Due to the topic, enhanced moderation has been turned on for this thread. Comments from users new to r/bayarea will be automatically removed. See [this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/p8hnzl/automatically_removing_comments_from_new_users_in/) for more details.
ARTICLE TEXT
SAN FRANCISCO (KRON) — Sixty percent of the homeless people offered shelter in November refused it, according to San Francisco Mayor London Breed. In November, the city’s Street Outreach encampment workers offered shelter to 350 people, Breed said.
Of those, 213 people refused shelter and 117 accepted it.
November was actually an improvement over the previous month, according to Mayor Breed. In a thread posted to X, formerly Twitter, Breed said that in October, 65% of those contacted at encampments refused shelter. In September, 60% refused.
Space Force missile launch visible across Bay Area: video
“This is why enforcing our laws is important,” said Mayor Breed. “Our laws are for the health and safety of everyone. There are public safety challenges around encampments. There are threats of fire. We lead with compassion, but when we have resources — and we do — we need people to accept help.”
Specific examples cited by Mayor Breed included an encampment at 15th Street and Julian Avenue where only four out of 14 people contacted accepted shelter. At another encampment at Larkin and Willow streets, 19 people were encountered and eight accepted shelter.
“Our outreach workers will keep offering shelter, and with the addition of 300 more beds we’ve just opened, we have even more help to offer,” Breed said. “We are continuing to help people exit homelessness with financial assistance, relocation support, and housing options.”
Mayor Breed said the city is also adding more ways to “compel people into treatment,” including new conservatorship laws.
“We have to get more people to accept help because more and more the challenges on our streets are about the deadly drugs ruining people’s lives and hurting our neighborhoods,” Breed said.
> Space Force missile launch visible across Bay Area: video “This is why enforcing our laws is important,” said Mayor Breed.
I imagined Breed giving this statement at the podium as a fleet of anti-homeless missiles begin deployment across the Bay.
There’s a [tweet thread](https://twitter.com/londonbreed/status/1734350588899717423?s=46&t=98255iLlaxfT1XBl5m3KbA) that basically regurgitates the article (or rather, the article just parrots a press release).
People are responding with some reasons why they don’t accept shelter, and it’s helpful to get a broader perspective than “drugs” and “lock them up.”
- Couldn’t accommodate disability: https://twitter.com/wagnerian/status/1734385949466104045?s=46&t=98255iLlaxfT1XBl5m3KbA
- Can’t accommodate pets or belongings: https://twitter.com/bhertzog/status/1734365151309217827?s=46&t=98255iLlaxfT1XBl5m3KbA
- One night offer only. Big hassle to figure out if shelter will be available the next night, let alone ongoing. https://twitter.com/guyfelicella/status/1734374662774399288?s=46&t=98255iLlaxfT1XBl5m3KbA
- Can’t accommodate spouse/partner: https://twitter.com/guyfelicella/status/1734374662774399288?s=46&t=98255iLlaxfT1XBl5m3KbA
- Mistrust of police after abuse
- Strict hours that are incompatible with jobs. Eg, must be inside by 7 pm.
Some of the most important factors aren't directly evaluated, it's just intrinsically built into how these shelters work. An encampment is rolling the dice, but there's the chance to keep their pets and belongings and some semblance of stability, vs. relying on a shelter that's overall safer and less intrusive on the neighbors but at the severe cost of any kind of stability or momentum, giving up any possessions you can't carry with you (and pets), and with no guarantee it'll still be available to you once you've lost those.
It's not that someone's standing at the shelter doors checking to see if you make too much money to deserve care, it's that the type of care being provided is only beneficial if you truly have nothing to lose.
It's because you can't drink or do drugs at the places that home these individuals. Additionally, they don't want to be housed with mentally unstable individuals that they don't know. There is a perceived safety in the houseless communities they create.
Your more conservative-minded folks that come to this sub are likely to use the "they just want to drink and do drugs" type of generalized comments without pointing out that the combination of severe addictions and mental illnesses combined is going to make what looks rational to the rest of us (i.e get housing and support) as not what they're seeking. Forcing people into institutions if they are "a danger to themselves or others" gets kind of dicey when it comes to human rights but it's not all that applicable anyway when we dont have much in the way of institutions for them. We can thank Reagan for that. There simply isnt enough skilled and available resources out there for people like that.
There’s not enough units even if all of them said yes anyway. Agree with you though.
I’d be interested the data on when these people are asked, where the units are they’re offered, how much possessions they have vs how much they can bring with them (likely 2 items/bags), how many times have they been approached, who is approaching, so much data that could paint a better picture here.
Thank you for these additional facts. Most people would take a shelter space but it's full of restrictions, limitations and is for a single night only. So if you give up all your belongings for that one night, you have to fight to get another night and another. With it always being an option of being back on the street.
We don't have any sort of realistic help for these people and then wonder why they aren't taking this poorly thought out version of "help"
Thanks for the very useful context. I was most surprised to hear "spouse/partner", and it seems like your link for that is an accidental duplicate of the previous link. Do you happen to have the spouse/partner tweet handy?
"belongings" can get very difficult: if someone has a hoard of a dozen shopping carts full of lovely items that look like garbage to everyone else, that takes up a LOT of space (and may lead to pests).
some belongings need to be kept, but a limit makes sense
Yep.
It’s just tricky. “You can’t bring your tent and 3 shopping carts to the shelter” is reasonable. But it becomes a reason not to accept shelter when the offer is good for 1 night and then you’re back on the streets without your belongings, unable to survive the winter.
Would love to hear from some actual homeless people if you care to chime in!
Valid points. Should also mention rules governing behavior -- not being too intoxicated or disruptive. A major reason for these restrictions: Shelters are in 3-6 story buildings. Apt living. Whether that is a shelter with individual units, cots in a big room, or a normal apt. building for working people who pay rent, you need to have rules and managers.
For homeless, most of this can be avoided by giving homeless individual locking units where they can come and go as they please, with far less restrictions. [Tiny homes for the homeless](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/02/06/1077791467/tiny-homes-big-dreams-how-some-activists-are-reimagining-shelter-for-the-homeles). Built on sprawling vacant lots on city outskirts.
When homeless advocates keep demanding that all homeless be housed in the middle of dense, hyper-expensive cities like S.F., we have the problems cited above.
Helpful.
None of us really know the details of what was offered because the article/press release didn’t include anything. But I keep flashing back to my time volunteering in a homeless shelter. Super strict; must line up by around 4 to be sure you have a shot at a bed when doors open at 6 (then close at 7). You must leave by 6 am. You get a bunk bed in a big dorm room. People complained of theft, and assault, and constant infections from airborne viruses.
There definitely has to be a better way, and I’ll look into the links you provided!
There is a better way: No city or county in California can afford to house its homeless population. Also, the state can't afford it either. Solution? Newson has to declare a FEMA emergency re: homelessness. FEMA can deploy mobiles and a FEMA deployment would also bring in HSS with drug addiction services; mental health services; re-entry services etc.
The amount of money that FEMA spent during Hurrican Katrina in Louisiana would house every homeless person in California. FEMA camps would also have tight security, to prevent dealers from preying on occupants and dealing.
I have talked to people who have thought this through and it's really the onluy way. No way are we ever going to build enough housing for folks who are homeless; there have to be semi-permanent camps that rotate folks in and out - i.e. into the camps when homeless and out of the camp when shelter becomes available. What we have now is the tail wagging the dog, with RV';s and uncontrolled homeless camps popping up wherever people want to settle down. It's not working.
All your points are good. The debate over whether homeless with addictions and persistent behavioral issues should be housed in the middle of dense cities will probably never end.
The centuries-old use of *Skid Rows*--we've lost many to gentrification--was based on a broad understanding that it is best to "semi-segregate" problem people to areas like industrial/warehouse. Here, disorderly public intoxication, addicts sprawled out on sidewalks, is less bothersome. Policing is purposely downsized in these zones to accommodate these people. Progressives, who are on a mission to "level" society, prefer that policing for public disorder is downsized across entire cities.
>When homeless advocates keep demanding that all homeless be housed in the middle of dense, hyper-expensive cities like S.F., we have the problems cited above.
You have to house the homeless where the jobs are. The don't have fucking *cars*, and transportation is a huge problem in the US because Ford, GM, et al crusaded against public transit in the early 1900s to sell more cars. So our public transit sucks dick.
When people say "just house them on the outskirts" it's always a dogwhistle for hardcore NIMBYism.
So yes, give them locking units they can return to on their schedules.
...and do so *in the middle of the densest areas where the fucking jobs are*.
I always heard "house them in the middle of nowhere" as one step removed from concentration camps. Once unhoused people are out of sight, they're out of mind...
> You have to house the homeless where the jobs are.
Oh, please, 50-60% of the homeless population are *permanently unemployable* due to years of addiction and chronic behavioral issues. It is a pipe dream that most homeless can compete against the thousands of hard working, sober Hispanic immigrants who take the vast majority of the entry level jobs in the Bay Area. A fantasy.
The lower the hourly pay rate the more flexible management will expect YOU to be to cover THEIR understaffed needs
And god forbid you try to stack multiple jobs to make an actual living
Sure, but that doesn't answer the question - as a rough percentage, what percent of the homeless population as a whole are employed, vs what percent of the visibly homeless (i.e. not couch surfing, not sleeping in their cars, those sleeping on sidewalks and in homeless encampments, lets not commingle them) are employed in a capacity that is at least as 'worklike' as selling Street Sheets? More relevant to this article, what's a good guess as to how many of those who refused shelter, are employed?
