Does San Francisco really have a “poop” problem or is it Conservative propaganda?

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
1

This has been a popular conservative talking point over the past few months:

San Francisco, traditionally a very liberal city that spawned right wing hated Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom, is so over run with homeless drug addicts that it’s streets are covered in human feces.

Furthermore, this narrative says the city now has to employ full time “Poop Patrols” to clean up the mess. Is it really that bad? My red flags are thus:

  1. Every city has a homeless problem and I’m sure issues with them using the streets as a bathroom. Are there any stats proving San Francisco is the worst?

  2. “Poop patrols” sound like city cleanup workers to me. I also imagine every city has them.

  3. San Francisco is full of conservative bugaboos such as a huge LBGTQ community, hippies, artistic types and other “un-American ne’er do-wells” making it the poster child for everything they stand against. So of course homelessness is yet another example, to them, of Democrat policies ruining a city.

What’s the Dope? Is San Francisco a shit hole? Or are conservatives full of shit?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

2

Should I step into this thread? :wink:

Ace gingerly places one foot down and then another.
Seriously, cholera was spread in the Middle Ages by poor public sanitation. Contaminated water is something everyone needs to be very worried about. Especially with an at risk homeless population that doesn’t get enough nutrition and may be drug or alcohol abusers.

https://wmmr.com/2019/04/17/someone-made-an-interactive-san-francisco-poop-map/

3

I live in LA, which also has a huge homelessness problem. I’m about to go to dinner at a restaurant about a mile away; I’ll be walking, and based on experience I predict I will smell urine in at least 3 different places but not encounter any feces. I smell a lot less pee whenever I visit SF, and still no turds. Not saying it can’t possibly be a real issue, just not something I really see walking around.

I would be very much in favor of building more shelters, affordable housing, bathrooms, rehab centers, and mental health facilities, and would be happy to pay more in taxes to make it happen. I do care about the human beings who are suffering, though improving the smell alone would be worth a lot.

4

I don’t understand how San Francisco can be considered a “liberal city” when it has homeless people so bad off that they are pooping in the street.

5

A few years ago, feces from homeless people caused a massive problem in a Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) escalator. So yes, San Francisco does have a problem.

6

If it’s any consolation, there are people in LA who drive to their million dollar houses and then pretend to care about the downtrodden.

7

San Francisco installed very nice port a potties with sinks for the homeless several years ago.

Another news article
CBS Bay Area - Breaking Local News, First Alert Weather & Sports

8

Who exactly considers it a liberal city? The 1960s are long over, and the US has never been a social democracy. People in San Francisco may as well be living in Hong Kong or Zürich for what they are paying.

9

It’s been a couple of years since I walked around San Francisco, but back then there seemed to be quite a few transients in various states of composure all along the Market St. corridor and tourist areas like The Embarcadero. I haven’t seen poop on the ground myself but I have no doubt that it happens in SF all the time.

10

LA area news shows all feature spotlights on the homeless problem within LA city limits. Aside from the public health issue, Mayor Garcetti is being called on the (hopefully clean) carpet. One of his campaign promises was to “handle” the homeless problem. And he’s done very, very little.

It’s my understanding a supposed typhoid problem is present, with police and sanitation workers upset about exposure. Typhoid is spread by fecal contamination.

A recent census showed an increase in the homeless population in just one year. And a feature on tonight’s news revealed half the residents of an apartment building were facing eviction because the could not afford the sizeable rent increase. Most of the residents are on fixed income.

I think the problem is widespread.
~VOW

11

I live in San Francisco, and I will say it depends on where you look. There are areas where drug addicts concentrate, and there are areas where homeless congregate (not always the same people) and at present those are still fairly small parts of the city. Some of those areas are, however, very visible, including the Market Street corridor and the Civic Center areas. Where I used to work (5th and Mission), we would see trucks washing down the sidewalks with disinfectant, 2 or 3 times a week (they may still be doing it, but I don’t work there any more). It’s also true that the police do crack down on aggressive panhandling if they see it or if there are complaints.

One reason SF is considered liberal is its fairly progressive homeless policies. SF has a large city department whose only focus is the homeless. In addition, the police department and health department are doing more all the time to deal with drug addiction and mental illness (both common among the homeless) as illnesses rather than crimes, with crisis response teams being trained to find solutions that don’t involve guns and bullets. While progress is being made, however, the problem does seem intractable.

