They're really not.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/26/us/san-francisco-drug-cri...

In SF our homelessness is driven by drug abuse and the lack of ability to put addicts and the mentally ill into conservatorship, its well documented.

> If we're on the subject of compassion, millions who are no longer able to acquire effective pain relief could use some.

Could you clarify what you mean by that?

As someone looking at you guys from across the continent: at least part of your problem appears to come from a refusal to build dense housing which would allow people making something nearer average wage to sleep indoors.

Housing has very little to do with it. SF has always been an expensive city to live in and its surrounded with suburbs with affordable housing.

There are almost no homeless people in the surrounding areas because they come to SF for drugs and they know they won't be prosecuted for living their lifestyle. We're literally killing people by tolerating their bad behavior.

What on earth? In SF homelessness is caused by the lack of housing. Mental illness is courtesy the Reagan era dismantling of mental health services in CA, and is over-represented for sure.

However, the driving factor for homelessness in SF, is the fact that there is no where for people to live. Thats part of why eviction is so stupidly hard in SF. Once you become homeless it is functionally impossible to get out.

Its not caused by lack of housing, the people on the street are incapable of supporting themselves much less maintaining a dwelling - have you ever been here? Our homeless are mostly drug-seeking tourists who are from elsewhere.

The Reagan canard is also just that; The Supreme court ruling sought by the ACLU during the Carter administration is why people are out on the street, the govt can't legally commit people like that anymore.

Evictions are hard here for the same reasons that its trivial to get fentanyl in front of the federal building that houses the DEA - failed govt policy.

Maybe do some research.

https://www.pacificresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/H...

"Roughly 34 percent of the homeless in San Francisco are homeless due to direct economic factors, such as evictions and job losses. Another 12 percent became homeless when they lost the safety net of family or friends."

"About 15 percent are due to drug addiction or substance abuse."

I've spoken with several people working directly with the homeless, 95% of the people on the street are not from SF, most of them are told to say they're from SF so they can get services. There are tons of fake/stilted reports from special interest groups, they're trying to feed the "Homeless Industrial Complex" which has been growing rapidly since 2003.

The City has even had to sue other counties for dumping: https://www.ktvn.com/story/30191022/nevada-san-francisco-rea...

Its very well known that SF has drug tourists, its so obvious if you're on the streets here...

> I've spoken with several people working directly with the homeless

And somehow this makes you an expert or informed on the matter?

> 95% of the people on the street are not from SF

This is likely the case for every metro in the world. And?

> well known that SF has drug tourists

Facts and research, please. You seem keen to peddle the homeless as drug-addled perpetrators stereotype.

Yes, speaking with experts makes one informed.

Even the Mayor of SF has talked about how SF has drug tourists and how they need to be prevented from receiving services. You don't seem to be very informed about SF.

Every single public service is abused by some percentage of people using it. So? The mayor holding a press conference or speaking to the press to score points doesn't make it any more credible than the Reagan's bullshit about drugs in the 80s.

I'm not interested in the incredibly small percentage of people exploiting the system that isn't helping them in the first place, but the large percentage of homeless - transient or long term - that need services but are fought every part of the way by ignorance like this.

Its not an incredibly small number of people exploiting the system, its 95% of people in this system.

> its 95% of people in this system

Pulling numbers out of thin air doesn't make them true.

That number came from an expert.

They also asserted that if our local DA actually did something about dealing on the streets we'd lose that same number of homeless people and they'd return to wherever they came from before SF, or go to Oakland. SF has turned itself into an "attractive nuisance" due to our unchecked open air drug markets.

> That number came from an expert.

I'm sure it did, and it's not just completely made up with absolutely no corroborating evidence to back it up.

Here is the Supreme Court ruling in 1975:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Connor_v._Donaldson

Carter era federal law signed into effect 1980:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_of_Institutionali...

Other links:

https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-mental-institutions

Reagan hasn't been Governor of California for 45 years.

Why haven't they fixed it since then?

Because its illegal to commit someone to an institution who hasn't comitted a crime.

San Francisco is trying a new approach but has only managed to get ONE person into conservatorship in the last 2 years because of all the roadblocks put up by a group called "The Coalition on Homelessness".

https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/conservatorship-off-to-a-slo...

To give you an idea, you have to be 5150'ed (aka put on a psychiatric health hold) 8 times in order to receive inpatient treatment. 8 times. If you told someone they'd have to try to kill themselves 8 times before they got help, they'd probably call you nuts.

> Because its illegal to commit someone to an institution who hasn't comitted a crime.

I'm still not seeing what that do with "Reagan".

If it's a law he instituted, that law could be changed back, yes?

No, the ACLU sued and its now the law of the land, its probably impossible to undue. Uninformed people blame Reagan for "closing the institutions" but you can't have an institution and nobody to put in it...

You have legalised cannabis in the states, that's a better pain relief option.

And your medical degree is from where?

It's probably sarcasm