SF tech bro: 'I shouldn't have to see the pain, struggle, despair of homeless' - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/02/18/s-f-tech-bro-writes-open-letter-to-mayor-i-shouldnt-have-to-see-the-pain-struggle-and-despair-of-homeless-people/?hpid=hp_no-name_morning-mix-story-f-duplicate%3Ahomepage%2Fstory <comment><USER3> To play devil's advocate, he's right. He shouldn't have to see the pain, struggle, and despair of homeless - the city government should be providing affordable housing and shelters for the homeless. That it hasn't is a failure of the local government, and should be addressed. Much of the reason that affordable housing is out of reach of many in San Francisco is due to government regulation, not market capitalism. Extremely restrictive construction laws and absurd rent controls distort the housing market, which is driving the expensive home market and massive rents. A large portion of the blame for this situation falls to the government - they wrote the laws, they built this disaster.

<comment><USER4> This is a complex issue... but in my experience, most of the homeless are not looking for help to find jobs and/or contribute to society in manner that will lead them out of "homelessness." A lot of them prefer this "lifestyle"... we try very hard to help the people that want help. Most don't.

Go talk to your local EMS/Fire department personnel and most of them will have similar stories. I know the homeless people in my area better than I know my extended family. I have memorized their birthday's, the medications they should be taking, the street drugs they prefer, the kind of beer they drink, where they stash their stuff, where they have their main camp, what their childhood, and adult life were like, their medical history, what shelters they've been kicked out of and are not allowed back to... and more.

We are forced to talk with them, sometimes 3 or 4 times a shift. I lost sympathy for most of them a long time ago, that doesn't mean we treat them like sub-humans... we just have less patience with the shit they are inevitably going to give us.

Edit: here is an article specific to San Fran about EMS & the homeless: [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/27/us/san-francisco- firefight...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/27/us/san-francisco-firefighters- become-unintended-safety-net-for-the-homeless.html)

<comment><USER5> >A lot of them prefer this "lifestyle"

I used to also think that many homeless "preferred the lifestyle of homelessness" but I recently learned of a town in Canada (Medicine Hat) that found it more cost effective to house the homeless. This myth that people prefer to be homeless was shattered and this town found that nearly all homeless were able to reintegrated back into having their own places. The mayor was skeptical at first now, he says, "It makes financial sense. That's how I had my epiphany and was converted. You can actually save money by giving somebody some dignity and giving them a place to live."

Medicine Hat on brink of ending homelessness

[http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/medicine-hat-on- brink-...](http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/medicine-hat-on-brink-of- ending-homelessness-mayor-says-1.2644074)

[http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/medicine-hat-has- al...](http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/medicine-hat-has-almost- eliminated-homelessness-by-giving-homeless-people-the-keys-to-their-own- apartments)

<comment><USER6> Our super-Conservative government for the last decade (now replaced by a young, hip, Liberal one) was actually really big behind the 'housing-first' method of helping the homeless (you get an apartment, no questions asked, then we work on your drug problems, etc later), and put a lot of money towards it.

At first, this seems very socially liberal and at odds with a Conservative party kind of thing until you look at the financials and realize it actually is fiscally very conservative- it saves a ton of money on policing and medical care.

All that said, have you been to Medicine Hat? That's not a place with a very relaxed 'homeless lifestyle'. It's -15C here in Toronto today, and we're like 700km further south. In the west coast of the USA, you can survive on the street without the air itself killing you.

<comment><USER7> Well, that's great, then. It seems like a liberal calling card but appeals to everyone's desire to save money while providing actually useful social services.

So what's the political argument against it?

<comment><USER8> The political argument against HF comes down to the fact that it may not actually work very well. People opposed to HF tend to argue:

1.) HF is not effective at keeping recipients out of the criminal justice system. (This finding is controversial as, especially in Canada, 2-3 years often go by between arrest and subsequent criminal punishment.)

2.) HF creates 'slums'. (This finding is controversial as the solution is to attract a wider array of potential landlords. From a landlord's perspective, getting involved with HF is difficult as they feel that having one HF unit in a building will depress rents for the entire building.)

3.) HF is built around low quality data collection tools. HF programs always start with something called a point in time (PIT) count in which a city's homeless population is counted. PIT counts always show that homelessness is both older and whiter than frontline activists have found. This problem is highly complex and could easily turn this into a 250 page essay...:)

4.) HF is a one size fits all approach to a very complex problem. People who believe this fall into the narrative that a homeless woman with three children who lives from couch to couch is dramatically different from a homeless man who suffers from schizophrenia and pushes all of his worldly possessions in a cart. I'd argue that this is not so much a criticism as an example of ignorance - HF by its very nature recognizes that every community is different and each community must build its own program. Second, HF is built around personal relationships between recipients and advocates. The advocates are responsible for getting a particular recipient the type of help that he/she needs.

I mostly support Housing First, so I don't believe these, though #2 and #3 are definitely problems.

(source - I am an anti-poverty activist and have studied HF extensively.)

<comment><USER9> As to point 2, if there are enough homeless people in an area to turn an apartment building into a slum, there is already a de facto slum. It's just that it's a slum made of tents under a highway, rather than in a building.

<comment><USER8> Nicely said!

This is purely anecdotal, but in my experience, proponents of the 'HF creates slums' theory tend to fall into one of two camps:

\- functionally blind

\- landlords

The functionally blind (note that I'm not saying 'sight impaired...this is by design) tend to argue that homelessness is okay...as long as they can't see it. Often, they live in cities like mine (Regina, Canada) where for 3-4 months of the year, it is too cold to sleep outside. Because of this, homelessness in these cities often involves a mishmash of shelters, crashing on various couches, and sleeping in malls during the day/hanging out in coffee shops at night. The rest of the year, whether through policing or civic design, 'homelessness' consists of guerilla camping in parks and other out of the way places. HF does tend to make homelessness more visible. Programs generally start with a marketing campaign designed to attract landlords, then word gets out on which buildings house the formerly homeless.

And, that's when the functionally blind start to complain. Often, the complaints take the same form as people who protest against halfway houses opening up in their neighbourhoods. They print up flyers decrying the 'death' of their neighbourhood, and show up at city council meetings. Later, they seize onto minor crimes (ie - my sister's former roommate's cousin's veterinarian had her purse snatched two blocks from that building) to justify their beliefs.

Landlords are in a more precarious situation. Since HF does not have its own housing, it absolutely requires the support of landlords. Some HF programs are not terribly well funded so, while they guarantee that rent will be paid, they often require some form of discount to be financially feasible. That alone is a strike against them, at least from the perspective of business.

But, if you are a landlord and are willing to work with HF, you have a difficult choice. Realistically speaking, HF candidates have issues which create homelessness in the first place. Candidates often suffer from severe mental illness, chronic addiction, and health problems. They aren't always capable of basic upkeep in suites. So, do you offer up, say 15 suites in one building to the program, or do you spread the suites around multiple buildings. Some landlords have reported that the buildings that house HF candidates are more difficult to rent out and that the rent for all of the suites has to drop accordingly. This is one of the biggest reasons that landlords drop out of the program!

<comment><USER9> I suspect a 'better' way of handling the landlord issue is for the government to be the 'landlord of last resort' but I'm pretty sure that would be a hard sell. Still, it would remove the profit motive.

As to the functionally or willfully blind, I wonder if the HF campaigns start their publicity too late. Perhaps if there were more pictures of tent cities and shelters people would realize there is a local problem?

I know up in Anchorage, AK housing first started gaining momentum after quite a number of extremely visible tent camps and homeless folks getting frozen to the sidewalk.

<comment><USER8> I agree with you! Many European countries (and I think Australia, though don't quote me) use government funded social housing as part of their HF programs. To me, that seems like an obvious solution to the supply problem though others in the anti-poverty community point to the stigma of housing projects in the US.

I've never lived in a housing project and to tell you the truth, most of what I know about them comes from hip hop. But, I'd rather live in the projects than under a bridge...

<comment><USER10> Re Australia, it's run by the states. I'm form South Australia, which has 'Housing SA'[1], currently live in Tasmania where the service is called 'Housing Tasmania'[2] These services will help pay / pay in full a bond for private rental, as well as co-ordinate the renting of government owned housing. Houses, town houses, units, and flats, in a variety of locations throughout a city.

If you're a welfare recipient the typically arrangement is for the rent to cost somewhere in the vicinity of 1/3 of your payment. Full rate Unemployment benefit in Australia is $600 a fortnight including something like $100 a fortnight 'Rent Assistance' payment. I believe welfare payment for people unfit for work for whatever reason is slightly more.

Australia also has fairly good services to homeless and disabled provided by the outreach sections of church organisations. Salvation Army and Mission Australia are the two I'm most familiar with. These services will, in certain circumstances, furnish a home and supply clothes.

We still have homelessness. Services are still stretched to their limits. There's a waiting period for the able-bodied to get in to public housing. We still have rough neighbour hoods.

1\. [https://dcsi.sa.gov.au/services/housing- sa](https://dcsi.sa.gov.au/services/housing-sa)

2\. [https://www.dhhs.tas.gov.au/housing](https://www.dhhs.tas.gov.au/housing)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think he does have a point... but he could have put it better.

I live in SF too; for ~10 years. I have never seen it this bad. The City passed a "sit/lie" law a couple of years ago.. but it's never enforced. The City is spending $1M/month ... for housing 225 people[1]. Do the math, and you'll see how ridiculous is that. At that rate, how much do you think the City can spend on the homeless? It has 7000 homeless, and counting.

Many of the homeless used to live in City housing, but got kicked out due to drug and alcohol habits. What's the solution here? You can't incarcerate them. You can't _force_ them to use detox clinics, etc.

If the person refuses help, and refuses to follow the rules of whichever shelter they're in, then s/he has no more right to live in SF! As a last resort, the City is within rights to just kick you out. No one is _entitled_ to live in SF. You can't just show up and setup tent in a public space; that public space belongs to the rest of us too!

[1] [http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/02/10/san- franciscos-p...](http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/02/10/san-franciscos- pier-80-homeless-shelter-comes-with-staggering-cost/)

<comment><USER12> >You can't force them to use detox clinics, etc.

Maybe it is not possible yet legally, but why shouldn't we allow this? The courts can already force people to be commited for mental afflictions when they are a danger to themselves or others. Why not do the same for (heavy) drug addicts who start becoming a liability?

<comment><USER13> It doesn't work unless the person wants to recover. That's apart from the human rights violation.

<comment><USER14> Clue me in, what is the human rights violation? Or better yet, in descending order what are they in regards to those needing help but refusing it and possibly endangering themselves or others?

