By - Goldenboy011
I work retail in sf, there's one specific individual that comes into the store at least once a week and harasses everyone, blatantly steals merchandise and generally just terrorizes our store and the entire shopping center
He has been arrested at least 4 times since I started working there and According to management many many times before that
They toss him loose every time, he is homeless and is a constant hazard to the community
Get him on video and on the front page of the Bay Area subs and if you can Twitter. Just mention he does this a lot and has been arrested before and keeps on coming. It's more work than it should but it's very effective at having the problem dealt with.
If it's not a big retail chain hire security for a bit and tell them about the specific problem you have with this dude and how he makes you fear for your life. They will solve it for you. What neighborhood are you in? I can recommend security companies, but also what works great is find the biggest bouncer in the fancy dispensaries in your neighborhood and ask them. If it's a big retail chain the video and post I mentioned earlier should be taken by a "friend". If you don't have friends I heard security guards in said dispensaries are great people and also looking for friends.
And yeah this progressive policies are doing great, we are almost the libertarian utopia with private police and all.
It's sad we have to shame law enforcement & politicians into doing their jobs but this right here is the way to deal with egregious repeat offenders.
He mentioned the guy was arrested numerous times?
a slap on the wrist isn’t exactly “doing their job” imo
So who are you referring to when you say law enforcement? Cause the cops arrest people then hand the case off. So they wouldn't be responsible for the "slap on the wrist."
Judicial, Legislative, and Executive branches are separated for a reason.
law enforcement is commonly known as the police, courts, and corrections. if you google “law enforcement” it is also what you will get, not just cops, since enforcing the law is FAR more than just the initial arrest
Courts are judicial branch, law makers are legislative branch, law enforcement is executive branch. Police and DA are considered enforcement but not the judiciary. It would be unconstitutional for the courts to act as enforcement.
I think the thing is... If he's arrested.. and he goes through the system, any system... What comes after he gets out? Nobody gets life in prison for harassment and theft in a store.
Similar thing for mental health. They can hold you for 72 hours on a 5150. Maybe if you're lucky you get two weeks on a 5250. Then what? Your problems don't go away. You don't stop having a psychotic disorder. Nobody forces you on meds or gives you the means to pay for them.
There are large, systemic problems, and throwing people in prison or hospitals spends a lot of money and doesn't help.
I mean state mandated and run treatment facilities is gonna be the fastest way to clean up the streets, London breed herself is a proponent of giving them the choice to go to jail or go to rehab.
I appreciate the problems in the system and what has led people to be in this situation and we should of course fix the source of the issue, but at the end of the day, harassment, theft, stabbings, Overdosing in the street, etc. Cannot be allowed to become a standard of the city. I think most everyone's patience is running out
You'll be lucky to get 12 hours out of a 5150 nowadays. More like six.
send his ass on a bus to a correctional facility.
Sounds like we should reorganize society and provide adequate free mental health care, public housing and other social services instead of just saying "lol we should genocide unhoused people"
[Incitement against the homeless: The infestation rhetoric of local news](https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-85-incitement-against-the-homeless-part-i-the-infestation-rhetoric-of-local-news)
[The exterminationist rhetoric of Fox news](https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-86-incitement-against-the-homeless-part-ii-the-exterminationist-rhetoric-of-fox-news)
Letting people with severe mental illness languish on the streets is not compassion. Extreme progressives are losing the reasonable liberals because of this.
Most progressives that I know, many of them whom eschew being labeled a liberal, are for institutionalization of the critically mentally ill. As long as it’s humane, and they’re not treated like animals which hasn’t been the track record for institutions have had in this country. What I’m not for, and my progressive peers that I know of, is arresting and criminalizing them for issues beyond their control. Throwing them in jail only for them to be let back into the streets doesn’t accomplish anything. I’m not against someone being arrested if they’re a harm to others or themselves. That’s reasonable. We don’t have a system to adequately deal with this issue even though the resources are available. It’s angering and frustrating. It’s harmful to the community’s collective mental health to be subject to such human suffering on an ongoing basis—literally ongoing trauma. I don’t know why they can’t be placed in treatment facilities where they can be provided with resources while still maintaining a level of freedom to enjoy their lives. I know that I would not be able to function as a productive member of society without my psychiatric medications—but I have a great support system and a socioeconomic status that allows me utilize a variety of resources to manage my severe mental health issues. I can guarantee that many of these people would not be in their predicament if they had someone who cared and they had access to therapies, medications and experimental treatments.
Quite a few people support that, but my understanding is that there are major hurdles to involuntarily committing people to drug rehab or mental health treatment on an ongoing basis.
There's also the simple fact that California, like almost every state, has far fewer beds to support such programs than would be necessary if it were more common to commit people to institutionalized programs. We don't even have adequate bed space to effectively run community assisted outpatient treatment programs that provide people with stable housing.
Both of those issues combined currently make it nearly impossible to make progress on some of these issues and should be addressed along with any expansion of the state's ability to institutionalize individuals or force them into outpatient treatment/rehab.
It was that flaming lefty Ronald Reagan who basically defunded public mental health services, including inpatient. He said care should be provided by private sector and charities instead.
Yes, quite aware of Reagan's role in creating this mess.
At this point, those are all bullshit excuses. We have the wealth, knowledge and technology to fix this issue. There’s no reason for these people to be suffering on the streets, and for the community at large to be suffering. Anything at this point is incompetence by our government. They’re choosing to let us all suffer.
It's not just the TL. Head to the Haight, Castro, or Soma and there are pockets of encampments throughout. Just a few weeks ago a gas grill outside a tent at 15th and Church lit up a building that had just recent been repaired from a fire. It destroyed a beautiful mural that had just been completed this year.
Yup. Loved that mural! I don't usually mind the tents--I'm probably just used to it--but knowing that it comes with a side of carelessness and potential for fire and serious damage along with the extent trash and drive by poopings annoyances I can only think negatively of tents and encampments. That fire was basically the final straw for me.
Right. It's become a city wide issue whereas it was contained previously.
I visit the TL at least once a week. I deliver groceries to an old lady that can't get them herself. In fact, I have to go down there in a couple hours.
As distressing as that area is to even visit (I can't imagine living like that), I've started to understand why "we" tolerate it.
I could go into a whole rant about it, but the basic idea is "What's the other option?" And, I'm not an idiot. I know what the other options are, in theory, but they all seem to either be totally unfeasible, or would actually make the problem worse.
Believe me, I'm totally open to supporting ideas to fix it, but just saying "we shouldn't tolerate it" is lazy at best.
I think it begins by looking at the tenderloin as you’re looking at it. It is a neighborhood of impoverished individuals and families trying to make a go of it in a neighborhood they can afford. Instead the city seems to prioritize the addicts rights over the residents rights. Someone from the homeless coalition argued a few years ago that using park spaces as bathrooms was a fundamental function of public spaces. No it isn’t, and that is because when you use a playground to shootup and defecate you limit it’s value to the other residents who don’t want to shoot up and defecate.
