The reluctant truth though is that long as San Fran and other cities have their hands tied on how to eliminate and discourage the homeless from being on their streets these quality of life laws are just a band aid. A band aid that ends up costing the city far more than any fines they can levy. The same people will be in and out of jail and court at the city’s expense. That adds up.
Remember the hell one church caught because they had sprinklers set up to wash urine off their entry area? It was seen as an attempt to dehumanize the homeless who would also get sprayed by the water. Obviously expecting human beings to use a toilet or at least a discreetly placed shrub is an insult to a person’s dignity.
Oh and if a city known for celebrating disgusting displays of public behavior in other areas forgive me if I laugh when the line gets moved.
And the way to “eliminate” the homeless is provide housing. I know, I know, y’all are going to keyboard vomit all over this comment, but the cities that have simply provided minimal housing have solved their homeless problems for cheaper than tearing down tent cities, housing homeless in jail and police corralling of the homeless. Wow, makes so much sense.
If you had a son or a mom who was a hopeless alcoholic, mentally ill or an addict, wouldn’t you want him/her with a minimally acceptable roof over his/her head as opposed to getting beaten to death down by the railroad track? Thought so.