New San Francisco Initiative to Pay Individuals Not to Shoot Others

[cubby]

https://www.newsweek.com/new-san-fra...others-1624676

Apparently it is not enough that we have laws telling people not to shoot each other, now San Francisco wants to pay gang members not to shoot each other.





So the title of the article is misleading....they are paying people to become "community ambassadors" which seems like a San Francisco way of saying hall monitors. You can even earn an extra 200 for improving your community. The program is based on a similar program in neighboring Richmond, California, which helped reduce gun homicide in the city by 55 percent, according to a 2019 study by the American Journal of Public Health. I do find it hard to believe that a city that has an app to avoid homeless people shitting on the street can curb gun violence by giving gang members $300.

Sounds like a good program.

[Lenonis]

Speaking of being disingenuous, where is Chicago historically on that list?

Rather than being coy why don't you show your work for the class.

And even if Chicago did have a higher ranking in the past conservatives still point to Chicago when talking about crime in the present so I repeat - Y'all can shut now, thanks.

[Rasulis]

We bought a home in San Francisco last year and moved in in February. My wife sold her company is San Diego and now live full time in San Francisco. I still go back and forth between the two because of my company.

We bought the house on zoom. My wife’s first comment to the agent that was assisting us, “no homeless.” Her response was “no homeless in Sunset.” She was not quite correct. The 2019 homeless point count showed 34 homeless persons in Sunset (map shown below). In the 8 months we have been here, the closest to a homeless person we have seen in Sunset was a old Chinese man playing erhu near Mongkok Dim Sum. My wife always dropped a 20 for him.

We saw the occasional homeless in Golden Gate Park. However they are rare. The park rangers have been very diligent about destroying the encampments in the park and citing the homeless for loitering around. We did early morning run on the park trails and had picnics regularly, my wife did yoga classes three times a week at the Botanical Garden. Thursday night we went to the “Nightime” event at the Academy of Science. We walked from and back to our house through the park after dark and felt safe.

If you bother to look at the map, the homeless population in San Francisco is for the most part concentrated in the eastern side of the City. Primarily in the Tenderloin and South Market areas. The Tenderloin is covered with SRO hotels and wall-to-wall homeless encampments. Unfortunately, it surrounded by all the major tourist areas. The trolley on Powell ends at the edge of the Terderloin area. So, unlike other cities where the homelessness tend to be hidden from view, in San Francisco it is out in the open.

What little homelessness we have on the west site tend to be the sheltered kind. With good reasons. You do not want to be unsheltered at night in Sunset. We have only seen 2 days with high over 65 this summer. The constant 11 - 20 mph westerly Pacific Ocean wind makes the night time low of 50s feel like it is below 40. No high rises, nor big large apartments and condos. All single-family row homes, duplexes and fourplexes. No centralized commercial centers. Mostly small shopping districts hidden among the residential areas.

The San Francisco human feces map makes for good right wing talking point. However, the map is very misleading. It is based on 311 calls to the City regarding feces. However, the calls do not differentiate between human and dog feces. Herein lies the problem. Despite the map, in eight months in Sunset, we have not seen a single human feces. I am sure there are a lot of human feces in the Tenderloin, South Market and Mission areas. However, we have not seen any here.

My wife was wary about buying a home in San Francisco. Now she loves the place. Year round mild weather. The 1,000-acre Golden Gate Park across from our home. Dozens of restaurants within walking distance. Dozens of bakeries including a Russian bakery. Two miles from the beach. Unlike San Diego beaches, you can always find parking at Ocean Beach. It is also never packed. In fact on week days Ocean Beach is pretty desolate. It’s the cold and wind factors again.

Very friendly neighborhood. Free concert every Sunday at the park. Farmers Market and Flea Market every Sunday also. All within walking/biking distance.

BTW, most of the crimes in San Francisco also occurred in the areas with high homeless population. Sunset did not see a single homicide in 2019, 2020 and 2021 so far.

I do agree that the City/County government is dysfunctional and Boudin needs to go ASAP.

[TexasRules]

Rather than being coy why don't you show your work for the class.

And even if Chicago did have a higher ranking in the past conservatives still point to Chicago when talking about crime in the present so I repeat - Y'all can shut now, thanks.

At no point will you show where Chicago ranks in total numbers for the year, not by population but in general. That defeats your argument. This is one of the highest populated cities in America so you are choosing it based on population per 100k. Until you can stop cherry picking maybe you can shut up.

