Support NeoGAF

[Dalek]

A Plan to Flood San Francisco With News on Homelessness

Homeless people sleeping on the sidewalk last week on Larkin Street near City Hall in San Francisco.

SAN FRANCISCO — As the editor in chief of The San Francisco Chronicle, Audrey Cooper has overseen countless stories on homelessness. But the issue became personal three years ago when she was pushing her 6-month-old child in a stroller through the city’s business district. A homeless couple in a tent on the sidewalk were having sex, tent flaps open, as their pit bull stood guard.

Ms. Cooper expressed her outrage loudly and in colorful language.

“I probably shouldn’t have started yelling at them,” she said in an interview in her fishbowl office in the heart of the Chronicle’s newsroom. “They let their dog loose.”

San Francisco residents have over decades become inured to encounters with the city’s homeless population, the clumps of humanity sleeping on sidewalks under coats and makeshift blankets, or drug addicts shooting up in full view of pedestrians. There are also the tension-filled but common scenes of mentally ill men and women stumbling down streets, arguing with imaginary enemies or harassing passers-by.

One particularly vocal group of residents, San Francisco’s journalists, say they feel a sense of urgency in addressing the problem. They are banding together in an exasperated, but as yet vaguely defined, attempt to spur the city into action.

Next month, media organizations in the Bay Area are planning to put aside their rivalries and competitive instincts for a day of coordinated coverage on the homeless crisis in the city. The Chronicle, which is leading the effort, is dispensing with traditional news article formats and will put forward possible solutions to the seemingly intractable plight of around 6,000 people without shelter.

Representatives from Bay Area television and radio stations, The Chronicle, The San Francisco Examiner, Mother Jones and online publications, among others, met last month to figure out a plan to share resources and content. They agreed to publish their reports on homelessness on June 29.

“We are all frustrated,” said Jon Steinberg, the editor in chief of San Francisco magazine, which is also taking part. “We are all fed up. We feel there is not enough movement and accountability on the issue.”

“We want the full force of the Fourth Estate to bear down on this problem,” he added.

Thirty news organizations have confirmed their participation. KQED, a public television and radio station, is also taking a lead role in the campaign.

The premise of the effort is to create a “wave” of coverage that will force politicians to come up with solutions, Ms. Cooper said.

“You will not be able to log onto Facebook, turn on the radio, watch TV, read a newspaper, log onto Twitter without seeing a story about the causes and solutions to homelessness,” she said.

At a time of tight budgets, collaboration has become increasingly common in the news business. This year’s Pulitzer Prize for investigative journalism was won by a combined team from The Tampa Bay Times and The Sarasota Herald-Tribune in Florida. Still, the San Francisco collaboration stands out for the number of organizations involved and, in the case of The Chronicle, the emphasis on proposing solutions.

Ms. Cooper said The Chronicle will run a week of coverage, including four articles that she described as something akin to a science project: putting forth a hypothesized solution and investigating it. The first proposal is that the city build a mental health center large enough to treat the mentally ill on the streets. The article will explore the cost and the feasibility of institutionalizing people.

“We need to be a hell of a lot more creative about how we solve this problem,” Ms. Cooper said. “And we are probably going to have to break some dishes to do it.” The paper’s articles and photographs will be offered free to all participants. The paper will also run a front-page editorial with its conclusions on what solutions should be pursued.

Advocacy is a longstanding taboo in American journalism, making reporters and editors wary of discussing solutions to the problems they highlight in their coverage. One rationale for this is that journalists who advocate causes might be selective in their reporting or biased in their coverage.

In a city known for its liberal traditions, the question of whether San Francisco’s journalists are crossing into activism has not come up, at least not in the initial meeting of news organizations last month.

“It was sort of shocking that there was no dissension,” said Holly Kernan, the executive editor for news at KQED, the public broadcaster that hosted the meeting. “On the contrary, the conversation was, ‘Let’s do way more.’”

Ms. Kernan said her station plans “blanket” coverage on June 29, but will not propose solutions. “I see what we are doing as pure journalism,” Ms. Kernan said.

 

[Wolfe]

Curious to see what comes of this, being in the bay area I'm assuming this'll start popping up in the news soon.

 

[boiled goose]

So she started caring because people that are desperate and homeless were having sex in public and that made her uncomfortable?

