The "mystery" of the homeless families

|
(86)

The Chron's having a hard time figuring out why there are so many more homeless families looking for help.

"It's been difficult to pin down any kind of trend," said Elizabeth Ancker, assistant program director at the nonprofit Compass Connecting Point, the group that manages the waiting list and helped find Bailey a shelter room. "We're really just seeing more of everybody - every demographic, in every situation."

No shit.

Of course there are more homeless families. The cost of housing is beyong the reach of even many full-time employed people, and anyone who lacks a sizable weekly paycheck is completely out of luck. When dozens of high-paid workers are competing for every single available apartment, there's no room at all for anyone else.

And more and more families are losing their homes to eviction as landlords seek to cash in on the demand for tenancy-in-common units.

Gavin Newsom calls it "the burden of success." But it's not a burden for the successful; it's a burden for those who are struggling -- and this city has never asked the winners in the economic boom to pay a fair share to help those who are being displaced and hurt.

The city's scrambling to find public-housing and nonprofit alternatives, but there aren't anywhere near enough places to meet the need. And there won't be, not for a long time, not without a whole lot more money. Building affordable housing is expensive and time-consuming.

The bottom line: In a crisis like this one, the cheapest affordable housing is existing affordable housing, and the best way to prevent homelessness and keep families off the streets is to prevent evictions and TIC/condo conversions. Why the Chron can't figure that out is anyone's guess.

Comments

Tim's favorite kind of circular argument. "Because A and B are present means C is the answer!" Follow that up with links to his own pieces to justify himself and it all becomes dizzying!

Homelessness is a phenomenon rooted in many causes Tim. Reducing it to a prop to support those causes which you favor is disgusting and extremely cynical.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Mar. 22, 2013 @ 11:07 am

Nobody should suffer if someone else is doing well.

Conclusion: Take from the successful and give it to the failure - the politics of envy writ large.

Of course, Tim never considered tha obvious solution i.e. that people who clearly cannot afford to live in a very expensive place should move a few miles to somewhere cheaper.

I do not live in Aspen for much the same reason. Tim thinks all those rich folks in Aspen should be taxed more so that I can live somewhere that is cool.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 22, 2013 @ 11:35 am

Aspen Aspen Aspen blah blah blah Aspen Aspen Aspen Aspen Aspen Aspen.

Did I mention Aspen for the millionth time?

Asshat.

Posted by Greg on Mar. 24, 2013 @ 7:14 pm

analogy with SF.

In both cases, it is a town where only the relatively affluent can live, and where it is therefore unreasonable for the many who want to live there but cannot afford it to argue that laws should be passed to allow them to live there anyway.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 25, 2013 @ 4:09 pm

Move farther away to somewhere cheaper! So obvious! Why has no one ever thought of this before???

Of course if you look at backed-up rush hour traffic stretching across the Bay from as far away as Tracy, it's clear people have thought of this before, and it's not sustainable in any sense.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 25, 2013 @ 4:01 pm

Oakland and Daly City are both within 10 miles, both with excellent freeway and BART connections, meaning that you can get from those places to downtown SF in less time than it takes to travel in from the Avenues.

Of course, Tracey is cheaper again, but who are you or I to tell others what tradeoffs they should make between commute time and housing affordibility?

Point being, there are many home choices in the Bay Area, so why would we give special benefits to people who insist that they are entitled to live in just one small part of the Bay Area?

Posted by Guest on Mar. 25, 2013 @ 4:11 pm

What is the "false, untenable and absurd result" that reductio ad absurdum requires?

Either you can get to C with A and/or B or you can't.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 22, 2013 @ 11:37 am

When are you renting out your spare SF condo to a deserving homeless family, Marcos?

Hoarding of desirable living space clearly contributes to the problem.

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly, Persistent on Mar. 22, 2013 @ 11:47 am

posting here 24/7. You don't expect him to actually do something tangible to help others, do you?

Posted by Guest on Mar. 22, 2013 @ 12:08 pm

We're not hoarding it, we're living in it. If we were to no longer live in it, we would continue to not hoard it. We would rent it and have some twitterbot, googler or various other yahoo pay down our mortgage, taxes and insurance and a good chunk of our housing payment elsewhere.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 22, 2013 @ 12:25 pm

affordable home for a more needy person or family.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 22, 2013 @ 1:05 pm

Property is theft.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 22, 2013 @ 1:50 pm

in order to help spread affordable housing opportunities to those less fortunate than yourself.