Lol the “reasonable” liberals far outnumber the “extreme” progressives. “Reasonable” liberals hold way more offices including mayor.
So how are progressives the only ones to blame for letting people languish on the streets?
Have you considered most of these people reject services?
Are you advocating putting people in treatment or shelter against their will?
If a crime is committed, people should have the choice to go to in patient treatment, or go to jail to serve their sentence.
The answer is not to just let people run amok.
Most people on the street do not commit much crime other than their drug use.
>Are you advocating putting people in treatment or shelter against their will?
Yes, absolutely. We're looking at the alternative right now and for the last 10+ years. *It does not work*
Yes. Lock them up.
When my mother had a mental health breakdown and beat up four cops while she was having that break she wasn't sent to prison, she was sent to a mental health facility and was not released until she 1. accepted meds. 2. therapy 3. supervised therapy for years.
She ended up dying less than 10 years later, but them locking her up saved her life for those 8 or so years.
That was in Texas.
So yes, lock them up and require them to get medical help that includes therapy.
We put people in jail against their will. If that’s what it takes to get violent and mentally I’ll people off the streets then that’s what needs to happen. You can’t just let people do whatever they want. You need to house & help them, but there must be conditions. You can’t open a homeless shelter in one neighborhood but then tell people they can continue to live in tents outside people’s doors in same neighborhood.
Progressives are the ultimate straw man in California.
What the hell are you talking about? The police budget is as big as it's ever been and she wants it to be higher.
Bitcoin bro dislikes liberals, news at 11
have the massive social benefit programs been put into place after defunding the police? did i miss it? Someone tells you to stop doing A and instead do B and then you go off and stop doing A and don't do B and then just complain that their plan didnt work. seems like maybe a progressive would have actually listened to the defund the police plan and then actually followed through with it.
>Letting people with severe mental illness languish on the streets is not compassion.
neither is putting them in prisons. in order for us to have compassionate laws we need actual social spending to deal with the problems not just ignoring crime and pretending it will go away. for some reason no one wants to do the actual work necessary to actually help these people.
See, that right there tells me you don't even understand the current reality of the situation. San Francisco spends more money on social services than any other city in the country. There's massive amounts of people working to provide programs for people - the problem is that we're too afraid to do the hard part, which is essentially force people off the streets against their will to accept the treatment. New York City doesn't have the same issues that San Francisco has because they are willing to be uncompromising on their policies with homeless. it can definitely be seen as cruel, but at the same time - as everyone on this thread has stated already - the current situation of letting them rot in the street is not any less cruel in the long run.
Oh of course, the 'WE DIDN'T SPEND ENOUGH MONEY' trope comes around when progressive policies fall flat on their face.
It’s not even that we don’t spend enough money. It’s how we are allocating resources. I agree that throwing more money at it won’t help. And the efforts happening now, don’t really align with progressive ideologies however much you want to label them as such. They’re piss poor democrat bandaids with no real substance. The way we manage this crisis needs to be completely overhauled and we need to remove waste. Money spent on low-performing non-profits only takes resources from those who need it. I don’t know how to solve this, but there’s definitely plenty money being spent as is if it were used in a more functional means paired with laws and institutions to take care of these issues is what we need.
Their policies can't have failed when they've never been enacted. They say don't do A but instead do B and then you stop doing A but refuse to do B and then act like their plan failed.
A homeless person can get $520 a month in cash, healthcare, food vouchers, housing, etc. from the gov't in SF. What more do you want SF to do compared to everwhere else in the country? If anything, SF is incenvizing homelessness.
>What more do you want SF to do compared to everwhere else in the country?
what the rest of the world is doing is irrelevant to how we decide to treat other humans. a way to disincentivize homelessness would be to provide real long term housing to people that want it.
I guess they can die from overdosing in long term housing then. Great use of resources. A lot of them don't even WANT housing (especially if there's strings attached), crazy addicts only care about one thing and getting clean often isn't it.
>especially if there's strings attached)
there shouldnt be strings attached to housing. people have to want to get clean for it to work. no one wants to do the thing they're being forced into with threat of depriving them of base things humans need to survive.
Pretty comprehensive research that shows it's dramatically harder to fight addiction when you are surrounded 24/7 with temptation.
A glaring pathology of political / cultural discourse these days is that people have to present their liberal credentials before saying something entirely reasonable but tangentially, possibly, maybe, aligned with someone on the right.
I don’t blame OP because that is the cultural dance we have all choreographed. That pressure is exactly what drives people to polarization.
Conversely, the other pathology that i absolutely hate is how when a progressive policy or progressive politician creates an unfavorable outcome (see: Chesa), progressives will come out of the woodwork and scream at the top of their lungs that these aren't REAL progressive policies or these aren't REAL progressive politicians... they're FAKE. Like, dude, stfu, i went from hearing 'defund the police' to 'abolish the police' to 'abolish prisons' on my social media from these freaks who are trying to always one up each other on their progressive credentials, and now you're telling me they're fake progressives? You don't get to do post hoc gatekeeping just because you have egg on your face because the policies you champion are failing. GTFO. To the progressives who say Chesa is a 'fake' progressive, maybe you should tell the SF Berniecrats (who still strongly support Chesa... and Bernie endorsed Chesa too) that they're 'fake progressives'. Give me a break!
It's the classic "real communism hasn't been tried!"
... yeah but the thing that moved us towards communism resulted in 50 years of massive misery for millions of people who desperately tried to get out, I'm not sure how going further that direction is supposed to make everything better
Oooooor OP is actually a bit of a fascist, or dancing on the edges of fascism, and he's just using claims to liberalism to make his argument seem more appealing to his audience.
His very recent post history includes things like:
1. In /r/CAguns, regarding a post lamenting more gun control measures coming, he said, "I think our best hope is to turn California red."
2. In /r/politics, regarding a post complaining about white power activits, he said, "But let’s be honest. The Civil Rights movement in this country has moved beyond equality to open and socially acceptable discrimination against white people. Affirmative action. Hate crime laws. Reparations, which specifically targets white people for the wrongdoings of their ancestors." ANd he said, "Both sides are trying to foment a race war."
As for the actual points he makes here, he doesn't know what he's talking about. Sure, "those who need our help should receive it, but there must be strings attached" sounds great, but you know what that's called? Diversion. As in, we're going to suspend prosecution of your criminal charges, in exchange for you cleaning up your act and getting treatment. You know who's the the chief proponent of diversion? DA Chesa Boudin. lol
Also, his idea to use "bait cars" is great, right? No, it's not. San Francisco is a target rich environment with tourists and neophytes leaving valuables in their car all over the city. Like, walk down the block, and you'll find a ton of cars with stuff in them, especially in tourist areas. Why would you need bait cars, when there's already plenty of bait out there? The issue, as always, is having cops in the right place at the right time, and "bait" doesn't work if there's plenty of food generally dispersed around a wide geographic area.