It's good that she is trying to find a solution, but it is so sad that this is what it took for a freaking journalist to start giving a fuck.

 

[braves01]

Sounds like the rich folk are sick of seeing the people they displaced hanging about. They'll probably move them somewhere else instead of increasing access to affordable shelter.

 

[titiklabingapat]

So she started caring because people that are desperate and homeless were having sex in public and that made her uncomfortable?

It's good that she is trying to find a solution, but it is so sad that this is what it took for a freaking journalist to start giving a fuck.

Well I'd rather her caring other than not. And at least they are doing this the right way by exploring for solutions instead of the easier 'ewww, they smell.put them away'.

 

[Otakumegane]

People more well off don't want to see dirty homeless while shopping.

 

[Khoryos]

...I read the topic title as "Plan to flood San Francisco with new homeless", which would have been a pretty accurate statement on Greyhound therapy.

 

[Dalek]

...I read the topic title as "Plan to flood San Francisco with new homeless", which would have been a pretty accurate statement on Greyhound therapy.

Nah, Nevada already did that to us.

 

[Megadragon15]

Sounds like the rich folk are sick of seeing the people they displaced hanging about. They'll probably move them somewhere else instead of increasing access to affordable shelter.

Yep. They'll try to bus them out to other cities in the cover of night and wash their hands of it like other cities do.

 

[Of All Trades]

So she started caring because people that are desperate and homeless were having sex in public and that made her uncomfortable?

It's good that she is trying to find a solution, but it is so sad that this is what it took for a freaking journalist to start giving a fuck.

When the response to scolding, valid or not, is letting a dangerous animal loose you've crossed into a different territory of behavior.

I'm friends with a higher up in a medium sized, homeless "friendly" city with a somewhat recently severely increased homeless problem and the problem is that homelessness isn't just desperate people, it's also the mentally ill, the addicts, people who actually want to live that way, and people trying to get back on their feet, and at a certain threshold the behaviors warp as heirarchies form. Those heirarchies severly impede city workers from implementing solutions that aren't leo based. It's a mess and I haven't heard a solution yet that doesn't involve reopening mental health facilities and forcibly keeping people in them.

 

[Guevara]

This city is such a disaster on homelessness.

We spend $250 million year on our <7,000 homeless, and can't even track the outcomes

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record-241-million-on-homeless-6808319.php

 

[Jonbo298]

People more well off don't want to see dirty homeless while shopping.

What greater way to be progressive.

 

[Gallbaro]

This city is such a disaster on homelessness.

We spend $250 million year on our <7,000 homeless, and can't even track the outcomes

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record-241-million-on-homeless-6808319.php

Yup, you are a pretty liberal

Spoiler

corrupt

city.

 

[entremet]

This city is such a disaster on homelessness.

We spend $250 million year on our <7,000 homeless, and can't even track the outcomes

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record-241-million-on-homeless-6808319.php

Let's say someone gets a job, how will they afford an apartment with SF rents?

 

[Dalek]

Let's say someone gets a job, how will they afford an apartment with SF rents?

Don't live in SF. They'll have to commute.

 

[Binabik15]

So she started caring because people that are desperate and homeless were having sex in public and that made her uncomfortable?

It's good that she is trying to find a solution, but it is so sad that this is what it took for a freaking journalist to start giving a fuck.

“I probably shouldn’t have started yelling at them,” she said in an interview in her fishbowl office in the heart of the Chronicle’s newsroom. “They let their dog loose.”

Quite a dick thing to do when someone with a stroller is involved.

 

[Guevara]

Quite a dick thing to do when someone with a stroller is involved.

The difference between NYC and SF, in my opinion, is the SF homeless can be super aggressive. Have off-leash pitbulls is a big part of that aggressive stance, carrying around weapon-like objects is common, physically engaging with people is not unheard of either.

NYC would never let that fly.

 

[SecretDan]

Sounds like the rich folk are sick of seeing the people they displaced hanging about.

This is note even remotely close to the truth.

You think most the homeless people in SF are there because they can't afford a Nob Hill condo?

This is the local governments fault.

 

[SummitAve]

People more well off don't want to see dirty homeless while shopping.

People don't want to see dirty homeless people in general. Even the poor.

 

[Trojita]

Is it wrong that I'm worried this coverage will focus more on shaming them than helping?

