What caused the decay of San Francisco?

[+ tassojunior]

It is true that the cause was years ago when the courts ruled that people cannot be institutionalized or even detained against their will without extreme overwhelming proof of danger to themselves or others. They put the level of proof so high it's virtually impossible to reach. They were put back on the streets where they wanted to be. It's been the same since.

[+ tassojunior]

9 hours ago, EZEtoGRU said:

You simply don’t know that to be the case. You may believe it to be true but making a blanket definitive statement like the above doesn’t fly. 
 

Look… we agree there is a real homeless/mental health problem in the US that is unsustainable as it is.  Developing a long-term fix that improves things for all concerned is the challenge. 
 

In my view, one of government’s roles is to provide support for those most vulnerable in our society.  That includes the very young, the elderly, and the infirmed (mental & physical).  We need to do a much better job supporting the mentally infirmed. 

I know that here in DC people sleeping outdoors are only allowed to be forced into warming shelters when the temperature drops below a certain level below freezing such that almost anyone would die. The money is there. The people do not want the help and cannot be forced to take it constitutionally. In America people have the constitutional right to live free in the open if that's what they want and to decline help. Even if they're mentally incapable of most decisions. 

[pubic_assistance]

10 hours ago, tassojunior said:

. In America people have the constitutional right to live free in the open if that's what they want and to decline help. Even if they're mentally incapable of most decisions. 

Which is the core defect in the legal arguments for mentally ill. There's an obvious point at which some people are a danger to themselves. What good are civil rights when you can't care for yourself ?

Edited May 10, 2023 by pubic_assistance

[+ tassojunior]

TBH, in the American past many people were institutionalized for various bad reasons and motives. Revenge, powerful spouse, etc. And homosexuality was often top of the list. I guess the courts felt a need to establish a broad almost prohibition of institutionalization. 

[pubic_assistance]

9 hours ago, tassojunior said:

the courts felt a need to establish a broad almost prohibition of institutionalization. 

Yes. A reasonable conclusion.

Unfortunately the broad stroke gathered up too many who DO need institutionalizing. The States gleefully pretend to be protecting their civil rights to save money housing them and waiting for them to die in the streets. There was a fellow last year who used to eat out of my garbage cans. I would see him and offer him food from my kitchen. I understand he froze to death over the winter while sleeping in a doorway.

Edited May 10, 2023 by pubic_assistance

[+ bigjoey]

11 hours ago, tassojunior said:

TBH, in the American past many people were institutionalized for various bad reasons and motives. Revenge, powerful spouse, etc. And homosexuality was often top of the list. I guess the courts felt a need to establish a broad almost prohibition of institutionalization. 

No reason there cannot be a moderate middle path between the two extremes and thoughtfully incarcerate those who need it. 

[Guest]

I don't know if it's nationwide or just California, but I remember how shocked I was at what was considered "gravely disabled" by the state when I was in medical school in the 80s. I remember asking how can a person not be considered disabled when he's too mentally ill to house or feed himself. I was told "If he knows enough to go to the supermarket trash can to find food and hide under a freeway overpass when it rains, he's not considered gravely disabled as far as the state's concerned"!! 😧 I considered that cruel and insane then and I still do.

There should obviously be many more humanely-run mental health facilities for those too mentally ill to take care of themselves. I do not believe that people should be allowed to camp in the streets in urban areas. It's an obvious health and safety hazard (including fire). Homeless people should be evaluated and the reason for the homelessness addressed. If the reason is mental illness, they should be housed in facilities built to help the mentally ill. If a person responds to treatment and can be made productive members of society, that's fine. Otherwise they should be kept there and treated as humanely as possible

If the reason is drug addiction, these people should be given the option of treatment or incarceration. If the reason is temporary job loss, there should be temporary housing offered with job assistance and training if needed. In the unusual situation where the person is sane, not a drug addict, and not in temporary need, but just prefers living in a tent, this should be allowed only in designated areas set up for camping, such as large parks, and sanitary, fire-safe conditions should exist in these places. 

Edited May 10, 2023 by Unicorn

[+ tassojunior]

yes, but there are two groups and issues being lumped together. 

1. some people need institutionalizing, or at least some supervision, for their own safety and well-being.

