Cops don’t enforce most drug laws and property crimes here, I suspect that’s what he means. So the SFPD is really uninvolved and doesn’t like to cite or arrest homeless people unless they are violent. It’s like a low level state of anarchy being allowed. If a homeless person decides to camp on your property, good look getting the cops to remove them. You need a special sign displayed that you have to apply for and pay for to even remove trespassers... the whole city is structured to allow petty crimes.
I don't think it's unreasonable to demand that there are laws against people shitting in the streets and leaving infected drug needles all over the place and that these laws are also acted upon by law enforcement.
Ultimately, someone who is in a position where they're defecating in the street and discarding used needles isn't likely to be in a position where they'll be engaging positively with law enforcement.
That kind of thing needs to be treated as the public health problem that it is, with extensive society-wide initiatives to prevent people getting into those situations, and to help them get out once they're in. Law enforcement can play a part in that for sure, but until there's a clear programme it doesn't do much to alleviate the problem in the long term.
More public bathrooms are sorely needed. The trouble is that in those areas public bathrooms tend to get vandalized and criminals use them as semi-private spaces for drug dealing, prostitution, mugging, etc. So to keep public bathrooms working and safe the city has to provide frequent maintenance and security patrols. That's expensive.
I don't know. I think getting them off the streets is a fairly high prio thing to do, even if it's just by putting them in prison temporarily while a better option is prepared. Yeah, the homeless are victims of the situation, but so are the inhabitants of SF. They deserve a place to live where they do not have to be afraid of being assaulted by a homeless man, having their children tripping over infected drug paraphernalia, or their city being a hotbed of disease due to a large population doing their business on the streets.
I would agree, but then also the people who have been living in SF and are not part of the tech economy also deserve not having to worry about their rent doubling or being kicked out to the streets and put in a situation where homelessness is a very real prospect.
Sure, the tech boom in SF didn't help, but this wasn't just all kind of tech Yuppies moving into the neighbourhood; it's also a lack of community care for the homeless, as well as a tacit acceptance of the misbehaviour of the homeless people which allowed to the problem to progress to the point where it is now.
how are regular people meant to get back on their feet when extreme gentrification prices out everyone who doesn't work in tech? I find it hard to imagine a path from homeless heroin addict to making $2500+/month to be able to afford to live in the area.
I don’t think it’s possible and they’ll have to leave. I think the city or NGOs are going to have to invest in low value housing since they don’t have the profit margin requirement.
But I think this will help with the pre-homeless. But I think the feces/drug problems are caused by individuals for
whom $2500 and $1000/month rent/mortgage are equally impossible.
"In 10 years, he pledged on June 30, 2004, the worst of San Francisco’s homeless problem would be gone. [...] A decade and roughly $1.5 billion later, the city has succeeded in moving 19,500 homeless people off its streets, roughly equivalent to relocating the entire Castro district. But despite that major effort, the homeless population hasn’t budged, showing that as one homeless person is helped, another takes his place." https://www.sfchronicle.com/archive/item/A-decade-of-homeles...
The homeless population has remained steady about 5,000 - 6,000 people. It suggests some sort of equilibrium and that the predominate dynamics at play are far more complex than issues of housing costs and "gentrification".
If you have a mental illness or drug addiction problem, it's actually not too difficult to get off the streets in relatively short order if you choose. If you lack either of those handicaps you're likely to leave altogether. But in the aggregate there's a certain tolerance people have (especially for the mentally ill and drug addicted) for living in homeless conditions, and people (especially the mentally ill, drug addicted, and people who live on the street) don't like rules.
Also note that the number of living-on-street homeless today is the same as over a decade ago. (I qualify homeless because if you live in certain types of housing you're still classified as homeless under various regulatory guidelines used to allocate funding.) Removing compulsory treatment and other consequences to get off the street has, at best, been a wash in terms of homeless numbers. (More likely contributed to overall increase.) However, it very clearly has resulted in homeless flouting normative behaviors even more. Most mentally ill and drug addicts were and are capable of avoiding using the streets as a latrine because despite the same number of street homeless the environmental conditions are far worse today than at any other time, even though the numbers are unchanged. Which means they were and are capable of responding to consequences. If you're all carrot and no stick, don't be surprised at the results. It's something that's undeniable at this point. We can't only blame unjust laws or difficult economic situations, not in the aggregate.
The problem with this in my opinion, is at least what I've seen in Portland is they arrest the person, take them to jail, and when they're released they just go and do it again.
The only thing this accomplishes is putting a strain on the court system. If they had some sort of alternative to 'catch and release' like a recovery program or prison diversion program. 100% agree with you. The law isn't enforceable as it stands now and throwing a bunch of police/extra courts/extra incarceration centers isn't really going to attack the problem at the source.
Fairly sure there are laws like that (you can't leave random garbage on the street, no public nudity, etc?), just no active enforcement. Because it's not practical to patrol all the time, everywhere. Tackling this problem needs to be done on other levels.
I would suspect the former part of such a law would be immediately suppressed by the judiciary unless the city actually built enough well-serviced public bathrooms for everyone before it went into effect.
