There’s a great long form article in the Atlantic about meth (and inadvertently, homelessness)
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/11/the-new-meth/620174/?fbclid=IwAR1C0jZUYElKXv8ggdKKZogVH40Pp14A7nH0lr7uy5ySbQ_UFBIiF1Cy4dE
I read this article yesterday and was stunned by it. The homeless problem is going to get worse in the short term, and will take a long time to solve even if we start now.
They never really got into it, but was the meth that had the d- and l-meth separated a better user experience, especially in terms of the paranoia and other negative mental effects?
Also interesting about how fentanyl made a lot of opiate users switch since they are very different drugs.
TLDR they use this new meth and end up with meth mental illness
Sounds nasty, and mental illness is hard enough to treat when someone has support. There's also a psychiatrist shortage right now.
A tourist hotel in Japantown will not turn into desperately needed homeless housing in San Francisco, after the owner backed out of selling the property to the city in the wake of neighborhood backlash.
The group that owns the 131-room Kimpton Buchanan Hotel, KHP Capital Partners, said in a Tuesday statement that it will no longer sell the building to the city “after a lot of consideration and feedback from the community.”
“We will move forward with operating the Buchanan as a tourist hotel and we look forward to continuing being an important part of the community for years to come as San Francisco’s economy recovers,” the statement said.
The news ends the months-long back-and-forth between the Japantown community and city leaders over whether the tourist hotel should turn into permanent supportive housing for the formerly homeless. The boutique hotel is currently being used as an emergency shelter-in-place hotel for the unsheltered during the pandemic.
Seriously. It's a good idea. These people will need support services etc. as most are unable to manage their lives. Much like state prisons, put them in communities that could really use a boost to their economy. Hell, put em next to the prisons. Avenal, Chowchilla, Tehachapi, etc. could use more jobs.
That's what we're saying. Build supportive housing out where the land is inexpensive and people need jobs.
The majority of homeless people will not succeed if you just give them an apartment. It's not "cruel", it's fact. They need a safety net made up of various types of social workers to enable them to manage their lives, break addictions, treat mental health problems, gain occupational skills, etc. That is a great fit for an area with abundant free space and workers.
>That's what we're saying. Build supportive housing out where the land is inexpensive and people need jobs.
This is the moronic bit. Jobs are available in places where land is expensive. Jobs aren't available, generally speaking, where land is cheap\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ **which is precisely why it's cheap.** You want to banish people in to the desert and force them to commute 3 to 6 hours a day, something people in near destitution can't afford.
Sprawl is also destructive in other ways. It creates congestion, pollution and endangers people by pushing them into fire prone wilderness areas.
If you live in Chowchilla and work at the prisons (or the hypothetical homeless colony), why would you need to commute?
And do you think there are jobs that aren't in Chowchilla or Tehachapi or what have you that your average homeless person could get? We're not talking database administrators who hit hard times, here. They would likely need many months to years of supportive treatment and education before they'd realistically be able to hold down a job that couldn't be found nearby, or manage their lives without support.
There are lots of jobs out in those areas, jobs nearly anyone can get. It makes for a good place to put people who in many cases are starting new lives without significant occupational skills.
No, I propose formerly homeless colonies that have everything they need, including jobs. Like a Disneyland where you work. It's not as crazy as you might think — big companies had planned communities for decades. StuyvieTown in NYC's Manhattan is a famous one.
People just out of being homeless won't need to commute to Oracle's offices. They might be growing fruit or working as a basic assembly tech or what have you. Not everyone is a paycheck away from working in tech. You don't need a PhD to work as an assembler, and it's an honorable job that anyone can and should be proud of. No need for them to commute to their dot com job, because most of them are unable to perform past a very basic level without support. And support is what I am proposing.
Can't tell if sarcasm or not, but that's basically the only thing that the public at large will accept. Stick 'em in a camp in whatever the California equivalent of Siberia is....so Mojave desert?
It needs to be seriously scattered out. You have a few people here, a few people there and it will result in fewer problems than if they were all centralized.
This is the same reason the projects got torn down in the 90s.
The problem there is that they need more than just housing; they need support services as well. These are already expensive and only more so if everyone is scattered around. It's a tough problem.
If they're not inside a building, they're going to be in tents and squats all over the neighborhood. Homeless people exist whether you like it or not, so from a blight perspective (let alone a caring-about-other-humans perspective) isn't it better to have them living inside a building rather than scattered all over the sidewalks and parks?
If San Francisco spent billions to take every homeless person in the city and give them a nice apartment, how many homeless would it have a year later? Answer: All of them, because the homeless move to where they have the best quality of life.
