Homeless Encampments: Yes/No?

How is this even a question? Of course it's a No, but what can you do? What can they do? The fact they even have that much stuff makes one believe they were recently forced into that situation by bad circumstances--not just your usual runaway and/or mentally ill and/or severe, severe substance problem situation. I hope they get the help they need.

The streets and sidewalks are not for sleeping, camping, peeing, pooping, loitering, begging, etc.

Aren't there homeless shelters? They may not be the most ideal places to sleep and they have some funding problems, as I'm told by the lady in front of Rainbow grocery who hassles me every time I walk by, no matter how many times I sign a fucking paper and give her a couple bucks. But then, parks don't seem like the best sleeping conditions either, and shelters are at least indoors...

Yes, it's Cole Valley, the little (dog) park at Cole and Carl where the N Judah enters the tunnel (Trivia: the park is maintained by Muni, not parks dept).

There's a usually a small number of homeless hanging out there during the warmer months - presumably they can't take the rat race of Haight. Some of the anarchist kids wander up to the park but I think it's too boring for them.

The woman camped on the left bench turned up about three weeks ago. People have spoken to her, offering to help her get into one of the shelters, but she doesn't seem interested in help. Apparently she fled from an abusive situation in Santa Cruz and washed up here. She doesn't really seem to have any plan so we'll see what happens - she doesn't really bother anyone and the cops seem to be content to let her be.

I live two blocks away from this park and regularly take my dog there to exercise. The neighborhood generally coddles these guys, and there's a bit of a "don't bother me, I won't bother you" feeling around the place. They know that the dog owners could easily make their lives hell, and we all know that they could very easily do a number of annoying or even harmful things.

The part that roils me is that several dogs in the park routinely get severely ill after digging around in the encampments. The theory is that dogs, being gross, consume the homeless poop and then react to whatever sort of drugs that are present in the excrement. Several of the guys who live at this park are legitimately crazy and are likely medicated off and on by both prescription and bartered street meds.

Also, there's always some big drama fight going on here -- usually surrounding Baglady Betty, a homeless drag queen who frequently finds himself on the receiving end of shouting matches after stealing god knows what out of other people's shopping carts.

It's a mess. It's unpleasant. The neighborhood tends to live and let live, but then again -- it's Cole Valley. Ex-hippies, meek yuppies with liberal guilt and people who just don't want to fucking bother with a screaming crazy homeless guy in their face.

That encampment is tidier and better-furnished than my apartment.

First, from all reports I've read/heard, the city's homeless shelters are filthy, crowded, dangerous places that people are turned away from because of lack of beds.

so we should be content that our public parks are filthy, dangerous places instead? if there are problems, then fix the shelters, public parks should be there for the public!

i agree with your take that we shouldn't be addressing these issues for the sake of tourists. we should be doing it for the sake of residents who want to live in a clean city where the side effects of homelessness such as needles and poop aren't something to deal with regularly. we should do it for the sake of the homeless people themselves who need a good kick in the arse if they aren't willing or able to get their act together. and you're right, just a tiny fraction of the funds we've spent on the war in the past few years would be more than enough to get case workers, job training, and shelters for all these folks. or bus tickets..

Having been a homeless services coordinator I can tell you that a number of the homeless collect possessions because those things make them feel better off and safe. It's not unlike a person who hordes items in a cluttered house.

I certainly don't agree with how SF has handled the problem of homelessness. Even if the city started cracking down more on homeless encampments the problem isn't going to be solved with the current alternatives in place.

BTW-- if you've ever had the horror of waking up in the middle of the night because your precious dog ate a homeless persons turd on the sly and subsequently thrown up that half digested shit all over you and your bed-- you most certainly are not going to want people sleeping in your dog park at night! Maybe if they cleaned up after themselves, but like that's ever going to happen.

my idea to ban the homeless from any tourists areas was just a start. we can't ban them from the entire city and some of the places that i'd deem no homeless zones i actually enjoy too. like the embarcadero! i tried to have a quick lunch at pancho villa next to the ferry building on sunday. i like to sit outside on their permanent tables. it was more than a little unappetizing to have to see the parade of homeless fucks and indigent chinese women walk by me while i tried to enjoy my lunch!

i don't care what you fucking sympathetic losers think. if you care so fucking much, take them in. i'd rather euthanize them all than look at them.

