INSANITY Spiraling in San Francisco’s Doom Loop What it’s like to live in a city that no longer believes its problems can be fixed.

Melodi

Disaster Cat
I had to take a break and do some baking in the middle of this well-written article. I did sniffle a bit, but I managed to keep reading. And before you start posting violins and sarcastic remarks about "liberals" or whatever. I have now visited several European cities: Naples, London, Stockholm, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, the royal mile in Scotland, and the glass towers of Glasgow.
I understand why San Francisco used to be called "The Jewel of the West Coast" and the "Most European of American cities," though I'd say the French Quarter in New Orleans also is in the running for that title. Today, It is almost Robert A. Heinlein's "No Go" zone from The Crazy Years downtown. If things don't turn around, it may get there; if things get terrible, this could be coming to the Smaller Cities, Towns, Shadows, and Forests near you.

Spiraling in San Francisco’s Doom Loop What it’s like to live in a city that no longer believes its problems can be fixed.
By Elizabeth Weil, a features writer at New York
32a19a6ae29bf4d6e37d0a60cf01fd110a-GettyImages-1239988617.rhorizontal.w1100.jpg

Photo: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg/Getty Images
In the spring of 2019, Marc Benioff surveyed his kingdom and it looked good. He stood on the top floor of the Salesforce Tower, the tallest building in San Francisco, named after his company, then the largest employer in San Francisco. You could see every part of the city and out across the bay. The UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital and the Benioff Children’s Hospital in Oakland (to which Benioff had donated $250 million). The site of a 200-bed Navigation Center for the homeless (which Benioff had defended in the face of other rich — but less rich — San Franciscans who tried to fight it off). The city looked sun-kissed and thriving from this view: the elegant Golden Gate Bridge, Twin Peaks, the surreal green of the Marin Headlands.

“It’s cool up here, right?” said Benioff. “And the vibe. Are you getting the vibe, too? There’s, like, a vibe.”

There was indeed a vibe.

That Friday afternoon, like every Friday afternoon in those days, Salesforce employees and their families promenaded on the top, or ohana, floor of the building — ohana means “extended family” in Hawaiian; appropriating Hawaiian culture was still considered corporate okay — drinking the free espresso drinks, marveling at the tremendous view.

Benioff’s PR team brought him water and Diet Coke and made sure the big man’s chair was not in the sun. “You can see that helicopter is about to land with a child going to the NICU?” he said, pointing south toward the UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital. “Can you see it? It’s just about to land on top of the medical center … There’s only one helicopter landing pad in the entire city, and it’s on the top of the Children’s Hospital for kids who have to get to the NICU, which is the neonatal-intensive-care unit … So that’s what just happened.”

But that was a lifetime ago, before the pandemic, when we were still debating if you could have good billionaires. Since that time, Salesforce has laid off 9,000 employees and ditched nearly a million feet of office space. Meta has laid off 21,000 employees and ditched 435,000 feet of office space in San Francisco. Now, late one morning this dark spring, next to the Salesforce Tower, the Salesforce Transit Center — designed by César Pelli’s firm and opened in August 2018 to serve as the city’s main bus hub —was empty, as in truly vacant, save for a security guard in black Dickies and a yellow-and-black jacket walking in circles on the poppy-tiled floor.

Aweek earlier, the San Francisco Chronicle ran an article: “Cities Are Struggling. San Francisco Could Be in the Biggest ‘Doom Loop’ of All.” The phrase “doom loop” was recently repopularized by Arpit Gupta, a finance professor at NYU, in a paper he wrote last year with two Columbia B-school professors called “Work From Home and the Office Real Estate Apocalypse,” about the consequences for American downtowns of workers remaining remote.

The doom-loopy vision laid out for downtown SF was not pretty: Workers don’t return, offices remain empty, restaurants shutter, transit agencies go bankrupt, tax bases plummet, public services disappear. According to research from the University of Toronto, cell-phone activity in downtown SF is 32 percent of pre-pandemic levels. That number is 75 percent in New York.

To live in San Francisco right now, to watch its streets, is to realize that no one will catch you if you fall.
The night the Chronicle published its doom-loop article, Manny’s, an event space in the Mission, hosted a public discussion on what to do about the death spiral. The panelists tried to sound optimistic. “We just need to fix San Francisco’s dysfunctional permitting system!” “We can find an affordable way to turn some of the office space into housing.” “We should fund artists to repopulate downtown!”

Five days later, Cash App founder Bob Lee was killed. Immediately people invested in the doom-loop narrative started mouthing off. “You know, where he was killed used to be a good part of San Francisco,” Lee’s friend Jake Shields told me, as he told anybody who would listen in those first few days. Shields, an MMA fighter, had moved to Las Vegas. Lee had moved to Miami. Everyone with brains had left. Never mind the fact that violent crime rates in San Francisco were pretty low, lower than in most American cities of comparable size, lower than in San Francisco in years past. SF was a cesspool! — that was the doomers’ argument. City leaders, along with the rest of the populus, were “too compassionate, like so compassionate that they do not care.”

The result, according to Shields, was not just an office apocalypse. It was unmitigated, spiraling, homicidal doom. “You can do whatever you want. You can shit in the streets,” Shields said. “The logical next step is to start killing people.”

Awoman with smart eyes and a dirty sweatshirt, 50-ish, drunk, approached me near the corner of Market and 4th Streets. We shared the sidewalk with Urban Alchemy crews made of formerly incarcerated people now dedicated to bringing peace and compassion to the streets, stunned tourists, official San Francisco Welcome Ambassadors in their orange jackets, and young Evangelists with microphones and a taste for filibustering — “We can die tonight, and if we die in our sin, and if you die in your sin …”

“You seem like an intelligent woman,” the drunk woman with smart eyes said.

I said, “You too.”

Our whole conversation was a series of understatements.

“How does it feel to live in San Francisco?”

“You have to deal with people, and people have their own personalities.”

“What’s difficult about life in this city?”

“There’s a lot of temptation. You have to deal with yourself.”

“How did you end up here?”

“My mother died — she had a stroke. And my father, he had a temper. He said, ‘Yeah, I don’t like you.’”

On Market, near 6th, a security guard stood in front of Blick art supply. He’d just ejected a man who had been smoking fentanyl inside the store, a man his bosses suggested he should refer to as “an unhoused guest.”

The guard, who described himself to me as “a cis white male who stands six feet tall,” had previously worked security one block east at the Anthropologie. But that, he said, was just for show. He wasn’t even supposed to try to stop shoplifters who, at other stores on Market Street, filled up bags, or sometimes even suitcases, with food they needed to feed themselves or their families or merchandise to sell on the black market on Mission Street. But here, the guard told me, his co-workers’ pay depended on sales. His job was to make it tolerable for customers to shop.

Elsewhere in San Francisco, wisteria was blooming, crazy fragrant blooms, like lilac on MDMA. At Ocean Beach, runners stopped to marvel at an osprey hovering over the surfers. In Hayes Valley, recently rebranded Cerebral Valley, 20-somethings filled the AI hacker houses, eager to have the classic SF experience: getting rich while thinking they were saving the world. But none of that beauty, none of that wealth, was the guard’s reality. This stretch of Market Street was this three-block zone, four lanes wide, where he stood, alone, from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m., five days a week. The job was taking a toll.

A note to my fellow San Franciscians: I’m sorry. I know. There’s always some story in the east-coast press about how our city is dying. San Franciscians hate—HATE—these pieces. You’re a stooge and a traitor for writing one. When I set out reporting, I wanted to write a debunking-the-doom piece myself. Yet to live in San Francisco right now, to watch its streets, is to realize that no one will catch you if you fall. In the first three months of 2023, 200 San Franciscans OD’ed, up 41 percent from last year.“It’s like a wasteland,” the guard said when I asked how San Francisco looked to him. “It’s like the only way to describe it. It’s like a video game — like made-up shit. Have you ever played Fallout?”

I shook my head.

“There’s this thing in the game called feral ghouls, and they’re like rotted. They’re like zombies.” There’s only so much pain a person can take before you disintegrate, grow paranoid, or turn numb. “I go home and play with my wife, and we’re like, ‘Ah, hahahaha, this is SF.’”

The next day, I drove over to talk to Michael Lezak, a rabbi who works at Glide, a church and social-justice organization in the heart of the Tenderloin, a block from the Nextdoor office.

When I arrived, Glide was running a harm-reduction clinic in front of the sanctuary, connecting people to same-day Suboxone prescriptions. Lezak said, as rabbis often do, “I’m going to tell you a story.” Before Glide, he led a congregation in wealthy suburban Marin. Then he started here. “I open the door of my Sienna minivan. I’m 48 at the time. I see human feces all over. I see people face down on the pavement. My rabbi self does not know if that dude is alive or dead, right?”

After three weeks, he walked into the executive director’s office. “And I’m like, ‘Rita, I have to quit, man. I’m out. Why are my tax dollars not paying for that guy to get help?’ And she’s like, ‘Yeah, I know. Sometimes I gotta take a walk. Sometimes I gotta get a drink. Sometimes I gotta leave the Tenderloin.’” Often we mistake our own discomfort for threat. “Then she flipped it on me. She’s like, ‘How do you know you’re not looking at the face of God?’”

The city often seemed to operate like an incompetent parent, confusing compassion and permissiveness.
On Sunday, Easter, April 9, the city seemed to get ahold of itself. The biblical rains that had flooded San Francisco this winter finally ended. It was the first gorgeous day of spring.

Thousands of people gathered in Dolores Park, where the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence put on their annual Hunky Jesus and Foxy Mary contests. The Sisters, a blessedly campy order of activists, first sprang to life in 1979. Its mission: to use drag plus religious tropes to satirize fake notions of morality and brotherly love. One of the 50-plus Hunky Jesus contestants happened to be a guy who worked out at my gym. I’d see him pressing up from seated splits into handstands while the rest of us grimaced through plank. Now here he was, carrying a large wooden cross up a wide green lawn and pole dancing on it. “This is Ron DeSantis’s worst nightmare,” State Senator Scott Wiener said to the assembled. This was the most exuberant thing I’d seen in the city in three years. San Francisco when it still believed in itself. San Francisco before it marinated, then soured, in performative politics and neoliberal greed. Everyone here, hooting at the hunky Jesus, felt lucky.

Nine days after Bob Lee’s death, the police arrested Nima Momeni, a 38-year-old tech consultant. The two men knew each other. The charging document alleged that Lee died in a drama involving Momeni’s sister, who “was married but the relationship had possibly been in jeopardy.” Honor, family, infidelity: the oldest story in the world.

The autopsy made a farce of the San Francisco-is-dangerous-because-of-poor-people-and-their-street-drugs narrative. Lee died with a pharmacopeia in his system: cocaine, ketamine, alcohol.

The city continued looping. The Whole Foods on Mid-Market closed a year after it had opened. People kept threatening employees, melting down in aisles, OD’ing in the bathroom. What could you do?

On April 19, Governor Gavin Newsom took a “surprise” walk around the Tenderloin. “Hey, Gavin, tell me what you’re going to do about the fentanyl epidemic!” a man from the neighborhood shouted. “I want to know what you’re going to do about the fentanyl epidemic.”

Newsom kept walking and said, “You tell me what we need to do.”

Two days later, he called in the National Guard.

Almost certainly it was a political stunt. But did it even matter? Something needed to change. A poll from the controller’s office found that San Franciscans felt less safe in the city than we had in 27 years. And of course we did. Everywhere you looked, you saw it billboarded: The social contract had ruptured, and we’d ceased to believe we could fix it. The city often seemed to operate like an incompetent parent, confusing compassion and permissiveness, unable to maintain boundaries, producing the exact opposite result of what it claimed to want.

