Wealthy San Francisco tech investors bankroll bid to ban homeless camps - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/12/san-francisco-homeless-proposition-q-tech-investors <comment><USER2> Two big problems with just moving people into shelters:

1\. Homeless shelters are horribly funded and have long waiting lists for beds. This proposal provides no additional funding. My guess is most people will be forced to take the bus ticket option.

2\. Shelter beds themselves are poorly maintained, unsanitary, and often have bed bugs. It sounds counter-intuitive but a lot of homeless people are _choosing_ the streets over homeless shelters.

To be honest, I think the people bankrolling this bid know that moving people into shelters is unfeasible, and they're cynically hoping to just bus the homeless out of San Francisco.

<comment><USER3> The biggest issue with shelters is also that they're incredibly unsafe, much of the time. Rape, robbery, and assault are commonplace.

<comment><USER4>
       Y: "There are too many homeless here, it feels unsafe."
       A: "How dare you! Those are human beings!"
       Y: "Why can't they stay in shelters?"
       A: "They feel unsafe, there are too many homeless there."

It would be funny if it weren't tragic.

<comment><USER3> What's tragic is that you think warehousing people who are overwhelmingly addicts, or mentally ill would be workable. The term, 'Bedlam' springs to mind.

Besides, it's almost like different homeless people are... different... people.

<comment><USER4> That is not what I think.

<comment><USER3> I can only read posts, not minds.

<comment><USER5> And even your ability to read posts is questionable, given that ~Camillo didn't write any of the words you're putting into their mouth.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Why do homeless people camp on sidewalks? Because it works. The question becomes, "works for what?" The proposition appears to mean to make camping "not work," by imposing risk and cost on campers. It's responding to a symptom, but it's like treating cancer with crutches.

What does the street provide an alley or park doesn't? I've said before, the perceived security from non-underclass people walking by. Police protect non- underclass people from violence, and the homeless get this additional benefit by extension by being nearby. In shelters and tent cities, you are more likely to be targeted for crime.

Sure people without addresses have a right to safety and security of person like everyone else, but their behavior (often due to mental illness or drug use or factors outside of their direct control) makes it extra difficult/costly to provide it.

Other people pay a lot of money in tax to the state to reduce their daily exposure to violence, regardless of the factors that might contribute to it. Tent cities are a source of risk, and they are provocative symbols of the limits of the ability of the local government to operate credibly. Governments, mainly for their own sake, must remove tent cities when they pop up, arguably because that's what they were originally chartered to do.

Some may say that the homeless are "just trying to live," but it could be said they are hovering around public services without any sense of responsibility to the local society that provides them.

They are human beings, but ones who take advantage of the lack of a continuous tribal identity in cities, where they can live with people believing they are someone else's problem. People who don't learn to get along get run out of small towns (or worse). Add a drug addiction to severe mental illness, and you basically get a municipal zombie problem.

To me, homelessness is only a complicated problem from the perspective of an ideology that cannot tolerate examples of the limits to its power. Everyone else has solutions, just not ones that reinforce the narcissism of maternalistic policymakers.

<comment><USER7> _... without any sense of responsibility ... ones who take advantage ... people who don 't learn to get along ..._

All this sounds like you're blaming the homeless. Your last paragraph suggests that you have solutions to the problem. What are they?

<comment><USER8> Call me crazy, but I think it's pretty obvious that the only solution to homelessness is homes.

Of course that's the compassionate solution, but compassion holds little weight in the libertarian idealist sociopathy of Silicon Valley. But even from a cost perspective housing is the only solution.

You can make homelessness illegal, but then you're just housing the homeless in prisons. If you're going to house people anyway, there are cheaper ways to do it than with a prison.

You can bus the homeless somewhere else, but there's a long history of other places bussing people back to SF. Given the homeless want to be in SF because of climate, opportunities, etc., the average is that they're more likely to end up there.

Unless there's something else I haven't thought of, that really only leaves housing.

Existing programs are intended to get people into a position where they can obtain housing, but these de facto don't work very well, because they attempt to get them other things _before_ housing. Housing before a job works better than a job before housing. Housing before addiction treatment works better than addiction treatment before housing. None of the existing solutions are sustainable as long as the person isn't housed. It's unrealistic to expect someone to hold down a job or kick their addiction while living on the streets. Without housing, no auxiliary solution is sustainable.

So not only is the only solution to homelessness housing, but it's housing _first_.

<comment><USER6> Begs the question of, homes where. Public housing, hotel rooms, condominiums, remote cabins, camps, shelters, the devil is in those details.

"Homeless" is a euphemism, more of a metonym for a cluster of issues that form an identifiable other. It's a general problem of how should a society deal with extreme exceptional minorities. From a majority rule perspective, there are probably still more homeless people than millionaires (let alone billionaires) in the bay area, so maybe they will organize and win the right to camp anywhere.

