I’ve lived in China, France, the UK, Canada, and the US.

I can tell you that having no free healthcare, no help for people who don’t seem to manage, and blaming mental illness seem to be causes for homelessness.

Think as homelessness of just a symptom of deeper issues. If you try to treat the symptoms you’re not going to get far.

What’s China’s solution to homelessness and mental illness?

People living in tents where you can't see them.

In large part family. There is an expectation that family will take care of family members in need. Doesn’t always happen of course and some people don’t have close family.

The USA has one of the highest rates of homelessness of all developed countries[1].

So maybe it’s more of a social problem then the fault of individuals. And maybe it would make more sense to fight the root causes then the symptoms.

1) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227691245_Homelessn...

As a Canadian it seems like there is a major difference in attitude towards the homeless. In the US it seems much more common to blame the individual, and talk about who deserves what. Ie blaming laziness, drug use etc. Where as in canada there is a more prevalent attitude of everyone should have some minimum living condition, regardless of the circumstances.

And yet Vancouver has a terrible problem with the homeless, who are as aggressive as any I've seen in the US. From what I can tell, they do have better services than most places in the US but that doesn't seem to have translated into a reduced homeless population or better behavior by the homeless. If you're a homeless person, Vancouver probably is a better place than most of the US, but for the average resident it doesn't seem like there is much of a difference.

From a quick google search Vancouver has a homeless population of under 3000. Seattle, which is close climate wise has 4 times at around 12,000 and San Francisco at around 8,000. Vancouver has a homelessness problem by Canadian standards but it’s many times better than west coast US cities.

So lower rate of homelessness plus better living conditions while being homeless seem like both good things.

> we should not be going out of our way to make it comfortable to be homeless

Building such spikes etc. means going out of one's way to make it uncomfortable for everyone, just so it may be uncomfortable for the homeless, too.

Not building these spikes isn't "going out of one's way", it's the default.

Instead of being homeless, now they’re wet, cold, and homeless? Brilliant.

Forcing the poor and homeless out of sight doesn’t fix anything. Criminalizing poverty doesn’t fix anything. If you’re so offended by poverty, perhaps do something useful to address the root causes?

Building spikes does nothing to help homeless people, it just makes it hard for them to live. “Tough love” isn’t going to make them not be homeless.

As a teenager, I used to skateboard a decent amount. Sometimes businesses would put juts on rails, or little lips on things - stuff like that to keep kids from skating on their property.

It didn't stop us from skating, obviously; we just found somewhere else to skate. Often on the same property. More malicious peers of mine would do things like grind down the rail until it was smooth.

I think about that a lot when I hear about stories like this. We were just kids doing stuff for fun, not people fighting for survival.

We should focus on making it easier to re-establish a foothold on society.

The problem is that quite a number of the homeless would not, and cannot, return to the society. Some are addicted to alcohol. Many have mental issues.

While reintegration may help some of the homeless, most of them likely need a different approach if we want to somehow relieve their plight. Something more geared towards medical and psychiatric help.

Look at the statistics: the vast majority of homeless people are homeless because of simple economic problems like the loss of income or lack of affordable housing, and a minority have mental illnesses or addictions.

I would appreciate a source link, if you have one handy.

> I know this probably is not a popular opinion

It would be easy to dismiss your post as merely repugnant, and it certainly is. Essentially you're proposing a death march from one city location to another.

But the lack of logic you display is common when people discuss the homeless problem.

So I'll illustrate a productive way to discuss this.

Let's assume the following demographics about SF, which has a reported budget of over $300 million for 5,000 homeless (and rapidly growing as rents skyrocket) - that's $60,000/yr per homeless person:

- 50% of homeless are healthy but unemployed - we can fix this fairly easily. Provide a mailing address, missing id documents, cubicles for job interview calls, and databases of room rentals and employers. Have a help line to sort out kafkaeque procedural problems, like e-verify database problems.

https://www.e-verify.gov/

This would be incredibly cost-effective for solving the current problem, but equally important for the coming tidal wave of even more homeless as rents continue to rise in 2020.

Some housing assistance would be needed, say 90 days, as well as acute medical assistance, but hey, $300 million - where's it being spent today?

- 50% of homeless are mentally ill - there is no short-term solution for those in psychosis, but we have data now on the effects of closing long-term care facilities and can revisit those policies. The milder cases can be helped to stabilize and integrate with society, but the rest need institutional care.

Decreasing from 5,000 people on the streets to 2,500 in SF is a huge win and would really improve the situation for everybody and allow resources to focus on the more difficulat cases.

Without an actionable plan, the alternative is Mad Max, which Market St. has already become.

'without an actionable plan, tWithout an actionable plan, the alternative is Mad Max, which Market St. has already become. he alternative is Mad Max, which Market St. has already become. '

thats called catastrophism.

Not to go into personal attacks but reading your comment history explains a lot. "I went to a pretty well regarded private high school in California." You simply don't know what these people are going through. Kicking them out of your sight is not "tough love" and isn't solving anything. You seem very resentful.

> but for most it is frankly easier to be homeless than to tackle the difficult task of reestablishing a foothold in society.

Don't you think that your kind of attitude might be part of the problem? Every country has homelessness issues but not every country treat them like a pest.

I sympathize with the plight of the homeless and donate what I can to local Bay Area charities. But after volunteering with some river cleanup efforts I am appalled by the amount of litter that homeless people thoughtlessly dump in ecologically sensitive areas. And don't tell me they had no alternative: there were public garbage cans within easy walking distance.

Part of that problem might be explained by thoughtlessness, but I can think of four practical reasons:

1. "Trash" marks a spot where you intend to return. This can help ensure that you have a regular place to sleep.

2. What appears to be trash might have some value to the hoarder, e.g., trashy but wearable clothing, recyclables, etc.

3. Litter can camouflage minor valuables, so you can accomplish #1 and also have a hiding place for stuff people might steal.

4. Given all of the above, trash naturally gathers in a homeless community and eventually gets dumped however is most practical.

Go tell the homeless Mexican guys outside Home Depot in West Oakland looking for work they are not trying hard enough.

Whether illegal immigration is a net gain for the American economy or not is such a complex subject that basing it off some anecdotal "homeless Mexicans" looking for manual labor post seems... ill-advised.

From the perspective of an employer the short-term gain of paying less for labor is attractive and a positive. For Americans who might be competing with "homeless Mexicans" it is likely a negative. And beyond these two simple perspectives lay more complex calculations of benefits and detriments.

Measuring the negatives against the positives requires far more data than a single anecdotal post about "homeless Mexicans." At least for me.

You don't care about the homeless. Just say that next time to save time.

I was in Seattle just this weekend. Sounds like you're kind of overblowing it. There's definitely homeless people but maybe outside of Seattle proper.

I think you meant $100K per year per homeless person for spending in the Seattle area, not $100?

Yeah let's make it more difficult for people to get back on their feet. While we're at it, let's not forget about arresting anyone who is an addict or has mental issues. We should expand that and arrest cancer patients and people with other maladies who went bankrupt and became homeless. Maybe we should torture them too. We could light a fire under their ass to get them moving back into society. Literally. All great ideas. I'm sure as long as we stay on this track we've been on for so many decades and do the exact same thing we've been doing, things will magically improve. That's logic for you. Hard to argue with that. /s