zlacker

[return to "San Francisco homelessness: Park ranger helps one person at a time"]
1. mrlamb+8d[view] [source] 2025-02-17 01:59:13
>>NaOH+(OP)
I was really swept up in this article and the portrait of Amanda Barrows - what a unique and strong person and this city is incredibly lucky to have her.

Unlike some here, I came away with a deep sense of empathy, and today’s HN snark and frustration bounced off me pretty hard. The public order issues - homelessness in parks, the challenges of shared spaces—have certainly impacted me. But more than that, I struggle with how to translate the state of the world to my boys. I always remind them: every unhoused person was once a little boy or girl. We might be older now, but we’re still kids inside, and nobody dreams of growing up in these circumstances.

What struck me most was the balance of compassion and pragmatism that Amanda brings to her work. It’s easy to be frustrated with the policies and bureaucratic inefficiencies that slow down real solutions - but they are, in some ways, understandable.

The biggest frustration for me is the gap between the mental state of many unhoused individuals and the requirements needed to secure housing. The city surely understands the long-term costs of its policies, and it’s run by highly pragmatic people with limited budgets. But rules are rules, and at some point, top-down accommodations (including medical interventions...) are necessary to bridge this gap.

◧◩
2. Aunche+YD[view] [source] 2025-02-17 06:13:45
>>mrlamb+8d
> What struck me most was the balance of compassion and pragmatism that Amanda brings to her work.

Nothing about this article strikes me as pragmatic. She's spending all her energy attempting to help people with the least likelihood of success and then gets angry at the system when they inevitably fail. The city didn't kick Morrisette out of the hotel because they like zero-tolerance policies, but because other people deserve a chance a chance to live in a free hotel room as well.

◧◩◪
3. mordae+pS[view] [source] 2025-02-17 08:43:19
>>Aunche+YD
I am sorry to hear that the richest country on earth cannot afford tiny private flats for anyone and everyone unhoused.
◧◩◪◨
4. Aunche+uT[view] [source] 2025-02-17 08:57:09
>>mordae+pS
I mean yes. When engineers making six figures can't afford a flat in the bay area thanks to nimbyism, then you can't expect the government to either.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. b112+xY[view] [source] 2025-02-17 09:50:28
>>Aunche+uT
That seems a weird assertion.

I just went to apartments.com. Palo Alto (not the cheapest place), shows loads of 1 and 2 bedroom apartments under and at 3k/month. That's under $40k/year.

This tax calculator shows the generic case of $120k (low 'six figures'), as being more than $80k takehome:

https://www.talent.com/tax-calculator/California-120000

That means less than 1/2 of a 'low end' engineering salary is taken for housing, and that's without a room-mate. Something most people have at the start of their career, and before being married (which is another way to have a room mate).

Do you actually live in the region? Why do you think almost $4k/month of cash in hand, left over after rent paid and taxes paid, isn't much?

Why do you think no one can find a place to live, when apartments.com show places aplenty?

Are you referring to a specific area, instead of a more central place such as Palo Alto?

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. michae+dp1[view] [source] 2025-02-17 13:18:48
>>b112+xY
Well, in the US the median pre-tax household income is $80k and the median renter spends <35% of their income on rent.

Imagine singlehandedly earning 150% of what the average family earns, in one of the richest countries in the world and living in a one-bedroom apartment - and such a low standard of living isn't even cheap.

The landlords must be laughing all the way to the bank!

[go to top]