San Francisco may be different then any other city in America based on its population and politics. I do not see the same results coming out of this city as random other city. If it was easily done, why San Francisco and not say Oakland?

[Edge-]

At no point will you show where Chicago ranks in total numbers

Because total numbers are meaningless, per-capita data is far more valuable.

This is one of the highest populated cities in America so you are choosing it based on population per 100k. Until you can stop cherry picking maybe you can shut up.

Yes, so that violence statistics in a highly populated city like Chicago can be directly compared with other cities that may have more, or far less people.

It's amusing that you're complaining that someone else is "cherry picking" while you're literally intentionally choosing the only data point that can make Chicago look bad, and a data point that's largely fairly useless.

If it was easily done, why San Francisco and not say Oakland?

Then why not create a thread to complain about Oakland rather than forklift the goalposts to another area code when your thread didn't elicit the responses you were hoping for?

[Afrospinach]

Rather than being coy why don't you show your work for the class.

And even if Chicago did have a higher ranking in the past conservatives still point to Chicago when talking about crime in the present so I repeat - Y'all can shut now, thanks.

Well it still has a spectacular and notable crime issue in the present doesn't it? 4x worse that the USA of A in general, nearly 20x that of London(deliberately not going to cite these, either). Also, consider that covid lockdowns and so on have had an impact on all sorts of things so I would not celebrate just yet.

Chicago having one of the highest homicide rates in the world/being inside the top 10 in USA even recently are also easily verifiable.

[Lenonis]

At no point will you show where Chicago ranks in total numbers for the year, not by population but in general. That defeats your argument. This is one of the highest populated cities in America so you are choosing it based on population per 100k. Until you can stop cherry picking maybe you can shut up.

Are you serious right now? You want to make a claim that presenting crime data per capita which normalizes variables like city population is cherry picking? Seriously? It's the exact opposite.

Jesus I haven't seen a self-own that embarrassing on these forums in a while.

Until you get a clue about statistics that's worth something you can continue to shut up please and thank you.

- - - Updated - - -

Well it still has a spectacular and notable crime issue in the present doesn't it?

What's that? I can't hear you over the sound of the data you aren't showing us.

Chicago having one of the highest homicide rates in the world/being inside the top 10 in USA even recently are also easily verifiable.

2019 not even in the top 50.

Hmmm...not in 2020 either.

Maybe if we narrow it down to just US cities to spare you some embarrassment...

Well look it's on a list in 2018! In 25th place.

Maybe instead of making vague claims and saying that things are easily verifiable you can take the 3 seconds to link something?

[Rasulis]

A more in depth analysis of homicide and gun violence in San Francisco.

Analysis links 12 groups and gangs to most of SF’s gun violence

A new analysis of crime in San Francisco has found just a dozen groups of high-risk individuals are responsible for a majority of gun violence citywide.

The analysis, presented to the Police Commission by a nonprofit consultant Wednesday, shows that 12 groups or gangs in the Bayview and other police districts were involved in most of the gun homicides that occurred between 2017 and mid-2020 and non-fatal shootings from 2019.

At least 58 of the 162 homicides reported in San Francisco from January 2017 to June 2020 involved either a victim or suspect, or both, associated with a group or gang, according to the analysis. Of those group-involved homicides, 36 were motivated by an ongoing group conflict or a personal dispute.

The analysis honed in on all 110 gun violence incidents that occurred in 2019, both fatal and non-fatal, and found that about half to three quarters involved victims or suspects believed to be group or gang members. The individuals tended to be Black and Latino men between the ages of the 18 and 34.

Vaughn Crandall, co-director of the nonprofit, said the “silver lining” of the group problem identified in the analysis is that an estimated 200 or less individuals are driving gun violence in San Francisco in any given year.

“We can make progress on this problem,” Crandall told the Police Commission. “The way to do that is by focusing together on a very small number of people who are extremely high-risk right now.”

Remember the map showing the districts with high homeless population? Here is a map of all homicides and shootings between January 2017 and June 2020. Almost a perfect overlay between the high homeless areas, high homicide & shooting areas and the gang territories (the grey polygons). Based on that map, two-third of San Francisco has not seen any homicide and/or gun violence for at least 5 years.

[Endus]

At no point will you show where Chicago ranks in total numbers for the year, not by population but in general. That defeats your argument. This is one of the highest populated cities in America so you are choosing it based on population per 100k. Until you can stop cherry picking maybe you can shut up.