“We just need to make people go back to those offices,” a silver-haired man at a cocktail party in Pacific Heights told me, as if those with power could make it 2019 again. That man, like every adult there, had a high-school student in formal attire in the garden on their way to prom. All those kids’ lives were turning as they were meant to turn: up and away. What were the rest of us doing here?

I sat downtown and talked to Simon Bertrang, executive director of SF New Deal, about his idea for Vacant to Vibrant, a new program in partnership with the mayor’s office. His group was giving grants for people to pop up bookstores and art galleries and dance clubs and restaurants downtown, and they’d be clustered “to create a boom loop,” Bertrang joked, knowing the pun was cheesy. Permanent renewal was a long way off. Nobody wanted to sign a long-term lease. But the idea of the bookstore and the pop-up restaurant and people enjoying something novel in the city I loved and ached for filled me with relief. It filled everyone with relief. Urban planners know that relief is a mirage. There’s a 30 percent vacancy rate now. That number is going to go up — up a lot. We’re going to need major work, maybe even on the scale of the commission that revitalized downtown Manhattan after 9/11. We need museums, a university, people, community. We need a shared project. We don’t have that now.

Meanwhile, the Blick security guard kept texting me videos. He needed someone to see what he was seeing out there, on his patch of Market Street, between Fifth and Sixth. Did I know how the black markets worked? Had I walked down Market Street at night? Did I know that some of the street addicts were rotting, literally: their decomposing flesh attracting flies. The Anthropologie, where he used to work, announced it would close. “What it really feels like living in San Francisco is that you’re lying to yourself,” he said. “Oh, I live in San Francisco. It’s so nice. When you walk by the junkies you’re like, They don’t exist. they don’t exist. You’re lying to yourself.”

A week later, a security guard, working at a Walgreens a block from Blick, shot and killed a 24-year-old. He would tell Jonah Owen Lamb at the San Francisco Standard, “It’s a lot to deal with. It’s a lot of pressure. A person can only take so much … When you are limited to certain options, something will happen … Who has my back? Nobody?”

I thought back to Benioff, before the pandemic, when we believed tech could save us. In addition to sitting with him in his tower, I sat with him in his house — or, I should say, one of the five houses he owns in Sea Cliff, the fanciest neighborhood in San Francisco. We did not meet in the house where he actually lived. He’d taken the past three months off. He’d invited 500 executives and their families to Hawaii, as he does every summer. He was getting ready to announce that Salesforce again, that year, was giving $8.5 million to San Francisco Unified School District and $8.7 million to Oakland Unified School District, bringing the total he’d given to the schools in the past six years to $67.4 million. At that point, Salesforce had donated more than a quarter of a billion dollars since Benioff co-founded it. It was a lot of largesse. And yet life in San Francisco was still not going well. Despite all his giving, it was not enough. It would never be enough.

People emailed Benioff, trying to get him to help — dozens and dozens a day. “It’s a constant stream,” he told me. Citizens stopped him at the zoo. Citizens accosted him in elevators. People had started asking Benioff if he was going to run for mayor. He found the naïveté of the idea funny. “I’m like, Why would I ever do such a thing?” he said. “I have far more power doing what I’m doing.”

Now, it was clear tech wouldn’t save us. Tech wouldn’t even stay in town. I rode the bus around the city, scribbling in my notebook: face of god, face of GOD, trying to keep myself open to the world as it fell apart. Less than a mile from my house, a woman got on the 24, screaming, “FUUUUUCK you.” Fifteen seconds later, “FUUUUUUCK you,” again. Everybody sitting near her moved away. Eventually an older guy boarded — mid-60s, watch cap, maybe Jewish, maybe Irish. He opened a beer in a brown paper bag. She screamed, “FUUUUUUUCK you!” He nodded in solidarity.

“All day, every day,” he said, raising his beer to toast.

A small gesture of common humanity. She stopped screaming.
 

OldArcher

Has No Life - Lives on TB
I had to take a break and do some baking in the middle of this well-written article. I did sniffle a bit, but I managed to keep reading. And before you start posting violins and sarcastic remarks about "liberals" or whatever. I have now visited several European cities: Naples, London, Stockholm, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, the royal mile in Scotland, and the glass towers of Glasgow.
I understand why San Francisco used to be called "The Jewel of the West Coast" and the "Most European of American cities," though I'd say the French Quarter in New Orleans also is in the running for that title. Today, It is almost Robert A. Heinlein's "No Go" zone from The Crazy Years downtown. If things don't turn around, it may get there; if things get terrible, this could be coming to the Smaller Cities, Towns, Shadows, and Forests near you.

Spiraling in San Francisco’s Doom Loop What it’s like to live in a city that no longer believes its problems can be fixed.
By Elizabeth Weil, a features writer at New York
32a19a6ae29bf4d6e37d0a60cf01fd110a-GettyImages-1239988617.rhorizontal.w1100.jpg

Photo: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg/Getty Images
In the spring of 2019, Marc Benioff surveyed his kingdom and it looked good. He stood on the top floor of the Salesforce Tower, the tallest building in San Francisco, named after his company, then the largest employer in San Francisco. You could see every part of the city and out across the bay. The UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital and the Benioff Children’s Hospital in Oakland (to which Benioff had donated $250 million). The site of a 200-bed Navigation Center for the homeless (which Benioff had defended in the face of other rich — but less rich — San Franciscans who tried to fight it off). The city looked sun-kissed and thriving from this view: the elegant Golden Gate Bridge, Twin Peaks, the surreal green of the Marin Headlands.

“It’s cool up here, right?” said Benioff. “And the vibe. Are you getting the vibe, too? There’s, like, a vibe.”

There was indeed a vibe.

That Friday afternoon, like every Friday afternoon in those days, Salesforce employees and their families promenaded on the top, or ohana, floor of the building — ohana means “extended family” in Hawaiian; appropriating Hawaiian culture was still considered corporate okay — drinking the free espresso drinks, marveling at the tremendous view.

Benioff’s PR team brought him water and Diet Coke and made sure the big man’s chair was not in the sun. “You can see that helicopter is about to land with a child going to the NICU?” he said, pointing south toward the UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital. “Can you see it? It’s just about to land on top of the medical center … There’s only one helicopter landing pad in the entire city, and it’s on the top of the Children’s Hospital for kids who have to get to the NICU, which is the neonatal-intensive-care unit … So that’s what just happened.”

But that was a lifetime ago, before the pandemic, when we were still debating if you could have good billionaires. Since that time, Salesforce has laid off 9,000 employees and ditched nearly a million feet of office space. Meta has laid off 21,000 employees and ditched 435,000 feet of office space in San Francisco. Now, late one morning this dark spring, next to the Salesforce Tower, the Salesforce Transit Center — designed by César Pelli’s firm and opened in August 2018 to serve as the city’s main bus hub —was empty, as in truly vacant, save for a security guard in black Dickies and a yellow-and-black jacket walking in circles on the poppy-tiled floor.

Aweek earlier, the San Francisco Chronicle ran an article: “Cities Are Struggling. San Francisco Could Be in the Biggest ‘Doom Loop’ of All.” The phrase “doom loop” was recently repopularized by Arpit Gupta, a finance professor at NYU, in a paper he wrote last year with two Columbia B-school professors called “Work From Home and the Office Real Estate Apocalypse,” about the consequences for American downtowns of workers remaining remote.

The doom-loopy vision laid out for downtown SF was not pretty: Workers don’t return, offices remain empty, restaurants shutter, transit agencies go bankrupt, tax bases plummet, public services disappear. According to research from the University of Toronto, cell-phone activity in downtown SF is 32 percent of pre-pandemic levels. That number is 75 percent in New York.

To live in San Francisco right now, to watch its streets, is to realize that no one will catch you if you fall.
The night the Chronicle published its doom-loop article, Manny’s, an event space in the Mission, hosted a public discussion on what to do about the death spiral. The panelists tried to sound optimistic. “We just need to fix San Francisco’s dysfunctional permitting system!” “We can find an affordable way to turn some of the office space into housing.” “We should fund artists to repopulate downtown!”

Five days later, Cash App founder Bob Lee was killed. Immediately people invested in the doom-loop narrative started mouthing off. “You know, where he was killed used to be a good part of San Francisco,” Lee’s friend Jake Shields told me, as he told anybody who would listen in those first few days. Shields, an MMA fighter, had moved to Las Vegas. Lee had moved to Miami. Everyone with brains had left. Never mind the fact that violent crime rates in San Francisco were pretty low, lower than in most American cities of comparable size, lower than in San Francisco in years past. SF was a cesspool! — that was the doomers’ argument. City leaders, along with the rest of the populus, were “too compassionate, like so compassionate that they do not care.”

The result, according to Shields, was not just an office apocalypse. It was unmitigated, spiraling, homicidal doom. “You can do whatever you want. You can shit in the streets,” Shields said. “The logical next step is to start killing people.”

Awoman with smart eyes and a dirty sweatshirt, 50-ish, drunk, approached me near the corner of Market and 4th Streets. We shared the sidewalk with Urban Alchemy crews made of formerly incarcerated people now dedicated to bringing peace and compassion to the streets, stunned tourists, official San Francisco Welcome Ambassadors in their orange jackets, and young Evangelists with microphones and a taste for filibustering — “We can die tonight, and if we die in our sin, and if you die in your sin …”

“You seem like an intelligent woman,” the drunk woman with smart eyes said.

I said, “You too.”

Our whole conversation was a series of understatements.

“How does it feel to live in San Francisco?”

“You have to deal with people, and people have their own personalities.”

“What’s difficult about life in this city?”

“There’s a lot of temptation. You have to deal with yourself.”

“How did you end up here?”

“My mother died — she had a stroke. And my father, he had a temper. He said, ‘Yeah, I don’t like you.’”

On Market, near 6th, a security guard stood in front of Blick art supply. He’d just ejected a man who had been smoking fentanyl inside the store, a man his bosses suggested he should refer to as “an unhoused guest.”

The guard, who described himself to me as “a cis white male who stands six feet tall,” had previously worked security one block east at the Anthropologie. But that, he said, was just for show. He wasn’t even supposed to try to stop shoplifters who, at other stores on Market Street, filled up bags, or sometimes even suitcases, with food they needed to feed themselves or their families or merchandise to sell on the black market on Mission Street. But here, the guard told me, his co-workers’ pay depended on sales. His job was to make it tolerable for customers to shop.

Elsewhere in San Francisco, wisteria was blooming, crazy fragrant blooms, like lilac on MDMA. At Ocean Beach, runners stopped to marvel at an osprey hovering over the surfers. In Hayes Valley, recently rebranded Cerebral Valley, 20-somethings filled the AI hacker houses, eager to have the classic SF experience: getting rich while thinking they were saving the world. But none of that beauty, none of that wealth, was the guard’s reality. This stretch of Market Street was this three-block zone, four lanes wide, where he stood, alone, from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m., five days a week. The job was taking a toll.

A note to my fellow San Franciscians: I’m sorry. I know. There’s always some story in the east-coast press about how our city is dying. San Franciscians hate—HATE—these pieces. You’re a stooge and a traitor for writing one. When I set out reporting, I wanted to write a debunking-the-doom piece myself. Yet to live in San Francisco right now, to watch its streets, is to realize that no one will catch you if you fall. In the first three months of 2023, 200 San Franciscans OD’ed, up 41 percent from last year.“It’s like a wasteland,” the guard said when I asked how San Francisco looked to him. “It’s like the only way to describe it. It’s like a video game — like made-up shit. Have you ever played Fallout?”

