The only thing that drug screening welfare applicants has ever done is shown that the percentage of welfare applicants that use drugs is much lower than the general population.
You fucking morons are literally adopting Florida’s failures from a decade ago.
Man I forgot about the Florida drug screening thing from like 10-15 years ago. Been a wild decade though
The only thing that drug screening welfare applicants has ever done is shown that the percentage of welfare applicants that use drugs is much lower than the general population.
But it makes sense that usage rates would be lower if they had to stop taking to keep their presumably much-needed benefits.
Does that make it OK to use the welfare money for drugs?
Did Florida’s system just cut them off when they found them using or did they offer them assistance options for getting clean? S.F.'s system plans to offer them assistance getting clean while they continue to receive the welfare.
Florida spent $200,000 on testing and found 100 people, 2% of the total, to be using drugs. They spent more money on testing than if they’d just given welfare benefits to those 100 people.
How do you consider that anything but a failure?
2000 on welfare per person seems very cheap
Not really when we’re just talking about food stamps. They paid $2000 for each of those benefit denials over what mostly amounted to marijuana usage. It was a net loss of $45,780 for the state.
Yeah that does sound like a failure. But also different time different place. Was there a Fentanyl epidemic of this scale 10 years ago in Florida? If the treatment options save just one person’s life, is it still a failure? Should we just say “yep nothing works, there’s no solution to daily ODs on the streets of the city.”?
Your right, 10 years ago people weren’t using welfare money on fent, they were using medicaid money on RXs for 180 OC30s.
The solution is to end the drug war.
I always wonder why the disaster of massive amounts of legally available opiates is brought up as an argument to stop the restrictions on drugs altogether
Yeah, it’s like “Hey, look at the great improvement to my life since I’ve started taking 15 oxys per day! Everyone should be doing this!”
Recreational use is one thing, but continuous, institutionally backed dependence is a whole different ballgame.
Yeah, not that that’s ideal, but at least the OCs weren’t turning them into permanently mentally and physically crippled zombies, or suddenly killing them like fent does.
No, the Oxy just pushed people to fent once they could no longer get or afford their fix from the pharmacy.
Sorry… you don’t think there was a massive opioid epidemic in 2014?
Because the White House literally held a summit on that issue in that year.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2014/06/19/white-house-summit-opioid-epidemic
“Yes it was a failure but have you thought about how this time will be different because reasons?”
Because it’s a much more destructive drug, in a completely different state and city, with completely different demographics, political climate, and education level? 15 years into the future?
Oh so you think everyone in CA on benefits in on drugs or something? The base idea remains the same. Don’t hide welfare behind drug testing it isn’t worth it
No I don’t think that and I never said that. Please don’t try and put words in my mouth.
To be blunt, I think that the people in California, today, are much better equipped to take on this issue than the people in Florida were 15 years ago.
save just one person’s life […]
Bullshit. It’s entirely possible to save one person while harming many others.
Some of us see drug use as a health issue and not a moral imperative. Money is fungible, so if they’re using welfare dollars to buy drugs instead of smashing car windows to get their fix, that’s probably a net positive even if it isn’t ideal.
And if you’re just trying to get more people into treatment, I’m not sure piss testing the poor is remotely the most cost effective approach.
There were 627 OD deaths in San Francisco in 2022. 806 OD deaths in 2023. I’d call that a failed system that needs a new approach. I don’t know what exactly we need to do, but it seems that giving people free reign to go down the path of a synthetic opiate addiction is mostly giving them a slow painful death. This may not be everyone’s problem now, but if this is allowed to continue destroying people in this country it WILL become everyone’s problem at some point.
“Giving people a free rein”
Again addiction isn’t a moral failing and pushing people out of the system is not going to solve a surge in fent deaths. Sure there’s a very realistic chance you’ll lower the ODs in SF as you push people into other towns and cities, but you’re not saving lives just leaving the problem on someone else’s doorstep.
There’s not a silver bullet for this addiction issue, but depriving people of any semblance of economic security is going to be counter productive.
So basically keep doing what we’re doing then and hope that things magically change? Many of the people suffering from addiction here actually are from other towns and cities all over the country. They end up staying here because their addiction is supported, and they never escape the cycle.
One of the supervisors that endorsed this measure, Matt Dorsey, is a recovered addict himself. I’d think that he would have a better idea than myself of what works and what doesn’t.
Honestly, I think it should be a Federal Government issue at this point because it is affecting people and destroying lives all over this country.
No… use the resources that you’d waste on testing for actual proven tactics. And not to sound cold hearted, but it’s a lot more effective to prevent addiction than to “cure” it. All of which is ignoring that you’re going to waste a lot of money on lawyers as this has been struck down several time’s now.
I do strongly agree this is a state and federal issue as cities are shouldering the overwhelming majority of the burden. They are being forced to deal with the symptom (drugs/crime), but have virtually no means of addressing the root causes of a problem that usually start somewhere else.
Agree with preventing addiction being a much better option, when available. It really sucks to see these people being given this slow torturous death, or being otherwise irreversibly damaged, all while ruining the city and sense of safety for others.
What would you say the proven tactics are that we could apply here, and where have they been proven?
How many of the people who ODed were on welfare? Because otherwise your numbers are not relevant.
Yes. It does make it okay. Welfare should be given on no conditions. If they want to spend it on drugs and won’t be able to afford food because of it, that is their choice. Why should people who get assistance be told how to spend that money? Should they also be restricted from buying beer with that money? How about sugary sodas? How far are you willing to go to tell people how they should be allowed to spend the money given to them when that is not a requirement for anyone else’s money?