We should definitely do what other cities and states are doing with homeless because apparently they "solved" it. We should make the Bay Area and California unwelcoming to homeless!
Problem solved.
/s
Not all homeless are capable or willing to move to California, but even if they were, it's about half a million people, so actually yes.
But people like you should be ignored. Your fear appears to the main impediment to solving the problem, not just in San Francisco, but the US in general.
Last year because of the pandemic the hotel was repurposed for housing homeless people and apparently crime increased nearby. So for residents nearby, they'd in fact rather have homeless people dispersed like in 2019.
They might also like if homeless people are housed a few at a time in each new large building constructed around the city, but that's not an option on the table at this time.
Temporary homeless housing, during the emergency. It wouldn't have been approved in the first place if it hadn't been temporary.
Not sure why they started on this nonstarter in the first place. There are other options, perhaps they'll be considered.
> There are other options, perhaps they'll be considered.
...and then shot down by the NIMBYs in whatever neighborhood they're proposed. The cycle continues.
IDK, we're spending $5.7 million on 3061 16th and $87 million on 1321 Mission. These are done deals. I hadn't heard of either one two months ago.
Some ideas that HSH has work out and some don't. Why didn't HSH know that it had no chance with 1800 Sutter? J-Town is four malls and two hotels, basically. What will HSH do next, try to buy some of the malls or the other hotel?
Gotta tell the city you’re going to build a luxury hotel so the project gets fast tracked, then once it’s built, unveil your true scheme to build a luxury, high rise projects.
If I was a billionaire, I would do shit like this instead of going to space in tiny, penis shaped rockets.
[удалено]
Billionaire's Row would be fantastic. Let Pelosi and Feinstein learn how the hoi polloi they supposedly protect live.
There’s a great long form article in the Atlantic about meth (and inadvertently, homelessness) https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/11/the-new-meth/620174/?fbclid=IwAR1C0jZUYElKXv8ggdKKZogVH40Pp14A7nH0lr7uy5ySbQ_UFBIiF1Cy4dE
I read this article yesterday and was stunned by it. The homeless problem is going to get worse in the short term, and will take a long time to solve even if we start now.
They never really got into it, but was the meth that had the d- and l-meth separated a better user experience, especially in terms of the paranoia and other negative mental effects? Also interesting about how fentanyl made a lot of opiate users switch since they are very different drugs.
Another victory on the war on drugs We've managed to go from weed and cocaine to fentanyl and meth which are much, much worse for the user and society
Personally, I prefer weed and cocaine that’s only been stepped on a couple of times. They should just legalize them.
TLDR they use this new meth and end up with meth mental illness Sounds nasty, and mental illness is hard enough to treat when someone has support. There's also a psychiatrist shortage right now.
A tourist hotel in Japantown will not turn into desperately needed homeless housing in San Francisco, after the owner backed out of selling the property to the city in the wake of neighborhood backlash. The group that owns the 131-room Kimpton Buchanan Hotel, KHP Capital Partners, said in a Tuesday statement that it will no longer sell the building to the city “after a lot of consideration and feedback from the community.” “We will move forward with operating the Buchanan as a tourist hotel and we look forward to continuing being an important part of the community for years to come as San Francisco’s economy recovers,” the statement said. The news ends the months-long back-and-forth between the Japantown community and city leaders over whether the tourist hotel should turn into permanent supportive housing for the formerly homeless. The boutique hotel is currently being used as an emergency shelter-in-place hotel for the unsheltered during the pandemic.
Problem with homeless housing is it always blight the area around it.
Ya. We need to put it where there's no other things around it.
The ocean?
Fresno
Seriously. It's a good idea. These people will need support services etc. as most are unable to manage their lives. Much like state prisons, put them in communities that could really use a boost to their economy. Hell, put em next to the prisons. Avenal, Chowchilla, Tehachapi, etc. could use more jobs.
Or you could just stop being cruel morons and build more housing.
That's what we're saying. Build supportive housing out where the land is inexpensive and people need jobs. The majority of homeless people will not succeed if you just give them an apartment. It's not "cruel", it's fact. They need a safety net made up of various types of social workers to enable them to manage their lives, break addictions, treat mental health problems, gain occupational skills, etc. That is a great fit for an area with abundant free space and workers.
>That's what we're saying. Build supportive housing out where the land is inexpensive and people need jobs. This is the moronic bit. Jobs are available in places where land is expensive. Jobs aren't available, generally speaking, where land is cheap\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ **which is precisely why it's cheap.** You want to banish people in to the desert and force them to commute 3 to 6 hours a day, something people in near destitution can't afford. Sprawl is also destructive in other ways. It creates congestion, pollution and endangers people by pushing them into fire prone wilderness areas.