I don’t see either of those posts which may have been deleted by now, but I do see him fighting with right wingers in the comments of /r/benshapiro lol
Anyway, if he is posing that’s creepy and IMO should be bannable. But also being pro gun shouldn’t get you labeled a right wing shill, because uh… reread my comment.
Here's "liberal" OP:
>Both sides suck. Last year’s election was basically a choice between socialism (the left) or fascism (the right).
>What happened to all the normal people in the middle?
I can't believe anyone who thinks Joe Biden is a socialist is being taken seriously.
Can you guys actually link to comments if you’re gonna go through the trouble of trawling their posts and comments? Lol
>The issue, as always, is having cops in the right place at the right time, and "bait" doesn't work if there's plenty of food generally dispersed around a wide geographic area.
You sound like a Chesa apologist. Guess what: before they fill out the paperwork on the arrest, the perp is back on the streets and doing it again. In the Tenderloin one motorcycle thief was arrested over a dozen times. We don't need bait cars, you're right. We need actual punishment for crime, something that hasn't happened since before Gascon and the current clown have been DAs.
I don't fault the OP for saying the only hope (for gun rights) is to turn CA red, because D consistently vote against guns. I personally think guns are dumb as fuck but that doesn't make him a fascist (nor is it worth discrediting those you disagree with as a 'fascist' or other labels to prevent discourse - try to find common ground instead).
Wait wait, you think I'm a Chesa apologist because you agree with me that bait cars are a shit idea?
Also, I'm pretty entertained you chastised me for using political labels to "prevent discourse," and then in the same breath called me a "Chesa apologist." Pot, meet kettle.
Maybe use the bait cars in more residential neighborhoods as well? I think the problem isn’t only isolated to the tourists, it’s us as residents too. Having the opportunity to catch them in the act would mean police need to get up and do something too.
yikes. Thanks for calling out the post history of OP. Definitely puts his POV in a different light. That said, as I think everyone in this thread has acknowledged, SF needs to start taking a harder hand with its vagrancy policies.
Yep. And now look at Rogan. Lol. He’s gotten more and more fringe and outspoken on topics he has no business giving two shits about.
You will never convince me that the homeless I know, the ones I deal with daily, are better off in the streets than in jail/a forced treatment.
They eat garbage. They suffer constant mental stress from other homeless, people who attack them, and their untreated mental illnesses. They don't treat their wounds, which are sometimes broken bones or long standing infections.
They refuse medical services. They refuse housing. They refuse outreach teams like HOT team or the SCRT team. They want to be on the street getting high.
And we just let them destroy themselves in a way that's truly horrifying....
One just needs to spend a week at CPMC ICU to see the light.
Or UCSF ED. God help you if you have a medical emergency, because you'll be making your case vs loads of homeless people looking for free treatment and temporary housing
I think you mean SFGH
The zuck suck is bad, too. Unfortunately not a mutually exclusive problem
I think it’s wrong to group jail and forced treatment together. I do not support criminalizing homelessness, but do support forced treatment. I realize there is a lot of nuances to creat a differentiation, but I think it is important that we do.
"Homelessness" is just a more palatable term for them, but it is a symptom of much more serious issues. "Criminalizing vagrancy" would be more appropriate.
How do you get them to accept treatment without threat of jail? You need some kind of leverage. Can't incarcerate without a crime.
I just think it's more realistic to reform some prisons to be treatment focused than to build effective treatment centers.
Crack down on crimes and put people away for the crimes they commit but combine their time inside with treatment for drug addiction and mental health treatment.
Weak interventions do nothing. Strong interventions (time locked up and away from drug and sales) paired with treatment (including medications to help with addiction).
You can't expect someone's treatment to work if it's a walk in/walk out facility and it's down the street from turk and Taylor or Haight and Ashbury or mission and 16th....
Activists need homeless people, they profit off of them. No homeless, no money for them. They don’t care about them, they only care about the money they get….
No purpose either. That’s the danger of define yourself by what you are for or against. What happens when you get your way? Well your identity erodes. What happens when the city doesn’t have a homeless problem?
Well said. I would add that the burden of navigating biohazard-filled streets swarming with criminals falls disproportionately on immigrants and low-income San Franciscans. My mom used to work at the Mission neighborhood health Center, a free public health clinic that, among other things, provides care for pregnant women and new mothers. There is a permanent tent encampment DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE FRONT DOOR.
Ask yourselves if you want to live in a city where we make pregnant mothers dodge used needles, human feces, crime, and other vile biohazards just to go to the doctor.
The SF harm-reduction coalition has blood on their hands, and the insanity needs to stop.
The part we often don’t think about is first responders. These people have to deal with homeless throwing literal shit at them, trying to stab them, and the general craziness. I know some city firefighters, and they are completely burnt out and jaded by the homeless. A good portion of their calls are for homeless. This affects the service they give towards functioning members of society as well. Our healthcare system can’t keep up with the way things are in California. Have you been to a hospital recently? The ER is almost exclusively homeless.
There have been multiple efforts over decades to address the issues and much of what you suggest has been tried in one way or another. It is about as complex a situation as you can imagine. On one side you have the individual rights of the people who clearly need help but have the right to reject it. If they commit no crime the government can make them do nothing. If they commit crime you fill up your penal system with people who clearly need help - not incarceration. This is how we ended up here.
If you objectify the topic you can see that the government, acting on behalf of the people with the value system they perceive to be of the people, have moved past the what and to the why of these conditions. On the drug side you have addiction and broken lives that have a long journey back to sober independence. On the petty crime side - now moving to armed robbery and aggressive shoplifting you have the unemployed with few to zero options. So you either create socialist jobs programs to give them those options (which again you cannot make them take) or you spend 10X that to attempt to stop them from succeeding at crime. And of course live with the feeling of being unsafe.
There was an interesting datapoint back in the 1999-2000 timeframe. This was a time when unemployment in the area went negative and the first major flood of techies flowed into the Bay Area. Lots of entry level low skill jobs everywhere. Crime dropped. Could it be that damn simple? Is this really about basic human dignity? Someone knows the data and the answer.
Funny this doesn’t seem to be such a problem in other cities. I wonder what the difference is.
Homelessness and drug problems are actually horrible across the country. In most parts of the country (eg less dense midwestern areas hit by the opiate crises), the problems just aren't as visible.
Combination of things. Being near a "source" is one. Favorable weather. Large enough population density in one area to pan handle successfully. And as mentioned some local cities literally drive their homeless to a BART station - hand them a ticket and say get out of our town and do not come back. This dumps people along the BART line. SF and Oakland have the majority of stations so no surprise there.
What we've tried before doesn't work. Also, the people on the streets today are very much NOT like the street kids and neighborhood bums we had in 2000. They need to be locked up.