The system should also offer them assistance to break addictions regardless.
If there’s no way for them to hurt themselves or others, then yes, I say let them buy whatever they want. But what about when those drugs not only are hurting them, but are toxically hurting the same society that gave them the money in the first place? What if they are no longer able to make sound decisions for themselves due to severe mental illness?
If I’m a bartender and I see somebody getting way too intoxicated, to the point they are hurting themselves or others, should I keep serving them more drinks? Or even buy them more myself? Hey man, here’s your car keys and a drink! Have a good night!
FYI, there actually is a tax on sugary sodas in this city… because too much can be harmful for everyone.
If there’s no way for them to hurt themselves
So they should be barred from buying anything with sugar in it because they might be diabetic.
or others, then yes, I say let them buy whatever they want.
So they should be barred from buying beer at anywhere that sells it from a bar to a supermarket, right? Alcohol can make people violent.
What if they are no longer able to make sound decisions for themselves due to severe mental illness?
So they should be barred from buying anything sharp in case they have a psychotic break. No kitchen knives, no pencils.
Or… we just don’t put rules on giving people money since, believe it or not, people not on assistance can have major drug problems and serious mental illness and they can spend their money however they want.
I think the argument for whether it is morally acceptable to supply someone with drugs, substances, weapons, or whatever else it is that that can kill them or others is always going to be a tough call, and we can sit here on it until the cows come home and still be in the same place honestly.
If you read the article though, it says that the measure doesn’t even stop them from receiving the funds, even if they are still using. They can literally use and won’t stop receiving receiving the funds, as long as they are open to treatment options.
Fine, then people should be allowed to receive their paychecks if they use drugs as long as they are open to treatment options.
Fair, right?
They should be yes. The only time mandatory pre-screening should be acceptable is if your job requires zero intoxication to legally perform your job. Like operating machinery, driving, etc. Beyond that it should only come up if there is good reason to believe that you are using and it is affecting your performance. Then you should be given the option to go through treatment before being fired comes up as an option.
Yes. That’s literrally what the measure says. That’s what we voted for.
I love how you’re getting massive downvotes for this. Go Lemmy!
That’s what happens when you ask questions that people don’t want to answer I guess. 🤷♂️
Drug treatment is important, yes, but making it a precondition for benefits will absolutely hurt the most vulnerable. If there was actually enough affordable housing available for everyone that needs it, there would be far less of a need for this kind of policy. It is well documented that providing housing before anything else sets people up for success. If someone has been living on the streets and suddenly has housing available, their life will improve so drastically thanks to the job and social opportunities that will become available, also making it less likely that drug abuse will continue.
This seems like a cop out to me. Just build houses for fuck’s sake.
Breed has been on the wrong side of so many issues. Most recently she made an incredibly tone-deaf statement denouncing the city council’s vote against the genocide in Gaza. I’m done with her.
https://voterguide.sfelections.org/local-ballot-measures/measure-a
This affordable housing measure also passed in the same election, for what it’s worth.
Thanks for the heads up. Yeah, I’m cautiously hopeful, but still quite skeptical they’ll get it right. These measures often sound good, but implementation is key.
Yeah I feel the same, cautiously hopeful. It seems like the implementation always gets bogged down with corruption, red tape and fingerpointing in this city…
The thing is, they don’t want drug users to have houses. Sad but true
How would (forced) addiction treatment hurt the most vulnerable?
For one thing, it’s extremely difficult to force someone out of an addiction. You usually have to want to quit in order for that to be an option. Otherwise you have to do something like torture them by making them go through a possibly extremely painful cold turkey withdrawal.
So I’d say torturing the most vulnerable would hurt them.
But what makes you think that’s what they’ll do? Would helping someone with an addiction towards treatment really ‘torture’ them?
Breed’s office has said the measure was intentionally designed to be flexible on the treatment component. Treatment options could range from out-patient services to a prescription for buprenorphine, a medication used to treat addiction. They noted it doesn’t include a requirement for participants to remain sober, recognizing that people often lapse in recovery and shouldn’t be kicked out of the program for a slip-up.
Thank you! People here getting all riled up without even reading the damn article. What else is new?
I am SO TIRED of articles about SF ending up in a national or global forum where people start complaining about stuff that SF is light years ahead on.
You asked about forced addiction treatment. Not this specific program.
There are a lot of times people are forced to have addiction treatment, especially by judges. And it is a form of torture.
Ok, fair enough. But I don’t think many treatment programs still make them go cold turkey though. Of course it’s always ‘less fun’ than just continuing shooting fentanyl, even for those who freely make the change
What? You think fentanyl addicts use it for fun? They probably didn’t even start using opioids for fun. They probably started because they were in pain.
Also, if they stop using opioids they will be in a lot more pain and they will still be living in America, where a for-profit medical system to treat that pain is beyond their reach.
It’s not about fun at all. What an incredibly insensitive thing to say.
If they don’t get help to stop, they eventually progress to a point where they are definitely not using for fun. They have no choice anymore. They have one goal and that is to be high at any cost. I work in a part of SF where there are a lot of them and the things I see them go through are horrendous. It feels like watching state sanctioned torture. They are literally being left to rot. I know two people that have lost a loved one to fentanyl and it really is heartbreaking.
beyond that forced treatment is ethically questionable, conditioning other forms of help on sobriety puts people in a bind. it’s hard for people to get and stay sober when they’re suffering, physically and mentally.
housing/food/health care (to include mental health and psychiatric care) first means it’s more likely that efforts toward sobriety will even work.
conditioning other forms of help on sobriety puts people in a bind.