<comment> rm_-rf_slash Tell me everything about your life, and I could envision a situation where an aspect of yourself could be considered too "abnormal" or "dangerous" in action or thought to be left untreated.

If people haven't harmed anybody, then they themselves shouldn't be harmed, even if professionals believe it is help. Removing that barrier opens the door to arbitrary treatment and involuntary commitment, the likes of which not seen since the 19th century.

<comment><USER12> Well, again, involuntary commitment for mental afflictions is a thing. So it has surely been a thing in the 20th and 21st century. Of course, you don't get commited on basis of a diagnosis alone (AFAIK), but I would expect a similar criteria of "a danger to themselves or others" to be set for drug abuse as has been set in that case.

<comment><USER13> "Danger to yourself" pretty much means "suicidal".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I read his article. He is right, San Francisco has severe, unbelievable problems with homelessness and drugs which are so painfully obvious to anyone who has ever visited I felt like I was reading something out of the twilight zone.

I hate the climate of hostility towards anyone who remotely points this problem out. The reaction and tone of this article is exactly why I hate looking at Twitter now. It has become a platform for lecturing and shaming other people for stepping out of a very oppressive and narrow range of opinion or expression.

I now find articles like this and these daily recurrent societal witch hunts to be infinitely more offensive than anything this guy wrote. I don't want to live in a self imposed culture of toxic silence so no, Hacker News, I will not join in with your witch hunt and participate in group shaming of some random guy who wrote a bad letter.

<comment><USER16> The hostility is warranted when you think you're solving a problem by whining about it on Medium. We all have homeless problems in our cities. We get accosted by mentally ill people, drunk people, high people, strung out people, dirty people. We smell piss on the street corners. But we don't publish it on the internet because of some grandiose vision that our words will suddenly shine light on the issue and spur someone to action.

Vote for city officials that will do something about it. Participate in city council meetings. Work at homeless shelters. Talk to people in your city who try and _can_ do something about it, if it means that much to you.

You're allowed to point out problems on a worldwide platform. But when you can't even make your argument without using pejorative language, you've failed. And this reaction is what you get, so the rest of us can see _this isn 't how you fix the problem_.

<comment><USER17> I don't have that problem. I've lived in lots of cities and have never had that problem.

<comment><USER18> You never lived in NYC, SF, LA, Philly, Rome, London or Paris then (And I'm just talking from personal experience, must be many more)

<comment><USER17> I have actually, but I've been lucky enough to live and work in particularly nice parts of the cities I live in. My comment was meant in reply specifically to "We [all] get accosted by mentally ill people, drunk people, high people, strung out people, dirty people. We smell piss on the street corners."

I've only ever had that experience while visiting SF.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> >> "Move over Martin Shkreli. You now have competition for the title of America's most reviled millennial."

That seems unfair. Shkreli made the news for doing things that would have a tangible effect on peoples lives, and doing those things with a smile. Let's compare Shkreli raising the prices on life-saving drugs to the first paragraph of Keller's blog post:

>> "I am writing today, to voice my concern and outrage over the increasing homeless and drug problem that the city is faced with. I've been living in SF for over three years, and without a doubt it is the worst it has ever been. Every day, on my way to, and from work, I see people sprawled across the sidewalk, tent cities, human feces, and the faces of addiction. The city is becoming a shanty town… Worst of all, it is unsafe."

It's ridiculous and frankly narcissistic the way that he makes it about him and how it effects his life, to be sure. But, his three personal examples (from just this past weekend!) did a good job of driving home for me how interactions with the homeless are different in SF than they are in my area (northeast).

The guy could use a talking to about punching down but I haven't really heard too many people defending SF's handling of these types of issues either so I can't rip him for trying to bring more attention to the topic.

<comment><USER20> Also, what on earth are the limits for a millennial? My late-20s self, a 9th grader and a man in his 30s should not all be classified the same...

<comment><USER8> This reminds me of 'generation X'. When I was in my early twenties, that badge made absolutely no sense as I was lumped into a group with my mid-thirties cousins and people who were still in high school. As I've aged, it has started to make more sense. Maybe the term millennial will be the same??

 _Edit - replaced the word 'pumped' with 'lumped'._

<comment><USER21> There is a term used about older generations always hating newer generations but I forgot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The sad part about the blog post is that it does identify a big homelessness problem, but does so in a way that is callous and doesn't really help.

I spend a couple of weeks in SF this month, and was shocked at the level of homelessness that we find even in very well off districts. This is not something that is common in the big cities of the world. The city is OK with tents everywhere, but that's not really that good for the people that are now homeless either: Living on a tent on the street will not help their mental health, their self esteem, or their chances of getting out of that hole.

I don't think the problem is really the fault of the tech people moving in, and I sure don't blame the homeless themselves. The problem, once again, falls into the people that want to keep the city the way it was, and to avoid building, when the city faces other pressures that are unavoidable. San Francisco MUST build.

Until people change their mind, we'll see both more gentrification and more homelessness, until the city reaches a point where the combination of prices and homelessness makes the city life into a dystopia: Maximum inequality, brought in by policies trying, but failing, to make the city be inclusive. I sure hope San Francisco voters change their mind before it gets to that.

<comment><USER23> One of the (many) things that Keller — and many of the folks here who sound like newcomers to SF — don't get is that the homeless population is not a new thing in San Francisco. It was just like this during the 1990's, and some say it goes all the way back to when Reagan shut down California mental health services in the 70's.

<comment><USER24> SF didn't have a large visible homeless population until about 1985. There used to be a lot of SRO (Single Room Occupancy) hotels in SF, in the Tenderloin and SOMA. That's where the poor people lived. There are still SRO hotels, but fewer, and many are owned by nonprofits now. The areas containing those hotels are being gentrified. Many of them were in the Tenderloin near Market, across from what's now Twitter HQ. Others were on 6th St, which has stubbornly resisted gentrification for decades. Now there are construction cranes at work there.

The problem with housing the homeless in SF is where to build housing. SF is built out; you have to tear something down to build anything. There are some housing projects, but they tend to house families with kids, and they don't want large numbers of single druggies dumped on them.

Any ideas?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I was in Chinatown talking to my grandmother on my cellphone. A homeless person walked up and punched me in the face.

SF has the worst homeless problem I've ever seen in the first world, and it rivals the worst of what I've seen in the third world.

It's a disgrace and it sucks and I don't have to like it. Whatever the local/state government is doing isn't working. And sure, maybe a lot of the homeless are just normal folks down on their luck.

But as others have pointed out in this thread, a lot of the homeless are also:

* There by choice

* Violent criminals

* From out of state

* Mentally unstable

I can have empathy for them and also want them not to piss and shit in public, beat me up, steal from me, turn a quaint downtown into a war zone (Santa Cruz), ad infinitum.

<comment><USER26> Your post made me realize that most of the complaints in this open letter aren't about homelessness, they're about crime. Quickly re-reading it, I see fights, indecent exposure, public disturbances, trespassing, harassment, assault.

If this author had merely eliminated all mention of homelessness and replaced it with discussion of _crime_ and _criminals_ , it would have ditched all the heartless idiocy while still getting to the problems they care about.

If a lot of homeless people are violent criminals then IMO the relevant question for that particular aspect is not why homeless people are allowed to live on the streets, but why violent criminals aren't being arrested and prosecuted. The fact that they're homeless is irrelevant.

<comment><USER27> I'm sympathetic with the parent post, of course, but the blog post repeated said he felt "unsafe" and then didn't bother to mention anything remotely dangerous that happened.

<comment><USER26> Someone leaning on your car and then getting into a street fight ought to qualify, I'd say. The other incidents don't seem safety related, just weird and possibly uncomfortable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Is there anyone here who _does_ want a group of homeless persons lining the streets of their commute, or outside their homes and workplaces?

He is being self centred in his viewpoint but he's also not unique. Most people pay extra, and as a result work harder and longer, to live and work in neighbourhoods which allow them to ignore the plight of others.

I do hope the response to this is genuine agreement that things need to change because it benefits everyone, followed by associated action, instead of just hysterical and shallow "omg I can't believe he said that".

</comment><comment><USER28> I don't want to see homeless people, drug deals, vomiting drunks, or pantless vagrants on my commute to work either. Does that make me heartless? I would hope not because otherwise these problems are not going to be solved. You need people who do _NOT_ want to see that kind of crap on a daily basis to do something about it.

<comment><USER29> But the reason _why_ people don't want to see them affects the outcome.

If it's (at least partly) from compassion for people reduced to such circumstances, hopefully the solution will go some way to improving their lot.

But if it's purely from indignation at the inconvenience suffered by the observers, then the "solution" may simply involve shifting the problem elsewhere: viz. Keller's approval of the way the "homeless and other riff raff" temporarily vanished during the Super Bowl.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I was the editor of the Street Sheet in San Francisco for a little over a year before going back into software engineering.

I can't even begin to describe to you how difficult it is to wade through the pervasive ignorance on this issue, ignorance that is expressed by basically anybody who has not had direct contact with San Francisco's homeless population.

You need to understand that unless you have studied San Francisco's problem specifically, you are very likely harboring some ignorant, harmful opinion about homeless people, and you owe it to yourself and to them to educate yourself. This report is a good place to start: [http://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/sfgov.org.lhcb/files/2015%20San%...](http://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/sfgov.org.lhcb/files/2015%20San%20Francisco%20Homeless%20Count%20%20Report_0.pdf)

If you care at all about fixing this issue, don't sit around with your other tech industry friends and try to be boy-genius saviors. Seek out the people who have been working on this issue for a long time, who understand it, who can explain to you why it's a problem and why it's so hard to fix.

The Coalition on Homelessness in San Francisco is a really good start. They've been doing so much with so little for so long that they can now do everything with nothing, and they would welcome help from people who are willing to humble themselves and get to work.

We can make this city a better place if we just decide to work together.

</comment><comment><USER31> It's ironic that Keller will get so much shit dumped on him for making the same _exact_ argument that people make against more permissive immigration. Compare:

 _A_ : Allowing people trapped in unproductive countries to move to US/Canada/Europe would significantly improve their quality of life.

 _B_ : But think of burden to the welfare state! We wouldn't be able to afford the flood of people moving here for benefits.

 _A_ : Simple, just don't allow them benefits. Many people would still move to US/Canada/Europe even if excluded completely from the social safety net (or voting, etc.).

 _B_ : The thought of so many destitute people being in my country and not receiving help makes me uncomfortable.

The predominant attitude people hold toward the poor/disadvantaged outside their country is no different than Keller's: I simply do not want to be confronted with this. I'd prefer to not see it and pretend it wasn't there.

(Please do not take this as an argument _for_ open borders, it is just an attempt to highlight a hypocrisy.)

