San Francisco Squalor: City Streets Strewn With Trash, Needles And Human Feces

[Barbarossa]

.

[chris08876]

The NBC Bay Area Investigative Unit surveyed 153 blocks of the city in February, finding giant mounds of trash and food on the majority of streets. At least 100 discarded needles and more than 300 piles of human feces were also found in downtown San Francisco, according to the report.

Excellent investigation! Especially counting the piles! Add that to the journalism curriculum vitae.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Excellent investigation! Especially counting the piles! Add that to the journalism curriculum vitae.

Why deride him for this? Seems like a relevant study to conduct, especially given the proposals to spend more money on the homeless and street cleaning.

[chris08876]

It's the cities very policies that are pushing people to the street. The people of the city are blind. They look at the homeless, the poop, the increase in homeless... and it inconveniences them. The very folks who will say no to some much needed housing, and who are selfish in that they want the community to be their way.

Being clean is not the pressing issue that should be tackled, but fixing the pricing, and returning SF to a city that welcomes all, not just a overpriced, over-hyped gated community.

Filthy streets are just a symptom of a much larger disease.

My problem is that people are bothered by the homeless, but fail to realize that it is the fault of a city that cowers to its arrogant, selfish NIMBY population who in self-interest, would protest against zoning and solutions to reduce pricing. To not put or decrease the probability of someone being homeless.

[cardinal2007]

Admittedly SF just spent > $2B on the bus depot they are dubbing "Grand Central Station of the West", complete with rooftop gardens. They have a budget deficit, so they can't really spend more money on the homeless right now, but they are looking at ways to tax tech workers or companies to raise hundreds of millions of dollars to give to their currently non-functioning homelessness programs.

[chris08876]

They need to encourage more private sector development, rezone the city, and increase the unit caps. I keep saying.... and its quite a simple concept that if you give developers the right circumstances, they will build. Believe me, its in the interest to build on a grandiose scale if the circumstances can favor them in the end.

There has to be a balance between the city and developers. Can't be a one sided, me me me conversation at all times. Right now, the conditions suck. The caps suck. Prices suck... its a mess.

I do think the concept of a city should apply to all. As an urban construct where one can make it. But the wealth divide is extreme, and I do feel that overpricing is a slow cancer that will slowly kill a city (population loss, little growth, loss of culture) . Might not apparent now... but watch! And other places will take advantage of this. Hey... I'm just sayin'/

To some, I may be speaking blasphemy, but I implore you to look for a property in such conditions or imagine yourself with your income and under those conditions. See my point? There has to be a sort of empathy for people. The very conditions that existed decades ago are no longer there. Overpricing is killing the urban fabric.

[cardinal2007]

Originally Posted by chris08876

They need to encourage more private sector development, rezone the city, and increase the unit caps. I keep saying.... and its quite a simple concept that if you give developers the right circumstances, they will build. Believe me, its in the interest to build on a grandiose scale if the circumstances can favor them in the end.

There has to be a balance between the city and developers. Can't be a one sided, me me me conversation at all times. Right now, the conditions suck. The caps suck. Prices suck... its a mess.

I do think the concept of a city should apply to all. As an urban construct where one can make it. But the wealth divide is extreme, and I do feel that overpricing is a slow cancer that will slowly kill a city (population loss, little growth, loss of culture) . Might not apparent now... but watch! And other places will take advantage of this. Hey... I'm just sayin'/

To some, I may be speaking blasphemy, but I implore you to look for a property in such conditions or imagine yourself with your income and under those conditions. See my point?

Land use discussions tend to not go that way, you'll see people oppose any new housing near them, under guises of "gentrification", "traffic", "blocking views". This then gets to the supervisors, and since many of them are wealthy landlords, they use it as an excuse to squash development. Either this goes on for decades until the proposal has been downsized 3 ways from Sunday and the city has run out of excuses to block the development, or the developer folds and leaves town frustrated. Either way politically they (SF and its landed citizens) make more money that way so that's how they keep it, regardless of how many people are forced to live on the street because of it. They would rather blame "techies" than find solutions.

You might ask why, but seriously, would you give up $300k in housing appreciation, a view, exclusiveness of your neighborhood, so some homeless man can sleep in a bed at night. If you said yes, you probably would've left SF a long time ago.

[chris08876]

Its human nature at its worse but its expected. I fully understand why, especially with the housing appreciation. But... and here's the thing... part of me thinks the government should step in. I don't want to say strong-arm, but at some point, the problem has to be resolved. Somehow it has to be fixed eventually... and if the people won't accept it, well... to not have the problem continue, it will be forced. But I think like anything else, we tend to wait until things get really bad to actually fix them.

But I kinda don't feel bad in the end, because some of these folks will go to places that aren't as close minded to private sector development. Folks forget that cities have competition, and that competition is other cities.

