> "get tough on homelessness" attitude would be vilified by our political climate, so it won't ever be up to me.

You and me both, the solution is really straightforward. I feel like homeless in general falls into 4 camps:

camp 1 - drug addiction, this one would be to get people off the streets, Open rehab clinics, get them clean, and back into a functioning society.

camp 2 - mental illness, This one would be opening mental institutions(Reagan closed these in the 70's which led to our current culture of homelessness in alot of large california cities). Money would go towards either medication to get people in a functioning state or full time commitment based on severity.

camp 3 - Those down on their luck, this one would be the easiest as job skills could be taught along with temporary free housing and counselors to ease the individual back into a job, once a job is found a stipend towards rent can be given until the person is fully independent again.

camp 4 - Those that want to stay homeless. This is the most difficult group to deal with, and having them escorted out of the city would most likely be the only solution.

I met a guy walking home in the TL, he had hitchhiked from a trailer park in North Carolina to SF. His neighbor in the trailer park made amateur porn websites, so he pretty much learned web development purely in the context of pornography. He was addicted to meth and came to SF looking for a job and the free methodone treatment. His laptop got stolen so I gave him an old Macbook I had lying around and told him to check out Codecademy.

I was hoping to get a feel-good story out of it after reading about Leo (https://www.businessinsider.com/leo-the-homeless-coder-2015-...), but the truth of the situation is he simply wasn't skilled or educated enough to actually learn computer science or even get past a phone interview (meth really ruins one's ability to maintain a train of thought). Somebody told him the legends of high-paying tech jobs in SF, and reality was a harsh teacher like it is to many people everywhere. He lived in shelters and on the streets for a while until he lost his phone, which was my only way of connecting with him. Haven't seen him on the streets for years and no idea what ended up happening with him.

My point being that people have really complex reasons for being homeless in SF and it's hard to put everyone into distinct groups, but for the most part your camps describe at least 90% of homeless people I've seen.

I am currently a web developer earning 6 figures in the Seattle area. I learned the skill in the Front End development course in Noisebridge—a hacker space in the Mission. They provided a free course, every Tuesday (or was it Monday) evening. I was living in a van at the time (what many people consider homeless). I know I might have learned the craft without this resource but I feel like this course made things significantly easier for me. And I definitely owe a dept of gratitude to the Noisebridge community (and Jeffrey in particular) for providing this to me.

Now just to be clear I’m not saying that any homeless person can learn how to code and get a job. I’m just saying that in my case I was what many people consider homeless, learned how to code, moved away from the city to Northern Europe, and then happened to get a job in the industry.

This is such a wonderful story, thank you for sharing it! I have plenty of stories of how Noisebridge has affected many people, it’s a truly wonderful place.

You forgot to include the ones who have 2 jobs and live in their car and bathe at an YMCA. They’re also homeless, maybe not as visible as the other categories and need help too!

I met a guy who fit all of the above. Did some drugs, had some mental issues (but not to the point of being insane), was down on his luck. He didn't exactly want to stay homeless, but he preferred it to his other alternatives (which included job skill program with free housing). After a while his luck turned and he found a job that suited him and a place to stay. He probably still has some mental issues and does some drugs.

Idk where I'm going with this except to say it's complicated.

It’s not so simple.

1 and 2 are either your largest groups or at least very large groups.

Getting addicts ‘clean’ is a sub problem at least almost as hard as the general, and it’s somewhere between hard and impossible to keep someone in a rehab or a mental facility against their will, and I doubt Reagan is to blame for that.

Basically, a large proportion of 1 and 2 are effectively in camp 4.

Reagan is to "blame" for it, but the unbelievable condition of homes for the involuntarily committed didn't make it a hard decision to make for him.

I wonder what the distribution is between these four camps? My hunch is solving for the first three camps as you've described would lead to a much higher quality of living for the average city dweller.

1,2,4 have a lot of overlap or are the same group (you need to be mentally ill to want to be homeless and drug addiction is a symptom of trauma that’s basically untreated mental illness).

