells me something, I'm hard-pressed to even pay attention.
So if someone is close to you, then not only can you assess / relate to that person's needs, but you can also trust that person not to abuse your generosity.
So in a family or among close friends, communism (from each according to ability, to each according to need) is usually the norm and usually works fine. What's mine is yours. Mi casa es su casa. I know you, you know me, we won't hurt each other.
But in the world, capitalism / plutocracy / might makes right is the norm. As distasteful as it is, and as much as I understand that the people on the other side of the world desperately need my money, I'm much more inclined to give it to my wife, or friend, because I have far more trust that it will be used effectively and efficiently. And I have to also consider that, being someone very foreign to me, that you might be hostile to me, and use my generosity against me. So sorry, if I don't know you, you're on your own.
That's why I like to call myself a "micro communist" and "macro capitalist."
Now in reality of course I offer kindness to strangers because I'm not a sociopath.
But let's be honest: the kindness I show a homeless man (a dollar or two, or a meal) is not the kindness I show my wife or child (my kidney, my home, my life).
- idanoeman 9 years agoAgreed, except that the marginal value of money is exponentially higher for the poorest people in the world. For example, the Against Malaria foundation can save a life for approximately $2838 [1] pre-tax dollars. The people closest to you do not need your money that badly.
[1] http://www.givewell.org/international/top-charities/amf#Cost...
- idanoeman 9 years ago
- civilian 9 years ago
- qrendel 9 years agoTo add to that hypocrisy, there's also the outrage when jobs go to the most impoverished in other countries, rather than be given to comparatively wealthy westerners at the expense of both the companies and foreign communities.
If you're single w/ no dependents and making $54k or more a year, you are already in the top 1% of the global population by income.[1] Makes a lot of the anti-1% stuff come off as extremely hypocritical.
[1] https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/get-involved/how-rich-am-i/
- vkou 9 years agoIf you completely ignore purchasing power, you can make up any statistics about income you want.
~50% of the world's population has a negative, or a zero net worth - I guess the homeless person with two dollars in his pocket is better off then a janitor who owns an underwater house, or a freshly graduated doctor.
- qrendel 9 years agoAcross all goods, purchasing power is still lower for the median worker in an impoverished country compared to the median western worker. Look at the price of all goods you can afford (healthcare, electronics, etc), not just a few specific items like food and rent. Many of those may not even be available in the poorer country at any realistic price.
That aside, an equivalent USD wage will still provide for more people in a poor country than in a rich one.
- qrendel 9 years ago
- vkou 9 years ago
- vox_mollis 9 years agoIt's ironic that Keller will get so much shit dumped on him for making the same exact argument that people make against more permissive immigration.
This is simply untrue. You'll find that those of us opposed to open borders keep our mouths shut specifically because our opinions make us persona non grata with our peers.
Make no mistake, pro-border-control people are extremely persecuted and marginalized anywhere in the coastal US, just as much as the author of this piece.
- ZeroGravitas 9 years ago
- rdlecler1 9 years agoSF does have a much bigger homeless problem than other cities, and whether it is cause or effect, it's at least correlated with significant and chronic drug use.
I live in an area affectionately known as the 'tender knob'. We've had people defecate on our steps, tear open our garbage bins and leave litter everywhere, and shoot up drugs and leave dirty needles in our outside stairwell. Before moving to SF from NY, I had never seen people defecate on the middle of the sidewalk in the afternoon. The owners of our duplex live upstairs and they've been brought to tears having to deal with this on a weekly basis. I wouldn't feel safe having children in this area.
Yes there are homeless people who had some bad luck and are just trying to get back on their feet. Most people are sympathetic to that. But it's different in SF. Walking around you can't help but feel that many, if not most, of the people are chronically homeless drug addicts who have passed the point of no return. That's the problem we need to deal with.
Moreover, there seem to be strong network effects at work here. You might argue that by not 'pushing out the homeless', that you're actually maintaining a dangerous, self-reinforcing, social environment that is constantly attracting new members. In effect, are we making the problem far worse?
- mneubrand 9 years agoFwiw it's called the Tendernob because it is on the border of the Tenderloin and Nob Hill.
- mneubrand 9 years ago
- stochastician 9 years agoNote that SF already spends a large amount on the homeless http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record... and that at least some politicians are starting to take notice http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2016/01/25/s-f-supervisor-scott-wie...
It's not clear what the solution is to this complex problem.
- m1sta_ 9 years agoPart of the solution will be a realisation that not everyone has a right to live in SF. Just like not everyone has a right to live in Newport.
A part, but not a big part :)
- yoo1I 9 years ago> not everyone has a right to live in SF.
Ah, to see the American Dream expressed in such clarity in a comment on the internet. /me wipes a tear
- sandworm101 9 years agoOr the solution may be to accept that the city owes a duty to everyone in it's boarders and cannot deport human beings based on circumstance. The city could tax the rich heavily, to the point that a balance is struck that both shelters the poor and dissuades further gentrification.
- knowaveragejoe 9 years agoI hate that gentrification has become this bogeyman. It is the effects of gentrification that can sometimes be negative.
- m1sta_ 9 years agoWhat makes you think this duty exists? Can any person on earth move to SF and expect this to be fulfilled?
- packetized 9 years agoWhat do we do when some of the poor simply do not want to be sheltered?
- 15charlimit 9 years ago>owes a duty to everyone in its borders No. A local government owes a duty to tax-paying citizens who legally inhabit it.
>tax the rich heavily Yes, drive out the people who are capable of starting and maintaining businesses, investing in area improvements, and spending money. That's a good idea. /s
- knowaveragejoe 9 years ago
- yoo1I 9 years ago
- m1sta_ 9 years ago
- alistproducer2 9 years agoI recently quit Facebook because I wanted avoid the state of permanent outrage that platform has come to feed off. Some random guy says something reprehensible and we're all suppose apply their comment to an entire group and get into a discussion about said generalized group. Rinse and repeat. It's old and pointless. HN is way better than this.
- jerf 9 years agoI've flagged this for the low quality of the discussion it is engendering.
- jerf 9 years ago
- Spooky23 9 years agoHomeless activists are the most annoying do-gooders of them all.
Let's fight for the right of people, who are mostly struggling with mental illness and addiction to live in the street.
That sure feels noble I guess.
How about making appropriate institutional care available so these folks wouldn't have to sleep in the streets?
In my town, there's an article in the paper today decrying the fact that a local institution is no longer venting waste heat that kept vent grates warm, so people cannot sleep outside.
- hencq 9 years agoYeah, it's sad that it's apparently impossible to have a serious discussion around this topic without getting vilified. It seems that a lot of people like to pat themselves on the back for how compassionate they are because they are fine with homeless people on the streets. That seems the opposite of compassionate to me. True compassion would be, as you say, making care available so these people wouldn't have to sleep in the streets. I'll include mental care in that, since many homeless seem to suffer from mental illnesses as well.
- maxerickson 9 years agoAgency is a basic component of having a reasonable life.
Taking it away is literally dehumanizing. So if it is to be done, it should be done with great care.
(I'm addressing your 2,3,4th paragraphs, I think not heating the outdoors is fine)
- hencq 9 years ago
- lowpro 9 years agoEven though Justin seems like an asshole, I wish the Washington post and other news sources would try to objectively report the news instead of joining the bandwagon and making fun of the views of others. This type of subjective reporting doesn't lead to civilized discussion where you actually address the other sides views, not their delivery.
- Fede_V 9 years agoI'm just struck by the total lack of compassion towards your fellow humans. Levinas used to say that ethics was recognizing the obligation that we have towards people that are suffering - I just wonder how someone who is not a sociopath can see a suffering person on the street and feel slighted because their view was ruined.
- tommoor 9 years agoI think it takes a special kind of person to be forever sympathetic, the folks that work in soup kitchens and volunteer helping these people are to be applauded and recognised - it's not something I could do. For the average person when you interact with dozens of homeless people every single day you just become sort of immune after a few years...
- tommoor 9 years ago
- lhnz 9 years agoCertainly not very compassionate, but is it true that the homeless in San Francisco have a drug problem that is making the area unsafe?
Is nobody trying to treat or house these people?
Shouldn't people take this piece and use it as further evidence that there is a problem that needs to be fixed, rather than merely a culture war they can take part in?
As usual, everybody want's to talk about how much of a 'bro' this guy is, but nobody gives a shit about improving the lives of the homeless.
- sixQuarks 9 years agoI understand where this kid is coming from. He worded things terribly, I will give him the benefit of the doubt. Instead of attacking him, people should be trying to figure out what to do about this problem. The homeless problem has really gotten out of hand in SF - and violent crime too. I know several people that have been attacked and robbed near market street.
I left SF in 2014 after living there since 1999. It's a very different city these days, the "cost of living" to "quality of life" ratio is perhaps the worst of any city in America.
- monkmartinez 9 years agoThe "homeless" must want and work (mentally and emotionally) for help in order for it to work. fullstop.
In my experience, most do not want to put in the effort to kick the habits, contribute to society in a meaningful way, or tell you it is too late. The reality is a lot of them prefer the "lifestyle" and "freedom" to do whatever the hell they want whenever the hell they want to do it. They have a completely different take on life than "most" people.
- iamnothere 9 years agoNot if the government takes the perspective that housing is a human right, regardless of an individual's mental health or substance abuse problems, willingness or capacity to work, or even criminal history. Some would argue that a country has a duty to shelter its citizens, and research shows that the more difficult problems associated with homelessness can be solved by focusing on housing first, then taking on other issues.
The Housing First movement takes this stance, and has seen some success: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First
- vkou 9 years agoI've never been homeless, but I do think that if you've been knocked down every time you try to get up, after a point, you'll stop trying to get up... Nor will you take a hand that's being offered.