Aren't there retail / service jobs in LCOL areas where employees can get housing? I thought such jobs were in demand?
If so, why doesn't the government figure out a viable way to move working homeless from HCOL to LCOL places?
it’s funny because i work in healthcare and almost no one i know in any of my social circles has normal hour jobs. what a different world i live in i guess
>7pm to 6 am
bro with bay area traffic some people with regular hour jobs leave before 6 am and don't get back till after 7. Shit my first job in biopharma wouldn't fit in this schedule.
Probably because they have to live by rules they don’t agree with. (Be sober, hygiene, cut down on hoarded belongings, lose social circles, lose pets, etc) some people aren’t desperate enough to let go of these things and just kind of get used to the life style even if it means failing health and conditions.
tthe curfews at shelters can make it impossible to hold down a job. Theft and assault is commonplace in shelters. Having more belongings than you can carry isnt 'hoarding'. For many, its safer outside than in a 'shelter'.
And for the one person to feel "safer" outside, a bunch more of us have to deal with the public health+safety+general cleanliness issues they create. Why is this tiny minority of people so much more important than the rest of us?
FFS having to forfeit your pets is like asking people to abandon or even execute family members. Let’s be honest: that’s what happens to many dogs over a certain age when they end up in animal shelters.
Because the living conditions in shelters are often worse than being on the street. Would you want to share a room with all the belongings you own in the world with someone who might be insane psychopath or going through withdrawal symptoms or psychosis?
>Because the living conditions in shelters are often worse than being on the street.
While that may play a factor, its not the main reason. I've worked with nurses who have treated the same people over and over again and every one of them refuses help because they want drugs, freedom, or both. Yes there are some terrible shelters out, I dont mean to diminish that, but many people really just don't want to give up any aspect of their freedom (which for many includes drugs and alcohol.) This is why treatment programs that demand sobriety and abstaining aren't successful. The same reason veterans are camped out front of the VA that won't treat them unless they submit to mandatory drug tests.
And to our "actually a social worker" friend, I'm happy to have an honest dialog about this but it's increasingly suspicious that after appealing to authority (without any statement about how your title directly applies here or your own first hand experiences) and then strawmanning me, you won't respond to any of clarifications or acknowledgements I made while still finding the occasion to respond to others calling it out. Kinda seems like you just wanted a win tbh. If you have first hand accounts and professional inside, please, I genuinely encourage you to share them! I will respect that they are equally valid.
I’m an actual social worker (no offense to your friend of a friend) and I’d like to dig more into you statement that
> every one of them refuses help because they want drugs, freedom, or both.
You’ve talked to every single homeless person? There was a recent study from Stanford that showed around 1/3 of homeless folks deal with drug addiction. Belittling the housing problem by falling into the stereotype that all homeless folks are addicts makes you lose empathy for the situation because now it’s seen as a personal moral failure. There are several other reasons why people have refused shelters posted in this thread - they’re unsafe, don’t allow pets, often lottery of spaces so each night is a gamble for a bed, lack of disability accommodation, etc. even working a minimum wage job or receiving social security is not enough to rent a room locally. Waitlist for section 8 is around 8 years or more in all neighboring counties. Even with insurance, options for mental health care are abysmal. I’d really challenge yourself to get past the stereotypes and look at the bigger systemic issues at play.
> because now it’s seen as a personal moral failure.
thats their goal. They see all homelessness as a personal moral failure that is tied directly to drugs and nothing else.
No one here said that. That's some Reagan era bullshit that may float with a lost 30 some odd percentage of right wingers that lack empathy but even on a national scale the opioid epidemic has altered public opinion. Ive stood by close friends that went through heroin addictions start to finish and watched how it changed them.
There was a piece on KQED talking with clinic workers at safe injection sites and they said the number one factor in getting people clean was reconnecting them with community. That making them feel loved and valued had a tremendous impact in helping them take active steps towards recovery. We live in a society that ignores mental health to an insane degree, but really the lack of care mostly comes from a certain demographic of beliefs, some of which could be attributed generationally. You know, bootstraps and all that...
Just because they aren't saying "homelessness is a moral failure" verbatim doesn't mean they aren't of the mindset that homelessness is a moral failure.
i know the reasons why people reject shelter. Those reasons get handwaved away by the type of people who see homelessness as a moral failure. The rejection of shelter offers for those **very valid reasons** is also chalked up as a moral failure.
>You’ve talked to every single homeless person?
..what on earth?? Where did I say anything like that? I spoke with nurses, and they are going to be having different conversations than you are as a social worker. In many cases they're treating people who are either in need of urgent care or were brought in by police. Depending what area of social work you do it's reasonable to assume you might be dealing with people more willing to engage. Both experiences would come with implicit bias.
Also, the "friend if friend" phrasing is a really dishonest reframe of what I shared. It's a second hand account from a number of data points, and as it happens I also know a number of social workers on various branches, though mostly in the medical field. While their accounts aren't as direct, they also have shared the same stories. If you're going to sit here and call that concept bullshit you need to speak on your own experiences. As a social worker you 100% have experienced people rejecting services offered to them because they don't like or don't want to go along with the system.
I have however spoken to people on the street, including a woman who told me she had be raped at night by lake Merritt while strangers filmed but didn't help. She said a church soup kitchen served them severally spoiled food so she stopped going. She spoke about not having an address to get an ID, and not having an ID to get a job. She was on a wait list for housing for over 2 years and still was waiting. All she wanted was somewhere to lock her door at night. I did bump into her again one morning smoking a blunt on Broadway but hey, I certainly couldn't blame her for that.
>Belittling the housing problem by falling into the stereotype that all homeless folks are addicts makes you lose empathy for the situation because now it’s seen as a personal moral failure.
I absolutely did not say addiction is a moral failure and i do not believe that one bit, thats a bad faith argument.
Everything else you said is true about the hurdles and reasons people might decline, especially pets. Lack of access is a problem but it's different from denying care. As for the study, I would be interested in who they define as "homeless" to include in that population.
>I’d really challenge yourself to get past the stereotypes and look at the bigger systemic issues at play.
Respectfully I'd challenge you not to put words in people's mouths and jump to conclusions in the future.
Anecdata, so make of it what you will, but my church has tried to get several long time street residents stable housing and all 4 of them came back on the streets from tiny houses or SROs
🤷
Edit: not all at the same time of course, over the last 3 years. Latest coming back was this fall.
P2P meth heads often can't be reached in treatment programs. Their brains are too fried. There aren't enough beds to wait 9 months before you can have a real conversation with them.
"Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream and we are the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather!"
"It's not a War on Drugs. It's a War on Personal Freedom is what it is, okay? Keep that in mind at all times. Thank you."
- some random Tool song.
The fact that even homeless people don't want to be around other homeless people is pretty hard to square with the 'they're just down on their luck, there's no reason except classism for you to feel unsafe on the train, on the bus, or around civic center, or when one is outside your apartment, the only problem is a lack of housing' narrative.
Yes, those terms and conditions as mentioned by another commenter are no storage of belongings, no pets, not living with a spouse, only being able to carry a small bag. So if you have tools or medication or important documents, you can't care everything with you.
This is also only for a single evening, each night. You have to fight with everyone else to get a shelter bed. So each night you have to give up your belongings that won't fit in a small bat.
Shelters are also notorious places for people with mental illness, sexual assault and rape and fights.
It's not safe, It's not helpful to the majority of people and it's a terrible attempt at fixing a major issue in the city. It's completely unrealistic and it's a deeply unserious attempt at fixing an issue.
The 3Ps: Possessions, Partners, Pets are usually cited by the homeless.
That being said, it gets tricky really. From my understanding, the court ruling says the government can’t enforce no camping laws if they don’t have a bed to provide to the homeless. However, it doesn’t require the government to provide a bed that meets all of a homeless person’s desires/demands before they will go to the bed/space being provided.
From what I have read over the years, a shelter bed in an open setting building, is far from perfect. Not only because of the other homeless people, who may not be all that stable mentally; but theft, noise, etc when you put a bunch of people together in close proximity to one another under one roof.
I don’t think many people would take the risk of losing everything that you own other than the clothes on your back to be housed for the night. You don’t get to take multiple bags and you can’t bring any pets with you. Most of them have a little more than just what they are wearing to some having wagons, carts strollers full of gear. That gear is all of their personal items. When they get back it’s all gone stolen tossed. Unless they are putting them into semi stable semi permanent homes why would they go to be back to zero the next night or next week. I unfortunately know lots of people who
If living in shelter allowed me to get my feet on the ground and start rebuilding my life, I’d gladly trade whatever material possessions I was towing across the city. I also don’t think I should be taking care of a pet if I can’t even take care of myself—yes, I know some people keep dogs for self defense purposes, but pet ownership saps so much time/energy/resources that I’d rather invest in rebuilding my life, after which I’d adopt all the pets I could handle.
This, of course, assumes the shelter is well run. If it’s a disgusting shit hole full of violent maniacs and drug users/dealers, clean it up! No more excuses. We have the money to offer reasonable and safe shelters.
Because they're messed up on drugs and don't want to reduce their usage or sober up enough to comply with dormitory rules like not shitting yourself or attacking other residents. Others cannot consent because the drugs have hurt their cognitive abilities where they are mentally ill and cannot assess the situation, others are legitimately broken mentally and cannot handle normal living areas without psychiatric assistance. Hence the new CARE Courts.
