Posted on 01/31/2008 7:52:51 AM PST by SmithL
Five months ago, I wrote about the recycling center at the southeast corner of Golden Gate Park. Residents have been upset about the facility for some time. The site is noisy and ugly, and seems dated. Recycling is done at the curb of nearly every house these days, so why does the neighborhood need a special site?
But most of all, the residents were upset at the fact that the homeless campers in Golden Gate Park were raiding their recycling bins at night, loading up on cans and bottles, and turning them in for cash. It was, some said, a virtual ATM for those struggling with drug and alcohol addictions.
The story created quite a fuss for a while. There were discussions, promises of investigations, and even suggestions from the mayor's office that the center might be moved.
And then? Nothing.
But a funny thing has happened out in the Inner Sunset. When Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi held a community meeting to discuss issues, the neighbors showed up and spoke up. They weren't angry, and they didn't deny that the Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council, which has run the site since 1974, has done good work.
"It's a great organization whose time has passed," said Inner Sunset resident Jim Rinehart.
Now we'll see where this goes. Because if you think any politician is going to volunteer to catch this hot potato, you're dreaming.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
The Special City is all about tolerance, except in MY neighborhood.
heh heh heh
“It was, some said, a virtual ATM for those struggling with drug and alcohol addictions.”
Don’t forget the senior citizens who cash in the bottles and cans to pay for their prescription medications.
ALGORE FLASHBACK!
E.x.c.e.p.t. in my neighborhood applies to ALL liberal elite neighborhoods.
I hope the people of San Francisco enjoy living in their own filth. This is what they wanted, and this is what they get. Kumbaya. “If you’re going, to San Francisco, be sure to wear, some Glade room deodorizer in your hair....”
I don’t get it. What difference does it make how the recyclables disappear, as lons as they disappear?
They want the government to aid the homeless...not allow the homeless to help themselves even if it is by cashing in bottles and cans. Geesh people help themselves?? and in their neighborhood??? What are we thinking?
San Francisco...city of selfish hedonists.
Lons = long
Anyway, what can they do about it, short of enacting a curfew for adults?!
Leftist residents upset when homeless show entrepreneurial spirit while contributing to clean environment by recycling, typical liberal hypocrisy. LOL
They’re all very egalitarian until a bum leaves a fortified-wine-induced bowel movement in their trash alley. And that’s something we all have in common politically, no?
Kinda figures,actually.I just pray that that wind farm gets built in Nantucket Sound so as to pi$$ off the Kennedys,the Kerrys,the Cronkites,Carly Simon and the other beautiful people who own property there and/or vacation there.
Remember that Portland, OR experiment with putting alcoholic street people in a hotel for free, and making no effort to reform or rehabilitate them? It worked great.
That is, it got them off living and dying on the street. It reduced the number of times they had to go to expensive emergency rooms. “A recent study by the city has found that about a third of all residents leave the program with a job, and 60 percent leave free of their chemical dependency.”
In other words, it cost the public a LOT less than traditional ways of either ignoring or treating alcoholics. And, strangely enough, by not trying to force alcoholics to stop drinking, they still ended up with fewer alcoholics.
Counter-intuitive, to say the least.
So why not go for the gold, and *to save money*, set up a “hobo city” outside of a metro area?
The idea is actually pretty subtle. To start with, the homeless no longer haunt the city and the public. They are no longer begging, loitering, making messes, fighting and other crimes, and lowering the standard of living.
Instead, you *offer* them a free place to live, away from the city, with free food, water, and clothing, showers, washing machines, and some medical and dental care. And maybe even free grain alcohol, which is not too expensive, mixed with whatever soft drinks they like, as well as free tobacco and coffee. Most importantly, you offer them *safety*, that is, protection from violence one against another.
In other words, take away every *reasonable* reason for them to be in the city. Therefore, the only reason for them to be in the city is if they want to commit crimes. But they have to do so without the “cover” of the rest of the homeless, and so they stick out like a sore thumb.
Now, on the surface it sounds expensive. But in truth, it would cost just a fraction of what it costs now, that is, what it costs if they are in the city, and homeless.
Such a camp, oddly enough, as far as the homeless are concerned, would *not* be a place where all but a few, mostly hard core alcoholics, would want to stay for any length of time.
So the transition rate would be high. That is, the homeless who went to the city at first, would then probably vie to go to the “hobo city” for a while; but all too soon, they would want to go elsewhere, because the “hobo city” would be boring.
They wouldn’t return to the city, because they would be noticed immediately. So most of them would hit the road, and go elsewhere.
This is a win-win situation for the city. No coercion needed, save a ton of money, and just a few homeless wandering the streets, who are being closely watched by the police.
It would need a few million in start-up costs at first, as well as maybe a couple hundred thousand dollars a year operating costs, mostly to pay for security, medical care and supplies. But compare that to tens of millions of dollars spent each year right now, showing little or no results.
If you have ever stayed in a KOA campground, you have a pretty good idea of what I am talking about, except with permanent shelters, more facilities, and better security.
What the HA residents really mean by "recyclables" are the homeless.
My theory is that the CA CRV is a way to keep homeless people afloat financially. At 5 cents per can, drifters and bums can scrounge money from the trash, literally. If you buy pop, water or beer in cans or bottles in California, you are subsidizing recycling (which doesn’t need to be subsidized!). And the CRV can be set at any time by the Legislature. Isn’t that wonderful?
Our small town has a spring clean up day where you can put out almost anything (their are some things they will not pick up).
I always find it interesting what people put out and then try to guess what is going to be missing before the pick up day.
A lot of the stuff is "good" and could be useable with just a little effort (it always saddens me to see perfectly good bicycles being tossed when the kids no longer need them but there are other kids that would like them).
I see nothing wrong with the scanvengers picking through the items, it is recycling at its best.
Oh the stuff that is picked up just goes to the land fill no attempt is made to salvage anything.
“If you have ever stayed in a KOA campground, you have a pretty good idea of what I am talking about, except with permanent shelters, more facilities, and better security.”
Please explain.
I collected, restored and donated a couple dozen bikes from bulk trash pickup last year. Keeps me out of trouble hehehe. But the tops is my daughter’s $200 mountain bike we found. Like new, just needed a derailer (which I had).
Last week I found a perfectly good 17” flat-screen monitor by the curb!
Hubby and I visited in 06.
Will NEVER go back to SF!
I was apalled at the homeless who were allowed to walk in and sit down and have coffee in any restaurant WITHOUT PAYING, harassing others while there. Witnessed a LOT of public urination. Pan handling on every corner.
Don’t get me started on the public transit system.
Saw several homeless guys riding with some permanent pass on a lanyard around their necks. One guy was STONED and had fleas and lice. Just when you thought another body could not fit on the bus, the bus would stop and 15 more folks would get on. B.O.!!!! FORGET about personal space.
If I lived there, I’d own a vespa scooter.
This is the ludicrous hypocrisy of the left. In living memory, Haight was the hippies' destination where they could "tune in, turn out and drop out" of society and all that old stuff about private property and conventional values.
"Nice"? Hell, no—we won't go. "Up against the wall, MFs!" Stealing? That was renamed "liberating" in the Haight-Ashbury glory days, as in "Steal This Book" by Abbie Hoffman.
Now they want to simply declare that the epicenter of social rebellion and living outside the system is too nice a place for the homeless? Give me a break.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.