Texas is doing a fantastic job with its pro-growth mentality. We need more of that.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by cardinal2007

Admittedly SF just spent > $2B on the bus depot they are dubbing "Grand Central Station of the West"

Are they really calling it that? That's embarrassing, it's not even going to have trains for 15+ years if it ever happens.

[Qubert]

Originally Posted by chris08876

It's the cities very policies that are pushing people to the street. The people of the city are blind. They look at the homeless, the poop, the increase in homeless... and it inconveniences them. The very folks who will say no to some much needed housing, and who are selfish in that they want the community to be their way.

Being clean is not the pressing issue that should be tackled, but fixing the pricing, and returning SF to a city that welcomes all, not just a overpriced, over-hyped gated community.

Filthy streets are just a symptom of a much larger disease.

My problem is that people are bothered by the homeless, but fail to realize that it is the fault of a city that cowers to its arrogant, selfish NIMBY population who in self-interest, would protest against zoning and solutions to reduce pricing. To not put or decrease the probability of someone being homeless.

I have to be honest here: There is no amount of "affordable housing" that can help someone who defecates in the street. People who have lost their homes due to genuine economic hardship aren't the ones who poop on the sidewalk or shoot up in broad daylight.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by chris08876

It's the cities very policies that are pushing people to the street. The people of the city are blind. They look at the homeless, the poop, the increase in homeless... and it inconveniences them. The very folks who will say no to some much needed housing, and who are selfish in that they want the community to be their way.

Being clean is not the pressing issue that should be tackled, but fixing the pricing, and returning SF to a city that welcomes all, not just a overpriced, over-hyped gated community.

Filthy streets are just a symptom of a much larger disease.

My problem is that people are bothered by the homeless, but fail to realize that it is the fault of a city that cowers to its arrogant, selfish NIMBY population who in self-interest, would protest against zoning and solutions to reduce pricing. To not put or decrease the probability of someone being homeless.

Although I agree with a lot of what youre saying, I don't think its too simple.

A homeless person in SF is not going to ever be able to afford the average rent. Its never gonna be affordable.

SF has always been a magnet for the homeless. My cousin was a 'street kid' for a couple of years and inevitably ended up in SF for most of her time on the streets. Its attractive for the homeless. No amount of 'affordable housing' or the varied array of homeless programs are gonna fix this. Me and my gf make just under 100k together. We have to spend like 40k just to hit the average rent prices. Sure, we would make more there, but would it make up for the higher taxes and overall living costs plus massive housing costs? Probably not. If a couple living in SF making almost 100k has to spend 40% of their pretax income on housing alone, you have an issue. Right now we are paying about 25%.

[ocman]

I’m very optimistic LA can manage their homeless numbers. They at least have plans and know what they have to do. I’m not optimistic San Francisco can, because they’re not even at the point to admit that their anti-housing reflex contributes to this issue.

I walked and Lyfted around yesterday and one guy tried to sell me drugs, another was trying to steal a Vespa, another accosted my friend for money (he gave a dollar and the guy demanded 5). Every other block, they’re just everywhere now. I did not, however, come across needles strewn across the street as people are made to believe.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by cardinal2007

Admittedly SF just spent > $2B on the bus depot they are dubbing "Grand Central Station of the West", complete with rooftop gardens.

The approved budget for rebuilding the Port Authority Bus Terminal in NYC stands at $10 billion, and that was set in 2016. Granted, that's a much bigger complex, but transit infrastructure in high cost U.S. cities tends to be outrageously, almost incomprehensibly expensive.

Originally Posted by cardinal2007

They have a budget deficit, so they can't really spend more money on the homeless right now, but they are looking at ways to tax tech workers or companies to raise hundreds of millions of dollars to give to their currently non-functioning homelessness programs.

SF has vast financial resources relative to size. They can absolutely attack the problem. The problem is that there's no consensus on how to fight homelessness.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Qubert

I have to be honest here: There is no amount of "affordable housing" that can help someone who defecates in the street. People who have lost their homes due to genuine economic hardship aren't the ones who poop on the sidewalk or shoot up in broad daylight.

Street homelessness, like you see in the Mission, and Mid-Market, has almost nothing to do with lack of housing. The vast majority probably need mental and/or substance abuse help, and an array of services to return them to a semblance of normalcy.

[SLO]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The approved budget for rebuilding the Port Authority Bus Terminal in NYC stands at $10 billion, and that was set in 2016. Granted, that's a much bigger complex, but transit infrastructure in high cost U.S. cities tends to be outrageously, almost incomprehensibly expensive.


SF has vast financial resources relative to size. They can absolutely attack the problem. The problem is that there's no consensus on how to fight homelessness.