This bill explicitly does not do that.
Forced addiction treatment isn’t what’s happening. They drug test the poor and then cut them off from benefits if they fail. It is a punishment.
The only way to be eligible for benefits again is to join a treatment program, many of which in the US are just religious ministries that care more about proselytizing than human outcomes. Even cults like the Church of Scientology runs drug treatment programs, with obvious motivations…
These people are exploited by pretty much everyone, including those who are tasked to help them. If your solution is to force them into anything, recovery or otherwise, you’re just exploiting them further.
You really need to read the article
From the article:
Breed’s office has said the measure was intentionally designed to be flexible on the treatment component. Treatment options could range from out-patient services to a prescription for buprenorphine, a medication used to treat addiction. They noted it doesn’t include a requirement for participants to remain sober, recognizing that people often lapse in recovery and shouldn’t be kicked out of the program for a slip-up.
Given that neither her nor the council have anything to do with policy in Gaza and that both are going to be making statements purely to aim to appeal to chunks of the electorate, does it make sense to condition your vote on that?
If you were choosing a dentist, would you use their stated positions on the Levant to do so?
If I had a dentist who told me that they were okay with tens of thousands of children being murdered? Yeah, I might worry about their compassion as a healthcare provider.
I’m not a San Francisco resident, so I don’t get a vote, I just have lots of connections to the region. She didn’t have to denounce the city council’s resolution against the genocide, she chose to, and that felt like a gut punch to me at the time. As for the relevance of it all, it was a non-binding (obviously) resolution taking a moral stand on an issue directly impacting hundreds if not thousands of residents in a pretty small city, so it matters.
I take your point, but if I asked my dentist if they thought it was okay to indiscriminately kill tens of thousands of children because they were born on the wrong side of a border, and they said yes? I’d absolutely find a different doctor.
Now I’m imagining a binding resolution on Gaza lol
Representatives of the City of San Francisco being legally required to go try to negotiate a cease fire, per city mandate
One of the worst parts of this, and one that will get people killed, is they loosened the restrictions on police chases. Now police can chase cars for crimes where there’s no longer a threat of violence like robbery through the second densest city in the country. People are so indoctrinated by copaganda that they think police chases always end up with the cop catching the bad guy instead of how they usually end, with a fatal crash.
I occasionally get in the police dash cam rabbit hole. It’s crazy how most states have realized how dangerous car chases are and don’t chase at all. BOLO the car and go arrest them the next day.
Then there Arkansas and Georgia where all the cops are just itching to get into a 130mph chase through neighborhoods willing to pit at any speed risking their life, the suspects life, and the hundreds sometimes thousands of people they go screaming past during a chase.
I used to work for a local TV station and every year they did this thing called “Crimestoppers” where we’d ride along with a cop all night just in case something happened. This is not a huge city, but there’s enough crime that something ended up on camera. I didn’t hate doing it. I’m no cop-lover, but the guy they paired me with was a good enough conversationalist to talk to all night at least… but I was terrified of ending up in a car chase situation. Cars make me anxious as it is. Thankfully, that never happened.
This kind of opportunistic journalism really makes me skeptical of the value of a lot of our local TV news stations. You’re describing the local news using the same production tactics as COPS, a reality TV show…
Was there anything that the crimestoppers program covered that was of sigificant newsworthiness to the community that you remember?
Oh there was no value to the local TV station. It was either boring lifestyle stories or sensationalist bullshit. Also, the lead anchor said one of the stupidest things I have ever heard anyone say. The ISS was passing overhead and we all went out into the parking lot to see it and she looked up and said, “can they see the Earth from up there?” This was who they hired to give what they decided were the important stories of the day.
The pay was also shit.
Oh… there was one notable thing that happened during Crimestoppers. Mainly that the website news guy found out one of his friends had a warrant and warned them by putting out that he was wanted on the website before the cops went after him that night. But that was not on TV. He just got fired.
That same measure also allows the use of drones and other technology to follow and track the suspects, so may not necessarily mean more automobile persuits. We’ll have to wait and see I guesa.
The way I always hear it is that they are only ever chasing murderers and violent offenders and you should want them to catch those grandma-killers before they get you, too.
That’s how it was before, for the police to chase their had to be a reasonable suspicion that the criminal was in there way to commit another violent crime. So if a robbery happened and the police arrive and the criminal takes off the reasonable assumption is theyre heading back home, not off to commit another violent crime, so the police would not pursue them. Now they can pursue them and endanger all the people on the road just to protect the property of the store owner.
Cop shows and movies distort our perception of them but the reality is that most police chases end in a crash and serious injury if not death. This chance goes up even higher with dense cities with a lot of pedestrians around like San Francisco. So they should only be used if they’re preventing someone from murdering or seriously injuring someone else. A car at high speeds is just as , if not more dangerous than a gun and should be used as such.
You just know they’re gonna be using copious amounts of pit maneuvers as well during the now increased car chases.
The NIMBY class will always project its insecurity more greatly than the remainder of the populace.
“tough on crime” is just a euphemism for authoritarian
People vote left wing
Left wing policies make city better
Better city attracts more people
More people increases costs
Increased costs filter for rich people
Rich people vote authoritarian.
