San Francisco Is Suffering From The Excesses Of Its Own Liberalism

[Pedestrian]

^^Thanks for getting back to the point here. One of the wealthiest major cities in the country, in whom most of its residents want to take pride and that is potentially the country’s most beautiful, is being trashed out of progressive governmental tolerance for anti-social public behavior, largely by those living on its streets in spite of the millions handed every year to non-profit groups that are supposed to help them. As befits its wealth, San Francisco probably spends more—or nearly as much—as any city in the world on its homeless population on a per capita basis and yet it asks nothing of them including showing any respect at all for the population with homes.

[James Bond Agent 007]

I think if they moved SF to, say, the western shores of Lake Superior, maybe about somewhere where Duluth is now, would help solve the problem. Frequent bouts of 20 below will keep the riff-raff out.

Either that, or a magnitude 8 earthquake centered right below the city, with large quantities of masonry, glass and other large, deadly objects falling right on top of many of the aforementioned riff-raff, will also do the trick.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000

Are any of the Mayoral candidates talking about dealing with the homelessness issues? Or is it just more of the same?

They talk about it constantly and promise to do something at every election. Again, the problem should not be what it is if money alone could solve it since millions are being spent, most of it going to an endless roster of non-profit agencies claiming to help tje homeless (and all paying their staff high salaries supposedly because the city’s overall incomes are so high). But none of the polticians wants to do much besides throw more money at the problem (to hire more highly paid non-profit workers who will support the political incumbents atbelevtion time).

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Same situation all up and down the west coast, and it really is the fault of the ACLU and the far far left.

From personal experience (Have lived in LA my entire life and Downtown LA for 9 years now) is that most of the homeless in Downtown LA are mentally ill and / or drug addicts. Couldnt care less about the latter. The former should be housed in mental hospitals but we need the Lanterman act to be amended because at this point, the only way you get committed is if you are a threat to kill yourself or someone else and thats for at most, 72 hours. The ACLU constantly sues any effort to enforce vagrancy laws because they believe that the "homeless" should have the right to camp or live anywhere if there isnt a shelter bed available to house every single one of them, even though most dont want any kind of housing whatsoever.

The only logical solution is for the county and city to buy a really cheap piece of land far far away from civilization and allow camping there. They could also have mental health, rehab and job facilities on site. Once that camp is open, every vagrancy law on the books should be vigorously enforced. The worst ones are the ones that camp in the hillsides. Numerous fires were started because these crackheads were starting fires in the hillsides of Bel Air, Elysian Park, etc.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by austlar1

In decades past (many decades by now, since the late 1960s really), a high percentage of those currently making up the homeless population of the Bay Area would have been housed in state mental hospitals. Effective medications and community mental health programs were supposed to provide an alternative solution, but this was never efffectively implemented. Now you have thousands of self medicating (with alcohol and illegal street drugs) homeless mentally ill who could not last a week in an "affordable" housing situation without causing havoc. This is a nationwide problem, but places like San Francisco with a fairly mild climate and other amenities for the homeless population attract huge numbers of these poor souls. I hate to say it, but the solution is to reintroduce involuntary institutionalization for the most intractable element within this population.

Absolutely, that's essential.

[Pedestrian]

So let's talk about why San Francisco doesn't just build housing for everybody without a home and be done with it.

The availability of sufficient building sites aside, here's what they do when they do build such housing and they have built a fair amount of it:

Let me present the Richardson Apartments for the "formerly homeless". The cost was $37 million for 120 units. That's $308,333 per unit.

the Drs. Julian and Raye Richardson Apartments provide a dignified new home for formerly homeless adults. The 120-unit, GreenPoint-Rated building offers supportive services such as a counselling center, an on-site medical suite, a job training program, and employment opportunities through the building’s bakery and cafés. In addition to their individual studios, each with a full bathroom and kitchenette, residents enjoy common amenities such as a large courtyard garden, a roof deck, laundry facilities, a lounge, and a large community room – all fully accessible to people with disabilities.

http://worldlandscapearchitect.com/d.../#.WrAB4WbMzys

The project is greener than green, winning architectural prizes. It is designed to blend into its neighborhood, the trendy Hayes Valley:

In this view, the project is on the right. Directly down the street is City Hall and across the street is market rate housing (2 bedroom/1 bath unit recently sold for $929,000). In terms of rents, nearby is 150 Van Ness where a studio will rent for $2650 per month.