I shook my head.

“There’s this thing in the game called feral ghouls, and they’re like rotted. They’re like zombies.” There’s only so much pain a person can take before you disintegrate, grow paranoid, or turn numb. “I go home and play with my wife, and we’re like, ‘Ah, hahahaha, this is SF.’”

The next day, I drove over to talk to Michael Lezak, a rabbi who works at Glide, a church and social-justice organization in the heart of the Tenderloin, a block from the Nextdoor office.

When I arrived, Glide was running a harm-reduction clinic in front of the sanctuary, connecting people to same-day Suboxone prescriptions. Lezak said, as rabbis often do, “I’m going to tell you a story.” Before Glide, he led a congregation in wealthy suburban Marin. Then he started here. “I open the door of my Sienna minivan. I’m 48 at the time. I see human feces all over. I see people face down on the pavement. My rabbi self does not know if that dude is alive or dead, right?”

After three weeks, he walked into the executive director’s office. “And I’m like, ‘Rita, I have to quit, man. I’m out. Why are my tax dollars not paying for that guy to get help?’ And she’s like, ‘Yeah, I know. Sometimes I gotta take a walk. Sometimes I gotta get a drink. Sometimes I gotta leave the Tenderloin.’” Often we mistake our own discomfort for threat. “Then she flipped it on me. She’s like, ‘How do you know you’re not looking at the face of God?’”

The city often seemed to operate like an incompetent parent, confusing compassion and permissiveness.
On Sunday, Easter, April 9, the city seemed to get ahold of itself. The biblical rains that had flooded San Francisco this winter finally ended. It was the first gorgeous day of spring.

Thousands of people gathered in Dolores Park, where the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence put on their annual Hunky Jesus and Foxy Mary contests. The Sisters, a blessedly campy order of activists, first sprang to life in 1979. Its mission: to use drag plus religious tropes to satirize fake notions of morality and brotherly love. One of the 50-plus Hunky Jesus contestants happened to be a guy who worked out at my gym. I’d see him pressing up from seated splits into handstands while the rest of us grimaced through plank. Now here he was, carrying a large wooden cross up a wide green lawn and pole dancing on it. “This is Ron DeSantis’s worst nightmare,” State Senator Scott Wiener said to the assembled. This was the most exuberant thing I’d seen in the city in three years. San Francisco when it still believed in itself. San Francisco before it marinated, then soured, in performative politics and neoliberal greed. Everyone here, hooting at the hunky Jesus, felt lucky.

Nine days after Bob Lee’s death, the police arrested Nima Momeni, a 38-year-old tech consultant. The two men knew each other. The charging document alleged that Lee died in a drama involving Momeni’s sister, who “was married but the relationship had possibly been in jeopardy.” Honor, family, infidelity: the oldest story in the world.

The autopsy made a farce of the San Francisco-is-dangerous-because-of-poor-people-and-their-street-drugs narrative. Lee died with a pharmacopeia in his system: cocaine, ketamine, alcohol.

The city continued looping. The Whole Foods on Mid-Market closed a year after it had opened. People kept threatening employees, melting down in aisles, OD’ing in the bathroom. What could you do?

On April 19, Governor Gavin Newsom took a “surprise” walk around the Tenderloin. “Hey, Gavin, tell me what you’re going to do about the fentanyl epidemic!” a man from the neighborhood shouted. “I want to know what you’re going to do about the fentanyl epidemic.”

Newsom kept walking and said, “You tell me what we need to do.”

Two days later, he called in the National Guard.

Almost certainly it was a political stunt. But did it even matter? Something needed to change. A poll from the controller’s office found that San Franciscans felt less safe in the city than we had in 27 years. And of course we did. Everywhere you looked, you saw it billboarded: The social contract had ruptured, and we’d ceased to believe we could fix it. The city often seemed to operate like an incompetent parent, confusing compassion and permissiveness, unable to maintain boundaries, producing the exact opposite result of what it claimed to want.

“We just need to make people go back to those offices,” a silver-haired man at a cocktail party in Pacific Heights told me, as if those with power could make it 2019 again. That man, like every adult there, had a high-school student in formal attire in the garden on their way to prom. All those kids’ lives were turning as they were meant to turn: up and away. What were the rest of us doing here?

I sat downtown and talked to Simon Bertrang, executive director of SF New Deal, about his idea for Vacant to Vibrant, a new program in partnership with the mayor’s office. His group was giving grants for people to pop up bookstores and art galleries and dance clubs and restaurants downtown, and they’d be clustered “to create a boom loop,” Bertrang joked, knowing the pun was cheesy. Permanent renewal was a long way off. Nobody wanted to sign a long-term lease. But the idea of the bookstore and the pop-up restaurant and people enjoying something novel in the city I loved and ached for filled me with relief. It filled everyone with relief. Urban planners know that relief is a mirage. There’s a 30 percent vacancy rate now. That number is going to go up — up a lot. We’re going to need major work, maybe even on the scale of the commission that revitalized downtown Manhattan after 9/11. We need museums, a university, people, community. We need a shared project. We don’t have that now.

Meanwhile, the Blick security guard kept texting me videos. He needed someone to see what he was seeing out there, on his patch of Market Street, between Fifth and Sixth. Did I know how the black markets worked? Had I walked down Market Street at night? Did I know that some of the street addicts were rotting, literally: their decomposing flesh attracting flies. The Anthropologie, where he used to work, announced it would close. “What it really feels like living in San Francisco is that you’re lying to yourself,” he said. “Oh, I live in San Francisco. It’s so nice. When you walk by the junkies you’re like, They don’t exist. they don’t exist. You’re lying to yourself.”

A week later, a security guard, working at a Walgreens a block from Blick, shot and killed a 24-year-old. He would tell Jonah Owen Lamb at the San Francisco Standard, “It’s a lot to deal with. It’s a lot of pressure. A person can only take so much … When you are limited to certain options, something will happen … Who has my back? Nobody?”

I thought back to Benioff, before the pandemic, when we believed tech could save us. In addition to sitting with him in his tower, I sat with him in his house — or, I should say, one of the five houses he owns in Sea Cliff, the fanciest neighborhood in San Francisco. We did not meet in the house where he actually lived. He’d taken the past three months off. He’d invited 500 executives and their families to Hawaii, as he does every summer. He was getting ready to announce that Salesforce again, that year, was giving $8.5 million to San Francisco Unified School District and $8.7 million to Oakland Unified School District, bringing the total he’d given to the schools in the past six years to $67.4 million. At that point, Salesforce had donated more than a quarter of a billion dollars since Benioff co-founded it. It was a lot of largesse. And yet life in San Francisco was still not going well. Despite all his giving, it was not enough. It would never be enough.

People emailed Benioff, trying to get him to help — dozens and dozens a day. “It’s a constant stream,” he told me. Citizens stopped him at the zoo. Citizens accosted him in elevators. People had started asking Benioff if he was going to run for mayor. He found the naïveté of the idea funny. “I’m like, Why would I ever do such a thing?” he said. “I have far more power doing what I’m doing.”

Now, it was clear tech wouldn’t save us. Tech wouldn’t even stay in town. I rode the bus around the city, scribbling in my notebook: face of god, face of GOD, trying to keep myself open to the world as it fell apart. Less than a mile from my house, a woman got on the 24, screaming, “FUUUUUCK you.” Fifteen seconds later, “FUUUUUUCK you,” again. Everybody sitting near her moved away. Eventually an older guy boarded — mid-60s, watch cap, maybe Jewish, maybe Irish. He opened a beer in a brown paper bag. She screamed, “FUUUUUUUCK you!” He nodded in solidarity.

“All day, every day,” he said, raising his beer to toast.

A small gesture of common humanity. She stopped screaming.
Move. Get out of Sodom and Gomorrah- before you can’t.

OA
 

Melodi

Disaster Cat
Last visited San Francisco in 1985. Loved the city and the 3 days we spent their. Would not get within 50 miles of it today.
Liberals destroy "everything"!!!
While I think specific "liberal" policies helped make this happen as fast and terrible as it is. I should point out that things were very liberal when I lived there, and yet homelessness was a minor problem. I know I volunteered at the HIV/AIDs vigil, which was partly in a homeless camp, and even spent a night in there once; well twice if you counted when they took me after the 1989 Earthquake, and the guys at the vigil had known me for all of five minutes before it hit.

But even counting the "shadow" homeless of the time in Golden Gate Park and back alleyways, there were probably no more than three to five thousand real down and outers in the entire city of millions of people.

Another difference was that there were "flop house hotels" all over the area, I ended up spending the night in one once. Sure, there were needles in the hallway, and the bathrooms were down the hall, and you wanted a buddy with you. But they had showers, running water, a roof, and even a small social area. Many, if not most, of the "homeless" were on disability (usually for addiction or mental health issues as well as HIV, or Nam Vets on full or partial disability) LIVED PART OF THE TIME in the "Hotels." The cost of an entire month was always the same as the average social security disability check, so most people couldn't afford a whole month, especially if they wanted to buy booze or drugs. But some of them did, but socialized and blended into the homeless population who were their friends and fellow panhandlers. Also, it wasn't allowed to cook in these places (though people did), and food stamps did not cover fast food yet, about the only food to eat nearby.

That's enough but you get the idea. Liberal attitudes of "just throw money at it" or "treat everyone really nicely" can make things worse. So do "conservative" ones like bulldozing everything with no shelters or places for those people to go. That was tried even before I left and it simply scattered the homeless into every shop doorway and sidewalk for several miles. The merchants were furious! That isn't what they meant, they wanted these people gone! But they had no place to go...so they stayed.
 

Melodi

Disaster Cat
Move. Get out of Sodom and Gomorrah- before you can’t.

OA
Almost anyone who can, has done so, and the rest are on their way out. Especially businesses and taxpayers. If trends continue the city and the public schools will be declared bankrupt and taken over by the State, who won't be able to do much either because you can't force people to live there.

Some people and infrastructure will always be there as long as that harbor exists because it is one of the best natural harbors on Planet Earth. But for a time, it could be an armed port protected by private mercenary armies or by restoring the military bases Geoge Bush Sr. shut down in a rage over the massive antiwar protests that took place during the First Gulf War. Leaving one of the largest US ports undefended in case of another Pacific War, which is why the bases were first put there (during the American Civil War) in the first place.

That is if an 8.0 or higher Earthquake doesn't wreck the place and there are simply no funds to restore it. Again some of the docks and shipping will be repaired, but some of the rest of The City (what locals call it) might become Detroit. Miles of abandoned houses and collapsed buildings; sit there for a generation or three until the situation changes and the people return.
 

Squid

Veteran Member
I find it funny and sad that progressives who created this abortion of a city think creating catchy phrases will fix this city.

These leftists are morons, and the NEA is creating an army of entitled morons to help vote this disintigration across the entire country.

Being a democrat is morally bankrupt and requires a complete inability to accept responsibility or the awareness to even see what is happening around you.
 

blueinterceptor

Veteran Member
If only there was this thing where leadership could change if enough people thought like I do and made it known. Every two or four years, if enough of us got together, we could change the leadership…..mmmmm. They could call it voting….nawww that will never happen
 

Old Greek

Veteran Member
While I think specific "liberal" policies helped make this happen as fast and terrible as it is. I should point out that things were very liberal when I lived there, and yet homelessness was a minor problem. I know I volunteered at the HIV/AIDs vigil, which was partly in a homeless camp, and even spent a night in there once; well twice if you counted when they took me after the 1989 Earthquake, and the guys at the vigil had known me for all of five minutes before it hit.

