Along with hair gel and gay marriage, if there’s one thing San Francisco’s Mayor Gavin Newsom sure can get behind, it’s helping the homeless. I mean, the guy is passionate. In last week’s State of the City address, Newsom proudly proclaimed:
This [reducing homelessness] was my passion when I got in. Now I am more passionate, more engaged, enthusiastic. I believe more in the power of possibility. I don’t think we can solve this problem. I know we can solve this problem … I’m not asking for a third term. I will not leave office until we reduce the street population by half and we reduce the overall [homeless] population by at least a third.
So that’s great. Fewer homeless people on the streets. That’s something we can all get behind, right? Never mind that the city has a projected $522 million deficit, or that Newsom never exactly explained how he was going to tackle the problem or pay for the solution. But that’s okay. I can see how that sort of information would be on more of a “need to know” basis.
Hey wait! You know what would be a great idea? Paying for your new homeless initiatives by closing down some old homeless shelters!
Well apparently great minds think alike because as SF Weekly reports:
While Newsom was making ambitious promises about getting people off the streets, attorneys for the city were quietly fighting in court to preserve the city’s right to cut the number of emergency shelter beds for homeless people by up to 25 percent.
I’m not quite sure how the math on this is supposed to work out, but if you’ve got somewhere between 7,000 and 15,000 homeless people in a city that boasts only 1,500 shelter beds…. And you cut that number by 25%….
I mean, is it just me, or does it seem like a good strategy for reducing the population of people sleeping on the streets would be–oh I don’t know–giving them someplace to sleep other than a park bench?
Oh, oh. It’s just me? Thank goodness. For a minute there I thought I was going to have to write a letter or something.
Related posts:
- Vampire Hottie Kellan Lutz Helps PETA
KillHelp Dogs Twilight star/underwear model Kellan Lutz has teamed up with PETA... - Harrison Ford Destroys the
Death StarEarth Sometime back, I took a lot of heat and got... - Pam Anderson
ProtestsCelebrates New Steakhouse Most people associate Pam Anderson with roast beef, not filet... - Michael Vick Wins Award for
Torturing DogsCourage Perhaps it was the way he valiantly encouraged dogs to... - James Cameron Wins Big for
AvariceAvatar If you didn’t catch the three-hour-long Golden Globes telecast last...
New rules for all politicians and activists. You cannot promise us that you are going to do something, unless, at the very least, you tell us how YOU think it should or could be accomplished. This would also include funding, since all good deeds require lots and lots of funding. Please show your work.
Otherwise we could also assume your solution to the homeless problem, could be the same solution someone else came up with for, him anyway, that pesky Jewish problem.
All you have to do is feel bad. You don’t actually have to produce RESULTS. If you can convince people that your plans are sufficiently grandiose, you can even get a Nobel.
Or so I’ve heard.
Maybe making them feel unwelcome will make them leave, thus reducing their numbers. The just need to get a truck with a good sound system and pied-piper them somewhere else like on south park.
Can’t they just bus them all to Pelosi’s house or something? Newsom’s front yard? Barbara Boxer’s attic?
San Fransisco is one of the reasons I’m a tea-bagger for smaller gove- wait I meant I don’t want to have an already strapped on… hold it… wait. Never mind I’ll just meet you guys in the mens room in the park.
**phew!**
Good save, Pasta. Good save.
I live in San Francisco. His way of handling the homeless situation is to have them arrested for vagrancy, solicitation, public disorderliness, and illegal lodging. Then, these folks go to jail because they are to poor to make bail until their case can be heard … usually at the Criminal Justice Center (a Newsom pet project). Also, the prosecutor will file, and get, a stay-away order prohibiting the homeless person from being in the area (commonly the Tenderloin). The homeless person, with no place to go during the day, usually violates the stay-away order and lands in jail; the whole process starts all over again with the same results.
Yep, this really solves the problem Mr. Mayor.
I thought the whole homelessness problem went PLOINK and vanished when we got the Republican out of the White House. Huh. Weird.
I love pseudo hippie thought processes. Makes for great entertainment. A bit hard to decipher without a little green leafy help though.
I once worked for a city politician who really WAS dedicated to easing the plight of the homeless. As it happened, there was a local world-class homeless shelter run by a tireless, devoted nun. The plan was simple: Hand over more city money and unused building space to this woman. Problem alleviated, anyway, if not solved.
The pol ran for mayor, with that plank in his platform, and won. But once he took office, residents who lived near the existing shelter quietly lobbied for it to be SHUT DOWN. They insisted that these people were dirty, sometimes loud, sometimes drunk, and were ‘detrimental to the neighborhood’ (ie., property values).
So, of course, nothing happened to help the city’s homeless. But here’s the kicker: Local activists BLAMED THE MAYOR.
