Homelessness is not a "lifestyle", and it is quite rude of you to say that.
Also, in the US, a great amount of social resources are expended - albeit often indirectly or inadvertantly - to _encourage_ drug addiction. Aim for the social institutions that make the US the highest developed country in terms of, say, opiate use:
give them the compassion and support that any one of us deserves as human beings. if they are mental ill, then get them on the medication they need. if they want a job, give them one. if they are on drugs, get them into a program like NA and give them the medication to combat the withdrawl. everyone deserves the help the desire. there is no reason why we should putting each other down.
Right now, nothing. If you build enough shelter space, by law, you no longer can make these decisions. If there is enough shelter space to house the homeless population, the choices become go to the shelter or go to jail. This is why we need to build more shelters as soon as possible.
Agree with you generally, but NA is a religious missionary program, where the treatment/process involves worship or reverence of supernatural entities (a god / higher power).
I'm in NA... it's not a religious program and you don't have to believe in god or a higher power. all of that crap is suggested.
it's a fellowship, nothing more, nothing less. you have someone that you can talk that understands first hand what you are going through when you have cravings. that's all it is... support when you want it.
Well for starters, not allowing open air drug dealing and arresting illegal drug dealers in the streets. Cooperating with ICE, and so on. Starting to take action against homeless that do refuse housing because they enjoy the homeless lifestyle, which in turn will make it less attractive for non-native homeless to come to San Francisco.
Cooperating with ICE to send these people back to America where they come from? My, my, San Francisco’s atavistic parochialism is really something but calling ones fellow Americans illegal immigrants. That’s good.
So - as a result of your logic - you suggest that we allow crime and illegal aliens?
We know it does make an impact because the police department regularly arrests them (since they cause negativities in the community) and regularly the courts release them so that they can go back to the same street corner to keep selling death.
Applying "illegal" to someone who is in your country without __papers please__, is just so astonishing to me.
Why on earth do you give a shit who lives where in the world? I've immigrated to the US, legally, gone through all the paperwork and expenses. I don't give a fuck if "illegal" immigrants exist.
I will continue to advocate for them and vote for policies that keep them safe.
Illegal immigrants do not have lawful ways to find a job. They will either get abused in one way or another, or they will start looking at illegal activities to survive (ie, drug dealing).
Encouraging illegal immigration - like you are suggesting by enabling them to come to San Francisco - not only is dangerous for the community but it is first and foremost dangerous for those people who come here thinking it's paradise on earth and end up being taken advantage of.
You are irresponsible. There are reasons why there are lawful ways to immigrate, it is not a game.
You get rid of illegal immigrants on the street and you won't move the needle on crime. Listen, I'm not interested in you blowing my money on vanity projects.
We have been blowing up hundreds of millions of dollars on existing vanity projects for 40 years [1] we might as well try something new and - perhaps - enforce some law and order in a lawless and dangerous city.
None of the existing policies are helping moving the needle on crime, while arresting drug dealers and deporting illegal aliens that perform criminal activities will help with the goal of having less criminals and less drugs in the streets.
My son - native San Franciscan - dodges needles every day at the park. What happens if he gets hurt or catches a disease? Do you think this is the future he deserves? Criminals belong to prison.
Listen, you think you're on the opposite side of the guy with one vanity project by coming up with another vanity project but ultimately, to me, you guys are both just vanity project spenders who want to use someone else's money on random things that make you feel like you did something. I'm not interested in budgeting to your ego.
No thank you. Depending on cost + externalities, I'm okay with some number of criminals not being in prison.
> I'm okay with some number of criminals not being in prison.
And this right here is what’s wrong with San Francisco. You literally support death and crime on what - over the years - costed (and still costs) the city billions of dollars and countless of dead bodies with no tangible results and yet living in a lawful society - like the rest of the world does - is somehow too expensive for you?
The FBI even arrested the guy in charge of the homeless budget for corruption a few months ago (Nuru Mohammed, our dear mayor London Breed's ex-boyfriend, who also used the city funds to pay for Breed’s personal car repairs), and yet all is fine. I guess we don’t put criminals in prison, we elect them: the San Francisco way.
In the meantime people die, but it is an acceptable externality. Cruelty at its finest.
How is it in any way cheaper. I mean yes, if you ship people to middle america it will be. But touting a "right" to housing in SF is preposterous, at $1000 / sq ft (and will only go up with more demand).
I say we let them continue "thriving" just like we did for decades. Left wing "activists" keep their steady income so they can continue pretending to solve problems, the homeless will be happy too. As for tax payers, we can scare them with Trump and republicans so they keep voting for us. What do you say? Sounds like a win-win-win to me.