But even counting the "shadow" homeless of the time in Golden Gate Park and back alleyways, there were probably no more than three to five thousand real down and outers in the entire city of millions of people.

Another difference was that there were "flop house hotels" all over the area, I ended up spending the night in one once. Sure, there were needles in the hallway, and the bathrooms were down the hall, and you wanted a buddy with you. But they had showers, running water, a roof, and even a small social area. Many, if not most, of the "homeless" were on disability (usually for addiction or mental health issues as well as HIV, or Nam Vets on full or partial disability) LIVED PART OF THE TIME in the "Hotels." The cost of an entire month was always the same as the average social security disability check, so most people couldn't afford a whole month, especially if they wanted to buy booze or drugs. But some of them did, but socialized and blended into the homeless population who were their friends and fellow panhandlers. Also, it wasn't allowed to cook in these places (though people did), and food stamps did not cover fast food yet, about the only food to eat nearby.

That's enough but you get the idea. Liberal attitudes of "just throw money at it" or "treat everyone really nicely" can make things worse. So do "conservative" ones like bulldozing everything with no shelters or places for those people to go. That was tried even before I left and it simply scattered the homeless into every shop doorway and sidewalk for several miles. The merchants were furious! That isn't what they meant, they wanted these people gone! But they had no place to go...so they stayed.
I guess I look at liberals per your comment - "just throw money at it" - my and many other working Americans hard earned money. It never ends. Lifetime of welfare, food stamps, etc. The company I used to work for, when someone was using drugs or alcohol, paid for rehab - one time and one time only - after that if it occurred again, they were terminated. IMHO Welfare should be 5 years max in a lifetime. If you do not want to work you do not eat. Disabled should be cared for - no problem with that. But there are way, way too many lazy people that just want free :poop: their entire lives.
 

TFergeson

Non Solum Simul Stare
Thousands of people gathered in Dolores Park, where the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence put on their annual Hunky Jesus and Foxy Mary contests. The Sisters, a blessedly campy order of activists, first sprang to life in 1979. Its mission: to use drag plus religious tropes to satirize fake notions of morality and brotherly love. One of the 50-plus Hunky Jesus contestants happened to be a guy who worked out at my gym. I’d see him pressing up from seated splits into handstands while the rest of us grimaced through plank. Now here he was, carrying a large wooden cross up a wide green lawn and pole dancing on it.

Ah yes, there it is. You reap what you sow.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
This isn't just in SF. You can find similar scenes of varying sizes in the East Bay, Si Valley and further out in San Juaqin County. The last statistic I heard was that California has half of all the US "homeless". I wouldn't be surprised if the "illegal" population was similarly distributed.
 

BUBBAHOTEPT

Veteran Member
While I think specific "liberal" policies helped make this happen as fast and terrible as it is. I should point out that things were very liberal when I lived there, and yet homelessness was a minor problem. I know I volunteered at the HIV/AIDs vigil, which was partly in a homeless camp, and even spent a night in there once; well twice if you counted when they took me after the 1989 Earthquake, and the guys at the vigil had known me for all of five minutes before it hit.

But even counting the "shadow" homeless of the time in Golden Gate Park and back alleyways, there were probably no more than three to five thousand real down and outers in the entire city of millions of people.

Another difference was that there were "flop house hotels" all over the area, I ended up spending the night in one once. Sure, there were needles in the hallway, and the bathrooms were down the hall, and you wanted a buddy with you. But they had showers, running water, a roof, and even a small social area. Many, if not most, of the "homeless" were on disability (usually for addiction or mental health issues as well as HIV, or Nam Vets on full or partial disability) LIVED PART OF THE TIME in the "Hotels." The cost of an entire month was always the same as the average social security disability check, so most people couldn't afford a whole month, especially if they wanted to buy booze or drugs. But some of them did, but socialized and blended into the homeless population who were their friends and fellow panhandlers. Also, it wasn't allowed to cook in these places (though people did), and food stamps did not cover fast food yet, about the only food to eat nearby.

That's enough but you get the idea. Liberal attitudes of "just throw money at it" or "treat everyone really nicely" can make things worse. So do "conservative" ones like bulldozing everything with no shelters or places for those people to go. That was tried even before I left and it simply scattered the homeless into every shop doorway and sidewalk for several miles. The merchants were furious! That isn't what they meant, they wanted these people gone! But they had no place to go...so they stayed.
That was back when everyone knew what a woman was and what a vaccination did. We are now beyond both reason and common sense, thus your observation... :shk:
 

CaBuckeye

Contributing Member
Almost anyone who can, has done so, and the rest are on their way out. Especially businesses and taxpayers. If trends continue the city and the public schools will be declared bankrupt and taken over by the State, who won't be able to do much either because you can't force people to live there.

Some people and infrastructure will always be there as long as that harbor exists because it is one of the best natural harbors on Planet Earth. But for a time, it could be an armed port protected by private mercenary armies or by restoring the military bases Geoge Bush Sr. shut down in a rage over the massive antiwar protests that took place during the First Gulf War. Leaving one of the largest US ports undefended in case of another Pacific War, which is why the bases were first put there (during the American Civil War) in the first place.

That is if an 8.0 or higher Earthquake doesn't wreck the place and there are simply no funds to restore it. Again some of the docks and shipping will be repaired, but some of the rest of The City (what locals call it) might become Detroit. Miles of abandoned houses and collapsed buildings; sit there for da generation or three until the situation changes and the people retur
Despite shutting down all the military bases and taking away the Silicon Valley's Blue Angels airshow at Moffett Field, each October, San Francisco still hosts a bunch of major warships for Navy Fleet Week including the Blue Angels. San Franciscans will curse, call you baby killers and throw their poop at military personnel ( personal experience in 1971 when returning from SEA) for 51 weeks a year but they are all buddy-buddy during fleet week. This occurs annually regardless of what party is in power in Washington.
 

Melodi

Disaster Cat
This isn't just in SF. You can find similar scenes of varying sizes in the East Bay, Si Valley and further out in San Juaqin County. The last statistic I heard was that California has half of all the US "homeless". I wouldn't be surprised if the "illegal" population was similarly distributed.
And some of these areas, like The Valley, are traditionally very conservative. They tend to vote Republican, including many old Hispanic, Italian, German, and Japanese families. Older Mexican Americans (immigrant families) tend to be small business owners, and the long-term Hispanic families, like the Italians, then own large farms and ranches (some of them going back 500 (Hispanic) and 150 years (Italians).

But they are not getting the "Homeless problems" being hived off (or shoved off) from the larger, more liberal cities. They can fix people with no place to go, either. There was no modern welfare or support in the 1930s, but the same happened. Just the kids and elderly died faster. Many parents, like my grandmother, prefer to risk death from starvation to have their kids taken away at the workhouse and adopted by other people. Things were so bad. My 90 year-old-aunt (the oldest and remembered more of what happened) thinks the kids would have been better off with this option.

Would you give up your kids because your husband deserted you for another woman with little children, three, two, and one? When you had no family, he had moved you to a different coast, and the social worker called you a terrible Mother, or your husband would not have left you? Would you prefer never to see them again and have them adopted out without your consent when you entered the workhouse, or would you try to struggle along washing other people's toilets and living in homeless camps?

Or like Old as Dirt's family, everyone living in homeless camps and even the tiny kids harvesting potatoes and other crops in that same Central Valley?.....
 

Dozdoats

On TB every waking moment
There is a lot of ruin in a nation. And in a big city.

But given enough time and drain, all depths can be plumbed.

I try to be grateful for having lived through the best of America. Looks like I might get the worst of it too, tho.
=============

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of light, it was the season of darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way–in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only. ~ Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities
 

Kathy in FL

Administrator
_______________
Visited the city in 1988 (honeymoon was a drive down the entire Cali coast) and even back then there was an air of decay about many areas of the city. We walked it on foot for a couple of days because even back then we did urban hiking. The homelessness and open drug use was already visible as was the crime ridden areas of the openly gay neighborhoods.

Then went there again when a cruise ship we were on docked there. It was about 7 years ago and our youngest was with us, twelve at the time. We wouldn't do any urban hiking then, not even in the tourist areas. Yes we walked several areas but not the length of the city as we once would have. We used a hop on hop off to get from point to point through out the day. It was the only safe way to come close to what we once would have done, kid in tow or not.

I wouldn't go there today for any reason. The physical deterioration and social insanity in the streets is a direct result of who the citizens of San Fran voted in and the degenerate behavior that was not only allowed but encouraged. You get what you pay for.

What's the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time.
 

Sacajawea

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Chicago
St. Louis
Minneapolis/St. Paul
Austin/DFW/Houston/El Paso
New Orleans
Cleveland/Columbus
Detroit
Philly
Baltimore
DC
Norfolk
Charleston
NYC

It's a long list - I'm sure I've missed some. Some aren't as awful as others - but clearly the trend for all large cities is dysfunction & entropy. Death & decay. All because of an IDEA that humanity can exist without the fundamental structure of civilization - and is better for it.

And in classic mode, they want to lecture everyone else about how racist, provincial, and unenlightened they are while ignoring the mess they've made in their own cities.

I'm not shedding tears; I've got things to do that require me to drive some distance because no one delivers out here. I can't help them, they wouldn't accept my solutions to their problems, they won't listen. It's probably a tragedy but like those abandoned animal commercials of decades ago - I'm truly not going to feel guilty about something I have no control over. Nor would I want it. I don't HAVE to care.

Compassion and empathy mean something different than those people think they mean.

And yeah, I know I'm not getting nominated for the Mother Teresa award.
 

mikeabn

Finally not a lurker!
While I think specific "liberal" policies helped make this happen as fast and terrible as it is. I should point out that things were very liberal when I lived there, and yet homelessness was a minor problem. I know I volunteered at the HIV/AIDs vigil, which was partly in a homeless camp, and even spent a night in there once; well twice if you counted when they took me after the 1989 Earthquake, and the guys at the vigil had known me for all of five minutes before it hit.

But even counting the "shadow" homeless of the time in Golden Gate Park and back alleyways, there were probably no more than three to five thousand real down and outers in the entire city of millions of people.

Another difference was that there were "flop house hotels" all over the area, I ended up spending the night in one once. Sure, there were needles in the hallway, and the bathrooms were down the hall, and you wanted a buddy with you. But they had showers, running water, a roof, and even a small social area. Many, if not most, of the "homeless" were on disability (usually for addiction or mental health issues as well as HIV, or Nam Vets on full or partial disability) LIVED PART OF THE TIME in the "Hotels." The cost of an entire month was always the same as the average social security disability check, so most people couldn't afford a whole month, especially if they wanted to buy booze or drugs. But some of them did, but socialized and blended into the homeless population who were their friends and fellow panhandlers. Also, it wasn't allowed to cook in these places (though people did), and food stamps did not cover fast food yet, about the only food to eat nearby.

That's enough but you get the idea. Liberal attitudes of "just throw money at it" or "treat everyone really nicely" can make things worse. So do "conservative" ones like bulldozing everything with no shelters or places for those people to go. That was tried even before I left and it simply scattered the homeless into every shop doorway and sidewalk for several miles. The merchants were furious! That isn't what they meant, they wanted these people gone! But they had no place to go...so they stayed.
Liberals always persist in reinforcing obvious failures to the extent that their support of ever-worsening disasters must be seen as deliberate policies aimed at the eventual destruction of the United States.
 

Firebird

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Chicago
St. Louis
Minneapolis/St. Paul
Austin/DFW/Houston/El Paso
New Orleans
Cleveland/Columbus
Detroit
Philly
Baltimore
DC
Norfolk
Charleston
NYC

It's a long list - I'm sure I've missed some. Some aren't as awful as others - but clearly the trend for all large cities is dysfunction & entropy. Death & decay. All because of an IDEA that humanity can exist without the fundamental structure of civilization - and is better for it.