Why is that such an outrageous idea? It's happening every day when ICE comes to your neighborhood. Where's your outrage there? Oh that's right, it's OK to round up hardworking non-taxpayers because they're brown. But it's not OK to round up piss-soaked petty thieving scumbags because they're white and they're "MERCANS GODDAMIT! Sort your f**king brain out.

I agree with mushmouth. If people don't mind homeless people they should adopt one. I'm sure sleeping on a plush couch in Cole Valley is better more humanizing for them than sleeping in a dog park.

Most of homeless people are mentally ill or suffering from substance abuse problems. I think both those groups are unable to decide for themselves whether or not to live on the streets.

"stop dehumanizing homeless people"...is that a joke? the homeless dehumanize THEMSELVES.

Suckafree; i completely agree.
fizzandpop; extremely good point.

When did it become okay? It's always been okay. This is a "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" society. Laying around in your own filth has always been frowned upon. Not everyone in this society (or this city) is wealthy. It gets tiresome paying for all these "services" when you yourself are only scraping by, particularly when the services don't seem to help at all.

Wow. I'm just as frustrated and annoyed by the homeless as anyone, but I'm not willing to lump them all together as some monolithic group that deserves to be deprived of their basic human rights just because they're without resources and/or incapable of caring for themselves. I mean, basically y'all are calling for them to be gassed en mass because you find them aesthetically displeasing. Shallow much?

By the way, fizzandpop, you draw a false analogy by comparing homeless American citizens to illegal aliens. The level of rights afforded to either group are not the same due to citizenship status. Furthermore, illegals are breaking the law just by being present here. Most homeless, while perhaps a nuisance, aren't really doing anything illegal. If they were, you'd see more being done by law enforcement.

Clean up the homeless shelters so they're safe and usable? Excellent idea. Perhaps someone should ask Gavin why he's chosen to focus his attention on stupid things like tidal power and his hopeless political future while at the same time gutting services for these people from the city's budget. God forbid we should do more to get a crazy back up on his or her feet when some planets with hair who've rolled in from Wichita are in desperate need of a ride on vintage street car from Ripley's Believe It or Not to the ballpark...

Dude, you're nutso, homeless people are breaking the law by

a) Sleeping in the street (it is illegal, look it up)
b) Loitering
c) Littering
d) Being the sexist, racist scum they are (not illegal but worthy of a decent kicking in most societies)
e) Shooting up
f) Being intoxicated
g) Causing an afray or multiple afrays
h) Urination/defocation

The list goes on. But by all means, stick to the "immigrants are breaking the law just by being here" garbage.

TAYM: actually, I don't think suckafree was suggesting "rounding up" the homeless. He was suggesting euthanizing them.

Great, now this thread has gotten Genesis' "Illegal Alien" ("It's no fun...") in my head. Can someone round me up and euthanize me, please?

suckafree - I used to live in New York. I've also lived in a number of other large cities in North America and Europe. All, the same, thanks for sharing.

Well, lolag, there you go again. (I like this use of boldface names to answer posts - it's so Leah Garchik!)

The problem is not that San Franciscans pay too little tax. The problem is that we tolerate too much antisocial behavior. Write and enforce a ticket for any and all of fizzandpop's issues, and suddenly a bunch of people will be a lot less willing to turn down assistance.

Oh, and rageahol, you're wrong, cracking down on quality of life crimes has led to declines in more serious crime nationwide (just look at NYC). In comparison, SF, which has NOT cracked down on quality of life crimes, is NOT experiencing declines in more serious crime (at least homicide).

Hooray! Godwin's Law is now in full force!