Interior of unit:

http://www.spur.org/news/2017-09-20/...using-services

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

So let's talk about why San Francisco doesn't just build housing for everybody without a home and be done with it.

The availability of sufficient building sites aside, here's what they do when they do build such housing and they have built a fair amount of it:

Let me present the Richardson Apartments for the "formerly homeless". The cost was $37 million for 120 units. That's $308,333 per unit.


http://worldlandscapearchitect.com/d.../#.WrAB4WbMzys

The project is greener than green, winning architectural prizes. It is designed to blend into its neighborhood, the trendy Hayes Valley:

In this view, the project is on the right. Directly down the street is City Hall and across the street is market rate housing (2 bedroom/1 bath unit recently sold for $929,000). In terms of rents, nearby is 150 Van Ness where a studio will rent for $2650 per month.



Interior of unit:

http://www.spur.org/news/2017-09-20/...using-services

Nice housing. There is probably a subset among the homeless consisting of relatively functional or medication compliant people who might benefit from this sort of thing. Here in Austin there have been a few hundred units of efficiency apartments or glorified SRO units with communal kitchens built to serve a population of physically disabled homeless or mentally ill homeless who are medication compliant. There are also a few projects with much larger apartments for families that qualify. The trick has been to weed out those individuals with untreated drug addiction from the resident population. It has been rather successful in its mission. The leading provider here in Austin is an outfit called Foundation Communities. Here is a link to their website.

http://foundcom1.wpengine.com/housin...n-communities/

[dubu]

soon oregon will become California. This sucks

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by dubu

soon oregon will become California. This sucks

I doubt it.

[Don't Be That Guy]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

So let's talk about why San Francisco doesn't just build housing for everybody without a home and be done with it.

The availability of sufficient building sites aside, here's what they do when they do build such housing and they have built a fair amount of it:

Let me present the Richardson Apartments for the "formerly homeless". The cost was $37 million for 120 units. That's $308,333 per unit.


http://worldlandscapearchitect.com/d.../#.WrAB4WbMzys

The project is greener than green, winning architectural prizes. It is designed to blend into its neighborhood, the trendy Hayes Valley:

In this view, the project is on the right. Directly down the street is City Hall and across the street is market rate housing (2 bedroom/1 bath unit recently sold for $929,000). In terms of rents, nearby is 150 Van Ness where a studio will rent for $2650 per month.



Interior of unit:

http://www.spur.org/news/2017-09-20/...using-services

While it's nice to be "greener than green" and make a structure as architecturally pleasing as possible, it's very clear that any building that cost $300,000 per unit isn't even attempting to address housing for the homeless.

Projects like that should have housing advocates angry as hell and be screaming from the rooftops. However, many of them seem to be at the forefront of pushing these ridiculously over-designed and overpriced developments. And this happens all over the country, especially in cities that pride themselves on their progressiveness. The big LEED plaque and AIA award-worthy design are no more than progressive virtue signaling through design. I see this all of the time in the low-income (not homeless) housing world.

[tablemtn]

There's really nothing "liberal" about allowing crazy people to roam around causing havoc to themselves and their surroundings. It's actually a form of sadism, much the same as if you allowed people with untreated broken limbs to languish on the sidewalks. "Permissiveness" is basically a more charitable interpretation of laziness and incompetence in civic management.

[BrownTown]

Just want to make a quick point about high rents being balanced out by high wages:

While I obviously understand that from an individual point of view this is the same as making less money in a less expensive area I think from a country wide point of view it's very bad. You're basically having some people who are paid significantly more in one place to do the exact same job. That's not efficient for the Economy at all. The workers in San Francisco are less cost effective than they would be somewhere else. Obviously this is why many companies are moving to less expensive areas.

