> Lawlessness, scams, and dishonesty are endemic in this area.

And homelessness. I was disappointed to see hundreds of helpless homeless people, some in horrible mental state, right there on streets in the middle of huge ivory towers that SV thumps its chest on. It's such a shame!

And with young kids coming out of those glass doors flashing gadgets and gizmos at each other, with that certain bay area flair … I mean the collective blindness of the place felt only surreal.

It's a personal thing but I guess my family will never be at home in the bay area.

You can judge, but SF goes further than any city I've seen to provide services to the homeless. So much so that it's a mild weather Mecca to many. So you can turn up your nose and go back home to a city that likely ships them here or "takes care of it" so you don't see it -- but you are being naive. The poor will always be with us, and we are judged by how we treat them.

Have you been outside of the US? Coming from Europe, SF is utterly shocking. I've never seen anywhere else like it. Government provides a lot of support for low-income and homeless people in EU.

Part of the reason there are so many homeless in SF is because the SF government and local charities provide food and shelter. The tourists handing out money doesn't help with attracting them. Much of the panhandling money is used for drugs, as basic needs such as food and shelter are already covered by the government and nonprofits. If you really want to help them, volunteer at a homeless kitchen or directly donate to them.

I walk by the local drug dealers in the Tenderloin every day, and all the clientele I've seen are homeless people.

Wow that's some serious reactionnary stupid stuff. You are pretending that these people are homeless because the State provides for them? Man, you are such a model person for this new techno-aristocracy.

Have you been around in EU? Governments' ability to help varies from one extreme to the other. There is no guaranteed EU treatment.

Yes I've traveled quite extensively and nothing has ever come close to SF. I don't for a moment pretend to understand all the issues that contribute to this. I'm simply making an anecdotal observation based on my own experiences.

Yeah? Like where does it even approach neat the level of the US? Give a name...

The EU is too big to speak of a one entity. And things are changing too.

I lived in the third largest city in Sweden, and when I moved in there were the handful (like, probably less than 5) of homeless beggars that everyone knew. There were probably more homeless but they were sheltered by the state.

But by the time I moved out, in front of every supermarket there was a Romanian beggar with her head down.

I'll agree SF is definitely on a completely different level though. I've never seen anyone defecate in public outside of SF (and yeah I've been to China)

That's probably not what you think. The beggars you saw in front of supermarkets were likely part of a criminal gang and had a handler collecting their money.

Should be pretty easy to investigate, arrest, deport them and forbid them to come back.

Have you been to southern Italy? The homeless/squatter situation I saw there was very similar.

Not further than Sorrento.

> You can judge, but SF goes further than any city I've seen to provide services to the homeless...

That's nice to hear!

I do realize now that my comment is naive; definitely only a tiny snapshot from the limited time that I spent over there and is not a complete picture or a total impression of the place.

But I still do wish that SV had a better situation/solution to these otherwise normal people problems.

San Francisco alone spends 241 million on homelessness per year. Most places deal with these "normal people problems" by criminalizing it to the point where people leave to places like SF or are jailed.

So your comment isn't really accurate.

> San Francisco alone spends 241 million on homelessness per year.

The $241 million figure is a little misleading because it encompasses the total spending across homeless services and supportive housing. Supportive housing is $112 million and the people within are NOT counted as homeless (nor should they be but that $112 out of $241 million is not being used on homeless people). [1]

It certainly doesn't help that the amount of money actually used on the homeless is contracted out to many, many, many companies and split across other government groups making it effectively impossible to spend efficiently and to track (I really wish they'd get this corrected; I mean we're the city of Silicon Valley for crepes sake!)

> Most places deal with these "normal people problems" by criminalizing it

Many cities spend more money, year over year, to house, shelter, feed and medically treat the homeless. Sure they'll get arrested too and I'm sure there are exceptions but I couldn't find any information regarding further criminalization, in recent years, as a way to get rid of the homeless (if you have a source that would be great). In fact here in SF the supervisor wants to do away with tents calling them illegal [2]

> people leave to places like SF

Only 10% of the homeless in a 2015 report came from out of state. 71% of the homeless lived in SF before becoming homeless, which is about 10% higher in just 2 years. I don't think very many are leaving to go to SF to be homeless. [3]

[1] http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record...

[2] http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2016/01/25/s-f-supervisor-scott-wie...

[3] https://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/default/files/2015%20San%20Fran...

"Lived in SF before becoming homeless" is self-reported in a survey of people who do not want the city to start sending them elsewhere, and "lived on a friend's couch" technically counts but shouldn't. What we want to know is whether they were ever able to support themselves here, and only 30% of them owned or rented.