And in classic mode, they want to lecture everyone else about how racist, provincial, and unenlightened they are while ignoring the mess they've made in their own cities.

I'm not shedding tears; I've got things to do that require me to drive some distance because no one delivers out here. I can't help them, they wouldn't accept my solutions to their problems, they won't listen. It's probably a tragedy but like those abandoned animal commercials of decades ago - I'm truly not going to feel guilty about something I have no control over. Nor would I want it. I don't HAVE to care.

Compassion and empathy mean something different than those people think they mean.

And yeah, I know I'm not getting nominated for the Mother Teresa award.
Don't forget Birmingham and Atlanta
 

Old Greek

Veteran Member
Chicago
St. Louis
Minneapolis/St. Paul
Austin/DFW/Houston/El Paso
New Orleans
Cleveland/Columbus
Detroit
Philly
Baltimore
DC
Norfolk
Charleston
NYC

It's a long list - I'm sure I've missed some. Some aren't as awful as others - but clearly the trend for all large cities is dysfunction & entropy. Death & decay. All because of an IDEA that humanity can exist without the fundamental structure of civilization - and is better for it.

And in classic mode, they want to lecture everyone else about how racist, provincial, and unenlightened they are while ignoring the mess they've made in their own cities.

I'm not shedding tears; I've got things to do that require me to drive some distance because no one delivers out here. I can't help them, they wouldn't accept my solutions to their problems, they won't listen. It's probably a tragedy but like those abandoned animal commercials of decades ago - I'm truly not going to feel guilty about something I have no control over. Nor would I want it. I don't HAVE to care.

Compassion and empathy mean something different than those people think they mean.

And yeah, I know I'm not getting nominated for the Mother Teresa award.
Add Pittsburgh to the list. All if not most run by commies (dems).
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
And some of these areas, like The Valley, are traditionally very conservative. They tend to vote Republican, including many old Hispanic, Italian, German, and Japanese families. Older Mexican Americans (immigrant families) tend to be small business owners, and the long-term Hispanic families, like the Italians, then own large farms and ranches (some of them going back 500 (Hispanic) and 150 years (Italians).

But they are not getting the "Homeless problems" being hived off (or shoved off) from the larger, more liberal cities. They can fix people with no place to go, either. There was no modern welfare or support in the 1930s, but the same happened. Just the kids and elderly died faster. Many parents, like my grandmother, prefer to risk death from starvation to have their kids taken away at the workhouse and adopted by other people. Things were so bad. My 90 year-old-aunt (the oldest and remembered more of what happened) thinks the kids would have been better off with this option.

Would you give up your kids because your husband deserted you for another woman with little children, three, two, and one? When you had no family, he had moved you to a different coast, and the social worker called you a terrible Mother, or your husband would not have left you? Would you prefer never to see them again and have them adopted out without your consent when you entered the workhouse, or would you try to struggle along washing other people's toilets and living in homeless camps?

Or like Old as Dirt's family, everyone living in homeless camps and even the tiny kids harvesting potatoes and other crops in that same Central Valley?.....
In San Juaqin, specifically Tracy and Stockton, it is a lot of the same mechanics as it is in the counties directly around the Bay. For every woman I've seen in theses circumstances there are at least five, if not more, men of various ages "living rough".

Also in the Valley there are growing Sihk, Chinese, Vietnamese, Filipino, Pacific Islander, Assyria and Muslim populations now. Part due to costs of housing as well as owners of small businesses and farming.
 

Griz3752

Retired, practising Curmudgeon
I don't know CA's history that well but at some point on time there was a nexus of Socialism & guilt that led to the ruinous social polices prevalent in that state. For whatever reason, some cities chose to go past that point and THIS is where they end up.

The time to fix this slipped by long ago. I fear.
 

mikeabn

Finally not a lurker!
I don't know CA's history that well but at some point on time there was a nexus of Socialism & guilt that led to the ruinous social polices prevalent in that state. For whatever reason, some cities chose to go past that point and THIS is where they end up.

The time to fix this slipped by long ago. I fear.
You are probably correct and for the sane among us, about the only thing to do is say a prayer as those cities implode.
 

Countrymouse

Country exile in the city
Last visited San Francisco in 1985. Loved the city and the 3 days we spent there. Would not get within 50 miles of it today.
Liberals destroy "everything"!!!
I watch "Perry Mason" nightly on ME-TV. Although located in Los Angeles and not San Francisco, it's a daily "sanity-check" of viewing the world when the streets of these California cities were still beautiful and safe, and murder (when it did happen) was something swiftly and surely punished.

Outlawing the death penalty (and Cali was one of if not the first to do that) was the FIRST step down the slippery slope of sending the message that if the worst possible crime one human could commit against another was to be winked at--then nothing else mattered either---one could do anything and everything.
 

Old Greek

Veteran Member
I watch "Perry Mason" nightly on ME-TV. Although located in Los Angeles and not San Francisco, it's a daily "sanity-check" of viewing the world when the streets of these California cities were still beautiful and safe, and murder (when it did happen) was something swiftly and surely punished.

Outlawing the death penalty (and Cali was one of if not the first to do that) was the FIRST step down the slippery slope of sending the message that if the worst possible crime one human could commit against another was to be winked at--then nothing else mattered either---one could do anything and everything.
Yep - sad to see a once great country slip away! :(
 

Countrymouse

Country exile in the city
And some of these areas, like The Valley, are traditionally very conservative. They tend to vote Republican, including many old Hispanic, Italian, German, and Japanese families. Older Mexican Americans (immigrant families) tend to be small business owners, and the long-term Hispanic families, like the Italians, then own large farms and ranches (some of them going back 500 (Hispanic) and 150 years (Italians).

But they are not getting the "Homeless problems" being hived off (or shoved off) from the larger, more liberal cities. They can fix people with no place to go, either. There was no modern welfare or support in the 1930s, but the same happened. Just the kids and elderly died faster. Many parents, like my grandmother, prefer to risk death from starvation to have their kids taken away at the workhouse and adopted by other people. Things were so bad. My 90 year-old-aunt (the oldest and remembered more of what happened) thinks the kids would have been better off with this option.

Would you give up your kids because your husband deserted you for another woman with little children, three, two, and one? When you had no family, he had moved you to a different coast, and the social worker called you a terrible Mother, or your husband would not have left you? Would you prefer never to see them again and have them adopted out without your consent when you entered the workhouse, or would you try to struggle along washing other people's toilets and living in homeless camps?

Or like Old as Dirt's family, everyone living in homeless camps and even the tiny kids harvesting potatoes and other crops in that same Central Valley?.....
Melodi, you and I will never see eye to eye on this, but I appreciate that you're coming from a perspective and a heart of caring and mercy.

It's just this---and parents have to learn this EARLY or RUIN their children---you get MORE of the behavior you REWARD, and LESS of the behavior you do not reward or even (if necessary) PUNISH.


About 150 years ago (speaking of America now--not Ireland, England, or Europe), MOST "charities" were run by religious or quasi-religious groups. Then in the "enlightened" 60's, I remember hearing that this was SOOOOOOOOOOO wrong--because look how those EEEEVIL Christians give charity but USE it to convert people to Christianity! It ought to be done secularly--with NO strings attached! So they gave the job of "charity" to the government--most notably in the programs of LBJ. (though they had their roots in earlier programs by FDR and going back as far as Woodrow Wilson).

Only problem is--there is not--and never will be, as it is IMPOSSIBLE--a truly "source-less" source of charity, that asks nothing. When the govt took over charity, they didn't ask you to "believe" a certain way---they only asked you to VOTE a certain way. That, or they told you if you didn't vote a certain way, the EEEEEVIL 'other' party would take away from you all the goodies that THEY had given you.

So........second verse, same as the first--just now using 'charity' for POLITICAL points rather than religious ones.

And whereas the religious organizations had at least tried to "teach a man to fish" while GIVING him a fish--by insisting that those they helped clean up, dress up, shape up, school-up, and get jobs or provide meaningful service in return for the charity they received, the 'charity' provided by the GOVT asked NOTHING--other than party loyalty. In fact, they set up the rules so that, once dependent ON govt charity, it was almost IMPOSSIBLE to get OFF of that dependence. The payments were 'just' enough to keep them alive / eating / housed, but were STOPPED INSTANTLY if the recipient starting earning "too much"--even though their earning hadn't yet made the 'leap' from "beginning to be independent" to "fully-self-supporting." That "gap" was NOT covered--so the programs KEPT the dependent--dependent. BY. DESIGN.

So we have, in government, the equivalent of a totally estranged husband and wife (the two-party system) in a bitterly contested divorce fighting over the children--and doing their damnedest to win by being the one with the "best bribe" for the kids to 'win' their loyalty.

Add to this overly-permissive parent mind-set the idea of "remove all boundaries and they'll behave better"--with the underlying foundation being the belief that it's the existence of laws and rules that CREATES lawlessness.

Earliest evidence of that was the insane (word use intended) thought that the insane could live, independently, on their own, and that it was EEEEEEVIL to keep them "imprisoned" in mental institutions or even half-way houses if they wished to leave. The proponents of this, in the 1950's and 60's--having seen one-too-many viewings of Olivia DeHavilland in "The Snake Pit," (or read One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest too many times) cited the few who had been unlawfully detained due to unethical family members and lawyers pulling some strings, and the few who 'could' be restored to 'some' level of 'normal' behavior (that was when we still had a standard for "normal" and before it became a bad word) as long as they had their psychiatric drugs and remembered to take them. So these groups worked--tirelessly--to SHUT DOWN ALL MENTAL INSTITUTIONS.

Though common sense alone should dictate that a person who has the mental capacity of a 2-year-old, or a person who thinks they are Tinkerbell and can fly, or persons with any number of other fantastical self-deceptions by which they are held in thrall to the point of being totally unable to function in life or care for themselves safely---these idealists followed their own 'religion' of "if we just let them go they'll magically be healed" (similar to "if we just do away with laws no one will commit any more crimes")--they got their way and proceeded to empty the mental institutions. Sadly, Ronald Reagan, when Governor of California, was one of the first to institute this, signing the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, that mandated release of mental patients. By Federal decree, Medicare was forbidden to pay the cost of care of those in mental institutions.

The fad swept across the nation like a wildfire,--and by the end of the 1990's almost no mental institutions existed in the United States. The original plan was to replace them with "Community-Based Mental Health Centers"---but the funding required for these were grossly underestimated and the resources that local city and county governments (as opposed to States) had available to support them were grossly overestimated--so that within four years the funding for the "community centers" that were to replace the mental institutions ran out. Quotes from some of the doctors who thought this was a 'good idea' at the time:

Dr. Robert H. Felix, who was then director of the National Institute of Mental Health and a major figure in the shift to community centers, says now on reflection: ''Many of those patients who left the state hospitals never should have done so. We psychiatrists saw too much of the old snake pit, saw too many people who shouldn't have been there and we overreacted. The result is not what we intended, and perhaps we didn't ask the questions that should have been asked when developing a new concept, but psychiatrists are human, too, and we tried our damnedest.''