Most of the help the homeless get is ephemeral, at best - and won't necessarily get them off the street. It's no wonder that many choose to not fight that fight.
- zepto 9 years agoIt's pretty clear that you have absolutely zero experience about mental health or human psychology.
Amongst other things, most people will attempt to adapt to their situation and retain a sense of agency. That is one reason why you'll find that homeless people speak of the positive aspects of their lifestyle and act as though it's a choice. This is no different from a startup founder extolling the virtues of their 80 hour week.
- monkmartinez 9 years agoYou are right; I am not a clinical psychologist. In some cases, I deal with people when the shit has hit the fan. That is, I know how most people react to really bad events because I see it quite regularly.
In other cases, I deal with the long, slow, and painful descent age and terminal disease bring to people's mental faculties.
In yet other cases, I get to talk with regular 911 callers that we wake up with Narcan, drunks that are simply sleeping on the side of the road, drug seekers that have "fallen" or been "hit by a car" (with no injury to speak of)... and more.
So, generally speaking, I get to see people when they are being quite "real" or at least "true" to the event that has taken place. That doesn't make me an expert in human psychology, and I would not claim such. However, as a group, EMS personnel can cut through the bullshit a lot faster than most. Over the course of years, comparing what people say to what they do... one can not mistake the patterns. No "human psychology" textbook will teach you that.
- monkmartinez 9 years ago
- iamnothere 9 years ago
- wmil 9 years agoThe problem goes back to 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest' and the 'Deinstitutionalisation' movement in the 70s.
Basically they shut down psychiatric facilities instead of fixing them. Now no one has a good solution for people who need care but don't qualify current programs.
- sixQuarks 9 years ago
- armandososa 9 years agoI went to SF (and to the US) for the first time last month and I too was baffled by the amount of homelessness I saw, which is more striking when contrasted to the wealth and beauty of the city (which I loved).
Also, I think we are judging this guy too harshly because of his privilege status. But I cant tell you that I live in Mexico, the third freaking world, and even people living on $4 don't want to see homeless people showing their genitals at them.
- mikeash 9 years agoHoly shit.
I saw the quote in the headline and thought, that is some seriously unfortunate wording. I get what they mean, but putting it in the first person like that makes it sound like the problem is the seeing, not the pain, struggle, etc.
Then I read the actual letter. It's not unfortunate wording! They actually intend to say that the problem is the seeing! This person doesn't care in the least about these people, he just wants them out of sight!
- mdellavo 9 years agoThe author also seems very out of touch and sheltered to the realities of living in a city.
- mdellavo 9 years ago
- VonGuard 9 years agoWhile this guy maybe went about saying it wrong, he has a point. There really is no other place on Earth that puts up with the level of homelessness we see here in the Bay Area. New York, Boston, Chicago, none have anywhere near this many homeless people. All over Europe, there are few homeless people.
It's really a specifically Bay Area, or maybe a West Coast problem. It's utterly out of control. It's complex, it's hard to solve, it involves many many factors. But at the end of the day, it's still true that Bay Area natives are completely oblivious to just how ridiculous the homeless problem is, here. It's the first thing EVERYONE notices when they visit here, and we all just ignore it like it's normal.
I'm sick of it too, though I hope for a compassionate solution, on the other side of it, if I had run out of money and was living on the streets, I would most likely leave the Bay Area on foot and head for some place that isn't the most expensive city in the fucking country. I mean, is it surprising people can't afford places to live, here?
I don't know what the solution is, but after living here for 18 years and seeing the problem only get worse, not better, I completely agree something has to change, here.
- cfreeman 9 years agoIt's becoming a huge problem in Portland as well. We've always had homeless but recently this situation is becoming worse and worse. I live close to the city center and my neighborhood resembles a shanty town with all the homeless people camped out on the street. It sucks because it seems like the city is doing next to nothing to resolve the problem right now, we have a lame duck mayor that doesn't want to touch the issue.
- cfreeman 9 years ago
- randomname2 9 years agoWhat is a "SF tech bro"?
In this context it seems to be intended as some kind of slur, or there is at least some negative connotation here. It's a man who works in tech who... what exactly?
- forgottenpass 9 years agoWhat is a "SF tech bro"?
It's a scapegoat boogieman. A tool of techies in SF to manage their cognitive dissonance.
There are things everyone else in the city hates the startup/tech scene at large for. There are also people progressives hate for their not-progressive-enough views, and some of them have the gall to work in tech. When either of those (or any other number of criticisms) are stereotypically "bro" (or close enough), the people within startups/tech can blame it on the "tech bros."
It is meant as a slur. But bros are just a convenient and useful stereotype to blame. If it wasn't them, it'd be something else. "Tech bros" just happens to be OK to openly deride, because the identity has no social power within "tech" (whatever that means).
- carapace 9 years agoCo-worker of mine, actual quote: "Yeah, I know there's a pay disparity, and women are paid less than men. But really, socially, they have all the power."
THAT, my friend is a "tech bro" and he's in SF.
- forgottenpass 9 years agoDoes he even lift?
Maybe he's a neckbeard instead for having that view. I mean, as long as we're throwing sterotypes around, maybe that one fits better.
- forgottenpass 9 years ago
- carapace 9 years ago
- mikeash 9 years ago"Bro" has become a generic term for a young man with an inflated sense of self worth, a low opinion of others, a macho attitude, and a loud voice. Think of a stereotypical fraternity member.
- tomjen3 9 years agoSomehow that does _not_ describe most young geeks that I have known. How did we simultaneously come to be known as unable to look strangers in the eye _and_ have an inflated sense of self worth?
- mikeash 9 years agoI don't understand your comment. Most geeks are not "bros." As you say, most of us don't fit the "bro" profile. There's no conflict here, there's just different names for different groups of people.
- rudolf0 9 years agoIt's a sub-category of "Silicon Valley programmer/entrepreneur/founder". Awkward geek is one sub-category, "brogrammer" or "tech bro" is another sub-category. They're separate stereotypes for the same career.
I think there are far more geeks in Silicon Valley than there are "tech bros", but the bros certainly exist.
- mikeash 9 years ago
- tomjen3 9 years ago
- jmorphy88 9 years agoIt means a non-"progressive" White male who works in technology.
- randomname2 9 years agoThat does sound like what it means.
The behavior of the "tech bro" in question is certainly offensive and insensitive, however using terms that bigoted in a headline (shaming a minority group in "tech" for holding different political views) is something one would expect websites on both extremes of the political spectrum to engage in (Vox, Breitbart, ...) rather than the Washington Post, and it's a bit sad to see them resort to such outrageousness.
It's also disappointing to see HN moderators be OK with headlines like this.
- danso 9 years agoI agree with that. I'm fine with this story being posted and discussed, but using a slur -- even if doesn't really seem to hurt anyone with "power" -- often leads to cheapening of the discussion. Referring to the blogger as a "SF tech entrepreneur" gets the point across...and people can slap on their own connotations with that term as they please.
- danso 9 years ago
- randomname2 9 years ago
- JibberMeTimbers 9 years agoThey tried to answer this in the article. It looks like it's referring to the general young tech entrepreneur/wantrepreneur who moves to SF to try and make it big.
-Obscure startup -Worships tech people who made it big -Fond of quotes from leaders in technology -General enthusiasm for tech/robots/etc and hobbies
- theorique 9 years ago"tech bro" is like the n-word for a software engineer. It's demeaning, dehumanizing, and offensive. The writer needs to pick a less offensive word to describe precisely what he means.
- sp332 9 years agoYou're being really fragile about this. A "bro" is someone who's out of touch, not a sub-human creature. If this person doesn't want to be called bad names, they should stop being bad things.
- nvader 9 years agoConsider the analogy raised by the parent, reapply your advice, and it should make you cringe.
- nvader 9 years ago
- sp332 9 years ago
- flog 9 years agoIt's the acceptable-because-it's-male-and-white version of "blond bimbo"
- forgottenpass 9 years ago
- sandworm101 9 years agoThe shame is that this individual is far from unique, and not just in SF. I run into people daily who speak of homelessness as a conscious lifestyle choice. I know of one SF attorney who constantly rants about how the homeless there all earn 50k a year. They build up these fantasy worlds to justify their perception of themselves as moral millionaires. They believe wealth to be the inevitable result of a heightened morality. Anyone without wealth is therefore morally backward and deserving of suffering. Give them a few years. Their bubbles will burst soon enough.
- cooper12 9 years agoYep I also hate this narrative of how every homeless person is a lazy drug addict or has mental issues.[0] While I'm sure many of them do suffer from these problems, it's indicative of a failure in social support systems to deal with that. Also, receiving "handouts" is an indicator of higher moral character in my opinion; I'd love to see one of these types try to beg in the streets for one day and see how people treat them and the affect on their dignity.
[0]: I've actually volunteered at a soup kitchen (not the same thing as a shelter, I know) for a time and spoken to many of the people there. Many are just single parents, older/infirm people, struggling immigrants, and many just recently lost their jobs. (One was even a former college professor) There was one time when a very drunk person had to be denied, but that was a rare occurrence.
- mmmlll 9 years agoYour attorney friend is talking about trustafarians in the park on the other side of the city, and gravitate to Upper Haight, not the homeless populations that center around downtown in close proximity to the TLoin. Johnny5SF isn't complaining about the former, because they're not really situated to be a daily part of any rich tech bro's commute.
- aidenn0 9 years agoI've only been to SF once, and the difference in culture between the homeless in Tenderloin and Haight was immediately noticable.
- aidenn0 9 years ago
- cooper12 9 years ago
- sp332 9 years agoHow can he live in SF for years and think it's a free market? I live across the country and even I know that the housing market there is artificially constrained.
He really seems to think that homeless people grow on trees or something instead of realizing that they lived in the city before he did.
