Thanks to reader mcas for sending this in. mcas says: “Could be more concise, but I guess it gets the message across…”
Previously on Mission Mission:
21 Responses to “Mission Nite Time Patrons Who Harrass People Who Live On The Street In This Anti-Poor City Are Worth Less Than Shit”
Allan Hough (7858)
Brittany Janis & Katie Cruz (104)
Authors
Good location, too. One right on 16th Street between Mission and Valencia. I applaud ‘em.
anti-poor city?
um…SF spends more per capita on programs to support “people who live on the street” as well as “the welfare of recently arrived immigrants” and “fiscally disadvantaged people” than most other cities in the country.
you’d have to go to Europe to find a larger public spend. Sweden, even.
issue of course is, they make no distinction between a “useless crackhead” and a “down on their luck individual”…no distinction between “recently emigrated people working for a better life and the betterment of our city” and “thug killer knuckleheads”. so most of the money is essentially thrown away, or (in my view) stolen. maybe that’s the real issue…
so while i don’t disagree with the sentiment, it’s a little bit spun up in an overly-progressive sort of way. not really living in the most broad reality…that said, i do get it.
so how about something like:
Mission career snake-oil politicians Who, for purposes of their own career advancement, perpetuate an arcane and irrelevant system that keeps people Living On The Street In This Anti-Poor City, Are Worth Less Than Shit
doesn’t really improve the grammar, but i put a few commas in there just to help it along a little.
I live right near here. I have never seen people at night harassing the homeless, although I am sure there have been incidents.
I do see a some of the homeless harassing and threatening everyone else on a daily basis.
Speaking of career snake-oil politicians, there’s going to be a D9 Supervisor’s debate on 10/7 at the Victoria Theatre. There’s a website collecting questions for the debate: http://www.d9debate.com.
Is that the one right outside Pancho Villa?
This is too funny. The city of SF practically encourages homelessness.
Yes- that’s the one outside of Pancho Villa. It was the clearest for a photo compared to the other 3 at Hoff, in front of Esta Noche, and in front of Lee Hong.
It looks like the same work as the ‘google gentrification’ I’ve been seeing around lately, too… anyone know if it’s the same?
Foo:
I have seen people kick a man who was sleeping on the street in the mission, so there you go. Me and another resident confronted the 4 kids and they ran.
If you remember back in 2006, 3 teenagers went out with bats and beat 3 homeless people, killing one in Ft. Lauderdale- http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5156425 and we have to prevent people feeling entitled to harming someone simply because they are poor.
“um…SF spends more per capita on programs to support “people who live on the street” as well as “the welfare of recently arrived immigrants” and “fiscally disadvantaged people” than most other cities in the country.”
Sure, throw money into a program. That’ll make you sleep better at night. Money, money, money. Oh, how it makes the world (seemingly) go ’round. Those programs don’t do much of anything. Put your checkbook away and go serve those people some food.
Homelessness is encouraged because the cheapest roof here is more than the price of a 3-bedroom home in most places.
“Homelessness is encouraged because the cheapest roof here is more than the price of a 3-bedroom home in most places.”
Well, then, uh, maybe people should move to where it is cheaper? I don’t know, I’m just throwing that idea out there.
Yell…that’s the point i was making. the programs are mis-managed and don’t do anything.
that said, the idea that SF is an “anti-poor” city is misguided. the size of these programs are evidence. so, i think the intent is there, but the efficacy is not.
it’s funny, my thought when i saw those posters that said “the cost of a 2 BR apt is more than a service maker can pay” was – why would a service worker choose to live in SF? it’s cheaper in other close-by places, with better schools and more sft for the $$. San Bruno. Daly City. Fremont. All nice places to live.
I’m not justifying the ridiculous cost of living, or implying that i don’t want these folks to lie in SF….but the facts are the facts.
seriously, why would anyone that’s tight on the sheckels choose to live in SF when there are alternatives?
CODA: homelessness is encouraged, my opinion, because snake-oil progressive career politicians have a strangle hold on the city.
“The city of SF practically encourages homelessness.”
That’s so absurd I’m tempted to pretend I didn’t just read it. Have you been practically tempted to become homeless? What made you change your mind? Or is it only ‘those people’ who can be so easily tempted into homelessness. Hmm, food for thought.
“why would anyone that’s tight on the sheckels choose to live in SF when there are alternatives?”
Ya! Don’t poor people know this place is, like, for us? I mean, it could be for them too if they just chose not to be poor.
Mission side walk stencilers who harass with their self-righteous feel-bad platitudes are worth less than shit.
Josh…can you for one moment try to live in the world we have today?
it’s no secret that SF dumps many millions into programs that – while admittedly ineffective in solving any actual problems – do in fact encourage a certain strata of homeless people to come here and stay here. they do in fact enable a certain strata of homeless people to use resources to stay high and on the street and unproductive.
no one is saying that it’s OK or fun to be homeless. no one is saying that the homeless have a good deal. no one is saying anything like that.
your point, obviously, is that any indictment of the programs or – god forbid – the homeless themselves is blasphemy. this is the exact same thing as saying “all homeless are trash”. it’s not true, and it’s not realistic.
some homeless people are swell people in need of help. some homeless people are useless pieces of shit. same can be said of anyone, homeless or not.
point here was, calling SF an “anti-poor” city, PARTICULARLY in reference to the homeless, just isn’t accurate.