<comment><USER32> I have a theory that "left" and "right" can be replaced with how a big a circle of humanity you care about.

The people towards the right care about their family, or their community. The people on the left care about a slightly wider circle.

On the far "right" you get sociopaths that only care about themselves. On the far "left" you get utopian hippies that care about people suffering on the other side of the world.

What this frame of reference shows is how close together the traditional left- right are in a wider view. Someone who wants to tax the rich to help the poor doesn't often mean using money from Americans to help Mexicans or Ethiopians, they mean taxing rich Americans to give to the sligthly less rich Americans.

<comment><USER33> Yeah! It's why it's so weird to see politicians and their supports protest efforts to reduce trade tariffs. With more trade, we will be literally creating new wealth. It will be helping lower the cost of the related goods in the first world, and it'll be giving more and slightly better jobs to the third world, where it'll be helping the poorest there. So why is it a bad thing again?

<comment><USER34> It's not good to end statements by throwing your hands up in the air and going "golly gee I just can't possibly fathom why anyone would think differently than ME!"

Right off the bat, never regulating trade means you only create short term wealth. You can't possibly think that no one would ever take issue with trade deals that take advantage of countries participating in human rights violations, or countries whose economic situation means they can offer manufacturing for drastically less and undervalue key industries

<comment><USER33> The "golly gee" isn't what I was going for--- I'm saying that if we're looking to help the poor, then we should help the poor, rather than the poor in region. But I am maybe trying to challenge people to come up with good reasons for trade regulation. :)

I agree that we shouldn't partake in violating human rights.

Your other points aren't good reasons to regulate trade. If other countries can produce goods for drastically less then that's exactly when we should be opening up trade! It's a more efficient use of resources, and it creates more wealth for everyone. Here's a Khan academy economics video on how trade creates wealth: [https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance- domain/microec...](https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance- domain/microeconomics/choices-opp-cost-tutorial/gains-from-trade- tutorial/v/comparative-advantage-specialization-and-gains-from-trade)

Trade does not produce _short term_ wealth, it just creates wealth. And if anything, "short term wealth" is an oxymoron. If HDDs are $50 cheaper because they're manufactured in Thailand rather than California, then the people who buy those HDDs are never going to have to turn in the $50 they saved at some later point.

We still have trade protections set up from the great depression. That's why our sugar costs 2x what it costs the rest of the world. [http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/06/us-trade- po...](http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/06/us-trade-policy- gouges-american-sugar-consumers) That's bad, and we should get rid of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Note that SF already spends a large amount on the homeless [http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends- record...](http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends- record-241-million-on-homeless-6808319.php) and that at least some politicians are starting to take notice [http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2016/01/25/s-f- supervisor-scott-wie...](http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2016/01/25/s-f-supervisor- scott-wiener-city-needs-fast-response-to-homeless-tent-camps)

It's not clear what the solution is to this complex problem.

<comment><USER17> Part of the solution will be a realisation that not everyone has a right to live in SF. Just like not everyone has a right to live in Newport.

A part, but not a big part :)

<comment><USER36> Or the solution may be to accept that the city owes a duty to everyone in it's boarders and cannot deport human beings based on circumstance. The city could tax the rich heavily, to the point that a balance is struck that both shelters the poor and dissuades further gentrification.

<comment><USER17> What makes you think this duty exists? Can any person on earth move to SF and expect this to be fulfilled?

<comment><USER37> No, because of international borders. But within the USA there is freedom of movement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> SF does have a much bigger homeless problem than other cities, and whether it is cause or effect, it's at least correlated with significant and chronic drug use.

I live in an area affectionately known as the 'tender knob'. We've had people defecate on our steps, tear open our garbage bins and leave litter everywhere, and shoot up drugs and leave dirty needles in our outside stairwell. Before moving to SF from NY, I had never seen people defecate on the middle of the sidewalk in the afternoon. The owners of our duplex live upstairs and they've been brought to tears having to deal with this on a weekly basis. I wouldn't feel safe having children in this area.

Yes there are homeless people who had some bad luck and are just trying to get back on their feet. Most people are sympathetic to that. But it's different in SF. Walking around you can't help but feel that many, if not most, of the people are chronically homeless drug addicts who have passed the point of no return. That's the problem we need to deal with.

Moreover, there seem to be strong network effects at work here. You might argue that by not 'pushing out the homeless', that you're actually maintaining a dangerous, self-reinforcing, social environment that is constantly attracting new members. In effect, are we making the problem far worse?

<comment><USER39> Fwiw it's called the Tendernob because it is on the border of the Tenderloin and Nob Hill.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I recently quit Facebook because I wanted avoid the state of permanent outrage that platform has come to feed off. Some random guy says something reprehensible and we're all suppose apply their comment to an entire group and get into a discussion about said generalized group. Rinse and repeat. It's old and pointless. HN is way better than this.

<comment><USER41> I've flagged this for the low quality of the discussion it is engendering.

Relevant: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11110271](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11110271)

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Homeless activists are the most annoying do-gooders of them all.

Let's fight for the right of people, who are mostly struggling with mental illness and addiction to live in the street.

That sure feels noble I guess.

How about making appropriate institutional care available so these folks wouldn't have to sleep in the streets?

In my town, there's an article in the paper today decrying the fact that a local institution is no longer venting waste heat that kept vent grates warm, so people cannot sleep outside.

<comment><USER43> Yeah, it's sad that it's apparently impossible to have a serious discussion around this topic without getting vilified. It seems that a lot of people like to pat themselves on the back for how compassionate they are because they are fine with homeless people on the streets. That seems the opposite of compassionate to me. True compassion would be, as you say, making care available so these people wouldn't have to sleep in the streets. I'll include mental care in that, since many homeless seem to suffer from mental illnesses as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Even though Justin seems like an asshole, I wish the Washington post and other news sources would try to objectively report the news instead of joining the bandwagon and making fun of the views of others. This type of subjective reporting doesn't lead to civilized discussion where you actually address the other sides views, not their delivery.

</comment><comment><USER45> I'm just struck by the total lack of compassion towards your fellow humans. Levinas used to say that ethics was recognizing the obligation that we have towards people that are suffering - I just wonder how someone who is not a sociopath can see a suffering person on the street and feel slighted because their view was ruined.

<comment><USER46> I think it takes a special kind of person to be forever sympathetic, the folks that work in soup kitchens and volunteer helping these people are to be applauded and recognised - it's not something I could do. For the average person when you interact with __dozens __of homeless people every single day you just become sort of immune after a few years...

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> Certainly not very compassionate, but is it true that the homeless in San Francisco have a drug problem that is making the area unsafe?

Is nobody trying to treat or house these people?

Shouldn't people take this piece and use it as further evidence that there is a problem that needs to be fixed, rather than merely a culture war they can take part in?

As usual, everybody want's to talk about how much of a 'bro' this guy is, but nobody gives a shit about improving the lives of the homeless.

<comment><USER4> The "homeless" _must_ want and work (mentally and emotionally) for help in order for it to work. fullstop.

In my experience, most do not want to put in the effort to kick the habits, contribute to society in a meaningful way, or tell you it is too late. The reality is a lot of them prefer the "lifestyle" and "freedom" to do whatever the hell they want whenever the hell they want to do it. They have a completely different take on life than "most" people.

<comment><USER48> It's pretty clear that you have absolutely zero experience about mental health or human psychology.

Amongst other things, most people will attempt to adapt to their situation and retain a sense of agency. That is one reason why you'll find that homeless people speak of the positive aspects of their lifestyle and act as though it's a choice. This is no different from a startup founder extolling the virtues of their 80 hour week.

<comment><USER4> You are right; I am not a clinical psychologist. In some cases, I deal with people when the shit has hit the fan. That is, I know how most people react to really bad events because I see it quite regularly.

In other cases, I deal with the long, slow, and painful descent age and terminal disease bring to people's mental faculties.

In yet other cases, I get to talk with regular 911 callers that we wake up with Narcan, drunks that are simply sleeping on the side of the road, drug seekers that have "fallen" or been "hit by a car" (with no injury to speak of)... and more.

So, generally speaking, I get to see people when they are being quite "real" or at least "true" to the event that has taken place. That doesn't make me an expert in human psychology, and I would not claim such. However, as a group, EMS personnel can cut through the bullshit a lot faster than most. Over the course of _years_ , comparing what people say to what they do... one can not mistake the patterns. No "human psychology" textbook will teach you that.

<comment><USER48> But you know nothing about how to treat these people and all you can do is blame them for their own predicament. What use is that?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I went to SF (and to the US) for the first time last month and I too was baffled by the amount of homelessness I saw, which is more striking when contrasted to the wealth and beauty of the city (which I loved).

Also, I think we are judging this guy too harshly because of his privilege status. But I cant tell you that I live in Mexico, the third freaking world, and even people living on $4 don't want to see homeless people showing their genitals at them.

</comment><comment><USER26> Holy shit.

I saw the quote in the headline and thought, that is some seriously unfortunate wording. I get what they mean, but putting it in the first person like that makes it sound like the problem is the seeing, not the pain, struggle, etc.

Then I read the actual letter. It's not unfortunate wording! They actually _intend to say_ that the problem is the seeing! This person doesn't care in the least about these people, he just wants them out of sight!

<comment><USER50> The author also seems very out of touch and sheltered to the realities of living in a city.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> While this guy maybe went about saying it wrong, he has a point. There really is no other place on Earth that puts up with the level of homelessness we see here in the Bay Area. New York, Boston, Chicago, none have anywhere near this many homeless people. All over Europe, there are few homeless people.

It's really a specifically Bay Area, or maybe a West Coast problem. It's utterly out of control. It's complex, it's hard to solve, it involves many many factors. But at the end of the day, it's still true that Bay Area natives are completely oblivious to just how ridiculous the homeless problem is, here. It's the first thing EVERYONE notices when they visit here, and we all just ignore it like it's normal.

I'm sick of it too, though I hope for a compassionate solution, on the other side of it, if I had run out of money and was living on the streets, I would most likely leave the Bay Area on foot and head for some place that isn't the most expensive city in the fucking country. I mean, is it surprising people can't afford places to live, here?

I don't know what the solution is, but after living here for 18 years and seeing the problem only get worse, not better, I completely agree something has to change, here.

<comment><USER52> It's becoming a huge problem in Portland as well. We've always had homeless but recently this situation is becoming worse and worse. I live close to the city center and my neighborhood resembles a shanty town with all the homeless people camped out on the street. It sucks because it seems like the city is doing next to nothing to resolve the problem right now, we have a lame duck mayor that doesn't want to touch the issue.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> What is a "SF tech bro"?

In this context it seems to be intended as some kind of slur, or there is at least some negative connotation here. It's a man who works in tech who... what exactly?