- sixQuarks 9 years agoThe homeless problem in SF has very little to do with the high cost of housing. SF's policies on homeless has attracted homeless people from far and wide. Other cities were caught busing their homeless people and dropping them off in SF.
- sp332 9 years agoNot saying the policies are great, but how can you say that limited availability of housing and astronomical prices don't cause most of the homelessness? Anyway SF only claims that the bused-in people cost them half a million dollars. http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/09/11/2602391/san-franc...
- sp332 9 years ago
- nibnib 9 years agoI liked that he believed SF is a free market but also "Is that not the role of government to protect?"
- m1sta_ 9 years agoThe two ideas can work together when you're not being antagonistically extreme. Remember that without a government there isn't such a thing as property rights.
- m1sta_ 9 years ago
- sixQuarks 9 years ago
- rm_-rf_slash 9 years agoFor all the shelters, clinics, and every other initiative to help homeless people "get back on their feet," we shouldn't forget two simple facts:
1: San Francisco is a great city and the winters won't kill you, so it's an attractive destination for everyone, especially the homeless.
2: Some people prefer to be homeless. No amount of detox or "good drugs" will ever change them.
I have a radical idea: pay homeless people to be homeless somewhere else. Give them a monthly income, distributed at a location outside of the city (and has to be picked up in person so people can't game the system), under the condition that they are never to return unless they can show any proof of residence. They can request limited exceptions to visit friends and so on, but once their city visa expires, they leave on their own recognizance. Honor system with one strike to lose their benefit permenantly.
Tech folk, instead of sinking tens of millions into fucking glyphy and Yo and other pointless shit that won't make money, try investing in this instead. You don't need a government program to make this happen, just money. You can use arrest records or other public info to spot violators, and it's not like you're preventing their freedom of movement, you're just giving them an incentive to keep getting free money.
Doesn't even have to be that much. Life is cheap when you don't pay rent.
- mindslight 9 years agoYou might be on to something here, in that the incentives are completely changed. Rather than cooperatively funding programs, adversarially fund programs - create competition for who can serve the homeless the best, elsewhere.
The "enforcement" aspect isn't even really necessary - just give out this income often enough and far enough away from the city that traveling back and forth every time is impractical.
I'm imagining SF opening a sizable homeless shelter in LA, busing people down there, and then giving them some sort of BI there. (Yes, such busing has gotten a bad wrap, but bear with the thought experiment). Meanwhile, LA can do the same thing to get rid of their homeless. Each city would be incentivized to spend more, efficiently, on maintaining shelters in each other's cities.
There's a gradient where infrastructure-poor towns in the middle of nowhere would be cheaper. And who would want to move to a majority homeless city to own/work business to serve them? But could this be softened with the return trip being guaranteed, contractually obligated with independent oversight?
- rm_-rf_slash 9 years agoThe important distinction is that this plan should be privately funded. Otherwise it would take vital public money that's used to help people truly in need.
Everybody falls on hard times. Some more than worse. The mayor of my town was homeless for a while, and he truly brings a sympathetic ear to the stubborn and persistent problems with homelessness (not just the homeless themselves).
My idea is that people on the margins of productive (job-having, self-supporting, tax-paying) society should live there, but in doing so, they are provided the resources to maintain their dignity and, if they so choose, find the help to rejoin productive society.
- mindslight 9 years agoI think the core of the idea could work with public money as well. In the short term, I agree it's not wise to divert public money to such an experiment. But if it worked over the long term, it would align incentives better.
Currently, a city spending more money on its homeless population creates positive feedback - more people come for the better benefits. It's in no single city's interest to spend too much, especially if they have amenities such as nice weather. What we need is negative feedback so the system balances out. Harsher policing provides this, but is rightly frowned upon and the spending ultimately ends up wasted. Funding homeless in other cities would also set up negative feedback, but with the spending actually benefiting the homeless.
- mindslight 9 years ago
- rm_-rf_slash 9 years ago
- mindslight 9 years ago
- mjbh7k 9 years agoDoes anyone remember Leo, the homeless man that was given the chance to learn how to code? The libertarian tech utopia press loved it, but Leo never claimed his money and decided to keep living on the streets [1]. Homelessness is complex and is not a simple problem to fix.
The problem with this open letter is it is written with contempt and a complete lack of awareness of the author's own privilege. The "I don't want to see it, I earned my right to be here, make it go away" sentiment shows how little the author has thought about the problem and his own standing in the world.
Has he ever tried hanging out and having a conversation with any of these people? I do it all the time here in New York and used to do it a lot in SF (a city I now avoid because of people like the author). I recently had a great conversation about physics with a homeless man on Skid Row. The point is maybe he needs to stop, have a conversation, and find some empathy.
Most homeless shelters are dangerous places and are filled with restrictions, so many homeless people prefer the freedom of the street. Urge your local government to invest in long term housing for the homeless and not just shelters. Lift restrictions on building in SF to create more housing in general. Support mental health facilities. There is a lot of work to be done, but saying you earn a good living and therefore shouldn't have to see it isn't good enough. If you want that life move to a gated community, not a major city.
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/leo-the-homeless-coder-2015-2...
- marknutter 9 years agoThis fucking sucks. I know Justin personally, and to see the vitriol being spewed forth at him makes my stomach churn. His blog post was clearly written out of frustration, and lacked nuance, but in no way does it justify the response it has received. None of these scathing articles or drive-by tweets are asking for clarification. Instead, his character is being assassinated as an extension of the growing fervor around income inequality and political correctness. If you have a problem with Justin's blog post, then write your own opinion about the problem and maybe highlight some potential solutions. Because if you're just using it as an opportunity to get your daily boost of self-righteousness you're just as complicate as the rest of us who are happy to go on about our daily lives ignoring problems like homelessness.
Seriously, fuck all this misplaced outrage and fuck these kinds of character assassinations of people with differing opinions. We're entering an age where it will be impossible to take a position that goes against the mob's mentality. The chilling effect will be severe and we will all be worse for it.
- civilian 9 years agoI'm with you, the witchhunts need to end. Even if the bluetribe is correct in their beliefs, the mob action is not persuasive. I have less respect than ever for liberals because of this disrespectful way of handling public discourse.
- dang 9 years agoIt's a mistake to see this phenomenon as bound to any political position. It's a human trait and we all do it, we just do it about different things.
- civilian 9 years agoI agree that it's not bound to any political position, but it's more egregious with the left right now.
Or possibly, based off of my media consumption, I only see the left's witchunts and I'm insulated from the right's.
- civilian 9 years ago
- dang 9 years ago
- mwnz 9 years agoAs a tech worker living in San Francisco, his 'open letter' infuriated me. If anything, it makes my life here more difficult, and reflects poorly on the industry I work in. Unintended consequence? Probably. But I will happily vent my frustration with his callousness, lack of tact and compassion, just as he vented his frustrations.
- marknutter 9 years agoThen fucking ask to meet with him and tell him how you feel. Get his perspective. Find out if he meant what you think he meant or if he was just misunderstood. And if you're still angry then, let him have it face to face instead of behind some pseudonym on the internet.
Pray you never post anything that draws the ire of the mob, lest you become the whipping boy of dozens of nationally syndicated columnists and thousands of spineless social media bullies, some of which who threaten you actual, physical harm.
My guess is, if you're actually bold enough to meet him in person, you'll soften your position. If not, then good for you, at least you had the conviction to remain angry.
- mwnz 9 years agoJust as he took the time to speak to Ed Lee?
I think you need to chill out a bit.
- mwnz 9 years ago
- marknutter 9 years ago
- felixgallo 9 years agothe 'mob' you're talking about is called 'civilization'. It's not 'growing fervor around [...] political correctness' that is driving the outrage; it's the deep-rooted, long-standing fervor about maintaining the minimum standard of being an empathetic, decent human being, which your friend has failed.
It's possible to write a letter to the mayor demanding solutions. It's possible to roll up your sleeves and try to do something, to marshal some force, to push the rock uphill a little for your fellow man.
It's also possible to write a whiny letter demanding that the homeless be made to vanish.
Which did your friend do? Which would you rather he did?
- marknutter 9 years ago> the 'mob' you're talking about is called 'civilization'.
Really? Because it doesn't feel very civilized to me. It's a public lynching. You can express your differing opinion about the problem and the potential solutions, but to spend the majority of an article publicly ridiculing someone for a poorly worded expression of frustration is completely disgusting.
> It's not 'growing fervor around [...] political correctness' that is driving the outrage; it's the deep-rooted, long-standing fervor about maintaining the minimum standard of being an empathetic, decent human being, which your friend has failed.
well it's at least as misplaced as Justin's article was. Justin, and people like him, are not the root of the problem. Attack the problem, attack the solution, but don't attack the people who point out the problems or propose the solutions. It may help you feel self-righteous, but it's not productive.
- rodgerd 9 years ago> It's a public lynching.
This is hysterical nonsense and makes you look deranged.
- rodgerd 9 years ago
- marknutter 9 years ago
- civilian 9 years ago
- murbard2 9 years agoMany people react with horror to the idea of policing homelessness. Yet, when given a choice to live between two identical cities, one permissive towards homelessness and the other not, I bet the vast majority would choose the latter.
Many homeless people are down on their luck, have mental illness problems or both. Many homeless people can also be rude, aggressive, and can deteriorate the quality of life in a city by littering, urinating publically, etc. The two aren't exclusive. Many people are caught in a form of dialectical thinking between privileged/unprivileged oppressor/oppressed. Life is more complicated.
What strikes me as ridiculous with the situation in San Fransico is that it's so economically wasteful given that the city has become one of the most desirable place to live in the country,
The Coasian solution would be for the residents to pay the existing homeless to move out of the city and then proceed to police it more thoroughly. I'm convinced there is a price at which everyone involved, including the homeless would be better off. The problem is that, besides the coordination cost involved, the idea feels icky and unconscionable.