We've, like any major city, have always had addicts, homeless, theft. How long has the fountain at Justin Herman been shut off? Yes, times have changed. Drugs got WAY stronger. Opiods were pseudo legalized by Purdue. The cost of an apartment grew at a rate that far outran wage growth and low skill jobs that paid anything decent continued their exodus that started in the 1960's if truth be told. Those low skill jobs that could not move paid minimum vs a living wage. Remember when they told us "20% of your income should go to housing". Tell that to a millenial/GenX/GenZ and they laugh and say I wish. We can always be critical (I'm no different in that regard) but that solves nothing. What can we DO to fix this? Or are we convinced after 40+ years of trying that it is beyond the capacity of the "state" to fix? We could do what is actually being done by some municipalities and hand an "undesirable" person a one way ticket out of town. Nothing new there. San Francisco, in the early 1900's used to handout train tickets to Vallejo. I suppose its come full circle. But that's moving the deck chairs on the Titanic. So has any country solved this issue? How did they do it. There are homeless and addicts in Communist and Socialist countries as well. They can be far more heavy handed but it does not seem to totally mitigate the condition.
>What can we DO to fix this?
Criminalize drug use on the streets, arrest them, require they receive medical and mental health. Place them in housing intended to help correct these behaviors. Require that they continue to do so or go to jail.
We can do that.
I've been living in the city since 2000 and I disagree that the extent of the homeless AND drug related population is anything similar to what it was 20 years ago, much less earlier. There are far more people on the streets high as a kite and being destructive.
20 years ago the issue was contained to the TL and parts of Soma. You did not see camps of people in the Castro or other areas.
You are very correct with regard to the volume of people on the streets. The compression of the middle class left more people - even employed people - unable to afford housing. It a reality for which we have no solution.
As for criminalizing and mandating mitigation I think the Matrix Program in fact attempted to do that with limited success. Anyone who knows the facts please chime in. I had heard it worked for those who WANTED the help (until capacity was met) but for those who did not there was no legal standing to force them to take it.
Stepping way back. Are we trying to fix a living wage/poverty problem with a legal solution? Are we trying to fix a medical (crisis) problem with a legal solution? Are we trying to drive in a nail with a screwdriver?
C'mon fellow San Franciscans who are well travelled or immigrants. What is happening that IS working in any manner in other countries/cultures. In the US we have no solution at this point and seem to be gravitating to repeating failed efforts.
It's a huge topic in scope, for sure. But, I see these as separate issues.
1. You have people who have lost their homes due to loss of employment for whatever reason. There isn't much that can be done here systemically.
2. You have people who would fall into the first category, however, they're drug addicted. Systematically we do have resources to help them.
3. We have people who fall in to category 2, homeless drug users, and they are there by choice or by disease. We do not have the ability to help them.
Sadly, a social worker will be bale to help 2, but not 1 or 3. A person who is down and wants to work, there just isn't anything that can be done.
Helping people who fall into the first category is a completely separate issue than the others.
We can have the ability to legally require medical and mental health to those who require it, however, the laws would have to change. Decades ago these laws that prevent forced mental health were there to protect people, specifically woman who were seen as hysterical. Well, I tell you this...the person at screaming around the corner right now walking down Noe...they are hysterical. They should be locked up, observed, treated, medicated, and forced to comply.
If not, I say legalize all the drugs and let the bodies hit the floor. Let Mother Nature take over and the problem with solve itself.
>Criminalize drug use on the streets, arrest them, require they receive medical and mental health. Place them in housing intended to help correct these behaviors. Require that they continue to do so or go to jail.
it would literally be cheaper to just give them housing.
Which would do what aside from hide the problem. They need psych services and drug treatment.
well since the problem people keep complaining about is people doing drugs in the streets and not people doing drugs it would literally solve the problem.
I love how it’s constantly “what about....what about his story, her story, what have they been through?”
What about ME, a tax paying citizen who pays for parks, sidewalks, etc, that I can’t use....ME who pays taxes to live in a safe society only
To be stolen from....what about my compassion and your compassion as a fellow tax paying citizen?
The irony to me is that I know of people who don’t matter in this race for “ultimate compassion”: me and you. We don’t matter. And that’s fucked up, and that’s why all of this is wrong.
Middle class being fucked on all sides.
Pretty much. The engine, the lifeblood, the pillar of society, but the absolute shit receiver on all accounts.
Right now the city is being held hostage by dogmatic beliefs by so called “progressives”
These beliefs are not based on reality or facts. See the case where “harm reduction” activists talk about the European model of just letting drug users do whatever, whenever. Then when you read about what Portugal has done that’s absolutely not the case. And then the idea that we must build a housing unit for every homeless person instead of providing shelters is ridiculous. The budget for homeless has soared because we are giving out money essentially no questions asked. Combined with no enforcement of drug laws (even for dealers) this is attracting more homeless/drug addicts. This is just a really bad case of unintended consequences
The SF chronicle hit piece on shellenberger shows that this crowd is afraid of him because he’s proposing a solution that has worked. He’s not calling for a war on drugs but instead requiring treatment for addicts who cannot help themselves. Read the story of Tom Wolfe. Instead the hit piece shows the “harm reduction” crowd wants to continue the same way which has resulted in a massive increase of inhumanity on our streets. It’s borderline insane and looks more like a religious belief than anything else.
> The SF chronicle hit piece on shellenberger
I wanted to add some color to this story, because it's a bit insane. The SF Chronicle hit piece (https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Michael-Shellenberger-s-narrative-of-California-17172493.php) was written by a guy (Zachary Siegel) who runs and writes all the articles for a drug blog (https://tanag.substack.com/) and hasn't written an article for the Chronicle in over three years since this one (https://www.sfchronicle.com/search/?action=search&firstRequest=1&searchindex=solr&query=Zachary+Siegel).
It's crazy that this is how the Chronicle chose to cover the Shellenberger campaign, which has a decent chance of coming in second in the primary and going 1:1 against Newsom in the general election. Clearly their editorial board wants to paint a negative picture of Shellenberger at this point, but hopefully people see through the nonsense.
Honestly in this case I believe any publicity is good publicity. If his name continues to get out there more people will be looking him up and saying to themselves "hey, this guy's actually making some sense!" Rather than seeing a bunch of unknowns on the ballot and blindly voting Newsom.
Agreed. His biggest problem going into the primary is name recognition. If people like Newsom, they're going to vote for him, but there's a lot of people that don't care for Newsom and it's helpful for Shellenberger to get his name out there as a potential option.
From what I could tell the hit piece had the reverse affect, a lot of people who did not even know about shellenberger found out about him and agrees with his position, not the position of the extremist trying to bring him down. So it may have have been a good thing
Yeah, hopefully so. It was disappointing to see that type of article in the SF Chronicle, but frankly not that surprising.
I really think the root cause is the access to easy and cheap drugs. People come here for access to the drugs, get hooked, and never leave. This article is about Philly but it could just as easily be about SF: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/10/magazine/kensington-heroin-opioid-philadelphia.html
If the city cracked down on access to dealers and open air markets, people would flock elsewhere for access and ease of use.