Rich people need permits, licenses, planning permission, and community consent to build homes. Tent dwellers, not so much. In fact, if the resolution doesn't pass to prevent people from camping in the street, what's to stop anyone from setting up pre-fab luxury sidewalk camps like those at burning man.

<comment><USER8> > Begs the question of, homes where. Public housing, hotel rooms, > condominiums, remote cabins, camps, shelters, the devil is in those details.

There are a wide variety of options. One which has historically worked well in Europe is to provide an area of shipping containers converted into simple homes with a shower, toilet, cot, and padlock on the door.

> "Homeless" is a euphemism, more of a metonym for a cluster of issues that > form an identifiable other.

No, "homeless" is not a fucking euphemism. It means "without a home", just like "jobless" means "without a job" and "hopeless" means "without hope" and "grasp-on-reality-less" means "without a grasp on reality".

> Rich people need permits, licenses, planning permission, and community > consent to build homes. Tent dwellers, not so much.

These permits, licenses, planning permission, and are community consent are necessary to prevent people with a wide variety of options from making decisions that harm other people.

Tent dwellers arguably cause harm to others by being there, but they don't have other options. The voluntarily homeless are few and far between.

The two kinds of laws are incomparable: one seeks to limit the harm done by people with too much power, while the other tries to write out of existence the only option a group of people have.

> In fact, if the resolution doesn't pass to prevent people from camping in > the street, what's to stop anyone from setting up pre-fab luxury sidewalk > camps like those at burning man.

When this becomes a problem let me know. Meanwhile, maybe we can talk about current real problems that exist, like the people who we are literally forcing to rot to death in our streets.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> rm_-rf_slash Forgive my crass naïveté, for I live in a chilly northeastern college town where homelessness = death for half the year, but why are people so concerned about keeping the poorest of the poor living at the tiny tip of the wealthiest peninsula in America?

Homelessness and the situations that create it are great tragedies. But to me it seems completely absurd that this problem is dealt with a municipal level. Homeless shelters are good to have but there is so little space in the city of San Francisco for the working people, let alone the tech workers forking over several thousands of dollars each month in rent.

San Francisco is a tiny city. California is a very big state. I don't understand this problem at all.

<comment><USER9> I don't like having homeless people on the streets but even the homeless have freedoms and the same rights that you and I enjoy.

What you are saying is that SF is only for certain people, all others should be made to go.

<comment><USER10> No, he's not saying that at all. He's asking why this problem should be addressed at the municipal level, and why it isn't being addressed at the state level or federal level instead. It's a valid question: the State of California has a lot more resources to deal with a problem like this than any single municipality within the state, and the Federal government even moreso.

Given how much of a problem homelessness is throughout the state of California, why is the state government not addressing it?

<comment> rm_-rf_slash It's more like this: San Francisco is very expensive. It is also a nice place to live.

Why not put shelters and programs to get people back on their feet in less expensive places so that eventually the formerly homeless can live in San Francisco by paying rent with the money they earn by working?

Just like everybody else.

<comment><USER11> I agree with this. The fact is that to live in the bay area now is expensive and many people (myself included) work hard to afford to live here. I don't understand why someone who doesn't or can't work should be guaranteed a place here. If I was injured or became a drug addict/mentally ill and needed to stop working I would strongly consider moving back to where I lived for the past few years in Eastern WA, life was exponentially cheaper. Problem is these places where living is cheap probably have little to no services for the mentally ill/ addicts. This is why I agree with your statement that the state should establish services in more cost effective areas. I guess this seems like shipping them off to camps away from rich people but at least the dollars spent on services and shelters can serve more people more effectively.

<comment><USER9> Oh you've got me completely wrong, I wouldn't guarantee anyone a place or service anywhere in the world.

What I'm saying is that people are free to go and stay where ever they want in their country as long as it isn't someones private property. That's a very basic freedom that we all have.

You don't have a mandatory responsibility to care for the homeless and homeless do not have a responsibility to accept any your care. Especially if your care amounts to basically forcing them to live in a different place.

<comment> rm_-rf_slash When your property taxes (or your landlord's property taxes that you pay in rent) are used to pay for expensive public services that could be done much cheaper elsewhere, homelessness is most certainly an infringement of private property.

If a homeless person is robbed, your taxes pay for their police investigation. If a homeless person is stabbed, your taxes pay for their medical treatment.

As far as this "very basic freedom" for people to "go and stay where ever they want" goes - can you point out where this is guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution?

<comment><USER9> The costs for the examples you list are costs of having your own nation and your own set of laws.

There's no point in having either of those if we collectively do not enforce it.

