There have been sweeps before but campers returned days later or simply moved a few blocks away.
The mayor says this time will be different. This week, city crisis teams will be reaching out to homeless people in this neighborhood trying to get them into a shelter program.
Those who refuse help -- will have their tents cleared out this week.
I mean...is there really anything else they can do?
As long as the alternate housing is a real option, and not a pretextual offer, I don't really see the problem with this.
There are multiple reasons why governments want homeless people in shelters. It's a vitally important cost saving measure. While the shelters do cost money to run, they give an excellent way for the homeless to access resources for obtaining housing (whether through gov't programs or through gainful employment) and especially healthcare (saves state money by routing people out of the ER into PCP visits). They further protect property values in the area in question. Granted, I don't know anything about the Mission District and whether that's really a genuine concern. If a space is abandoned and being put to a good use by squatters (that are healthy and hopefully otherwise law abiding) they should be permitted to stay imo.
My mother works in a shelter - some homeless who leave the shelter are found dead. It's never a good time for anyone. Homelessness is rough. Can't imagine how awful it must be in a place like CA where housing prices are insane. Here in CT they're bad enough.
I'm wondering if the shelter program even works
it seems like everyone in the world's solution to the homeless is "make them go away" and that's it
These "programs" are often perfunctory shams, at least, that's been the experience here.
They set high requirements for sheltering, are almost Orwellian in their invasiveness, and frequently are underfunded to the point that even the lucky few who toe the line may find out that their bed has been cancelled.
Not to mention the staggering number of homeless people who are homeless due to mental health issues. Those alone often bar, or lead to barring circumstances for people seeking shelter. One case my family is familiar with, a high-school friend of my uncle's who had violent outbursts due to schizophrenia, would essentially go 2 to 3 days in the shelter (with no attempt at psychological care) before getting in a fight or having an outburst that would lead to him being bounced back on to the street.
Eventually he settled in to a revolving door routine with the local jail, who treat him better than the homeless programs do. Last I heard of him, whenever he's almost out of medication or it's getting cold, he usually goes and "robs" a gas station or a liquor store, sits on the curb until the cops turn up and no-contests his way in to county jail.
imperfection doesn't really equal a sham. Shelters have limited resources and limited beds. It's unfortunate, but there is a hard reality that a given shelter will only have a set number of beds. And the shelter has to prioritize people. Some shelters prioritize the most infirm, to keep care, and some prioritize people who show the most potential to pull themselves out of homelessness. Most have a balance between the two. (as an aside, many states also require that, during winter, no one may be turned away from a shelter under any circumstances. once the beds are taken, the others sleep on the floor)
Shelters are fragile places. As you note, a lot of people in shelters can have varying degrees of mental illness. Most shelters aren't fully equipped to deal with the more severe forms of it, and obviously don't have the manpower or money to deal with frequent fights. The shelters have an obligation to everyone, not just any one particular individual. For instance, my mother's shelter recently had an extremely violent encounter. An entire hallway was caked in the victim's blood - floor and walls. Thankfully he survived. But the perpetrator was one of the revolving door types, often refused space due to dealing drugs in the center, his aggression, and bouts of violence. What's the solution to this? Have a police officer permanently on site? Well, that's not going to work. Good luck getting addicts to come in when there's a badge sitting in the corner. Hire private security guards? Most shelters don't have the money, so the staff typically serves that purpose until police arrive as necessary.
It's unfortunate that your uncle's friend didn't get the appropriate care. I've got schizophrenia in the family, so I know how rough it is. But the problem with schizophrenia is just how stable someone needs to be to be adequately treated, and it's something that's just not really possible when you're homeless. Patients absolutely must maintain their medication, and must remain in a low-stress environment. That's exponentially more difficult when you're homeless, as you're obviously surrounded by other unstable individuals, have little privacy, and are subject to the vices common to homelessness. There's a fine line that has to be walked with severe mental illness of that nature. You cannot commit someone against their will (unless you've got cause to, of course) and we have to preserve their autonomy. People with mental illness are still people, and they can refuse care. In my mother's experience (as a nurse), many often do. Those with mental illnesses often have a sense of a lack of control, and it's extremely difficult for people to reach the point where they're willing to give up total control of their life. Most want to think that they're still okay and they can still manage themselves. Sometimes you have to respect that.