Also if my math is right, 1 in 144 people in San Francisco are homeless. I honestly expected the figures to be worse with how I keep on hearing people talk about an epidemic. NYC has about 1 in 142 people in homeless shelters alone.

 

[SecretDan]

Is it wrong that I'm worried this coverage will focus more on shaming them than helping?

Journalists in the city have been pretty sympathetic. Lots of residents talk shit about the homeless, but it is hard to not be annoyed when you see homeless shitting/pissing/jerking off on the sidewalk on your way to work.

Obviously the anger should be directed at the local gov., but it is hard to not shake your head sometimes.

 

[MasterOfPastures]

Maybe it's time to kill the NIMBYs and erect the first Arcology in the world. Call it... Rag City.

 

[Abstrusity]

Maybe it's time to kill the NIMBYs and erect the first Arcology in the world. Call it... Rag City.

NIMBYism is the problem here, as it is for so much more. Christ, nuclear waste when done right is safe. You could put all of it in a lake and still drink from the lake, getting less radiation than you do by existing. But people are afraid. Wind and solar farms can cut down on emissions drastically, but they don't want it "in their back yard."

It's time to boot them out. If hey want to live their lives governed by fear, they can jon the Trumpeters in getting pushed off our world (like the dirty sandrakers they are).

 

[Liquidsnake]

Can we do this in Santa Monica too please?

Its being ignored, and its getting so bad.

 

[LUFTRAUSER]

Caring about the poor stops when you have money. A rich city is getting rich sensibilities. Not so liberal anymore, huh?

I don't understand why cities allow so many people to just sleep out on the streets. It's unsightly.

 

[outunderthestars]

People in SF read newspapers?

Seriously though, outside of paying to move them out of the region, I don't see how there can be any solutions when real estate prices are so absurdly high.

Can we do this in Santa Monica too please?

Its being ignored, and its getting so bad.

The climate alone will always ensure a steady stream of homeless.

 

[Guevara]

Caring about the poor stops when you have money. A rich city is getting rich sensibilities. Not so liberal anymore, huh?

Kind of a silly comment. We spend a fortune on the homeless, both in time and money.

However SF is terrible at management of our many programs and accountability.

 

[MiniBossBattle]

Is it wrong that I'm worried this coverage will focus more on shaming them than helping?

Also if my math is right, 1 in 144 people in San Francisco are homeless. I honestly expected the figures to be worse with how I keep on hearing people talk about an epidemic. NYC has about 1 in 142 people in homeless shelters alone.

Guilani actually bused homeless people to the outer boroughs or Newark and dumped them there.

 

[LUFTRAUSER]

Kind of a silly comment. We spend a fortune on the homeless, both in time and money.

However SF is terrible at management of our many programs and accountability.

Your city has money to spend and they spend it. It's easy. Management is hard and you don't do it. That's why I say your city doesn't care.

This isn't a money issue. If you just handed a random homeless guy a wad of cash they probably wouldn't improve.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

The reason San Francisco can't/won't fix their homeless problem is because the most efficient way of helping people is to use a "housing first" approach. That means giving people a permanent residence rather than just a shelter. In San Francisco there's not enough housing to go around even for people who have means, so it seems to me that the homelessness problem is going to be insurmountable without a huge sea change in density and housing availability in that city in general, despite how much money the government throws at the problem.

 

[outunderthestars]

Guilani actually bused homeless people to the outer boroughs or Newark and dumped them there.

alot of cities will offer homeless a few hundred bucks, a bag of clean clothes and supplies, and a one way bus ticket to any city they'd like. I once worked for a town that did this, under the radar, for years.

Your city has money to spend and they spend it. It's easy. Management is hard and you don't do it. That's why I say your city doesn't care.

This isn't a money issue. If you just handed a random homeless guy a wad of cash they probably wouldn't improve.

Not to be an asshole, but how do you propose that they solve the problem? It is a very complicated issue that few cities anywhere have been able to solve. If you offer great benefits/support to the homeless you end up drawing homeless people from surrounding areas, only making the issue worse.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Not to be an asshole, but how do you propose that they solve the problem? It is a very complicated issue that few cities anywhere have been able to solve. If you offer great benefits/support to the homeless you end up drawing homeless people from surrounding areas, only making the issue worse.