- vkou 9 years ago> Many people react with horror to the idea of policing homelessness. Yet, when given a choice to live between two identical cities, one permissive towards homelessness and the other not, I bet the vast majority would choose the latter.
Have you tried getting a homeless person's opinion on the subject?
Given the choice between a society where slaves don't serve you, and a society where they do, most slaveowners would probably choose the latter, too.
- vkou 9 years ago
- Andrex 9 years agoGetting flashbacks here.
http://valleywag.gawker.com/startup-stud-hates-homeless-peop...
http://valleywag.gawker.com/happy-holidays-startup-ceo-compl...
Semi-surprised to see this crop up again when the outrage over these incidents was pretty severe and infamous.
- exhilaration 9 years agoBros that don't know bro-history are doomed to repeat it.
- mmmlll 9 years agoI'm here for this ^
- mmmlll 9 years ago
- tomjen3 9 years agoThats probably because no tech person reads valleyrag, for the same reason that no normal person reads "newsletter of the insane communists party" and that The Sun is mostly known for the lady with the big tits on page 3.
- exhilaration 9 years ago
- basseq 9 years agoI'm kind of disappointed in the Post on this one. From reporting on internet outrage to repeating another publication's "tech bro" slur, this isn't set up to engender a real debate.
Justin Keller is a terrible "face" for the debate (and so is Edna Miroslava Raia for the opposition). The facts are that San Fran has an economic problem and a homeless problem. Those problems are not mutually exclusive, but neither are they the same thing. Justin shouldn't have to worry about being accosted, and he shouldn't "have to see the pain, struggle, and despair of homeless people"—but because the problem should be solved, not swept under the rug.
- beatpanda 9 years agoThank you for being more concerned about the media image of comfortable, well-paid tech workers than San Francisco's increasing number of homeless people.
- tomjen3 9 years agoWhich of them is contributing positively to our future?
And for the record how much have you personally, directly, contributed to helping homeless people (Both in dollars and hours)?.
- beatpanda 9 years agoI was the editor of the Street Sheet in San Francisco, where I led a project to re-launch the paper for its 25th anniversary. We re-designed and re-branded the paper and executed an ad campaign, which allowed us to double the price of the paper without decreasing circulation. The vendors of the paper keep 100% of the proceeds, so we effectively gave 250 poor and homeless people a 100% raise. We also gave away free t-shirts and aprons, to help the vendors look more professional and make it easier for them to interact with people like Justin.
I worked for the Coalition on Homelessness for 15 months, where I earned a salary of something like $10,000 a year, working nominally half-time but actually well over full time. I'll leave it to you to calculate the opportunity cost.
- beatpanda 9 years ago
- tomjen3 9 years ago
- beatpanda 9 years ago
- scelerat 9 years agoMost of San Francisco's homeless, around 70%, were living in San Francisco at the time they became homeless. Nearly half lived in San Francisco longer than ten years [1].
The homeless don't have a whole lot of say in the policies that affect them, such as affordable housing, policing that concentrates them in particular areas (most noticeable recently with the super bowl) and so on.
One reason among many that tech folk are noticing more homeless people is that the techies are moving into poorer neighborhoods (eg Market street and the TL) and causing rents to go up. Police officially or unofficially try to create homeless zones, and these become concentrations of addiction, disease, and filth.
[1] https://www.stanthonysf.org/san-franciscos-2015-homeless-cou...
- alva 9 years agoDoes anyone have an answer to why so many of the homeless in SF behave in such a way?
I have lived in major cities all my life that had varying degrees of homelessness. From my trips to SF I have been shocked to see the consistent and prevalent anti-social behaviour of the homeless.
Mental illness is obviously a large problem, but I would expect to see similar levels between the SF homeless and comparable cities.
Not trying to bait or take sides here, genuinely interested in what causes the difference in behaviour of SF homeless and their equivalents in other major cities.
- jkchu 9 years agoI honestly do not have an exact answer, but I am thinking it has to do with:
1. SF is a city with high population density. It is only second to NYC.
2. Mild climate. Without harsh winters, you can sleep outside year round.
3. High cost of living. If someone falls under hard times and does not have the means to relocate, the high cost of living could be crushing.
- jkchu 9 years ago
- pfarnsworth 9 years agoSan Francisco spends $250M/year on homeless people, with zero metrics to figure out if the programs are working and zero accountability.
The mayor should be held accountable. And there is a problem with homeless people throughout downtown San Francisco. If such a massive amount of money weren't being spent, then I would understand but their budget is huge with no results.
http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record...
- bobbyadamson 9 years agoWhat is this thing where people use the word "bro" to dissociate themselves from their colleagues who they don't like/make offensive remarks? The community is not spotless and that doesn't make those people "bros". Oh and by the way, can we discuss the fact that we have a homeless problem? You know, an actual problem? Since that seems to be brought up as little as possible in an article written essentially to hold up the argument that this "tech bro" is a shitty "tech bro" by the way did we mention he's a bro?
- jakejake 9 years agoWell like many people, this guy is pointing out a true and real problem. SF is a world class city but there are an unusually high number of drug addicts and homeless people walking the streets. But the author lacks any understanding of the root causes and, comically doesn't see his own role in the problem.
None of us like seeing homeless people but the problem is not that they are unsightly or annoying - the problem is why are they homeless to begin with and what is such a wealthy city doing to help? If you're only thinking of your own selfish needs then it makes sense to just "sweep up" people on the streets and send them somewhere out of site. Perhaps a good whack on the head with a night stick will dissuade them from returning. If you have no heart or compassion then it probably seems like a great idea. But if you have any sense at all then perhaps you can try to use some of your privilege to find real solutions to homelessness and perhaps lend a hand rather than try to swat them away.
- 9 years ago
- doki_pen 9 years ago"The wealthy working people have earned their right to live in the city. They went out, got an education, work hard, and earned it. I shouldn’t have to worry about being accosted."
I hope to god this guy didn't come from affluence.
- bluehazed 9 years agoEither way it's a toxic worldview, really.
- bluehazed 9 years ago
- tempodox 9 years agoJustin Keller's own words about this seem to imply that he thinks Democracy is a state of decay in politics: http://justink.svbtle.com/open-letter-to-mayor-ed-lee-and-gr...
This guy seems thoroughly unsavoury.
- vox_mollis 9 years agoPlenty of intelligent people also hold that Democracy is a degenerate form of political organization. That doesn't make them "unsavoury".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy:_The_God_That_Failed
- dragonwriter 9 years ago> Plenty of intelligent people also hold that Democracy is a degenerate form of political organization. That doesn't make them "unsavoury".
"unsavoury" is a subjective judgement, and I suspect you will find that a substantial number of people will disagree with your opinion that holding this viewpoint does not make one "unsavoury".
- dragonwriter 9 years ago
- vox_mollis 9 years ago
- iblaine 9 years agoIt is a strange situation to see lavish tech offices with homeless people sleeping on sidewalks. One minute you'll be making your way through tents set up on sidewalks and the next you'll be inside a plush cafeteria with an endless supply of free food. It's a shocking contrast.
- mikeboydbrowne 9 years agoI don't like the article's tone. I agree that he could have expressed his thoughts more sensitively, but I think this article uses his post as a way to demonize "tech bros" instead of focusing on the actual issue. The Washington Post could have published something on San Francisco's homelessness problem, but instead decided to pick the low-hanging fruit and demonize an entitled tech worker who might have a point.
- ryanlol 9 years agoWow. This is article was a completely disgusting read.
It's a straight up ad-hominem attack against Justin Keller, instead of criticising his writing it attacks his character.
I sincerely hope this is the end of Michael E. Millers career as a reporter.
And before you downvote me, read the article and focus on the parts that aren't quotes. The author goes to great lengths to paint Keller as an asshole while completely ignoring what he actually wrote.
- PaulHoule 9 years agoThat's why I stopped going to conferences in San Francisco. If you don't like it, don't be there. Grow a spine and tolerate the cold.
- kaiku 9 years agoHow much better this letter would be if it were reframed: we can't ignore the pain, struggle, and despair of the homeless; we need to do more to help – and here's what I plan to do.
San Francisco, like many other towns, is a troubled place if you look closely. Homelessness is a complex and overwhelming problem with no easy solution. Addressing it in a practical, effective, and humane way will take concerted action by government and the residents of this city together. There's no other way.
As real as the author's discomfort and frustration may be, his words stink. Here is someone who neither recognizes the full potential of his undeniable privilege, nor sees its true limitations. He wants change, but having already paid for it, is entitled to it (he seems to say), and so the burden rests on others to fix the problem.
Justin Keller knows what a good society should (literally) look like, but he doesn't understand how to get there. I'm hoping he doesn't lack the empathy and humanity his words and tone suggest.
- feintruled 9 years ago“Justin Keller thinks life comes with customer support”
That was quite the zinger!
- brandon272 9 years agoThat line perfectly articulates how I feel about most of the complaining I see on social media.
- brandon272 9 years ago
- kelvin0 9 years agoTech Bro? This of course is to be interpreted as being pejorative, and also automatically creates a category of 'bad' people that are stereotypical 'bros'. Journalistic 'faux-pas' in the best of cases ...
- innertracks 9 years agoMy wife is a social worker for the VA. Her job is housing homeless vets. From what I hear, clients typically struggle with mental illness, PTSD, military sexual trauma, and more. Some have what they need to get back on their feet and some are probably never going to because of mental illness. Yes some, and it sounds like a minority, have learned to manipulate the system as part of their survival strategy.
There are also some who just want to be left alone. Around here they live in the National Forests up in the Cascade Mountains. The problem for them is age. Right now the reclusive Vietnam Vets are coming out of the woods. They are just too old to survive out there on their own out there.