If you look at the problem from an economic viewpoint, reducing access to easy and cheap drugs doesn’t really do much to hinder use. Capital investment should be focused on harm reduction and treatment for individual users with the ultimate goal of reduction in your user base. As long as the demand remains, drugs will find a way no matter what. The war on drugs has been a failure precisely for this reason. Sure you catch a shipment here but the demand is so high the supply just continually floods in because it’s economically viable. If you reduce the consumer pool, there would a dramatic decrease in supply and thus an increase in price further leading to further decrease in demand.
The idea that harm reduction is the answer fills me with despair. We know that once people are addicted they have a chronic disease and will likely struggle forever with multiple relapses no matter how available treatment is. Once addicted, the harm is permanent.
Preventing this from happening in the first place should be the goal.
While I agree with your sentiment, people are going to people and experiment with drugs (and I understand some exposure is from health care industry negligence a la opioid epidemic) but my argument still remains the same.
We’ve been telling people “drugs are bad don’t do them” and going after suppliers since the 80s when the war on drugs commenced and all we’ve seen during that time is drug prices fall, tons of wasted tax payer dollars, and people still becoming users so sure I’d love to be able to stop the flow of illicit drugs into our communities but that’s just not going to happen when you have high demand for said drugs.
>Read the story of Tom Wolfe.
Can you link to it?
Tom Wolf is really active on Twitter but also referenced in Schellenberger’s San Fransicko a ton. You can view a piece about him here: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/It-s-life-or-death-Recovering-addict-14920338.php
When I moved to San Francisco in 1985, homeless people were a major political problem. Fast forward half a lifetime and here we are.
It’s almost as if the problem weren’t something one could resolve locally. It’s almost as if you can’t blame the outcome on “tough love” or liberal or progressive policies because all of those band-aids have been in play at some point. It’s almost as if the vertical wealth inequality and poisonous real estate market that has been a permanent feature of the city isn’t the result of “progressive” politics and molly-coddle communists - like that darn Diane Feinstein!
I blame Art Agnos! During his bastard reign, Muni buses would run out of fuel mid-route! Clearly we are all still living in the aftermath. Here’s a solution: Just call those tent cities “Agnos Town” and see if that helps out Portland.
I think Shellenberger’s comment in his book that the real cruelty is letting these people suffer by letting them live on the streets is really good. And OP’s comment about it feeling like an abusive relationship is also well-said. For instance, when I see some guy, half naked, covered in dirt, bent over a garbage can and screaming in broad daylight in front of a Macy’s while kids and families walk by, I feel angry that nothing will be done. At the same time, I feel sad that this person is just being left to languish like an animal.
Every program that claims to help the homeless just enables them to continue living on the streets
I read both his books, San Fransicko and Apocalypse Never, and loved the common sense but equally passionate approach he took on the issues of climate change and homelessness/addiction. I’ve been following him for some time and was super stoked to see him start his campaign. California needs a common sense approach to its problems at this point, not more money thrown at issues where nothing actually gets better.
His book is a crock of shit. He cherry picks his arguments and never mentions the ocean.
edit to add : [i'm not the only one that thinks his book is a crock of shit ;)](https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/article-by-michael-shellenberger-mixes-accurate-and-inaccurate-claims-in-support-of-a-misleading-and-overly-simplistic-argumentation-about-climate-change/) for the lazy, it's a rebuttal from 7 credited scientists who rip his article/book apart with real data and analysis.
Hello fellow liberal. I understand that you may be angry or disappointed at the status quo, however I would urge you to strongly examine [Shellenberger’s platform in full.](https://twitter.com/shellenbergermd/status/1527049708518002688?s=21&t=VxPC-iqGmsK0MUl-Zo6Nig)
- He has a veiled GOP talking point about fighting CRT/wokeism/some scary lefty stuff in schools. He’s anti-mask in schools (an aside, masking in schools keeps teachers from calling out sick and canceling class). He wants to create some vague committees with parents on them so that parents can dictate. He’s also a “school choice” advocate, which just means taking public funds from poor schools and giving them to charter schools.
- He is rejecting the largely proven but bureaucratically challenging “housing first” policy to combat homelessness. Based on the way he present his arguments he is planning on a majority of those experiencing homelessness to just be mass incarcerated since that is how the current system is setup. Maybe California will finally overtake Texas our the per capita incarceration rate.
- He relies on the unproven narrative that people experiencing homelessness are trucked into the Bay Area to use drugs, and are not people from the community. This is a common strategy to dehumanize people who are experiencing homeless as well as dismiss the idea that building more home can keep people from becoming homeless.
- I think his Cal-Psych idea is interesting, however he claims “I will treat mentally ill Californians in parts of the state that are more cost effective” also leans into the right-wing philosophy of “why don’t we move all the poor people to Louisiana/Kentucky”. Places like SF/LA have some of the best social safety nets in the country, and have decades old systems to connect low income people to treatment programs. With more state fundings you can theoretically shift this over to Redding and Modesto but good luck convincing mental health professionals who are already hard enough to recruit to the public sector to now move out to a place they don’t want to live in (psychiatrist are also overwhelmingly liberally leaning, good luck opening up these facilities in low COL areas of the state aka California’s Trump country).
Shellenburger is running as an independent, as has several points that lean to the right. And he knows this; which is why he’s been featured on FOX and Joe Rogan. He’s no Trump or Dr Oz, but it’s hard to see the leftist appeal in his policies. What is his housing policy? Where is his climate change agenda? I think he has a lot to be desired as a candidate.
EDIT: Misspellings and bad formatting from mobile.
This is identity politics. "he's really a republican" has been getting crushed in the last few elections, so I hope progressives keep using it
School choice is fine. Charters are fine. Masks should not be required in schools. The fact that you think these are extreme republican positions says more about how unreasonable the "correct" democrat positions are
>He has a veiled GOP talking point
Don't "veiled GOP talking point" me. It's not an argument. It carries zero weight.
They do have some of the best social safety nets in the country, but they are very obviously not fucking working. At this point I am excited about any candidate willing to try something other than “compassion” aka doing nothing because making a move in either direction would be politically unpopular.
Shellenburger isn't a serious contender, he's a troll catering to the right's outrage politics. Before he took an interest in homelessness and drug use in SF he was out there minimizing climate change, shilling for natural gas and nuclear in the right wing media.
Like everything else he has been doing, running for governor is another stunt to sell books and land a well paid pundit gig.
As far as I’m concerned, homelessness is the #1 problem in SF and has been for years now. We could do worse than appoint someone who will singularly focus on that one issue for an entire term imo.
> shilling for natural gas and nuclear
What's your problem with that?
Natural gas is cheap, abundant in the US and far cleaner than coal and gasoline. I've not read this person's policy position on natural gas in particular, but proponents only ask for its consideration as a stop-gap measure to replace far more harmful coal power plants until we build more nuclear plants.