Posted by anon on Mar. 22, 2013 @ 2:01 pm

"Property is theft."

LOL. It's obviously time to expropriate your two(!) condos in the Name of The Revolution!

Betcha you don't think that **your** property is theft...

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly, Persistent on Mar. 22, 2013 @ 2:10 pm

Marcos showing his age there.

Posted by anon on Mar. 22, 2013 @ 2:27 pm

Do you have a comment on the logical clarification I asked of Snapples or are you just hijacking today?

Posted by marcos on Mar. 22, 2013 @ 12:27 pm

Just like most things go right over your head here.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 22, 2013 @ 1:06 pm

I've also heard the same thing about Reagan's cuts to mental healthcare etc... It's absurd - homelessness is endemic in places with far lower housing prices than San Francisco - like Phoenix, Denver and Portland.

Again, Tim's use of homeless families as a prop to buttress his favorite causes is cynical and disgusting. Like Republicans trotting out a few black and Hispanics to prove they "care."

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Mar. 22, 2013 @ 11:52 am

would be helping out at soup kitchens and homeless shelters, like many successful executives do.

No, Tim and Marcos would much rather endlessly drone on about how everyone else should make sacrifices and do what they tell them to do.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 22, 2013 @ 12:10 pm

Nope, you need a PhD to figure out that a market with unaffordable housing means that more folks are going to be left unhoused. It's just too much for lil Lucretia's puny little brain. Give the troll a break, Tim!

Posted by Guest on Mar. 22, 2013 @ 11:55 am

successful, affluent people might be more expensive, and therefore not available to those who are not successful and affluent.

Tim thinks that everyone is entitled to a San Francisco lifesryle on a detroit budget. Why? Because he doesn't have to subsidize that and so can freely demand that others pick up the tab.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 22, 2013 @ 12:12 pm

and home prices there are higher than SF.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Mar. 22, 2013 @ 2:04 pm

In fact, most places do, as they know we are a soft touch here.

Posted by anon on Mar. 22, 2013 @ 2:30 pm

which demands a steady supply of supplicants and city/county contracts so it can continue to justify its existence. Nor a newspaper like The Guardian which stands with the poverty pimps no matter what!!

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Mar. 22, 2013 @ 2:53 pm

Why should we (SFers) have to subsidize the rich? That's the real question we should be asking. Here are just a few examples:

"We're getting ready to turn over large, valuable portions of the waterfront to developers who want to build housing for the very rich -- and we don't even know if the people who buy these units are actually going to live here." ~Tim Redmond

http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2013/02/11/who-really-lives-those-fancy-condos

"Now that they're coming up short on fundraising efforts, they're trying to say the General Fund should be subsidizing the cost of the race." ~John Avalos, commenting on the America's Cup shortfall

http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2013/03/20/spare-change-larry

CEO OF SAN FRANCISCO

"Mayor Lee nows seems to be getting the royal Conway treatment, and the companies Conway invests in are getting strong support from the Mayor's Office at City Hall, from the tax breaks that Twitter and Zynga received last year to this year's unsuccessful effort to maintain Ainbnb's exemption from the transient occupancy tax (a decision made by the Treasurer/ Tax Collector's Office, which defied Lee's public lobbying on the issue)."

http://www.sfbg.com/2012/11/27/plutocrat

Posted by Ana on Mar. 22, 2013 @ 2:07 pm

Your tired, lame "bash the rich" mantra's are as self-servingly ineffective now as they were during the short-lived Occupy distraction.

If all the rich left for the Bahama's tomorrow, the poor would be far, far worse off.

Posted by anon on Mar. 22, 2013 @ 2:29 pm

It is to the richest 1.5% who hold 90% of the wealth that I refer.

In the last few decades, every single boom, every recession and every unneccessary war has led to greater disparity in wealth. The richest of the rich are making out like bandits, and yet they and their apologists seek to constantly shelter their riches from completely justified taxation.

Instead they want their taxes cut, they want greater subsidy for their typically doomed get-richer-faster schemes, they want deep cuts in the social fabric.

The richest 1.5% -- except for a few notable exceptions -- have no shame and are consumed by one of the seven deadly "sins": greed.

(One of the seven deadly no-nos because such weaknesses consume us when we give in to them.)

Posted by lillipublicans on Mar. 22, 2013 @ 3:38 pm

Bill Maher disagrees with you.