And to be clear, they vote authoritarian because they are the authoritarians. In a capitalistic society money is authority. Those with money rule.
People assume rich people are voting against their self interests somehow, but they’re not. Money serves them and allows them to be exempt from most of the laws and rules.
They vote on laws that let them keep and make more money, at the expense of you not making as much. Then they use that wealth and influence to do it more.
Which is why we’re past due to be eating the rich.
You skipped the essential NIMBY step between these two:
Better city attracts more people
More people increases costs
Costs scale way out of proportion with population because of artificial constraints imposed by those lucky enough to be here first.
Worth noting that constraints aren’t 100% artificial in SF, just mostly artificial. It, like Helsinki, is situated on a peninsula and is part of a metropolitan area, so expansion isn’t really an option. Intentional NIMBY constraints make it so much worse.
Suburban sprawl is terrible for the environment anyway.
Local tech billionares are recently dumping more money into the city politics to shift it ot the right. The CEO of Y combinator, a hugely influential silicon valley incubator is notoriously antagonist and recently drunkenly said the local city council should “die slow.”
Awwww I like hacker news why does ycombinator have to be evil
Measures supporting low income housing, more ethics laws for city officials, turning office space into residential space, and $6B for mental health care also passed in the election. Those definitely don’t seem like things that the right would support.
Hes right of San Fransisco progressive politics. Basically bog standard tech bro liberals, i.e “Yimby but not actually where I live, also don’t tax me in any real way and where are all my cops at?”
The 7 city council members he told to die were all progressives. He opposes actual progressive reforms, and is willing to spend his billions and his massive influence to fight them.
Yeah he definitely seems like a bit of a loose cannon that only has a platform due to his wealth. Not that it makes it excusable, but he did issue an apology for what thats worth. I definitely don’t think that the majority of voters agree with the remarks he made to the city council members.
However, I do think that due to the prominent quality of life crimes, homelessness and drug use in recent years, a lot of the voters in San Francisco have become disenfranchised with Progressive politics, viewing them as failed experiments.
The rest of the propositions you mentioned were pretty liberal but the office space one was lead by the right. It allowed for fast tracking transforming office space from commercial to residential, which sounds good on paper, until you realize that fast track already existed for affordable housing. All the proposition did was fast track developers plans to turn the space into non-affordable housing, which San Francisco already has plenty of, and removes the incentives to build affordable housing out of that space.
You could argue that reducing the red tape for market rate housing would help increase the supply and therefore reduce the cost for everyone, but that’s a standard right wing pro-developer argument. The left would say that SF has been building tons of market rate housing for years with no decrease in rent and that the only way to make housing affordable is to build affordable housing. You can either build it through state funding and building, like the affordable housing proposition A does, or by incentiving developers to build it, because the base incentive of the market is to build the most expensive housing possible to maximize profits.
The Inclusionary Housing Program requires developers to set aside a percentage of the housing as affordable.
Even if it is not classified as affordable housing, it is still more housing which the city needs regardless.
Also, another measure that passed in the previous vote was for a tax on vacant units it multi-unit buildings. If they don’t at least compete with market rate, they will suffer.
Housing issues in big cities don’t fall squarely into right wing or left wing. For many progressives like me, we’re allied with the housing developers because there is a housing crisis and more housing helps people.
non-affordable housing, which San Francisco already has plenty of,
This is absolutely not true. Not anywhere close. SF is drastically behind on housing at all income levels. By tens if not hundreds of thousands of units.
This is absolutely not true. Not anywhere close. SF is drastically behind on housing at all income levels. By tens if not hundreds of thousands of units.
Could you cite something in this, because for nearly the past decade SF has beat it’s market rate housing goals by over 50% . This seems to be going down recently due to the tech recession and people leaving the city though . Even looking on Zillow there’s a thousand results for apartments under $3,000. If you’re medium to high income, based on AMI, and want to live in this city, you can find a place. If there were truly a housing shortage at all income levels and that’s causing high rents then the shortage would be alleviated and rents would be going down with the slow exodus that’s been happening in the city post pandemic and during the tech layoffs, but they haven’t. That’s a big question I have for the market fundamentalists and developers, how does the population go down, the total supply go up and rents stay the same?
Speaking anecdotally I recently moved from one of the newer high rises in mission bay and I’d guess it was half full. They were either fully vacant or as I discovered with my next door neighbor only occasionally occupied during some weekends. The building management probably knew this as they started to encourage residents to Airbnb as they tried to keep or attract more of these pied e terre types of residents. Some of my friends also live in mission bay a few blocks away and they say there building is mostly empty as well.
Here’s an article on some of the flaws of the yimby movement, I hope it’ll give you a different perspective on how to solve the housing problems facing the city.
I had a very long response typed but I hit the wrong button and it vanished😔
I had sources linked and everything, it’s so demoralizing when that happens
Nothing in your drafts? If you want to give a more condensed version that’s fine too, rarely get to talk about local politics on here with someone who actually lives here, as opposed to the people outside of the bay area who think it’s a hell hole covered in shit.
Let’s go over it in some detail.
As a Guardian report on the phenomenon noted, YIMBYs are not anti-capitalists. They are allies of developers
This is priming. It’s relying on the association “developers bad, therefore YIMBYs bad”.
The idea, generally, is that the problem of affordable housing is a problem of supply. Thus zoning restrictions should be rewritten to allow for more development. There is little interest in having the government build new public housing. Instead, when YIMBYs say “we need more housing,” they mean “we need to allow developers to build what sells.”