Nuclear is better for the environment than many "green" energy alternatives. It's amortised cost-effective, extremely safe. Even if you're unsure about nuclear safety and the safe disposal of nuclear waste, nuclear represents the best option in the medium term until we get the green grid fully functional and more critically, stable.
People against natural gas, and especially nuclear, are all-or-nothing ideologues and are not being pragmatic.
The anti nuclear greens are fucking loons and are not serious about fixing climate change
Same as fake pro-affordable housing NIMBYs. They actually want nothing done and come up with a wall of bullshit excuses why
Natural gas and nuclear are great. The will crush greenhouse emissions in the US. The Putin-funded green idiots have corrupted rational discussion of energy policy
I don't think he's a serious contender either, but some of his ideas are very dangerous and to see them parroted without challenging them can ruin progress California has made on housing and drug treatment.
Progress in the wrong direction, clearly.
This just isn't accurate - I see you found his twitter which has plenty of highlights, but if you want to look past the headlines, he has written books, articles and had interviews where you can get additional nuance to his positions. Couple choice things I felt were worth responding to in your post:
> He is rejecting the largely proven but bureaucratically challenging “housing first” policy
Where has it been proven successfully? In his books, blogs, he's brought up research where it's never been successful, and proposes shelter first, housing earned policies that have been successful in places like Portugal and the Netherlands.
> Where is his climate change agenda?
He's literally written a whole book about it (https://www.amazon.com/Apocalypse-Never-Environmental-Alarmism-Hurts/dp/B07YCSVVGR/) and leads a nonprofit that focuses on this issue (https://environmentalprogress.org/). Highlights are on his website (https://www.shellenbergerforgovernor.com/issues/energywaterhousing/).
Thanks for typing this out, Shellenburger sounds like a great politician, I'll be supporting him!
>He has a veiled GOP talking point about fighting CRT/wokeism/some scary lefty stuff in schools.
I've seen enough of the new California math curriculum to start to believe in what I essentially thought was a straw man built by the GOP. Not to mention actual examples from schools in the Bay Area. This stuff is really toxic and it would be wise for Dems to distance themselves from it. Especially because while it's all made in the name of racial equity, I bet the only people who actually want to see shit like this in schools are childless white liberals.
>He’s also a “school choice” advocate, which just means taking public funds from poor schools and giving them to charter schools.
School choice is standard in most countries liberals look up to, like Sweden, Norway or Germany. Moreover, these countries also have meritocracy-based systems which channel 8th graders into different types of high schools (from traditional American-style high school to trade schools), which would be truly cancellable to propose here in the US.
The opposition to school choice in the US mostly comes from the Dem-teachers' union alliance. And it's caused by the fact that in the school choice world, the teachers' union loses near-absolute control on schools in this country. I don't think children should be held hostage to the union. The US has one of the worst educational outcomes in the developed world, so the current system is clearly not working.
I grew up in a different country with school choice, in a rather bad area back then (when I was growing up, my town had an unemployment rate of 40%; fortunately today it's rather doing well), my parents were not wealthy but thanks to school choice I could go to a school in a nearby county seat. For a kid like me - more into books than soccer, going through puberty later than most while the local jocks were all into bullying the little man - this was transformational. I truly would not be where I am today if it wasn't for that decision and sacrifice my family made. So it is quite personal to me, and when I hear about [what's going on](https://missionlocal.org/2022/04/total-meltdown-at-everett-middle-school/) in some of the SF schools, I cannot help but think there's for sure some talented kid who is forced to go there because there is no school choice here. And that kid is probably bullied, and even if they're not, the entire atmosphere in this school (no regard for learning, resigned teachers, chaos etc.) drags this kid down.
Have you read San Fransicko? Doesn’t sound like it based off these points.
I did not read his book, nor do I really read any politicians books. But I’m sure he’s making the same points in his campaign. What is your point?
That you’re assuming and generalizing a lot based off something you admitted you didn’t read
You seem confused. You saw a wall of text with specific details and dismissed them because someone hadn’t read a specific book.
Yes, because that wall of text doesn't entirely line up with the much more detailed wall of text that is the San Fransicko book, where Shellenberger outlines his positions on record. Presumably what's stated on the record carries more weight than someone else's regurgitated opinion of what his position is.
And here I am thinking actions speak louder than words.
Am left, always was left, will always be traditionally left. Same with Shellenberger, but this guy has a plan for homelessness unlike anyone else running.
Shellenberger's candidacy gives me the first glimmer of hope I've had in many years that things might actually improve and sanity prevail.
You’re making an extremely fair and accurate description of San Francisco in 2022. Make all humans accountable for their personal conduct and actions. 💯
The far far leftists who have taken over the SFBOS and are beholden to the campaign funding non-profit zero accountability grifters, seem to like the status quo.
Appears that NYC Mayor Eric Adams has the correct approach as well, hold citizens accountable for their actions and behaviors. Hopefully this will trickle down to San Francisco as well.
> The far far leftists who have taken over the SFBOS
There are 0 leftists on the SFBOS.
Isn't Dean Preston a part of the Democratic Socialist party?
I don’t know who Shellenberger is but I agree with everything in your post
>Those who need our help should receive it, but there must be strings attached. Detox or mental health treatment should be mandatory, and it should be inpatient. Use temporary conservatorships if necessary. The goal should be to stabilize the individual, then help them find a job and housing - not just give them free stuff and make them dependent on the government.
That's called [mental health diversion](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1001.36&lawCode=PEN) and exists in CA, becoming law in 2018 with near universal support. The only State Senators to vote against it were Morrell (R) and Nielson (R). [Chesa Boudin](https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/boudin-crime-diversion-17163916.php) frequently pursues it. Gascón and Harris used it, too.
Switching over to personal anecdote time, I have a loved one currently in the mental illness->alcoholism->homeless death spiral. Over the past two years, it has become very apparent to me that there is a system capacity issue. Just the other day I tried to get him back into rehab but there wasn't a bed available with the programs he's eligible for. And when there is? Sleeping in a small room with 3 other dudes with psychiatric issues is fucking horrifying. Guess what happens when you lock a traumatized person up with other traumatized people? More trauma. Some categories of treatment programs can't administer drugs of certain classes, so he's had to take medication that is less effective and/or have fucked up side effects. The staffing ratios and experience levels at these programs are awful - 95% of his clinical team are students.
I am 100% in favor of diversion. I just want it to be to programs that are actually going to set people up for success, and I am willing to pay the taxes for it. But what we're doing right now? It's like directing people with broken legs to an ER on the 6th floor and the elevator is out of order.
Shellenberger actually talks about this in his book iirc. That there are too few beds per person and there need to be more. I fully agree with u re: putting a bunch of people who are suffering mentally in the same room. Terrible idea.