[mhays]

True, that looks like overkill, and wastes money. They could build more units on less space by cutting square footages etc. About 200 square feet should be plenty for anyone being subsidized, except for families.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

The workers in San Francisco are less cost effective than they would be somewhere else. Obviously this is why many companies are moving to less expensive areas.

The companies and some economists argue that workers in tech clusters--not just the Bay Area but such as Boston and Austin and others--are more productive and therefore worth higher wages because of the cross-fertility of idea exchange among the many tech-related businesses and individuals (and academic insititutions--don't forget Silicon Valley is there partly necause Stanford is there and consider how many tech execs are Stanford alums). It is also true that recruiting is easier for firms in places with so much tech talent and may cost less per hire as well. Bottom line: I haven't got all the answers but Silicon Valley (and its extention in San Francisco) keeps expanding, growing and renewing itself which wouldn't likely be happening if it were all a waste of money.

By the way, when "so many companies" move "to less expensive areas", look at WHAT they are moving. Often its things like datas centers, customer support call centers and so on. Usually not the top-paid design and engineering talent nor the executives.

The New “Cluster Moment”: How Regional Innovation Clusters Can Foster the Next Economy
Mark Muro and Bruce Katz
Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Twenty years after Harvard Business School professor Michael Porter introduced the concept to the policy community and 10 years after its wide state adoption, clusters—geographic concentrations of interconnected firms and supporting or coordinating organizations—have reemerged as a key tool and rubric in Washington and in the nation’s economic regions.

After a decade of delay, the executive branch and Congress have joined state and local policymakers in embracing “regional innovation clusters” (RICs) as a framework for structuring the nation’s economic development activities.

At the state level, governors and gubernatorial candidates of both parties are maintaining or stepping up their longstanding interest.

And additionally, a broad range of business leaders, mainstream commentators, and policy analysts have been calling in the wake of the recent recession for a different kind of growth model that depends less on bubbles and consumption and more on the production of lasting value in metropolitan economies and the super-productive clusters within them . . . .

https://www.brookings.edu/research/t...-next-economy/

[CherryCreek]

It's very sad that it's come to this in San Fran. It also says a lot about the US as a whole I'm afraid. My foreign colleagues from Europe and Australia ask how how America can be so rich and its cities report such staggering GDPs and yet have these kind of conditions.

This is as stunning to me as it is disgusting:


An NBC Bay Area Investigation reveals a dangerous concoction of drug needles, garbage, and feces lining the streets of downtown San Francisco. The Investigative Unit surveyed more than 150 blocks, including some of the city’s top tourist destinations, and discovered conditions that are now being compared to some of the worst slums in the world.

The NBC Bay Area Investigative Unit surveyed 153 blocks of downtown San Francisco in search of trash, needles, and feces. The investigation revealed trash littered across every block. The survey also found 41 blocks dotted with needles and 96 blocks sullied with piles of feces.

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/loca...472430013.html

When I was in Sydney a few years ago, I casually compared Sydney to San Francisco, as many others had done over the years. My Australian colleague - who had spent more than year in San Fran - mocked the comparison, citing many of the factors that are discussed in this thread.

Quite depressing.

[mousquet]

I call this standard 5-story thing dangerously backwards. Anti-progress.
And those are not even of the worst kind of it.

Worst is pastiches trying to imitate the 19th or early 20th centuries. I spit and piss on them with no mercy in my Paris conservative suburb.
They're pissing me off, stubborn as they are.

It's completely stupid, nonsensical, downright obscurantist and evil to enforce height limitation when your housing market is skyrocketing.

High-rises are only something practical and obvious. Capitalism or socialism has nothing to do with it.
Think about it. If we always had to submit to the nimby mindset, we'd still be living in caves like prehistorian monkeys.

Ça m'énerve quand ils rechignent à des étages supplémentaires. Stupides... Idiots !

