8 ms·
This is a direct and predictable consequence of anti housing policies. Decry it all you like, but unless you actually vote out the left-NIMBY supervisors who ha
by Gimpei 2y ago
This is a direct and predictable consequence of anti housing policies. Decry it all you like, but unless you actually vote out the left-NIMBY supervisors who have a majority on the board, you are part of the problem.
- pnw 2y agoThe problem on the streets in SF is 99% drugs and mental illness, maybe 1% housing. Almost all of the people in camps refuse services and shelter when offered.
- CydeWeys 2y agoNah, it's way more than 1% housing. Even many drug-addicted people can still manage to not be homeless when housing is cheap (especially SROs), and a lot of the drug addiction is downstream of becoming homeless and hanging out with drug addicts all day.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- jnwatson 2y agoLack of housing, drug problems, and mental illness are not independent variables. A few months on the streets can push sober folks towards getting high, not to mention hurt one's sanity.
- energy123 2y agoSF builds less than 20 new housing units a year. That's not a typo. They're great at virtue signalling, not so great at doing what needs to be done to get people housed, unlike say Austin Texas where rents have fallen almost 10% over the year due to new housing.
- proc0 2y agoFrom a national standpoint, it's housing, but SF (and Oakland) specifically has a much different problem. The politicians run their political experiments in SF and they completely ignore the secondary and tertiary effects. You can't make it easy for people to live outside and not think it will not attract people from all over the country. Now it's guaranteed they won't have enough housing because of all the people it has attracted. Otherwise there's no reason to go to an expensive city if you can't afford it.