Most of it is mental health problems I think. It would need a national (or at least in the US a state level) approach instead of just one city to get these people help. Of course the cost are a problem and a lot of them will have to be taken care of the rest of their lives in some way, which will not be popular.

Over here we had budget cuts in mental healthcare and seen a rise in people with problems on the street also.

Next to that, cheap social housing. But in a city like this, that is going to be difficult also. Too much demand.

 

[LUFTRAUSER]

Not to be an asshole, but how do you propose that they solve the problem? It is a very complicated issue that few cities anywhere have been able to solve. If you offer great benefits/support to the homeless you end up drawing homeless people from surrounding areas, only making the issue worse.

Build more shelters and make it illegal to just be out on the street. Start building more hostile architecture. Spikes under the bridges. Slanted benches. No tents. No more benefits. There are plenty of solutions, but SF is too liberal for the more effective ones.

 

[teruterubozu]

Problem is most people move from outside San Francisco so it's not "their problem," whereas many of the homeless have been there since the 1960s.

 

[Gallbaro]

Build more shelters and make it illegal to just be out on the street. Start building more hostile architecture. Spikes under the bridges. Slanted benches. No tents. No more benefits. There are plenty of solutions, but SF is too liberal for the more effective ones.

Constitutionally protected.

Realistically SF and the surrounding areas need to merge into a larger administrative base, but that wont happen.

 

[t26]

Sounds like the rich folk are sick of seeing the people they displaced hanging about. They'll probably move them somewhere else instead of increasing access to affordable shelter.

Many people on the street are from outside of SF. Many are chronic homeless who been on the street for a long time. People who were displaced are living in overcrowded situation, in their car, or just moved out

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

Build more shelters and make it illegal to just be out on the street. Start building more hostile architecture. Spikes under the bridges. Slanted benches. No tents. No more benefits. There are plenty of solutions, but SF is too liberal for most of the most effective ones.

You're just wrong here. Shelters don't fix the issue. Permanent supportive housing is the only thing that works. Shelters just extend the cyclical nature of living in homelessness. People use a shelter for a while, then get back on the street, mixed up in drugs, end up in an emergency room, detoxing, and then back in the shelter again. They don't work.

In Philadelphia permanent housing actually DECREASES the cost of acute service usage per individual living in homelessness by $7000+ per year.

 

[outunderthestars]

Most of it is mental health problems I think. It would need a national (or at least in the US a state level) approach instead of just one city to get these people help. Of course the cost are a problem and a lot of them will have to be taken care of the rest of their lives in some way, which will not be popular.

Over here we had budget cuts in mental healthcare and seen a rise in people with problems on the street also.

Next to that, cheap social housing. But in a city like this, that is going to be difficult also. Too much demand.

Again, I agree with those ideas, but neither of those options are really feasible on a city level, and the real estate one even doubly so in SF.

You're just wrong here. Shelters don't fix the issue. Permanent supportive housing is the only thing that works. Shelters just extend the cyclical nature of living in homelessness. People use a shelter for a while, then get back on the street, mixed up in drugs, end up in an emergency room, detoxing, and then back in the shelter again. They don't work.

In Philadelphia permanent housing actually DECREASES the cost of acute service usage per individual living in homelessness by $7000+ per year.

Agreed, but how do you do that in a city that a median house price six times higher than Philly ($220,000 vs 1.3 million)?

 

[Edvardelis]

Also if my math is right, 1 in 144 people in San Francisco are homeless. I honestly expected the figures to be worse with how I keep on hearing people talk about an epidemic. NYC has about 1 in 142 people in homeless shelters alone.

I think they're far more concentrated in San Francisco than they are in NYC. SF isn't small by any means, but if you walk around Union Square, you're basically tripping over homeless people left and right.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

Agreed, but how do you do that in a city that a median house price six times higher than Philly ($220,000 vs 1.3 million)?

It's not easy. But with the obscene amounts of wealth in San Francisco the right approach to ending chronic street homelessness can get a ton done. If Philadelphia, one of the poorest major cities in the country, with the highest rate of deep poverty of almost any major city can get homelessness down to 1 in 5000 residents, then cities like San Francisco can do better than 1 in 275 and Seattle can do better than 1 in 300.

Note: Numbers are from a 2009 survey.

