The Bay Area Soiled/Homeless/Infested/Trashed Containment Thread (San Francisco: 2014, school)

[outdoorman]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Lmfao ... Californians (and New Yorkers) elected their policy makers, bubba ... and re-elect most of them over and over.

Ever occur to you that most Californians feel differently than you ... and that’s their perogative? Or are you pretty sure we should adopt your Idaho ideologies?

Some years ago, I considered moving to Idaho, but became leery as I read how Californians,in exodus, were flowing into Idaho along with their money bringing pushy ways to change Idaho's peaceful settled communities.

[smpliving]

Originally Posted by folkguitarist555

Exactly why so many states hate when lunatic liberal Californians start invading their states

Not Iowa. They are begging people to move to their state.

[Dave_n_Tenn]

The red states in general would like remind those leaving CA and the NE states why they're leaving. Texas and Florida receive the most transplants and billboards are popping up reminding the new residents why they left... and if they can't? ... "move along, nothing to see here."

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Genghis

Public officials in many cities openly admit that they no longer enforce various ordinances, and that in particular they don't arrest people for taking or dealing drugs in public. The police will acknowledge the same. "Minor" crime such as smash and grabs are given zero priority. Again they don't try to hide these things. I don't have to be privy to their conversations to realize this, and there's no gut involved. You can argue what it means to "not care" about these crimes, but in public statements they have the same attitude you had when you write "What makes you think it makes a good use of time and resources on an on-going basis relative to other demands?" In other words, "we have better things to do than worry about the fact that thousands of homeless people are roaming through downtown, taking drugs, defecating in public, harassing people, and breaking into vehicles."
.

Your opinion is quite common among many. Understandably. Because great numbers of folks are too intellectually lazy to immerse themselves objectively in complex scenarios ... much easier to simply kvetch and fingerpoint and denigrate. One only need to browse internet forum threads of all kinds to read endless sneering accusations of malfeasance, callousness, irresponsibility, fraud and corruption. And those things exist. Examples can be found and cited. So why bother actually dissecting and investigating issues in depth?

Meanwhile, you join this common tidal flow of opinionation ... and as usual, you supply not one example / proof of your accusations. Can you cite and quote officials saying they don’t care? ... that they won’t be bothered? ... that they won’t enforce ordinances? If you find some examples perhaps some readers might dig a little to reveal what’s under the surface of such comments. Might be interesting, no?

But why bother, eh?

Originally Posted by Genghis

Like it's only I who don't trust these stupid surveys. Recall Gavin Newsom, current governor of California and former mayor of San Francisco, recently made a comment about the homeless of San Francisco being from Texas. It may have been a ridiculous comment, but it does show that politicians at the highest level, including those from the Democratic Party, don't take them seriously.

“Stupid surveys” are stupid to you because they conflict with your bias and mission. Analyze some for the readers. Demonstrate how and why they are “stupid”. Best I’ve read from you so far is “the studies are biased and the interviewees are lying.”

When I have asked in what ways you find bias and lies, you have said the researchers are motivated - for example to show homeless are locals forced out of housing as opposed to being transients - by their need to develop funding. Yet that argument fails when relevant facts are raised - such as that no funding for homelessness anywhere is tied in any way to origins of homeless. So in what way would it serve the researchers to skew or twist those findings?

As to homeless interviewees lying, I have asked the same: why would they? What would benefit them to say they were locals, for example, if they were from Timbuktu? Again, the homeless are never granted or refused any kind of services or support based on how long they have lived anywhere.

Gavin Newsom being a superficial bonehead doesn’t prove that politicians or anyone else consider surveys worthless. You have created no path to that conclusion. All his ignorance demonstrated was his ignorance.

[Weatherdude123]

Originally Posted by llowllevellowll

So, you haven't been back to visit but you're sure that it's an awful, liberal, literal-bleep show of a place?

Sorry, OP, but that doesn't make you sound like a very smart guy. Wherever you are, I'm glad you're happier (or maybe you're not?)

it sure fkin is

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Genghis

The issue is what causes the inability to afford housing. A heroin habit and the associated priorities do leave little to spend on rent. So yeah I guess if you are interested in twisting the facts, a heroin addict can't find affordable housing.



