Ahimsa Sumchai: "Please do not send anymore vitriolic messages"
The city's left evidently has trouble with the political dialogue thing. In response to my Dec. 11 message below, I got this from Ahimsa Sumchai: "Please do not send anymore vitriolic messages." Where's the "vitriol" in that message? Seems like I raise some valid questions about homelessness in San Francisco, and of course it's those questions neither Sumchai nor any progressive leader in the city is prepared to answer: Who exactly are the homeless people in SF? Are most of them, as seems to be the case, people with psychological problems and/or crippling substance abuse issues? Or, as the city's progressives insist, are they simply poor people who can't afford housing in San Francisco?
(See also H. Brown's response to another attempt at dialogue with the city's left.)
Subject: Homeless Numbers
Ms. Sumchai:
You're right about my putting "lies" in quotes. That was careless of me, since that usage wasn't yours but that of another PROSF correspondent. On the other hand, you are surely implying that the city is trying to deceive the public about its relative success in dealing with homelessness with the "statistical games" usage. Instead, the information the city gave me was what the people at Public Health regard as an accurate reflection of what they have achieved in the past four years in dealing with the ongoing crisis of homelessness. And, by the way, those numbers square with the numbers released from the very beginning of the Newsom administration in 2004. I know of no reason to think that these are untrue or represent an attempt by city officials to deceive the public. If you have such information, I'd like to see it.
Of course the homeless folks that the city is encountering, for example, in Golden Gate Park are not simply "comprised of city residents displaced by the skyrocketing housing market and our failure to provide mental health, substance abuse and workers compensation benefits for those who are disabled." The people causing the most concern to the Haight Ashbury neighborhood can in fact be described as "derelicts," since they are responsible for the many hypodermic needles that litter the park and the surrounding neighborhood. These are also the folks responsible for littering the park with the 240 tons of debris the city has removed from Golden Gate Park as it eliminated large camp sites where hundreds of homeless people were living.
In a past incarnation, you recognized that the overwhelming majority of the homeless have drug and alcohol problems, as do most of the homeless who die on our streets every year. These are the kind of people San Francisco seems to be attracting from other parts of the country, swelling the ranks of the homeless on our streets.
Yes, I know that most of the homelss in SF are supposedly "city residents," but I've never seen any statistics to back that claim up. Or any analysis of what being a "city resident" means in that context: How long does one have to live here to be deemed a "resident"? It's nothing but an analysis blinkered by ideology that persists in seeing the city's homeless as simply poor people who can't afford housing, but it's an intellectual/political shortcoming you share with San Francisco's other progressives. The homeless I'm referring to as "derelicts" are the same population you and your fellow doctors referred to way back in 2003---people crippled by drug and alcohol addictions, often complicated by mental illness. Hence, I'm convinced that most of our homeless problem has little to do with housing. Instead, we need to come to grips with the real nature of this problem, which means understanding exactly who these people are and where they come from.
Regards,
Rob Anderson
Dear Mr. Anderson,
Ms. Sumchai:
You're right about my putting "lies" in quotes. That was careless of me, since that usage wasn't yours but that of another PROSF correspondent. On the other hand, you are surely implying that the city is trying to deceive the public about its relative success in dealing with homelessness with the "statistical games" usage. Instead, the information the city gave me was what the people at Public Health regard as an accurate reflection of what they have achieved in the past four years in dealing with the ongoing crisis of homelessness. And, by the way, those numbers square with the numbers released from the very beginning of the Newsom administration in 2004. I know of no reason to think that these are untrue or represent an attempt by city officials to deceive the public. If you have such information, I'd like to see it.
Of course the homeless folks that the city is encountering, for example, in Golden Gate Park are not simply "comprised of city residents displaced by the skyrocketing housing market and our failure to provide mental health, substance abuse and workers compensation benefits for those who are disabled." The people causing the most concern to the Haight Ashbury neighborhood can in fact be described as "derelicts," since they are responsible for the many hypodermic needles that litter the park and the surrounding neighborhood. These are also the folks responsible for littering the park with the 240 tons of debris the city has removed from Golden Gate Park as it eliminated large camp sites where hundreds of homeless people were living.
In a past incarnation, you recognized that the overwhelming majority of the homeless have drug and alcohol problems, as do most of the homeless who die on our streets every year. These are the kind of people San Francisco seems to be attracting from other parts of the country, swelling the ranks of the homeless on our streets.
Yes, I know that most of the homelss in SF are supposedly "city residents," but I've never seen any statistics to back that claim up. Or any analysis of what being a "city resident" means in that context: How long does one have to live here to be deemed a "resident"? It's nothing but an analysis blinkered by ideology that persists in seeing the city's homeless as simply poor people who can't afford housing, but it's an intellectual/political shortcoming you share with San Francisco's other progressives. The homeless I'm referring to as "derelicts" are the same population you and your fellow doctors referred to way back in 2003---people crippled by drug and alcohol addictions, often complicated by mental illness. Hence, I'm convinced that most of our homeless problem has little to do with housing. Instead, we need to come to grips with the real nature of this problem, which means understanding exactly who these people are and where they come from.
Regards,
Rob Anderson
Dear Mr. Anderson,
I have never, in my correspondance on this matter used the term "lies". You are misquoting and misrepresenting me in forwarding an email with the word "lies" in parentheses suggesting I have used this term. I used the term "statistical games" because this is what this represents. As a former Stanford postdoctoral research fellow I hold a Ph.D equivalent and have pointed out to you the discrepancies obvious to anyone with a third grade understanding of math. Over two thirds of the cities homeless population is comprised of city residents displaced by the skyrocketing housing market and our failure to provide mental health, substance abuse and workers compensation benefits for those who are disabled.
St. Francis of Assisi and the Franiscan Friars, for whom San Francisco is named, offered refuge to the poor, homeless, sick and disabled. San Francisco has a City of Refuge Ordinance on record that was enacted to protect immigrants seeking safety and shelter. It certainly can be interpreted to include the internally displaced refugees of San Francisco's war on the homeless, the impoverished, the working class and people of color.
The Bayview Hunters Point Distict of San Francisco is an important catchment area for homelessness as above market rate housing is being sited in a community with an area median income of less than $20,000 annually. Homeless families, women and seniors clearly are not the people you are referring to as "derelicts."
I was temporarily homeless in San Francisco while disabled from a work related injury and while a probate action took place on an $850,000 home I inherited in San Francisco's affluent Miraloma Park District. I fully understand how circumstances can create homeless in San Francisco...even for someone with a $150,000 a year income as a practicing physician.
Labels: Golden Gate Park, Homelessness, Right and Left
posted by Rob Anderson @ 9:49 AM
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home