Your position would allow to introduce arbitrary limits on freedom because you can always show a direct or indirect cost caused by having freedom. (it would certainly be cheaper to have everyone living in safe and orderly labour camps, wouldn't it?)

Regarding the U.S. Constitution: I'm in the EU but from my basic understanding the Constitution is a list of supreme laws limiting the governments power to interfere with citizens freedoms and not the other way around. Compiling a list of citizens freedoms would be senseless anyway as it would quickly approach an infinite list. Since I have not heard about a Constitutional law that allows the government to displace people internally it follows that the government does not have this power.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This article addresses a lot of the myths of homelessness which get repeated in any discussion about SF homeless (with supporting citation).

[http://48hills.org/2016/02/16/five-myths-about-the- homeless-...](http://48hills.org/2016/02/16/five-myths-about-the-homeless- problem-in-san-francisco/)

Key point in my mind when it comes to talking about these tent cities, is that most of SF's homeless -- over 70% -- were living in San Francisco at the time they became homeless. And as much as 50% of the homeless had lived in SF for ten years or more.

The people sleeping on the sidewalk are San Franciscans who have been priced out of housing. San Francisco is their home. These people aren't going anywhere just because you take away their tents.

<comment><USER13> > over 70% -- were living in San Francisco at the time they became homeless

People should be very, very careful with this number. The criterion used to measure it consider someone who has spent 30+ years in SF to be identical to someone who got off a bus from Nevada, spent a month in a subsidized SRO, and is now in a tent.

Which is to say 48hills is playing a little fast and loose with the truth, but you probably already knew they tend to do that.

<comment><USER12> This is a quote from the source, the 2015 San Francisco Housing Count Report:

"Seventy-one percent (71%) of respondents reported they were living in San Francisco at the time they most recently became homeless, an increase from 61% in 2013. Of those, nearly half (49%) had lived in San Francisco for 10 years or more. Eleven percent (11%) had lived in San Francisco for less than one year. "

[http://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/default/files/2015%20San%20Franc...](http://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/default/files/2015%20San%20Francisco%20Homeless%20Count%20%20Report_0.pdf)

So, no it's not "fast and loose," they actually did make a distinction between short- and long-term residents.

<comment><USER13> You're absolutely, completely, 100% correct in your statements. The 2015 San Francisco Homeless Count Report makes _precisely_ that distinction! They do so because it matters.

Should you choose to check it, you will find that the 48hills page you linked to does not make any such distinction. In fact, it omits the 49% figure altogether and states "That means seven out of ten homeless people used to be your neighbors – before the tech boom and the eviction epidemic".

I think some reasonable people might choose to describe this phrasing as perhaps potentially slightly misleading.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> To an outsider, San Fransisco's policy towards the homeless seems literally insane.

Despite the negative frame of the headline, is this obviously a bad idea? It does mention requiring that people be offered a shelter bed.Or if this is a horrible/insensitive/bad idea as stated, what's the smart, thoughtful, and progressive way to change the status quo?

<comment><USER15> San Francisco spends $241 million[0] of it's $8.9 billion budget[1] on programs to help the homeless and to help folks avoid becoming homeless (through housing assistance, etc). The 2015 count of homeless people in San Francisco is 7,539[2].

This measure doesn't increase spending on the homeless issue but, honestly, the San Francisco govt has shown the ability to absorb funding increases without noticeable impact in services. This is especially true of homeless services.

My impression is that this measure is born of frustration with the governmental inaction on the homeless problem in SF.

[0] [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) [1] [http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-budget-increase- aim...](http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-budget-increase-aimed-at- homeless-safety-7955697.php) [2] [http://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/default/files/2015%20San%20Franc...](http://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/default/files/2015%20San%20Francisco%20Homeless%20Count%20%20Report_0.pdf)

<comment><USER16> From your [0] link.

"Eight city departments oversee at least 400 contracts to 76 private organizations"

That says a lot about how spending $31,967.10 for every homeless person can amount to, well, no one seems to know.

I'm curious what happened in New Orleans and the other places referenced that have seen success helping their homeless populations. Knowing even a little bit about systems, layering more complexity (and money) on top of a dysfunctional effort in SF isn't going to meaningfully help.

<comment><USER15> Yeah, and those private organizations (mostly non-profits) are very effective at lobbying, so it's hard to terminate contracts to consolidate services.

One thing to clarify is that, because some (~$60 Million in 2015 [3]) goes to housing assistance. The people helped by the budget includes more than 7,539 represented by the point in time count, so the $31K/person number is a bit high.

That said, SF spends a lot of money on homeless and the homeless population hasn't significantly decreased in over a decade.

