[#MakesYouThink] 'Liberal' Bastion San Francisco Cannot Solve Its Homelessness Problem

Have the neo cons on this board always been this dumb..?

 

Nah, it is, and by a large margin.

 

do you have data ?

I’ve been to both SF & LA/OC a lot; my observation is that

the homeless population is much larger in LA/OC, due to the warmer weather in SoCal.
In SF, at night, it can be cold like hell, unbearably so, even in the summer

SF is very liberal and have many social programs to combat the homeless problem. by comparison, LA/OC is
more conservative and kinda sweep the homeless problem under the rug.

​

 

Correct. Here's 2017 homeless by city...

 

No, the homeless are a serious problem in San Francisco.

 

as are the homeless problem in every urban center in the US

the difference is, while others try to sweep the homeless issue under the rug, SF is more willing to address the problem.

 

San Francisco is extremely tough when it comes to the construction of new housing. There is a concerted effort to limit new housing construction by existing home owners.

The last decade or so SF has made it more of a priority and increasing spending. Still it is a major problem. Tents are everywhere.

 

have you been to other major urban centers in the US, LA, Chi, NYC, Phil ?

 

Yes.... I spend half my time in Chicago and have property investments in NYC. I unfortunately had to spend a month in Philadelphia a few years ago... worst place I have been in the USA other than Rockford.

 

and ur perspective on the homeless problem in these urban centers ?

 

Not as bad as San Francisco and with more housing for the poor. I love San Francisco but it has purposely created a housing crisis to keep property values staggeringly high. Also in my experience San Francisco is more tolerant of homeless. In Chicago they make them leave and will even put them on a bus out of town.

 

bluntly put, ur uninformed on this, conveniently assuming that SF has enough space

Since the gold rush days in the 1850s, SF grew too fast, never had enough space to accommodate the influx of residents.
SF has been plagued w housing crisis for generations, attributable to scarcity of space.

that's because other cities have more space available than SF.

two ends of the specturm

• Chicago is exactly like LA, Phil and NYC, they like to sweep the homeless problem under the rug.
• SF is more willing to address the homeless issue

 

Not misinformed on the housing issue in San Francisco. I have fought against the very housing issue in the area. Laws have been purposely passed to prevent additional housing.

Put bluntly, you don’t know what the hell you are talking about on the housing issue in San Francisco.

 

I have not been to LA/OC, but have traveled to SF, Chi, Seattle and NYC for vacation over the past few years.

I can say that the general presence of homelessness is very apparent and noticeable in SF vs. other cities.

 

As would having an understanding of the geography of San Francisco (relatively small square miles, surrounded by water on three sides) and the surrounding Bay Area... that if you would include the suburbs of SF (Daly City, South San Francisco, Pacifica, San Bruno etc) as they do for the other major metropolitan areas) and the geographic area total population rises. Instead, the chart only looks at San Francisco and San Francisco County (which is the city) compared to Los Angeles and Los Angeles County (comprised on 88 cities). So if you want to compare percentages versus actual numbers...

Of course, no one is saying San Francisco (or any other major city) does not have homeless people or a problem with homelessness. But the point that was made is that San Francisco doesn't have a worst homelessness problem than other major U.S. cities and that S.F has made efforts to address the problem. SF has spent $275M on homeless programs. But even that amount is insufficient... and the problem of homelessness (nationwide) continues to get worst.

 

that only underscores your lack of nuance / perspective on this issue.

as pointed out by Nook, SF is more tolerant of the homeless and, as per NewRoxFan, has allot city/county/federal funds. over 200 M annually,
to combat the homeless problem. other US urban centers are more intent of sweeping the problem under the rug.

take SF's counterpart in SoCal, the LA/OC region, which

has spent little on the homeless issue. the only time that LA had spend significant funds on the homeless was during the 1984 Olympics, when it "allegedly" handed out cash to the homeless and provided transportation to move them elsewhere
​

 

i know what i am talking about insofar as SF having been plagued w a housing crisis for generations, due to lack of available space

you, on the other hand, still can't back up your convenient "baseless" claim that
SF has purposely created a housing crisis to keep property values staggeringly high, as if lack of space has nothing to do w it.

 

a premium post to educate parroting "sheeps" like the Red Rocket

SF doesn't even have the worst homelessness problem in Calif, as

the LA/OC region, a much more conservative part of Calif, has been the worst in the Golden State​

 

San Francisco has some of the most strict zoning regulations, which in turn makes it very difficult to add housing within the city.

San Francisco has strict rules to prevent the building of most buildings that are over 40-50 feet in height, this makes it very difficult to build additional housing.

Further, the city only approves a portion of new housing permits.

San Francisco took it even further and uses the Ellis Act to evict renters, so that they can evict people and increase rent for future tenants.

Further there have been initiatives put before San Francisco voters that would increase affordable housing in San Francisco and the voters there rejected it.

Also, New York managed to put nearly 200,000 people per square mile in Manhattan (that is living, not working). Every situation is different, but Manhattan was able to do that in part because of their building process.

San Francisco has a very strong and politically active group of property owners that want to keep housing costs high by limiting the expansion of affordable housing. There was an estimate recently that San Francisco would double in size if it had more affordable housing available.

I know about all of this because my firm at one point was hired by a Seattle company to look into buying property in San Francisco for a rail and apartment/condo housing near by.

We can debate about whether it is a good or bad thing, it really depends on perspective.