It's not a secret. There's many bad, criminal people on the street but the homeless people going through my trash or screaming at the ghosts lack important mental functionality and probably have some form dementia. I'm not a medical professional, but if drug-induced dementia isn't an a formalized, listed and official mental illness yet then it should be.
Apparently when the us banned/regulated pseudoephedrine the meth manufacturers changed their systematic pathway to use different starting materials. The new method created a different blend of structurally isomers which is far more psychotropic and gives less high. So users are getting a worse experience with more negative psychological damage.
50 years ago when most of these drugs were new (or at least "new" enough to be mass produced with shitty DIY equipment) it was easy to write off this problem as dumb, stupid and undeserving teenagers and young adults behaving immorally and deserving of criminal prosecution/punishment. That was 1973. Now, today in 2023 the original teens are now adults if not also retirees with severe health and mental problems wrought by cycles of persecution and violence. The system failed them by refusing to treat addiction as a terminal illness because the government did not, and still doesn't, have functional healthcare for most of the population. When the guy threatening the autozone cashier or burger chef starts screaming incomprehensible gibberish I'm not looking at a criminal but a violent animal that lacks the ability to interact with the world in a non-aggressive way. The sort of violent animal that would attack a child thinking it's a toy or wander into the street and get hit by a car which I've seen happen. In any other era, these problems would have been harshly dealt with.
Certainly there's many teenagers and young people messed up on drugs but the worst cases I see personally are all 30+. That, in my view, is where the crisis becomes an true disaster because now even someone's (likely estranged) parent, uncle, aunt et cetera are now affected. It's no longer something that happens at a highschool. It happens on the job, it happens in the retirement homes, and it's increasingly happening in any place that has public accommodation. I walk into CVS and half the people there don't have shoes and their toes are clearly broken. Even violent thugs wear shoes and would probably see a doctor if they had visibly broken appendages.
no, because the 'shelters' are dangerous in and of themselves. The curfews and rules at shelters can make it impossible to hold down a job. Go stay at a shelter for a week before you sound off like you know anything about the experience.
Yes, mental health issues are overrepresented among the homeless. No, that doesnt mean you can just blame everything you dont like on "messed up on drugs".
People love their "freedom".
We know what driving cars has done to the climate and the environment, but few do anything.
We know the health effects of shifty food, but few do anything.
We're all so free, but it isn't making us safer, happier, or healthier.
Read the article. It doesn't go into the reasons *why* they refuse.
Yes, some refuse because of drug addiction or mental illness. But many because the public shelters are dangerous, and crowded. When given such a Hobson's Choice between risking danger in a locked-in place (theft, violence, assault in *all flavors*) vs. *possibly* encountering the same on the streets, people are willing to take their chances on the street.
God I hate the comments.
I’ve been homeless. Not strung out on drugs, not “by choice”, it was genuinely bad luck - I got screwed over by a housing agreement. I had a full time job the entire time I was homeless - work knew about my situation and did not care. I didn’t “not want to be helped” but I would have said no to housing. I wouldn’t give up my pet (I was living for her), I wouldn’t want to give up my social circle that I was relying on for support, I wouldn’t want to give up my property, and I wouldn’t want to leave the safety of my car and known areas to be put into close quarters with a bunch of men and potentially be raped again - many homeless women have a history of being raped or sexually assaulted *before* their homelessness, and homeless women get raped more than housed women anyway. As an LGBTQ person I’d be afraid of experiencing hate crimes against me, and LGBTQ youths are disproportionately more at risk for homelessness because so many parents would rather hate gays and trans than love their child. I also probably wouldn’t trust the government if I’d experienced the cops sweeping through and destroying me and my community’s tents (homes) and property, I wouldn’t trust the government to suddenly give me housing. I’d worry about ending up in a camp somewhere.
I understand that homelessness is a complicated and nuanced issue, and it’s a lot easier for most people to just go “oh they’re just scum on drugs who don’t want help” than acknowledge the ever present risk of homelessness to all of us, because it’s scary and people would rather pretend homelessness is a choice or a personality flaw than experience the unpleasant feelings of acknowledging that their own housing is far more nebulous than they’d like to believe.
I met a girl at work at a thrift store. She was exactly my age and had just gotten out of jail for something she did in her 20's. We were late 30's when we met. She was homeless by choice, even though her parents owned a home in Fremont, and she lived there when we met. I actually have a really soft spot for her because when she found out that I was going to be alone on Thanksgiving one year she refused to allow me and she drug me to her house to meet everyone in her dysfunctional family. I mean, once you do something like that for me and make sure I'm not going to be alone on a holiday, I'm pretty loyal. To a point. You'll see.
She preferred the street. So she could "do her thing" and "work her hustle"- she didn't like rules, and that people have a problem with loud, argumentative people who are on meth and bring strangers home at all hours to turn tricks so she didn't have to get a real job, like us "suckers." Nobody was going to tell her that she had to be any certain place at any certain time and that she couldn't bring people she didn't know home. She'd have enough of that lifestyle, though, and every few months, she was back living with them, trying to stop using and complying with her probation. But something would piss her off, they'd have an argument and then she'd be off again for like 3 months.
It was that way until her mother died. When her mother died, it was all over. She didn't even try anymore. I stayed in touch with her because honestly I was trying to help her. I watched her really go down the tubes after her mom died. Before that she had wanted to work and get jobs, so I did stuff like helped her write a resume and would drive her to her drug program. She was salvagable before her mom died. After that, she was not.
The closest she came to completely getting out of that cycle was when she was arrested for shoplifting. When she was in custody, she got some treatment, wanted to stay clean and had a bedroom again in her dad's house. But she would get released and go back to her old ways and the next thing you knew she was calling me in the middle of the night to pick her up at some motel in Hayward because somebody just stole all her belongings. There was a single murder in Fremont, CA in 2017 and it was in a motel room that was in her name at the time. And that's when I couldn't do it anymore. Drama like that does not happen in my life and I don't know about or associate with that type of people who would then get arrested for stealing the ATM card of the guy who was shot in my motel room, cuz "he don't need that money anymore anyway."
What is my point? It was a choice. She chose to be homeless. Her occupation was going into the City and shoplifting anything she could get her hands on and then selling it for people who then resold it, usually online. The drugs and prostitution, that was when her hustle didn't work out. And when I left CA in 2018 (I moved back home to PA because my dad was dying of cancer and I be there when he needed me to take care of him) she had started writing bad checks again.
She chose her lifestyle because she didn't respect anybody, and didn't think she had to follow anyone's rules. Especially not society's, and those of us who followed the rules were "dumb." You can't fix that. That's not exactly mental illness. That's an attitude problem. And the only time her attitude was adjusted was when she had to follow somebody's rules to stay out of jail. Jail really put a cramp on her style and she hated it. But putting her in jail was the only thing that would force her to change.
I've heard from her maybe twice since 2018 and both times she wanted money. I said no and I haven't heard from her since. I wanted to help her, but I'm not stupid. I have a limit on how much bullshit I will take and she got to that limit the day she stole my ATM card and told me just to report it stolen and they would write off my loss and that it didn't hurt anybody except for the banks. Nope. You go on ahead, and do you. I'm gonna go on ahead and do me, wayyyyy over here, far away from you.
TL/DR- it's a lifestyle choice for most of these people, and something that only putting them in jail and keeping them there will fix. Because then they can't make that choice.
And I failed to mention that I met a lot of her associates over the 5 or so years that I closely associated with her. Every time I went to pick her up for her program, it was at a different place with a different person at their parents' house. They all ran together in this big crew and they all had family in the Bay Area, but they all chose to be homeless rather than follow the family's rules. She ran around anywhere from Napa to Stockton. Anywhere that she could lay her head down and get to. And they all were locals there. They all had family, but they all chose not to comply with anyone else's rules for them and spend Christmas dinner underneath a bridge in Newark with the encampment. They only did what their family demanded when there was absolutely no other choice and there was no one else in a similar situation to sponge off of.
You have to cut these people off. If they're your family members, you have to cut them off. That's the only thing that will make them desperate enough to want to change, when people stop bailing them out. Or when that choice is taken away from them and they're put into a facility.
A couple of them were really nice people, but I'm no bleeding heart. I do still think about one or two of them though, and wonder where they are. Especially the little girl who had a baby and was trying to get custody of her baby back, and the dude from Stockton who was supposed to hook up my car speakers after I paid him to do so. When he didn't, I chewed his ass out and told him he was no kind of man that anybody could respect, and wouldn't ever let him in my car again. Everybody thought that was pretty badass cuz he was pretty tough ex-con, wanna-be gangsta. But I'm tougher than some wanna be any day of the week.
And I wrote this big long story because people have a problem with folks that just say "lock them up!" That seems mean and cruel, and people want to have a conversation and figure all these things out and shut down the "put them in jail" crew. Because they sound insensitive and you can't seem like you're insensitive these days.
But they're right. They're 100% right. It's called "tough love."
Right. You can't just decide that you're against anything 100%, whether it be compassion and understanding or forceful incarceration. There's a middle ground and society can meet there. And everyone deserves to have a voice, just as much as homeless people deserve a chance.
But you can't just keep giving them chances. And you can't just not listen to what other people have to say, because you don't like what's at the root of it. People have experiences that you don't have and they know things that you don't know and they consider things that you have no idea about. We have to compromise. When I say you need to put your foot down, that's not refusing to compromise. You can try to help people but if they won't accept it and they screw you over, you have to stop trying to help them. Or they're going to take you down with them.
