The Bay Area Soiled/Homeless/Infested/Trashed Containment Thread

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Gantz

Because we do not live in a free market capitalist system.
The government of California, along with local government municipalities, regulates the amount of housing being built, artificially making cost of housing really high, constricting supply of housing units. The actual "free market capitalist price" of a home (material + construction labor + land) is roughly ~$180 per sq foot (roughly median Houston prices - one of the most unregulated markets), everything else is various government overhead. Once a median home price in California drops to $200K, then come back and talk about capitalism and free markets.

I wrote “free-market” and “capitalism” strung together. For a reason.

There are no pure *Free Market* systems in the world. Also for a reason. (Which is a topic for another thread in a different forum, not here.)

We (America, California included) are about as close as any system gets to being both *free market* and *capitalist*. For anyone interested in the distinctions here are a couple links to read:

The U.S. has a mixed economy, exhibiting characteristics of both capitalism and socialism. Such a mixed economy embraces the free market when it comes to capital use, but it also allows for government intervention for the public good.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/ans...0public%20good.

Capitalism vs. Free Market: What's the Difference?
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/ans...ket-system.asp

That covered, California must regulate housing to a degree, like it regulates everything else, for the public good. The state could not thrive and survive without regulation. It’s too attractive.

And that said, your response doesn’t address the issue I responded to: how can California’s wealth cure homelessness when it is the wealth system that causes the problem to begin with? … unless, of course, the wealth acquiesces to socialism and is forced to build low-cost housing, eliminating profit incentive of land owners and developers?

[NW4me]

Originally Posted by Gantz

Because we do not live in a free market capitalist system.
The government of California, along with local government municipalities, regulates the amount of housing being built, artificially making cost of housing really high, constricting supply of housing units. The actual "free market capitalist price" of a home (material + construction labor + land) is roughly ~$180 per sq foot (roughly median Houston prices - one of the most unregulated markets), everything else is various government overhead. Once a median home price in California drops to $200K, then come back and talk about capitalism and free markets.

Housing is a very different commodity from pencils or shoes or jewelry, because it involves land.
So it's inevitable that "the market" and the public sector will be interconnected on housing.
Local government not only decides zoning and says yes or no to development proposals,
but also has to service the new housing that's built... with roads, water, schools, etc.

Yes, sometimes there could be municipalities that hold back on authorizing new housing.
But that's likely to be due to pressure from existing homeowners who'd rather
keep everything the way it is... especially if the proposal is for apartments
in what previously were all-SFH neighborhoods. Even existing residents
who don't own property might be opposed to some developments...
and sometimes for good reasons, e.g. maybe a certain project
would add more traffic to a road that's already overcrowded.

What's been happening at the state level recently are initiatives to make it easier
to build more housing. Like eliminating exclusive-SFH zoning, and legalizing granny flats.
San Francisco is also looking at converting old office buildings into condos/apartments.

Just some factors to keep in mind.

[mattja]

A leading developer of housing for people exiting homelessness in San Francisco has been “careless and irresponsible” with taxpayer money, according to a report released Tuesday by the city controller.

The report details mismanagement and wasteful spending by the nonprofit, HomeRise, including $12,500 spent on a social event and $200,000 in bonuses, and comes amid rising scrutiny of the city’s nonprofits in recent years.

HomeRise operates almost a third of city-funded units that serve formerly unhoused people — some 1,500 units across 19 properties, financed by $200 million in public grants and loans.
...
Among its key findings, the audit determined:

* HomeRise lost about $6.3 million because of vacancies during the four-year audit period. Most properties had vacancies, for a vacancy rate of 14.6 percent. More than $1.7 million in rent was more than 90 days late and remained unpaid.

* The nonprofit spent money on fundraising, staff bonuses, lunches and gifts for staff. The expenses reviewed showed “unallowable, imprudent, or questionable spending that did not meet the intent of the City’s grant agreement.”

* As of January 2023, HomeRise had 118 credit cards in use. Over a third had credit limits of $10,000 or higher, while 21 cards had limits between $15,000 and $70,000. Many of the credit cards didn’t require approval of purchases and the nonprofit didn’t have protocols governing their use.

* The nonprofit promoted employees to high level positions with salary bumps ranging from $22,000 to $72,000. One salary increased more than $87,000 (74%) in nine months.

* HomeRise handed out bonuses of $1,000 to $10,000 per employee. HomeRise gave staff “signing” bonuses even though they’d been working there for years.

KQED Link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wimwuWi8miw

That's a lot of credit cards for a company that says it has "more than 200 dedicated staff members." "More than N" often means "N + 10" or less.

A company with around 200 staff with a DEI Council of seven full-time people.

Yeah, this is clearly a bloated jobs program.