Obviously the city has no balance in politics. Too many far left liberals who will tolerate the filth. I'm talking some practical politician, decision makers who get shit done. They are to busy banning plastic straws and delivering fresh batches of needles to heroin addicts.

[floor23]

San Francisco has always had a gritty side since day 1. From the gold rush era unti today, the city has always had a wild side.

I don't see how SF can deal with homelessness on its own, and building new homes won't help unless they're 100% subsidized. Homeless people have the freedom of movement just like any other US citizens.

Bringing back mental institutions would really help, but only if they were forced to stay there, otherwise it wouldn't work.

Another way is for the police to harass them so much they leave. In Honolulu, HPD has a routine of waking them up every couple of hours, doing searches, taking apart their camping area, and confiscating their items. However, some consider it inhumane, but it has resulted in quite a few guys packing up and leaving or moving to the shelters.

Throwing money at the problem won't work, but knowing America its the route we're going to take.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by Barbarossa

Samantha Raphelson
NPR
August 1, 2018
https://www.npr.org/2018/08/01/63462...nd-human-feces

San Francisco's streets are so filthy that at least one infectious disease expert has compared the city to some of the dirtiest slums in the world.

The NBC Bay Area Investigative Unit surveyed 153 blocks of the city in February, finding giant mounds of trash and food on the majority of streets. At least 100 discarded needles and more than 300 piles of human feces were also found in downtown San Francisco, according to the report.

San Francisco's new mayor, London Breed, had proposed adding nearly $13 million to the city's $65 million street cleaning budget over the next two years, according to NBC Bay Area.

One pundit said that SF is no longer "Bagdad by the Bay" but "Calcutta by the Bay". Not that L.A. or San Diego are any cleaner...well, maybe SD is a bit cleaner than SF & LA, although there was a hep epidemic last year. All major CA cities need more shelter beds, or at least some bathroom and shower facilities for the homeless. Otherwise the streets & alleys & sidewalks become stinky and germy toilets. Some areas are so dirty it makes you wonder about eating away from home. Many people (not only homeless) don't wash their hands any more.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by floor23

San Francisco has always had a gritty side since day 1. From the gold rush era unti today, the city has always had a wild side.

I don't see how SF can deal with homelessness on its own, and building new homes won't help unless they're 100% subsidized. Homeless people have the freedom of movement just like any other US citizens.

Bringing back mental institutions would really help, but only if they were forced to stay there, otherwise it wouldn't work.

Another way is for the police to harass them so much they leave. In Honolulu, HPD has a routine of waking them up every couple of hours, doing searches, taking apart their camping area, and confiscating their items. However, some consider it inhumane, but it has resulted in quite a few guys packing up and leaving or moving to the shelters.

Throwing money at the problem won't work, but knowing America its the route we're going to take.

There used to be anti-vagrancy laws, and homeless people were arrested. Jack London was arrested as a vagrant in Buffalo when he went homeless on the road in the 1890s when he was part of "Coxie's Army" of unemployed during the 1890s depression.

Anti-vagrancy laws seem unjust to me (and are illegal now in most places), a war against poor people. Just build more shelter beds. We spend trillions on defense. How about a few billion on affordable housing and shelters? I do agree that for the severely mentally ill people, there should be more treatment and detention for the violent.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by ocman

I’m very optimistic LA can manage their homeless numbers. They at least have plans and know what they have to do. I’m not optimistic San Francisco can, because they’re not even at the point to admit that their anti-housing reflex contributes to this issue.

I walked and Lyfted around yesterday and one guy tried to sell me drugs, another was trying to steal a Vespa, another accosted my friend for money (he gave a dollar and the guy demanded 5). Every other block, they’re just everywhere now. I did not, however, come across needles strewn across the street as people are made to believe.

When the homeless start showing up in Pacific Heights and Beverly Hills, something will be done. Or are they already there? I read a few years ago that Bev. Hills shoos them away, using security guards. They aren't made to feel welcome, so they tend to leave. In the old days (pre 1960s) there used to be places called "flophouses" where people could spend less than a dollar to bed down for the night. There also, more recently, used to be lots of single room occupancy hotels (SROs) in DTLA and DTSF. Development and gentrification have removed most of these places, even in L.A.'s "skid row" and S.F''s "Tenderloin" and SoMa districts. So the homeless are on the streets. More shelters are needed. New York City does a better job of housing homeless than LA, SF or SD.

[JMKeynes]

I love SF and used to go a lot. However, I haven't been there in twenty years. Back then, the homeless situation was out of control. However, the homeless people didn't seem psychotic like some of the loonies strung out on K2 like one sees in NY today.

I assumed that with the economic boom, SF cleaned up its act a lot. I guess not. My question is whether the homeless are in downtown, Union Square (in SF), etc., or just in limited areas. Also, are they harmless or are there seriously mentally ill homeless like one finds in Manhattan?