[3] [http://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/FileCenter/Documents/56...](http://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/FileCenter/Documents/56163-061316%20Homeless%20Services%20in%20SF_Bud%26LegAnalyst.pdf) page 6

<comment><USER16> That's a good clarification on the number of people the funds are going to help. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Its already the case that as the camps get larger, the police come in with city trucks to force everyone out, then they remove the trash and sometimes seem to steam wash the area.

Removal seems to be roughly based on the proximity of the camp to retail/residential, and the size of the camp. This has been going on since at least the 90s, although the camps are larger and more visible in the last few years.

As a result the homeless kind of blow around, try to find an inconspicuous spot, and hang on until they are ousted again. I've known several people with palette and tarp covered homes tucked away in corners in light industrial areas hang onto a spot for 3 or more years. But usually, a tent on the sidewalk (or a barely running tan RV) establishes a safe place for more tents/RVs/vans/etc and the cycle continues.

Once there are a few people living in a spot, the police become regular visitors because of all the fighting, human waste, theft, etc. Residents constantly call in complaints hoping to raise the bar enough to get them removed.

Since the police are already spending a huge amount of time trying to manage and break down camps, how is this law going to help?

</comment><comment><USER9> Something similar was actually tried already in the Soviet Union and in other Communist/Socialist countries with regards to Gypsies. (it didn't target them specifically and instead all homeless, but policy makers had this group in mind)

Laws were implemented that would force them to live in (free) government assigned apartments and accept government assigned jobs.

This policy failed because you can't force someone to like or accept a lifestyle they don't want. They just run away at the first opportunity. You can offer them different opportunities and some might accept it, but as far as I know this is already being done.

What is funny though about this article is that many of the SF tech billionaires are themselves immigrants from former Communist countries or children of these immigrants. Many of their statements seem to indicate that they believe in technocrat rule and some kind of artificial betterment of people that can be achieved through education and policy. (which often translates into propaganda and use of force if you ask me)

It's interesting how values can persist throughout generations, even if you move to a different continent.

<comment><USER18> I find it more plausible that tech billionaires are just more likely, as a group, to believe in technocrat rule, etc. than are people who are not tech billionaires. Being an immigrant from Communist countries or a child of such immigrants is just as likely or more likely to make one despise top-down solutions as it is to make one favor them. People with such backgrounds have direct experience of the sorts of problems that arise from heavy-handed government involvement in society. Based on what I've seen, I speculate that financially successful immigrants from Communist countries actually tend, as a group, to favor hands-off government.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Build a mental health infrastructure, reform the prison system, and you'll be solving more than half of your homeless "problem"... which is mostly an addiction and mental health problem at its core.

</comment><comment><USER19> CTRL+F "Minimum wage" yields no results in either the OP, or the comments.

That tells me that SF is going to have a homelessness problem for loooong time.

CA has told everyone that they CANNOT work if their time is not worth at least $21/hour. $15 for minimum wage, and ~$7 for taxes on the business to provide that employment. Of course you are going to have these problems.

Downvote me if you like. But you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. if you really cared about these people, you'd abolish the minimum wage yesterday.

<comment><USER20> So you're saying that a high minimum wage prevents homeless people from getting jobs? That opinion seems overly simplistic -- I'm inclined to believe homelessness isn't a result of the lack of opportunity.

<comment><USER19> Yes, that is a fact. Minimum wage increases unemployment. Ispso facto.

No job ---> no self-reliance.

Homelessness is only a short leap from that point.

Simple does not imply over simplification.

<comment> rm_-rf_slash Minimum wages also correlate with higher economic growth, as higher wages mean more people can buy more stuff, and so more people are employed to sell those people that stuff.

Also you leave out mental illness and addiction which are impossible-to-ignore factors when comparing homelessness to impoverishment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> _"I strongly believe that it is not compassionate to allow human beings to live on our city streets," wrote the measure's author, supervisor Mark Farrell, in an op-ed. "Let's help get the homeless into housing, not tents."_

By passing a measure that bans the tents -- but doesn't actually do anything to help get these people into housing. Or for that matter, any _meaningful_ promise of a safe place to sleep at night (because without funding -- and that's precisely where the crux of the issue lies, behind this problem -- the phrase "offer shelter for all tent residents" has precisely zero chance of seeing a viable implementation).

Now _that 's_ compassionate.

<comment><USER22> Isn't San Francisco the same city that used made-up housing code to reject all attempts to build cheap "tiny houses" for the homeless? I seem to recall a tech multi-millionaire offering to build them FOR FREE and being denied.

You would think that a fully functional tiny house with plumbing and everything needed for one person would be far better than living on the street. But nooooo, it has to be full size houses or nothing I guess.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I was just in San Diego. Homeless people were everywhere. I heard that Vegas is literally busing homeless people out of Vegas and into San Diego. Apparently the homeless problem is even worse in San Francisco. That's insane to me.

