Amid Homelessness Crisis, San Francisco Residents Sue To Block New Shelter

Remember when we talked about the 30% increase in homelessness in San Francisco? At the time I suggested that some combination of public and private investment might be needed to combat the problem. As it turns out, just such a proposal is moving forward, with construction getting underway on a 200-bed temporary shelter located near the Giants baseball stadium.

Great news, right? You might think so, but a large group of local residents doesn’t agree. Called “Safe Embarcadero for All,” the group raised more than $100K, not to help the homeless, but to bring a lawsuit aimed at stopping construction of the shelter. They’re claiming everything from improper permit approval to a failure to study environmental impacts caused by the project. But to listen to their spokespeople, what they really mean is they don’t want a bunch of homeless people hanging around. (LA Times)

Attorneys for the group — Safe Embarcadero for All — filed the case in Sacramento Superior Court. They argue that the city didn’t gain approval for the project from the State Lands Commission, which has oversight over waterfront development, and is the lead defendant. A spokesperson for the commission declined to comment, citing pending litigation.
The site is near the Ferry Building and where the San Francisco Giants stadium is located.
“There’s no question that there is a big problem in the city,” said Peter Prows, one of the attorneys on the case. “But the homelessness problem has to be solved in compliance with the law and that’s what the city is not doing here.”

The group is claiming that the project failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and conduct a study of potential environmental impacts. The city countered by saying the project was exempt from CEQA requirements. But what sort of “environmental impacts” are the residents worried about? The lawsuit specifically warns against, “a significant effect on the environment due to these unusual circumstances, including by attracting additional homeless persons, open drug and alcohol use, crime, daily emergency calls, public urination and defecation and other nuisances.”

Granted, there is obviously going to be some environmental impact, but what it really sounds like is a fear that bunch of homeless people will be using the streets next to the baseball stadium as open toilets and drug shooting galleries. Also, if you take a look at the photo from the protest at the Ports Commission meeting, the signage tells you a lot about what’s going on. Locals are holding up signs that read “Not Good For Residents. Not Good For Visitors,” or “This Is San Francisco’s Front Yard.”

The area is popular with tourists and sports fans. That represents a lot of money for the city. And a big crowd of homeless people is definitely not good for business.

San Francisco is hardly unique in this regard. Every city has to deal with a homeless population, though the ones in more gentle climates attract far more displaced people. Everyone seems to agree that something needs to be done to help them, but they don’t want the problem moved into their own neighborhoods. You know… Not In My Back Yard. And meanwhile, the problem continues to grow.

If you have more beds than homeless, the number of homeless will rise to equal, and then exceed the number of beds. This law is true no matter how many times it is applied.

If you give away things without asking people to pay for them, you will have more people asking for the things than there are the things.

If you take away money from those who are working, and give it to those who are not, those who are working will work less, or go somewhere that takes less of their money. Also, those who got something “free” will demand more things, no matter how much you give them, and they will grow to hate the people whose money they have received, and blame them their failures.

If you allow certain groups to commit crimes, you will have more crimes committed by those groups.

Socialism defined in one lesson.

Here’s the thing:
Why do homeless people who (presumably) have no jobs & can’t afford high -dollar housing, need to live in major cities— where the jobs & high-cost housing are located — in the first place?

Why not give them “sanctuary” in small towns?
And give the small towns the grant money for the shelters, additional police & social workers, etc?

Heh. I know why. A lot of them refuse to stay in shelters even when beds are available, because shelters have rules against sex, drinking, fighting, trash, drugs, etc.
Small town dwellers wont tolerate ‘em.

The reality is that many homeless do have jobs, SS or disability checks, just not enough to pay high rent.
They should just move to more affordable locales— most of which do not offer perfect California weather, but tough.

The residents are right, but I’ll bet a strong majority of them vote “progressive” and don’t see the connection.

Without a doubt. Though looking at a 2016 presidential map, it looks like Trump slightly outperformed in the precincts closest to the proposed camp at Seawall 330.
https://sf.curbed.com/2016/12/2/13820078/final-sf-voting-results-trump-neighborhoods-clinton-sanders

Still, leftist voters or not, hypocrites or not, I can't really fault them for suing. Anyone with an ounce of brains is going to do what they can try to stop a permanent camp for hundreds of so-called homeless being installed in their neighborhood. What many don't understand is that San Francisco's so-called homeless population are not down-on-their-luck folks who are simply priced out of an expensive city. They are, by and large, a throng of drug abusers, alcoholics, sexual deviants and untreated mental patients who like living in San Francisco due to its mild climate, cheap and plentiful supply of their drugs of choice and fellow sexual deviants, generous social services (city spends about $70K annually per homeless person) and tolerant law enforcement establishment.

This would not have lasted long under the Clinton administration. As reported in the WSJ involved HHS taking over a small motel to act as a halfway house for drug addicts/homeless, etc. The local residents tried to stop such actions. They formed a neighborhood group, raised money, protested, and petitioned their local authorities to stop the takeover.

The Clinton administration sued the group for violating the human rights of those to be housed in the facility. They issued subpoena after subpoena asking for records, reports, minutes of meetings, ultimately bankrupting the group to the point where they were forced to cease. Not satisfied, the Clinton administration insisted the local neighborhood show their good faith by hosting the new residents at a ‘block party’. They insisted on reviewing the speakers, the entertainment, the food and drink to be served, etc.

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.