6 ms·

S.F. Mayor Breed declares state of emergency in the Tenderloin

44 points by danielsht 5y ago

junon 5y ago
I know a lot of people are going to criticize this move but man the Tenderloin needs something to change.
- jdhn 5y ago
  The only criticism I can see coming is that this should've been done months ago.
  - junon 5y ago
    The increased policing is going to have people on edge. People in SF don't like police.
snypher 5y ago
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sfchronicle.com%2Fsf%2Farticle%2FS-F-Mayor-London-Breed-declares-state-of-16710580.php https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sfchronicle.com%2F...
finexplained 5y ago
I really don't understand why this wasn't done years ago. > is concerned that the emergency declaration is being used to support her plan for more policing in the neighborhood, which could criminalize people with substance use disorders before resources such as the supervised drug-use site or a planned drug sobering center open. Honest question. Is a supervised drug-use site an effective approach for reducing drug use long term? Does it help get people into services that help them deal with addiction? Or is it just meant to supervise potential overdoes and intervene?
- hedora 5y ago
  Regan passed a bunch of bills as Governor that basically disbanded mental health care for the homeless. Since it’s illegal to stick them in a drug rehab clinic, mandatory counseling sessions, or even force them back on their meds (with their prior written consent), all that’s left is putting them out of the public eye while they get high, I guess. Or, maybe we could just switch the law back to what it was in 70’s.
  - Mountain_Skies 5y ago
    Were these law irrevocable? If not, every governor and state legislature since then are also complicit.
    - devilbunny 5y ago
      The laws were not. The judicial decisions that made it far more difficult to hold people against their will - which ultimately drove a lot of deinstitutionalization; the asylums were closed mostly as a response, not a cause - are effectively irrevocable.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Regan Reagan > passed a bunch of bills as Governor Governors don't unilaterally “pass bills”. They sign (or veto) bills passed by the legislator. > that basically disbanded mental health care for the homeless. Deinstitutionalization was a bipartisan, national phenomenon driven in large parts by abuse scandals in institutions.
    - restes 5y ago
      > legislator legislature
    - perl4ever 5y ago
      >Reagan This matters because Donald Regan was a guy who worked for Ronald Reagan. >Deinstitutionalization was a bipartisan, national phenomenon driven in large parts by abuse scandals in institutions. Not just scandals in the sense of individual acts, but changes in thinking about patient rights. For example, eugenic sterilization started as policy more than rogue abuse, and was still going on as late as the 1970s. I think the laws about institutionalizing people against their will were changed. No doubt saving money was a factor, but lots of factors coincided, largely because people wanted to reform the system as society had changed.
- mthoms 5y ago
  The primary goal is harm reduction: fewer deadly overdoses, less disease (HIV) transmission due to needle sharing and less needles discarded on the street. The site where I live can also provide some help for people who want to get off drugs and off the street, but the addict must want to do that. I can’t speak to how effective that help actually is, but the harm reduction part certainly works.