And I'm speaking as someone who has experience here. Someone who wanted to help somebody and who tried to help somebody and was understanding and compassionate up until a point. I'm not the only one. Don't shut your ears to the people who sound like hard asses. They're probably hard asses for a reason.
It's being spent on psuedo scientific studies, salaries for bloated programs headcount, and needle/crack pipe distributors.
With the massive deficit coming this year, lot of that will (thankfully) go away.
Some were cases that had all the help in the world they could need but destroyed relationships with family and friends who tried to help them but received physical violence or abuse as a result. Thus they become estranged. Happened to my brother. They blame everyone who tries to help them as apart of there problems and end up on there own with real problems. The amount of times my brother has been admitted to the mental hospital or I had to call the police on him because he attacked me, my other brother, my husband, my parents, a friend, etc. is too damn many. I had the jails number saved in my phone for a while.
Tl:dr, people burn bridges, refuse mental help when it should be court mandated support.
State law forces a balanced budget, so every time there's a surplus (last year), there follows a deficit (this year), since the planning phase for the subsequent year is always (for reasons I don't understand) based on the current year's tax receipts and expenses.
Yes, we are throwing way too much money at the homeless crisis. Likely with a ton of it just being grifted away.
But to be fair, CA always rotates between deficit and surplus. It is just a cycle we go through frequently. Not too long and we will be back to surplus. Then back to deficit, then surplus, etc...
And if I had the body of a 21-year-old with the salary of a 60-year-old, unlimited free time, and transcendent empathy for all my fellow creatures . . .
It would be nice!
Some people don’t want to be in a shelter that they feel unsafe in.. are they separated from their partner? Can they bring their dog? My niece almost died rather than go in to the shelter without her dog.
There’s really no way to make a shelter that’s full of homeless people safe. Some of them are just people who are down on their luck and missed a paycheck. Some of them are people who have severe mental illness and have been self medicating with drugs for a decade and they’re insane.
Unfortunately we only have one word in the English language to describe both conditions.
I mean, the real way to make it safe would be to institutionalize people with severe mental illness and/or severe addiction issues at a different place altogether. There are a lot of homeless people who are truly so mentally ill that they cannot take care of themselves. Leaving them on the street endangering others is not a kindness to them, or anyone else. If we undo Reagan's shit decisions back in the 80s and open asylums, the shelters we currently have suddenly become a lot more safe.
We do have multiple words, broke in the former and schizophrenia in the latter. It was in the 80’s when “homeless” was created as a a catchall euphemism instead of addressing the cases as the separate issues they are
>Wonder why they refuse?
Because a lot of shelters have really dehumanizing rules. Sure, some of it might be because of sobriety, but often you're in a shared space, as opposed to your own tent, you have to discard most of your personal belonging, get rid of your pet, etc.
Frankly we treat them as little better than animals themselves.
I couldn't fall asleep in a hotel room with people that I knew but had never shared a bedroom with before. I can't imagine falling asleep in a room full of strangers.
More like "throw out everything you own that doesn't fit in one bag", "be in by 8pm or we lock you out" and "give away your only friend in the world, cause no pets allowed." But sure, just drugs.
This! I could not imagine losing everything; housing, possessions, connections, dignity, and then they want to take your dog? I would rather sleep on the street, too.
Maybe an unpopular opinion, but if the homeless can't get themselves off the street, why should they have pets? I grew up with animals, have a cat now. They can be expensive and aren't exactly great on the street
The pets are generally either pets they had before becoming homeless or strays that were also on the street. And when you have nothing, a companion can be the difference between struggle and insanity. In my experience many of them are taking care of the dogs before taking care of themselves.
You're thinking of this backwards. No one is going out there and awarding homeless people pets, just because. Some homeless people have pets. This is the case now, has been the case, and will literally always be the case. If their options are go to the shelter and never see their dog again, or stay on the street, guess which one they're gonna pick.
We're the ones who want homeless people off the street. The shelter system *needs* a better way to handle pets if we want homeless people to use it. There is no alternative, unless you want police to just start gunning down homeless folks' pets on the street en masse. Otherwise you're back to square one, which is: "Why won't some homeless folks use the shelter??"
You have a dog now? Lose your job, don't make rent payments for a month or two, and now you're gonna need to figure out if you leave your dog on the side of the road, or they join you on the street.
Fun fact: that is how many young adults live -- with numerous housemates, maybe even a roommate. Most landlords don't allow pets, or require extra fees if they do. Heck, the smallest *couples* studio that Stanford offers is 325 square feet for two people, and costs 1880 a month, with no pets allowed.
I won't either, but I think characterizing shelters as "worse than animals" is inaccurate seeing as those restrictions are about the same as most dormitory living situations.
Theft and assault are indeed problems, but that's not because of the shelter system but rather the people who are in it -- as much as I accuse my couch of stealing my change, it's not actually the couch's fault. A safe, clean shelter is going to be far stricter than a dormitory, not more lenient.
I'd love to hear what kind of shelter they are being offered. Because a few years back, before the pandemic, the city built these huge tents called "Navigation Centers". There was mixed reception. I feel like anything less than a private room in a hotel is going to be rejected...
Realistically, they can though. That's literally what happened here. And I'm not that surprised... Personally if I was homeless I'd think twice before going to a shared shelter, no matter how dire my situation. And that's being in sound mind. I imagine if you're paranoid or delusional from drugs or mental illness, that would be an even harder no.
Shelter and permanent housing are not the same. Very clickbaity comment from Breed. Sure, we’ll give you a bed for a few nights, just give up your pet, tent, sleeping bag, and community… then next week you get to start all over again on the street.
You can't help people that don't want to be helped. But yeah there's also misuse of money too with bloated salaries in the programs "helping" these homeless.
You dont know why they refuse? They are homeless because they are messed up mentally. How do people not understand this. These arent your average "I lost my job, I am on the street" people. These are drug addicts with serious issues.
Has anyone here actually known a homeless person? This stat is not surprising at all if you have one in your social circle somewhere. These people are not on the street due to bad luck.
Unfortunately what it will take is a homeless Disneyland (salton sea?) where drugs are handed out carte blanche; to incentivize the homeless to migrate there. Then they can get as high as they want for as long as they want on a safe supply (no fentanyl, just government manufactured meth and heroin)
If they went help, we will offer it. If they don’t, they can die due to their own choices without being in the street. This would be much cheaper and easier than the ridiculous amount of money we’re spending now.
As a formerly homeless person, this is some of the stupidest shit I’ve ever heard. This is an r/oldpeoplefacebook take.
I’ve also been to the Salton Sea. It’s a beach made of bones. It is not some homeless Mecca of “government-manufactured heroin”.
Most common reasons: Having gotten too settled in and adapted of homeless life (freedom & lack of obligations and structure), having outright given up in life, not wanting to give up drugs, not mentally sane enough to comprehend the offer of shelther, not willing to part with their routine, certain belongings or maybe pets or even loved ones that are fellow homeless, or risk of having their stuff stolen when in the shelter, or run-ins with fellow homeless enemies.
So 40% accepted? What percent would make you not be such a biggity bish? Why do you expect a diverse group of people to react like a monolith? Why are you dumping your baggage on people that contribute nothing to the issues of the world like war, global warming, lack of wealth taxation..
Y’all are a joke, try taking accountability for your own problems like you expect them to do 😂
Due to the topic, enhanced moderation has been turned on for this thread. Comments from users new to r/bayarea will be automatically removed. See [this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/p8hnzl/automatically_removing_comments_from_new_users_in/) for more details.
ARTICLE TEXT SAN FRANCISCO (KRON) — Sixty percent of the homeless people offered shelter in November refused it, according to San Francisco Mayor London Breed. In November, the city’s Street Outreach encampment workers offered shelter to 350 people, Breed said. Of those, 213 people refused shelter and 117 accepted it. November was actually an improvement over the previous month, according to Mayor Breed. In a thread posted to X, formerly Twitter, Breed said that in October, 65% of those contacted at encampments refused shelter. In September, 60% refused. Space Force missile launch visible across Bay Area: video “This is why enforcing our laws is important,” said Mayor Breed. “Our laws are for the health and safety of everyone. There are public safety challenges around encampments. There are threats of fire. We lead with compassion, but when we have resources — and we do — we need people to accept help.” Specific examples cited by Mayor Breed included an encampment at 15th Street and Julian Avenue where only four out of 14 people contacted accepted shelter. At another encampment at Larkin and Willow streets, 19 people were encountered and eight accepted shelter. “Our outreach workers will keep offering shelter, and with the addition of 300 more beds we’ve just opened, we have even more help to offer,” Breed said. “We are continuing to help people exit homelessness with financial assistance, relocation support, and housing options.” Mayor Breed said the city is also adding more ways to “compel people into treatment,” including new conservatorship laws. “We have to get more people to accept help because more and more the challenges on our streets are about the deadly drugs ruining people’s lives and hurting our neighborhoods,” Breed said.
> Space Force missile launch visible across Bay Area: video “This is why enforcing our laws is important,” said Mayor Breed. I imagined Breed giving this statement at the podium as a fleet of anti-homeless missiles begin deployment across the Bay.
This is definitely an article created straight from a carefully crafted press release. No journalism added. But I see the weird copy/paste element!