Posted by The Commish on Mar. 22, 2013 @ 3:59 pm

magnitude smarter than Lilli.

Class warfare becomes a habit after a while, and it's proponent warmongers cannot help themselves, even as taxes approach 50% or more.

Posted by anon on Mar. 22, 2013 @ 4:06 pm

reward losers, failures and the lazy.

Too bad for you that the American voters routinely reject such quasi-socialist ideas and, indeed, it is the poorer Americans who disapprove of such class-warfare notions even more than the affluent.

Eat your heart out.

You had your extra taxes on the rich in January. Now let's see some spending cuts to match.

Posted by anon on Mar. 22, 2013 @ 4:03 pm

Because moving to Oakland or Daly City for cheaper housing is never an option.

If you can't find housing in San Francisco, obviously there is no option but to be homeless in San Francisco.

Besides, Oakland or Daly City doesn't have the rich, luxuriant homeless-nonprofit-complex that San Francisco does...

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly, Persistent on Mar. 22, 2013 @ 11:36 am

OK, I admit it is connected by 7 miles of 5-lane freeway, plus BART, plus buses and ferries.

But dammit, SF is cooler and I should be able to live somewhere hip, just because. Free money for all now!

Posted by Guest on Mar. 22, 2013 @ 11:44 am

"the rich, luxuriant homeless-nonprofit-complex" yeah, they're scamsters but they're pretty downmarket scamsters.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 22, 2013 @ 12:06 pm

Those who move there from SF to enjoy more disposable income after their rent is paid, will surely find an equally hopeless non-profit to pledge their spare time to.

Or there is Daly City where, AFAIK, there are no such entities, if they offend you that much.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 22, 2013 @ 12:23 pm

There are few nonprofits in the East Bay compared to in San Francisco. 2/3 of the NPO staffers in the Mission and TL live in the East Bay. Those jobs should go to San Francisco residents in those communities.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 22, 2013 @ 12:31 pm

much larger megalopolis, and your type of narrow-minded, beggar-thy-neighbor pettines has no place in a global economy.

We are all one big city here.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 22, 2013 @ 1:08 pm

I can never figure out if Tim walks to work or carries his lunch.

Tim's sounding especially creaky these days, just phoning in his standard Marxist boilerplate -- time to retire, old salt? The revolution is over and you lost, so why not sell your house for a nice profit and go ride your bike somewhere warm and cheap (or at least steeply discounted).

Posted by Chromefields on Mar. 22, 2013 @ 11:37 am

His irritable writing show his disdain for his new employer, and he is merely going thru the motions now with his "socialism by numbers" routine.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 22, 2013 @ 11:40 am

Apparently, Tim's employer thought he was valuable enough to keep on, after others lost their jobs at SFBG. This meme that you're trying to spread in post after post just proves that you trolls are truly nasty, viscious, hateful people. So, you would like to see Tim get fired, is that it? What amazes me is that he continues to put up with you (trolls). I think it just shows who has the greater decency and humanity, and sadly, it's not the cowardly anonymous hater called "Guest".

Posted by Ana on Mar. 22, 2013 @ 12:11 pm

so much endless amusement?

No, of course not. I was merely predicting that he would quit, as his political excesses are ultimately incompatible with the ethos of hos new boss, and he will no doubt feel that his best "work" is behind him.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 22, 2013 @ 12:21 pm

who wants to live in SF but cannot afford it should be allowed to stay here for no other good reason.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 22, 2013 @ 11:43 am

Thank you for the article. Your response, "No shit!" is right-on.

More about the homeless (which many people like to live in denial about):

New York City homeless population reaches Great Depression levels
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/03/07/home-m07.html

Homeless crisis grows in San Diego
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/03/05/sdca-m05.html

And if one of the useless vegetating right-wing trolls don't like those links or sites, find one you do like, if that's ever possible.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 22, 2013 @ 2:40 pm

Or volunteer in a soup kitchen?

Posted by anon on Mar. 22, 2013 @ 3:22 pm

"The bottom line: In a crisis like this one, the cheapest affordable housing is existing affordable housing, and the best way to prevent homelessness and keep families off the streets is to prevent evictions and TIC/condo conversions. Why the Chron can't figure that out is anyone's guess."

I think you forgot the biggest one: Protecting and keeping rent control.