Dr. John A. Talbott, president of the American Psychiatric Association, said, ''The psychiatrists involved in the policy making at that time certainly oversold community treatment, and our credibility today is probably damaged because of it.'' He said the policies ''were based partly on wishful thinking, partly on the enormousness of the problem and the lack of a silver bullet to resolve it, then as now.''
(quotes from "How Release of Mental Patients Began", The New York Times, HOW RELEASE OF MENTAL PATIENTS BEGAN (Published 1984) )

Result? Helpless 2-year-olds -- or those who may as well be -- out on the street, left to fend for themselves. UNTIL they finally--almost inevitably--commit a crime. THEN they ARE put into the TRUE "Snake Pit"--into PRISONS--which have become the NEW "mental institutions" for the US now that the EEEEEVIL old ones are all gone. No more doctors, no more nurses, no more single rooms and careful medical oversight---now they are thrown in with rapists, drug-dealers, gang-bangers, sadists of the worst kind. The very HELL of the "Snake Pit" that liberals so fought against for the mentally ill when they proposed closing down all the mental institutions--THEY THEMSELVES HAVE CREATED, and to this hell they have consigned the mentally ill.

And THAT was the BEGINNING of the "HOMELESS" problem. And MOST of the homeless, still, are either physiologically mentally ill / disabled, or have been made so through drug / alcohol abuse.

The liberals CREATED the "homeless"--by DEPRIVING those UNABLE to provide for their own needs--the mentally ill and disabled--a HOME--then after CREATING the "homeless" problem said it would be EEEEEVIL to DO anything about it, because these are all poor mentally-challenged people who can't help being mentally challenged, and what are you going to do?--punish them for being mentally challenged? They didn't give a DAMN about the mentally challenged--if they HAD they'd have been out there PROVIDING NEW HOMES (mental institutions) for them to LIVE in--but instead they were championing their 'right' to starve to death and freeze to death out on the city streets in the winter, and to panhandle (and sometimes assault and/or rob) people going about their daily business. And the rest of us were supposed to show our "caring" for the homeless by not noticing their living out on the streets, or even ASSISTING them to live there--and if we so much as suggested sending them to some "place" designed just for them, so they could get help and be cared for (and yes, detained there if they were a danger to themselves or others)--we were compared to Nazi's endorsing the death-camps.

Remember the first principle---what you REWARD, you get MORE of.

Now we have "enabled" drug use, "enabled" promiscuity--and its result of multitudes of children born out of wedlock and abandoned (or as good as, as their 'parental units' ignore them), we have "enabled" self-inflicted mental instability by allowing unchecked drug importation from Mexico (I'm thinking fentanyl), "enabled" a sense that human life is valueless by endorsing abortion--and then wonder WHY a murderer who kills an ADULT human sees it as morally equal to "remove" out of your life any other "person" that gets in your way? (after all, it's not a "person" if it's cramping my lifestyle). And the results of all of the above are an EXPLOSION of homelessness--as our society CREATES more and more people mentally, physically, and emotionally unable to live in and cope with the real world, and throw themselves into the ultimate "dependence".

So what's the answer?

A number of things---none of which I see happening.

I believe the decay has gone too far--and while we're still being commanded to be salt and light (thus my little "treatise" here)---we are becoming more and more hated daily by those whose eyes are so accustomed to the darkness that our "light" makes them squint in pain, and our words of truth "sting" like salt in the suppurating wound that our godless world has become.

But--"IF" it would accept it--there IS a cure for our country.

The first is to repent.

To turn back-- to recognize that in rejecting our God, we've rejected the very Source of all wisdom, all truth, all light, all love, all joy, all peace, all hope.

To STOP that rejection--and turn back to Him.

To re-learn His ways.

To OBEY Him--and Paul gave the answer as to how to do that to the "wise men" on the Acropolis at Mar's Hill in ancient Greece (see Acts 17).

Only by HIS wisdom can we even HOPE to undo the damage done by trying to follow the "wisdom of mankind"--which has once again proved itself to be foolishness, darkness, and death--rather than God's wisdom, light, and life.

I wish with all my heart that that would happen.

But Bible prophecy tells me it will not.

It will only get worse.

Until the King comes.............and sets all things aright.
 

Melodi

Disaster Cat
Believe it or not, Countrymouse, I agree with some of your points. Your description of what happened to the mentally ill in the US is spot on. I know. I visited a few of the Snake Pits right at the end of things and interviewed for a job at one run by a close friend who was the head of it (and a nurse with an advanced degree.) He would probably agree with you too. His institution served the extremely mentally disabled (called retarded) back then. He also agreed that many of the policies he had to enforce by State mandates were cruel and arbitrary and violated the human rights even of someone with an IQ of two and especially someone with an IQ of ten. Sadly he had a widespread name and that of a mass murderer (I won't say which one), so finding him on a Facebook search would be like finding a needle in a haystack. But I suspect his opinion is with Dr. Felix, whom I remember as an HIV and homeless volunteer in San Francisco.

At the time, the other half of the "solution" was never implemented. Millions of these people were supposed to live and be lovingly treated "in the community." Either in their own homes or in unique group houses. But after the Snake Pits were disabled, almost no communities in the US would vote to fund these, and those that did found nice areas unhappy about "Crazy People" living next door. So they tended to be in urban heck holes, and over time, many of them went away except those that earned money from governments to house released prisoners who were, as you said, in prisons instead of mental hospitals.

After working in AFDC, I also had several friends on welfare (or nearly on welfare), and some of your observations there are spot on. I mentioned before my close friend (a member of our religious group) who was going through a breakup and did the foolish but common thing of having a one-night stand. When she became pregnant, she told herself she had a good job (with an early, previously all-male, tech start-up). She didn't want to give her child the example of a Mom on benefits. After the baby was born and she was asking for very little, like a bit of help with transportation and child care costs (which ten years later she could have had), she was told directly by the social worker: "Why don't you just quit your job and go on welfare like everyone else!"

Her solution wasn't open to most Moms in her situation. The father was not a jerk and was part of our social circle. Being recently laid off, he moved in and cared for his son for two years, so the mother of his child (but not his partner) could earn enough money to support herself and his son. With help from child support from him when he got another job.

Ok, enough on that one, but the flip side is before there was anything except the workhouse, my grandmother was abandoned by her husband. She was (as I mentioned) told to "Enter the workhouse and give up your children for adoption by a worthy family. You are an unfit mother, or your husband would not have left you."

What I didn't mention was that my oldest aunt (the only person still alive from that era in our family) told me in the most ladylike and polite manner that it is highly likely my grandmother resorted to some nighttime street walking at times when the kids hadn't eaten for a few days. To me, this makes her a hero in my eyes.

As for charity, my Mother told me that it was twice a year (in the camps or similar places) at Christmas and Easter, "The Church Ladies" would show up with food baskets, and all three little girls would hide. Because these baskets come with a lot of patting on the head and (to them) large, older ladies in nice clothing patting them on their tiny heads saying things (in from of my grandmother), "Oh you poor things, you are so thin! Doesn't your mother ever feed you?" The girls were too small to understand their mother had to put them through this because they needed the food. They were ignored for the rest of the year. Their Mom didn't go to the workhouse like she was supposed to.

On the other hand, for several decades, starting in the 1940s, many States refused Welfare if a man was in the house (with checks to ensure he wasn't under the bed) as a requirement for any assistance or welfare (for children, mind you). Those men became dangerous extras, especially in the African-American and poor white communities. Marriage was out of the question because a husband also meant no benefits. This changed in the mid-1980s when I was in Denver, and the stranded family (trying to get to a promised job on the coast) took the night shift working in the 24/7 cafe where the car broke down in front of when told there was welfare only if the husband left the family. While it was the middle of a Denver Winter, the cafe refused to let the two little boys inside, and Dad used his first paycheck to buy "Snow Ready" used sleeping backs with his first night's tips at a thrift store. Dad or Mom was allowed to check the kids once an hour for less than five minutes instead of taking breaks.

You guessed it, it snowed, and both children froze to death in their "snow-ready" sleeping bags in less than an hour. Even the county prosecutor, who was NOT a liberal, said (more or less), "This is the saddest case I've ever seen, and I don't want to prosecute these people. It was the system that failed them." Congress changed the law during the next session. Now all States have to allow welfare, at least for minor children with or without a man in the house. But after forty-plus years, the damage was done. Men were Baby Dadies and unemployed "extras." With exceptions for a few places like Appliacia, where "surprisingly," a study when I was at AFDC found most welfare families were married with two parents in the home (just no paid work).

Finally (because this is too long already, but your points all deserve consideration and explanations), I'll end by saying I have made extensive personal studies of charities and the use of charities to provide social work from the Middle Ages through the early 20th century and the modern period after WWII. In BOTH the US and the UK (also now Ireland).

I can assure you without going into extensive details,, which since I just noticed it is 1 am, I'm not going to do (and no one except you and two other people might read). Very few lived up to the idealism in the late 19th/early 20th-century novel "What Would Jesus Do."

Almost all of the 18th through the early 20th century religious ones came with a healthy dose of the "you poor things" my Mother experienced downright genocide in the workhouses of Ireland during the famine. Here, families said goodbye at the gate because men, women, and children were separated, and except for kids that might be sold off as workers (slaves), the adults were expected to work until they died. If you've watched "Call the Midwife," you know Workhouses in the UK did a slightly different version. There, the "voluntary" residents were considered to have "work contracts" that had to be "paid off" before the person could leave, including people who were forced to enter as children. Many babies and small children died, and one widow lost all of her children in a few months. In old age, she would howl and cry for them (they had been taken away from her and left with "proper" caregivers). In the book (true story) and the show (also a true story), her grief only stops when one of the midwives finds the location of their lost graves and takes her there.

Ireland was worse until after we moved here. Nearly everything was run by the Catholic Church because the Early Free State couldn't afford any social services. When people ask me how Ireland went from a religious Catholic Nation to a secular one in ten years (mostly). I tell them about the Mother and Baby (Single Mother)homes where the dead babies were thrown in the sewer (as late as one year or older) because they were bastards and "unadoptable" (didn't make any money) for various reasons. My hardened physician father-in-law said, "That would make anyone an atheist!"

The Irish Government has already paid out more in legitimate claims for compensation than it probably saved in 70-plus years of religious charities (mostly Catholic, a few Church of Ireland/Anglican) will millions if not billions more to come. From monks and nuns abusing young children to single Mothers, they were kept as slaves for decades (the courts have ruled they were slaves).

Modern Ireland is the perfect example of what happens when you don't separate Church and State in your constitution. Ireland mostly copied the US older one (De Valara was a US Citizen before he became the Head of State). They chose a parliamentary system over a congress (a good choice) but made the Catholic Church the State religion (which turned out to be a disaster in the long run).

OK that's enough, I could go on about Settlement Houses (mostly a positive that worked with immigrants in US cities in the early 20th century) to US religious orphanages that sold babies.

As for repenting, that was demanded at food serving point in many of these places. So there lots of "conversions" that made all the nasty comments about "rice Christians" in Asia look kind of like the pot calling the kettle black. As a non-Christian I have to say I do not have a serious opinion on that one. Other than forced conversions seldom stick or transform anyone.

Good night (or good morning everyone..)
 

Elza

Veteran Member
“We just need to fix San Francisco’s dysfunctional permitting system!” “We can find an affordable way to turn some of the office space into housing.” “We should fund artists to repopulate downtown!”
Spoken like the true liberal retards that they are.
 

mikeabn

Finally not a lurker!
Melodi, you and I will never see eye to eye on this, but I appreciate that you're coming from a perspective and a heart of caring and mercy.

It's just this---and parents have to learn this EARLY or RUIN their children---you get MORE of the behavior you REWARD, and LESS of the behavior you do not reward or even (if necessary) PUNISH.

