Hell SF pays homeless cash, simply for being homeless. Walk around SF on homeless payday and you’ll see a massive uptick in open use of crack, folks strung out motionless on the sidewalk with needles sticking out of them, and sidewalk slouchers openly sapping on liquor bottles. This is the same city that can’t manage to secure funding to prevent human waste from accumulating on the sidewalks.
I happen to be homeless as well, but I still can’t get behind this concept. I volunteer my time to a national wildlife refuge and expect nothing in return, these folks shit on sidewalks and get cash in hand. If we really want to “solve” homelessness (I don’t think it’s something that needs to be solved, every era of humanity has had some portion of the population living without a solid roof over their heads), the answer is funding more public works programs, not funding delinquency.
“I don’t think it’s something that needs to be solved”
Yeah it is something that needs to be solved. I simply dont agree that society should sit idle while people are out there in the cold. Sure some do it by choice and you cant do much to help them. But a healthy society should have the mechanisms to house every person. I am not a socialist or whatever but i strongly believe that basics such as housing and health care should be taken care of on behalf of those who cant do it on their own. How can people call themselves “patriots” or say they love their country yet they dont help their fellow citizens. A country is not made of trees and rocks its made people. Loving it means loving the people as well.
> I simply dont agree that society should sit idle while people are out there in the cold.
SF and coastal west coast cities don't get cold enough.
That's a major contributing factor to why there is a density of people living on the street. I would say that temperature argument point is invalid.
> But a healthy society should have the mechanisms to house every person.
There is plenty of land for housing nearby and elsewhere.
>
I'm not advocating for anything, I'm actually hoping that you can solidify your arguments better as you maintain your primary sentiment of wanting people to not be on the streets, that matches the sentiment of the people you think you're against, but you're wanting to address it with love and compassion.
I think you're taking the grandparent's "out in the cold" line too literally. "Out in the elements" is probably a better descriptor; it's not about temperature, it's about all the disadvantages to health and safety that come with being homeless.
I don't think it makes a difference in my hope they can iterate towards stronger arguments that lead to consensus solutions, cleaning up the streets and also improving their physical and mental health, and ideally financial position too.
Their weaker arguments don't factor in anything. It doesn't factor in why people go to those specific areas. It doesn't factor in how the people on the street are only the visible homeless population and just the tip of the iceberg of the larger unhoused population in the same circumstance. It doesn't factor in how much of that visible homeless population is not interested in going to a different living arrangement, and so much more. Its just a rudimentary compassion argument that assumes well off and influential people aren't doing anything and that massively funded programs don't already exist. The statement about "the cold" doesn't seem to be targeted to any specific place either, despite this conversation being about San Francisco where "the elements" are more important, since a sweater and blanket is good enough for the worst of San Francisco weather. If their sentiment is so strong, they can iterate towards stronger arguments.
I dont need to iterate towards stronger arguments. There isn't much else to debate or elaborate on the issue. Indeed you are taking the out in the cold statement too literarily, my comment is not weather related. We as a society, regardless of country or city, need to look after each other to a certain extent. Thats what makes a society. We are not beasts. Competing in boardrooms, politics, businesses, or careers is welcome and healthy, but simply allowing for people to struggle at that level is not. It’s not even about wealth or class, let alone rudimentary compassion. It’s just something i feel. An automated reaction to such societal issues, and a response i can give as a tax pair, voter and very very small donor. Somewhere somehow a circuit is broken and people end up in that situation. We need the mechanisms to prevent that from happening. Sure if some people see homelessness as a positive choice they themselves make then thats their choice and i totally respect that. I am not writing this comment to patronise people, i know nothing of their lives. But i do know that we must do all we can to develop mechanisms to prevent it from happening to those who dont want it. Food, shelter and health care are basic human needs and rights.
>Food, shelter and health care are basic human needs and rights.
Even if so, it's not your right to take these by force. So if someone has to pay for that via taxes, etc then you are infringing on the rights of others in extracting that value. I would argue the government does have the obligation to not infringe on those rights, as they currently do in onerous regulation that makes these things unaffordable (well crappy food is pretty affordable by world standards). Obviously health care regulations and licensing, medicare, medicaid, medi-Cal, are some of the biggest offenders in destroying our rights.
What's your standard on rights? The constitution has the 16th amendment in it which means any tax when called income tax is okay, and the original constitution's articles allows for excise taxes. So this is an area you have to remain vigilant on to prevent the political will from gaining consensus if it matters to you. Centrists are playing this role swimmingly, preventing any party from gaining any useful power, while the rest of the country actually believes the "wave" of their color is actually going to happen for like almost a decade now.
50-50 Senate since forever tells you all you need to know! No party is going to overcome the filibuster to pass anything.
They're living on the street because there isn't enough housing so it costs too much. No other factors correlate with it, including poverty or drug use.
Personal preference, more or less. I worked in tech long enough to both save up a bit of a nest egg and realize I don’t want to spend my life sitting at a computer screen while the government takes a third of my paycheck to do lord knows what with, the landlord takes another third for the enormously helpful service they provide of “using accumulated wealth to buy up investment properties”, and the rest goes to the local bars (I jest… slightly).
That said, “homeless” is a loaded term that likely doesn’t accurately connote my living situation. I live in a tent on an wildlife refuge. I am a full-time volunteer on that refuge with the US Fish and Wildlife service. The general public may camp at the site free of charge, but my position grants me access to laundry, showers, and internet at the headquarters, which is located a few miles away from my campsite (no services or cellular connection there).
About half my traditional “working time” is spent doing odd jobs around the refuge for the benefit of its wildlife, staff, and visitors. I am provided a government truck and gas for official business, as much of the time I’m off-roading around from task to task. The other half of the time I work on personal projects, bike, hike, read, relax, meet people, etc.
In general I derive more satisfaction from helping animals-at-large as compared to humans, but the animals unfortunately pay quite a bit less. I would like to some day have an official compensated position using my education/professional experience to help wildlife more than my current position allows, but I have not yet heard back from the applications I submitted to that end. I am hoping connections I develop here will help me pursue that goal more effectively.
I bet this sounds like a dream to at least 20% of folks here. I'd love to read about your transition, how does it feel after a while - that would be amazing HN submission. Good luck!
Lol a few careless moments with a woman would end his lifestyle in a hurry. When the judge orders 20% child support they'll impute the income at whatever you can make slaving away at a desk, not what you make in a relatively carefree life with fish and wildlife. In California that would be $20k+ (post-tax), so basically almost all the post-tax income of a low level fish and wildlife worker, assuming you're even lucky enough to get the full-time job.
I lived a somewhat similar life basically enjoying living outdoors and odd jobs and travelling and volunteering until I had a kid; would not recommend consorting with women unless you want to be on the hook to pay rent and chained to a desk for 18 years.
Having your passport revoked, your DL revoked, liens and eventually seizure order on your vehicles, and a felony warrant out for your arrest would really put a damper into travelling though...
I happen to be homeless as well, but I still can’t get behind this concept. I volunteer my time to a national wildlife refuge and expect nothing in return, these folks shit on sidewalks and get cash in hand. If we really want to “solve” homelessness (I don’t think it’s something that needs to be solved, every era of humanity has had some portion of the population living without a solid roof over their heads), the answer is funding more public works programs, not funding delinquency.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10498607/San-Franci...