Gavin Newsom draws line on SF street behavior: City now ‘too permissive’

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,322
48,588
136
It will never make housing affordable enough for the homeless. You are in "let them eat cake" land now. Whether housing costs X or 2X doesn't matter when the homeless have diddle ÷ squat.

How do you think people become homeless? Most of the time it's because they can't afford their rent.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,535
6,140
126
I have a question for you, what is your preferred economic structure?
Single family on at least one acre land with garden and goats solar powered, composting toilets, atmospheric water supplied, modular, portable, and able to float in a flood, hurricane, tornado, and fire proof.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
Single family on at least one acre land with garden and goats solar powered, composting toilets, atmospheric water supplied, modular, portable, and able to float in a flood, hurricane, tornado, and fire proof.

If you don't want to answer, then don't answer. Its weird to take time to write that rather than not replying at all.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,322
48,588
136
Right right. Homelessness is also zero there. Perhaps Moon is onto something.

Also, what is your policy of using AA weapons for executions?

I mean I'm against the death penalty but if we're going to do it I would probably prefer the AA cannon method. Not only is it almost certainly more humane than what we do now (can't imagine you feel much pain) it would also be pretty fucking rad.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
I mean I'm against the death penalty but if we're going to do it I would probably prefer the AA cannon method. Not only is it almost certainly more humane than what we do now (can't imagine you feel much pain) it would also be pretty fucking rad.

NK, when you really want to see the hunger games in RL.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,535
6,140
126
Ah, your presumption is that homeless people are the chronic homeless. What qualifies as homeless are not the people begging on the street. The vast majority are temp, and move out of that status in under a year. The majority of people are homeless because they ran out of money but eventually build it back up.
You realize, I hope, how difficult it is to find a job when you don’t have a place to sleep and bathe and eat? The simple fact is that people don’t like to move and people who become homeless in expensive areas want to stay there homeless or not. It isn’t easy to move if you have nothing, either. Everything goes back to money and that goes back to employment. In high housing cost areas even decent paying jobs can’t get you a house. fskimo talks about supply and demand but they ain’t making anymore land. In the SF Bay areathe days of filling the bay are over. There is nowhere to go but up and the transportation, usage, and everything else can’t handle it. Commute times are destroying Bay Area life. Everybody is at everybody else’s throats. Density creates an endless list of new issues that then take years and years to fix if ever.
 

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,113
925
126
How do you think people become homeless? Most of the time it's because they can't afford their rent.

Many have also been cut down by alcoholism, drugs and gambling. I've got a family member that is a social worker. She says they do get some general assistance, but it's not much, normally around $300 per month. According to her, most spend that within the 1st week on alcohol and / or drugs. There is also a huge mental illness factor, which a large part can be attributed to the despair these people feel.

It would seem the answer would be to get out of these expensive areas, into regions that have more affordable housing and get sober, get jobs, etc. But they're stuck because they can't afford to do that either. Most affordable housing for the poor comes in the way of subsidies, like section 8, where the person must still pay a portion of their rent. Some fail to even do that successfully. Bottom line is there are some people, due to their various afflictions, who will never be productive or responsible enough to pay for housing, but they could have housing, if it were 100% paid for by the taxpayers or some other means.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,356
33,747
136
While true, you really need to put yourself in the situation. Do you want a gas station right behind your house? How about a ghetto washateria or something.

How would you react?

If the argument is about different uses than that's a valid conversation to have. Really it's about keeping existing detached SFH density at all costs. God forbid somebody wanted to build an ADU or maybe even a duplex/triplex/quad. Zoning isn't a freeze gun that is supposed to keep a street looking like it did when it originally got built in perpetuity.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
You realize, I hope, how difficult it is to find a job when you don’t have a place to sleep and bathe and eat? The simple fact is that people don’t like to move and people who become homeless in expensive areas want to stay there homeless or not. It isn’t easy to move if you have nothing, either. Everything goes back to money and that goes back to employment. In high housing cost areas even decent paying jobs can’t get you a house. fskimo talks about supply and demand but they ain’t making anymore land. In the SF Bay areathe days of filling the bay are over. There is nowhere to go but up and the transportation, usage, and everything else can’t handle it. Commute times are destroying Bay Area life. Everybody is at everybody else’s throats. Density creates an endless list of new issues that then take years and years to fix if ever.

And yet the vast majority do figure how to get a job.
People don't like to be homeless either. If I had to choose, I would choose to move. That ultimately does not matter though, because the vast majority of people figure out how to get of being homeless. Its not easy, but its done.

The reason a "decent" paying job does not get you a house, is because people like you make a house so expensive.

As for not making anymore land, holy shit what? There is a thing called density. SF has some of the lowest density of any major city in the world. You could easily gain massive amount homes by raising the density to allow for 3 story places.

Commute times would not be so bad if people were not driving from Modesto, Merced, Stockton, Turlock, or any other city in the valley. Hell, Pleasanton was built because housing was so expensive. What is killing the bay area is people like you.

As for density bringing about problems, well yeah. Its always going to be a tradeoff. Would you rather have lots of homeless people, or longer commutes? Amazing that your position is to let those suffer because the time to work gets a little longer.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,322
48,588
136
And yet the vast majority do figure how to get a job.
People don't like to be homeless either. If I had to choose, I would choose to move. That ultimately does not matter though, because the vast majority of people figure out how to get of being homeless. Its not easy, but its done.