Need to find ways to help the mentally ill, and shovelling pills won’t cut it, we need comprehensive programs.

For groups 1 and 2, who gets to decide if a homeless person is to be committed? This seems like a non-trivial question, or am I missing something?

A person's social worker can make that decision. It is based on documented observations, interactions, interviews with neighbors, police reports, and hospitalization reports. Local and national laws provide a legal basis and rules for it.

I'll vote for you. Setting up a welfare magnet for the homeless in one of the most expensive real estate markets in the country is cruelty, not compassion.

If I ever campaign for something you'll know it's me after recognizing that cruelty/compassion line ;)

Excellent point

Another problem is that SF shelters have schedules that exclude working people.

Shelters require folks to line up for entry in the early afternoon. Many unskilled jobs require late evening work (restaurant dishwasher, line cook, bus boy, janitor, etc). So folks leaving work at 11pm cannot get into the shelters.

Shelters kick everyone out in the early morning. Folks who work at night cannot get in to shelters at all. Night shift work is very important for unskilled folks (security guard, janitor, warehouse, etc).

Also, many shelters are run by religious organizations and require guests to spend time attending religious presentations every day.

I think 80% of the homelessness problem can be solved by providing free housing for these extremely poor people. Housing will not turn them all into successful citizens, but it will stop them from sleeping on the streets. Comprehensive health care (including therapy and long-term psychiatric care) can solve another 10%. The last 10% are folks who just prefer to live on the streets.

Unfortunately, free housing in SF is very expensive because of the housing shortage. The city already houses many formerly homeless folks, spending $200M/year. Housing the remaining 8,000 would take at least $200M/year more. This would be a 4% increase in SF's $5B annual budget.

>I used to live in the Tenderloin in 2013 and it has actually improved a lot since marijuana was legalized and public restrooms added in

The TL is a lot worse than in 2013. There are more needles, more open drug use, more break ins, and on and on.

>back then, there was a guy on every street corner trying to sell you something, and certain alleyways/corners where there was daily cleaning for piles of human waste.

Literally nothing has changed. This is still the reality.

I am so sorry to hear that. I got mugged by some of the corner drug dealers in 2013 and they were at least nice enough to throw my drivers license out while running away, presumably to save me a trip to the DMV. I was thrilled to see the legal dispensaries put those guys out of business, I had long moved out by then but the area felt way less dangerous to walk around in.

Plenty of people are still buying and selling weed. Dispensaries are not a great prospect when tax alone is 30%. There is a reason why there are more black market dispensaries than licensed ones, in LA at least.

We should talk and listen. They don’t want to be homeless. They want something else. What? Provide that.

In many cases? Drugs.

In that case Portugal and Sweden have show some success in treatment rather than the approach we have been taking. We should learn from evidence based outcomes rather than normative based appeals to tradition.

We really need comprehensive addiction treatment. Addicts should be offered jail or court ordered rehab, but in either case there is no option but to sober up and get well. It is just so depressing how often I see people slowly killing themselves on the street smoking crack or finding a vein these days, openly on the sidewalk, in broad daylight. This needs to be coupled with mental health treatment, which often leads to drug use in the first place.

> or leave the city

I would like it that we can as a society find ways to help homeless with their issues and manage their lives in a way that isn't just each city tossing them out.

That said, I'm not against someone's honest decision to say, well I don't know how, and in the mean time, I want them out of sight so kick them out.

But, and this is the but I feel is never discussed by those who propose that solution is HOW?

How do you kick them out? What if they resist? Arrest? Jail? Now who pays for that? Should we just fire gunshots at them? Force relocate them, and if they come back? Erect barriers? What else?

Jailing them would actually be cheaper than what they currently do, as long as they are jailed outside of California, which spends much more per prisoners than other states.

To clarify, I don't consider these ethical options. I just want to point out that without a concrete way to "kick them out", this solution is easier said than done. And so I feel it lacks a path forward.