Yeah, and it's an enormous contributor to recidivism and resistance to treatment. There's actually consensus around a lot of these issues across the political spectrum that gets lost. For me the issue is about declaring "accountability" and "political correctness" as the barriers, which is political wedge nonsense. NIMBYs, funding, expertise, policies, staffing, political will, etc. are all the actual barriers.
When people say there are “as much of a” of something as anyone else, they probably are not
Shellenberger is an easy vote when Newsom is a know-nothing, do-nothing default. Newsom is a cardboard cutout of what the Democratic Party thinks a good politician looks like. Also, he's just going to run for president in 2024 when biden steps down. He will pander to whoever will give him votes and has no ideas or convictions.
Can we do some hidden camera interviews with some of these homeless people? Ask them basic questions like where are they from, what made them move to SF, etc.
Maybe that will convince the idiotic voters of this city to start voting for people who will bring in more accountability.
Shellenberger has been doing this - not hidden camera either, and getting great feedback:
Listen to the interviews. Lots of interesting information obtained just by letting the homeless speak.
On the first link scroll down a little to Ben from Alabama. He also discusses how the drug scene has changed.
Yes and Ben from Alabama is proof that Alabama, like many other states, has been busy solving their homeless problem...
...by encouraging/pushing many of those effected onto us.
When people in other parts of this thread laud other cities outside of california for their great work tidying up homelessness keep in mind many of them ended up on our laps instead.
While we MUST build far more homes across SF and the Bay Area, this is is why it's not the solution to all of these issues. There's no reason Ben from Alabama needs to have a home built for him in San Francisco to solve his issue. He can have a home that Alabama has built for him, oh wait, that's right they're not doing that...
Schellenberger has some interviews with homeless on his Instagram and Twitter. I appreciate the fact he’s the one going out and asking these questions in this encampments vs a political fill in.
I remember seeing those. But people dismiss his posts as they say he uses selection bias to just pick the cases that make his point.
I'd love for someone to interview, say, 50 people at random, with a hidden camera (so there's no reason to lie) and post them somewhere.
Because the homeless industry has found a winning formula in claiming that the homeless are "just locals who have fallen on hard times"; now I'm sure there are some like that, but a lot of them are just drug-seeking addicts from other places, drawn to the open-air drug markets of SF.
Shellenberger has definitely talked to 50 people like this. How many has Newsom talked to? Newsom doesn't care. He's just setting up a run for office
With Newsom, you know absolutely nothing will get fixed. He's been saying and doing nothing since he lived here
Yeah for sure. Majority of the ones he interviews are all from out of state, but do agree making it hidden camera and/or independent of a political purpose could be really really eye opening for true data.
Ask them where they went to high school.
Their last place of employment.
Where did they last pay rent.
What got them on the streets.
I've heard some are taught by
advocates to claim they're from the area.
> I've heard some are taught by advocates to claim they're from the area.
I have known about 20 homeless people in this city, by name, well enough that we'd go out of our way to say "hi" to each other.
19 of them were from out of SF. Only 1 was born in SF, to a drug addict mom.
I'm not saying that this proves anything. To me, it's anecdotal evidence that the myth that majority of homeless are from SF is just that, a myth.
100%, it was a breath of fresh air seeing his interviews on the street and seeing the gritty **reality** of the homeless crisis. Cut right through all the sugarcoated misinformation that's been frustrating real San Franciscans for years.
You’re speaking truth, even if some people refuse to hear it
Cynical native reads: Move all the bums to HP so I can get back to enjoying my Urban Playground.
Let's Go Dubs!!!
You aren't as liberal as everyone else. And IMO, that's a reasonable position to take.
No, [he is not](https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/failure-get-tough-crime-policy). Political [fearmongering with bad policy](https://medium.com/@nicholaswinfield93/why-the-tough-on-crime-narrative-needs-to-change-15ed877a6754) may appease angry voters, but [the majority of studies](https://cebcp.org/evidence-based-policing/what-works-in-policing/research-evidence-review/broken-windows-policing/) show that it simply is not effective.
This isn’t [rocket surgery](https://endhomelessness.org/ending-homelessness/solutions/).
But as in most places where these urban problems have reached crisis levels, the same culprits are to blame: lack of housing, lack of opportunity, rampant economic inequality, a lack of real social spending, and a lack of long term resources for economic and health stability.
These are problems decades in the making, as social safety nets are eroded by apathy and complacency, an electorate that is ignorant or uncaring about how load-bearing programs dealing with inequality are.
The leveraging of these crises by bad faith actors looking to exploit urban fear for power takes this reactionary position and feeds it into the racist, classist grist mill that frames these inherent problems of capitalism into thus myth of personal moral failure necessitating violent State response.
The [variety of largely half-assed attempts](https://www.kqed.org/news/11765010/timeline-the-frustrating-political-history-of-homelessness-in-san-francisco) to bandaid homelessness in SF since the 90’s still show the thread of what works: housing, health care, and opportunity.
SF, much like Seattle, New York, and a few other cities with large in-crisis populations, has nowhere to sprawl or add housing or new shelters without riling up the NIMBYs, or changing current development restrictions. There are very powerful financial forces at every level who refuse to take a bottom line cut to pay their fair share of our social responsibilities.
These crises of drug addiction, crime, housing, unemployment, etc, are inherent to a ruthlessly competitive system that gets more and more restrictive and demanding as the apex predators dominate more and more of the landscape. It’s not just unavoidable, it’s inevitable without counterweights keeping the system fair and equitable.
There have been, and always will be, folks unable to care for themselves. And we have no robust infrastructure to care for these people. And we do the bare minimum for folks in temporary crisis, to track them back into a sustainable economic position.
We see these “I’m as liberal as the next guy but have we thought of extermination camps?” redpilling posts ad nauseum on city subs over the last few years - side note, “criminals have more rights than us” is not only completely ignorant of due process but a fascist dog whistle dehumanizing “Der untermensch”.
Reducing the complex web of environmental, social, and economic issues involved to “why can’t we just lock them all up till they straighten up and fly right” is useless, reactionary garbage.
What we need isn’t meager, expensive bandaids, and we certainly don’t need city gestapo assaulting the poors.
What we need is the large-scale National economic reform that we have ignored as a country for decades so that Elon Musk can buy Twitter and call people pedos to his heart’s content.
If we’re not willing to do the work to rebalance the scales at a fundamental level, no one at the city or State level is going to be able to make much of a dent. That’s just the hard fact of the economics of the situation, and voting for a spiral of increasingly Right Wing politicians is absolutely going to make things worse.
This is the correct take. Libs don't give a shit about actually helping the unhoused; they just don't want to be reminded of their destitution on a daily basis. Shellenberger would slide us further along the path to fascism.
I am 100% voting for Shellenberger.
He describes himself in a Zoom interview as a “bleeding-heart liberal when it comes to caring for the vulnerable, a libertarian when it comes to being passionate about freedom, but a conservative when it comes to taking care of our civilization.”