<comment><USER54> _What is a "SF tech bro"?_

It's a scapegoat boogieman. A tool of techies in SF to manage their cognitive dissonance.

There are things everyone else in the city hates the startup/tech scene at large for. There are also people progressives hate for their not-progressive- enough views, and some of them have the gall to work in tech. When either of those (or any other number of criticisms) are stereotypically "bro" (or close enough), the people within startups/tech can blame it on the "tech bros."

It is meant as a slur. But bros are just a convenient and useful stereotype to blame. If it wasn't them, it'd be something else. "Tech bros" just happens to be OK to openly deride, because the identity has no social power within "tech" (whatever that means).

<comment><USER55> Co-worker of mine, actual quote: "Yeah, I know there's a pay disparity, and women are paid less than men. But really, socially, they have all the power."

THAT, my friend is a "tech bro" and he's in SF.

<comment><USER54> Does he even lift?

Maybe he's a neckbeard instead for having that view. I mean, as long as we're throwing sterotypes around, maybe that one fits better.

<comment><USER55> He's from Chicago. He's already had a car window busted by a (punk-ass) angry cyclist. He's actually a good guy, there's nothing wrong with him. But yeah, from my POV he's "right out of the stereotype catalog".

The vast majority of people are basically doing their best, but they (we, I) have a really hard time getting outside their own head.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> The shame is that this individual is far from unique, and not just in SF. I run into people daily who speak of homelessness as a conscious lifestyle choice. I know of one SF attorney who constantly rants about how the homeless there all earn 50k a year. They build up these fantasy worlds to justify their perception of themselves as moral millionaires. They believe wealth to be the inevitable result of a heightened morality. Anyone without wealth is therefore morally backward and deserving of suffering. Give them a few years. Their bubbles will burst soon enough.

<comment><USER56> Your attorney friend is talking about trustafarians in the park on the other side of the city, and gravitate to Upper Haight, not the homeless populations that center around downtown in close proximity to the TLoin. Johnny5SF isn't complaining about the former, because they're not really situated to be a daily part of any rich tech bro's commute.

<comment><USER57> I've only been to SF once, and the difference in culture between the homeless in Tenderloin and Haight was immediately noticable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> rm_-rf_slash For all the shelters, clinics, and every other initiative to help homeless people "get back on their feet," we shouldn't forget two simple facts:

1: San Francisco is a great city and the winters won't kill you, so it's an attractive destination for everyone, especially the homeless.

2: Some people prefer to be homeless. No amount of detox or "good drugs" will ever change them.

I have a radical idea: pay homeless people to be homeless somewhere else. Give them a monthly income, distributed at a location outside of the city (and has to be picked up in person so people can't game the system), under the condition that they are never to return unless they can show any proof of residence. They can request limited exceptions to visit friends and so on, but once their city visa expires, they leave on their own recognizance. Honor system with one strike to lose their benefit permenantly.

Tech folk, instead of sinking tens of millions into fucking glyphy and Yo and other pointless shit that won't make money, try investing in this instead. You don't need a government program to make this happen, just money. You can use arrest records or other public info to spot violators, and it's not like you're preventing their freedom of movement, you're just giving them an incentive to keep getting free money.

Doesn't even have to be that much. Life is cheap when you don't pay rent.

<comment><USER58> You might be on to something here, in that the incentives are completely changed. Rather than _cooperatively_ funding programs, _adversarially_ fund programs - create competition for who can serve the homeless the best, _elsewhere_.

The "enforcement" aspect isn't even really necessary - just give out this income often enough and far enough away from the city that traveling back and forth every time is impractical.

I'm imagining SF opening a sizable homeless shelter in LA, busing people down there, and then giving them some sort of BI _there_. (Yes, such busing has gotten a bad wrap, but bear with the thought experiment). Meanwhile, LA can do the same thing to get rid of their homeless. Each city would be incentivized to spend more, efficiently, on maintaining shelters in each other's cities.

There's a gradient where infrastructure-poor towns in the middle of nowhere would be cheaper. And who would want to move to a majority homeless city to own/work business to serve them? But could this be softened with the return trip being guaranteed, contractually obligated with independent oversight?

<comment> rm_-rf_slash The important distinction is that this plan should be privately funded. Otherwise it would take vital public money that's used to help people truly in need.

Everybody falls on hard times. Some more than worse. The mayor of my town was homeless for a while, and he truly brings a sympathetic ear to the stubborn and persistent problems with homelessness (not just the homeless themselves).

My idea is that people on the margins of productive (job-having, self- supporting, tax-paying) society should live there, but in doing so, they are provided the resources to maintain their dignity and, if they so choose, find the help to rejoin productive society.

<comment><USER58> I think the core of the idea could work with public money as well. In the short term, I agree it's not wise to divert public money to such an experiment. But if it worked over the long term, it would align incentives better.

Currently, a city spending more money on its homeless population creates positive feedback - more people come for the better benefits. It's in no single city's interest to spend too much, especially if they have amenities such as nice weather. What we need is negative feedback so the system balances out. Harsher policing provides this, but is rightly frowned upon and the spending ultimately ends up wasted. Funding homeless in other cities would also set up negative feedback, but with the spending actually benefiting the homeless.

<comment> rm_-rf_slash I disagree that spending on the homeless incentivizes homelessness, or homeless migration. If the benefits were wildly better one city over, maybe, but honestly the biggest thing is the weather: winter doesn't kill you in California. Everything else is secondary.

Homeless people live where they do for the same reason renters or homeowners do: friends, family, history, allure, and so on. If, say, Jackson Hole, Wyoming, announced and financed the biggest homeless benefit program in history (they won't, but bear with me), then would California's homeless people leave their warm, blue skies? Would homeless people in New York uproot and move halfway across the continent?

As an aside, my idea wasn't to take homeless people in SF and transplant them to LA, but to edge them out to elsewhere in the Bay Area. If the whole region took on SF's lead, then the other counties would do the same until there was a location with either enough space/tolerance for the homeless, or a population that couldn't or wouldn't join to pay in the same benefit scheme. And if they want to move back, they can use their regular income to help them get a job and a place to live.

Interestingly, the SF Gate reported that there are around 7,000 homeless people in San Francisco. If each of them were paid $500 each month to avoid the city, that cost would tally to $42 million per year. For the legions of wealthy tech workers and venture capitalists in San Francisco, that would barely be a drop in the bucket. For cleaner, safer, and more pleasant streets, is that not a worthwhile investment?

<comment><USER58> If neighborhood/history/allure are important, how would the outer bay area be different than LA? I would expect most friends would also be homeless, so they could move as well. And I would think city density is important, to partake in a better economy of community/trashing/begging/stores.

$500/mo _would_ be a "wildly better benefit", no? And around that magnitude, the feasibility of building proper shelters is on the horizon. What I'm really driving at here is a way to partially fund the homeless problem (phrased in terms of getting them out of your city), that then bootstraps itself into a way of fully funding the homeless. I doubt anybody really wants people to be living on the(ir) streets, they just aren't willing to jump into paying the full cost to change that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> How can he live in SF for years and think it's a free market? I live across the country and even I know that the housing market there is artificially constrained.

He really seems to think that homeless people grow on trees or something instead of realizing that they lived in the city before he did.

<comment><USER60> The homeless problem in SF has very little to do with the high cost of housing. SF's policies on homeless has attracted homeless people from far and wide. Other cities were caught busing their homeless people and dropping them off in SF.

<comment><USER59> Not saying the policies are great, but how can you say that limited availability of housing and astronomical prices don't cause most of the homelessness? Anyway SF only claims that the bused-in people cost them half a million dollars. [http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/09/11/2602391/san- franc...](http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/09/11/2602391/san-francisco- sues-nevada-patient-dumping/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> Does anyone remember Leo, the homeless man that was given the chance to learn how to code? The libertarian tech utopia press loved it, but Leo never claimed his money and decided to keep living on the streets [1]. Homelessness is complex and is not a simple problem to fix.

The problem with this open letter is it is written with contempt and a complete lack of awareness of the author's own privilege. The "I don't want to see it, I earned my right to be here, make it go away" sentiment shows how little the author has thought about the problem and his own standing in the world.

Has he ever tried hanging out and having a conversation with any of these people? I do it all the time here in New York and used to do it a lot in SF (a city I now avoid because of people like the author). I recently had a great conversation about physics with a homeless man on Skid Row. The point is maybe he needs to stop, have a conversation, and find some empathy.

Most homeless shelters are dangerous places and are filled with restrictions, so many homeless people prefer the freedom of the street. Urge your local government to invest in long term housing for the homeless and not just shelters. Lift restrictions on building in SF to create more housing in general. Support mental health facilities. There is a lot of work to be done, but saying you earn a good living and therefore shouldn't have to see it isn't good enough. If you want that life move to a gated community, not a major city.

[1] [http://www.businessinsider.com/leo-the-homeless- coder-2015-2...](http://www.businessinsider.com/leo-the-homeless- coder-2015-2015-4)

</comment><comment><USER62> This fucking sucks. I know Justin personally, and to see the vitriol being spewed forth at him makes my stomach churn. His blog post was clearly written out of frustration, and lacked nuance, but in _no way_ does it justify the response it has received. None of these scathing articles or drive-by tweets are asking for clarification. Instead, his character is being assassinated as an extension of the growing fervor around income inequality and political correctness. If you have a problem with Justin's blog post, then write your own opinion about the problem and maybe highlight some potential solutions. Because if you're just using it as an opportunity to get your daily boost of self-righteousness you're just as complicate as the rest of us who are happy to go on about our daily lives ignoring problems like homelessness.

Seriously, fuck all this misplaced outrage and fuck these kinds of character assassinations of people with differing opinions. We're entering an age where it will be impossible to take a position that goes against the mob's mentality. The chilling effect will be severe and we will all be worse for it.

<comment><USER33> I'm with you, the witchhunts need to end. Even if the bluetribe is correct in their beliefs, the mob action is not persuasive. I have less respect than ever for liberals because of this disrespectful way of handling public discourse.

<comment><USER63> It's a mistake to see this phenomenon as bound to any political position. It's a human trait and we all do it, we just do it about different things.

<comment><USER33> I agree that it's not bound to any political position, but it's more egregious with the left right now.

Or possibly, based off of my media consumption, I only see the left's witchunts and I'm insulated from the right's.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> Many people react with horror to the idea of policing homelessness. Yet, when given a choice to live between two identical cities, one permissive towards homelessness and the other not, I bet the vast majority would choose the latter.

Many homeless people are down on their luck, have mental illness problems or both. Many homeless people can also be rude, aggressive, and can deteriorate the quality of life in a city by littering, urinating publically, etc. The two aren't exclusive. Many people are caught in a form of dialectical thinking between privileged/unprivileged oppressor/oppressed. Life is more complicated.

