• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Shit getting real. Dirty streets in SF drives away big conference.

Eldritch said:
Hi, I have worked professionally in the business of specifically housing these people for almost a decade.

You could build this facility for $30 million. SF Spent like $220m on the Homeless last year.
Click to expand...

I truly believe most politicians are politicians for their own benefit.
 
HappyHighwayman said:
I sort of agree. We need housing in dorm like settings to just get people off the street. It doesn't need to be an apartment per person.
Click to expand...

Supposedly cities like San Francisco, Sacramento and Stockton have been busing the homeless out for years. Many of them end up in madera, Fresno and especially Merced. I've heard it a few times from staff at the welfare office in Merced County that do intake applications. The way the story goes, these other cities either pay for the bus/train ticket one way to Merced or recommend they relocate to Merced because the town pays up the cash benefits faster than anyone else around.

Personally I think San Francisco and other bay area towns are the perfect places to build formerly homeless developments. So much opportunity for success and growth for them get off the streets and stay off the streets. To dump those with nothing into a nothing poor community, would be like moving out the poor families from San Francisco to Antioch or something. Plus considerably more tax money able to be raised in short periods of time to help fund it. That's what should of been done with Candlestick park instead of luxury homes.
 
KooLaid said:
Supposedly cities like San Francisco, Sacramento and Stockton have been busing the homeless out for years. Many of them end up in madera, Fresno and especially Merced. I've heard it a few times from staff at the welfare office in Merced County that do intake applications. The way the story goes, these other cities either pay for the bus/train ticket one way to Merced or recommend they relocate to Merced because the town pays up the cash benefits faster than anyone else around.

Personally I think San Francisco and other bay area towns are the perfect places to build formerly homeless developments. So much opportunity for success and growth for them get off the streets and stay off the streets. To dump those with nothing into a nothing poor community, would be like moving out the poor families from San Francisco to Antioch or something. Plus considerably more tax money able to be raised in short periods of time to help fund it. That's what should of been done with Candlestick park instead of luxury homes.
Click to expand...
Obviously, part of the solution should be years long funds from the cities that they came from. Also, there should be funds from the state and the federal government. This isn't an SF or Bay Area or California phenomenon, it's just that California is more attractive to homeless than most other parts that have 4 seasons including freezing temps.

Simply busing them out and wiping their hands clean is a chickenshit approach and one only flaming assholes would implement.

With an influx of $Millions from SF and other cities, places like Merced county could do wonders compared to SF where everything costs $$$$$$ including the upper tiers of the homeless industry.
 
Last edited:
I should note my hometown of Montreal has a lot of homeless but they tend to "disappear" during the brutal winter.
 
Climber said:
We took a road trip up to Montreal after High School in New Hampshire.

Great strip clubs! :thumbup :laughing
Click to expand...

Yes they're epically famous

l.jpg


This place has since closed but apparently you could get 5 guys after...
 
Eldritch said:
The solution is obvious. They should be building a cheap, non-union 30,000 bed facility out in Madera County, staffing it with Non-Profit workers providing full services for addiction and mental illness, and start busing them down there. Such a facility should not be within City limits of any incorporated town, like some place south of Coursegold off of Hwy 41.
Click to expand...

Go even cheaper with FEMA tents.

aminalmutha said:
Not sure why you'd want five guys after a strip club visit.
Click to expand...

Pent up sexual frustration?

I mean, sure, it's not the same as girls, but there are five of them.
 
aminalmutha said:
Not sure why you'd want five guys after a strip club visit.
Click to expand...

He didn't say women danced there, dude...

bojangle said:
Go even cheaper with FEMA tents.
Click to expand...

Nah, not a viable solution. You need something more structurally stable. 30k Beds would be more than SF needs, but you could probably sell the extra bed space to Oakland and San Jose to help spread around the cost of operating the facility. Social Workers are not cheap, so it would be expensive to run, but I think you could probably manage the whole thing for about $200 Million per year in operations costs.

KooLaid said:
Supposedly cities like San Francisco, Sacramento and Stockton have been busing the homeless out for years. Many of them end up in madera, Fresno and especially Merced. I've heard it a few times from staff at the welfare office in Merced County that do intake applications. The way the story goes, these other cities either pay for the bus/train ticket one way to Merced or recommend they relocate to Merced because the town pays up the cash benefits faster than anyone else around.