What millions of Californians see every day as they walk down the street. What the homeless say in interview after interview.

Again, you fail to think through your declarations. The cost of housing is not tied to the cost of heroin ... or pot ... or booze ... or anything else other than what the market will bear ... which in turn is driven by regional desirability, a function of economic/employment opportunity, civic vibrancy, environmental qualities, etc. Increasingly in recent decades, housing costs are rapidly rising where “heroin addicts” used to find cheap rooms to share.

Affordable housing was attainable by all sorts of ordinary people, from ordinary addicts to ordinary, sober, low-wage, blue-collar workers who sweep floors and bag burgers/fries. Houses could be purchased for ¼ the relative income levels. SRO rooms were in abundance. Those days are gone with rabid development in booming economies.

What millions of Californians “see” are superficial snapshots that tell little to nothing about causations. And media thrives on selecting stories that sensationalize with shock value. I have provided numerous examples of quite un-sensational folks dealing with homelessness ... only to have you, and others, say my examples are exceptions to the rule. Typically, you like to rely on what supports your stereotyping. There are tens of thousands of mostly unseen homeless. The gross contingents in rags shrieking on street corners and languishing in rows of filthy tents parksides number far far far fewer and yet have become the face of homeless for the undiscerning general public. Congratulations on your superficiality and ignorance.

[ssmaster]

Originally Posted by aslowdodge

Outside of North Carolina, have you lived in Ga or Utah and if so what cities? I lived in the San Francisco Bay Area for a long time. I now live in the suburbs of Atlanta and quite like it. What is so horrible about Georgia?

Intolerance
Segregated proms

[Genghis]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

and as usual, you supply not one example / proof of your accusations. Can you cite and quote officials saying they don’t care? ... that they won’t be bothered? ... that they won’t enforce ordinances? If you find some examples perhaps some readers might dig a little to reveal what’s under the surface of such comments. Might be interesting, no?

Ok, you asked for one example: Seattle stopped enforcing drug ordinances: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...27a_story.html

As I said, they don't try to hide these things. Do I really have to dredge up other examples? And don't provide bull* rationalizations claiming not enforcing the drug laws really doesn't enable homeless addicts and encourage them to head to Seattle. I've seen interviews with homeless people where they specifically mention the legalization of marijuana as a reason for moving to the west coast. (No, I didn't save the link just in case you'd ask.)

[ssmaster]

https://sf.curbed.com/2019/7/10/2068...francisco-2019
The median home price in San Francisco being $1.7 million means there is a high demand to own property in SF. People love SF and want to purchase there
The overwhelming majority of people who leave SF Bay Area do not want to leave. They want to stay but can't afford it.
This is a highly desirable area

[Genghis]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

When I have asked in what ways you find bias and lies, you have said the researchers are motivated - for example to show homeless are locals forced out of housing as opposed to being transients - by their need to develop funding. Yet that argument fails when relevant facts are raised - such as that no funding for homelessness anywhere is tied in any way to origins of homeless. So in what way would it serve the researchers to skew or twist those findings?

As to homeless interviewees lying, I have asked the same: why would they? What would benefit them to say they were locals, for example, if they were from Timbuktu? Again, the homeless are never granted or refused any kind of services or support based on how long they have lived anywhere.

Gavin Newsom being a superficial bonehead doesn’t prove that politicians or anyone else consider surveys worthless. You have created no path to that conclusion. All his ignorance demonstrated was his ignorance.

A major goal of the homeless and their advocates is to generate sympathy for the homeless. So they present the narrative that they're just like us, except unlucky. "It could happen to anyone". They're not drug addicts and schizophrenics, they're just random locals who fell behind on their rent. They didn't move here to take advantage of the weather and lax laws, they're just like you and me.

Look, I'm not claiming to know what percentage of them are locals. But when you get these propaganda pieces like the one the Seattle Law School report which spews forth utterly unbelievable statements, it makes me highly suspicious.