Also, you forgot about repealing Proposition 13. If they're hell-bent on overturning rent control, Proposition 13 should also be overturned. Let the smug bourgeois elite snots pay their fair share.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 22, 2013 @ 3:00 pm

If you really wanted more affordable housing, you would abolish rent control and embark on a massive building program.

But of course you don't.

Posted by anon on Mar. 22, 2013 @ 3:19 pm

Funny thing that comment - armchair politician... We are a democracy, and that means we are supposed to PARTICIPATE in government, not sit behind our computer screens and bitch and moan about how poorly our country is run.

You people disgust me. You sit there and criticize this person and that group for this problem and that and how they affect poor little old you. Your ignorance is astounding. You create a situation where homelessness is not only necessary, but that you are all destined to become homeless someday, and soon at the rate we are going - and yet, because you cannot think for yourselves and thus cannot see the consequences of your actions and how they will affect you, and profoundly so, in the not-so-distant future, you merely complain about how the homeless affect your ability to live how you want to live - a lifestyle that is ONLY possible if there are people out there starving to death.

Those of you who think the poor should move to where housing is more affordable obviously don't think for yourselves either. If low-wager earners leave, then wages are pushed up at the bottom as fewer people are willing to fill menial jobs. And since you demand services at unsustainably low prices, you will either have to start paying more for such things as fast food, or it simply won't be available.

But worst of all is that you expect people to serve you. You are slave drivers, nothing more. We are all of us equal. It is only the supression of our potential through this artificially stratified system that makes anyone "better." And only in ignoring the consequences of your own greed can you be happy with your relative wealth.

But always remember, you will one day be homeless. And the longer it takes, the less relative experience you have. So those of you who cling to this unsustainable economy the longest, will suffer the most.

Who knows, it ten years, we may be having to offer shelter to yuppies who don't know how to survive in the real world. Sorry, your grande` late` won't be waiting for you.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 23, 2013 @ 8:55 am

"We are a democracy,..."

The U.S. is supposed to be a republic, not a democracy. A republic is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. But today with the merger of corporations and government where corporations own and control the government, that's the definition of corporate fascism. Period.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 23, 2013 @ 6:13 pm

wager workers to service the wealthy. It just means that they live further away. If you look at Aspen, La Joola, Beverley Hills, Upper East Side etc. they each have poorer area's not so far away, where the servers, scrubbers and shoeshiners can live.

Same with SF. Oakland is just a few miles away and, in any other city, would be considered a suburb of SF rather than it's own city. There are cheap homes in Oakland and lots of space to build. It is entirely reasonable and practicable for those who constantly complain that SF homes are "too expensive" to simply move to where the housing market better suits their earning power.

Not everyone can afford to live in the world;s favorite city.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 23, 2013 @ 9:23 am

"Not everyone can afford to live in the world;s favorite city. "

San Francisco is not the world's favorite city. Where did you get that from? Is that something that the current mayor says? If so, then consider the source!

If one goes by the most visited city as being the world's most favorite city, Paris is the world's favorite city.

As usual, you're ignorant. You don't believe in using search engines either do you? Or do you know what one is?

Then using Forbes Global Top 20 Destination Cities by International Visitors (2012):

1. London
2. Paris
3. Bangkok
4. Singapore
5. Istanbul
6. Hong Kong
7. Madrid
8. Dubai
9. Frankfurt
10. Kuala Lumpur
11. Seoul
12. Rome
13. New York
14. Shanghai
15. Barcelona
16. Milan
17. Amsterdam
18. Vienna
19. Beijing
20. Taipei

As you can see, San Francisco is not even on the list. There's only one city (New York) that's in the U.S. that's on the list and that's #13. And considering what this city is becoming I don't know why anyone would want to come here. They might as well go to Tiburon.

Learn something some day, instead of wasting your useless life trolling.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 23, 2013 @ 2:52 pm

You cannot reasonably compare SF to cities ten times it's size. But there is no doubt that SF is one of the most expensive places to live in SF and, on that basis, it is reasonable to assert that "not everyone can afford to live in SF".

It is a folly thinking that any policy could make SF affordable to most people. It cannot.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 25, 2013 @ 5:47 am

Related articles

  • Families leaving SF: It's housing costs, stupid

  • The unanswered question: How do we bridge SF's affordable housing gap?

  • The price of growth

    Development is booming in the eastern neighborhoods, but the money isn't there to cover the infrastructure needed to serve it