<comment><USER24> The difference is SF doesn't have a skid row like like San Diego and LA do. I lived in SD for years and almost never saw any homeless because I spent most of my time in the northern parts. The "sketchy" parts of SF where these camps are (SOMA, TL, parts of the Mission) are only a stones-throw from the hot tech companies and million dollar condos.

<comment><USER23> Ah, makes sense. I personally have never been to SF. I have this idealized vision of what it's like just from knowing that all the major tech firms are there but, I'm sure that vision is not entirely accurate.

<comment> rm_-rf_slash I have to say it is rather jarring to see homeless people in SF living in tents and cardboard boxes on streets lined with skyscrapers and around pristine parks and plazas.

So while the city does have a ritzy tech feel in the right parts, it is disconcerting to know that amidst so much concentrated wealth there are a lot more homeless people than you would expect. Really, a lot.

Unfortunately it's not as if these are all down-on-their-luck folks in between attempts at The American Dream. A lot of homeless people - in SF and in general - have mental illnesses and addiction problems and they do need help.

<comment><USER24> There's also the third group -- the guys who hang out around Cesar Chavez and run a chop shop for stolen bikes in their tent city. Unfortunately they suck away a lot of the goodwill for the first two groups.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> My hometown is Anaheim, CA. I recently visited to go biking along the Santa Ana river, and I was shocked at the large numbers of homeless people throughout the stretch between the Angel Stadium and Santa Ana. Even more shocking was the fact that most of them seemed to be under 30. Every freeway overpass had encampments beneath and around it -- at least 30-40 tents total in the smaller encampments, and 60+ in the larger ones.

The river and the county seat (which also has encampments surrounding it) have become the only place where homeless encampments are allowed any sort of permanence, since police departments in cities throughout Southern California have adopted increasingly aggressive policies towards them. From what I understand, the river and county seat fall under the County Sheriff's jurisdiction, so city police can't evict them or seize possessions, and the Sheriff has realized that there is literally no where else for these people to go, and is currently allowing them to stay.

This year's ACLU report on homeless in Orange County is interesting:

[https://www.aclusocal.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/10/Nowhere...](https://www.aclusocal.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/10/Nowhere-to-Live-ACLU-SoCal-Report.pdf)

I honestly had no idea how bad things are. I feel horrible about it.

</comment><comment><USER26> Its ridiculous that supposed advocates endorse having people live in sidewalks as a compassionate policy.

<comment><USER27> I think you are missing the point. No one wants the homeless to live on the sidewalks, but there isn't a better place for them to go right now. Given that, any proposal removing them from the sidewalks is only going to make their lives more difficult unless it also provides for a alternative, which this bill doesn't do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Meanwhile, unused homes outnumber the homeless 6-1 [1], and in Detroit, they bulldoze unused homes because it is more profitable to destroy and rebuild homes that are palatable for 'civilized' people than to let people live in them.[2]

[1] [http://www.mintpressnews.com/empty-homes-outnumber-the- homel...](http://www.mintpressnews.com/empty-homes-outnumber-the- homeless-6-to-1-so-why-not-give-them-homes/207194/)

[2] [http://www.businessinsider.com/the-mayor-of-detroits- radical...](http://www.businessinsider.com/the-mayor-of-detroits-radical-plan- to-bulldoze-one-quarter-of-the-city-2010-3)

<comment><USER29> It is not simply a matter of providing homes. Most of the street people in San Francisco have serious mental illness and drug addiction problems. They cannot take care of themselves. Giving those people a home will not solve their problems.

<comment><USER30> Except it's really hard to provide treatment for those illnesses if you can't find them regularly, so giving them a home, first, and then bringing services to that home is the only policy that makes sense. Seems to be working in Utah.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> People don't have a coherent idea of what they think of the encampments.

Propose a measure like this and the most empathic of the privileged people point out how insensitive it is.

Embrace reality and call San Francisco the peninsula's biggest camp ground, and the same people call it insensitive.

Both statements ignore the security issues and circumstances that many campers endure so not mutually exclusive of insensitivity, but at a certain point you are just turning a blind eye in your own special way.

If living in a tent actually is a viable option, then we should stop treating it like it is the most sensitive topic to even talk about casually.

People should be taking as much censorship pity for all the people that live in old walkups or luxury apt in liquification zones of SF. A tent would most likely fair better during an earthquake.

</comment><comment><USER32> I want to point out that this measure does not take effect until there is actual open housing in which to send homeless folks. They cannot be told to leave otherwise. Since there is no funding for new housing in this measure, there is some chance the removal measures outlined here will never get to be used. This means shelter will be guaranteed to anyone who is told to leave.