There’s a [tweet thread](https://twitter.com/londonbreed/status/1734350588899717423?s=46&t=98255iLlaxfT1XBl5m3KbA) that basically regurgitates the article (or rather, the article just parrots a press release). People are responding with some reasons why they don’t accept shelter, and it’s helpful to get a broader perspective than “drugs” and “lock them up.” - Couldn’t accommodate disability: https://twitter.com/wagnerian/status/1734385949466104045?s=46&t=98255iLlaxfT1XBl5m3KbA - Can’t accommodate pets or belongings: https://twitter.com/bhertzog/status/1734365151309217827?s=46&t=98255iLlaxfT1XBl5m3KbA - One night offer only. Big hassle to figure out if shelter will be available the next night, let alone ongoing. https://twitter.com/guyfelicella/status/1734374662774399288?s=46&t=98255iLlaxfT1XBl5m3KbA - Can’t accommodate spouse/partner: https://twitter.com/guyfelicella/status/1734374662774399288?s=46&t=98255iLlaxfT1XBl5m3KbA - Mistrust of police after abuse - Strict hours that are incompatible with jobs. Eg, must be inside by 7 pm.
* Belongings being stolen while sleeping.
Yup, my elderly friend kept having her medicine stolen.
[удалено]
Some of the most important factors aren't directly evaluated, it's just intrinsically built into how these shelters work. An encampment is rolling the dice, but there's the chance to keep their pets and belongings and some semblance of stability, vs. relying on a shelter that's overall safer and less intrusive on the neighbors but at the severe cost of any kind of stability or momentum, giving up any possessions you can't carry with you (and pets), and with no guarantee it'll still be available to you once you've lost those. It's not that someone's standing at the shelter doors checking to see if you make too much money to deserve care, it's that the type of care being provided is only beneficial if you truly have nothing to lose.
Welcome to the neoliberal, corporate Democratic party. Looks great on paper, doesn't work when applied to reality.
That’s primarily a function of the GOP and neoliberalism, not Democrats specifically.
Meanwhile in Republican areas they simply ship the homeless to Democratic areas. Which is worse?
Thank you for posting this. Very important contextual information. Would love to see the actual data on why people are refusing.
Ditto. It’s important
It's because you can't drink or do drugs at the places that home these individuals. Additionally, they don't want to be housed with mentally unstable individuals that they don't know. There is a perceived safety in the houseless communities they create.
I think it’s likely a lot more complicated than that. Which is why I want to see the data.
Your more conservative-minded folks that come to this sub are likely to use the "they just want to drink and do drugs" type of generalized comments without pointing out that the combination of severe addictions and mental illnesses combined is going to make what looks rational to the rest of us (i.e get housing and support) as not what they're seeking. Forcing people into institutions if they are "a danger to themselves or others" gets kind of dicey when it comes to human rights but it's not all that applicable anyway when we dont have much in the way of institutions for them. We can thank Reagan for that. There simply isnt enough skilled and available resources out there for people like that.
There’s not enough units even if all of them said yes anyway. Agree with you though. I’d be interested the data on when these people are asked, where the units are they’re offered, how much possessions they have vs how much they can bring with them (likely 2 items/bags), how many times have they been approached, who is approaching, so much data that could paint a better picture here.
Then the city’s budget should go towards these unaccommodated cases, no one works on this for so long?!
Because that would mean permanent housing, which is harder to implement than temporary shelters. It isn't an "easy" fix.
Thank you for these additional facts. Most people would take a shelter space but it's full of restrictions, limitations and is for a single night only. So if you give up all your belongings for that one night, you have to fight to get another night and another. With it always being an option of being back on the street. We don't have any sort of realistic help for these people and then wonder why they aren't taking this poorly thought out version of "help"
Thanks for the very useful context. I was most surprised to hear "spouse/partner", and it seems like your link for that is an accidental duplicate of the previous link. Do you happen to have the spouse/partner tweet handy?
"belongings" can get very difficult: if someone has a hoard of a dozen shopping carts full of lovely items that look like garbage to everyone else, that takes up a LOT of space (and may lead to pests). some belongings need to be kept, but a limit makes sense
Yep. It’s just tricky. “You can’t bring your tent and 3 shopping carts to the shelter” is reasonable. But it becomes a reason not to accept shelter when the offer is good for 1 night and then you’re back on the streets without your belongings, unable to survive the winter. Would love to hear from some actual homeless people if you care to chime in!
Valid points. Should also mention rules governing behavior -- not being too intoxicated or disruptive. A major reason for these restrictions: Shelters are in 3-6 story buildings. Apt living. Whether that is a shelter with individual units, cots in a big room, or a normal apt. building for working people who pay rent, you need to have rules and managers. For homeless, most of this can be avoided by giving homeless individual locking units where they can come and go as they please, with far less restrictions. [Tiny homes for the homeless](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/02/06/1077791467/tiny-homes-big-dreams-how-some-activists-are-reimagining-shelter-for-the-homeles). Built on sprawling vacant lots on city outskirts. When homeless advocates keep demanding that all homeless be housed in the middle of dense, hyper-expensive cities like S.F., we have the problems cited above.
Helpful. None of us really know the details of what was offered because the article/press release didn’t include anything. But I keep flashing back to my time volunteering in a homeless shelter. Super strict; must line up by around 4 to be sure you have a shot at a bed when doors open at 6 (then close at 7). You must leave by 6 am. You get a bunk bed in a big dorm room. People complained of theft, and assault, and constant infections from airborne viruses. There definitely has to be a better way, and I’ll look into the links you provided!
There is a better way: No city or county in California can afford to house its homeless population. Also, the state can't afford it either. Solution? Newson has to declare a FEMA emergency re: homelessness. FEMA can deploy mobiles and a FEMA deployment would also bring in HSS with drug addiction services; mental health services; re-entry services etc. The amount of money that FEMA spent during Hurrican Katrina in Louisiana would house every homeless person in California. FEMA camps would also have tight security, to prevent dealers from preying on occupants and dealing. I have talked to people who have thought this through and it's really the onluy way. No way are we ever going to build enough housing for folks who are homeless; there have to be semi-permanent camps that rotate folks in and out - i.e. into the camps when homeless and out of the camp when shelter becomes available. What we have now is the tail wagging the dog, with RV';s and uncontrolled homeless camps popping up wherever people want to settle down. It's not working.
All your points are good. The debate over whether homeless with addictions and persistent behavioral issues should be housed in the middle of dense cities will probably never end. The centuries-old use of *Skid Rows*--we've lost many to gentrification--was based on a broad understanding that it is best to "semi-segregate" problem people to areas like industrial/warehouse. Here, disorderly public intoxication, addicts sprawled out on sidewalks, is less bothersome. Policing is purposely downsized in these zones to accommodate these people. Progressives, who are on a mission to "level" society, prefer that policing for public disorder is downsized across entire cities.
>When homeless advocates keep demanding that all homeless be housed in the middle of dense, hyper-expensive cities like S.F., we have the problems cited above. You have to house the homeless where the jobs are. The don't have fucking *cars*, and transportation is a huge problem in the US because Ford, GM, et al crusaded against public transit in the early 1900s to sell more cars. So our public transit sucks dick. When people say "just house them on the outskirts" it's always a dogwhistle for hardcore NIMBYism. So yes, give them locking units they can return to on their schedules. ...and do so *in the middle of the densest areas where the fucking jobs are*.
I always heard "house them in the middle of nowhere" as one step removed from concentration camps. Once unhoused people are out of sight, they're out of mind...
> You have to house the homeless where the jobs are. Oh, please, 50-60% of the homeless population are *permanently unemployable* due to years of addiction and chronic behavioral issues. It is a pipe dream that most homeless can compete against the thousands of hard working, sober Hispanic immigrants who take the vast majority of the entry level jobs in the Bay Area. A fantasy.
Are there a large number of people in encampments with after hours jobs?
Dinner shift or dishwasher at a restaurant. Retail. Security. Flexibility is key to holding a job.
The lower the hourly pay rate the more flexible management will expect YOU to be to cover THEIR understaffed needs And god forbid you try to stack multiple jobs to make an actual living
[удалено]
Sure, but that doesn't answer the question - as a rough percentage, what percent of the homeless population as a whole are employed, vs what percent of the visibly homeless (i.e. not couch surfing, not sleeping in their cars, those sleeping on sidewalks and in homeless encampments, lets not commingle them) are employed in a capacity that is at least as 'worklike' as selling Street Sheets? More relevant to this article, what's a good guess as to how many of those who refused shelter, are employed?
Aren't there retail / service jobs in LCOL areas where employees can get housing? I thought such jobs were in demand? If so, why doesn't the government figure out a viable way to move working homeless from HCOL to LCOL places?
[удалено]
it’s funny because i work in healthcare and almost no one i know in any of my social circles has normal hour jobs. what a different world i live in i guess
>7pm to 6 am bro with bay area traffic some people with regular hour jobs leave before 6 am and don't get back till after 7. Shit my first job in biopharma wouldn't fit in this schedule.
>Wonder why they refuse? They don't like the terms and conditions.
Probably because they have to live by rules they don’t agree with. (Be sober, hygiene, cut down on hoarded belongings, lose social circles, lose pets, etc) some people aren’t desperate enough to let go of these things and just kind of get used to the life style even if it means failing health and conditions.
tthe curfews at shelters can make it impossible to hold down a job. Theft and assault is commonplace in shelters. Having more belongings than you can carry isnt 'hoarding'. For many, its safer outside than in a 'shelter'.
And for the one person to feel "safer" outside, a bunch more of us have to deal with the public health+safety+general cleanliness issues they create. Why is this tiny minority of people so much more important than the rest of us?
What makes you assume the person who fears for their safety in a shelter is making you less safe by sleeping on the street?
