Posted on 06/18/2015 3:27:56 PM PDT by nickcarraway
A major new report from the nonprofit Coalition on Homelessness investigates how criminalizing homelessness in San Francisco has only exacerbated the crisis. Much like America’s War on Drugs, the city’s crackdown on homelessness has been a costly failure, leaving in its wake people who feel victimized by the very system that’s supposed to help them.
The report’s title, “Punishing the Poorest,” neatly sums up city policy. “Since 1981, San Francisco has passed more local measures to criminalize sleeping, sitting, or panhandling in public spaces than any other city in California,” the report states. In fact, San Francisco has 23 state and municipal anti-homeless laws on the book; the average number for other California cities is nine.
What has been the outcome of all this progressive lawmaking? Walk any street downtown and you’ll see the answer, but the empirical data is sobering to say the least.
As the report notes, the city has shelled out $1.5 billion on homeless services over the past decade, yet there’s still only one shelter bed for every six homeless people. Quality of life laws — those that penalize sitting or sleeping in public, among other “nuisances” — have led to mass citations and incarceration. The report finds that between October 2006 and March 2014, the SFPD issued 51,757 citations for “quality of life crimes.” Ninety percent of the report’s respondents were unable to pay their last citation, which can then lead to additional fees or even an arrest warrant.
Nobody denies that homelessness is a complex, systemic issue — the image of a snake eating its own tail comes to mind — but, as the report suggests, the city’s rampant criminalization of homeless people only compounds the problem. The SFPD’s role is particularly troubling. Per the report:
74% of respondents reported being approached by police in a public space in the last year 20% of respondents reported being approached four or more times in the past month 12% of respondents reported being approached at least twice a week throughout the year
In many cases, “being approached” meant being asked to relocate, often to other areas where homeless people reported feeling unsafe.
One of the more disheartening findings in the report is that police officers rarely provided referrals to social service agencies. The argument that homeless people wouldn’t be interested anyway doesn’t change the fact that, in a better system, officers would be resources rather than displacers.
More than half of respondents also reported being searched by police; 46 percent had their belongings confiscated. Some respondents said that among those belongings were identification cards, prescription meds, tents, blankets, and clean syringes.
As the report makes clear, police officers aren’t social workers, and their ability to get homeless people into shelters or get them food is necessarily limited. The Department of Public Health’s Homeless Outreach Team (HOT) is supposed to fill some of those gaps. On average, however, HOT only places nine homeless people per month into permanent housing. Their ability to make significant inroads in managing the city’s homeless population is equally limited.
Even some of the city’s more progressive efforts are a bit disingenuous. Mayor Ed Lee’s Navigation Center, an experimental indoor encampment, opened in the Mission in March; meanwhile, citations for homeless camping have tripled under Lee’s administration. Not that Mayor Lee should be the poster boy for anti-homeless policing:
Across all of the mayoral administrations of the past thirty-five years there has never once been a concerted effort to ‘decriminalize’ homelessness, roll-back enforcement, or approach ‘quality of life’ laws from a civil rights or human rights perspective.
San Francisco has a notoriously bipolar attitude towards the homeless: Mayor Lee and his cronies cut the ribbon on an innovative new shelter while, just around the corner, cops roust a sleeping man who has nowhere else to go. The Coalition's report acknowledges the sheer wrongheadedness of many city policies while also offering actionable recommendations.
Click here to read the full report.
Homelessness is often a result of drug addiction, alcoholism, and mental disorders that cannot be helped easily.
The liberals can flame away all they want, but in America, no one is homeless except by choice. The available home may not be a nice home, but it is a home. Everyone on the street could have an alternative if they so desired.
But the drugs, booze and schizophrenia keep them from making those rational choices. Giving them “programs” isn’t going to change that.
Well when Jerry Brown’s train is completed they can all get on board for a continuous loop.
Starter homes in the SF Bay area run you about $750,000. Rent for a 1 bedroom apartment will set you back $2500/month.
the average rent on a vacant one bedroom apartment in SF is now over $4200/month
SF area is prime target for money from Communist China nowadays
perhaps it is simply not very realistic to try to provide “free” or subsidized housing, food, medical care, transportation, utilities, Obamaphones and all the rest to “all comers” ... at least, not in a place where the basic shelter alone is pushing $60,000 a year and up
just a thought. if we are to pay for a welfare state ... maybe it can be more successfully implemented somewhere OTHER than one of America’s top Cost Of Living major cities
Amen. I work in a homeless shelter and the things one sees...
It started with the hippie panhandlers in the late 60s and became a viable industry for the lazy, drug addicted and alcoholics. By the 90s they were sleeping in the doorways of prestigious downtown buildings. The stench was unbearable and you had to step over the bodies to get to work there. The tourists complained so they camped out at City Hall. Then they tried shelters and spending money. But the folks just want their freedom to beg and sleep where they want. A coddled selfishness.
Yes, if you are drug addicted or alcoholic, you have to WANT to change and then, usually get plenty of support.
If you are really crazy, it gets to a point where you can’t change. You need someone (kind and capable) to take over your life.
Homelessness in our society is not generally caused by callousness or lack of money. These folks, whether it’s their fault or not, are usually really really dysfunctional.
During the 1980s I worked as a Sr. Systems Engineer doing I.T. work for SF. I often got paged to do troubleshooting after hours. Interesting thing about going to City Hall at 3 a.m. was all the homeless zombies walking aimlessly around. Unsettling sight, and made me nervous waiting for the guards to let me into City Hall to service their data center. The homeless slept during the day, but presumably walked around at night so they wouldn't be robbed or assaulted. They pooped in the stairwells to the underground garage across from City Hall, until all stairwells were boarded up - then did it at the curb. I hated going there. The 1989 earthquake damaged the building and the data center relocated to a clean area devoid of homeless.
Yes I remember those times. I was doing benefit enrollments for CCSF employees back then and spent time in almost every part of that City.
None of these homeless could possibly be reasonably expected to change their ways and become successful when even $2000 is considered a cheap rent there nowadays. Miracles do happen though and I guess 9 people being helped out of a homeless state by government is one of them.
What a crazy place.
So true. As part of my job I managed a team of techs who troubleshooted computers around the city, and went with them to various city-run homeless shelters. The homeless are either crazy, drug addicts or drunks. Some of them would act out their craziness at the shelters screaming and throwing things around. Others were sick on drugs. I offered my just-bought lunch to one woman, she turned me down, wanted cash for booze, saying she never eats on Tuesday. The city spent millions on these facilities, having beds, recreational games, free phone use, and laundry facilities (free soap). All wasted on homeless who won't change, and the freebies attract more from elsewhere.
With the exception of Manhattan....is there any place in America that costs more than SF Bay?
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.