The only way to compare murder rates effectively is by looking at per-capita; that normalizes differences in population levels.

Otherwise, you're telling me that Chicago is a more dangerous city to live in than Dahmertown, a hypothetical village that had a population of 250 at the start of the year, but currently has a population of 1, because said resident is a very, very hungry and prolific serial killer and cannibal. Literally everyone but him got killed and eaten, but you're still telling me Chicago is more dangerous.

You're the one cherry-picking by trying to compare absolute figures dishonestly.

[Egomaniac]

Well it still has a spectacular and notable crime issue in the present doesn't it? 4x worse that the USA of A in general, nearly 20x that of London(deliberately not going to cite these, either). Also, consider that covid lockdowns and so on have had an impact on all sorts of things so I would not celebrate just yet.

Chicago having one of the highest homicide rates in the world/being inside the top 10 in USA even recently are also easily verifiable.

Imagine drawing attention to the fact that you didn't look for citations that back up your claims only to have citations that state the opposite thrown directly in your face.

Maybe if you had looked for some citations you could have saved yourself from looking like a fool.

Jesus I haven't seen a self-own that embarrassing on these forums in a while.

This thread certainly seems to be bringing it out of people :P

[Lenonis]

Imagine drawing attention to the fact that you didn't look for citations that back up your claims only to have citations that state the opposite thrown directly in your face.

Maybe if you had looked for some citations you could have saved yourself from looking like a fool.

Not to mention trying to compare a single city to the entire USA like that means anything or cherry picking one city out of the entire world and thinking that's some sort of gotcha.

[PickleballAce]

I'm not sure being worse than Hartford is much of a flex. Hartford is an irredeemable shithole and to this day the only place I've ever had cause to fear for my life.

[Themius]

Why so dismissive of a program that seems effective at reducing crime while also being cheaper to proactively stop crime than to reactively deal with it?

Housing first studies happened in new york in the early 00s and virtually solved the homelessness issue among those who participated. America has gone exactly almost nowhere with it while it has gone further in several EU countries

https://housingfirsteurope.eu/guide/...housing-first/

Housing First is probably the single most important innovation in homelessness service design in the last 30 years. Developed by Dr. Sam Tsemberis in New York, the Housing First model has proven very successful in ending homelessness among people with high support needs in the USA and Canada and in several European countries.

Housing First is designed for people who need significant levels of help to enable them to leave homelessness. Among the groups who Housing First services can help are people who are homeless with severe mental illnesses or mental health problems, homeless people with problematic drug and alcohol use, and homeless people with poor physical health, limiting illness and disabilities. Housing First services have also proven effective with people who are experiencing long-term or repeated homelessness who, in addition to other support needs, often lack social supports, i.e. help from friends or family and are not part of a community. In the United States and Canada, Housing First programmes are also used with homeless families and young people.

Fact is Americans are dismissive about anything that can help the "evil degenerates" they rather deal with higher crime and likelihood of being a victim of crime so they can say they're better than someone, than to solve the issue.

[D Luniz]

Not to mention trying to compare a single city to the entire USA like that means anything or cherry picking one city out of the entire world and thinking that's some sort of gotcha.

The ONLY reason they started harping about Chicago was because Obama was from there. Before that, bitching about New York and Los Angeles was the goto "big cities are bad" sites.

[Rasulis]

Housing first studies happened in new york in the early 00s and virtually solved the homelessness issue among those who participated. America has gone exactly almost nowhere with it while it has gone further in several EU countries

https://housingfirsteurope.eu/guide/...housing-first/



Fact is Americans are dismissive about anything that can help the "evil degenerates" they rather deal with higher crime and likelihood of being a victim of crime so they can say they're better than someone, than to solve the issue.

San Francisco is paying for hotel rooms during COVID-19 to house homeless people - and 70 percent of them REFUSE to move into permanent housing because the hotel rooms are nicer

The city of San Francisco is struggling to move homeless people from hotels that it's paying for during the coronavirus into permanent residences it's now offering them - with 70% of people in the hotels refusing to go.

Homeless advocates say that's because city-run permanent housing has a bad reputation as being dirty and unsafe. One other possibility: The hotel rooms are provided free of charge and have private bathrooms; the permanent residences cost 30 percent of a person's income and bathrooms are shared.