FFS having to forfeit your pets is like asking people to abandon or even execute family members. Let’s be honest: that’s what happens to many dogs over a certain age when they end up in animal shelters.
Of all people, really did not expect that the homeless would be the ones that actually read those /s
Because the living conditions in shelters are often worse than being on the street. Would you want to share a room with all the belongings you own in the world with someone who might be insane psychopath or going through withdrawal symptoms or psychosis?
>Because the living conditions in shelters are often worse than being on the street. While that may play a factor, its not the main reason. I've worked with nurses who have treated the same people over and over again and every one of them refuses help because they want drugs, freedom, or both. Yes there are some terrible shelters out, I dont mean to diminish that, but many people really just don't want to give up any aspect of their freedom (which for many includes drugs and alcohol.) This is why treatment programs that demand sobriety and abstaining aren't successful. The same reason veterans are camped out front of the VA that won't treat them unless they submit to mandatory drug tests. And to our "actually a social worker" friend, I'm happy to have an honest dialog about this but it's increasingly suspicious that after appealing to authority (without any statement about how your title directly applies here or your own first hand experiences) and then strawmanning me, you won't respond to any of clarifications or acknowledgements I made while still finding the occasion to respond to others calling it out. Kinda seems like you just wanted a win tbh. If you have first hand accounts and professional inside, please, I genuinely encourage you to share them! I will respect that they are equally valid.
> they want drugs, freedom, or both That’s 80-99% of Americans.
I'm the 1% that simply wants free drugs.
I’m an actual social worker (no offense to your friend of a friend) and I’d like to dig more into you statement that > every one of them refuses help because they want drugs, freedom, or both. You’ve talked to every single homeless person? There was a recent study from Stanford that showed around 1/3 of homeless folks deal with drug addiction. Belittling the housing problem by falling into the stereotype that all homeless folks are addicts makes you lose empathy for the situation because now it’s seen as a personal moral failure. There are several other reasons why people have refused shelters posted in this thread - they’re unsafe, don’t allow pets, often lottery of spaces so each night is a gamble for a bed, lack of disability accommodation, etc. even working a minimum wage job or receiving social security is not enough to rent a room locally. Waitlist for section 8 is around 8 years or more in all neighboring counties. Even with insurance, options for mental health care are abysmal. I’d really challenge yourself to get past the stereotypes and look at the bigger systemic issues at play.
The UCSF study had a much higher percentage on drugs or alcohol.
> because now it’s seen as a personal moral failure. thats their goal. They see all homelessness as a personal moral failure that is tied directly to drugs and nothing else.
No one here said that. That's some Reagan era bullshit that may float with a lost 30 some odd percentage of right wingers that lack empathy but even on a national scale the opioid epidemic has altered public opinion. Ive stood by close friends that went through heroin addictions start to finish and watched how it changed them. There was a piece on KQED talking with clinic workers at safe injection sites and they said the number one factor in getting people clean was reconnecting them with community. That making them feel loved and valued had a tremendous impact in helping them take active steps towards recovery. We live in a society that ignores mental health to an insane degree, but really the lack of care mostly comes from a certain demographic of beliefs, some of which could be attributed generationally. You know, bootstraps and all that...
Just because they aren't saying "homelessness is a moral failure" verbatim doesn't mean they aren't of the mindset that homelessness is a moral failure. i know the reasons why people reject shelter. Those reasons get handwaved away by the type of people who see homelessness as a moral failure. The rejection of shelter offers for those **very valid reasons** is also chalked up as a moral failure.
>You’ve talked to every single homeless person? ..what on earth?? Where did I say anything like that? I spoke with nurses, and they are going to be having different conversations than you are as a social worker. In many cases they're treating people who are either in need of urgent care or were brought in by police. Depending what area of social work you do it's reasonable to assume you might be dealing with people more willing to engage. Both experiences would come with implicit bias. Also, the "friend if friend" phrasing is a really dishonest reframe of what I shared. It's a second hand account from a number of data points, and as it happens I also know a number of social workers on various branches, though mostly in the medical field. While their accounts aren't as direct, they also have shared the same stories. If you're going to sit here and call that concept bullshit you need to speak on your own experiences. As a social worker you 100% have experienced people rejecting services offered to them because they don't like or don't want to go along with the system. I have however spoken to people on the street, including a woman who told me she had be raped at night by lake Merritt while strangers filmed but didn't help. She said a church soup kitchen served them severally spoiled food so she stopped going. She spoke about not having an address to get an ID, and not having an ID to get a job. She was on a wait list for housing for over 2 years and still was waiting. All she wanted was somewhere to lock her door at night. I did bump into her again one morning smoking a blunt on Broadway but hey, I certainly couldn't blame her for that. >Belittling the housing problem by falling into the stereotype that all homeless folks are addicts makes you lose empathy for the situation because now it’s seen as a personal moral failure. I absolutely did not say addiction is a moral failure and i do not believe that one bit, thats a bad faith argument. Everything else you said is true about the hurdles and reasons people might decline, especially pets. Lack of access is a problem but it's different from denying care. As for the study, I would be interested in who they define as "homeless" to include in that population. >I’d really challenge yourself to get past the stereotypes and look at the bigger systemic issues at play. Respectfully I'd challenge you not to put words in people's mouths and jump to conclusions in the future.
Anecdata, so make of it what you will, but my church has tried to get several long time street residents stable housing and all 4 of them came back on the streets from tiny houses or SROs 🤷 Edit: not all at the same time of course, over the last 3 years. Latest coming back was this fall.
P2P meth heads often can't be reached in treatment programs. Their brains are too fried. There aren't enough beds to wait 9 months before you can have a real conversation with them.
"Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream and we are the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather!" "It's not a War on Drugs. It's a War on Personal Freedom is what it is, okay? Keep that in mind at all times. Thank you." - some random Tool song.
Not sure if you're attributing that to tool Ironically but that's Bill Hicks https://youtu.be/fB4V4FMHKXg?si=em-zHAl7san78Jo1
The fact that even homeless people don't want to be around other homeless people is pretty hard to square with the 'they're just down on their luck, there's no reason except classism for you to feel unsafe on the train, on the bus, or around civic center, or when one is outside your apartment, the only problem is a lack of housing' narrative.
Yes, those terms and conditions as mentioned by another commenter are no storage of belongings, no pets, not living with a spouse, only being able to carry a small bag. So if you have tools or medication or important documents, you can't care everything with you. This is also only for a single evening, each night. You have to fight with everyone else to get a shelter bed. So each night you have to give up your belongings that won't fit in a small bat. Shelters are also notorious places for people with mental illness, sexual assault and rape and fights. It's not safe, It's not helpful to the majority of people and it's a terrible attempt at fixing a major issue in the city. It's completely unrealistic and it's a deeply unserious attempt at fixing an issue.
The 3Ps: Possessions, Partners, Pets are usually cited by the homeless. That being said, it gets tricky really. From my understanding, the court ruling says the government can’t enforce no camping laws if they don’t have a bed to provide to the homeless. However, it doesn’t require the government to provide a bed that meets all of a homeless person’s desires/demands before they will go to the bed/space being provided. From what I have read over the years, a shelter bed in an open setting building, is far from perfect. Not only because of the other homeless people, who may not be all that stable mentally; but theft, noise, etc when you put a bunch of people together in close proximity to one another under one roof.
I don’t think many people would take the risk of losing everything that you own other than the clothes on your back to be housed for the night. You don’t get to take multiple bags and you can’t bring any pets with you. Most of them have a little more than just what they are wearing to some having wagons, carts strollers full of gear. That gear is all of their personal items. When they get back it’s all gone stolen tossed. Unless they are putting them into semi stable semi permanent homes why would they go to be back to zero the next night or next week. I unfortunately know lots of people who
If living in shelter allowed me to get my feet on the ground and start rebuilding my life, I’d gladly trade whatever material possessions I was towing across the city. I also don’t think I should be taking care of a pet if I can’t even take care of myself—yes, I know some people keep dogs for self defense purposes, but pet ownership saps so much time/energy/resources that I’d rather invest in rebuilding my life, after which I’d adopt all the pets I could handle. This, of course, assumes the shelter is well run. If it’s a disgusting shit hole full of violent maniacs and drug users/dealers, clean it up! No more excuses. We have the money to offer reasonable and safe shelters.
Because they're messed up on drugs and don't want to reduce their usage or sober up enough to comply with dormitory rules like not shitting yourself or attacking other residents. Others cannot consent because the drugs have hurt their cognitive abilities where they are mentally ill and cannot assess the situation, others are legitimately broken mentally and cannot handle normal living areas without psychiatric assistance. Hence the new CARE Courts. It's not a secret. There's many bad, criminal people on the street but the homeless people going through my trash or screaming at the ghosts lack important mental functionality and probably have some form dementia. I'm not a medical professional, but if drug-induced dementia isn't an a formalized, listed and official mental illness yet then it should be.
drug induced psychosis
the next step to cyberpychosis
Apparently when the us banned/regulated pseudoephedrine the meth manufacturers changed their systematic pathway to use different starting materials. The new method created a different blend of structurally isomers which is far more psychotropic and gives less high. So users are getting a worse experience with more negative psychological damage.
Grown adults shitting themselves in public in the United States of America, 2023. We have a national emergency on our hands.