One misconception is that homeless from outside SF come here because of the perceived generosity of its programs. In fact, the homeless authorities take fairly stringent steps to make sure the substantive help goes to locals, and newcomers are encouraged to go back to where they came from.

To answer the OP, I frankly don’t think SF is any worse off than any other major city, especially one in a mild climate (another appeal to those who live outdoors). The conservative propaganda, as you noted, is largely in the words they use, and in their selective focus on SF problems. I spent a couple of nights a few years ago in downtown Houston, which was a real shithole.

12

ummm…what am I not understanding here?

People in SFrisco never shit on Saturdays, Sundays or Monday?
And the rest of the week, they only do it between 2 and 9 p.m?

Sure, this solution is better than nothing…but why the limited time frame?

13

I just saw Hamilton at the Orpheum which is near Civic Center BART. Upon exiting, one of the kids said, “why does it smell like pee?”.

I told them that’s what SF is like. Homeless pee and crap everywhere. Civic center BART escalator has been closed multiple times in recent memory due to being filled with crap. Litterally.

This isn’t a city wide problem for sure, but it’s not fake. There’s a shot ton of homeless in SF. They have to crap somewhere.

14

It is a multi-pronged issue. Cities are generally desirable places to live for most social animal types, like humans. There is the ever popular nightlife thing, a variety of interesting other activities, lots of jobs, and funky little stores that specialize is just about anything you can think of. Cities, by nature, strive to make themselves attractive to people.

One effect of this is a general tendency toward gentrification. This here one neighborhood used to be so cool, then its coolness became noticed by those looking for economic opportunities, now it is all filled with shiny, expensive condos and upscale businesses, and all the hipsters who made it a cool place have moved on to the next neighborhood over, to repeat the cycle.

Gradually, the city grows increasingly inaccessible to the very people who made it interesting, becoming a wasteland of polished gentry, with a few “undesirables” living on the fringes, and the new residents no longer have a clue about what really makes a city livable. And those homeless people are attracted to the city for the same reasons as the gentry were: there is more opportunity there.

Some cities have discovered that the most cost-effective way to deal with the homeless is to give them digs no-questions-asked. It gets them off the streets, reduces general crime and misery, and provides a leg up on their way to becoming stable, contributing members of society.

Of course, doing this runs up against the gentrification tide. “Wait, I am paying $1200 a month for this little studio while that guy over there gets a decent room gratis? What the fuck?” It ends up being a conundrum that is hard to resolve: the paying residents can step over sleeping bums and clean the human shit and piss off their shoes, or they can resent subsidizing the otherwise-homeless. It is a no-win situation — or they can move to a pleasant small town or a crackerbox palace in the suburbs.

Of course, the non-liberal cities have the formula down: just have the police beat up and/or jail the homeless until they get fed up and move on to a city that does not shit or their heads. One way or the other, someone ends sys dropping tends in unsanctioned places.

15

Every now and then, I count my tiny blessings, few and far between they be, but am always thankful for being regular as a Goddamn Swiss clock.

16

I don’t see much poop there but I see tons of urine and questionable chunky stains. In short, certain parts are considerably more filthy that you’d expect from a city of its wealth. It’s not specifically a result of “liberalism,” but people are more willing to tolerate it.

And while some cities have an obvious demarcation between nice and terrible neighborhoods, they’re all mixed up in SF. The above mentioned Civic Center is where city hall is and it’s an awful neighborhood.

I can’t remember, are the BART bathrooms open now? They closed after 9-11, and were locked “for security” more than a decade later.

17

One question I have - how much of this can you really say is homelessness, and how much is drunk people? My impression is that there are a lot of bars in SF, and drunk people are as likely as the homeless to do socially unacceptable things like peeing or crapping in a public area.

18

Maybe urinating in an alley but I don’t think most drunks that can afford to drink in a bar, are generally shitting in the street. YMMV

19

Not to derail the thread, but why would the BART escalators be a favorite, uh, dumping ground?

20

They are relatively quiet at regular intervals, when the commuter traffic patterns are down. Most of the staircases consist of one floor up, a landing, then a second floor in the opposite direction, giving an obstructed view from top to bottom, allowing the privacy. And again, during non-work-travel times, they are empty.