Because confronting the people who made it impossible for the mayor to follow through on his promises – the REAL problem here – was something these activists weren’t prepared to do. That would get ugly, bringing local skeletons flying out of local closets. But blaming a politician? Happens all the time. No downside. Pols don’t fight back against this sort of thing, they don’t argue, but most of all – they don’t point out the hypocrisy of people whose vote they’ll need again.
See, everybody wins in this deal… the activists get to attack a straw man and feel righteous, while the neighbors make those awful homeless go away without being shown up as the selfish hypocrites they are. Sure, the politician gets stuck with the blame, but when you really know how it works, you understand that being a scapegoat for things the public really has no stomach for is a big, big part of a mayor’s job.
Oh – but what about the homeless, you ask? Well, they don’t vote. Let’s see, I’m a politician. I get to balance the (quietly but firmly) expressed desires of my constituents against the real human needs of people who cannot help me stay in office. Whatever shall I do?
You might think about the actual nature of the problem, and why it NEVER gets resolved, while you’re pointing fingers at this guy.
I see your point, Mister Snitch, but here’s another one: Do YOU want Stanky Bob peeing on YOUR front porch, and festooning your front walk with poo graffiti? Know anyone who does? How about having your dog kicked to death because somebody’s off her meds and thinks it’s the devil barking at her? Want your kids accosted–or worse–by Skeeter the Nadflasher? Because I sure don’t. I’m not so sure it’s purely selfish, hypocritical rich people who don’t want this in their neighborhoods. I’m not saying it’s 100% the fault of politicians, either, not even in this case.
I see your point as well, Beige. Nevertheless, these same folks who say ‘not in my backyard’ to the homeless, power plants, and such things, also demand that the people they elect supply them with power (not just power, either, but clean & cheap power) and deal with homelessness.
Sadly, in the concrete instance I mentioned, the homeless congregating near the church offering food and shelter weren’t nearly as bad as the neighbors made them out to be. But in a situation that called for the exercise of tolerance and forebearance for the sake of their fellow man – well, they just didn’t have it in them.
I do understand both sides of the puzzle. What I am trying to explain, though, is why – as Jesus himself said – “the poor will always be with us”. The blame can never be placed squarely on a politician’s shoulders. That is never anything less than scapegoating. I would even go so far as to say that it’s not fair to the neighbors of homeless shelters to bear an outsized burden.
But in this instance, as I see over and over again, I don’t see people working together for a solution. Instead, I see people pointing at a politician INSTEAD of finding a solution.
This same principle applies in other areas. Didn’t the left, during Bush, drone on endlessly about how Osama Bin Laden struck the WTC because of the terrible policies of our terrible President? Yet didn’t Bin Laden just assume responsibility for another terrorist attempt, despite having the left’s darling in office? (BTW, now THERE is a first-class hypocrisy story!) Bush was scapegoated in order for the left to find a way to feel superior, despite its having no real solution to the problem. The San Francisco mayor is being scapegoated in the very same manner, for the very same reasons.
BTW, re Stanky Bob: I’m probably not a good example, since I have actually had people with nowhere to go live with me from time to time. I did this because I have always seen this particular dichotomy. However, I have long since grown weary of hearing grumbling complaints from neighbors, not to mention severely odd looks from passers-by. These days I give to Sally Am and that’s that.
Not that I don’t DRONE on enough, but one little point: You know what bothered the neighbors about having the homeless in their neighborhood? It wasn’t what they did, really, though there were isolated incidents.
What bothered them was fear. Fear that things would deteriorate, for sure. But also fear of what people would think (What happens when the boss comes to dinner and he sees Stanky Bob? What about the people coming to my cocktail party?). And underneath that, a more frightening fear: What if homelessness is in THEIR future?
A surprising number of people are thinking that these days. It ain’t as far as it looks from Park Avenue to… well, wherever Stanky Bob is sleeping tonight.
I have known several Stanky Bob’s in my time. Actually got to know them very well and 7 out of 9 (yes I knew 9 homeless people very well) were homeless because they chose to be. You see they all had a system worked out to be labeled disabled (one guy showed how to pretend to hear voices incase I ever wanted to cash in on disability), collect $710 month and then blow out on drug of choice (most used herion). While this is obviously not every homeless person but something to keep in mind when we are talking about solving a problem…some people don’t want to fixed/saved
Mister Snitch: I suspect their fears were more along the lines of losing a sizable chunk of their nest egg when property values collapse. It’s also a lot harder to handwave away ‘isolated incidents’ when you actually live there.
When I lived in San Francisco, they loved their homeless people. The police arrested some homeless for being drunk in the park, the homeless advocates defended the homeless by saying that the park is their home and drinking in their home was the same thing as drinking in anyone elses home. The advocates said it was the same as someone getting arrested for drinking wine in their living room.