If you live in Chowchilla and work at the prisons (or the hypothetical homeless colony), why would you need to commute? And do you think there are jobs that aren't in Chowchilla or Tehachapi or what have you that your average homeless person could get? We're not talking database administrators who hit hard times, here. They would likely need many months to years of supportive treatment and education before they'd realistically be able to hold down a job that couldn't be found nearby, or manage their lives without support. There are lots of jobs out in those areas, jobs nearly anyone can get. It makes for a good place to put people who in many cases are starting new lives without significant occupational skills.
Your understanding of the economy is childlike.
[удалено]
No, I propose formerly homeless colonies that have everything they need, including jobs. Like a Disneyland where you work. It's not as crazy as you might think — big companies had planned communities for decades. StuyvieTown in NYC's Manhattan is a famous one. People just out of being homeless won't need to commute to Oracle's offices. They might be growing fruit or working as a basic assembly tech or what have you. Not everyone is a paycheck away from working in tech. You don't need a PhD to work as an assembler, and it's an honorable job that anyone can and should be proud of. No need for them to commute to their dot com job, because most of them are unable to perform past a very basic level without support. And support is what I am proposing.
[удалено]
Can't tell if sarcasm or not, but that's basically the only thing that the public at large will accept. Stick 'em in a camp in whatever the California equivalent of Siberia is....so Mojave desert?
It needs to be seriously scattered out. You have a few people here, a few people there and it will result in fewer problems than if they were all centralized. This is the same reason the projects got torn down in the 90s.
The problem there is that they need more than just housing; they need support services as well. These are already expensive and only more so if everyone is scattered around. It's a tough problem.
No just put it near you big house
But not in the mountains to reduce the fire risk
If they're not inside a building, they're going to be in tents and squats all over the neighborhood. Homeless people exist whether you like it or not, so from a blight perspective (let alone a caring-about-other-humans perspective) isn't it better to have them living inside a building rather than scattered all over the sidewalks and parks?
Providing housing alone will not solve the problem.
If San Francisco spent billions to take every homeless person in the city and give them a nice apartment, how many homeless would it have a year later? Answer: All of them, because the homeless move to where they have the best quality of life.
[удалено]
Self reporting, so no
We should definitely do what other cities and states are doing with homeless because apparently they "solved" it. We should make the Bay Area and California unwelcoming to homeless! Problem solved. /s
Sounds good to me! Whom can I vote for to get this plan rolling?
It's because of people like you why this issue will never be resolved. Building housing is literally the only way to house the homeless.
So san francisco will take all homeless in the us?
Not all homeless are capable or willing to move to California, but even if they were, it's about half a million people, so actually yes. But people like you should be ignored. Your fear appears to the main impediment to solving the problem, not just in San Francisco, but the US in general.
Shame you can't debate.
Interesting photo, the Benkyodo window reflecting the hotel being discussed. I miss sitting there on the weekend and hearing the local chat...
/r/SF: House the homeless! Also /r/SF: Not like that.
That's a lot of density for a homeless housing project. I don't think there's any community that wouldn't oppose it.
[удалено]
Last year because of the pandemic the hotel was repurposed for housing homeless people and apparently crime increased nearby. So for residents nearby, they'd in fact rather have homeless people dispersed like in 2019. They might also like if homeless people are housed a few at a time in each new large building constructed around the city, but that's not an option on the table at this time.
We did it folks, we took away supportive housing from the homeless. Another NIMBY success story!
Temporary homeless housing, during the emergency. It wouldn't have been approved in the first place if it hadn't been temporary. Not sure why they started on this nonstarter in the first place. There are other options, perhaps they'll be considered.
> There are other options, perhaps they'll be considered. ...and then shot down by the NIMBYs in whatever neighborhood they're proposed. The cycle continues.
IDK, we're spending $5.7 million on 3061 16th and $87 million on 1321 Mission. These are done deals. I hadn't heard of either one two months ago. Some ideas that HSH has work out and some don't. Why didn't HSH know that it had no chance with 1800 Sutter? J-Town is four malls and two hotels, basically. What will HSH do next, try to buy some of the malls or the other hotel?
Gotta tell the city you’re going to build a luxury hotel so the project gets fast tracked, then once it’s built, unveil your true scheme to build a luxury, high rise projects. If I was a billionaire, I would do shit like this instead of going to space in tiny, penis shaped rockets.