Personally I think San Francisco and other bay area towns are the perfect places to build formerly homeless developments. So much opportunity for success and growth for them get off the streets and stay off the streets. To dump those with nothing into a nothing poor community, would be like moving out the poor families from San Francisco to Antioch or something. Plus considerably more tax money able to be raised in short periods of time to help fund it. That's what should of been done with Candlestick park instead of luxury homes.
Click to expand...

You see, your confusion is that you think the SF Homeless population is just broke people who only need a hand up. Functional people who can take advantage of opportunities do not become chronically homeless. They just hit a rough patch and bounce back with one of said opportunities or they leave for a more affordable area where they may or may not find success. I have posted reports on this many times before. The majority of the chronically homeless in SF are shattered individuals who are dual and often triple diagnosed. They will never amount to shit in life, no matter how many resources you throw at them. We just need to put them somewhere where an appropriate level of care is more sustainable and quite frankly, get them out of the environment that is enabling their disadvantaged condition.
 
Last edited:
Eldritch said:
Nah, not a viable solution. You need something more structurally stable. 30k Beds would be more than SF needs, but you could probably sell the extra bed space to Oakland and San Jose to help spread around the cost of operating the facility. Social Workers are not cheap, so it would be expensive to run, but I think you could probably manage the whole thing for about $200 Million per year in operations costs.
Click to expand...

Well, you could always start off with the cheap FEMA tent solution and see how it works. It might take showing proof of concept to get buy in to find and staff a more permanent solution.

If we could show that shelter is available to any and all homeless, then it should be constitutional, under the 9th circuit, to them enforce all the anti camping laws against those who refuse the shelters.

Eldritch said:
You see, your confusion is that you think the SF Homeless population is just broke people who only need a hand up. Functional people who can take advantage of opportunities do not become chronically homeless. They just hit a rough patch and bounce back with one of said opportunities or they leave for a more affordable area where they may or may not find success. I have posted reports on this many times before. The majority of the chronically homeless in SF are shattered individuals who are dual and often triple diagnosed. They will never amount to shit in life, no matter how many resources you throw at them. We just need to put them somewhere where an appropriate level of care is more sustainable and quite frankly, get them out of the environment that is enabling their disadvantaged condition.
Click to expand...

This! ^^^. And that doesn't just apply to SF. That applies to all homeless, everywhere.
 
Eldritch said:
You see, your confusion is that you think the SF Homeless population is just broke people who only need a hand up. Functional people who can take advantage of opportunities do not become chronically homeless. They just hit a rough patch and bounce back with one of said opportunities or they leave for a more affordable area where they may or may not find success. I have posted reports on this many times before. The majority of the chronically homeless in SF are shattered individuals who are dual and often triple diagnosed. They will never amount to shit in life, no matter how many resources you throw at them. We just need to put them somewhere where an appropriate level of care is more sustainable and quite frankly, get them out of the environment that is enabling their disadvantaged condition.
Click to expand...
Great to you have your input here, with your extensive experience! :thumbup

I think the fundamental problem with much of the public's perception of the homeless problem is that many of them think that the majority would get back on their feet again if only they had some resources to help them.

But from everything that I've read from people like you and others with feet on the ground is that most of them aren't trying to get back on their feet and won't ever get back on their feet.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to help the ones who could get back on their feet and eventually be self-sustainable.

But the rest need a sustainable and cost-effective solution and inside of SF would be X4 at least.
 
I know they have no obligation but some billionaires could easily fund an entire compound on their own. Imagine being the man that "solved" homelessness in your town?
 
HappyHighwayman said:
I know they have no obligation but some billionaires could easily fund an entire compound on their own. Imagine being the man that "solved" homelessness in your town?
Click to expand...
A wealthy guy up in Marin tried...it ended up very badly. They didn't want to help out, only dirtied up his property until he kicked them all out as a failed experiment.

I tried to find the story, maybe somebody else can find it.
 
Climber said:
A wealthy guy up in Marin tried...it ended up very badly. They didn't want to help out, only dirtied up his property until he kicked them all out as a failed experiment.

I tried to find the story, maybe somebody else can find it.
Click to expand...

Noble but flawed. I meant something more organized where you don't have any obligations other than not breaking the law. In my fantasy I'd also make jobs available like being assigned blocks of the city you "Own" and are responsible for keeping clean.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top