The reason a "decent" paying job does not get you a house, is because people like you make a house so expensive.

As for not making anymore land, holy shit what? There is a thing called density. SF has some of the lowest density of any major city in the world. You could easily gain massive amount homes by raising the density to allow for 3 story places.

Commute times would not be so bad if people were not driving from Modesto, Merced, Stockton, Turlock, or any other city in the valley. Hell, Pleasanton was built because housing was so expensive. What is killing the bay area is people like you.

As for density bringing about problems, well yeah. Its always going to be a tradeoff. Would you rather have lots of homeless people, or longer commutes? Amazing that your position is to let those suffer because the time to work gets a little longer.

Also, more density means more tax dollars to build things like mass transit which helps alleviate the traffic problems. It's a virtuous cycle.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,322
48,588
136
Many have also been cut down by alcoholism, drugs and gambling. I've got a family member that is a social worker. She says they do get some general assistance, but it's not much, normally around $300 per month. According to her, most spend that within the 1st week on alcohol and / or drugs. There is also a huge mental illness factor, which a large part can be attributed to the despair these people feel.

It would seem the answer would be to get out of these expensive areas, into regions that have more affordable housing and get sober, get jobs, etc. But they're stuck because they can't afford to do that either. Most affordable housing for the poor comes in the way of subsidies, like section 8, where the person must still pay a portion of their rent. Some fail to even do that successfully. Bottom line is there are some people, due to their various afflictions, who will never be productive or responsible enough to pay for housing, but they could have housing, if it were 100% paid for by the taxpayers or some other means.

I agree, I think the answer to this is a mixture of several different things. First, repeal a lot of the restrictions on housing construction and let the market take care of most of the problem. Second, have the government provide housing for the people who are still left behind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moonbeam
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
I agree, I think the answer to this is a mixture of several different things. First, repeal a lot of the restrictions on housing construction and let the market take care of most of the problem. Second, have the government provide housing for the people who are still left behind.
Is it really so much to ask that everyone contribute to life in some way? If your life consists of shooting up from wake up to sleep, why even live? And why provide for them? Should we pay for their heroin and provide it to them as well as the roof over their head and put food on their plate?

It sounds like most people here (on both the right and left) are in agreance that there is a certain portion of the population that will never be productive and will refuse to productive even when given a chance. How big that portion is is a different topic.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,356
33,747
136
Should we pay for their heroin and provide it to them as well as the roof over their head and put food on their plate?

Yes with the addition of providing them effective programs to break their dependency and rejoin society as productive health individuals. You might not save everybody but you'll save some.

Every time the government has used the stick on these people it has, without fail, hurt them and society in general. Time to do it the other way.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,322
48,588
136
Is it really so much to ask that everyone contribute to life in some way? If your life consists of shooting up from wake up to sleep, why even live? And why provide for them? Should we pay for their heroin and provide it to them as well as the roof over their head and put food on their plate?

It sounds like most people here (on both the right and left) are in agreance that there is a certain portion of the population that will never be productive and will refuse to productive even when given a chance. How big that portion is is a different topic.

The reasons for why people can’t contribute vary pretty widely. Some are their fault, some are not. Even for those who are indigent due to their own choices I believe that since we as a society easily have the means to ease their suffering we should do so for reasons of morality.

I get the argument as to why we should not but personally I don’t accept it.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
23,560
10,427
136
Prop 13 is a terrible law that should have never been enacted. Until more young people vote, I don't see it going away.
And they will never move out of them because they've lite
Is it really so much to ask that everyone contribute to life in some way? If your life consists of shooting up from wake up to sleep, why even live? And why provide for them? Should we pay for their heroin and provide it to them as well as the roof over their head and put food on their plate?

It sounds like most people here (on both the right and left) are in agreance that there is a certain portion of the population that will never be productive and will refuse to productive even when given a chance. How big that portion is is a different topic.
Sadly, if you give a junkie what he wants, they will eventually OD. Maybe that's a plan.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,535
6,140
126
The reasons for why people can’t contribute vary pretty widely. Some are their fault, some are not. Even for those who are indigent due to their own choices I believe that since we as a society easily have the means to ease their suffering we should do so for reasons of morality.

I get the argument as to why we should not but personally I don’t accept it.
If I may give you my personal opinion I disagree with your analysis. There is only one reason why people can or can’t contribute and it is based purely on chance. It depends on how badly emotionally damaged you were as a child and how many mitigating factors there were in your life. It depends also on how much one was able to recover. All those sad people who blame themselves for their failure or flatter themselves on their hard won success did what they did as program driven machines. I believe that humanity is asleep and all the answers they propose to their problems are almost always the product of that mechanical sleep.

The very fact that you express moral outrage at people who seek to protect what they have and attribute that to their indifference of others tells me you’re part of the blame game.

The one thing I think conservatives and liberals have in common is a propensity to blame and that tells me they both are riddled by guilt.

I believe that if we do not deal with the issues that destroy the lives of children we will spin forever on the wheel of karma. I flaw I see in our system is the competitive nature of our economic system. It is that, I believe, the hatred it produces, that is the source of every social issue. To try to fix the symptoms just makes another problem appear somewhere else.

I suggested we eliminate property tax and tax income. The rich will have less money to spend and the price of housing will come down, no?