The city started taking people off the streets and putting them into the so-called shelter-in-place hotels at the beginning of the pandemic to shield homeless people and others from COVID-19. More than 2,300 people are currently in the hotels, which cost the city $179 million last year - with an additional 500 people soon to join them.

In the meantime, the city last year paid $45 million to buy a 232-unit building and renovated it as a permanent option to house homeless people.

But many are saying the building isn't nice enough and around 70 percent of those who were offered spots at the refurbished hotel have refused, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

To be fair, the permanent housing also comes with rules such as curfew after 9 pm, no drugs and no prostitutions.

The renovated building is recently refurbished and expected to be nicer than other permanent options made available in the past.

Because of placement rejections, around 10 percent of supportive housing units are vacant.

In a city full of special snowflakes, even the homeless are snowflakes.

The City is trying though.

The permanent housing is being offered to people who live at a shelter-in-place hotel first, meaning 626 people who live outdoors and qualify for the housing have to wait for vacancies to be rejected by others who already live in a shelter-in-place hotel.

'The tradeoff here is if we move too many permanent supportive housing units away from the shelter-in-place hotels, we won’t be able to provide offers of permanent housing to people in the hotels,' said Stewart-Kahn.

The Mayor's Office announced in January the awarding of $29.1 million from Project Homekey to purchase a building that will provide 130 rooms near its Union Square location. It, also, is a former hotel, called Hotel Diva.

This is probably one of the few, if not the only, City with a Covid dashboard for its homeless population.

https://sf.gov/data/covid-19-populat...-homelessness-

[Zan15]

At no point will you show where Chicago ranks in total numbers for the year, not by population but in general. That defeats your argument. This is one of the highest populated cities in America so you are choosing it based on population per 100k. Until you can stop cherry picking maybe you can shut up.

Wait, did you forget the sarcasm tag because you can't possibly....i mean no way.....

oh the sweet irony.

[Themius]

San Francisco is paying for hotel rooms during COVID-19 to house homeless people - and 70 percent of them REFUSE to move into permanent housing because the hotel rooms are nicer



To be fair, the permanent housing also comes with rules such as curfew after 9 pm, no drugs and no prostitutions.



In a city full of special snowflakes, even the homeless are snowflakes.

The City is trying though.



This is probably one of the few, if not the only, City with a Covid dashboard for its homeless population.

https://sf.gov/data/covid-19-populat...-homelessness-

Maybe don't quote the daily mail and instead look for reasons "why" they're saying they'd prefer to stay at the hotel:

“We’re in a tough position where we want people to get into permanent supportive housing, but frankly a lot of it is unacceptable and not in good condition,” Medrano said. “Many don’t have Wi-Fi, they don’t have good air filtration systems. They’re hot, they’re small, they’re congregate.”

[Rasulis]

Maybe don't quote the daily mail and instead look for reasons "why" they're saying they'd prefer to stay at the hotel:

You missed this part.

The renovated building is recently refurbished and expected to be nicer than other permanent options made available in the past.

Also, is there a standard on how nice housing for the homeless need to be?

The picture below is from the Drs. Julian & Raye Richardson Apartments, a 5-year old permanent supportive housing building for extremely low income, chronically homeless individuals. It is on Fulton Street in San Francisco.

I am sure that not all will be that nice. However, I would think the worst accommodation is still better than sleeping on the sidewalk.

[Logwyn]

.... I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop where this is somehow a bad thing.

Only thing I can think of is how does one prove they are a gang member? How do you prevent someone from just making a "new" gang to get money?

[Themius]

You missed this part.



Also, is there a standard on how nice housing for the homeless need to be?

The picture below is from the Drs. Julian & Raye Richardson Apartments, a 5-year old permanent supportive housing building for extremely low income, chronically homeless individuals. It is on Fulton Street in San Francisco.

I am sure that not all will be that nice. However, I would think the worst accommodation is still better than sleeping on the sidewalk.

[IMG]https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3e/a9/d6/3ea9d6ba5b771a12eda0c4333730aec7.jpg[/IG]

[IMG]https://www.huduser.gov/portal/casestudies/images/richardson_apartments/Image_9.jpg[/MG]

The renovated building isn't renovated yet though is it... and where they're at now is better than the sidewalk.

and actually yes... there should be a standard for how nice housing needs to be at a base level for all people or do you not think homeless people are worthy are all basic necessities and subpar housing is good enough because they're homeless?

communal bathrooms... tell me why might people who are homeless turn down that kind of situation when they're in hotel rooms?