[04kL4nD]

Just got back from a work trip/long weekend in SF. A bit rainy at times, but overall gorgeous weather.

Embarcadero to 3rd/Market has never looked cleaner. 5th/6th- Mission is AWFUL. Marina/Cow Hollow/Pac Heights are they same as they ever were. SOMA in general is very patchy and saw several tents and people freely shooting up/smoking fent.

Oakland looks even worse than before we left a little over a year ago. I was at the Safeway in Rockridge and everything was locked up and I had to scan a receipt to even exit the store (plus people waiting outside).

SF still has its scenic beauty/charm and way less people, but Oakland seems to be declining even more.

Overall, the trip made me a tad homesick for CA. I spent close to two decades there and I'm still getting adjusted to life in WA, but I guess the Bay will always feel like home since I lived there so long. Sticker shock wasn't as bad as I remembered (when living there) for food/cocktails I suppose because Seattle these days is just so freaking expensive these days.

[stephenMM]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

Just got back from a work trip/long weekend in SF. A bit rainy at times, but overall gorgeous weather.

Embarcadero to 3rd/Market has never looked cleaner. 5th/6th- Mission is AWFUL. Marina/Cow Hollow/Pac Heights are they same as they ever were. SOMA in general is very patchy and saw several tents and people freely shooting up/smoking fent.

Oakland looks even worse than before we left a little over a year ago. I was at the Safeway in Rockridge and everything was locked up and I had to scan a receipt to even exit the store (plus people waiting outside).

SF still has its scenic beauty/charm and way less people, but Oakland seems to be declining even more.

Overall, the trip made me a tad homesick for CA. I spent close to two decades there and I'm still getting adjusted to life in WA, but I guess the Bay will always feel like home since I lived there so long. Sticker shock wasn't as bad as I remembered (when living there) for food/cocktails I suppose because Seattle these days is just so freaking expensive these days.

That's how I feel. We know that things change, but the degree of change in S.F. is unprecedented, at least how I see it. I moved there in 1985 w/ $200 and a suitcase. My first taste of the city almost had me getting back on the bus though. I went into the Jack In The Box at 5th and Market and couldn't believe my eyes. The place was full to the rafters (this was at 3AM), and most of the customers looked like they had slept in a ditch. There was a woman at the counter angrily complaining that she had gone to the bathroom, and when she got back to her table someone had taken a bite out of her burger. It was just bedlam in there.

Long story short, I invested most of my stash in a residential hotel room in "wine country", which was what 6th St was called between Market and Mission. Two days later I got a job w/ the ASPCA and a few months after that got a big studio apt in the lower Haight for $375 a mo incl utilities. Two months after that I found an old Triumph motorcycle in the Chronicles want ads, rebuilt it, and was living pretty well.

Now? Wow, it's not the same city in almost every way, especially the insane rents. I would need to bring that suitcase stuffed w/ at least $10,000 to get settled into the city. The Tenderloin now looks like a very dangerous zombie movie, and wine country is still a dilapidated mess of a ghetto. I don't think any sort of political change will affect a lot of what has gone wrong, and what I've seen for years in S.F. is management that is notable only by it's absence. Which is causing large employers to get out of town in a hurry. So much cruelty and suffering on the streets, and every hair brained remedy that they come up with fails because, believe it or not, drug addiction is not a mental health problem. It's an addiction problem. They can spend bazillions of dollars for mental health counseling and addiction treatment (as if anything like that even existed) and none of it will make any difference.

If I were running the city, the first thing I would do is figure out a way to arrest every drug dealer in the city and make sure they stayed behind bars. If the dope ain't there, the dopers ain't gonna be there either. This ain't rocket science. That alone would go a long way in helping w/ the homeless problem.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by stephenMM

…
If I were running the city, the first thing I would do is figure out a way to arrest every drug dealer in the city and make sure they stayed behind bars. If the dope ain't there, the dopers ain't gonna be there either. This ain't rocket science. That alone would go a long way in helping w/ the homeless problem.

Pretty sure you’re not the first person to think it’s “not rocket science” to solve all the problems. And while it’s not … apparently it’s at least as difficult.

And no, the homeless problem isn’t drugs. It’s a lack of affordable housing. (A lot of the drugs are people who have just plain given up on having a place to live… so drugs ease their pain and hopelessness.)

None of this is going to change … because the problem is our socio-economic addiction to lifestyles that can’t be attained by all who believe in the models of living we collectively glorify.

[victimofGM]

https://youtu.be/Lhm3RnGuuMc?si=wuFBx8HYqI-fEi92

Video on the last In & Out burger place in Oakland being closed and why. While filming, someone broke into their vehicle. Rental company said they get 3 vehicles a day returned with broken windows from the crime in the city.