Why? Unexplained, hoping you’ll just assume “it’s because they’re capitalist scum in the pockets of the real estate developers”.
And even though they talk a lot about the need for affordable housing, they tend to be opposed to requiring developers to make housing affordable, assuming that the Invisible Hand of the free market will take care of that.
This time they explain it, but they lie. (for reference, the actual reason for relying on private developers is because the entire housing crisis is caused by government obstruction. If government wanted to build more housing, it would have done so. It doesn’t want to. Private developers are the only option left. It’s obvious if you understand the cause of the housing crisis, but the article deftly avoids talking about that.)
But what is called the “logic” of Econ 101 is often a fairy tale
Never EVER trust an article that tells you that a professional science is flat out wrong. This should ring alarm bells.
and it is only when you think a bit harder (i.e., when you get past the “101” class) that you realize it might be false.
Aka “do your own research”, but for intelligent leftists. Same message though: the experts are wrong.
Consider the pencil towers. Let’s say that
What follows is pulled from the author’s ass.
There were 30 single-family units in the old building. Our new pencil tower is 100 floors high and has 100 units. All of our pencil tower’s units are full of state-of-the-art appliances and high-end fixtures, and cost $2,000,000 each. They are swiftly bought up, 20 by rich people who live in the city, 30 by rich people lured to the city by its new pencil tower, and 50 by rich people who have no intention of living in the city but think pencil tower condos are an asset worth owning in a swiftly-gentrifying city.
There is no evidence that induced demand applies whatsoever to housing. Here’s an article, not without its own biases, but it at least backs its position up with data and rational arguments other than “suppose that such and such happens, wouldn’t that be terrible??” style bullshit: https://cityobservatory.org/another-housing-myth-debunked-neighborhood-price-effects-of-new-apartments/
The main point is that induced demand applies when something is free, such as roads. It does not apply to $2 million condos.
It’s important to note that induced demand is the shaky foundation of the entire article you linked. That’s why it’s a tier 3 falsehood: it takes a lot of detailed reading, preferably with someone who already opposes the premise, to understand that this is the single concrete mechanism by which increasing housing supply doesn’t work. There’s a bunch of ad hominem attacks (evil developers!) and tugging at heartstrings (grandma gonna get evicted!) but you have to ignore that. The central thing that the entire argument rests on is induced demand, and that theory is wrong.
Just to quickly addrrss some other points:
-
Neighborhood character: dog-whistle
-
Eviction for the purpose of development: not legal in CA
-
“we communities of color, we poor people and immigrants, we working-class queers” literally cultural appropriation. Working class people need housing more than anyone, it’s the fucking bourgeoisie who are anti-housing, and it’s a little sick that they pretend to be one of the people in a blatant call to leftist sympathies. The average homeowner in San Francisco is a millionaire.
-
“Any understanding of the desirability of development depends on deeper questions like: whose backyard are we talking about? Who is saying yes? To what? Why?”: delay, deny, muddy the waters. Above all, anything that threatens the status quo is to be resisted.
-
I don’t think the browser version saves drafts?
It just happened again and I’m seriously considering quitting lemmy due to it. What a shit feature. Even up voting or down voting a post destroys your comment box.
The gist of it was that SF has been setting its own housing goals artificially low, and that you should reframe your thinking from “people left but rent prices didn’t go down” to “people left and rent prices stopped rising”. I had sources etc. I also criticized your source for “why more housing is bad” for being the leftist version of Fox News, all hot takes with no substance, designed to manipulate people and harmful to society.
Edit1: here’s a good source for actual, realistic (in the sense that it matches the demand) home building goals: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/about-hcd/newsroom/state-releases-accountability-report-on-san-franciscos-housing-policies-and-practices
If San Francisco’s current rate of housing approvals and construction continues, the City will miss its housing production goal of over 82,000 new homes by 2031 that is necessary to address affordability and overcrowding challenges experienced by the current population, as well as providing homes for future San Franciscans. San Francisco must add over 10,000 new homes, including over 5,800 affordable homes, each year. So far in 2023, San Francisco has permitted less than one home a day.
Essentially, SF was blocking so much housing that the state stepped in.
Edit2: the article you linked is the worst kind of falsehood, an intelligent one.
A simple falsehood is lies: “the election was stolen”. Quantifiably untrue.
A slightly more complicated falsehood has elements of truth: “the DNC stole the election from Bernie”. Not exactly true, but the true parts give a shield for the unspoken overall implication.
The article you linked is what I like to call a Tier 3 Falsehood: one that acknowledges the flaws in a position, pretends to be on your side, and then skillfully manipulates you into a position supporting the very flawed argument that it led with. A reverse cargo cult is the classic example: https://hanshowe.org/2017/02/04/trump-and-the-reverse-cargo-cult/
I don’t think this article is as insidious as reverse cargo cults. I think it’s just a NIMBY using the standard NIMBY tactic of trying to justify their own self-interest and throwing every argument they can at you to see what sticks. But it’s clear half-truths and manipulations, to the point that while you started the article hating NIMBYs, you ended supporting them and aren’t quite sure why.
In a nutshell, it’s because the article is a mix of excellent arguments built on shaky premises, and traditional tribalist associations.
I mean, I agree that the NIMBY bastards on the city council should be kicked out, but not to pave the way for a cop-loving bootlicker.
The SF City Council sucks donkey balls but at least they stand up to copaganda.