2. some people who know what's what want to live free without rules in a tent on the streets or in a park. 

even in cities like San Francisco or DC where there are plenty of beds in homeless shelters most people of both groups do not want them because there are rules and no alcohol or drugs allowed. and even for the sanest tee-tottler , shelters and the other people in them are not pleasant. living free in a tent in Balboa Park or by the beach is sweet. 

for years it was Orlando that attracted young people living in tents or out of cars because of the warm weather. more than a few guys turned to escorting. now it's a lifestyle of free lodging, and freedom to drink and smoke pot or other things as much as you want. TBH, those are folks we'd like gone asap. Their camps are unsightly and they steal from cars and from homes and people. but picking them out from the needy and from the mentally unstable is hard. 

the irony is that here in DC the federal government is pretty strict. after a few days on federal land  the feds come in and dismantle and toss out any tents or squatters pronto. but DC won't touch any on DC land. there's also a rule that when temps go below a certain deadly level, people can be taken in from encampments by DC.  i assume SF also has very lax rules on clearing camps on city property. 

but even if they were the sanest people around, they would not be welcome to encamp. certainly not in front of my house. 

[MikeBiDude]

CNN this Sunday:

The Whole Story Explores “What Happened to San Francisco?”

CNNPRESSROOM.BLOGS.CNN.COM

---

An examination from Sara Sidner on political and social issues plaguing the city of San Francisco premieres...

 

[Guest]

On 5/10/2023 at 5:58 PM, tassojunior said:

...some people who know what's what want to live free without rules in a tent on the streets...

Sorry, but no one lives "free without rules." We all have to abide by laws whether it pleases us or not. I suppose there might be a handful of people who live completely self-reliantly as hunter-gatherers in the forest, but certainly if one lives in a city, one has to obey laws. Living in the streets is unsafe, unsanitary, and unsightly. Civilized society needs to help those in need, while saying no to people who just decide to pitch a tent anywhere they please. 

[SouthOfTheBorder]

18 hours ago, Unicorn said:

Civilized society needs to help those in need, while saying no to people who just decide to pitch a tent anywhere they please. 

we don’t need to reinvent the wheel here - wealthy civilized countries like Japan & Spain do not have these same homeless problems at same scale as US.  Each of those countries has a tiny fraction of the American homeless….to the point where you have to look for it in their major cities.

It’s like the gun problem in an America - other wealthy civilized countries just don’t have mass shootings every other day. 
Yet, most Americans are certain everything is better in the US.  My only conclusion is they must not travel much.

[+ FrankR]

46 minutes ago, SouthOfTheBorder said:

we don’t need to reinvent the wheel here - wealthy civilized countries like Japan & Spain do not have these same homeless problems at same scale as US.  Each of those countries has a tiny fraction of the American homeless….to the point where you have to look for it in their major cities.

It’s like the gun problem in an America - other wealthy civilized countries just don’t have mass shootings every other day. 
Yet, most Americans are certain everything is better in the US.  My only conclusion is they must not travel much.

Winston said it best…

 

Being a proud American, does not make me blind to our failings.

Edited May 13, 2023 by FrankR

[SouthOfTheBorder]

31 minutes ago, FrankR said:

Winston said it best…

I would have agreed with your Winston quote 40 years ago.  Now, that idea is sadly outdated.  Our politicians & courts have been bought by corporations and the wealthy elites for their benefit only. 

There is no more “doing the right thing” - that’s exactly why the wealthiest country in the world has both of out control homelessness and escalating gun violence. And it’s going to get a lot worse.

We now have an entire political movement wishing for the destruction of our own cities - we are at war with ourselves.  Doing the destructive work no outside enemy could. 

I guess we can be proud of the America that once was.  But, it’s long gone 

[pubic_assistance]

3 hours ago, SouthOfTheBorder said:

Our politicians & courts have been bought by corporations and the wealthy elites for their benefit only. 

No matter what your beliefs are, it's becoming glaringly apparent that few of our representatives represent the people.

Unfortunately most everyone wastes too much time blaming various social problems on "the other guy" and is mostly blind to the fact that this Corporate problem is everywhere in infesting everything.