That said, my political club voted against this measure because the 24 hour time frame is way too short and does not meet federal standards for managing homeless population. It takes more time to engage with a homeless person and negotiate what sort of help would be best for them.

<comment><USER33> > _I want to point out that this measure does not take effect until there is > actual open housing in which to send homeless folks. They cannot be told to > leave otherwise._

The text of the measure isn't that specific. [1] It just says that the city has to offer shelter. In no way does it state that shelter must be actually available or secured before removing the tent.

The pessimistic interpretation is that the police will be able to tell a tent dweller that they need to go to a shelter and just give them directions to the nearest one, and the requirements of the law will be satisfied.

[1] [https://ballotpedia.org/San_Francisco,_California,_Prohibiti...](https://ballotpedia.org/San_Francisco,_California,_Prohibiting_Tents_on_Public_Sidewalks,_Proposition_Q_\(November_2016\))

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> This looks really bad. Any chance anyone has another side to the story?

<comment><USER35> > "I strongly believe that it is not compassionate to allow human beings to > live on our city streets," wrote the measure's author, supervisor Mark > Farrell, in an op-ed. "Let's help get the homeless into housing, not tents."

I guess this would be the other side.

<comment><USER36> However, the article also points out that the measure doesn't provide any additional funding to pay for the housing that would be needed.

<comment><USER37> San Francisco spends roughly 35k/year per homeless person. Funding is not the issue. There are all sorts of issues around mental health, drugs, tolerance in certain neighborhoods, political corruption, inefficiencies in government etc. that contribute to the situation we have today. I guarantee you, though, that if a bunch of homeless people started camping out in Pac Heights, the issue would get "resolved" pretty quickly.

<comment><USER38> > Funding is not the issue. There are all sorts of issues around mental > health, drugs, tolerance in certain neighborhoods, political corruption, > inefficiencies in government

Ho-hum. People become homeless because they don't have money. I've worked alongside more than one tech who has been homeless at some period in their lives. Some slept in their cars, some slept on park benches. Jim Carrey talks about how he was homeless as a teenager, what was the "mental health, drugs" etc. problem he had? He was actually working a full time job as a janitor after school.

San Francisco is full of white, upper middle class prep school assholes who have been handed everything their whole lives, who are parasites like Ron Conman, sucking vampirically off the labor of the young people working at the various startups. They sit in Atherton with their trophy wives and little brats and think up ways to fuck over the homeless people in the city. This is what the czar and his family did in Russia before the Bolsheviks lined those parasites up against the wall in 1918.

<comment><USER33> Long term homelessness is generally not _just_ a result of lack of money. Healthy individuals can usually get out of homelessness with a bit of help. People suffering from severe mental illness or severe substance abuse have a much more difficult time escaping homelessness because they often have no support network and no way to rebuild one, and they have difficulty retaining any sort of employment.

<comment><USER39> ... and the police are their de facto social workers / case workers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Is it currently legal to build makeshift homes on the sidewalk?

</comment><comment><USER41> I'm so glad I left that horrible place called the bay area. These inhumane rich jerks just don't want to see poor people. What a disgusting culture.

<comment><USER42> Oh yeah - what if there is a homeless colony right next to your current house? Would you say the same thing then?

<comment><USER43> > Oh yeah - what if there is a homeless colony right next to your current > house? Would you say the same thing then?

So, there is actually one near me. Not next to my house, but near me: [http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/04/01/shantytown-in- hoboken...](http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/04/01/shantytown-in-hoboken- hills-houses-nearly-50-homeless-people/)

Weird, right? This is in Hoboken...extremely (bay-area-levels) rich area.

SF median household income: $65,519.00 Hoboken: $105,710 (population difference between Hoboken and SF is an order of magnitude, fyi)

Weird stuff. Anyway... it's definitely not "a good feeling" to see homeless people around. I donate and try to help, but I definitely get a big pang when asked for some cash for food, and the conversation goes like this:

"I don't have any cash on me, can I buy you something from this pizza place with my card?"

"No I don't want pizza."

<comment><USER39> I live in a similar situation in Brooklyn, in an area ripe for shantytown- living.

The commenters who are disgusted at the lack of compassion, while on the morally-correct side of the equation, fail to consider the practical aspects of streets saturated with homeless people. It's at best 'tolerable', often 'kinda scary' and very often 'downright dangerous'[1]. Seeing this every morning and every night, in a walking city, is a drag on public safety and, yes, neighborhood value and progress. Retail and housing suffer when people have to step over passed-out zombies on their way out of their apartments or into their stores.

I don't know what the right answer is, but from my observation it seems that the police and the prisons play the role of the mental health worker and the shelter. The former is more expensive than the latter, but it's easier.