So are you saying that the homeless really aren’t homeless — just HOUSEless?
I wasn’t trying to crawl you about the homelessness issue, Mr. Snitch, and I hope it didn’t come across that way. Yes, it’s sad when someone is out in the cold–but as D—points out, MANY homeless are homeless because they refuse to accept shelter and its terms. The dog-kicking incident I cited actually happened in my former hometown, although I think it was a male vagrant, not a female, who kicked someone’s dog to death.
As for “what people might think”, now THERE’S a thorny issue, because I for one would be tempted to herd homeless people into a “better” neighborhood just to jump-start some pearl-clutching heart attacks. Meanness, thou art a harsh mistress. I probably wouldn’t do so, because these days I do live in a (relatively) nice neighborhood and wouldn’t want Norbert the Noseminer in my driveway.
As for Jesus’ statement that “the poor you will always have with you”, well…sometimes I have to wonder if He wasn’t referring to the fact that while there will always be predatory rich people, there will also always be people who piss their lives away making stupid decisions.
yes, the left blamed Bush for 9/11. Funny thing is – the terrorists were planning that attack for 4 years, when Clinton was in office. Democrats just hate finding out they were wrong and even worse, hate to admit it.
How’s that Hope and Change working for ya??
But David….Californya-nya-nya, super cool to the homeless…
San Francisco loves their homeless more than their Bridge or Rice-a-Roni.
The homeless come to San Francisco because they’ve (rightfully) heard that the City makes it easy to be homeless there.
Other states even bus their homeless straight to San Francisco. Its a fact.
Fifteen different organizations deliver free meals to the homeless, wherever they are. You can sleep in Golden Gate Park and enjoy the million dollar views for free. After first clearing the park, the city decided it was easier to let them stay.
http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-08-22/news/17258169_1_golden-gate-park-homeless-people-encampments
If you’re an addict, you won’t be arrested for using your drugs in public as long as you aren’t selling.
If you’re doing non violent theft or drug related crimes and have no fixed address, you will almost never be prosecuted, like this man who was finally sentenced after being arrested 49 different times for theft crimes with no time served:
http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-10-29/bay-area/17265024_1_auto-break-in-state-prison-burglary
“I wasn’t trying to crawl you about the homelessness issue, Mr. Snitch,”
No, not at all. I respect the POV of the homeowners, too. I was a homeowner in that town, myself.
I bought in early on when the town was MOSTLY Stanky Bobs, and no one wanted to live there. So I appreciated the effect of appearance on real estate values. The difference between me and those who came in later was that I made peace with the place in the state it was in.
I also know many homeless don’t REALLY want what WE see as help. They want something probably no one can actually give them. And many drug addicts and alcoholic just want to go right on being drug addicts and alcoholics, too.
Jesus’ statement that “the poor you will always have with you”
I think you’re basically right. Jesus and Shakespeare and other observers of human nature understand that some things in us are constant. They will never change.
When the Titanic went down, the lifeboats were only half full. (This didn’t just happen in Cameron’s film, it really happened.) A lot of those who died in the water could have been saved, but the majority in the boats refused to help them, feeling that bringing them on board could capsize the boats.
Homeowners feel the homeless will capsize their neighborhoods.
The people in the lifeboats and homeowners have a point. But at the end of the day, we have homeless because our desire for self-preservation trumps our professed lofty ideals. Because we all like to think of ourselves as noble, self-sacrificing heroes, though, the politicians will just have to take the blame. After survival, our paramount concern turns out to be our egos.
And before survival comes addiction and the need for more street drugs… which is the paramount concern of the vast majority of homeless in San Francisco and LA.
There wouldn’t be that much of a homeless problem in SF had the city not thrown out the welcome mat for them in the 1980s.
….lots of rich people…givin’ change to the homeless….in the cityyyyyy of San Francisco…lots of nice parks…you can chill if you’re homeless…
San Francisco is also one of the wealthiest, most liberal cities in the US, isn’t it? I’m not claiming that everyone who lives (indoors) there is a Pelosi-hugging multimillionaire, but this totally isn’t Bristol, Tennessee we’re talking about here. I’m just sayin’. Why isn’t SF a veritable paradise for everyone? You’d think it would be.
Contrary to may of the opinions here, San Francisco does NOT “love” homeless people. We pity them, we try to help them when they want help.
However, we would like to be able to walk around the city without being accosted by folks (who reek of urine, feces, and sweat) begging for money, cigarettes, foods, coffee, water, etc.
San Francisco is cold city, weather-wise, year-round. It is foggy, damp, windy, rainy.
It is expensive to live here.
It has some of the most specatular views of the Pacific Ocean.
The arts and sciences thrive here.
It’s a great place live … when you have a home.