This is the opposite of the advice in the book, The End of Policing. Book was so good that I bought copies for people close to me.
Just take care of people. We can afford to. It costs less than enforcement costs.
From the article:
Breed’s office has said the measure was intentionally designed to be flexible on the treatment component. Treatment options could range from out-patient services to a prescription for buprenorphine, a medication used to treat addiction. They noted it doesn’t include a requirement for participants to remain sober, recognizing that people often lapse in recovery and shouldn’t be kicked out of the program for a slip-up.
Just take care of people. We can afford to.
Sure we can, but we won’t, because to certain people in power the cruelty is the purpose.
I mean the book is spot on, but taking care of people is socialism and that’s a dirty word nowadays.
Plus scared and disconnected people buy more stuff so we suffer for the sake of capitalism.
It helps them to have an enemy to blame for… whatever. They move the target a lot, but the poor are in the worst position to fight back. And the powers that be don’t want a fair fight; they want to punch down and then brag about how right they were and that that’s why you should re-elect them. Because they’re sociopaths.
that’s why you should re-elect them. Because they’re sociopaths.
Care to go back and edit or nah?
Just take care of people. We can afford to
Debatable. San Francisco spends a billion dollars a year on homelessness. That’s unsustainable even for SF. Only 800,000 people live in SF.
Debatable. San Francisco spends a billion dollars a year on homelessness. That’s unsustainable even for SF. Only 800,000 people live in SF.
The costs for locking up homeless people is greater than the cost of providing housing. The following quote is from a slapdash search; I haven’t read the document because my original source is a book, The End of Policing, and that book had multiple citations that I’m not listing here.
As identified in the chart above, the total cost of incarceration is estimated to be 25% higher than the total cost of providing equivalent supportive services to prevent recidivism.
There’s a question of induced demand. We don’t have really good data, but anecdotally there’s a common belief that a lot of SFs homeless either migrated here from other parts of the country or were bussed here, because of SFs lenience.
During most surveys, most homeless people report being born here. Which is a useless fact, because if they report being from somewhere else, they’ll likely get sent back there.
In any case, San Francisco does not incarcerate the homeless. It allows them to live on the streets.
Hasn’t the failed war on drugs shown the narrative that drugs cause the homelessness and crime and are not just another symptom of the underlying problems is a lie?
Guess not to the general public.
If the more progressive policies are helping, that impact is getting drowned out by other factors pushing parts of town in the other direction.
As someone who lives in the SF / Oakland area, I can attest to people constantly talking about drugs, crime and homelessness going in the wrong direction. People bring it up without being prompted.
My theory is that more progressive addiction policies work, but that’s just one variable. And there are other things impacting day to day vibe in the city that are overshadowing the stuff that’s working.
When people go to the ballot box, nuance often goes out the door. When things aren’t great, they vote for whatever is different.
Of course they’re going to talk about crime, what else are they going to talk about, the weather that never changes?
In all seriousness though I do think it’s the lack of other issues that’s driving this. Most other issues liberals care about have come to a secure consensus in the city, abortion and LGBT rights are as secure as they can get, marijuana and even mushrooms are basically legal, the last gun store has closed, the city has a good recycling and composting system and a green energy option, the parks and schools get decent funding etc. The only thing left is affordable housing and crime. Since the minutia of housing policy is boring that just leaves crime for the media and people to talk about, so even if crime itself is stable or even declining, people’s awareness of it increases.
You can see this during the pandemic where homelesness and crime were just as bad if not worse, but people were focusing on other things.
The lack of other issues also demobilizes the average liberal voter who already has everything they want and doesn’t see a need to vote, so the election becomes dominated by people who care about that one remaining issue.
If you look at something like car break ins in SF, the data did show that it dropped a ton during the pandemic, then rebounded to the 2019 craziness.
It wasn’t something that was in people’s heads. The SF Chronicle has been pretty good about charting this stuff, and if you search for things like car break in graphs, Google images will get ya past some paywalls.
IMHO, those of us who have been living in the area for decades have some legitimate observations and experiences that are supported by data. I’m not saying the solution has to be super conservative policies. I’m just saying that the problems are real.
Car break ins did go up during/after the pandemic, just as crime went up across the entire country, but that early 20s crime wave seems to be subsiding. This election took place in a context where car break ins are declining and crime in general is decreasing. If these propositions were truly a reaction to real crime then they would have happened in 2022 when crime was peaking and looked like it was going up.
I’m not saying the problem isn’t real, there is crime. But I don’t think the idea it’s getting worse is true. I’ve only been here for 5 years but my understanding is that SF, like most cities, was far worse in the 80s and 90s . Maybe there was some golden era in the 2000s , early 2010s where it was slightly better but just comparing to what I’ve seen since I’ve been here I haven’t noticed any changes that warrant this recent tough in crime bend that local politics is going.
Here is the broader data set going back to 2009. I wish it went back further do capture life before the great recession. Cutting things off at 2018 doesn’t really tell the full story and doesn’t really show you why people who’ve been here for 10, 20, 30+ years are unhappy.
Visualization: https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/sf-car-break-in-data-18639763.php Source: https://datasf.org/opendata/
The concern is the post pandemic uptick it was the overall trend going back a decade. Things have gotten a LOT better over the past 6 months. Whether that’s because of the aggressive 2023 crack down efforts, or because of something else, I don’t know. All I know if that people in the region are not reacting to the past couple years, they’re reacting to the past decade or more.
Whether they are a cause or symptom, people shooting up in the streets and leaving needles everywhere is unacceptable.