> technically counts but shouldn't.

But that shouldn't technically count as homeless either. Honestly I can't really find any better numbers but I get your point and maybe there just are not any better numbers I dunno.

Well, that's a lot of money! I hope it's being effectively used.

Since it's SV we're talking about, this money could probably be used to find a better solution with a better outcome to the problem of homelessness all across America. And then other states can follow suit!

> SF goes further than any city I've seen to provide services to the homeless.

Maybe? It's difficult to track the money. Per capita SF doesn't even have the highest amount of homeless and yet you rarely see them on the streets in NYC and other major cities (and it's not because they're all in jail; NYC spent over a $1 billion in 2014 on homeless services and shelters and recently NY state started a $10 billion initiative to help the homeless). I wish SF did a better job tracking where the funds go and how effective they are being spent.

> a city that likely ships them here

This is a bit of a myth. In a 2015 report [1] only 10% of the homeless in SF came from another state. 71% of the homeless lived in SF itself and then became homeless.

> "takes care of it" so you don't see it

NYC has over 200 shelters. Many of the shelters in SF have waiting lists of several hundred people to the point where they have to live in tents which can be pretty dangerous in and of itself. Granted not all of the shelters are like that but many are and when you can't even stay in a shelter it doesn't really give them a lot of choice.

> The poor will always be with us, and we are judged by how we treat them.

I agree! It's far safer to have them off of the streets in many respects by providing affordable housing, temporary housing and even shelters. SF just doesn't have enough of that to go around for the homeless. I would love to see them expand their shelter services to provide more places for them to stay. But that certainly doesn't mean I want someone to "take care of it" so I "don't see it".

I think your comment came off a bit crass by assuming parent wanted to not see them and calling them naive.

[1] https://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/default/files/2015%20San%20Fran...

Admittedly the poster's complaint was about Silicon Valley, not SF.

I have looked at the homelessness statistics in Silicon Valley and the vast majority here actually lived here before becoming homeless. You don't usually see homeless people in most of the valley because they tend to stay out of sight by the creeks or other out of the way areas, but you do see them in downtown San Jose and to a lesser extent downtown Palo Alto.

I don't know the budget for homeless spending down here in Silicon Valley, but I doubt it is that high.

My understanding is that that's largely because SF is actually a pretty good (or at least "less awful") place to be homeless in, so homeless people from other areas travel or are sent there in hopes of finding a better life.

It's apparently a thing for social workers and caregivers in places with drastically inadequate social support (i.e. most of the US) to just stick disabled/mentally ill people on a bus to SF; they'll at least have a better chance there.

Not that its an excuse, but don't all large cities have homeless or poor people?

Spotted the guy who's never been to downtown San Francisco ;)

It is an order of magnitude worse there than just about anywhere else I've been (and I have traveled a lot)

Spotted the guy whose never been to downtown LA. It is much worse down south considering the weather is much better.

But really, only Alaska is relatively immune from this problem given that they just give homeless people a bus ticket to LA when winter hits.

Homelessness in Anchorage (Alaska) is a real issue. There are hundreds of chronically homeless, and not enough shelter beds to go around. Many winters 10+ people freeze to death on the streets.

There aren't any regularly operated buses from Anchorage to the rest of the US, and I'm fairly certain there aren't any homeless deportation programs (which would probably involve flying people commercially - there is a ferry, but its not really cheaper).

So my mom mentioned this to me, so it's only anecdata, while she hadn't lived in anchorage since the 60s, my info could be a bit out of date.

I once accidentally stumbled into a street downtown LA in my early 20s. It was full of druggies and gangsters. I never felt so scared of my safety before. I definitely felt eyes staring a me like I didn't belong there.

I have travelled to many countries where some places are considered dangerous for travellers. And never have I been more afraid than that day.

I took a grey hound as a kid across country and made the mistake of getting out at LA to look around. It felt like the walking dead at the time! Was aggressively pan handled, lost five bucks, came out of it ok. But SF has nothing on LA.

I stayed in SF for a couple weeks when I interned at a startup.

I live in Toronto, we have homeless people here too. So I guess the only real way to solve this is with data?

I believe that 'worse' in this case must mean that the homeless people are more visible.[1]

[1] http://fusion.net/story/148372/san-francisco-homelessness/

Big Data TM. I hear IBM has enterprise solutions to all of those.

Not to the extend that SF has. I have never seen so many homeless people before. And its not like they were starving at all. I heard they get paid by the government a $1000 a month. I even saw some reading books at the park.

> I even saw some reading books at the park.