In the article below, it took several dozen overdoses before the police finally cleared the homeless off the street. It's not a coincidence that in New York City, the homeless (and associated social problems like aggressive panhandling and threatening behavior, as well as sexual assaults) tend to hang out not too far from their shelters. The location being referenced below is near several shelters (in a neighborhood that has a huge percentage of all the shelters of the city).

1 [http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/NYC-K2-Synthetic- Mariju...](http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/NYC-K2-Synthetic-Marijuana- Drug-Use-Brooklyn-Intersection-Epidemic-384801001.html)

<comment><USER44> The answer is engagement. Vancouver's safe injection site has an amazing record of 1) reducing the transmission of expensive diseases like HIV and Hep, 2) reducing crime (the Vancouver police are 100% behind the site), and getting users into rehab and having them be clean a year later. Basically, it's a public policy win all around--it more than pays for itself in reduced health care and police spending.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I have an idea: they should pass a law which forbids homeless people from setting up tents anyplace except certain zones. Those zones will be located in and around the very wealthiest neighborhoods in SF. Any violators will be simply moved to these locations. No funding is even necessary, only the designation of various places (like parks) in the wealthy neighborhoods as OK for homeless people to set up tents and camps.

I predict this would solve the homelessness problem in SF pretty quickly.

</comment><comment><USER45> God damn these people.

Regulations are pointless bullshit -- unless, of course, there are homeless people dirtying up your view.

</comment><comment><USER46> Fuck the poor!</comment>


Linux Mint signs a partnership with DuckDuckGo - <AUTHOR> http://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=1884

<comment><USER2> Does DuckDuckGo pay for the Bing engine? And what happens if Microsoft tries to stop them from using it, or they put some limitations on it for 3rd parties?

<comment><USER3> What other options for backend besides Bing are there if one would like to do make a new search engine?

<comment><USER4> The Common Crawl index, already has 5bn ranked pages, and the data is open to everyone - <http://www.commoncrawl.org/>

<comment><USER5> From the genius who brought us what Google adapted as AdSense. I applaud this effort. I'm no Spike Lee, but in my opinion this is doing the right thing.

Let people compete over what to do with the raw data (data which is of course publicly accessible but subject to the strange inequities of crawling), how best to process and present it, not over access to it. DDG has to pay Yahoo! for a BOSS license. That is just strange when you think about how the raw data was obtained. It is publicly available information.

Nothing against Yahoo! for doing that (selling access to publicly available data), as there are many other examples of this practice across web- "everyone else is doing it". But I do not think it is "the right thing" to do.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, why do I have to pay for things like a car and what not? They all come from publicly accessible goods. Bunch of scammers.

<comment><USER5> Maybe the question is not why you have to pay for your car, but why you _do not_ have to pay to view information via a website, store a copy of this in RAM and/or save a copy using secondary storage. Why is it typically "free" for you to do that?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> DuckDuckGo was also added to the Opera Browser, approx. 1 month ago. [1]

Anyone know how DuckDuckGo do monetization?

[1]: [http://my.opera.com/ruario/blog/2011/10/19/the-hidden- featur...](http://my.opera.com/ruario/blog/2011/10/19/the-hidden-feature- of-11-52-duckduckgo-is-added-to-opera)

<comment><USER8> afaik they rewrite any amazon and ebay results to link with their own affiliate ID :/

<comment><USER9> Why the :/ ? DDG isn't taking away anyone _else's_ affiliation, right? This isn't really any different than leaving the referer-id in there, except that it shoehorns "referer" into the "affiliate" api that Amazon et al are geared to pay money for. (Right?)

<comment><USER10> It creates an incentive for DDG to favor Amazon, or other affiliate pages in their rankings.

A search engine where you pay for Ad placement is very different to a search engine where you (effectively) pay for rankings.

<comment><USER11> That's right because no one pays for their google ranking. oh wait...

<comment><USER12> Who pays for their Google ranking? People might pay SEO companies to help them rank better, but I am skeptical that they are paying Google for it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The only downside to DuckDuckGo is that the results it gives for some searches of friends names are extremely stale pulling up old mailing list posts from 2006/2007 rather than showing their new content from their personal blog. There seems to be a ridiculous amount of noise mixed in with signal which makes it a no-go for me or for even suggesting it to my family.

</comment><comment><USER14> Is it like a Tor for search engine where all the searches are performed by DuckDuckGo, keeping the users away from tracking? I tried searching some terms and it gives results pretty fast.I found no ads in their search results,wondering how these guys are getting money to share their revenue with Linux Mint and also pay MS for using Bing data. Making me doubt they might push favorable content up.

<comment> mkr-hn There's an ad on the side.