The petty bickering is all a smoke screen so we don't notice how a few massive Corporations are taking over the country.

[SouthOfTheBorder]

6 hours ago, pubic_assistance said:

The petty bickering is all a smoke screen so we don't notice how a few massive Corporations are taking over the country.

exactly this 

similar to a house on fire while the residents argue about which tv channel to watch

it’s not a right side or left side issue - it’s both sides, together with insidious systemic corruption.  which is why the partisan arguments & polarization is so terribly misguided.  But, that’s precisely what they want - a public largely distracted from the big picture and tearing each other down while the thieves are at work

back to the original post re: SF - it’s very complicated and a complete understanding of SF history is required in context with extreme economic disparities exacerbated by the various tech booms.  I suspect few are interested in these complex discussions, but rather 2d analysis to confirm what they already believe about the city

Edited May 13, 2023 by SouthOfTheBorder

[marylander1940]

I can't imagine Market Street without that iconic store and now to add insult to injury the idiots running the city are planning to place homeless in dormitories in those same stores.

1. Make it illegal for a person to sleep on the streets
2. Lock them up somewhere affordable
3. Treat them

San Francisco faces retail exodus as Old Navy becomes latest to flee area

WWW.NEWSWEEK.COM

---

Major retailers like Whole Foods, T-Mobile, and Nordstrom have closed their downtown stores in San Francisco this year, blaming a rise in crime in the area.

 

[Guest]

21 hours ago, marylander1940 said:

I can't imagine Market Street without that iconic store and now to add insult to injury the idiots running the city are planning to place homeless in dormitories in those same stores.

1. Make it illegal for a person to sleep on the streets
2. Lock them up somewhere affordable
3. Treat them

San Francisco faces retail exodus as Old Navy becomes latest to flee area

WWW.NEWSWEEK.COM

---

Major retailers like Whole Foods, T-Mobile, and Nordstrom have closed their downtown stores in San Francisco this year, blaming a rise in crime in the area.

 

I mostly agree, though the homeless problem is multifaceted (though mostly drugs and mental illness), and would involve a bunch of approaches depending on the reason for the homelessness. But, I certainly agree that people should not be allowed to simply camp on the streets. Another crazy thing I read a month ago, I believe in the Los Angeles Times, is that there's a plan in place in SF to possibly pay EACH black San Franciscan millions in "slave reparations." Never mind, of course, that not only was there never any slavery in California, but that California fought on the Union side of the Civil War. Let's not spend the money helping the homeless. Let's spend it on repairing wrongs committed in other states 160 years ago. 

Edited June 2, 2023 by Unicorn

[+ Vegas_Millennial]

On 6/1/2023 at 10:22 AM, marylander1940 said:

I can't imagine Market Street without that iconic store and now to add insult to injury the idiots running the city are planning to place homeless in dormitories in those same stores.

1. Make it illegal for a person to sleep on the streets
2. Lock them up somewhere affordable
3. Treat them

San Francisco faces retail exodus as Old Navy becomes latest to flee area

WWW.NEWSWEEK.COM

---

Major retailers like Whole Foods, T-Mobile, and Nordstrom have closed their downtown stores in San Francisco this year, blaming a rise in crime in the area.

 

I agree with you 💯.  Unfortunately, the 9th circuit does not ☹️.

[marylander1940]

24 minutes ago, Vegas_Millennial said:

I agree with you 💯.  Unfortunately, the 9th circuit does not ☹️.

Edited June 2, 2023 by marylander1940

[Danny-Darko]

49 minutes ago, Vegas_Millennial said:

I agree with you 💯.  Unfortunately, the 9th circuit does not ☹️.

 

On 6/1/2023 at 4:22 PM, marylander1940 said:

I can't imagine Market Street without that iconic store and now to add insult to injury the idiots running the city are planning to place homeless in dormitories in those same stores.

1. Make it illegal for a person to sleep on the streets
2. Lock them up somewhere affordable
3. Treat them

San Francisco faces retail exodus as Old Navy becomes latest to flee area

WWW.NEWSWEEK.COM

---

Major retailers like Whole Foods, T-Mobile, and Nordstrom have closed their downtown stores in San Francisco this year, blaming a rise in crime in the area.