Ultimately the most important thing that a shelter has to do is keep the premises safe. That means expelling violent individuals and maintaining a nurse on site that can help with drug/alcohol addiction who can also refer individuals to crisis units and hospitals for severe cases. After that, having a program that can get people into state provided/subsidized housing (in tandem with welfare benefits) is vital. Some states do, some don't. Those that do have seen results for the state and for the individuals.
homelessness is a symptom of larger societal problems. unfortunately, there's no real way to deal with all of the consequent ills of homelessness. There's too many, they're too complex, and every individual is different, meaning there's no one set solution. The only true solution is to eliminate the conditions that give rise to homelessness in the first place, which will require fundamental reshaping of the economy.
I mean San Francisco's homeless problem is pretty fucking terrible. I was up there for GDC and I've never seen so many tents, homeless on the streets, etc... and I'm from New york. I watched multiple drug deals go down in front of my hotel, and the Bay Area has huge problem with carjackings, and muggings.
California's leniency on homeless people also has the ramification that now other states are literally shipping their homeless over, so they don't have to deal with the problem.
It's a difficult issue. I sympathize with these struggling people, but a large percentage of them really have no hope. Whether it be because some form of mental illness, or just lack of education/upbringing/intelligence, there really isn't a whole lot of rehabilitation that can be done. Shelters are better than nothing despite their poor conditions. I don't think there's anything wrong with have strict guidelines for the people who will be taking up beds. There's only so much you can do, and giving beds to the ones who are willing to cooperate and not cause trouble seems like the best way to deal with it.
Can you explain this part? I thought the hospitals just ate the cost of the visit. Does this vary state to state or what's the situation here, how does the state end up sacked with the cost of visits to private hospitals?
Quit this bullshitting around with clearing camps and getting people into shelters and actually give them fucking homes. Housing the homeless costs less money than leaving them on the street.
They will never do that. You can't get property taxes from a poor person.
Someone on reddit explained their experience with a homeless shelter and why they decided to just be homeless outside instead. He said the employees at the shelter treated everyone like basket cases, they assumed everyone was mental or an addict. And a lot of them were, which was unfortunate because he was lumped into a room with them, just a big open room with beds like an army bunk with even less space. And between staff treating you like scum and other homeless being crazy, there wasn't any good company for him to keep. Also the other homeless steal all your shit, not that you have anywhere to put it anyway, but you can't leave anything alone or it'll be gone soon.
California's "leniency on homeless people"? You mean the fact that we allow people to exist, even though they have committed the grave and terrible crime of not being able to afford to pay enough money to rent a little slice of the surface of the Earth that they were born on, to simply take up space, and sleep. Leniency on people who think they have the right to exist and occupy land without periodically paying rent for the privilege?
Yeah man, how dare they fall on harsh times and end up on the streets and therefore inexplicably hated and shunned by all of society! California should crack down and put all those homeless in prison at once! Oh wait, that would actually provide them housing and food, which would be letting them win. Plus it would be wayyy too expensive. I guess we gotta leave them on the streets, but make sure to complain about them a lot, huh?
I was just explaining why they have a worse homeless problem. Other states don’t want to deal so they send em over to Cali.
You’re putting a lot of words into my mouth, chill at dude.
i never said they deserve to go to prison. I think we should provide homeless shelters. Unfortunately there’s always going to be limited space, and those who are mentally unstable or really into drugs are gonna be hard to keep with the people who are just falling on hard times.
If I had to choose, I know I would pick the people we can see some sort of progression. In turn that would actually make it so there are less homeless people on the streets and more in to shelters with beds for those who probably don’t really have a chance in society.
Yeah, sure. Primarily, homeless ER visits drive up the costs of healthcare for the rest of the population. The state has an interest in reducing costs of healthcare for a few reasons. 1) public wants it cheaper, 2) med dent is the #1 cause of bankruptcy and places people into a situation where they may rely on State finding. Further, for those patients on State Medicaid, their prices rise as healthcare costs rise as well
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