What strikes me as ridiculous with the situation in San Fransico is that it's so economically wasteful given that the city has become one of the most desirable place to live in the country,

The Coasian solution would be for the residents to pay the existing homeless to move out of the city and then proceed to police it more thoroughly. I'm convinced there is a price at which everyone involved, including the homeless would be better off. The problem is that, besides the coordination cost involved, the idea feels icky and unconscionable.

<comment><USER65> > Many people react with horror to the idea of policing homelessness. Yet, > when given a choice to live between two identical cities, one permissive > towards homelessness and the other not, I bet the vast majority would choose > the latter.

Have you tried getting a homeless person's opinion on the subject?

Given the choice between a society where slaves don't serve you, and a society where they do, most slaveowners would probably choose the latter, too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> Getting flashbacks here.

[http://valleywag.gawker.com/startup-stud-hates-homeless- peop...](http://valleywag.gawker.com/startup-stud-hates-homeless-people-ugly- girls-and-pub-1150802451)

[http://valleywag.gawker.com/happy-holidays-startup-ceo- compl...](http://valleywag.gawker.com/happy-holidays-startup-ceo-complains-sf- is-full-of-hum-1481067192)

Semi-surprised to see this crop up again when the outrage over these incidents was pretty severe and infamous.

<comment><USER67> Bros that don't know bro-history are doomed to repeat it.

<comment><USER56> I'm here for this ^

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> I'm kind of disappointed in the Post on this one. From reporting on internet outrage to repeating another publication's "tech bro" slur, this isn't set up to engender a real debate.

Justin Keller is a terrible "face" for the debate (and so is Edna Miroslava Raia for the opposition). The facts are that San Fran has an economic problem and a homeless problem. Those problems are not mutually exclusive, but neither are they the same thing. Justin _shouldn 't_ have to worry about being accosted, and he _shouldn 't_ "have to see the pain, struggle, and despair of homeless people"—but because the problem should be solved, not swept under the rug.

<comment><USER30> Thank you for being more concerned about the media image of comfortable, well- paid tech workers than San Francisco's increasing number of homeless people.

<comment><USER69> Which of them is contributing positively to our future?

And for the record how much have you personally, directly, contributed to helping homeless people (Both in dollars and hours)?.

<comment><USER30> I was the editor of the Street Sheet in San Francisco, where I led a project to re-launch the paper for its 25th anniversary. We re-designed and re-branded the paper and executed an ad campaign, which allowed us to double the price of the paper without decreasing circulation. The vendors of the paper keep 100% of the proceeds, so we effectively gave 250 poor and homeless people a 100% raise. We also gave away free t-shirts and aprons, to help the vendors look more professional and make it easier for them to interact with people like Justin.

I worked for the Coalition on Homelessness for 15 months, where I earned a salary of something like $10,000 a year, working nominally half-time but actually well over full time. I'll leave it to you to calculate the opportunity cost.

<comment><USER68> Great organization—we have Street Sense here in DC with a similar model. I've done a bit of volunteerism with local soup kitchens, shelters, and transitional organizations for the homeless.

The point is: this isn't about media image, this is about making your point effectively. Justin's core point is "Homelessness is a problem. Something should be done." I believe you would agree with that. Calling him an entitled tech bro—true or not—isn't acretive to finding workable solutions.

I'm chiding the Post for being more concerned with media image all around than on the actual problem. (Because that's the article that was shared here.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> Most of San Francisco's homeless, around 70%, were living in San Francisco at the time they became homeless. Nearly half lived in San Francisco longer than ten years [1].

The homeless don't have a whole lot of say in the policies that affect them, such as affordable housing, policing that concentrates them in particular areas (most noticeable recently with the super bowl) and so on.

One reason among many that tech folk are noticing more homeless people is that the techies are moving into poorer neighborhoods (eg Market street and the TL) and causing rents to go up. Police officially or unofficially try to create homeless zones, and these become concentrations of addiction, disease, and filth.

[1] [https://www.stanthonysf.org/san-franciscos-2015-homeless- cou...](https://www.stanthonysf.org/san-franciscos-2015-homeless-count- survey/)

</comment><comment><USER71> Does anyone have an answer to why so many of the homeless in SF behave in such a way?

I have lived in major cities all my life that had varying degrees of homelessness. From my trips to SF I have been shocked to see the consistent and prevalent anti-social behaviour of the homeless.

Mental illness is obviously a large problem, but I would expect to see similar levels between the SF homeless and comparable cities.

Not trying to bait or take sides here, genuinely interested in what causes the difference in behaviour of SF homeless and their equivalents in other major cities.

<comment><USER72> I honestly do not have an exact answer, but I am thinking it has to do with:

1\. SF is a city with high population density. It is only second to NYC.

2\. Mild climate. Without harsh winters, you can sleep outside year round.

3\. High cost of living. If someone falls under hard times and does not have the means to relocate, the high cost of living could be crushing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> San Francisco spends $250M/year on homeless people, with zero metrics to figure out if the programs are working and zero accountability.

The mayor should be held accountable. And there is a problem with homeless people throughout downtown San Francisco. If such a massive amount of money weren't being spent, then I would understand but their budget is huge with no results.

[http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends- record...](http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends- record-241-million-on-homeless-6808319.php)

</comment><comment><USER74> What is this thing where people use the word "bro" to dissociate themselves from their colleagues who they don't like/make offensive remarks? The community is not spotless and that doesn't make those people "bros". Oh and by the way, can we discuss the fact that we have a homeless problem? You know, an actual problem? Since that seems to be brought up as little as possible in an article written essentially to hold up the argument that this "tech bro" is a shitty "tech bro" by the way did we mention he's a bro?

</comment><comment><USER75> Well like many people, this guy is pointing out a true and real problem. SF is a world class city but there are an unusually high number of drug addicts and homeless people walking the streets. But the author lacks any understanding of the root causes and, comically doesn't see his own role in the problem.

None of us like seeing homeless people but the problem is not that they are unsightly or annoying - the problem is why are they homeless to begin with and what is such a wealthy city doing to help? If you're only thinking of your own selfish needs then it makes sense to just "sweep up" people on the streets and send them somewhere out of site. Perhaps a good whack on the head with a night stick will dissuade them from returning. If you have no heart or compassion then it probably seems like a great idea. But if you have any sense at all then perhaps you can try to use some of your privilege to find real solutions to homelessness and perhaps lend a hand rather than try to swat them away.

</comment><comment><USER76> "The wealthy working people have earned their right to live in the city. They went out, got an education, work hard, and earned it. I shouldn't have to worry about being accosted."

I hope to god this guy didn't come from affluence.

<comment><USER77> Either way it's a toxic worldview, really.

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> Justin Keller's own words about this seem to imply that he thinks Democracy is a state of decay in politics: [http://justink.svbtle.com/open-letter-to-mayor- ed-lee-and-gr...](http://justink.svbtle.com/open-letter-to-mayor-ed-lee-and- greg-suhr-police-chief)

This guy seems thoroughly unsavoury.

<comment><USER79> Plenty of intelligent people also hold that Democracy is a degenerate form of political organization. That doesn't make them "unsavoury".

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy:_The_God_That_Failed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy:_The_God_That_Failed)

<comment><USER80> > Plenty of intelligent people also hold that Democracy is a degenerate form > of political organization. That doesn't make them "unsavoury".

"unsavoury" is a subjective judgement, and I suspect you will find that a substantial number of people will disagree with your opinion that holding this viewpoint does not make one "unsavoury".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER81> It is a strange situation to see lavish tech offices with homeless people sleeping on sidewalks. One minute you'll be making your way through tents set up on sidewalks and the next you'll be inside a plush cafeteria with an endless supply of free food. It's a shocking contrast.

</comment><comment><USER82> I don't like the article's tone. I agree that he could have expressed his thoughts more sensitively, but I think this article uses his post as a way to demonize "tech bros" instead of focusing on the actual issue. The Washington Post could have published something on San Francisco's homelessness problem, but instead decided to pick the low-hanging fruit and demonize an entitled tech worker who might have a point.

</comment><comment><USER83> Wow. This is article was a completely disgusting read.

It's a straight up ad-hominem attack against Justin Keller, instead of criticising his writing it attacks his character.

I sincerely hope this is the end of Michael E. Millers career as a reporter.

And before you downvote me, read the article and focus on the parts that aren't quotes. The author goes to great lengths to paint Keller as an asshole while completely ignoring what he actually wrote.

</comment><comment><USER84> That's why I stopped going to conferences in San Francisco. If you don't like it, don't be there. Grow a spine and tolerate the cold.

</comment><comment><USER85> How much better this letter would be if it were reframed: we can't ignore the pain, struggle, and despair of the homeless; we need to do more to help – and here's what I plan to do.

San Francisco, like many other towns, is a troubled place if you look closely. Homelessness is a complex and overwhelming problem with no easy solution. Addressing it in a practical, effective, and humane way will take concerted action by government and the residents of this city together. There's no other way.

As real as the author's discomfort and frustration may be, his words stink. Here is someone who neither recognizes the full potential of his undeniable privilege, nor sees its true limitations. He wants change, but having already paid for it, is entitled to it (he seems to say), and so the burden rests on others to fix the problem.

Justin Keller knows what a good society should (literally) look like, but he doesn't understand how to get there. I'm hoping he doesn't lack the empathy and humanity his words and tone suggest.

</comment><comment><USER86> "Justin Keller thinks life comes with customer support"

That was quite the zinger!

<comment><USER87> That line perfectly articulates how I feel about most of the complaining I see on social media.

</comment></comment><comment><USER88> Tech Bro? This of course is to be interpreted as being pejorative, and also automatically creates a category of 'bad' people that are stereotypical 'bros'. Journalistic 'faux-pas' in the best of cases ...

</comment><comment><USER89> I just wanted to add, there are six empty homes for every homeless person in the US.

[http://themindunleashed.org/2014/02/18600000-vacant-homes- un...](http://themindunleashed.org/2014/02/18600000-vacant-homes-united- states-enough-every-homeless-person-six.html)

And that Detroit is/has bulldozed 20 or more square miles of empty homes.

[http://michiganradio.org/post/detroit-has-tons-vacant- land-f...](http://michiganradio.org/post/detroit-has-tons-vacant-land-forty- square-miles)

<comment><USER90> >And that Detroit is/has bulldozed 20 or more square miles of empty homes.

The ones they bulldoze are not fit for use.

</comment></comment><comment><USER91> This just in, SV is fertile ground for self-absorbed, self-righteous and inhumane assholes who think they are making the world a better place when they're really just doing the opposite. Read all about it.