About 150 years ago (speaking of America now--not Ireland, England, or Europe), MOST "charities" were run by religious or quasi-religious groups. Then in the "enlightened" 60's, I remember hearing that this was SOOOOOOOOOOO wrong--because look how those EEEEVIL Christians give charity but USE it to convert people to Christianity! It ought to be done secularly--with NO strings attached! So they gave the job of "charity" to the government--most notably in the programs of LBJ. (though they had their roots in earlier programs by FDR and going back as far as Woodrow Wilson).

Only problem is--there is not--and never will be, as it is IMPOSSIBLE--a truly "source-less" source of charity, that asks nothing. When the govt took over charity, they didn't ask you to "believe" a certain way---they only asked you to VOTE a certain way. That, or they told you if you didn't vote a certain way, the EEEEEVIL 'other' party would take away from you all the goodies that THEY had given you.

So........second verse, same as the first--just now using 'charity' for POLITICAL points rather than religious ones.

And whereas the religious organizations had at least tried to "teach a man to fish" while GIVING him a fish--by insisting that those they helped clean up, dress up, shape up, school-up, and get jobs or provide meaningful service in return for the charity they received, the 'charity' provided by the GOVT asked NOTHING--other than party loyalty. In fact, they set up the rules so that, once dependent ON govt charity, it was almost IMPOSSIBLE to get OFF of that dependence. The payments were 'just' enough to keep them alive / eating / housed, but were STOPPED INSTANTLY if the recipient starting earning "too much"--even though their earning hadn't yet made the 'leap' from "beginning to be independent" to "fully-self-supporting." That "gap" was NOT covered--so the programs KEPT the dependent--dependent. BY. DESIGN.

So we have, in government, the equivalent of a totally estranged husband and wife (the two-party system) in a bitterly contested divorce fighting over the children--and doing their damnedest to win by being the one with the "best bribe" for the kids to 'win' their loyalty.

Add to this overly-permissive parent mind-set the idea of "remove all boundaries and they'll behave better"--with the underlying foundation being the belief that it's the existence of laws and rules that CREATES lawlessness.

Earliest evidence of that was the insane (word use intended) thought that the insane could live, independently, on their own, and that it was EEEEEEVIL to keep them "imprisoned" in mental institutions or even half-way houses if they wished to leave. The proponents of this, in the 1950's and 60's--having seen one-too-many viewings of Olivia DeHavilland in "The Snake Pit," (or read One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest too many times) cited the few who had been unlawfully detained due to unethical family members and lawyers pulling some strings, and the few who 'could' be restored to 'some' level of 'normal' behavior (that was when we still had a standard for "normal" and before it became a bad word) as long as they had their psychiatric drugs and remembered to take them. So these groups worked--tirelessly--to SHUT DOWN ALL MENTAL INSTITUTIONS.

Though common sense alone should dictate that a person who has the mental capacity of a 2-year-old, or a person who thinks they are Tinkerbell and can fly, or persons with any number of other fantastical self-deceptions by which they are held in thrall to the point of being totally unable to function in life or care for themselves safely---these idealists followed their own 'religion' of "if we just let them go they'll magically be healed" (similar to "if we just do away with laws no one will commit any more crimes")--they got their way and proceeded to empty the mental institutions. Sadly, Ronald Reagan, when Governor of California, was one of the first to institute this, signing the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, that mandated release of mental patients. By Federal decree, Medicare was forbidden to pay the cost of care of those in mental institutions.

The fad swept across the nation like a wildfire,--and by the end of the 1990's almost no mental institutions existed in the United States. The original plan was to replace them with "Community-Based Mental Health Centers"---but the funding required for these were grossly underestimated and the resources that local city and county governments (as opposed to States) had available to support them were grossly overestimated--so that within four years the funding for the "community centers" that were to replace the mental institutions ran out. Quotes from some of the doctors who thought this was a 'good idea' at the time:

Dr. Robert H. Felix, who was then director of the National Institute of Mental Health and a major figure in the shift to community centers, says now on reflection: ''Many of those patients who left the state hospitals never should have done so. We psychiatrists saw too much of the old snake pit, saw too many people who shouldn't have been there and we overreacted. The result is not what we intended, and perhaps we didn't ask the questions that should have been asked when developing a new concept, but psychiatrists are human, too, and we tried our damnedest.''

Dr. John A. Talbott, president of the American Psychiatric Association, said, ''The psychiatrists involved in the policy making at that time certainly oversold community treatment, and our credibility today is probably damaged because of it.'' He said the policies ''were based partly on wishful thinking, partly on the enormousness of the problem and the lack of a silver bullet to resolve it, then as now.''
(quotes from "How Release of Mental Patients Began", The New York Times, HOW RELEASE OF MENTAL PATIENTS BEGAN (Published 1984) )

Result? Helpless 2-year-olds -- or those who may as well be -- out on the street, left to fend for themselves. UNTIL they finally--almost inevitably--commit a crime. THEN they ARE put into the TRUE "Snake Pit"--into PRISONS--which have become the NEW "mental institutions" for the US now that the EEEEEVIL old ones are all gone. No more doctors, no more nurses, no more single rooms and careful medical oversight---now they are thrown in with rapists, drug-dealers, gang-bangers, sadists of the worst kind. The very HELL of the "Snake Pit" that liberals so fought against for the mentally ill when they proposed closing down all the mental institutions--THEY THEMSELVES HAVE CREATED, and to this hell they have consigned the mentally ill.

And THAT was the BEGINNING of the "HOMELESS" problem. And MOST of the homeless, still, are either physiologically mentally ill / disabled, or have been made so through drug / alcohol abuse.

The liberals CREATED the "homeless"--by DEPRIVING those UNABLE to provide for their own needs--the mentally ill and disabled--a HOME--then after CREATING the "homeless" problem said it would be EEEEEVIL to DO anything about it, because these are all poor mentally-challenged people who can't help being mentally challenged, and what are you going to do?--punish them for being mentally challenged? They didn't give a DAMN about the mentally challenged--if they HAD they'd have been out there PROVIDING NEW HOMES (mental institutions) for them to LIVE in--but instead they were championing their 'right' to starve to death and freeze to death out on the city streets in the winter, and to panhandle (and sometimes assault and/or rob) people going about their daily business. And the rest of us were supposed to show our "caring" for the homeless by not noticing their living out on the streets, or even ASSISTING them to live there--and if we so much as suggested sending them to some "place" designed just for them, so they could get help and be cared for (and yes, detained there if they were a danger to themselves or others)--we were compared to Nazi's endorsing the death-camps.

Remember the first principle---what you REWARD, you get MORE of.

Now we have "enabled" drug use, "enabled" promiscuity--and its result of multitudes of children born out of wedlock and abandoned (or as good as, as their 'parental units' ignore them), we have "enabled" self-inflicted mental instability by allowing unchecked drug importation from Mexico (I'm thinking fentanyl), "enabled" a sense that human life is valueless by endorsing abortion--and then wonder WHY a murderer who kills an ADULT human sees it as morally equal to "remove" out of your life any other "person" that gets in your way? (after all, it's not a "person" if it's cramping my lifestyle). And the results of all of the above are an EXPLOSION of homelessness--as our society CREATES more and more people mentally, physically, and emotionally unable to live in and cope with the real world, and throw themselves into the ultimate "dependence".

So what's the answer?

A number of things---none of which I see happening.

I believe the decay has gone too far--and while we're still being commanded to be salt and light (thus my little "treatise" here)---we are becoming more and more hated daily by those whose eyes are so accustomed to the darkness that our "light" makes them squint in pain, and our words of truth "sting" like salt in the suppurating wound that our godless world has become.

But--"IF" it would accept it--there IS a cure for our country.

The first is to repent.

To turn back-- to recognize that in rejecting our God, we've rejected the very Source of all wisdom, all truth, all light, all love, all joy, all peace, all hope.

To STOP that rejection--and turn back to Him.

To re-learn His ways.

To OBEY Him--and Paul gave the answer as to how to do that to the "wise men" on the Acropolis at Mar's Hill in ancient Greece (see Acts 17).

Only by HIS wisdom can we even HOPE to undo the damage done by trying to follow the "wisdom of mankind"--which has once again proved itself to be foolishness, darkness, and death--rather than God's wisdom, light, and life.

I wish with all my heart that that would happen.

But Bible prophecy tells me it will not.

It will only get worse.

Until the King comes.............and sets all things aright.
And hang the bastards who came up with the community mental health center ideas.
 

Melodi

Disaster Cat
And hang the bastards who came up with the community mental health center ideas.
The idea was great in a perfect world. Some people in those institutions could have been treated that way if such a system had existed. At least 30 to 50 percent could not have and need (and still need) a closed, supervised environment to prevent them from hurting themselves and others.

Even in those places, there can be issues. Our gym (in rural Ireland) used to bring "residence" for the home for the mentally disabled (retarded) from a nearby town. It was terrifying to watch someone with the body of a 5'8", 150-pound, 50-year-old woman whose mind was, I'd say, between two and three (I've been a Nanny; I'm good at this) have a complete and full-blown tantrum because she did not want to take off her bathing suit and she was NOT ready to go home!

There was ONE small attendant/minder with THREE full-sized adult residents, all mentally below age five o so. Parents and Nursey Workers know EXACTLY what happens when one toddler has a meltdown in a group.

I threw a towel over my naked body and ran into the hallway towards the reception desk, screaming, "Help, we have an emergency in the lady's locker room. We have someone having a meltdown!"

After that, I have never (in a decade of being an off-and-on member) seen a "resident" there again. Severely disabled children, yes, they have areas I use that they can safely be in (with special hoists, I don't need to get them in the disabled area).

To be fair, the problem was sending one attendant for three "adults" who needed ONE STRONG attendant for EACH ONE.

OK it is now 1:30am lol I am really-really going to bed (honest Gov) lol
 

Countrymouse

Country exile in the city
Believe it or not, Countrymouse, I agree with some of your points. Your description of what happened to the mentally ill in the US is spot on. I know. I visited a few of the Snake Pits right at the end of things and interviewed for a job at one run by a close friend who was the head of it (and a nurse with an advanced degree.) He would probably agree with you too. His institution served the extremely mentally disabled (called retarded) back then. He also agreed that many of the policies he had to enforce by State mandates were cruel and arbitrary and violated the human rights even of someone with an IQ of two and especially someone with an IQ of ten. Sadly he had a widespread name and that of a mass murderer (I won't say which one), so finding him on a Facebook search would be like finding a needle in a haystack. But I suspect his opinion is with Dr. Felix, whom I remember as an HIV and homeless volunteer in San Francisco.

At the time, the other half of the "solution" was never implemented. Millions of these people were supposed to live and be lovingly treated "in the community." Either in their own homes or in unique group houses. But after the Snake Pits were disabled, almost no communities in the US would vote to fund these, and those that did found nice areas unhappy about "Crazy People" living next door. So they tended to be in urban heck holes, and over time, many of them went away except those that earned money from governments to house released prisoners who were, as you said, in prisons instead of mental hospitals.

After working in AFDC, I also had several friends on welfare (or nearly on welfare), and some of your observations there are spot on. I mentioned before my close friend (a member of our religious group) who was going through a breakup and did the foolish but common thing of having a one-night stand. When she became pregnant, she told herself she had a good job (with an early, previously all-male, tech start-up). She didn't want to give her child the example of a Mom on benefits. After the baby was born and she was asking for very little, like a bit of help with transportation and child care costs (which ten years later she could have had), she was told directly by the social worker: "Why don't you just quit your job and go on welfare like everyone else!"

Her solution wasn't open to most Moms in her situation. The father was not a jerk and was part of our social circle. Being recently laid off, he moved in and cared for his son for two years, so the mother of his child (but not his partner) could earn enough money to support herself and his son. With help from child support from him when he got another job.