  - diogenescynic 5y ago
    >the harm reduction part certainly works. Certainly? Goals and outcomes are different though. Is there any evidence that SF's policies are having positive outcomes? It seems like all the statistics show it the opposite. Overdoses are up, crime is up--so who is this really helping? The skeptic in me thinks it's a nice way for the government to just give up on people even more but under a kinder veil of "harm reduction". SF is closer to Ancapistan than it is any progressive utopia.
    - nopenopenopeno 5y ago
      How could SF give up on people any more than it already has?
    - mthoms 5y ago
      Certainly. But I wasn't speaking about SF, I was speaking about Vancouver. >The first several years of evaluation have yielded an array of scientific outputs, including more than 30 peer-reviewed studies describing the program’s impacts. These publications indicate that Insite provides a range of benefits to its clients and the greater community, including a reduction in public injecting, lower levels of HIV risk behaviours (e.g., syringe sharing), and an increase in uptake of addiction treatment among the facility’s clients. Furthermore, studies seeking to identify potential harms of the facility found no evidence of negative impacts. Studies were independently peer-reviewed and published in top scientific periodicals, including the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and the British Medical Journal. From https://www.bccsu.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/insite_report-eng.pdf https://www.bccsu.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/insite_repor...
  - 5y ago
- Lammy 5y ago
  It had to get really bad first to manufacture popular consent for all the fun new surveillance we’re about to be subjected to :/
  - scotuswroteus 5y ago
    Nah, the existing ordinance already allows the surveillance she referred to and this is just theatre
rkk3 5y ago
It's great London Breed is acknowledging SF's policy flaws... but I hope SF gets a new-mayor that is genuine about fixing the city rather than keep the Mayor who has for years exacerbated these problems and only decided to do something now because it was politically expedient.
- namlem 5y ago
  Most realistic alternatives to Mayor Breed would probably be worse.
- draw_down 5y ago
renewiltord 5y ago
News on the subject is far different from reality. I am very familiar with the area of the Tenderloin bounded by GG Ave, Leavenworth, Eddy, and Larkin. I spent some time nearly every day there, some during the day, some at past midnight, some early in the morning. The truth is that: - They were/are running the gentrification project quite well during the daytime. The area around La Cocina gets cleaned up and shifts everyone away. Sometimes you have police - Starting a couple of months ago, the police have moved the night folks to the area between Market and McAllister near where they meet. The night folks have started recongregating but there are police vehicles past midnight which are stationed with flashing lights The Tenderloin has been under extra-supervision for a couple of months now. I'm not sure what triggered it. Perhaps the LV hits, but I think it was before that. Hard to tell, but it's not the TL you remember from 6 months ago or from a year ago. This is the truth as it is on the street. But you don't have to believe me. Take your car right now and drive every street I mentioned. See for yourself.
hindsightbias 5y ago
It appears the management has given up on the Tenderloin Gentrification Project. Or maybe the SoE could be used to rezone the SROs into condos?