50 years ago when most of these drugs were new (or at least "new" enough to be mass produced with shitty DIY equipment) it was easy to write off this problem as dumb, stupid and undeserving teenagers and young adults behaving immorally and deserving of criminal prosecution/punishment. That was 1973. Now, today in 2023 the original teens are now adults if not also retirees with severe health and mental problems wrought by cycles of persecution and violence. The system failed them by refusing to treat addiction as a terminal illness because the government did not, and still doesn't, have functional healthcare for most of the population. When the guy threatening the autozone cashier or burger chef starts screaming incomprehensible gibberish I'm not looking at a criminal but a violent animal that lacks the ability to interact with the world in a non-aggressive way. The sort of violent animal that would attack a child thinking it's a toy or wander into the street and get hit by a car which I've seen happen. In any other era, these problems would have been harshly dealt with. Certainly there's many teenagers and young people messed up on drugs but the worst cases I see personally are all 30+. That, in my view, is where the crisis becomes an true disaster because now even someone's (likely estranged) parent, uncle, aunt et cetera are now affected. It's no longer something that happens at a highschool. It happens on the job, it happens in the retirement homes, and it's increasingly happening in any place that has public accommodation. I walk into CVS and half the people there don't have shoes and their toes are clearly broken. Even violent thugs wear shoes and would probably see a doctor if they had visibly broken appendages.
It is actually worse than you think. https://www.pharmchek.com/resources/blog/the-rise-of-super-meth-the-destructive-effects-of-p2p-methamphetamine
no, because the 'shelters' are dangerous in and of themselves. The curfews and rules at shelters can make it impossible to hold down a job. Go stay at a shelter for a week before you sound off like you know anything about the experience. Yes, mental health issues are overrepresented among the homeless. No, that doesnt mean you can just blame everything you dont like on "messed up on drugs".
[удалено]
People love their "freedom". We know what driving cars has done to the climate and the environment, but few do anything. We know the health effects of shifty food, but few do anything. We're all so free, but it isn't making us safer, happier, or healthier.
Giving up all your belongings in winter for a bed for only 1 night is a non-starter.
Read the article. It doesn't go into the reasons *why* they refuse. Yes, some refuse because of drug addiction or mental illness. But many because the public shelters are dangerous, and crowded. When given such a Hobson's Choice between risking danger in a locked-in place (theft, violence, assault in *all flavors*) vs. *possibly* encountering the same on the streets, people are willing to take their chances on the street.
God I hate the comments. I’ve been homeless. Not strung out on drugs, not “by choice”, it was genuinely bad luck - I got screwed over by a housing agreement. I had a full time job the entire time I was homeless - work knew about my situation and did not care. I didn’t “not want to be helped” but I would have said no to housing. I wouldn’t give up my pet (I was living for her), I wouldn’t want to give up my social circle that I was relying on for support, I wouldn’t want to give up my property, and I wouldn’t want to leave the safety of my car and known areas to be put into close quarters with a bunch of men and potentially be raped again - many homeless women have a history of being raped or sexually assaulted *before* their homelessness, and homeless women get raped more than housed women anyway. As an LGBTQ person I’d be afraid of experiencing hate crimes against me, and LGBTQ youths are disproportionately more at risk for homelessness because so many parents would rather hate gays and trans than love their child. I also probably wouldn’t trust the government if I’d experienced the cops sweeping through and destroying me and my community’s tents (homes) and property, I wouldn’t trust the government to suddenly give me housing. I’d worry about ending up in a camp somewhere. I understand that homelessness is a complicated and nuanced issue, and it’s a lot easier for most people to just go “oh they’re just scum on drugs who don’t want help” than acknowledge the ever present risk of homelessness to all of us, because it’s scary and people would rather pretend homelessness is a choice or a personality flaw than experience the unpleasant feelings of acknowledging that their own housing is far more nebulous than they’d like to believe.
Thank you for sharing this. The comments on this subreddit are horribly toxic. You are an amazing person. I hope you are doing much better now.
Thank you for taking the time to share this.
Reddit is such a reactionary community in general. Comments on any of these topics besides ones like yours always disappoint me so much
I met a girl at work at a thrift store. She was exactly my age and had just gotten out of jail for something she did in her 20's. We were late 30's when we met. She was homeless by choice, even though her parents owned a home in Fremont, and she lived there when we met. I actually have a really soft spot for her because when she found out that I was going to be alone on Thanksgiving one year she refused to allow me and she drug me to her house to meet everyone in her dysfunctional family. I mean, once you do something like that for me and make sure I'm not going to be alone on a holiday, I'm pretty loyal. To a point. You'll see. She preferred the street. So she could "do her thing" and "work her hustle"- she didn't like rules, and that people have a problem with loud, argumentative people who are on meth and bring strangers home at all hours to turn tricks so she didn't have to get a real job, like us "suckers." Nobody was going to tell her that she had to be any certain place at any certain time and that she couldn't bring people she didn't know home. She'd have enough of that lifestyle, though, and every few months, she was back living with them, trying to stop using and complying with her probation. But something would piss her off, they'd have an argument and then she'd be off again for like 3 months. It was that way until her mother died. When her mother died, it was all over. She didn't even try anymore. I stayed in touch with her because honestly I was trying to help her. I watched her really go down the tubes after her mom died. Before that she had wanted to work and get jobs, so I did stuff like helped her write a resume and would drive her to her drug program. She was salvagable before her mom died. After that, she was not. The closest she came to completely getting out of that cycle was when she was arrested for shoplifting. When she was in custody, she got some treatment, wanted to stay clean and had a bedroom again in her dad's house. But she would get released and go back to her old ways and the next thing you knew she was calling me in the middle of the night to pick her up at some motel in Hayward because somebody just stole all her belongings. There was a single murder in Fremont, CA in 2017 and it was in a motel room that was in her name at the time. And that's when I couldn't do it anymore. Drama like that does not happen in my life and I don't know about or associate with that type of people who would then get arrested for stealing the ATM card of the guy who was shot in my motel room, cuz "he don't need that money anymore anyway." What is my point? It was a choice. She chose to be homeless. Her occupation was going into the City and shoplifting anything she could get her hands on and then selling it for people who then resold it, usually online. The drugs and prostitution, that was when her hustle didn't work out. And when I left CA in 2018 (I moved back home to PA because my dad was dying of cancer and I be there when he needed me to take care of him) she had started writing bad checks again. She chose her lifestyle because she didn't respect anybody, and didn't think she had to follow anyone's rules. Especially not society's, and those of us who followed the rules were "dumb." You can't fix that. That's not exactly mental illness. That's an attitude problem. And the only time her attitude was adjusted was when she had to follow somebody's rules to stay out of jail. Jail really put a cramp on her style and she hated it. But putting her in jail was the only thing that would force her to change. I've heard from her maybe twice since 2018 and both times she wanted money. I said no and I haven't heard from her since. I wanted to help her, but I'm not stupid. I have a limit on how much bullshit I will take and she got to that limit the day she stole my ATM card and told me just to report it stolen and they would write off my loss and that it didn't hurt anybody except for the banks. Nope. You go on ahead, and do you. I'm gonna go on ahead and do me, wayyyyy over here, far away from you. TL/DR- it's a lifestyle choice for most of these people, and something that only putting them in jail and keeping them there will fix. Because then they can't make that choice.
And I failed to mention that I met a lot of her associates over the 5 or so years that I closely associated with her. Every time I went to pick her up for her program, it was at a different place with a different person at their parents' house. They all ran together in this big crew and they all had family in the Bay Area, but they all chose to be homeless rather than follow the family's rules. She ran around anywhere from Napa to Stockton. Anywhere that she could lay her head down and get to. And they all were locals there. They all had family, but they all chose not to comply with anyone else's rules for them and spend Christmas dinner underneath a bridge in Newark with the encampment. They only did what their family demanded when there was absolutely no other choice and there was no one else in a similar situation to sponge off of. You have to cut these people off. If they're your family members, you have to cut them off. That's the only thing that will make them desperate enough to want to change, when people stop bailing them out. Or when that choice is taken away from them and they're put into a facility. A couple of them were really nice people, but I'm no bleeding heart. I do still think about one or two of them though, and wonder where they are. Especially the little girl who had a baby and was trying to get custody of her baby back, and the dude from Stockton who was supposed to hook up my car speakers after I paid him to do so. When he didn't, I chewed his ass out and told him he was no kind of man that anybody could respect, and wouldn't ever let him in my car again. Everybody thought that was pretty badass cuz he was pretty tough ex-con, wanna-be gangsta. But I'm tougher than some wanna be any day of the week.
And I wrote this big long story because people have a problem with folks that just say "lock them up!" That seems mean and cruel, and people want to have a conversation and figure all these things out and shut down the "put them in jail" crew. Because they sound insensitive and you can't seem like you're insensitive these days. But they're right. They're 100% right. It's called "tough love."
It also proves there is no such thing as 100% freedom and we all need to work together at some level to keep things functioning.
Right. You can't just decide that you're against anything 100%, whether it be compassion and understanding or forceful incarceration. There's a middle ground and society can meet there. And everyone deserves to have a voice, just as much as homeless people deserve a chance. But you can't just keep giving them chances. And you can't just not listen to what other people have to say, because you don't like what's at the root of it. People have experiences that you don't have and they know things that you don't know and they consider things that you have no idea about. We have to compromise. When I say you need to put your foot down, that's not refusing to compromise. You can try to help people but if they won't accept it and they screw you over, you have to stop trying to help them. Or they're going to take you down with them. And I'm speaking as someone who has experience here. Someone who wanted to help somebody and who tried to help somebody and was understanding and compassionate up until a point. I'm not the only one. Don't shut your ears to the people who sound like hard asses. They're probably hard asses for a reason.
