London Breed: No more excuses, no more apologies. SF won’t tolerate encampments any longer
London Breed: No more excuses, no more apologies. SF won’t tolerate encampments any longer
Defending her “aggressive” crackdown on encampments, the mayor argues that homeless people have only one choice left: accept help or get out.
Defending her “aggressive” crackdown on encampments, the mayor argues that homeless people have only one choice left: accept help or get out.
Any locals care to chime in on this? I am skeptical for a few reasons. It’s always been legal to enforce the law regarding open fires, littering, drug use, etc. And it’s always been allowed to enforce anti-camping ordinances when shelter is available. My understanding is that this ruling only changes the situation when no shelter is available. It’s not about enforcing the rules, it’s about sweeping the problem into someone else’s neighborhood when you aren’t providing a real solution. Those neighborhoods will of course be the ones with the least political capital—the poor, racialized, etc.
Breed claims this is about people who refuse to accept help. But is this true? What help are they providing and why was it not sufficient prior to the SC ruling? I don’t live in SF so I’d love if someone more informed can either confirm or deny my suspicions here.
Breed claims this is about people who refuse to accept help. But is this true?
Yes. For example, I worked at a housing site that SF acquired during COVID for the purpose of getting people off the streets so that they could "shelter at home". This was actual housing, too, not merely a shelter bed.
The refusal rate was over 70%, most of which were no-shows. So they added incentives like free Uber rides to the building, Safeway gift cards just for showing up, etc. Still, the overwhelming majority of people who were referred to us by the city never showed up.