They wouldn’t have to shoot up in the streets if SF still had the safe injection sites up. People who shoot up in the streets do so mostly because they want to get found if they OD.
Making it illegal to be high won’t make addicts want to stop getting high, it will just push them into dark corners where they die when they OD. Imo that’s way more unacceptable.
deleted by creator
Not disagreeing, just curious. How can they safely inject the kind of fentanyl that’s out there now? When milligrams can kill you? What if they prefer to smoke it? Do the safe injection sites provide the drugs or do the users just bring their own stuff there and do it under supervision?
Pretty easy to Google that kind of thing since that’s quite a lot of questions and is better answered by an article or website from one of these places that breaks it down
I did Google it and I didn’t find anything specific to Fentanyl, which is what kills in the majority of the ODs in San Francisco. That’s why I wanted to ask here as there are people who seem to have more knowledge on the subject.
First, no they don’t give out free drugs. Even tho having clean drugs would help a lot in reducing the harms of addiction, I don’t know any government that would pass that.
Obviously fentanyl is fucking dangerous and toxic, no matter how you take it. Overdoses at those sites happen. That’s why they are equipped with Narcan, and also have a line to medical services. So users that would OD somewhere in private and not make it to the ER have a chance.
The second important part is all the stuff that goes with taking the drugs themselves. Usually addicts don’t have a ready supply of syringes and other paraphernalia to use their drugs. This leads to them sharing needles, using dirty gear and other behaviors that spread diseases like hepatitis c. By handing out clean needles and other things, a lot of those diseases can be avoided. They also hand out other medical supplies to treat the damage from the drugs and living in the streets.
Finally, they always offer addicts that want to quit support and help them find treatment. This is the most important part. Addicts trust the people at those sites, because they treat them like people, not junkies. So there is a higher chance that they feel safe enough to ask for help when it’s time for them.
I hope that answers some of your questions. If you want to learn more, Channel 5 with Andrew Callahan has a great series on drugs and homelessness on YouTube. There’s one Episode where they go to a safe injection site, but the other episodes in Philadelphia and SF are definitely also worth a watch. You will see some absolutely harrowing and terrible shit tho. If you have the stomach I highly recommend them.
https://youtu.be/Ym7qS27oiHU?si=UpV19WFJL7MU9Zqq
Edit: Reading some of your other questions in this thread I definitely recommend you watch those Andrew Callahan documentaries. They will answer a lot of your questions and hopefully clear up some misconceptions. Start with San Francisco Streets, then watch harm reduction facility and finally Philly streets.
Thank you for actually answering this. This answered a lot of questions for me. I actually work in a nasty part of the SOMA district of SF and have seen stuff there that I will never forget. 3 ODs have happened outside of my work while I was there so far. I’ve opened the door to leave and had somebody unconscious just fall in. A 16 year old girl’s corpse was defiled after she died from an OD down the alley. People screaming covered in feces and peeling off their own skin. Some of my smaller coworkers have been harassed and chased when trying to enter the building. I’ve talked to some of the addicts there of course, and many of them have told me they don’t care if they die. Most of them are not bad people, just mentally ill and disabled. Some of them definitely get the free needles but they all use outside. There is a needle disposal box around the corner and I’ve actually seen people breaking it open to steal the needles multiple times…
It just seems like none of this stuff works and we are all bending over backwards to cater to them, and then they end up dying anyway. Many of them are severely mentally ill or damaged from the drugs and it’s pretty obvious that they are never going to be anything near functional ever again. It’s like letting a 4 year old kid in an adult body addicted to opiates just go out on to the street to fend for themselves. They are not going to make choices that are beneficial to them in the long run, they’ve literally lost that ability.
After years of putting up with this stuff, I think your average person in the city just gets to the point where they’ve had enough, and people end up voting to try something else.
Sounds absolutely horrible, and I definitely understand that residents don’t wanna live or work in these environments.
I don’t think there is an easy fix for this problem tbh. Or at least not on a local level. From what I see SF is doing a lot of social stuff right, or at least better than the rest of the country. On the other hand you have crazy inequality pushing people into desperation and addiction. This somehow needs to be solved, but it might get worse before it gets better. Idk man, it’s tough.Where I think people can make a difference is on a personal level. A little kindness goes a long way, and those people are yearning for empathy. You said they are like 4 year olds, and I think they are probably just as vulnerable. Addicts don’t have the luxury of thinking about consequences, they just survive until the next fix. So the right thing to do is be as kind and understanding as possible, even though they might make it difficult.
If you don’t have it already, might I suggest you get some Narcan for your workplace? Sounds like you could literally save a life with it someday.
You’re right, definitely couldn’t hurt to have some Narcan around. I’ve called 911 when I see people that look like they’re in danger, and the emergency services have come pretty quick each time. Many of them tend to use in tents, or place covers over themselves though. This makes it pretty difficult to tell if they’re ok. Its very common to see people completely passed out but not dead. You can usually tell if they’re actually danger by their skintone. Purple/blueish = bad.
Yeah I wish more cities in this country could devote the same amount of resources that SF devotes to these issues. Many of the addicted people I’ve talked to are actually from out of state, particularly red states. It shouldn’t be up to certain cities to take most of the burden of this national problem, but it seems like that’s what is happening. Income inequality is definitely out of control and I agree it seems to be a huge factor in pushing people into these situationss. Multi billionaires just should not exist when we have shit like this happening to to our people.