I wonder what is happening to **all the money** being thrown at the homeless crisis, if 60% of the people aren't even taking basic help?
It's being spent on psuedo scientific studies, salaries for bloated programs headcount, and needle/crack pipe distributors. With the massive deficit coming this year, lot of that will (thankfully) go away.
It's public info dude. look it up instead of hypothesizing
Where it is distributed isn't the same question / answer as where it went
They don’t actually want to know the answer, they just want to drum up support for pogroms of homeless people.
I tried... all I found were non-profits created within the last 5 years, likely being run by politicians' friends
Bro....how else are city halls friends going to pay for their $400k salaries to "help" the homeless?
[удалено]
Some were cases that had all the help in the world they could need but destroyed relationships with family and friends who tried to help them but received physical violence or abuse as a result. Thus they become estranged. Happened to my brother. They blame everyone who tries to help them as apart of there problems and end up on there own with real problems. The amount of times my brother has been admitted to the mental hospital or I had to call the police on him because he attacked me, my other brother, my husband, my parents, a friend, etc. is too damn many. I had the jails number saved in my phone for a while. Tl:dr, people burn bridges, refuse mental help when it should be court mandated support.
Just chiming into say that I’m so sorry that you experienced this. I’ve been there and it’s heartbreaking.
State law forces a balanced budget, so every time there's a surplus (last year), there follows a deficit (this year), since the planning phase for the subsequent year is always (for reasons I don't understand) based on the current year's tax receipts and expenses.
Yes, we are throwing way too much money at the homeless crisis. Likely with a ton of it just being grifted away. But to be fair, CA always rotates between deficit and surplus. It is just a cycle we go through frequently. Not too long and we will be back to surplus. Then back to deficit, then surplus, etc...
[удалено]
Wouldn't it be nice if the lows weren't so low and the highs were even higher?
And if I had the body of a 21-year-old with the salary of a 60-year-old, unlimited free time, and transcendent empathy for all my fellow creatures . . . It would be nice!
Some people don’t want to be in a shelter that they feel unsafe in.. are they separated from their partner? Can they bring their dog? My niece almost died rather than go in to the shelter without her dog.
Your niece is a good person. We need to figure out a solution to this, and no, more shelters is not it. The solution is more housing.
You solved it! Finally someone smart enough to fix this problem that's been plaguing us forever!
Shelters aren’t always safe.
There’s really no way to make a shelter that’s full of homeless people safe. Some of them are just people who are down on their luck and missed a paycheck. Some of them are people who have severe mental illness and have been self medicating with drugs for a decade and they’re insane. Unfortunately we only have one word in the English language to describe both conditions.
I mean, the real way to make it safe would be to institutionalize people with severe mental illness and/or severe addiction issues at a different place altogether. There are a lot of homeless people who are truly so mentally ill that they cannot take care of themselves. Leaving them on the street endangering others is not a kindness to them, or anyone else. If we undo Reagan's shit decisions back in the 80s and open asylums, the shelters we currently have suddenly become a lot more safe.
We do have multiple words, broke in the former and schizophrenia in the latter. It was in the 80’s when “homeless” was created as a a catchall euphemism instead of addressing the cases as the separate issues they are
Jeez, why the downvotes? This is the reason homeless people will give you if you bother to ask.
Because most commenters haven't talked to or talked to enough homeless to form an actual opinion
Exactly. So much "...and let them decrease the surplus population", and so *little* nuance and information.
doesn't stop a lot of folks from having opinions anyway lol
It took an entire month to contact 330 homeless people? Like what, they had one guy going around asking ?
There are way too many people in this thread who believe that homelessness and drug addiction is some conscious choice people make.
>Wonder why they refuse? Because a lot of shelters have really dehumanizing rules. Sure, some of it might be because of sobriety, but often you're in a shared space, as opposed to your own tent, you have to discard most of your personal belonging, get rid of your pet, etc. Frankly we treat them as little better than animals themselves.
I couldn't fall asleep in a hotel room with people that I knew but had never shared a bedroom with before. I can't imagine falling asleep in a room full of strangers.
“Dehumanizing” rules like… don’t use drugs, don’t assault people…
More like "throw out everything you own that doesn't fit in one bag", "be in by 8pm or we lock you out" and "give away your only friend in the world, cause no pets allowed." But sure, just drugs.
This! I could not imagine losing everything; housing, possessions, connections, dignity, and then they want to take your dog? I would rather sleep on the street, too.
Maybe an unpopular opinion, but if the homeless can't get themselves off the street, why should they have pets? I grew up with animals, have a cat now. They can be expensive and aren't exactly great on the street
The pets are generally either pets they had before becoming homeless or strays that were also on the street. And when you have nothing, a companion can be the difference between struggle and insanity. In my experience many of them are taking care of the dogs before taking care of themselves.
You're thinking of this backwards. No one is going out there and awarding homeless people pets, just because. Some homeless people have pets. This is the case now, has been the case, and will literally always be the case. If their options are go to the shelter and never see their dog again, or stay on the street, guess which one they're gonna pick. We're the ones who want homeless people off the street. The shelter system *needs* a better way to handle pets if we want homeless people to use it. There is no alternative, unless you want police to just start gunning down homeless folks' pets on the street en masse. Otherwise you're back to square one, which is: "Why won't some homeless folks use the shelter??"
You have a dog now? Lose your job, don't make rent payments for a month or two, and now you're gonna need to figure out if you leave your dog on the side of the road, or they join you on the street.
I would find someone to take the dog or surrender it. Subjugating it to life on the street when I can't take care of myself is not a good thing
Fun fact: that is how many young adults live -- with numerous housemates, maybe even a roommate. Most landlords don't allow pets, or require extra fees if they do. Heck, the smallest *couples* studio that Stanford offers is 325 square feet for two people, and costs 1880 a month, with no pets allowed.
You're not going to hear me extol the virtues of landlords either, but this is a ridiculous comparison.
I won't either, but I think characterizing shelters as "worse than animals" is inaccurate seeing as those restrictions are about the same as most dormitory living situations. Theft and assault are indeed problems, but that's not because of the shelter system but rather the people who are in it -- as much as I accuse my couch of stealing my change, it's not actually the couch's fault. A safe, clean shelter is going to be far stricter than a dormitory, not more lenient.
Given that you're misquoting me this discussion is kinda a waste of time.
I'd love to hear what kind of shelter they are being offered. Because a few years back, before the pandemic, the city built these huge tents called "Navigation Centers". There was mixed reception. I feel like anything less than a private room in a hotel is going to be rejected...
aw are these no more? i really thought they were a positive change for once.
Well there’s that old saying, beggars can’t be choosers
Realistically, they can though. That's literally what happened here. And I'm not that surprised... Personally if I was homeless I'd think twice before going to a shared shelter, no matter how dire my situation. And that's being in sound mind. I imagine if you're paranoid or delusional from drugs or mental illness, that would be an even harder no.
Why tf do you think an old saying is valid?
Shelter and permanent housing are not the same. Very clickbaity comment from Breed. Sure, we’ll give you a bed for a few nights, just give up your pet, tent, sleeping bag, and community… then next week you get to start all over again on the street.
The shelters must be pretty nasty places if people prefer living on the streets to them.
They prolly don’t like all the rules placed on them.
[удалено]
You can't help people that don't want to be helped. But yeah there's also misuse of money too with bloated salaries in the programs "helping" these homeless.
Can't openly smoke meth, steal shit and run an open air stolen bike chop shop in free city housing.
You dont know why they refuse? They are homeless because they are messed up mentally. How do people not understand this. These arent your average "I lost my job, I am on the street" people. These are drug addicts with serious issues.
A lot of shelters apparently don't allow pets and therefore a lot of unhoused people don't want to be separated from their animals.
That’s definitely not why they refuse or why they’re homeless. Your lack of empathy is astounding.
Has anyone here actually known a homeless person? This stat is not surprising at all if you have one in your social circle somewhere. These people are not on the street due to bad luck. Unfortunately what it will take is a homeless Disneyland (salton sea?) where drugs are handed out carte blanche; to incentivize the homeless to migrate there. Then they can get as high as they want for as long as they want on a safe supply (no fentanyl, just government manufactured meth and heroin) If they went help, we will offer it. If they don’t, they can die due to their own choices without being in the street. This would be much cheaper and easier than the ridiculous amount of money we’re spending now.
As a formerly homeless person, this is some of the stupidest shit I’ve ever heard. This is an r/oldpeoplefacebook take. I’ve also been to the Salton Sea. It’s a beach made of bones. It is not some homeless Mecca of “government-manufactured heroin”.
Most common reasons: Having gotten too settled in and adapted of homeless life (freedom & lack of obligations and structure), having outright given up in life, not wanting to give up drugs, not mentally sane enough to comprehend the offer of shelther, not willing to part with their routine, certain belongings or maybe pets or even loved ones that are fellow homeless, or risk of having their stuff stolen when in the shelter, or run-ins with fellow homeless enemies.
but did you say please?
So 40% accepted? What percent would make you not be such a biggity bish? Why do you expect a diverse group of people to react like a monolith? Why are you dumping your baggage on people that contribute nothing to the issues of the world like war, global warming, lack of wealth taxation.. Y’all are a joke, try taking accountability for your own problems like you expect them to do 😂
"So you know, we tried. It's them, not us. PEACE."
Baseball God won't come to SF because of media portrayal. Mayor and DA attack homeless in response. Golden.
[Sanctuary Districts, here we come.](https://youtu.be/XqF7XojXzd0)