Time to move on to the next thread.

fizzanpop - Dude, I didn't write the law. Perhaps when you're done being obtuse, you should sit down and write Nancy Pelosi a letter demanding that we throw open our borders and abolish all forms of immigration. I'm sure she'll be delighted to hear from you, considering how little attention she actually pays to her constituents. Alas, until that halcyon day arrives when the nation-state ceases to exist and borders dissolve into the ether, any alien who enters our country without proper documentation will be here illegally. That, of course, means they're breaking the law just by being here. Hitler has nothing to do with it, because like he's dead, and when he was alive, he wasn't an American. Sorry for you.

I think your views might get a better audience at stormfront.org, gott mitt uns, and all that.

fizzandpop - Um, yeah. There's like this concept out there called "abstract thought." When you're done diminishing the crimes of the Nazis by poorly equating them to a whole lolla lolla, you may want to go and check it out. Until then, thanks for sharing.

@Cior:

Your assertions that Cole Valley coddles the homeless in this park isn't correct, but on that same note there is no need to treat them like dirt. From the community leaders I've talked to, the feeling in the neighborhood is that we'd rather the homeless go elsewhere to camp, perhaps at an actual camping ground.

There's NOTHING more infuriating than leaving a hard day of work to come face to face with a beggar.

I worked all day for my money, and now you want me to just give it to you for no reason? Huh?

We need to cut off the homeless problem at its source: make panhandling illegal.

Well, now we know there are at least a few homeless people out there with internet access.

No sympathy here - none. When I found myself homeless, alone, penniless, and not dressed for the weather in LA at ninteen, my first stop was a police station to ask about shelters. After securing a place to stay I went to the local job assistance and was back on my feet with a (crappy) job and a (tiny, crappy) apartment not a month later. It wasn't hard, it just required that I not be a lazy...well...bum. So yeah, no sympathy for the homeless from me. I've been there, done that, and I know for a fact that there are resources out there that can help if you're willing to put in some work.

Yuppies and hipsters DAILY ruin my experience of San Francisco. Can they be made to leave, too? Can anyone I consider a constant nuisance be forced out, at least out of my experience, 'cause I'm sick of stepping around their morning-after bar vomit? What do you people think a society is? It isn't just folks like you. Guess what--homeless people can make their own choices, for whatever reasons. They're not obligated to seek help, they're not obligated to live in a structure--those are your choices, not theirs. There doesn't exist a place on earth where citizens have some degree of free will and everyone agrees on everyone's choices, and there never will be. This notion that somehow you have a right to tell other people where and how to live simply because you have money and conform to mainstream behaviors is a very slippery, dangerous slope.

This is somewhat of a tangent comment to address the illegal immigrant tangent. Immigration laws are not criminal laws. By breaking an immigration law, you are not a criminal. There is a very good reason for this, and it has nothing to do with prison capacity. Immigration law itself is entirely political in nature. It is an arbitrary decision by policy-makers as to how many people to let into the US yearly. Illegal immigrants do not, by simply BEING here, do anything to offend social norms or laws. If they engage in criminal conduct--which simply BEING here is not--that would be a different story.

And a little tibdit on criminal law. The biggest lesson a law student takes away from criminal law classes is that there are so many criminal laws on the books that ALL of us have been guilty of a criminal law in our lives. Ever printed out a plane ticket from your printer at work? GUILTY! The only reason we did not go to jail was because either 1. we weren't caught, or 2. the District Attorney decided not to enforce that law. What is a district attorney? A political appointee, verified by a popular vote (depends). So the laws that are enforced are the ones that the popular public want to see enforced. and these are the Criminal Laws.

Immigration laws have no relation to criminal laws, just as speeding through an intersection on a yellow light will not land you with a criminal conviction. You might get a traffic ticket and higher insurance rates, but you are not a criminal. We have different types of law to deal with different problems. I'm not defending the system, but this is how it works. There is therefore a fundamental problem when someone like Angry Young Man says that illegal immigrants mere presence is breaking the law.

Also as a side-note: mere illegal presence within the US is not actually an immigration violation. Illegal entry and/or presence for a certain number of years become immigration violations. There are actually quite a number of things that affect migrant status which if applied to citizens would be considered deprivation of free speech--for instance political party affiliations.