San Francisco to vote on taxing rich businesses for homeless

The way to get this homeless situation under control is to enforce the laws. San Francisco has fairly good weather so as a homeless person you can live year round on the streets. Lived in this area for 20+ years and my children could never play on our sidewalk because of the nasty homeless people. In our Japanese home my children were able to enjoy the neighborhood freely and safely because Japan has moral standards. End of story!

omg it must be all trump fault.... or , why do we need to care about some SF junkies...

The bay area is insane in its real estate market. If i were homeless i would find a place with better weather and move.

As with Jared Kushner, why people worrying about high taxes on the rich when much of the rich aren't even paying that amount

San Francisco has come to be known around the world as a place for aggressive panhandling, open-air drug use and sprawling tent camps,

I hardly think so.

In our Japanese home my children were able to enjoy the neighborhood freely and safely because Japan has moral standards

The US has moral standards as well, they are just different to Japan's. The US also deals with issues differently than Japan.

Does anyone really expect businesses to pay for the clean up or will the reality be that these businesses will simply bail out of the state.

Right, looking at the photo, they both are properly working age... send em to pick fruits or cut all help if refused.

Seems to be a very arbeit macht frei vibe here. More than usual. Unless I'm missing some not-so-Swiftian satire, perhaps...

The gap between the rich and poor will continual to widen until the Marie Antoinettes have to deal with the situation.

It could happen to any one of us. Circumstances are everything. Not everyone has a cosy middle class upbringing or a millionaire parent.

Does anyone really expect businesses to pay for the clean up or will the reality be that these businesses will simply bail out of the state.

Depends on the business. If it's something that has no need to be in the Bay area, then they may bail. But any business that is tied to the area, which will be the majority, will not bail.

if you feel free without the money - be free, but dont beg or whine or expect anything from anyone.

no problem whatsoever, oh and dont sleep on public pathways in dirty tents... go hunt in nature.

but, if you expect anything from society, and able , do your bit.

they both obviously had the cash to pay for tats , maybe shouldve spent it on housing instead.

My relatives live close by and they do not enjoy visiting SF city proper. They are even contemplating moving out of State. You must live in CA to know exactly how it is.

Homeless problem is not going away by taxing the rich or using tax money to "hand out" and "care" for them. They must go beyond "existing" to "living", which means they must "move" and "work" and "earn".

The rich are wealthy because they worked and earned and learned to keep what they had earned. If the system is the problem and politics is the problem, they have learned to avoid or go away to places that they can keep their wealth. In some cases they actually worked the system and the politics to make it favorable for them.

(Never mind bashing the rich and wealthy, they took action to build and grow. They spent the time and effort, got educated, trained, spent the time and made the right connections and succeeded in getting the positions and the money. If they left that wealth to their heirs and they too succeeded, it was their effort. Do not assume that they did not put in the effort. It takes effort to keep wealth just as much as to make it

But most important, they do not owe or are obligated to give and serve the public as do politicians being paid by and representing the public for public good, which also includes the wealthy. It is wrong to "expect" or to "demand" or to "take" from the wealthy as well as the poor. The owner has the options and the choice to give or keep. They can "donate" or "give" as they see fit, not dictated by society or by politicians and by legislation for the convenience of the system that is failing or failing.

Wealthy or not, I am sure everyone will do the same whether wealthy or poor. The only right and power we have is to choose.)

I am not wealthy, but I certainly would not agree to take just from the wealthy, just because they are wealthy. Society is for sharing, yes. But the sharing is by the owners' choice and not by a forced right to take away.

The entire thing will change if the burden was placed on taking from the public employees only or corporate owners only or the church ministers only.

they both obviously had the cash to pay for tats , maybe shouldve spent it on housing instead.

Lots of people have ink. They could have had it when they were younger, or in the armed forces etc.

A person's looks have nothing to do with being homeless.

There's plenty of factors that can force a person on the streets.

The rich are wealthy because they worked and earned and learned to keep what they had earned. 

Many inherited it. And didn't do an honest days work in their lives. And many avoided paying taxes but are somehow to be lauded for that.

They spent the time and effort, got educated, trained, spent the time and made the right connections and succeeded in getting the positions and the money. 

And how does that work if you come from the wrong postcode? Or haven't got the access, comforts, connections and opportunities that the rich had?

There's people from broken homes on the streets, veterans who were not looked after, ordinary folk who fell on bad times.

I have relatives in San Jose. Visited recently, took an early walk, and saw residents of a tent encampment dressing for work.

My father lives there. His wife recently died, and he's selling his house. The place occupies not a bit larger of the lot mine in Kumamoto does, but will go for $1.3 million dollars. Try to afford that.

Funny enough, pushing businesses out of that area might be good.

The bay area is insane in its real estate market. If i were homeless i would find a place with better weather and move.

Yeah. Just use those savings and move to where the poor people live.

The rich are wealthy because they worked and earned and learned to keep what they had earned. 

Partly. And partly because they were born lucky enough to afford to get ahead. Some people were not born that way. I volunteered in a homeless shelter in NYC in the 80s, and most of those guys were working days, but couldn't dig their way out of the financial hole they were in. Not everybody is Donald Trump, who can go bankrupt and stick his contractors with the bill.

dont sleep on public pathways in dirty tents... go hunt in nature.

Pathetic comment. What compassion. Hope you learn something someday.

Glad I left that crazy city, they can take other people’s money, not mine.