On the whole safe housing is showing to be very important first step. Homeless life does include a community on the street. It is typically a community that is not going to be supportive of positive change. Each member is experiencing their own untreated issues.
Removing the negative social elements and temptations first appears to be one of the important benefits. If you're an addict having friends offering you a hit is not very helpful.
Thus, for my wife, building relationships with housing agencies and businesses is a big deal. The landlords/managers with endless patience, understanding, and strong boundaries seem to do best.
- 13thLetter 9 years agoGreat: now that we've all gotten to enjoy a Two Minutes' Hate against the official evil figure of the dreaded !!TechBro!!, we can all go home and step over the derelicts lying in the doorways of our gated communities, happy that we've really helped those poor unfortunates.
This really is a good example of how toxic outrage culture gets in the way of solving problems. Maybe this guy was self-centered talking only about how much trouble the homeless cause him. Okay, say he was. And? If he's cowed into silence by the great armies of Twitter, has that put one more street person into an apartment or methadone clinic?
I'm reminded of that flap about a British business that had homeless people sleeping on the benches on their property, and switched them out for benches it was not possible to sleep on, and was lambasted for it. It really is a singularity of modern awfulness: we won't do anything to make people not be homeless, but we'll yell at (some other) hapless person across the city until they surrender and make sure the homeless have cold metal benches in front of their building to freeze to death on, as is their human right.
- rwhitman 9 years agoIt's fascinating to watch San Francisco rapidly transform from being the utopian refuge of American progressives in the late 20th century, into a libertarian city-state in the 21st.
I can't help but think the Bay Area's escalating tension over income disparity, and the politics surrounding it, is a seed for far uglier conflicts in the coming years. Thankful I'm a distant bystander and not a participant.
- rubiquity 9 years agoWhy hasn't this submission title been renamed to be less link baity? His status as a "bro" is irrelevant.
- kamaal 9 years agoAs an India currently here for work in the Bay Area, when I saw the homeless people in SF, I saw scenes very similar to the ones I see back home in any major Indian city. I've also seen a lot of ill people(intoxicated/under the influence of drugs?) near bus stops too.
Once I almost got mugged in a VTA train station, by two teenagers. Thankfully I escaped the situation on arrival of an elderly couple in time.
Like always I understand these people aren't there by choice and might have their own reason for why things turned out that way. Can anybody give a socio economic perspective on why these people are like this in a first world rich country like the US?
Also the more I learn about the American culture, the more I realize the only change I see between India and the US is the infrastructure, everything else, all other problems seem to be the same. We are not so different after all.
- nxzero 9 years agoIrony is that even being homeless is a prefect example of free market economies at work. The homeless exploit access to public/private/natural resources. Until a living wage is a right, those unable to work are given fair housing, etc. - the volume of people becoming homeless will only increase.
- doki_pen 9 years ago"we live in a free market society" "AH! GOVERNMENT! PLEASE SAVE ME!!!"
cognitive dissonance is high in that post
- yangmaster 9 years agoI think if he hadn't gone on his moral high-horse and ranted about "free market societies" and "revolutions" he would've avoided much of the controversy. I sympathized with his actual grievances, but not his armchair ranting in the second half of his article.
- distances 9 years agoI think he would have been better received if he was actually concerned about the people instead of his car. His solution seems to be "out of sight, out of mind", instead of e.g. taking on the glaring inequality. No wonder people are indignant.
- distances 9 years ago
- radikalus 9 years agoI'm on his side. =\
I think the vilification is comical. Not super impressed with the need to dig into his background to find examples of how much of a "tech bro" he is.
This reads differently if it's not coming from the mouth of a hated-elite.
- agentgt 9 years agoI can't speak for SF's homeless but here in New England it seems the drastic increase in homeless has not really been from gentrification but rather the opioid problem. The disturbing thing is (and yes its anecdotal based on Waltham, MA) it seems to be an increase in younger-not-that-poor-to-start off with people.
I don't want to go back to the ole 80's DARE drug war but I have to wonder if opioid abuse was even mitigated a little or rehab improved what kind of impact that might have on the homeless population.
I guess what do people think is fueling SF's homeless population increase?
- nkrisc 9 years agoSomebody got a zero on their empathy roll.
- ryanlol 9 years agoWhat the hell does empathy have to do with this? He isn't blaming the homeless, he's blaming the city.
He's asking for the city to address homelessness problem, how could possibly interpret that as lack of empathy?
- nkrisc 9 years agoI didn't at all get any sense from his letter that he wanted to help the homeless, but that as long as he didn't ever have to actually see or interact with people down on their luck, he'd be happy.
If all the homeless in San Francisco mysteriously "disappeared" one day, would he care? That may not be a fair question as we can't truly answer it, but I'd wager "no."
- ryanlol 9 years agoWhy does that matter? He didn't explicitly state that, is not expressing your sympathy towards the homeless reprehensible now?
- ryanlol 9 years ago
- nkrisc 9 years ago
- ryanlol 9 years ago
- stegosaurus 9 years agoThe implicit assumption is that if you don't work, hard, you don't get a home.
If you combine that with 'homeless policing', you're then saying that if you don't work hard, you'll be abused by society.
I don't have an answer for this but I dislike euphemisms like 'they prefer this lifestyle'. If you can't work (anyone who understands mental health will realise that "can't" actually is a meaningful word in this context) then you have no other options.
- francasso 9 years agoIt has always been a great cause of reflection to me that when reality catches up with us our reaction, most of the time, is denial and refusal. The entrepreneurial spirit should aim at solving the problem. Complaining is not the most creative solution. The mentality according to which "we work hard and we earned the right not to see the pain of homeless people" is just naive. The only thing you earned the right to is what life gave you, and this is true for both sides.
- capkutay 9 years agoPeople shouldn't confuse this as an opportunity to comment on the government's obvious short-comings to alleviate homelessness and poverty in SF.
This is an appalling, narcissistic rant that attracted scorn towards an entire class of workers from journalists across the world. There should be a strong effort to combat the stereotype that all workers in the tech industry share Justin's lack of empathy and tone-deaf view towards social affairs.
- pj_mukh 9 years agoFor the record, when you see someone mentally ill on the street. Do this: http://brokeassstuart.com/blog/2016/02/18/what-to-do-when-so...
Before you write angry (mostly useless) blogs.
- erroneousfunk 9 years agoSo this guy went to school, worked hard, and now makes enough money to pay rent and feed himself in one of the most expensive cities in the US. small golf clap
His main fault here is assuming that this also means, while ironically citing free market economics, that he's rich enough to have some sort of right not to see homelessness, mental illness, and poverty, day to day. That's a whole other level of wealth and power right there. Mid-priced (in San Francisco, anyway) restaurant? $20 theater tickets? That gives him some sort of insulating privilege from life? If you're Barack Obama, yes, the intrusion of a drug-addled crazy person bursting past secret service and into the restaurant you're dining in may be cause of serious concern. If you're a Saudi oil merchant, you can pay to stay at and go to places with tighter security, or bring your own. Heck, you can afford move to and work from areas with fewer of these problems in the first place, commuting around on your own private jet, being carefully shuttled from one multi-million dollar private residence to the other.
Your personal wealth doesn't give you the right to see and interact only with people who are within your same circles of success. If you want to start judging the personal success of others, holding yourself above them, and claiming your right to class insularity, there are probably some billionaires out there who would laugh in your face, if they cared enough, which they don't, because they'd rather they didn't see you at all.
- gsibble 9 years agoMost cities don't have nearly the homeless/drug problem that SF has. It's abysmal here.
- jmorphy88 9 years ago> Your personal wealth doesn't give you the right to see and interact only with people who are within your same circles of success.
Uh, it doesn't? Why not? That's certainly not how wealth stratification manifests itself IRL... especially in the SF area.
- gsibble 9 years ago
- gregp4 9 years agoThe second article from a major media outlet about this guy? Yes, he's inconsiderate, but so what? If it were a blog post from a lawyer or school teacher, would the Post or the Guardian have cared? Would we see articles about a "Law Bro?"
The media, collectively, has it in for us. They keep using borderline derogatory labels for us in their articles like "coder" and "techie," and they publish hit pieces like the linked article smearing us as if we were some evil 1%, despite almost none of us making as much as the average dentist.
They are stripping us of what little prestige and respect we once had, and we are just letting them do it. And there's no shortage of programmers willing to argue with you that it's not even happening, and that there's nothing wrong non-technical English majors with an ax to grind attempting to re-brand us "coders" and our profession "coding."
This article (and the comments) are relevant:
http://chickenwing.software/scratches/programming/on-coders-...
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/45wzup/on_code...
- mwnz 9 years agoOh cry me a river. There is a theme evolving, and the media have latched onto it. Are lawyers and school teachers continually writing these self-righteous 'open letters'? Are lawyers and teachers of a growing, sufficient mass in a city that is struggling to serve a great proportion of it's population (for various, complicated reasons)? No.
Life is easier for 'us' than the mentally ill, the addicts, and those with less luck in life. When a self aggrandizing 20 something white guy working in a prosperous industry starts complaining like this, with the intent of attracting attention, it promotes a stereotype of a lack of sensitivity, and compassion for those around us.
Prestige and respect? Earn it, as a person. Compassion is part of that equation. You don't earn it by becoming a programmer or working in tech.
- gregp4 9 years ago>Prestige and respect? Earn it
I and countless other programmers have put in thousands of hours unpaid labor to produce public goods in the form of open source software. For that alone I and my profession deserve respect (compare us to dentists, most in the US won't even take medicaid, let alone perform free dental work), and especially respect from these same media outlets that rely on the fruits of our unpaid labor.
- mwnz 9 years agoYou're missing the point. And it's a big point to miss.
