Case in point. You know how to re-post sensationalist articles about what "libs" are doing wrong,
There are plenty of examples of what conservatives are doing wrong, just as there are plenty of examples of what faux-liberals are doing wrong. Dysfunctions in major cities are almost universally examples of what "libs" are doing wrong.
but no suggestion whatsoever as to what one might do better. Most serious measures that have been proposed, you would oppose.
Before you can even start to make things better, one would have to stop digging. Electing Chesa Boudin, who is so soft on crime he is a fluid, as DA is not stopping digging, it's getting a backhoe!
It would, for instance, take care of SF's downtown poop problem overnight if businesses were simply required by law to open up their restrooms for public use, or contrarily if public bathrooms were more frequent and well-maintained.
I don't think businesses should be required to open their restrooms to non-customers. Especially since the homeless are also frequently drug users and may use the bathrooms to shoot up.
Public restrooms may be a solution, but again, it's difficult to keep them well-maintained and well-cleaned if bums can use them freely.
First thing that needs to be considered is why are there so many urban outdoorsmen in SF?
It's probably due to overly permissive attitude by the city government.
Given that almost all the problem areas are also major tourist spots, either measure would instantly pay for itself in recovered commercial and tax revenue.
I doubt tourists want to see people shoot up in the bathroom of their Fisherman's Wharf restaurant.
Public housing projects, rent control problems, and eviction stays would also help, since less people would be homeless in the first place, and people who own toilets don't usually go in the bushes.
Public housing would be a solution for those who find themselves homeless temporarily due to some financial setback. The real homeless, those who use a
rat as a phone (Atlanta joke, SCNR), tend to often be mentally ill and would not be really helped by that.
I am against rent control in principle as it fucks with landlords who want to make a return on their investment and also need to be able to pay for maintenance/improvements out of the rent revenues. Therefore, it discouraging building of new housing units.
It also leads to unjust situations where some rent controlled apartments go for comically low amounts while a similar apartment next door may go for a multiple of that price.
Why Rent Control Doesn’t Work (Ep. 373)
The one issue every economist can agree is bad: Rent control
If somebody can't afford to live in SF proper because the rent is too damn high, what's wrong with moving to the burbs? It's not a binary choice between living in a house in SF or living in the streets in SF. Bridges work in both directions!
Arresting people for pooping isn't a solution, since that both obliges the government to pay for their toiletries directly for a while on the taxpayer's dime, exactly what you lot are supposedly unwilling to do, and puts them right back where they started once they are released a few weeks later, without having addressed the underlying issue.
If they are mentally ill, it should be easier to commit those people to mental hospitals. It is very difficult to involuntarily commit people these days.
"Well, now that you've had to shit in a metal pipe for a few days, I'm sure you learned your lesson about never shitting in alleys instead. Good luck out there, convicted felon! See you in a few weeks!"
There must be a possibility of a middle ground between "sidewalk pooping is fine, in fact, we welcome all homeless to come to our city to poop on our sidewalks" and "sidewalk pooping is a felony".
The biggest cause of homelessness is lack of homes. The biggest cause of shit on the streets is lack of toilets. Solving these things isn't a logistical problem, it's a political problem. And you aren't helping either.
Neither are SF elected leaders, and they have both the means and the responsibility to do something.