44 points by danielsht 5y ago

junon 5y ago

I know a lot of people are going to criticize this move but man the Tenderloin needs something to change.

jdhn 5y ago
The only criticism I can see coming is that this should've been done months ago.
- junon 5y ago
  The increased policing is going to have people on edge. People in SF don't like police.

snypher 5y ago

https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sfchronicle.com%2Fsf%2Farticle%2FS-F-Mayor-London-Breed-declares-state-of-16710580.php https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sfchronicle.com%2F...

finexplained 5y ago

I really don't understand why this wasn't done years ago. > is concerned that the emergency declaration is being used to support her plan for more policing in the neighborhood, which could criminalize people with substance use disorders before resources such as the supervised drug-use site or a planned drug sobering center open. Honest question. Is a supervised drug-use site an effective approach for reducing drug use long term? Does it help get people into services that help them deal with addiction? Or is it just meant to supervise potential overdoes and intervene?

hedora 5y ago
Regan passed a bunch of bills as Governor that basically disbanded mental health care for the homeless. Since it’s illegal to stick them in a drug rehab clinic, mandatory counseling sessions, or even force them back on their meds (with their prior written consent), all that’s left is putting them out of the public eye while they get high, I guess. Or, maybe we could just switch the law back to what it was in 70’s.
- Mountain_Skies 5y ago
  Were these law irrevocable? If not, every governor and state legislature since then are also complicit.
  - devilbunny 5y ago
    The laws were not. The judicial decisions that made it far more difficult to hold people against their will - which ultimately drove a lot of deinstitutionalization; the asylums were closed mostly as a response, not a cause - are effectively irrevocable.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Regan Reagan > passed a bunch of bills as Governor Governors don't unilaterally “pass bills”. They sign (or veto) bills passed by the legislator. > that basically disbanded mental health care for the homeless. Deinstitutionalization was a bipartisan, national phenomenon driven in large parts by abuse scandals in institutions.
  - restes 5y ago
    > legislator legislature
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    >Reagan This matters because Donald Regan was a guy who worked for Ronald Reagan. >Deinstitutionalization was a bipartisan, national phenomenon driven in large parts by abuse scandals in institutions. Not just scandals in the sense of individual acts, but changes in thinking about patient rights. For example, eugenic sterilization started as policy more than rogue abuse, and was still going on as late as the 1970s. I think the laws about institutionalizing people against their will were changed. No doubt saving money was a factor, but lots of factors coincided, largely because people wanted to reform the system as society had changed.
mthoms 5y ago
The primary goal is harm reduction: fewer deadly overdoses, less disease (HIV) transmission due to needle sharing and less needles discarded on the street. The site where I live can also provide some help for people who want to get off drugs and off the street, but the addict must want to do that. I can’t speak to how effective that help actually is, but the harm reduction part certainly works.
- diogenescynic 5y ago
  >the harm reduction part certainly works. Certainly? Goals and outcomes are different though. Is there any evidence that SF's policies are having positive outcomes? It seems like all the statistics show it the opposite. Overdoses are up, crime is up--so who is this really helping? The skeptic in me thinks it's a nice way for the government to just give up on people even more but under a kinder veil of "harm reduction". SF is closer to Ancapistan than it is any progressive utopia.
  - nopenopenopeno 5y ago
    How could SF give up on people any more than it already has?
  - mthoms 5y ago
    Certainly. But I wasn't speaking about SF, I was speaking about Vancouver. >The first several years of evaluation have yielded an array of scientific outputs, including more than 30 peer-reviewed studies describing the program’s impacts. These publications indicate that Insite provides a range of benefits to its clients and the greater community, including a reduction in public injecting, lower levels of HIV risk behaviours (e.g., syringe sharing), and an increase in uptake of addiction treatment among the facility’s clients. Furthermore, studies seeking to identify potential harms of the facility found no evidence of negative impacts. Studies were independently peer-reviewed and published in top scientific periodicals, including the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and the British Medical Journal. From https://www.bccsu.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/insite_report-eng.pdf https://www.bccsu.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/insite_repor...
- 5y ago
Lammy 5y ago
It had to get really bad first to manufacture popular consent for all the fun new surveillance we’re about to be subjected to :/
- scotuswroteus 5y ago
  Nah, the existing ordinance already allows the surveillance she referred to and this is just theatre

rkk3 5y ago

It's great London Breed is acknowledging SF's policy flaws... but I hope SF gets a new-mayor that is genuine about fixing the city rather than keep the Mayor who has for years exacerbated these problems and only decided to do something now because it was politically expedient.

namlem 5y ago
Most realistic alternatives to Mayor Breed would probably be worse.
draw_down 5y ago

renewiltord 5y ago

News on the subject is far different from reality. I am very familiar with the area of the Tenderloin bounded by GG Ave, Leavenworth, Eddy, and Larkin. I spent some time nearly every day there, some during the day, some at past midnight, some early in the morning. The truth is that: - They were/are running the gentrification project quite well during the daytime. The area around La Cocina gets cleaned up and shifts everyone away. Sometimes you have police - Starting a couple of months ago, the police have moved the night folks to the area between Market and McAllister near where they meet. The night folks have started recongregating but there are police vehicles past midnight which are stationed with flashing lights The Tenderloin has been under extra-supervision for a couple of months now. I'm not sure what triggered it. Perhaps the LV hits, but I think it was before that. Hard to tell, but it's not the TL you remember from 6 months ago or from a year ago. This is the truth as it is on the street. But you don't have to believe me. Take your car right now and drive every street I mentioned. See for yourself.

hindsightbias 5y ago

It appears the management has given up on the Tenderloin Gentrification Project. Or maybe the SoE could be used to rezone the SROs into condos?