- mwnz 9 years ago
- 9 years ago
- gregp4 9 years ago
- atomic77 9 years agoI would respectfully state that you have it backwards - the real problem is that "techies" are becoming ever more powerful as a group, this power is acknowledged, but we have not evolved an understanding of how to wield that power in the broader society, as have the more established professions like lawyers.
I know of no lawyer, personally, that I think would be capable of writing a blog post as insensitive and lacking in subtlety as the one referenced by this article. They know better. I know plenty of tech people who I think are perfectly capable of doing so.
If we don't learn, and quickly, our reputation will soon be no better than that of Wall Street bankers.
- mwnz 9 years ago
- return0 9 years agoI have no idea how things are in SF, but i can see how "the other bros" in SF found a scapegoat to cover up their own indifference to these people. At least this guy complained. Did "the righteous ones" do anythign for the homeless?
- 9 years ago
- samstave 9 years agoI'm 41, was born in SF and have been living back in the bay area since 97.
In all my years in living in SF, or the bay area at large, I have never once had an altercation or otherwise problem with a homeless person.
In fact, I give them stern talkings to occasionally; Two days ago there was a homeless person on Market whos pants were falling down - I told him very sternly "Pull your pants up" and he did so.
There was a drunk guy wobbling down by the ball park and I commanded him to drink some water and gave him a bottle of water.
I almost always give away any left over food I have to homeless people I pass if I have left a restaurant.
I've told homeless people to not pee on certain places etc...
I have found when you interact with them in a straightforward way, and dont act fearful or contemptuously of them - they are just people who have a shitty support system (gov and people included) - but they still need a bit of direction.
- civilian 9 years agoI'm 29, where do you learn this kind of leadership?
- carapace 9 years agoEmperor Norton
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Norton
(In case it's not clear, I'm being serious(-ish.))
- carapace 9 years ago
- civilian 9 years ago
- duairc 9 years agoOkay, I think we can all agree this guy is an asshole, and surely doesn't represent the views of most techies in San Francisco, right?
Obviously it's fucked that so many people are homeless in San Francisco. Everybody blames us (techies with loads of money) for the homeless problem because we gentrifying the shit out of the place with all our money. And then this guy comes out and says this shit, and that only reinforces the narrative that we're the problem. And that's shit for us.
But why don't we do something about it? We don't want to be seen as the cause of the homeless problem, and surely we don't want assholes like this speaking for us. But people are right that we are rich compares to most people. Why not use this as an opportunity to show people that we can be part of the solution? Being rich doesn't have to make us evil, and anyway what's the point of being rich if we can't use our wealth to help the people who need it?
And it's not just our wealth: what about our skills? Take Homes Not Jails, for example. They're one organisation off the top of my head that does work that directly houses homeless people. They're renowned by squatters all over the world for the work they do to get homes for homeless people in San Francisco. But I just checked, and it looks like their website (http://homesnotjailssf.org/) is down? Surely one of us techies could get in contact with them and offer to help fix their website, or even just pay their hosting costs and domain name renewal for a few years? I've been involved in organisations like that and that kind of stuff can be a real hassle.
I'm sure there are countless grassroots organisations like this that are already working to help homeless people that probably don't even have proper websites and shit, that desperately need money. Fuck this guy, it's not worth wasting our time arguing over his stupid words. Let's show people that he doesn't represent us with our actions!
- gsibble 9 years agoNo, we cannot. I think he's making good points, although a little callously.
- gsibble 9 years ago
- lfender6445 9 years agoits amazing to me that with all the money and talent in the bay area, that noone has made progressive efforts in solving some of the problems with homelessness and helping others get back on their feet.
- huac 9 years agoa friend of mine who interned in SF last summer has a (satirical, I pray) startup idea: 'uber for harassing homeless people' - just geolocate yourself and your walking route before leaving, and a team will clear the homeless and from your path
again, I hope he was joking but honestly probably wasn't - I fear this lackadaisical 'tech can solve all of MY problems' attitude is prevalent (we should also consider how we can solve the problems of others)
- asadlionpk 9 years agoRelevant tweet (by myself after visiting SF) San Francisco: Billionaires inside the building, disrupting the world. Homeless sleeping outside in the cold.
- jdlyga 9 years agoThis is something you won't hear in New York. There's a lot of homeless shelters, and the people you see on the street tend to be kind of nuts.
- convexfunction 9 years ago"Bro" is an interesting word. At this point it seems to be broad enough to just mean "outgroup"; apply to any context as needed.
- theorique 9 years agoBut specifically "white, male, young" outgroup person that I want to demonize.
- theorique 9 years ago
- NumberCruncher 9 years agoThis thread sounds like people living in sodosopa blaming Kenny for beeing poor. Tanks god for not being a part of it! Go Redskins!
- doki_pen 9 years agoWe should create a place were we can put them all so we don't have to see them! Let's call it, a ghetto! </sarcasm>
- carapace 9 years agoI'm from San Francisco. I grew up here and I've lived here most of my life.
After high school, for about four and a half years, I was homeless.
I'm really good at programming computers, if it wasn't for that I might be homeless still.
I had emotional and social problems that I've been able to overcome. I'm one of the lucky ones. Many of the people I knew are dead, but in this age of instant connectivity and paranoia about surveillance I'll never know the fates of most my friends. We might as well be a lost tribe, uncontacted in the primeval forest. Except of course, that we weren't lost. Our lives played out in the same great concrete jungle/stage that yours does. Very few people wanted to find us.
That brings up an important thing, and this is as good a place to say it as any.
From the utmost bottom of my heart: Thank you.
To all those who gave of themselves and helped a random, smelly, weird homeless kid who you'll never see again, THANK YOU. I owe you my life. If it wasn't for the people who live the truth of our inherent connection with each other, who are moved by compassion and empathy to help selflessly, without asking for anything in return, I would certainly be dead, or worse: homeless and crazy in San Francisco. (heh heh)
I'll never cease from helping everyone around me so long as I draw breath because I owe the world my life.
If you have not been as fortunate as I have then here is the reason why you should do the same anyway:
We are one.
That homeless person there? That's YOU.
She's your mother, he's your father, that guy mumbling and shitting over there, he's your own son.
This is both metaphysical and very physical and real. The idea that we are separate individuals who can cordon off the parts of the world that we don't like is not real, not true. It's a "category one" error.
Here's a secret I learned on the street: The single most horrible sin we commit daily is to pass by a homeless person without acknowledging that person's humanity.
It's a monstrous crime.
You feel it every time, deep down, and it hurts, right there in your very soul.
It hurts.
There's nothing you can do or say, no ration argument you can make, that can obviate that bond. Nothing breaks it. As long as you draw breath you are owned and owed, one of us. Truly there are no individuals, to think so is fantasy, to live it, nightmare.
It seems like you grow callous but you don't, not really. Down under all that other B.S., not even that deep really, you feel it still. To turn away from another is like killing a part of yourself.
Homelessness is a symptom of a sick society. It's not the city government's problem, it's the whole city's problem, indeed the whole nation, the whole planet. We have emotional scars that prevent us from forming a coherent response to the situation (that's the only way so much money could be spent and have so little effect on the problem.) The issue isn't a matter of money (we have SO MUCH) it's a matter of spirit.
The individual homeless people would disappear as if by magic if we could just get our minds aligned with our hearts, because there is plenty of actual help and resources.
The very essence of the homelessness problem is that we, as a society, have to "break ourselves" and become humble. That's the only way for us to be vulnerable enough to reach out and heal the psychic and spiritual wounds at the root of it. An example: Try to imagine D. Trump manning a homeless food serving line. He's wearing an apron and spooning out hearty soup to people and he really gets it. What doea THAT do for your noggin?
P.S. Bonus campfire story: Here's hoping YOU never get, like, schizophrenia or something and wind up homeless yourself. It could happen. One of the scariest things that can happen to you is to get to know a few homeless people who were once JUST LIKE YOU! Mwoooo-hahhahahaha! Homelessness is something that only ever happens to someone else. Right? Nothing so tragic could ever happen to YOU to break you down and leave YOU shambling and covered in your own mess in a city full of people who don't care. Of course not, you're a good person. Homeless never happens to good people. That wouldn't make sense, would it? That wouldn't be fair. We all know the world is a fair place, right?
Let's talk about something else.
- ryandamm 9 years agoLet's cut through the nonsense, and say what we're really talking about explicitly, and out loud: Is homelessness our responsibility, or not?
Some comments here use a lot of words to essentially say they don't feel any collective duty to help homeless people. Fine, if that's what you believe. But I'd ask you say that loud and clear, stand up and be judged.
Because I believe we collectively have a responsibility to each other, and government is one institution that reflects that responsibility (among its other roles). As a friend once said, simply: "I believe you can judge a society by how it treats its least-fortunate."
Now, the situation in SF is special; yes, it's got mild weather and a decent social safety net (by US standards, not European), which makes it a destination of sorts. But this is also why Justin K addressed his post to the wrong people: this isn't an SF issue, it's a state and national issue. And it's an issue that's heavily entangled with substance abuse and mental illness.[1]
And it's only made worse by bad behavior and bad politics. For example, Nevada bused mentally ill homeless people to SF (often without medication or any contact person):
http://www.sacbee.com/news/investigations/nevada-patient-bus...
The reason California in particular has such a large population of mentally ill homeless people is thanks to a few extra years of Reagan, who famously shuttered all the mental hospitals in California while governor (before defunding initiatives for mental health care and research at the federal level as president):
http://www.salon.com/2013/09/29/ronald_reagans_shameful_lega...
So, do you think this is all of our problems, or somehow this is an example of individual responsibility? I venture how you feel about that question is probably heavily correlated with whether you think success in business is a product of pure hard work, or if there's a contribution from luck and civil institutions. And this isn't some low-stakes game of political philosophizing; the policies that have exacerbated homelessness in SF and California in general are rooted in the same political philosophy that motivated this short-sighted, self-centered, fundamentally heartless post. Politics matter.