Ok, enough on that one, but the flip side is before there was anything except the workhouse, my grandmother was abandoned by her husband. She was (as I mentioned) told to "Enter the workhouse and give up your children for adoption by a worthy family. You are an unfit mother, or your husband would not have left you."

What I didn't mention was that my oldest aunt (the only person still alive from that era in our family) told me in the most ladylike and polite manner that it is highly likely my grandmother resorted to some nighttime street walking at times when the kids hadn't eaten for a few days. To me, this makes her a hero in my eyes.

As for charity, my Mother told me that it was twice a year (in the camps or similar places) at Christmas and Easter, "The Church Ladies" would show up with food baskets, and all three little girls would hide. Because these baskets come with a lot of patting on the head and (to them) large, older ladies in nice clothing patting them on their tiny heads saying things (in from of my grandmother), "Oh you poor things, you are so thin! Doesn't your mother ever feed you?" The girls were too small to understand their mother had to put them through this because they needed the food. They were ignored for the rest of the year. Their Mom didn't go to the workhouse like she was supposed to.

On the other hand, for several decades, starting in the 1940s, many States refused Welfare if a man was in the house (with checks to ensure he wasn't under the bed) as a requirement for any assistance or welfare (for children, mind you). Those men became dangerous extras, especially in the African-American and poor white communities. Marriage was out of the question because a husband also meant no benefits. This changed in the mid-1980s when I was in Denver, and the stranded family (trying to get to a promised job on the coast) took the night shift working in the 24/7 cafe where the car broke down in front of when told there was welfare only if the husband left the family. While it was the middle of a Denver Winter, the cafe refused to let the two little boys inside, and Dad used his first paycheck to buy "Snow Ready" used sleeping backs with his first night's tips at a thrift store. Dad or Mom was allowed to check the kids once an hour for less than five minutes instead of taking breaks.

You guessed it, it snowed, and both children froze to death in their "snow-ready" sleeping bags in less than an hour. Even the county prosecutor, who was NOT a liberal, said (more or less), "This is the saddest case I've ever seen, and I don't want to prosecute these people. It was the system that failed them." Congress changed the law during the next session. Now all States have to allow welfare, at least for minor children with or without a man in the house. But after forty-plus years, the damage was done. Men were Baby Dadies and unemployed "extras." With exceptions for a few places like Appliacia, where "surprisingly," a study when I was at AFDC found most welfare families were married with two parents in the home (just no paid work).

Finally (because this is too long already, but your points all deserve consideration and explanations), I'll end by saying I have made extensive personal studies of charities and the use of charities to provide social work from the Middle Ages through the early 20th century and the modern period after WWII. In BOTH the US and the UK (also now Ireland).

I can assure you without going into extensive details,, which since I just noticed it is 1 am, I'm not going to do (and no one except you and two other people might read). Very few lived up to the idealism in the late 19th/early 20th-century novel "What Would Jesus Do."

Almost all of the 18th through the early 20th century religious ones came with a healthy dose of the "you poor things" my Mother experienced downright genocide in the workhouses of Ireland during the famine. Here, families said goodbye at the gate because men, women, and children were separated, and except for kids that might be sold off as workers (slaves), the adults were expected to work until they died. If you've watched "Call the Midwife," you know Workhouses in the UK did a slightly different version. There, the "voluntary" residents were considered to have "work contracts" that had to be "paid off" before the person could leave, including people who were forced to enter as children. Many babies and small children died, and one widow lost all of her children in a few months. In old age, she would howl and cry for them (they had been taken away from her and left with "proper" caregivers). In the book (true story) and the show (also a true story), her grief only stops when one of the midwives finds the location of their lost graves and takes her there.

Ireland was worse until after we moved here. Nearly everything was run by the Catholic Church because the Early Free State couldn't afford any social services. When people ask me how Ireland went from a religious Catholic Nation to a secular one in ten years (mostly). I tell them about the Mother and Baby (Single Mother)homes where the dead babies were thrown in the sewer (as late as one year or older) because they were bastards and "unadoptable" (didn't make any money) for various reasons. My hardened physician father-in-law said, "That would make anyone an atheist!"

The Irish Government has already paid out more in legitimate claims for compensation than it probably saved in 70-plus years of religious charities (mostly Catholic, a few Church of Ireland/Anglican) will millions if not billions more to come. From monks and nuns abusing young children to single Mothers, they were kept as slaves for decades (the courts have ruled they were slaves).

Modern Ireland is the perfect example of what happens when you don't separate Church and State in your constitution. Ireland mostly copied the US older one (De Valara was a US Citizen before he became the Head of State). They chose a parliamentary system over a congress (a good choice) but made the Catholic Church the State religion (which turned out to be a disaster in the long run).

OK that's enough, I could go on about Settlement Houses (mostly a positive that worked with immigrants in US cities in the early 20th century) to US religious orphanages that sold babies.

As for repenting, that was demanded at food serving point in many of these places. So there lots of "conversions" that made all the nasty comments about "rice Christians" in Asia look kind of like the pot calling the kettle black. As a non-Christian I have to say I do not have a serious opinion on that one. Other than forced conversions seldom stick or transform anyone.

Good night (or good morning everyone..)
I hear you.

But I notice almost every example you gave was "welfare this" and "welfare that" and "State" this and that.

My mama was born in 1914. My Daddy in 1909.

Both grew up in homes with NO electricity, NO running water, NO indoor privies, ONE pair of shoes in the winter (for school and church)--barefoot in summer. Lived in an unpainted rural farm-house with a tin roof. Not sharecroppers--my grandparents on both sides owned their land--but not rich enough to be able to hire workers. The FAMILY did the work. Popular society in America wants to pretend only blacks picked / chopped cotton, worked farms, or were sharecroppers in the South. That is a lie. PLENTY of what was then the common rural farmer lived as my parents lived---quitting school in well before the Spring term was out because they were needed to work in the fields. Picking cotton until their fingers bled. Hoeing the cotton in the spring to keep out the weeds--before that, plowing the fields behind a mule. Barefoot in warm weather to save shoes--you didn't need those till the winter. Cook on a wood-burning stove--even on hellishly-hot July Georgia days. Wash clothes in an iron pot with a "battling board" in lye soap, then scrub them in a galvanized steel tub on a scrub board, then boil them again before hanging them out on the line--then when dry bring them in, sprinkle them, starch them, roll them up, and heat the woodstove up again to warm the "sad irons" to iron them out. It only took ALL DAY to wash the clothes--even when folks had so few. (maybe there was an advantage to having so few). Sewing done by hand or if one was lucky on a foot-pump belt-driven sewing machine. Winter 'kivver' made in women's groups as they met in "quilting circles" to help one another get their quilt-tops sewn onto the bottoms (rather like the men having a 'barn-raising' or taking turns harvesting one another's fields in the fall). Water drawn from the well and carried to the house. Hog-killings in the winter and the meat smoked in a smokehouse to preserve it, as the staple diet of rural Southern farm families was pork, black-eyed peas, and cornbread.

My parents would have been ASHAMED to be called "poor"--and quite furious and insulted with anyone that WOULD have called them that.

And--as I OFTEN heard my mama say--they proudly would have declared (in their best Mrs. Walton voice) "WE do NOT take CHARITY in this house!!!"

My daddy was of Irish descent (came over apparently shortly before or just after the Revolutionary War; my mama of Dutch (also came over before the Revolution).

If staying in Ireland would have eventually led him to believe the world owed him a living (he did NOT) or that he had a right to be dependent on anyone else other than himself (he most vehemently WOULD NOT allow that) or that he should feel sorry for himself because (even as a child) he had to work hard and be beholden to NO ONE--then I'm very GLAD my ancestors got OUT of Ireland before they could so lose their pride and self-reliance.

I do not consider having to work hard or having little of this world's goods something that makes one an object of pity. In fact, teaching people that they ARE to be pitied because of that is what creates the 'victim' mentality.

And all of the above is WORLDS different from the topic I introduced---which was that the damned liberals CREATED THE VERY HELL FOR THE MENTALLY ILL that they 'supposedly' were trying to 'free' them from (ah, poor things!--I say that not to mock the mentally ill but the clueless liberals who RUINED them in their misguided attempts to "help" them) by turning them out into the streets and closing down the ONLY VIABLE SHELTERS THERE WERE to house them.
 
Last edited:

Melodi

Disaster Cat
Sorry about the welfare thing, but that was part of the point. My grandmother didn't get any. Instead, she took her little girls, three, two, and one, with her to scrub floors, do hand laundry, and clean toilets. That was because there WAS NO WELFARE or OTHER PROGRAM.

She was not ashamed of her hard work. Her doctor said she died of "old age and over-work" at 42.

She did ask for help, but the only "help" was from the Workhouse, where they told her she was an unfit mother because her husband left her for another woman. If she entered the Workhouse, her children would be taken away and adopted by "worthy families."

The charity was two food baskets a year, brought by Lady Bountifuls who patted the kids on the head and said things like, "You are so thin. Doesn't your mom ever feed you?

Why yes, the family only went up to three days without food. My Mom thought this was normal - no namby-pamby food stamps back then!

I've already mentioned the lengths my grandmother probably went to ensure there was food on that second or third day too. Thankfully my Mom was too young to remember, and my aunt only told me when her baby sister was dying. She is a retired librarian in her 90s that still drives to volunteer at her local library several times a week; my cousin and I wish she would write a book before the last one of her generation is gone.

So while having worked in the Federal Oversite of the AFDC Agency (also on my floor were child care, health care, and job programs), I also understand after studying charities and social work from about the year 1100 on (and in some previous civilizations before that); that the only time it works is when charity is the official government recognized provider and religious people view it as part of their true calling to provide it. I also know the truly horrific results of this idea in Ireland when the State allowed it rather than funding programs themself WITHOUT ANY OVERSIGHT from the Government. I saw a hardened policeman weep on air when interviews about an investigation he closed twenty years before concerning child abuse allegations. The Archbishop told him he would be excommunicated and damned to hell for all eternity if he continued because "Priests do not do things like that." Of course, the allegations later proved to be true.

But over-all, it worked for the Catholic Church in Western Europe during the High Middle Ages. Where various monastic centers and convents provided the last chance old age homes, cared for the needy and disabled, the sick, and ran orphanages (or took in orphans to raise as Monks and Nuns in the earlier starting during the Dark Ages). They even supported the Leper Colonies and proto-soup kitchens of the Middle Ages (more like the distribution of bread).

The other reason this worked, and it also worked to some degree in the Islamic World of the time, was that highly wealthy people, nobles, and merchants believed they could earn good marks in heaven if they donated money to build convents (where wives might retire if widowed in old age), monasteries, hospitals, leper colonies, places for orphans, doweries for orphaned girls (so they could marry or become nuns instead of prostitutes) and apprenticeships for boys; scholarships for poor boys to study and become priests.

This became much more common during and after the life of St. Francis when the nobility all over Europe suddenly took vows on their deathbeds so they could be buried as members of the order no matter what sins they had committed. This usually involved donating money or land to the order (or the Church). It was also the rage to perform public acts of charity, which further encouraged the flow of money and wealth to the religious orders (not just the Franciscans), especially the "working orders." The Orders that actively manned the charitable institutions were not enclosed or even silent orders. Those were extremely popular during the Dark Ages (Migration Age) when the world was full of horrors, and people took vows to leave it.

Once again, this is long enough, except to say that all that fell apart with the Reformation. Not entirely and only overnight in England. But from then on, "Christian Charity" became a different kettle of fish. I have not studied charity in the Islamic World in the early modern or modern period (Tudor period until now) all that much, so I am not even going to try to comment.
 
Last edited:
Top