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

An NBC Bay Area Investigation reveals a dangerous concoction of drug needles, garbage, and feces lining the streets of downtown San Francisco. The Investigative Unit surveyed more than 150 blocks, including some of the city’s top tourist destinations, and discovered conditions that are now being compared to some of the worst slums in the world.

The NBC Bay Area Investigative Unit surveyed 153 blocks of downtown San Francisco in search of trash, needles, and feces. The investigation revealed trash littered across every block. The survey also found 41 blocks dotted with needles and 96 blocks sullied with piles of feces.

A word about that specific report. A lot of what they found is factual and some of the reasons are in the article I posted such as the problematic recycling program that causes the homeless to pull stuff out of trash cans and strew it around to get a few recyclable bottles and cans out of the bins.

But the photo that accompanied the article describing a pile of hypodermic needles supposedly on the street in front of Twitter probably isn't quite right. Market St. in front of Twitter is usually kept pretty clean--cleaner than the average street. But behind Twitter, is an alley-like street called Stevenson St. that has long been a homeless hangout. Two blocks down from Twitter there is a methadone clinic whose clients do hang out in the alley. A block down from that is 6th St that is undergoing gentrification but for decades has been something of a skid row and boasts a needle exchange site. So I'm not at all shocked they found a pile of syringes, probably on Stevenson, an alley, not Market, a main throughfare.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by mousquet

I call this standard 5-story thing dangerously backwards. Anti-progress.
And those are not even of the worst kind of it.

Worst is pastiches trying to imitate the 19th or early 20th centuries. I spit and piss on them with no mercy in my Paris conservative suburb.
They're pissing me off, stubborn as they are.

It's completely stupid, nonsensical, downright obscurantist and evil to enforce height limitation when your housing market is skyrocketing.

High-rises are only something practical and obvious. Capitalism or socialism has nothing to do with it.
Think about it. If we always had to submit to the nimby mindset, we'd still be living in caves like prehistorian monkeys.

Ça m'énerve quand ils rechignent à des étages supplémentaires. Stupides... Idiots !

We are talking about housing for the poorest of the poor here. In San Francisco and in the US generally, the earliest post-war model for housing the poor in bare bones high rises simply didn't work. It concentrated them and their problems turning such buildings into frightening war zones where even the police wouldn't go.

I believe you have some of this in your banlieues.

So San Francisco has, by now, torn just about all those buildings down and replaced them with low rise and garden apartments having individual entrances--no common hallways or elevator lobbies or elevators where trouble makers congregate. A few such buildings were converted to senior housing or housing for other less problematic residents than families with teen children.

And there's another difference with the new generation of homeless housing. The old model of a Public Housing Authority to build and run the housing has been abandoned, at least in SF, in favor of the model of having non-profit private developers build it, run it and continue to own it. These outfits seem much better able to maintain and enforce rules in what they actually own.

[dubu]

Originally Posted by mousquet

I call this standard 5-story thing dangerously backwards. Anti-progress.
And those are not even of the worst kind of it.

Worst is pastiches trying to imitate the 19th or early 20th centuries. I spit and piss on them with no mercy in my Paris conservative suburb.
They're pissing me off, stubborn as they are.

It's completely stupid, nonsensical, downright obscurantist and evil to enforce height limitation when your housing market is skyrocketing.

High-rises are only something practical and obvious. Capitalism or socialism has nothing to do with it.
Think about it. If we always had to submit to the nimby mindset, we'd still be living in caves like prehistorian monkeys.

Ça m'énerve quand ils rechignent à des étages supplémentaires. Stupides... Idiots !

The West Coast is stuck in the 90’s. We might as well be living in caves

[mousquet]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

It concentrated them and their problems turning such buildings into frightening war zones where even the police wouldn't go.

I believe you have some of this in your banlieues.

Yep. We've had the same for decades, literally.

What you're describing ain't bad, though. It's still something decent.

Heck, CA is wealthy as hell. They can afford to be progressive.
If I sat in the White House, I would just enforce higher taxes on the rich.
Be sure entire Europe would follow the trend, then China and the rest of the world would have to as well.