Lost me on the last part. Conservatives don’t believe in climate change, which is the biggest threat to our civilization.
Austin, Texas wanted to emulate a city that has had great success with the homeless issue.
Verified by many sources the city of Houston's homeless population has been cut in half over the past decade — providing housing for more than 19,000 people along the way. And this is with far less resources than other cities have expended.
Look at the picture in the link below. College students who appear to be upper middle class whites are protesting this approach in the “Homes Not Handcuffs” rally held at UT Austin.
>Part of the approach includes a public camping ban.
>“A carrot and a stick approach is the best approach,” said Marc Eichenbaum, a special assistant to Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner on homelessness initiatives.
>Houston’s ban is only enforced when alternative housing options are available. Eichenbaum said that 85-90% of encampment residents accept an offer of housing, while only 2% will jump at available shelter space.
>“A ban in and of itself is not going to solve homelessness,” Eichenbaum told KXAN. “If you’re just going to be doing enforcement without any offer of alternative housing, you’re just moving folks around.”
I wouldn't mind if Shellenberger commented more on the city where he actually lives (Berkeley, Oakland) rather than the city where he appears not to visit. Oakland's homeless population growth far outstrips San Francisco's in recent years.
I read his book. While I thought it dropped off in the second half, something I thought was a great idea is the creation of a government arm called “Cali Psych”. A whole body devoted to mental health and behavioral assistance for the homeless, so that helping the homeless population can be easier by dividing between the mentally ill, the addicted, and others.
Where do I find more people like you around here, but I’m all seriousness it’s good to protect vulnerable people but at some point you can’t let Heroin be sold openly on the sidewalk in the same spots day in and day out, that’s not fair to everyone else
Michael Shellenberger is a right wing loser California already made it clear that we did not want him in our politics. His beliefs and ideas about social reform and environmentalism and rooted in his desire for followers on his Twitter account. A tell tale sign, his handle misrepresents him as an MD, he wants to prosecute criminals yet benefits from choices like these with zero accountability.
He’s one of the rare great minds that believes our environment could benefit from less awareness and more nuclear plants. Keep this dummy out of California politics.
If you think we wouldn't benefit from more nuclear then I am afraid you don't realize who the dummy is
I agree, lets go back to "tough on crime" policies that have worked out so well in the past 50 years in this country.
Can we not have nuance? These are the binary arguments that are making things worse and destroying the conversation. Let’s take a reasonable approach of helping people who need help and appropriately punishing repeat and violent offenders.
No no no, i want people to be arrested 50 times in a row and just released for all sorts of crimes so they can continue to commit crimes, that is what i call compassion (SF law abiding citizens can go f themselves, criminals are the true victims). Actually, wait, no, abolish the police and prisons. "Defund the police" isn't progressive enough... in fact, i think 'defund' is rightwing... because i say so (also, i want to sound cool to my marxist/anarchist/upper middle class NYTimes reading PMC buddies who will upvote my insane posts on twitter, facebook, and reddit). We should call the current SF/California laws 'suggestions'... if you want to follow the laws, cool! If you don't, that's cool too. Just kill and rob whoever you want and we'll have your back! That surely is better than arresting a guy once for punching a 70 year old asian lady, putting her in a coma, and actually holding him accountable and locked up.
I mean, the murder rate was literally halved at one point from what it was in the 80s and 90s.
Shellenberger being theoretically right about homelessness doesn't make him remotely competent to be governor.
I mean Newsom's hardly perfect but at least he has some governing experience.
You realize we elected Arnold Schwarzenegger, a movie actor who had never held office before, less than 20 years ago right? And he actually did a good job of getting us turned around? And that the status quo has done nothing but fuck us for decades? Now Shellenberger comes along with actual plans and far more intelligent than Arnie and you think Newsom is a better choice? That is quite the logic
You've been down voted but I suspect there is a missing '/s' from your comment...I hope
Funny this gets downvotes but any mention of moving homeless out of the most expensive city in the world is met with screeching. Can’t even meet the housing needs of tax paying citizens. Everyone is struggling out there. But oh no, can’t build or house homeless outside SF, that would be cruel. All this will lead to is a continuing of the status quo. Insanity
And if you have an RV vehicle or van drive it into San Francisco and park wherever you want and dump your feces because we don't care about the environment or health laws.
Everything is allowed under the guise of “compassion”!
Let's stop such bullshit attempts to conflate SF being crappy with voting for a lunatic like Michael Shellenberg.
Besides being a hack on climate change (he does support nuclear though, on the bright side), he's totally loony on many topics. He exists to convince you that progressive policies are the root cause of pretty much all the problems we face today (which is faaar from the truth).
Yes, crime in SF is fucked. Yes, SFPD are horrendous. Yes, the SF govt is corrupt af.
SF is what late-stage NIMBY hell looks like.
I keep seeing people call him a lunatic and not a single person has put forth a valid argument as to why
San Francisco owns land way outside the city
What about dry (or wet) homeless shelters way away from the drug, alcohol and pan handling in the city?
If there was no choice half the homeless would disappear tomorrow
If you care even a little bit about climate change, do not vote for this crock of shit man.
"Look, I am as liberal as anyone else."
Then says some wack ass shit.
Breathe. They get to call themselves liberal even if they don’t agree with 100% of the progressive agenda. If you need to demonize everyone who doesn’t agree with you 100%, you’re going to find yourself awfully lonely.
I said that what they said is wack. That's not demonization.
Pro choice, gay marriage, healthcare and gun control are whack?
Hey bud I think you may be suffering from a bad case of *Selective Reading Comprehension*. Now I am no expert, but you can reread the text and try again.
Sorry if thats no help, but just know that you're not alone out there. There are plenty of people suffering just like you.
Hey bud, guess the people downvoting ya must be suffering from it, too.
It's an increasingly common illness.
Funny - so is intolerant tribalism. Even when it comes to people in our own tribes.
You're way above the clouds here man. I ain't trying to kick anyone out of any "tribe", I'm saying what OP said is wack. It's almost a cliche here to say "*As a Liberal myself*" then say some of the dumbest shit i'll see all day.
Maybe you could clarify what the OP said that you don't agree with, and why you don't agree, rather than casually attacking their liberal bonafides?
I stopped reading after “I’m as liberal as anyone else” 100% garbage takes guaranteed after those words
I read his book and agree with many of his points and disagree on others, but I'm not sure his very specific vision and plan to deal with the homeless and drug addicted population in SF and CA qualify him to be the governor of the entire state. He's got my attention, I could be convinced because I think voting for Gavin is just more of the disappointing, trending the wrong way, same, but I need to hear how he's going to fix schools, deal with out of control utilities and gas prices, etc.
the guy who tried to break into a mental health facility because he was going to batman up some evidence?
The homeless problem we have in SF and other cities with a left leaning political take like Austin and LA...well, it's not a political problem. Never has been. Your points regarding accepting the issue are all accurate.