In other words: if you think like Justin that SF is 'ruined' for you by problems of homelessness, and the city should do more to fix it... then you're simply not thinking hard enough, and not taking responsibility for your role as a citizen of San Francisco, California, the US, and the world.
And as a Bay Area native and SF resident for 10 years, I'd kindly ask you to leave, or at least stop writing stupid things publicly, and leave the debate over difficult civil and social issues to people who are more thoughtful and compassionate -- a couple of core San Franciscan values that I particularly treasure.
[1] "Almost two out of three respondents (63%) reported one or multiple disabling conditions." from here: http://www.sfgov3.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=4...
- Pinatubo 9 years ago> The reason California in particular has such a large population of mentally ill homeless people is thanks to a few extra years of Reagan
Reagan was the governor of California 40 years ago, and has been dead for 12 years. Why hasn't anyone undone what he did 40 years ago?
In reality this is an example of the law of unintended consequences, not a case of "Reagan did it." I think the best way to view our current homelessness problem is as a vast failed social experiment, not a case of partisan politics. Everyone thought deinstitutionalization was a good idea at the time.
Deinstitutionalization was pushed for by mental health professionals, who believed that treating mentally ill people in the community with newly developed drugs would be more effective than mental hospitals. Patients were being pushed out of the mental hospitals before Reagan even took office, and Reagan was happy to go along with the recommendations of the mental health professionals since the state saved money. Win-win, right?
In California there was also the Lanterman–Petris–Short Act (written by two Democrats and a Republican, signed by Reagan), which limited the ability of the state to involuntarily confine people to mental hospitals. This act was hailed by the ACLU as a positive step forward, and again Republicans were also willing to sign on for the cause of smaller government.
The policy of deinstitutionalization continued under Reagan's successor, Pat Brown (a Democrat and father of current governor Jerry Brown).
- Pinatubo 9 years ago
- whybroke 9 years agoFrom the posts here I can see that Justin's mentality is not remotely unique.
Anyone thinking of moving to SF should simply be shown this thread so they can see what kind of people they will be around all day.
Hey Washington Post, why not write an article about this site. Start with this thread.
Here's a winner https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11127645 (I hope I'm not oppressing him by linking to it)
- jessaustin 9 years ago"Whoosh!"
(that link is clearly satire)
- jessaustin 9 years ago
- hardwaresofton 9 years agoMy bet is that lots of people think like this (with similar levels of selfishness and narcissism), but wouldn't dare say it in a public forum.
Also, can people just move out of SF? I don't care which group it is (tech, or the people who have been displaced directly or indirectly by tech), but it seems like at least one group needs to just move out.
- asgfoi 9 years agoDon't touch the Rolex.
- ndkdjdjd 9 years agoWhile I agree that what he wrote was very insensitive and naive, aside from condescending him and the "tech bros" the article completely undermines the fact that there is indeed a major homeless problem in SF. Having lived in many major cities I can attest that I have not seen anything quite like it.
- firstworldman 9 years agoThe solution to homelessness is compassion. Frankly, it's outright disturbing how complacent we have become with homelessness in our culture. The problem isn't that these people abuse drugs or alcohol, or that their mental health goes untreated -- the problem is that they don't have homes. And that is a very bad thing for anyone to endure. People should not let that happen to other people.
The other issues also need to be treated. Those are comparatively complex issues... Homelessness is, by comparison, not complex. Put people in houses. As evidenced by examples in Utah (and apparently Canada too, about which I was unaware until this thread), this is the fiscally smart move. The smart move and the right move aren't always in alignment, so this should be a no-brainer.
There are likely no homeless people who actually prefer to be homeless. There are people whose lives have been so massively changed by their circumstances that adjusting to a more comfortable housing situation might take some adjustment, and probably some therapy, assistance, and monitoring.
The sticker shock of doing this is what seems to keep it from getting fixed at once, as it's apparently much easier to periodically ask for money to develop ineffective piecemeal solutions.
The letter to Ed Lee reads like a parody. It will doubtless be forgotten, but I hope that's not the case. It should be one of a few artifacts used to encapsulate the historic moment we're living in.
'Worst of all, it is unsafe.' Sure, it sucks that it's a safety hazard to area residents. Is that really the worst part though? If you think the worst part of the homeless crisis is that it makes you and your well-to-do neighbors unsafe, you should probably ask yourself what exactly makes you so important.
'My girlfriend was terrified and myself and many people ran out of the theater.' I can't judge anyone for what scares them, and sure, the incident sounds like it would have been a surprise... But this guy makes it sound like an actual monster came into the theater and ran everyone out. A homeless person came in and did something that interrupted the film. Things like this will occasionally happen in a city that has a terrible homeless problem. Justin Keller's reaction is everything you need to know that he doesn't have the emotional or psychological maturity necessary to process homelessness as an issue separate from the effect it has on himself.
San Francisco is a city rich with ideas and capital, but I don't know how you can incentivize tech-community participation in solving this crisis. I keep thinking that we've reached peak obliviousness, and then something like this letter comes along, and frankly I didn't expect to find so many people here basically affirming the sentiments. I really worry that this is how a sizable portion of SF's tech community feels, whether they admit to it or not.
- 9 years ago
- donpark 9 years agoIt's not about who is right nor his right to express his opinion but what leads to better system. You can be right yet be toxic at the same time. Truth can kill. Lies can heal. Timing and situation matters. Ignore and suffer.
- anonDuck 9 years agoI thought Reno and other cities were also dumping a lot of homeless to sf. They had a bus pack of homeless sent to us. They purposely do that to get rip off their homeless on street. That's pretty fuck up
- Uptrenda 9 years agoTo the people of SF, I am writing to you today to voice my concerns and outrage over the cities' increasing homeless and drug problem. I've been living among you in SF for over three years now, and without a doubt this is the worst it has ever been. Every day, on my way to, and from work, I see people sprawled across the sidewalk amongst crude tent cities that reek of urine, the signs of addiction etched clearly into their faces. This city is ... rotting ... worst of all, it is unsafe.
To highlight how bad the problem has become: just yesterday I was out walking in the streets when two homeless men began to harass me for cigarettes and coin. Of course - not being obliged to share either the men proceeded to become irate and things escalated into a pushing and shoving altercation.
Yet another time, when I was leaving Tadich Grill in the cities' financial district - a distraught, and clearly high man was standing right in front of the restaurant, yelling and screaming about cocaine. He even attempted to pull his pants down to show his genitalia before the police finally arrested him.
I may be able to tolerate the foul smelling clothes, the colorful language, and the general indecency - but what I cannot stand is having to watch as the city I once loved is destroyed by human rif-raf. It has honestly gotten to the point where I can't even enjoy a movie without being harassed and no one seems to care.
But I'm not going to let them continue to flood our streets with crime and human filth. If nobody wants to help solve this problem then I'll do everything myself, and I think I know the perfect way to do it. I have all the tools I need at my disposal. Bitcoin will provide the means to secure resources and onion routing will cover my tracks. The problem is: I need access to a vast dataset to track the exact where-abouts of the cities' homeless population so that I can identify and eliminate them - which is where you come in.
I need everyone who reads this to install my app and tag where you last saw a homeless person. If everyone in SF uses this app I'll be able to produce a real-time map of all the homeless in the city (and as we know - homeless people can't afford phones so the data will even out.) This is phase 1. Phase 2 requires a little explanation. In phase 2 a network of weaponized drones will be controlled remotely and used to eliminate the homeless problem. Since this will obviously cause public outcry -- it is paramount that the operators of these drones aren't arrested. Fortunately, the app also creates an onion-based meshnet that allows the drones to be controlled with low-latency from any point in the city -- and you can't arrest an entire city for using an app so you will all have plausible deniability.
This plan might seem drastic but we no longer have a choice. The residents of this amazing city no longer feel safe, and I know people are frustrated about gentrification happening in the city, but the reality is: we live in a free market society. The wealthy working people have earned their right to live in this city. They went out, got an education, worked hard, and earned it. I shouldn’t have to worry about being accosted. I shouldn’t have to see the pain, struggle, and despair of homeless people to and from my way to work every day. I want my parents when they come to visit to have a great experience, and enjoy this special place.
The city needs to tackle this problem head on because it can no longer ignore it and let people do whatever they want. It is a very difficult and complex situation, but somehow during Super Bowl, almost all of the homeless and riff raff seem to up and vanish. I’m willing to bet that was not a coincidence. Money and political pressure can make a difference. So it is time to start making progress ourselves, or we as citizens will make a change in leadership and elect people who can.
Democracy is not the last stop in politics. In-fact, the order of progression according to Socrates via Plato in the Republic goes: timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and finally tyranny. Socrates argues that a society will decay and pass through each government in succession, eventually becoming a tyranny.
“The greater my city, the greater the individual.”
Welcome to the revolution.
- danjoc 9 years agoI just wanted to add, there are six empty homes for every homeless person in the US.
http://themindunleashed.org/2014/02/18600000-vacant-homes-un...
And that Detroit is/has bulldozed 20 or more square miles of empty homes.
http://michiganradio.org/post/detroit-has-tons-vacant-land-f...
- markkat 9 years ago>And that Detroit is/has bulldozed 20 or more square miles of empty homes.
The ones they bulldoze are not fit for use.
- markkat 9 years ago
- rogersmith 9 years agoThis just in, SV is fertile ground for self-absorbed, self-righteous and inhumane assholes who think they are making the world a better place when they're really just doing the opposite. Read all about it.
- alva 9 years agoDoes anyone have an answer to why so many of the homeless in SF behave in such a way?
I have lived in major cities all my life that had varying degrees of homelessness. From my trips to SF I have been shocked to see the consistent and prevalent anti-social behaviour of the homeless.
