Yes but then you ask people you know whether xyz thing is common, and it turns out the tent cities are permanent, and in fact everyone runs into people who need psychological help each day.
Nobody will tell you that London has an acid attack problem. I've lived here for years and heard about it maybe once on the news. Everyone will tell you SF has an issue with homelessness/mental health, and they've seen it with their own eyes.
Very anecdotally, this was something that I noticed not just in SF, but also LA. The marked difference for me as a Londoner between the huge homelessness problem we have in London and what I saw in SF/LA was the levels of mental illness coupled with dehumanising levels of despair that I saw in the homeless populations of SF/LA.
Does anyone have a good idea of why SF/LA (the US in general?) exhibited this characteristic of homelessness more markedly than in London (where I almost never see the sort of extremely obvious health issues that I saw in SF/LA every time I've been there)? Is it because of the US healthcare system, perhaps?
Incidentally, there is a good episode of the BBC's "The Inquiry" which asks about one route of dealing with this:
This really shocked me when I visited SF last year. We have issues with homelessness, drug abuse and lack of support in some of Scotland's bigger cities, but SF was on a whole other level.
We seen people throw themselves in front of cars then demand cash from the driver, destroy restrooms in fast food joints, and just sit the street talking incoherently to themselves. We were there for less than a week.
I wondered if perhaps while we've not been great at reducing homelessness here, we have better support for those with acute mental illness.
I know every large city has its problems, and I absolutely loved visiting SF (I'd go back in a heartbeat), but seeing this just made me sad.
In regards to the "crazies" aspect: I've spent a few months in SF (near Haight St), and 5 years in London.
The thing that shocked me most about SF was the shear number of mentally ill homeless people on the street. London has homeless people, but they're generally coherent enough to carry on a conversation. In SF it seemed that almost 100% of the homeless were "bat shit crazy" - I pondered at the time if the NHS's mental health care was the difference, and thanked good fortune to have lived my life within countries with social care.
70% of San Francisco’s homeless population self reports as struggling with drug abuse or mental illness in the Point in Time count. It’s not a conflation; it’s reality. That’s also why the tent camps cost $5k a month to staff security, medical workers, etc.
Every time the topic comes up, people from across the country start commenting on SF's homelessness woes. I live in SF, and consider our homeless situation unique. There are lots of mentally ill people, who have been hanging around for many years, thanks to good weather and generous people (and the easy availability of some drugs). Most of these people are NOT your typical "lost my job, lost my apartment, and hence am homeless" types. Many of them are so mentally ill that putting them in a mental institution is the only option. They simply cannot take care of themselves.
I’ve been to SF once for 3 days, and I have never seen so many frankly mentally ill people wandering the streets. This always seems to be downplayed as a factor in the homelessness problem. Difficult to be a part of any solution when you have untreated chronic schizophrenia.
I suspect also many of the homeless in San Francisco, especially the ones being complained about here, have pretty bad mental health problems going on treated. Government probably needs to step in and help on that front as well.
Is there evidence that 100% of SF's homeless have mental issues?
Are you aware that mentally ill and drug-addicted people are often able to hold down jobs and afford rent? But that only works when rent is reasonable.
There is actually a severe shortage of shelter beds in San Francisco.
You are right that mental health is a consideration, but the bigger problem is both simpler and easier to fix: the number of shelter beds (and other forms of supportive housing - including long-term housing) has decreased since 2004 and is woefully inadequate for the number of current homeless.
I think this is true, but it can't explain most of the difference by itself as most of the major wealthy cities I have been to do not have anywhere near the scale of homelessness and mental health issues as San Francisco. (I say this as someone who has lived in the UK, France, and San Francisco (albeit briefly).
I really think the local people (I don't mean you here) have a kind of blindness to the problem in San Fran, perhaps because after a while you start forgetting how abnormal it is. There is so much wealth in the city but clearly not enough people commited to acting.
From what I have read, what's happening in SF is reflective of what's happening right across US. Encampments of drug addicted homeless people with authorities at a loss of what to do. From what I understand, this isn't just a SF problem but a nationwide epidemic of drug dependency. But as a non SF resident, of course defer to local knowledge
You are right, there are homeless in London of course, as I said in my original comment. I had the impression it was a lot worse in SF. I don't know what the stats are on SF v London but I would be interested. And of course, I think it is a disgrace we have homeless in the UK too
I have to say it is rather jarring to see homeless people in SF living in tents and cardboard boxes on streets lined with skyscrapers and around pristine parks and plazas.
So while the city does have a ritzy tech feel in the right parts, it is disconcerting to know that amidst so much concentrated wealth there are a lot more homeless people than you would expect. Really, a lot.
Unfortunately it's not as if these are all down-on-their-luck folks in between attempts at The American Dream. A lot of homeless people - in SF and in general - have mental illnesses and addiction problems and they do need help.
Key point in my mind when it comes to talking about these tent cities, is that most of SF's homeless -- over 70% -- were living in San Francisco at the time they became homeless. And as much as 50% of the homeless had lived in SF for ten years or more.
The people sleeping on the sidewalk are San Franciscans who have been priced out of housing. San Francisco is their home. These people aren't going anywhere just because you take away their tents.
Yes this is true of any mental health issue in any population, we can only rely on self-reporting. If you have any sources that show "almost all" homeless people in SF are mentally ill, I'd be interested to read them.
From what I've read, at the national level the incidence of serious mental illness in the homeless population are around 20 - 25%. So the numbers for San Francisco seem reasonable.
Nobody will tell you that London has an acid attack problem. I've lived here for years and heard about it maybe once on the news. Everyone will tell you SF has an issue with homelessness/mental health, and they've seen it with their own eyes.
reply