Far as poor folks living in SF, see where i say: “I’m not justifying the ridiculous cost of living, or implying that I don’t want these folks to live in SF…”
i have said in many posts here, i am 100% in support of tenant’s rights, of Our Mission’s diversity, and of folks fighting for what they believe. so for me, the more kinds of people we have in the city, the happier i am.
that said, i will STILL ask the same question: why would anyone that’s tight on the sheckels choose to live in SF when there are alternatives? seriously…why would they?
most service working folks i know (i know MANY), or artists, or folks trying to save a nest egg, or anyone with cash issues, bolt from SF to any number of places around the Bay where they can have more sft or the $, where schools are better, services are cheaper…where they can breathe a little. sure, they pay more for transpo, assuming they work in SF, but it’s a pittance compared to the cost of living in SF.
so, again, why would anyone that’s tight on the sheckels choose to live in SF when there are alternatives?
you want to offer up a real answer, I’d love to hear it.
Zinzin (if that is your real name), sweetie, you need to tone down your rhetoric. Bill O’reiley you ain’t. You’re not going to make friends or encourage rational discourse when you start your comments by dismissing other peoples’ arguments out of hand.
Now to discuss your points:
“why would anyone that’s tight on the sheckels choose to live in SF when there are alternatives? seriously…why would they? ”
Why, for the same reason that you did. Or because they were born here. Or because everyone in the world that they know lives here. There are as many reasons why as there are people. I hope that answers the question. If you really meant to ask why we should spend time and energy trying to improve these people’s lives when they could make us all feel better by leaving, then that’s another question with a different answer.
Look, I’m sure you don’t hate poor people or want them to leave this town(I’m definitely sure that you don’t want to think that you hate poor people). But in your comments I see a lot of “I support inclusion and diversity and poor people BUT can they please just stop being so poor and diverse.”
Please set me straight, but I see a lot of pleas to cast out symptoms of poverty without solving the problem, or to criminalize the results of poverty, without (apparent) thought to how that will affect the newly minted criminals.
“point here was, calling SF an “anti-poor” city, PARTICULARLY in reference to the homeless, just isn’t accurate. ”
What I think you mean is that san francisco is full of advocates for the poor. Or advocates in this town are especially vocal on behalf of the poor. But these advocates rarely elicit changes in policy that they would like. They are often stuck playing defense against moneyed interests who write the laws and truly make this town a miserable place to be poor. And if you don’t believe it’s a miserable place to be poor, by all means try it out. That’s not a personal attack. But you can trust me, this town can more than fairly be called anti-poor.
Josh, i have to thank you for that last post. it may be the most rational post in this whole thread (and the others too). all of your points are valid, and well written. and, while i don’t agree with them all, i can’t think of a cogent retort to any of them. another example of all being grey, not black and white.
you’ve obviously given all of these issues a lot of thought, and from your perspective, have real experience with a many of them. i respect that, and i think it’s laudable that you’ve been able to hold onto your ideals in what is obviously an inhospitable environ.
again, i don’t always agree with you…but your position has been consistent. more than i can say for myself, apparently.
that said, i am not trying to be Bill O’Rielly. if i come off as an overbearing, snarky asshole (it wouldn’t be the first time), it’s because i believe in the power of reaction, and i can’t help but try to get people to live in – and improve – the Mission we have, not the one we lost, or the one we’ll never get if we don’t get educated and involved.
and unfortunately, your average Mission resident is asleep.
so, if folks comment with complacency or laziness or blind adherence to dogma, or what (in my myopic view) seems to be a refusal to live in the present state, i feel the need to call bullshit.
maybe it’s because this is my first foray into this medium (kind of fun, i think). maybe it’s because i love the Mission (cue violins)…and as much of a yuppie scumbag as i may be, i grew up here, in terms of becoming a thinking adult, and i don’t want to see it go the way of Times Square, sold off wholesale to Real Estate Developers…and Disney, Starbucks & Nike. And that’s what’s going to happen…and I’ll benefit from it, being a property owner….but it’ll be a fucking shame.
so, if one person reads the posts here, and thinks for one second about doing something for our hood, or makes one move to get educated, or opens their eyes for one split second, i am cool being the hated loudmouth irrational inconsistent fall guy.
(and btw, i don’t hate poor people. i spent almost 2 years on the street.)
Most homeless people are cool with me, but those insane crackheads either need to be brought back from the living dead or euthanized if that’s not possible.
As for the obnoxious drunk assholes, well who cares? You’re only 21 once. And let’s be honest here — this neighborhood has had obnoxious drunk people since WAAAY before your ass moved in.
ummm, sometimes the point is not to be concise. in fact, sometimes, it may even be just the opposite.
interestingly enough, when I observe the homeless being harassed, it’s not by yuppies. I still remember the neighborhood youths in Hayes Valley following some poor old drunk down the street throwing glass bottles at him. So…is it racist or classist to suggest that the problem is not always the “yuppies” but the ill-raised, often criminal youth of your fair city?
Peter: Assuming someone stops to read your stencil, you only have a quick second to really get your message across. My comment about ‘concise’ was whether or not the person was trying to raise the issue of:
1) Harrassment of people by drunk jackasses who think their money makes them better than people with less money or
2) City policies towards low-income people.
I assume since it’s spraypainted in front of Pancho Villa and not City Hall, it’s more towards the former, rather than the latter.
[...] Anti-Poor City [...]
waves and wave properties lesson—anatomy of a wave worksheet answers. working with such delicate fibers means he sometimes inhales his own work, if he is not careful, which is why he has developed patience into an art form as well. for your benefit, here is a pdf download link.