 

[Aztechnology]

This city is such a disaster on homelessness.

We spend $250 million year on our <7,000 homeless, and can't even track the outcomes

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record-241-million-on-homeless-6808319.php

Hold up. They spend ~$36,000 dollars a year per homeless person essentially and they can't track it? WTF... couldn't they just pay for their housing with funds like that?

You know assuming they could even track that simple exchange.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

Again, I agree with those ideas, but neither of those options are really feasible on a city level, and the real estate one even doubly so in SF.



Agreed, but how do you do that in a city that a median house price six times higher than Philly ($220,000 vs 1.3 million)?

Eminent domain on the outskirts of the city where land prices are lower and there is less density.

 

[Ogodei]

Give them houses. Salt Lake City fixed this one already.

Of course, that would require Frisco to have houses to give.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

Hold up. They spend ~$34,000 dollars a year per homeless person essentially and they can't track it? WTF... couldn't they just pay for their housing with funds like that?

Most of that is spent in inpatient care, detox, rehab, and psychological services. There's not a good way to track how it's spent on an overall basis because those services don't track whether or not they're spending the money on individuals living in homelessness or otherwise.

It's easier to estimate how much is being spent per person per year, and then seek alternative care avenues for individuals which reduce costs.

 

[LUFTRAUSER]

You're just wrong here. Shelters don't fix the issue. Permanent supportive housing is the only thing that works. Shelters just extend the cyclical nature of living in homelessness. People use a shelter for a while, then get back on the street, mixed up in drugs, end up in an emergency room, detoxing, and then back in the shelter again. They don't work.

In Philadelphia permanent housing actually DECREASES the cost of acute service usage per individual living in homelessness by $7000+ per year.

You're right, but unfortunately I don't think SF has any houses to spare. And they won't build more for some reason.

 

[t26]

It's not easy. But with the obscene amounts of wealth in San Francisco the right approach to ending chronic street homelessness can get a ton done. If Philadelphia, one of the poorest major cities in the country, with the highest rate of deep poverty of almost any major city can get homelessness down to 1 in 5000 residents, then cities like San Francisco can do better than 1 in 275 and Seattle can do better than 1 in 300.

Note: Numbers are from a 2009 survey.

Major difference is that San Francisco is a magnet for homeless people all over the country. If you are on the street, why would you not move to a city with many of tourist who will give money and many resources? Pretty much every time they are able to get someone off the street someone else is on the street. Philadelphia doesn't have that problem.

 

[Poohblaster]

Give them houses. Salt Lake City fixed this one already.

Of course, that would require Frisco to have houses to give.

Yep, this plan worked for Salt Lake.
http://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-chronic-homelessness-by-91-percent-heres-how

Unfortunately property in San Fran is so much more expensive than anywhere else.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

Major difference is that San Francisco is a magnet for homeless people all over the country. If you are on the street, why would you not move to a city with many of tourist who will give money and many resources? Pretty much every time they are able to get someone off the street someone else is on the street. Philadelphia doesn't have that problem.

The homeless migration thing is largely a myth. Over 50% of people experiencing homelessness remain in their city or community of origin. Only an average of about 30% of homeless individuals move from state to state, but even then it's almost always a regional move. It's actually very rare for homeless to move from region to region. The migration is based on community size, individuals who are homeless move from smaller towns and cities into the larger towns and cities in their area.

So yes, given that Philadelphia has a metro population size of over 4m, they do have that problem. They also have the fact that one of the main causes of homelessness is poverty, which it has in vast excess. Philadelphia just has really good organizations to address homelessness.

 

[The Illiterati]

Build some simple mass one room bungalows with a bed, chair in each. Provide soap, blankets, towels, and a mop and bucket. Only requirement to stay is a monthly check that your room isn't destroyed. Have a soup kitchen centrally located and funded. A public restroom and showers. Station some few medical personnel/beat cops 24/7. Some people can use this as a foundation to get a step back up, while others can at least have a safe place to stay.

Surely this will cost less than 250 million.

 

[hunchback]

This city is such a disaster on homelessness.

We spend $250 million year on our <7,000 homeless, and can't even track the outcomes

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record-241-million-on-homeless-6808319.php

If my math is right that's 35,714.00 per homeless person. How in the heck do they not have shelter if that's correct.

Edit: Beaten