</comment><comment><USER92> My wife is a social worker for the VA. Her job is housing homeless vets. From what I hear, clients typically struggle with mental illness, PTSD, military sexual trauma, and more. Some have what they need to get back on their feet and some are probably never going to because of mental illness. Yes some, and it sounds like a minority, have learned to manipulate the system as part of their survival strategy.

There are also some who just want to be left alone. Around here they live in the National Forests up in the Cascade Mountains. The problem for them is age. Right now the reclusive Vietnam Vets are coming out of the woods. They are just too old to survive out there on their own out there.

On the whole safe housing is showing to be very important first step. Homeless life does include a community on the street. It is typically a community that is not going to be supportive of positive change. Each member is experiencing their own untreated issues.

Removing the negative social elements and temptations first appears to be one of the important benefits. If you're an addict having friends offering you a hit is not very helpful.

Thus, for my wife, building relationships with housing agencies and businesses is a big deal. The landlords/managers with endless patience, understanding, and strong boundaries seem to do best.

</comment><comment><USER93> Great: now that we've all gotten to enjoy a Two Minutes' Hate against the official evil figure of the dreaded !!TechBro!!, we can all go home and step over the derelicts lying in the doorways of our gated communities, happy that we've really helped those poor unfortunates.

This really is a good example of how toxic outrage culture gets in the way of solving problems. Maybe this guy was self-centered talking only about how much trouble the homeless cause him. Okay, say he was. And? If he's cowed into silence by the great armies of Twitter, has that put one more street person into an apartment or methadone clinic?

I'm reminded of that flap about a British business that had homeless people sleeping on the benches on their property, and switched them out for benches it was not possible to sleep on, and was lambasted for it. It really is a singularity of modern awfulness: we won't do anything to make people not be homeless, but we'll yell at (some other) hapless person across the city until they surrender and make sure the homeless have cold metal benches in front of their building to freeze to death on, as is their human right.

</comment><comment><USER94> It's fascinating to watch San Francisco rapidly transform from being the utopian refuge of American progressives in the late 20th century, into a libertarian city-state in the 21st.

I can't help but think the Bay Area's escalating tension over income disparity, and the politics surrounding it, is a seed for far uglier conflicts in the coming years. Thankful I'm a distant bystander and not a participant.

</comment><comment><USER95> As an India currently here for work in the Bay Area, when I saw the homeless people in SF, I saw scenes very similar to the ones I see back home in any major Indian city. I've also seen a lot of ill people(intoxicated/under the influence of drugs?) near bus stops too.

Once I almost got mugged in a VTA train station, by two teenagers. Thankfully I escaped the situation on arrival of an elderly couple in time.

Like always I understand these people aren't there by choice and might have their own reason for why things turned out that way. Can anybody give a socio economic perspective on why these people are like this in a first world rich country like the US?

Also the more I learn about the American culture, the more I realize the only change I see between India and the US is the infrastructure, everything else, all other problems seem to be the same. We are not so different after all.

</comment><comment><USER96> Why hasn't this submission title been renamed to be less link baity? His status as a "bro" is irrelevant.

</comment><comment><USER97> Irony is that even being homeless is a prefect example of free market economies at work. The homeless exploit access to public/private/natural resources. Until a living wage is a right, those unable to work are given fair housing, etc. - the volume of people becoming homeless will only increase.

</comment><comment><USER76> "we live in a free market society" "AH! GOVERNMENT! PLEASE SAVE ME!!!"

cognitive dissonance is high in that post

</comment><comment><USER98> I think if he hadn't gone on his moral high-horse and ranted about "free market societies" and "revolutions" he would've avoided much of the controversy. I sympathized with his actual grievances, but not his armchair ranting in the second half of his article.

<comment><USER99> I think he would have been better received if he was actually concerned about the people instead of his car. His solution seems to be "out of sight, out of mind", instead of e.g. taking on the glaring inequality. No wonder people are indignant.

</comment></comment><comment><USER100> I'm on his side. =\

I think the vilification is comical. Not super impressed with the need to dig into his background to find examples of how much of a "tech bro" he is.

This reads differently if it's not coming from the mouth of a hated-elite.

</comment><comment><USER101> I can't speak for SF's homeless but here in New England it seems the drastic increase in homeless has not really been from gentrification but rather the opioid problem. The disturbing thing is (and yes its anecdotal based on Waltham, MA) it seems to be an increase in younger-not-that-poor-to-start off with people.

I don't want to go back to the ole 80's DARE drug war but I have to wonder if opioid abuse was even mitigated a little or rehab improved what kind of impact that might have on the homeless population.

I guess what do people think is fueling SF's homeless population increase?

</comment><comment><USER102> Somebody got a zero on their empathy roll.

<comment><USER83> What the hell does empathy have to do with this? He isn't blaming the homeless, he's blaming the city.

He's asking for the city to address homelessness problem, how could possibly interpret that as lack of empathy?

<comment><USER102> I didn't at all get any sense from his letter that he wanted to help the homeless, but that as long as he didn't ever have to actually see or interact with people down on their luck, he'd be happy.

If all the homeless in San Francisco mysteriously "disappeared" one day, would he care? That may not be a fair question as we can't truly answer it, but I'd wager "no."

<comment><USER83> Why does that matter? He didn't explicitly state that, is not expressing your sympathy towards the homeless reprehensible now?

<comment><USER102> Not necessarily, but when you reduce actual people to nothing more than a "problem" to be "solved" it doesn't reflect kindly on you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER103> The implicit assumption is that if you don't work, hard, you don't get a home.

If you combine that with 'homeless policing', you're then saying that if you don't work hard, you'll be abused by society.

I don't have an answer for this but I dislike euphemisms like 'they prefer this lifestyle'. If you can't work (anyone who understands mental health will realise that "can't" actually is a meaningful word in this context) then you have no other options.

</comment><comment><USER104> It has always been a great cause of reflection to me that when reality catches up with us our reaction, most of the time, is denial and refusal. The entrepreneurial spirit should aim at solving the problem. Complaining is not the most creative solution. The mentality according to which "we work hard and we earned the right not to see the pain of homeless people" is just naive. The only thing you earned the right to is what life gave you, and this is true for both sides.

</comment><comment><USER105> People shouldn't confuse this as an opportunity to comment on the government's obvious short-comings to alleviate homelessness and poverty in SF.

This is an appalling, narcissistic rant that attracted scorn towards an entire class of workers from journalists across the world. There should be a strong effort to combat the stereotype that all workers in the tech industry share Justin's lack of empathy and tone-deaf view towards social affairs.

</comment><comment><USER106> For the record, when you see someone mentally ill on the street. Do this: [http://brokeassstuart.com/blog/2016/02/18/what-to-do-when- so...](http://brokeassstuart.com/blog/2016/02/18/what-to-do-when-someone-is- having-a-mental-health-crisis-on-the-street/)

Before you write angry (mostly useless) blogs.

</comment><comment><USER107> So this guy went to school, worked hard, and now makes enough money to pay rent and feed himself in one of the most expensive cities in the US. _small golf clap_

His main fault here is assuming that this also means, while ironically citing free market economics, that he's rich enough to have some sort of right not to see homelessness, mental illness, and poverty, day to day. That's a whole other level of wealth and power right there. Mid-priced (in San Francisco, anyway) restaurant? $20 theater tickets? That gives him some sort of insulating privilege from life? If you're Barack Obama, yes, the intrusion of a drug-addled crazy person bursting past secret service and into the restaurant you're dining in may be cause of serious concern. If you're a Saudi oil merchant, you can pay to stay at and go to places with tighter security, or bring your own. Heck, you can afford move to and work from areas with fewer of these problems in the first place, commuting around on your own private jet, being carefully shuttled from one multi-million dollar private residence to the other.

Your personal wealth doesn't give you the right to see and interact only with people who are within your same circles of success. If you want to start judging the personal success of others, holding yourself above them, and claiming your right to class insularity, there are probably some billionaires out there who would laugh in your face, if they cared enough, which they don't, because they'd rather they didn't see you at all.

<comment><USER108> Most cities don't have nearly the homeless/drug problem that SF has. It's abysmal here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER109> The second article from a major media outlet about this guy? Yes, he's inconsiderate, but so what? If it were a blog post from a lawyer or school teacher, would the Post or the Guardian have cared? Would we see articles about a "Law Bro?"

The media, collectively, has it in for us. They keep using borderline derogatory labels for us in their articles like "coder" and "techie," and they publish hit pieces like the linked article smearing us as if we were some evil 1%, despite almost none of us making as much as the average dentist.

They are stripping us of what little prestige and respect we once had, and we are just letting them do it. And there's no shortage of programmers willing to argue with you that it's not even happening, and that there's nothing wrong non-technical English majors with an ax to grind attempting to re-brand us "coders" and our profession "coding."

This article (and the comments) are relevant:

[http://chickenwing.software/scratches/programming/on- coders-...](http://chickenwing.software/scratches/programming/on-coders-and- programmers)

[https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/45wzup/on_code...](https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/45wzup/on_coders_and_programmers/)

<comment><USER110> Oh cry me a river. There is a theme evolving, and the media have latched onto it. Are lawyers and school teachers continually writing these self-righteous 'open letters'? Are lawyers and teachers of a growing, sufficient mass in a city that is struggling to serve a great proportion of it's population (for various, complicated reasons)? No.

Life is easier for 'us' than the mentally ill, the addicts, and those with less luck in life. When a self aggrandizing 20 something white guy working in a prosperous industry starts complaining like this, with the intent of attracting attention, it promotes a stereotype of a lack of sensitivity, and compassion for those around us.

Prestige and respect? Earn it, as a person. Compassion is part of that equation. You don't earn it by becoming a programmer or working in tech.

<comment><USER109> >Prestige and respect? Earn it

I and countless other programmers have put in thousands of hours unpaid labor to produce public goods in the form of open source software. For that alone I and my profession deserve respect (compare us to dentists, most in the US won't even take medicaid, let alone perform free dental work), and especially respect from these same media outlets that rely on the fruits of our unpaid labor.

<comment><USER110> You're missing the point. And it's a big point to miss.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER111> I have no idea how things are in SF, but i can see how "the other bros" in SF found a scapegoat to cover up their own indifference to these people. At least this guy complained. Did "the righteous ones" do anythign for the homeless?

</comment><comment><USER112> I'm 41, was born in SF and have been living back in the bay area since 97.

In all my years in living in SF, or the bay area at large, I have never once had an altercation or otherwise problem with a homeless person.

In fact, I give them stern talkings to occasionally; Two days ago there was a homeless person on Market whos pants were falling down - I told him very sternly "Pull your pants up" and he did so.

