this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2024
23 points (96.0% liked)
Bay Area
1331 readers
2 users here now
Discussion for all things Bay Area.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Any locals care to chime in on this? I am skeptical for a few reasons. It’s always been legal to enforce the law regarding open fires, littering, drug use, etc. And it’s always been allowed to enforce anti-camping ordinances when shelter is available. My understanding is that this ruling only changes the situation when no shelter is available. It’s not about enforcing the rules, it’s about sweeping the problem into someone else’s neighborhood when you aren’t providing a real solution. Those neighborhoods will of course be the ones with the least political capital—the poor, racialized, etc.
Breed claims this is about people who refuse to accept help. But is this true? What help are they providing and why was it not sufficient prior to the SC ruling? I don’t live in SF so I’d love if someone more informed can either confirm or deny my suspicions here.
Yes. For example, I worked at a housing site that SF acquired during COVID for the purpose of getting people off the streets so that they could "shelter at home". This was actual housing, too, not merely a shelter bed.
The refusal rate was over 70%, most of which were no-shows. So they added incentives like free Uber rides to the building, Safeway gift cards just for showing up, etc. Still, the overwhelming majority of people who were referred to us by the city never showed up.