Pathetic comment. What compassion. Hope you learn something someday.

Which reminds me, it would be an idea if JT could add links to these kind of articles - i.e. volunteering to assist homeless people in Japan. Or even San Fran, come to think of it.

Fair play to you, plastic, for helping out. I suspect that if more people actually took time to engage with (at the very least) those less fortunate than us, they'd have their prejudices and assumptions about homeless folk challenged.

Some of the comments here are reprehensible and I do still wonder if it's for lols or some people really think it's ok to sneer at homeless people.

Over & out.

Some of the comments here are reprehensible and I do still wonder if it's for lols or some people really think it's ok to sneer at homeless people.

If SF wouldn’t put all their resources into entitlements and would take more of a self-reliance, entrepreneurial approach and a more anti-drug with a focus on better job training and incentives to encourage local business to hire some of these people to get them on their feet and to teach them how to take care and provide for themselves and not have self pity or to rely on anyone. Word hard and give back.

Sorry, but I mostly blame the system that allowed for the homeless plight to veer out of control. 

I also blame capitalism.

I also blame capitalism

And thank God for it, look at Orange County and San Diego.

I vote yes.

Being from Seattle, I can say with certainty that handing out more entitlements will just encourage the homeless population to grow even worse. Other cities actually put their homeless on buses and send them here because we will accept them. Downtown Seattle is a huge mess of tent cities and brazen drug abusers. The police are not even allowed to do anything about someone shooting up right in front of them and the majority of our homeless refuse help because they don't want to follow any rules. Its a choice for many of them and it's only going to get worse. Taxing big business is only going to drive businesses out of the state and do nothing but worsen the homeless problem.

And make all the excuses you want for them, but those two in the picture at the top are almost certainly homeless by choice. I've seen too many of them.

I don't think taxing the businesses is going to solve this at all either. Plus they need to evaluate the people who are homeless. There are 3 types of homeless folks... having been there myself.

You have those who are hard workers and lost their jobs and struggle to get back on their feet. There are the disabled/mentally ill/elderly who lack necessary support to be taken care of properly. These are the top priority homeless people that need assistance.

Then last of all are the slackers/drug addicts/leeches that don't want to earn a living or intentionally cut themselves off taking care of themselves to keep off the streets.

The people that need to be taxed are the extravagant top executives that are making chunks of money off the wealthy business... and still get golden parachutes for running those businesses into the ground.

You have those who are hard workers and lost their jobs and struggle to get back on their feet. There are the disabled/mentally ill/elderly who lack necessary support to be taken care of properly. These are the top priority homeless people that need assistance.

Then last of all are the slackers/drug addicts/leeches that don't want to earn a living or intentionally cut themselves off taking care of themselves to keep off the streets.

Absolutely right. The first two groups deserve to get help. I'm sure it will be unpopular, but a lot in that second group might need help forced on them.

As for the third group, if they want to be homeless by choice, once they refuse help, cities need to be able to tell them to leave.

Unfortunately, that third group makes up a large portion of the homeless. If we could stop worrying about them, things might go better for the rest that really need and deserve help.

Then last of all are the slackers/drug addicts/leeches that don't want to earn a living or intentionally cut themselves off taking care of themselves to keep off the streets.

Drug addicts more often than not are mentally ill, which means they belong in your second group.

Unrelated to that, I'm always baffled when I see homeless people with pets. Pets are a drain on resources. Food alone is costly.

Why someone is homeless isn't the issue. Whether it is a qualified worker who is homeless or a drug addict who is homeless, the need to reduce homelessness and clean up the streets for both the homeless and the non homeless is necessary. That's why the people of SF, who are caring people, are trying to help. They're not haters, they're empathic people as a whole, and SF is a great city.

While some people will put down the Ashbury Haight district, it is a wonderful place, and the summer of love is a feeling that still exists. It is unique, historic and very cool, with some of the best T shirts, ever.

And make all the excuses you want for them, but those two in the picture at the top are almost certainly homeless by choice. I've seen too many of them.

I knew homeless people outside of Japan, and talked to them every day and I can assure you that your statement is a gross over-simplification.

Sometimes you have a choice whether to stay in an abusive relationship or leave. You might have nowhere to go and eventually you run out of friends and sofas to crash on.

Someone dear to me lived for 6 months in her car, with her young child because of a domestic situation that got out of hand and no savings or job to fall back on. She's now a homeowner, employed and her child grew up to be a medic.

That's a story that had a happy ending - not all do. But nobody I know or speak with suddenly decided one day "oh, wouldn't it be marvellous if I decide to be homeless". That's not how it works. As I've said before, there can be numerous factors at work.

Unrelated to that, I'm always baffled when I see homeless people with pets. Pets are a drain on resources. Food alone is costly.

Yes, it is.

But loneliness costs even more.

@toasted

I don’t know who you talked to or what country they were in and obviously I said not all of them are like this, and I’m not discounting your experiences, but I am here in the middle of it in the US. Seattle is one of the worst locations in America for homelessness and I see it daily.

I can tell you with 100% certainty that a huge chunk of our homeless are on the street because they want to be. They would rather be doing drugs or just living without rules or having to work than to be a functioning member of society. It doesn’t matter how they got there, the problem is that they want to stay there.

As I said before, there’s a lot of people that need and deserve help because they want to fix their situation. The ones that just want a handout so they can stay on the street doing drugs in their tents and pooping on the sidewalks need to get the boot so we can concentrate on those that want to be helped.