There was a drunk guy wobbling down by the ball park and I commanded him to drink some water and gave him a bottle of water.

I almost always give away any left over food I have to homeless people I pass if I have left a restaurant.

I've told homeless people to not pee on certain places etc...

I have found when you interact with them in a straightforward way, and dont act fearful or contemptuously of them - they are just people who have a shitty support system (gov and people included) - but they still need a bit of direction.

<comment><USER33> I'm 29, where do you learn this kind of leadership?

<comment><USER55> Emperor Norton

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Norton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Norton)

(In case it's not clear, I'm being serious(-ish.))

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER113> Okay, I think we can all agree this guy is an asshole, and surely doesn't represent the views of most techies in San Francisco, right?

Obviously it's fucked that so many people are homeless in San Francisco. Everybody blames us (techies with loads of money) for the homeless problem because we gentrifying the shit out of the place with all our money. And then this guy comes out and says this shit, and that only reinforces the narrative that we're the problem. And that's shit for us.

But why don't we do something about it? We don't want to be seen as the cause of the homeless problem, and surely we don't want assholes like this speaking for us. But people are right that we are rich compares to most people. Why not use this as an opportunity to show people that we can be part of the solution? Being rich doesn't have to make us evil, and anyway what's the point of being rich if we can't use our wealth to help the people who need it?

And it's not just our wealth: what about our skills? Take Homes Not Jails, for example. They're one organisation off the top of my head that does work that directly houses homeless people. They're renowned by squatters all over the world for the work they do to get homes for homeless people in San Francisco. But I just checked, and it looks like their website ([http://homesnotjailssf.org/](http://homesnotjailssf.org/)) is down? Surely one of us techies could get in contact with them and offer to help fix their website, or even just pay their hosting costs and domain name renewal for a few years? I've been involved in organisations like that and that kind of stuff can be a real hassle.

I'm sure there are countless grassroots organisations like this that are already working to help homeless people that probably don't even have proper websites and shit, that desperately need money. Fuck this guy, it's not worth wasting our time arguing over his stupid words. Let's show people that he doesn't represent us with our actions!

<comment><USER108> No, we cannot. I think he's making good points, although a little callously.

</comment></comment><comment><USER114> its amazing to me that with all the money and talent in the bay area, that noone has made progressive efforts in solving some of the problems with homelessness and helping others get back on their feet.

</comment><comment><USER115> a friend of mine who interned in SF last summer has a (satirical, I pray) startup idea: 'uber for harassing homeless people' \- just geolocate yourself and your walking route before leaving, and a team will clear the homeless and from your path

again, I hope he was joking but honestly probably wasn't - I fear this lackadaisical 'tech can solve all of MY problems' attitude is prevalent (we should also consider how we can solve the problems of others)

</comment><comment><USER116> Relevant tweet (by myself after visiting SF) San Francisco: Billionaires inside the building, disrupting the world. Homeless sleeping outside in the cold.

</comment><comment><USER117> This is something you won't hear in New York. There's a lot of homeless shelters, and the people you see on the street tend to be kind of nuts.

</comment><comment><USER118> "Bro" is an interesting word. At this point it seems to be broad enough to just mean "outgroup"; apply to any context as needed.

<comment><USER119> But specifically "white, male, young" outgroup person that I want to demonize.

</comment></comment><comment><USER120> This thread sounds like people living in sodosopa blaming Kenny for beeing poor. Tanks god for not being a part of it! Go Redskins!

</comment><comment><USER76> We should create a place were we can put them all so we don't have to see them! Let's call it, a ghetto! </sarcasm>

</comment><comment><USER55> I'm from San Francisco. I grew up here and I've lived here most of my life.

After high school, for about four and a half years, I was homeless.

I'm really good at programming computers, if it wasn't for that I might be homeless still.

I had emotional and social problems that I've been able to overcome. I'm one of the lucky ones. Many of the people I knew are dead, but in this age of instant connectivity and paranoia about surveillance I'll never know the fates of most my friends. We might as well be a lost tribe, uncontacted in the primeval forest. Except of course, that we weren't lost. Our lives played out in the same great concrete jungle/stage that yours does. Very few people wanted to find us.

That brings up an important thing, and this is as good a place to say it as any.

From the utmost bottom of my heart: Thank you.

To all those who gave of themselves and helped a random, smelly, weird homeless kid who you'll never see again, THANK YOU. I owe you my life. If it wasn't for the people who live the truth of our inherent connection with each other, who are moved by compassion and empathy to help selflessly, without asking for anything in return, I would certainly be dead, or worse: homeless and crazy in San Francisco. (heh heh)

I'll never cease from helping everyone around me so long as I draw breath because I owe the world my life.

If you have not been as fortunate as I have then here is the reason why you should do the same anyway:

We are one.

That homeless person there? That's YOU.

She's your mother, he's your father, that guy mumbling and shitting over there, he's your own son.

This is both metaphysical and very physical and real. The idea that we are separate individuals who can cordon off the parts of the world that we don't like is not real, not true. It's a "category one" error.

Here's a secret I learned on the street: The single most horrible sin we commit daily is to pass by a homeless person without acknowledging that person's humanity.

It's a monstrous crime.

You feel it every time, deep down, and it hurts, right there in your very soul.

It hurts.

There's nothing you can do or say, no ration argument you can make, that can obviate that bond. Nothing breaks it. As long as you draw breath you are owned and owed, one of us. Truly there are no individuals, to think so is fantasy, to live it, nightmare.

It seems like you grow callous but you don't, not really. Down under all that other B.S., not even that deep really, you feel it still. To turn away from another is like killing a part of yourself.

Homelessness is a symptom of a sick society. It's _not_ the city government's problem, it's the whole city's problem, indeed the whole nation, the whole planet. We have emotional scars that prevent us from forming a coherent response to the situation (that's the only way so much money could be spent and have so little effect on the problem.) The issue isn't a matter of money (we have SO MUCH) it's a matter of spirit.

The individual homeless people would disappear as if by magic if we could just get our minds aligned with our hearts, because there is plenty of actual help and resources.

The very essence of the homelessness problem is that we, as a society, have to "break ourselves" and become humble. That's the only way for us to be vulnerable enough to reach out and heal the psychic and spiritual wounds at the root of it. An example: Try to imagine D. Trump manning a homeless food serving line. He's wearing an apron and spooning out hearty soup to people and he really _gets_ it. What doea THAT do for your noggin?

P.S. Bonus campfire story: Here's hoping _YOU_ never get, like, schizophrenia or something and wind up homeless yourself. It could happen. One of the scariest things that can happen to you is to get to know a few homeless people who were once _JUST LIKE YOU_! Mwoooo-hahhahahaha! Homelessness is something that only ever happens to someone else. Right? Nothing so tragic could ever happen to YOU to break you down and leave YOU shambling and covered in your own mess in a city full of people who don't care. Of course not, you're a good person. Homeless never happens to good people. That wouldn't make sense, would it? That wouldn't be fair. We all know the world is a fair place, right?

Let's talk about something else.

</comment><comment><USER121> Let's cut through the nonsense, and say what we're really talking about explicitly, and out loud: Is homelessness our responsibility, or not?

Some comments here use a lot of words to essentially say they don't feel any collective duty to help homeless people. Fine, if that's what you believe. But I'd ask you say that loud and clear, stand up and be judged.

Because I believe we collectively have a responsibility to each other, and government is one institution that reflects that responsibility (among its other roles). As a friend once said, simply: "I believe you can judge a society by how it treats its least-fortunate."

Now, the situation in SF is special; yes, it's got mild weather and a decent social safety net (by US standards, not European), which makes it a destination of sorts. But this is also why Justin K addressed his post to the wrong people: this isn't an SF issue, it's a state and national issue. And it's an issue that's heavily entangled with substance abuse and mental illness.[1]

And it's only made worse by bad behavior and bad politics. For example, Nevada bused mentally ill homeless people to SF (often without medication or any contact person):

[http://www.sacbee.com/news/investigations/nevada-patient- bus...](http://www.sacbee.com/news/investigations/nevada-patient- busing/article2577189.html)

The reason California in particular has such a large population of mentally ill homeless people is thanks to a few extra years of Reagan, who famously shuttered all the mental hospitals in California while governor (before defunding initiatives for mental health care and research at the federal level as president):

[http://www.salon.com/2013/09/29/ronald_reagans_shameful_lega...](http://www.salon.com/2013/09/29/ronald_reagans_shameful_legacy_violence_the_homeless_mental_illness/)

So, do you think this is all of our problems, or somehow this is an example of individual responsibility? I venture how you feel about that question is probably heavily correlated with whether you think success in business is a product of pure hard work, or if there's a contribution from luck and civil institutions. And this isn't some low-stakes game of political philosophizing; the policies that have exacerbated homelessness in SF and California in general are rooted in the same political philosophy that motivated this short- sighted, self-centered, fundamentally heartless post. Politics matter.

In other words: if you think like Justin that SF is 'ruined' for you by problems of homelessness, and the city should do more to fix it... then you're simply not thinking hard enough, and not taking responsibility for your role as a citizen of San Francisco, California, the US, and the world.

And as a Bay Area native and SF resident for 10 years, I'd kindly ask you to leave, or at least stop writing stupid things publicly, and leave the debate over difficult civil and social issues to people who are more thoughtful and compassionate -- a couple of core San Franciscan values that I particularly treasure.

[1] "Almost two out of three respondents (63%) reported one or multiple disabling conditions." from here: [http://www.sfgov3.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=4...](http://www.sfgov3.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=4819)

<comment><USER122> > The reason California in particular has such a large population of mentally > ill homeless people is thanks to a few extra years of Reagan

Reagan was the governor of California 40 years ago, and has been dead for 12 years. Why hasn't anyone undone what he did 40 years ago?

In reality this is an example of the law of unintended consequences, not a case of "Reagan did it." I think the best way to view our current homelessness problem is as a vast failed social experiment, not a case of partisan politics. Everyone thought deinstitutionalization was a good idea at the time.

Deinstitutionalization was pushed for by mental health professionals, who believed that treating mentally ill people in the community with newly developed drugs would be more effective than mental hospitals. Patients were being pushed out of the mental hospitals before Reagan even took office, and Reagan was happy to go along with the recommendations of the mental health professionals since the state saved money. Win-win, right?

In California there was also the Lanterman–Petris–Short Act (written by two Democrats and a Republican, signed by Reagan), which limited the ability of the state to involuntarily confine people to mental hospitals. This act was hailed by the ACLU as a positive step forward, and again Republicans were also willing to sign on for the cause of smaller government.

The policy of deinstitutionalization continued under Reagan's successor, Pat Brown (a Democrat and father of current governor Jerry Brown).