 

WOW!! And that is prime real estate area too with some of the best hotels in the vicinity! I can't imagine SF without it's iconic Nordstroms. Thanks for sharing this! 

[+ jessmapex]

I think America has reached a point where, as ghettos get gentrified, it needs slums like those in India (Dharavi) or Brazil (Favela) where tired, poor, huddled masses go to play Hunger Games.

Sometimes curious tourists from the rich countries can visit in their AC coaches to watch and wonder at the slum-dwellers' ingenuity at surviving from their tinted glasses and be content they don't live here. 

Oh wait, we already have those! I remember seeing an ad for Skid Row tours in LA. 

[marylander1940]

51 minutes ago, jessmapex said:

I think America has reached a point where, as ghettos get gentrified, it needs slums like those in India (Dharavi) or Brazil (Favela) where tired, poor, huddled masses go to play Hunger Games.

Sometimes curious tourists from the rich countries can visit in their AC coaches to watch and wonder at the slum-dwellers' ingenuity at surviving from their tinted glasses and be content they don't live here. 

Oh wait, we already have those! I remember seeing an ad for Skid Row tours in LA. 

And don't you forget about large parts of Appalachia and the Bible belt!. Entire counties look like a third world country! 

[Monarchy79]

On 4/28/2023 at 9:34 PM, socurious said:

Why do Americans do so much drugs btw.? Europe doesn't seem to have the same issue (at the same levels at least?).

Much of Europe is plagued with drug use. 
However, Portugal managed to reverse its drug problem. 

[Monarchy79]

1 hour ago, Danny-Darko said:

 

WOW!! And that is prime real estate area too with some of the best hotels in the vicinity! I can't imagine SF without it's iconic Nordstroms. Thanks for sharing this! 

I’m glad you made this point. 
Once major cities lose its downtown retail, the city starts to decay from its nucleus. 
 

 

[nate_sf]

On 6/1/2023 at 1:22 PM, marylander1940 said:

I can't imagine Market Street without that iconic store and now to add insult to injury the idiots running the city are planning to place homeless in dormitories in those same stores.

1. Make it illegal for a person to sleep on the streets
2. Lock them up somewhere affordable
3. Treat them

San Francisco faces retail exodus as Old Navy becomes latest to flee area

WWW.NEWSWEEK.COM

---

Major retailers like Whole Foods, T-Mobile, and Nordstrom have closed their downtown stores in San Francisco this year, blaming a rise in crime in the area.

 

An important part of this story is that the Old Navy store is more than 72,000 square feet. That is HUGE. A Target or Walmart is in the range of 100,000 - 150,000 square feet for reference, so 72,000 is really big for an Old Navy store. Given all the changes going on in retail in the last decade, I'm surprised this store did not close years ago given that big flagship stores (as well as department stores) are a dying breed. They just don't need that much space.

Gap says they expect to open a new, smaller Old Navy store elsewhere downtown. They already opened a new one in their headquarters building on Folsom Street. And this is not the first downsizing: the big Banana Republic flagship store closed, and is being replaced by a new smaller store on Geary Street. So much of this has to do with dynamics in retail that are playing out everywhere. I suppose when the new Old Navy store opens, the media will not bother to report it, since it seems they're only interested in writing about the bad stuff.

But having said all that, there are problem areas downtown, but also there are areas that are doing fine. It's patchy. Market Street around Old Navy and Westfield have seen better days, but they are not as bad as the media reports would want people to believe. The blocks of Powell Street from the cable car turnaround up a couple of blocks, on the other hand, are positively dreadful. But walk a couple of blocks over to Grant Street and things are looking really good. Union Square itself looks good.

A big part of the problem is that downtown employment has not come back to the financial district. Employees love working remotely, and the types of jobs downtown lend themselves to remote work. So the financial district feels very empty, and there is not the foot traffic that used to support the retailers and other businesses. I've read a number of reports that indicate that San Francisco has been the slowest of all US cities to recover from the pandemic, and that is because so many employees continue to work remotely.

As for the suggestion that the city is planning to place homeless in dormitories in the vacant stores, I have not heard that. I follow this stuff pretty closely and I'd be surprised if that was true, but by all means correct me if you can cite the source.