I mean... homeless people read books. Seems like a good use of time to me when you're unemployed and homeless. It sounds like you think is a problem for some reason?

It's just not something I see homeless people do. So I was quite unfamiliar with the sight. Everyone has the right to do what they want with their time, but for me, I would imagine trying to find a proper job would be more important. Off course, I don't know about their situation so I shouldn't judge.

Who do you think would hire a homeless person walking in off the street? There are other aspects to life that need stabilizing before they think about finding work.

If you see a non-homeless person reading a book, do you automatically assume they are neglecting their spouse, kids and job? And do you not have anything more important to do than read HN?

Sometimes people need leisure, homeless or not.

Is like trying to help your drug addict friend get better. No matter what you do if they don't help themselves it is a lost cause. Eventually you just have to keep going with your life and wish them well.

"If they don't help themselves it is a lost cause". In a country where socialism is not a dirty word, this is not necessarily true at all.

In those countries do they imprison people that refuse help? If not, then I don't see how they can do any better with people that refuse to stay clean or refuse help entirely.

If a homeless person refuses help, it's probably not because they actively want to live an unstable, day-to-day life, not knowing where or what they'll eat tonight.

It's because the government has failed them in the past in its attempts to help. Not every government has decided that putting a permanent roof over the heads of anyone who needs it is a bad use of taxpayer's money.

>It's because the government has failed them in the past in its attempts to help.

No, this is incorrect. If someone continues to choose getting high over help, it has very little to do with the government failing them. Additionally, homeless people with mental disorders that make them paranoid or forgetful can refuse it regardless of past experiences.

>it's probably not because they actively want to live an unstable, day-to-day life, not knowing where or what they'll eat tonight.

No, but they may actively want something incompatible (like heroin or cocaine) more.

I would disagree. If someone chooses to choose getting high over getting help, it's a failure of drug policy in that country. The government has still failed them, you may just be blind to how.

This is not the only way a country has to be.

Show me the government that only governs people without addictions. What you're saying is absurd. Proclivity to addiction is affected by DNA. So you either have to imprison them so they can't have what they want, or deal with the fact that you will have some drug addicts.

Like Soviet Union?

Homeless people go to California because the weather is good and the locals are rich. What do you want SF residents to do about it? Giving the homeless more will just lead to more of them moving in.

Cold winters can mean death for people who are homeless. It's not a convenience, it's a survival strategy.

No disagreement here. It's a rational decision for a homeless person to move to California, but the locals don't have to be happy about it or encourage them.

The reigning ethos in SV is something very close to nihilism, but we do believe in one thing: property. A homeless or insane person has been assigned a near-zero value by markets and is therefore to be ignored. When the only thing you recognize is the exchange of goods and money, how can you assign any value to a person having neither?

Please stop posting this sort of intemperate rant to HN. It sheds no light on a difficult social problem like homelessness and turns discussion into a tire fire.

I don't like metadiscussions, and I can see you have your hands full with this circus of a post, but did you reply to the wrong comment? Mine only has two replies (ex. yours) but dozens of siblings and cousins. If there's a tire fire here, I didn't light it.

I'm describing what long experience has shown us that comments like that one do. Sorry for not making that clearer (and thanks for the convivial note about the circus).

SV is all flash, no soul.

>> but we do believe in one thing: property

I thought SV was the world's hardest place to exercise your property rights? Just try demolishing a single-family house to set up a new low-income Section 8 apartment complex. Even if you wanted to, you couldn't.

San Francisco is like the polar opposite of the real-world Rapture you're envisioning it as.

I want to do the cool things there with there, but I'm glad I'm not there.

The interesting part is that the technology exists to better vet and monitor investments. For example, why don't startup-friendly banks offer authorized investors read-only access to bank accounts, and maybe an investor alert service that notifies them whenever a charge/check of more than $X posts to the company bank account or credit card, or when a wire goes out, etc? Most types of fraud are absurdly easy to spot; the tools and the will to spot them just aren't very strong atm.

That's because there are currently no "startup-friendly" banks. The ones who say that are just using marketing speak and are no better and often worse to deal with than the majors.

That is not true at all. Silicon Valley Bank is absolutely friendly to startups, helps fund them, and supports them with a great network of early stage company get-togethers many times per year. They supported my startup from first funding right through to the $42 million we have raised to date.

Every big bank will also help you if you're about to put millions in an account with them. And some random "get-togethers" aren't really a big deal and not something I'm looking for from a bank.

What does "supported" even mean? What does SVB really do for you that another major bank couldn't? In contrast, they have less branches and ATMs, fewer business hours, weaker credit card offerings, more fees, and an utterly crap web interface.