If you don’t want people injecting in the streets then kicking drug addicts out of shelters and taking away their rent subsidies seems pretty counterintuitive.
The ordinance specifically does not have a sobriety requirement for continued shelter and assistance. It just requires treatment. Even if you’re still using, you don’t lose assistance. You just also need drug treatment.
I know, but there are going to be some people who refuse treatment and are forced out of there living situations and onto the streets, thus exasperating the problem the guy above mentioned.
I’m just saying If your main concern is seeing people doing drugs on the street your main priority should be giving them somewhere else to do them, either a safe injection site or shelter, and anything getting in the way of that is counterproductive. You can try and get them off drugs but coercing people into treatment like this rarely works.
Where do they end up in that system? Is the idea to just keep them safely on drugs for the rest of their lives since treatment rarely works? Safely locked away in a shelter, dependent on opiates?
Hopefully one day they seek treatment, and any system should make that option as open as possible at any point, because treatment can work if the person is truly committed to it. It almost never works when you coerce someone into it though, especially if whatever’s forcing you into it is as alienated from you as the city government. Maybe if the addict truly loved a person or group of people could an ultimatum like it’s me or the drugs work, and even that fails sometimes. But the city government, a government that you may blame for the shitty circumstances your in, telling you that is more likely to turn someone away in spite then awaken some actual desire in a person to seek sobriety.
So it sounds like that’s a yes then. Keep them on drugs and just hope. Hope that they change, all while their minds and bodies are actively being destroyed and whittled down by the drugs, and the Honduran gangs in SF gain money and power… This just doesn’t seem to be sustainable. There is a seemingly endless supply of people coming here from all over the country who are addicted to this stuff, and it really fees like it’s turning parts of the city into a zombie land. Many people in this city, especially those that live and work in these areas are just fed up. And the votes reflect that.
I agree about safe injection sites, but the feds won’t allow it. SF and Philly both tried but got shut down.
So create safe injection sites then.
SF tried. So did Philly. Feds shut em down.
All of history has shown that getting tough by criminalizing drug use doesn’t solve the problem.
FUCKING CHRIST CAN SAN FRAN EVER RECOVER FROM FEINSTEIN
Please stop watching Fox News.
im an anarchist you stupid cunt read a history book
Same difference. Same IQ anyway.
christ are you a pathetic loser. get a life other than posting 24/7 you neolib cunt
I’d just like to point out to everyone watching that I’m not reporting this, because I firmly believe that this moron has the right to call me a pathetic cunt and I’m not so fragile that seeing it gives me a mental disorder.
For those of you who can’t handle being insulted by someone online, don’t participate in online discussions.
For any mods reading this, do better. Insulting someone is not a banworthy offense. Insults are a part of life and some people need to grow a damn spine.
Policing a certain demographic more always works
Depends on who it’s working for. It works quite well for the people who want to drive up real estate prices.
So if they test positive for drugs, that means you’ll set them up with support programs, right? Treat the underlying issue, correct? Not just write them off and let the problem grow even more… right???
Breed’s office has said the measure was intentionally designed to be flexible on the treatment component. Treatment options could range from out-patient services to a prescription for buprenorphine, a medication used to treat addiction. They noted it doesn’t include a requirement for participants to remain sober, recognizing that people often lapse in recovery and shouldn’t be kicked out of the program for a slip-up.
Yes?
Holy shit I’m glad to be wrong. Honestly surprised. That’s what I get for not reading the article and just assuming.
Thanks for the correction
San Francisco is fairly groovy about these sort of things. Even when SF goes authoritarian it does so with some compassion. The SF city council has issued declarations of support for Palestine and calling for the end of genocide, and it’s a hotbed of protests against the genocide, and against fascism and religious authoritarianism in general. It was the center of the hippie movement, the gay rights movement, etc etc
Frisco is a good city.
Agreed. It is a revolutionary city. It’s where some of the world’s best free thinkers go to, well, change the world. This is what the natural process of societal evolution looks like at the forefront. Some things stick, some don’t. Compromise and understanding are critical in a functioning democracy, and no one side is going to get everything they want, even here.
This is what happens when less than 25% of the population comes out to vote.
Turnout in the last election in SF was 44.4%. Not fantastic, but much better than the rest of the state.
That’s why they pushed these referendums this election cycle, they knew it would be low turnout
That is a pretty sad turnout. The votes reflect the choices of about 92K registered democrats, vs. roughly 13K registered rebublicans though, so it’s not like this is some right wing takeover.
Oh good, I would hate to see a vulnerable struggling poor person get support that they don’t “deserve” because they didn’t fix their life yet.
Sincerely, 1/3 of this country. :/
From what I understand, drug screening usually ends up costing more than it saves because, unlike what the propagandists would have you believe, the vast majority of people on welfare aren’t on drugs.
Read the article:
Breed’s office has said the measure was intentionally designed to be flexible on the treatment component. Treatment options could range from out-patient services to a prescription for buprenorphine, a medication used to treat addiction. They noted it doesn’t include a requirement for participants to remain sober, recognizing that people often lapse in recovery and shouldn’t be kicked out of the program for a slip-up.
Ah so the real estate developers are finally ready to finish their gentrification efforts. They must’ve forced out the last remaining owners in the area so now they can crack down and turn it into overpriced bullshit
The individual homeowners in California have developers over a barrel lol
Prop 13 gives all the power to home owners, as does the glut of local regulations and permits.
It’s why we have a housing crisis. Can’t build any more homes.