</comment></comment><comment><USER123> From the posts here I can see that Justin's mentality is not remotely unique.

Anyone thinking of moving to SF should simply be shown this thread so they can see what kind of people they will be around all day.

Hey Washington Post, why not write an article about this site. Start with this thread.

Here's a winner [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11127645](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11127645) (I hope I'm not oppressing him by linking to it)

<comment><USER124> "Whoosh!"

(that link is clearly satire)

</comment></comment><comment><USER125> My bet is that lots of people think like this (with similar levels of selfishness and narcissism), but wouldn't dare say it in a public forum.

Also, can people just move out of SF? I don't care which group it is (tech, or the people who have been displaced directly or indirectly by tech), but it seems like at least one group needs to just move out.

</comment><comment><USER126> _Don 't touch the Rolex._

</comment><comment><USER127> While I agree that what he wrote was very insensitive and naive, aside from condescending him and the "tech bros" the article completely undermines the fact that there is indeed a major homeless problem in SF. Having lived in many major cities I can attest that I have not seen anything quite like it.

</comment><comment><USER128> The solution to homelessness is compassion. Frankly, it's outright disturbing how complacent we have become with homelessness in our culture. The problem isn't that these people abuse drugs or alcohol, or that their mental health goes untreated -- the problem is that they don't have homes. And that is a very bad thing for anyone to endure. People should not let that happen to other people.

The other issues also need to be treated. Those are comparatively complex issues... Homelessness is, by comparison, not complex. Put people in houses. As evidenced by examples in Utah (and apparently Canada too, about which I was unaware until this thread), this is the fiscally smart move. The smart move and the right move aren't always in alignment, so this should be a no-brainer.

There are likely no homeless people who actually prefer to be homeless. There are people whose lives have been so massively changed by their circumstances that adjusting to a more comfortable housing situation might take some adjustment, and probably some therapy, assistance, and monitoring.

The sticker shock of doing this is what seems to keep it from getting fixed at once, as it's apparently much easier to periodically ask for money to develop ineffective piecemeal solutions.

The letter to Ed Lee reads like a parody. It will doubtless be forgotten, but I hope that's not the case. It should be one of a few artifacts used to encapsulate the historic moment we're living in.

'Worst of all, it is unsafe.' Sure, it sucks that it's a safety hazard to area residents. Is that really the worst part though? If you think the worst part of the homeless crisis is that it makes you and your well-to-do neighbors unsafe, you should probably ask yourself what exactly makes you so important.

'My girlfriend was terrified and myself and many people ran out of the theater.' I can't judge anyone for what scares them, and sure, the incident sounds like it would have been a surprise... But this guy makes it sound like an actual monster came into the theater and ran everyone out. A homeless person came in and did something that interrupted the film. Things like this will occasionally happen in a city that has a terrible homeless problem. Justin Keller's reaction is everything you need to know that he doesn't have the emotional or psychological maturity necessary to process homelessness as an issue separate from the effect it has on himself.

San Francisco is a city rich with ideas and capital, but I don't know how you can incentivize tech-community participation in solving this crisis. I keep thinking that we've reached peak obliviousness, and then something like this letter comes along, and frankly I didn't expect to find so many people here basically affirming the sentiments. I really worry that this is how a sizable portion of SF's tech community feels, whether they admit to it or not.

</comment><comment><USER129> It's not about who is right nor his right to express his opinion but what leads to better system. You can be right yet be toxic at the same time. Truth can kill. Lies can heal. Timing and situation matters. Ignore and suffer.

</comment><comment><USER130> I thought Reno and other cities were also dumping a lot of homeless to sf. They had a bus pack of homeless sent to us. They purposely do that to get rip off their homeless on street. That's pretty fuck up

</comment><comment><USER131> To the people of SF, I am writing to you today to voice my concerns and outrage over the cities' increasing homeless and drug problem. I've been living among you in SF for over three years now, and without a doubt this is the worst it has ever been. Every day, on my way to, and from work, I see people sprawled across the sidewalk amongst crude tent cities that reek of urine, the signs of addiction etched clearly into their faces. This city is ... rotting ... worst of all, it is unsafe.

To highlight how bad the problem has become: just yesterday I was out walking in the streets when two homeless men began to harass me for cigarettes and coin. Of course - not being obliged to share either the men proceeded to become irate and things escalated into a pushing and shoving altercation.

Yet another time, when I was leaving Tadich Grill in the cities' financial district - a distraught, and clearly high man was standing right in front of the restaurant, yelling and screaming about cocaine. He even attempted to pull his pants down to show his genitalia before the police finally arrested him.

I may be able to tolerate the foul smelling clothes, the colorful language, and the general indecency - but what I cannot stand is having to watch as the city I once loved is destroyed by human rif-raf. It has honestly gotten to the point where I can't even enjoy a movie without being harassed and no one seems to care.

But I'm not going to let them continue to flood our streets with crime and human filth. If nobody wants to help solve this problem then I'll do everything myself, and I think I know the perfect way to do it. I have all the tools I need at my disposal. Bitcoin will provide the means to secure resources and onion routing will cover my tracks. The problem is: I need access to a vast dataset to track the exact where-abouts of the cities' homeless population so that I can identify and eliminate them - which is where you come in.

I need everyone who reads this to install my app and tag where you last saw a homeless person. If everyone in SF uses this app I'll be able to produce a real-time map of all the homeless in the city (and as we know - <USER2> people can't afford phones so the data will even out.) This is phase 1. Phase 2 requires a little explanation. In phase 2 a network of weaponized drones will be controlled remotely and used to eliminate the homeless problem. Since this will obviously cause public outcry -- it is paramount that the operators of these drones aren't arrested. Fortunately, the app also creates an onion- based meshnet that allows the drones to be controlled with low-latency from any point in the city -- and you can't arrest an entire city for using an app so you will all have plausible deniability.

This plan might seem drastic but we no longer have a choice. The residents of this amazing city no longer feel safe, and I know people are frustrated about gentrification happening in the city, but the reality is: we live in a free market society. The wealthy working people have earned their right to live in this city. They went out, got an education, worked hard, and earned it. I shouldn't have to worry about being accosted. I shouldn't have to see the pain, struggle, and despair of homeless people to and from my way to work every day. I want my parents when they come to visit to have a great experience, and enjoy this special place.

The city needs to tackle this problem head on because it can no longer ignore it and let people do whatever they want. It is a very difficult and complex situation, but somehow during Super Bowl, almost all of the homeless and riff raff seem to up and vanish. I'm willing to bet that was not a coincidence. Money and political pressure can make a difference. So it is time to start making progress ourselves, or we as citizens will make a change in leadership and elect people who can.

Democracy is not the last stop in politics. In-fact, the order of progression according to Socrates via Plato in the Republic goes: timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and finally tyranny. Socrates argues that a society will decay and pass through each government in succession, eventually becoming a tyranny.

"The greater my city, the greater the individual."

Welcome to the revolution.

</comment><comment><USER132> Our startup (launching this spring) helps struggling homeless relocate to SF. We charter buses and assist homeless men & women in moving out of terrible conditions (often colder cities) so they can start fresh in the Bay Area. Our goal is to transplant 100 homeless by the end of this year!

We think SF is ideal due to the culture, weather, and resources. We also believe that an influx of homeless can assist in lowering property value/home prices which is much necessary in SF.

<comment><USER62> This is a parody. Please be a parody.

<comment><USER133> The account was created less than an hour ago, it's parody.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER106> Any data to back this up? Can't really go on anecdotal stories or EMS accounts (who only see emergency situations by design).

<comment><USER134> Why does every comment on here need to be cited? Nobody is writing a research paper through HN comments. We're just having a conversation.

<comment><USER135> Because personal accounts are only generalizable when backed by additional sources / data. There's a difference between whether or not this person is being genuine (My bias is yes) and whether or not their accounts are generalizable (My bias is no). Asking for citations is to me a way of asking someone who seems already familiar with what they are describing for more information, so I can learn more / share with others / etc.

<comment><USER136> He was obviously being anecdotal. Asking for a citation on it is like asking for a professional food critic's review on a cheeseburger that your friend just ate and said was "really good." It's pedantic and condescending when OP obviously has _some_ experience with the situation based on their profession.

<comment><USER137> Nothing you've just stated negates the fact that personal accounts are only generalizable when backed by additional sources and/or data.

If there are 25,000 homeless and an EMT sees 1000 homeless people in a year (which I'd say I'm probably vastly over estimating) in situations where they are in greatest need, then all you have is a limited anecdotal view of a small proportion of the total population of homeless people at the lowest and least dignified point in their lives.

It doesn't tell you how they got to be in that situation.

It doesn't show you their day to day grind.

It doesn't indicate if they always want to be homeless, or you've just seen them when they are feeling defensive or aren't in full control of their faculties.

In short, it just shows you that because of the nature of being an EMT, he sees people in dire situations, on occasions that would frustrate anyone viewing the homeless person because of any number of high stress factors, including mental illness but also malnutrition, poor sleep or severe discomfort.

<comment><USER136> What is the point of being this pedantic? He said: in my experience, most of the homeless are not looking for help to find jobs and/or contribute to society in manner that will lead them out of "homelessness."

Let's look again: in my experience, most of the homeless are not looking for help to find jobs

And again: in my experience

In case you missed it: _IN MY EXPERIENCE_

He then goes on to explain _his experience_! It's called an anecdote. It doesn't mean it's generalizable. It means it's a data point, like saying a cheeseburger is "good." I don't preface every subjective, anecdotal statement with, "In my personal experience, but without citation or empirical data to back it up." He said all he needed, to where if you're asking for citation, you either lack reading comprehension skills or are just being a dick.

<comment><USER137> Your own reading comprehension seems rather lacking. All that was being said was that it would to good to get empirical data to see if the anecdotal evidence presented is backed up - it's good to validate the perceptions of the person on the coal face. Nobody is being dickish here, though you are getting very close.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER138> I wonder if this was s stunt to get attention on his company? This seems so cartoonish, I mean you could picture wealthy people thinking this way but to me it almost seems too insensitive.

Maybe a publicity stunt that backfired a little.

On the other hand maybe he is so sheltered as to think this is an actual problem he's helping solve...

<comment><USER139> Having read the letter, I can't help but think that this must be some kind of elaborate trolling: That after 2 weeks or so, he'll follow-up with "Thanks for all the attention everyone! My start-up's revenue took a 45% bump from all this publicity!!" This reads like a cartoon caricature of the stereotypical clueless tech bro. No real person could actually think this way.

<comment><USER140> That's an optimistic view. Real people think all sorts of things. Entitled people especially.</comment></comment></comment>