<comment><USER14> yup there is a minimal ad on the side. I didn't appeared for the few queries I had tried (people names). I tried searching for a laptop and there came the ad on the side ;-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> My god, it's yet _another_ piece of software called Mint. _Stop the branding madness!_

Also frustrating is the fact that I couldn't spot the link from the official Linux Mint blog to the "please tell me what Linux Mint is" page. I ultimately resorted to Google. A conversion funnel tragedy.

<comment><USER16> > Also frustrating is the fact that I couldn't spot the link from the official > Linux Mint blog to the "please tell me what Linux Mint is" page.

Yes, it's incomprehensible why so many companies: a) don't use their normal headers for the blog, or at least b) put a prominent link back to the homepage (like the logo, for instance).

However, when the blog is at <http://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=1884> it is not a gigantic leap of thought to go check what might be at <http://www.linuxmint.com/>, from where it's one click to the about page.

<comment><USER17> > However, when the blog is at <http://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=1884> it is not a > gigantic leap of thought to go check what might be at > <http://www.linuxmint.com/>, from where it's one click to the about page.

I think the poster was commenting on the difficulty of getting to the main web site, not the possibility. Having visitors hand-edit URIs is not considered slick customer conversion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> If anyone is interested in knowing how DuckDuckGo gets its results check:

[http://help.duckduckgo.com/customer/portal/articles/216399-s...](http://help.duckduckgo.com/customer/portal/articles/216399-sources)

</comment><comment><USER19> I'm not sure about the partnership, does this means it will be the default search engine for Linux Mint?

</comment><comment><USER20> Since when do they use Bing? I thought they did their own indexing.

<comment><USER21> My last information was that they used a combination of third party search APIs (Yahoo, Bing, Google) and producing their own search content.

By now, in terms of functionality[1], I mostly use DDG for the bangs, having set it as my default search engine in Firefox (keyword.URL in about:settings) so I can search using the URL bar. I caught myself doing ^T and typing "!w keywords" (to search wikipedia) on other people's computers more than once by now.

[1] I originally switched because I'm very privacy conscious, and that's still my most powerful argument for using DDG, but it's by far not the only strong argument for duckgo'ing instead of googling.

<comment><USER22> > I caught myself doing ^T and typing "!w keywords" (to search wikipedia) on > other people's computers more than once by now.

You realize that you don't have to use DDG for this, right? You can set up keyword searches in the search bar in Firefox or Chrome (don't know about other browsers) for _any_ site, not just those that DDG supports. Then just type 'w <search>' into the location bar and hit enter for Wikipedia, for example. You can even do cool things like set up custom searches, like my 'wl' search, which automatically prepends 'list of' to any Wikpedia search.

<comment><USER23> except that DDG has them all set up already. if you want them in firefox, you have to set them up yourself.

<comment><USER24> My impression is that Google also always returns wikipedia when you have "wiki" as a search term. Only an extra two characters.

<comment><USER22> That's not the same thing as the '!w' feature on DDG or the 'w' keyword bookmark. Once you Google 'wiki <search>', you have to click on the first link. Unless you set up an IFL search, in which case you might as well set up a Wikipedia search.

<comment><USER24> Good point, although I virtually always am looking for a specific article on wikipedia and not searching the site.

<comment><USER22> Which is exactly what my keyword search does. For example, if I type 'w hacker news' into my location bar, I'm instantly redirected to <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_news></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Google discontinues the Chromebook Pixel 2 without replacing it - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/08/google-discontinues-the-chromebook-pixel-2-without-replacing-it/ <comment><USER2> And insists they are nonetheless " _committed to the Pixel program_ ".

<comment><USER3> They probably just realized the high-end Chromebook market isn't there.

<comment><USER4> Yes but the highend Android market might be there so they're taking a rest.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> So does this mean that the HP Chromebook 13 is the only ChromeOS device offered with 8G RAM?

I am disappointed. Should have bought a Pixel sooner. I really like Chromebooks. I guess after 4G aluminium-bodied FHD ones started coming at around $300, Google decided that the demand for the Pixel was not going to grow.

The biggest issue I have with Chromebooks is they aren't made with enough RAM. I consider myself a "chrome power user" \- 2G RAM is barely enough for me to get by. While 4G RAM would be better, a higher RAM'd option would be best. The Pixel was one of those options, up until now.</comment>


The Newer Hacker's Dictionary - <AUTHOR> http://cosman246.com/jargon.html

<comment><USER2> Wow, I had no idea it was still being maintained. I though esr put that puppy to be years ago.

I actually bought a print copy in the mid-90s. It was such a fun read back then. I'll need to flip through it and see what's new.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's a fork. ESR's still the "official" maintainer, but no one truly owns hacker culture.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Intriguing. I wish the new editor luck.</comment>