News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:One Year in San Francisco as a Software Engineer by jseliger on Thursday January 03, 2019 @01:25PM (#18817599)
Yes. I was just going to post this:

Personally I can emphasize with the sentiment. Even though I don’t think that 20-something programmers in Google buses are personally responsible for the disparity, but the brandless tinted Google buses are a powerful symbol for new class system.

I’ve never seen so much poverty and homelessness before. There’s many major streets where wearing open shoes would be a big no-no, because of used needles lying around in plain sight. Seeing people shooting up on Market Street is pretty normal.

This is a political decision, or set of decisions: https://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/. Anytime we want to, we can build as much housing as people want to live in; we just make doing so illegal right now.

Re:One Year in San Francisco as a Software Engineer by treis on Thursday January 03, 2019 @01:29PM (#18817670)
You can't build housing cheap enough for chronic drug users to afford.
Re:One Year in San Francisco as a Software Engineer by adventured on Thursday January 03, 2019 @01:42PM (#18817814)
> You can't build housing cheap enough for chronic drug users to afford.

You certainly easily can: effectively free (subsidized by tax payers).

The house-the-homeless programs run during the Bush and Obama administrations dramatically reduced chronic homelessness in most of the US, pushing it to a record low per capita.

San Francisco is one of the wealthiest places on earth. They intentionally choose to allow the human rights violation of mass, particularly chaotic homelessness to continue in the city. Morally they own it, period. There are obvious, highly effective solutions that have been used elsewhere.

Re:One Year in San Francisco as a Software Engineer by treis on Thursday January 03, 2019 @04:19PM (#18819381)
>You certainly easily can: effectively free (subsidized by tax payers).

That's not building cheap housing that drug users can afford. It's just getting someone else to pay.

Re:One Year in San Francisco as a Software Engineer by bduerst on Thursday January 03, 2019 @02:16PM (#18818216)
Considering the majority of the homeless in SF are mentally handicapped, it turns out you can: https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2018/03/05/san-francisco-h...

Deinstitutionalization has contributed to SF's homeless problem, as many mentally handicapped people self medicate with illegal substances.

Re:One Year in San Francisco as a Software Engineer by crdoconnor on Thursday January 03, 2019 @01:59PM (#18818033)
You can prevent people from becoming drug users by not jacking rents up so high that they're forced on to the streets.
Re:One Year in San Francisco as a Software Engineer by masonic on Friday January 04, 2019 @06:03AM (#18823173)
I wasn't aware that drug addiction was mandatory for the not- conventionally-housed.
Re:One Year in San Francisco as a Software Engineer by ryandrake on Thursday January 03, 2019 @01:41PM (#18817798)
Does the city have the infrastructure needed to support more housing? Water, sewer, electric grid, schools, trash service, parking, transit? You can’t just replace a few blocks of single family homes with high rises and call it a day.

Where do you put all this new infrastructure and who pays for it? Existing residents?

More housing is necessary but insufficient.

Re:One Year in San Francisco as a Software Engineer by pc86 on Thursday January 03, 2019 @01:46PM (#18817867)
> who pays for it? Existing residents?

Yes. That's how urban living works. Current residents pay taxes, those taxes are used to rebuild/enhance the city infrastructure, which brings in more residents and more tax revenue.

And I think increasing the capacity of the sewer system is sort of an assumed point when it's literally a requirement for increased high-density housing.

Re:One Year in San Francisco as a Software Engineer by ryandrake on Thursday January 03, 2019 @03:21PM (#18818916)
I don’t think it’s assumed at all. People just come into these conversations with overly-simplistic solutions (Just Add Housing™) and if anyone disagrees or points out that it’s actually a complicated, multi-faceted problem, they’re wrong and a NIMBY. Who pays for it all is a huge issue, and I don’t think there is an obvious universally agreeable answer. If there was it wouldn’t be fought over so fiercely.

But don’t point that out here! It’s not enough to agree that the area needs more housing—you aparently have to also profess that it’s obviously the only solution, and that there are no trade offs or complexity to consider.