7thriv

Give credit where credit is due. When I moved to SF in 1991, there was an intractable homeless problem. The City's response? Large monthly payouts to any indigent on the West Coast who could make their way down here. The result? More homeless people! Gavin Newsom's one unambiguous success in public life has been to end this. Instead of $$, which would go straight to the City's liquor stores and drug dealers, the City now provides subsidized housing and other services designed to put a roof over the head of anyone in need of one. The result? Peer pressure from progressive groups who say SF is too "mean" to the homeless: SF Called One of the Toughest Cities On Homeless

Here's a little news to dampen your day: Our city is downright mean. So says the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty in a new report called "Homes Not Handcuffs" that tracks the criminalization of homeless people in 273 cities nationwide

San Francisco is ranked seventh, up (down?) from 10th last year. Berkeley ranks 10th. The very meanest cities are Los Angeles; St. Petersburg, Fla.; and Orlando.

The rankings were based on the number of anti-homeless laws, how strongly those laws are enforced and the general political climate toward homeless people.

The report slams San Francisco for citing people who sleep on sidewalks and drink in public and for cracking down on homeless people camping in Golden Gate Park.

It also criticizes Mayor Gavin Newsom's idea last year to install homeless meters to encourage people to give spare change to social services rather than directly to panhandlers.

The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty? That sounds like a reliable unbiased source! I wish I could get the Chronicle to uncritically re-publish my press releases.

The idea that SF is mean is pure silliness. But, the Poverty Creeps can make these claims because of the slippery nature of what it means to be "homeless." SF is providing thousands of people with subsidized housing, which means they are no longer homeless. SF's efforts and $$ in this area appear to count for nothing. Instead, we are "mean" to the guys who remain on the street 24 hours a day. SF does target these people with "life-style" laws designed to prevent people from pissing on cable cars and screaming at tourists. Oh, the humanity!

The truth is, there is still a highly visible (and largely disgusting) contingent of chronic homeless who linger downtown, in Golden Gate Park, around the cable cars, and up and down Market Street. Has the Law Center determined that this is an important aspect of city life that must be preserved at all costs? I'd like to hear more of their brilliant ideas!

I spent several years working in close proximity to SF's homeless. They are, to a man (and occasonal woman) highly dysfuncitonal people afflicted with some combination of insanity, substance abuse, addiction, and physical ailments. They are not victims of the "Bush economy." They are people so out of it they can't even muster the will and focus to take advantage of the many services offered in SF. In fact, I think being chronically homeless is a symptom of insanity. There is very little that can be done for these folks outside of institutionalizing them, forcing them to take meds, or letting them wander the streets, slowly falling apart before our eyes.

SF has chosen the "wandering the streets" option. Is that mean? Given the choice, I think most people, even good SF liberals, would say commit them to an asylum. But, there aren't any asylums any more, so we are left with the present unhappy circumstance. Is this "mean?" Maybe, but it's not like there are other options. Professional homeless scolds accusing SF of bein "mean" might want to come up with an idea of what to do with these folks, rather than trying to guilt-trip SF into throwing $$ at a problem that attracts plenty of money, but no solutions.