Mental illness is obviously a large problem, but I would expect to see similar levels between the SF homeless and comparable cities.
Not trying to bait or take sides here, genuinely interested in what causes the difference in behaviour of SF homeless and their equivalents in other major cities.
- HelpingHand30 9 years agoOur startup (launching this spring) helps struggling homeless relocate to SF. We charter buses and assist homeless men & women in moving out of terrible conditions (often colder cities) so they can start fresh in the Bay Area. Our goal is to transplant 100 homeless by the end of this year!
We think SF is ideal due to the culture, weather, and resources. We also believe that an influx of homeless can assist in lowering property value/home prices which is much necessary in SF.
- marknutter 9 years agoThis is a parody. Please be a parody.
- benplumley 9 years agoThe account was created less than an hour ago, it's parody.
- benplumley 9 years ago
- marknutter 9 years ago
- pj_mukh 9 years agoAny data to back this up? Can't really go on anecdotal stories or EMS accounts (who only see emergency situations by design).
- monkmartinez 9 years agoNope, no data other than comparing the money being spent on the problem with my perception from the trenches. This is a human problem. That is, generally speaking the person in reception of help needs to work just as hard as the agency providing help for it to WORK.
911, in my area, is used for a lot more than "emergencies" unfortunately... we are the ultimate real-time problem solvers. "Man down" & "sick person" calls are generally not emergencies and they tend to be our regulars, which are generally homeless.
- dang 9 years agoHN is not a peer-reviewed journal. It's a place for conversation.
monkmartinez has made higher-quality contributions to this conversation than we could ever hope to see in so controversial a thread. Because of that, what would normally have been a trainwreck discussion has, astonishingly, been pretty good. Let's not disparage that as "anecodotal".
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11126175 and marked it off-topic.
- maratd 9 years agoWhy does every comment on here need to be cited? Nobody is writing a research paper through HN comments. We're just having a conversation.
- cloverich 9 years agoBecause personal accounts are only generalizable when backed by additional sources / data. There's a difference between whether or not this person is being genuine (My bias is yes) and whether or not their accounts are generalizable (My bias is no). Asking for citations is to me a way of asking someone who seems already familiar with what they are describing for more information, so I can learn more / share with others / etc.
- blackrose 9 years agoHe was obviously being anecdotal. Asking for a citation on it is like asking for a professional food critic's review on a cheeseburger that your friend just ate and said was "really good." It's pedantic and condescending when OP obviously has some experience with the situation based on their profession.
- JumpCrisscross 9 years agoIt's a good habit to get into. I can't count the number of times I went searching for a citation to something seemingly obvious only to have my assumptions thrown in my face by the data.
- blackrose 9 years ago
- jff 9 years agoBecause on HN it's considered poor form to say "I think you're full of shit" or "I don't like what you're saying", instead it's better to say "got a source?". It casts doubt on the truthfulness or provenance of the original poster's assertion, while still looking polite.
- maratd 9 years agoI'm well aware of why people do it. It's rude regardless. If you disagree with someone either use those little arrows next to the post, make a counter-argument, or STFU.
Posting "you're full of shit" or "citation needed" is lazy and rude. You don't want to speak up with something more sensible? Fine. That's why those little arrows next to the comment exist. Don't post rude garbage instead.
- chris_wot 9 years agoYou know why I created [citation needed] on Wikipedia? Because the amount of ill-informed, badly thought out, ridiculous claims on Wikipedia articles were getting out hand. I started removing them to the talk page, but then that same person not only refused to explain where they got their information from, but would put the "fact" back into the article. This would then perpetuate incorrect information.
One day I had an epiphany. I realised that you can't just argue with these people, you need to have a reverse citation system - you need to clearly mark out information that is dubious, ill-informed, the result of ingrained prejudice (often unconsciously so) and almost always inaccurate.
At the same time, there needed to be a way of allowing controversial views and sometimes accurate but controversial facts be detailed on the encyclopaedia.
There was only one way I could see to do it - use the same citation system that referenced sources but invert it to highlight information that needed a source. Hence I created citation needed (originally without the square brackets, whoever added them was a genius in their own right).
Guess what? It worked. 11 years later, despite the many issues on Wikipedia, finding out the source of assumptions is no longer a problem. People can go to the citations and see where the factoid is documented, or whose opinion is being expressed. It allows ordinary people to judge the view being expressed more accurately, or to look at how the data was extrapolated, to understand how the academic study was conducted, or to verify that what is claimed is actually what the original claimant was indeed claiming.
On Wikipedia, there was no way of allowing people to say that you are full of shit without destroying the project. Yet people needed a mechanism to dispute what was written. Talk pages weren't enough - bad actors could keep conversations going indefinitely without really bring challenged, whilst most readers wouldn't see the controversy of their contributions. By marking up text with [citation needed] it allowed people to think "hang on, this is disputed, where did they get this idea/information from?".
If my one contribution to society all those years ago was to have helped people improve their critical faculties and question the information given to them, then I'm satisfied I've made a positive impact on society. I certainly didn't expect it to take off like it did. I'm also not arrogant enough to think I started this questioning, merely helped start a meme that was actually useful.
If Hacker News now has its own culture of asking "where did you get that information from?" then it's a [citation needed]. You should applaud it. You should cherish that people have found a way of politely questioning the views of others and make them justify what they say without resort to personal abuse. You should be happy that people are using their critical faculties when they question implicit assumptions and claims.
You say it casts doubts on the truthfulness or provenance of the original poster's claims. Good! If the claims are of good provenance, then the poster can show that provenance. If the original poster is being truthful, then they can prove it by showing their sources.
- maratd 9 years ago
- cloverich 9 years ago
- pj_mukh 9 years agoSorry guys. Downvote away, but the original commenter made a call on how "MOST" homeless people are homeless because of 'X'. I merely want to point out that in no way is his anecdotal experience relevant to the conversation on how to solve the problem.
I'm simply embarrassed by my techie cohorts, who think they just KNOW why homeless people are homeless. The bottomline is that there are far more qualified people (homeless activists/workers) who have told me otherwise and the average HN'er will have to provide data to convince me otherwise.
- blackrose 9 years agoYes, clearly this man doesn't know more about homeless people than the average person walking the streets of SF! Show me your published peer-reviewed statistics or GTFO. /s
- monkmartinez 9 years ago
- FussyZeus 9 years agoI wonder if this was s stunt to get attention on his company? This seems so cartoonish, I mean you could picture wealthy people thinking this way but to me it almost seems too insensitive.
Maybe a publicity stunt that backfired a little.
On the other hand maybe he is so sheltered as to think this is an actual problem he's helping solve...
- shopkins 9 years agoHe seems to be okay with regularly telling everyone about what he thinks is wrong with the world [0]. It says a lot about you when you need to complain to companies about bugs or whatever and also tell your followers how upset you are [1].
- sleepychu 9 years agoOne of the things I like about Twitter is that it's much harder for companies to just ignore your complaints about things which, I hope you would agree, are just ridiculous. Google pushes its authenticator app but when I get a new phone, even if I still have the old phone and it's working I can't move it across without some dodgy hack.
- shopkins 9 years agoYes it's great for complaining to companies (except maybe Google), but the guy put a '.' before each tweet so that all his followers would see his complaints too. That's the type of person that would see a homeless person and say I need to tell everyone about the 'riff-raff' I just saw in an American urban center.
(And to your point, I personally haven't had that issue with transferring my accounts on Authenticator, but maybe it's different on iOS.)
- shopkins 9 years ago
- sleepychu 9 years ago
- drunken-serval 9 years agoNo, people really do think this way. Most of them have just learned not to voice their opinions in places where they will be criticized for it.
- m1sta_ 9 years agoIt can be difficult to change an opinion that someone refuses to voice.
- civilian 9 years agoYup. We need to turn down our witchhunt culture and engage eachother with more open dialog and mutual respect. If someone holds a differing view, they often have a good reason for it. At the very least, people can get down to where their assumptions differ. And once we've identified assumptions, we can try to test them with data.
- civilian 9 years ago
- m1sta_ 9 years ago
- sp332 9 years agoI considered whether it might be satire, but then he apologized for using the term "riff-raff" which implies that the rest of the article is fine by him. Also he's been defending it on Twitter.
- FussyZeus 9 years agoIt didn't seem clever enough to be satire, I was thinking more like he was trying to just get a lot of attention, and as we all know outrage drives viral-ity much better than admiration.
- FussyZeus 9 years ago
- ryandrake 9 years agoHaving read the letter, I can't help but think that this must be some kind of elaborate trolling: That after 2 weeks or so, he'll follow-up with "Thanks for all the attention everyone! My start-up's revenue took a 45% bump from all this publicity!!" This reads like a cartoon caricature of the stereotypical clueless tech bro. No real person could actually think this way.
- JoeAltmaier 9 years agoThat's an optimistic view. Real people think all sorts of things. Entitled people especially.
- kelukelugames 9 years agoRead HN threads about gender and race issues. People fit all of the stereotypes.
- JoeAltmaier 9 years ago
- shopkins 9 years ago
- 9 years ago
- artmageddon 9 years agoIt qualifies for a number of reasons:
-HN also covers stories about the human side of technology
-The story is happening in SF, which is very close to Silicon Valley
-The vitriol being spewed is coming from a member of a tech startup
It's quite appropriate on this forum.
- revscat 9 years agoI find it pretty ironic that you are unintentionally echoing the subject of the OP.
- sp332 9 years agoTo be a good Hacker, you must first be a good Human Being. We, as a hacker culture, don't want to encourage or harbor terrible behavior like this. But apparently that is what is happening.
You don't have to be SJW to think that tyranny is a bad solution to homelessness.
- artmageddon 9 years ago