San Francisco can solve its Homeless crisis with a touch of Class
Outrageous is how I describe what I learned in reading, SF Chronicle, “The City is not an ATM”: SF sees homeless claims up to $10,000 spike in battle over encampment sweeps.
My outrage is not towards desperate homeless who are doing what desperate people do. Nor is my rage towards the city attorney for caving into what some, including myself, would view as a possible scam or fraud.
My outrage is towards an organization that claims to be fighting for people experiencing homelessness, the Coalition on Homelessness. My experience tells me there is a better way to protect the lost treasures of people experiencing homelessness than hundreds of small claim lawsuits.
A mission statement reads, “The Coalition on Homelessness organizes homeless people and front line service providers to create permanent solutions to homelessness while working to protect the human rights of those forced to remain on the streets.”
Really?
In 2009, I lost my home to foreclosure; it was the family home since 1964. But I credit my new pickup as the main reason I did not miss a beat in living. My 2008 Ford F-150 was so comfortable; I recall spending too much time in it even when I had my home.
It was not as cozy as a luxury car, but comfortable enough to where, in ten years, my vehicle never looked lived in as I always kept it clean. I was able to keep up my hygiene. I always voted. I wrote and self-published a book that is now in the San Francisco Main Library. And I am most proud that I wrote a San Francisco ballot measure on my cell phone in my truck that even garnered 98,000 “Yes” votes in the June 2018 San Francisco special election. An Oakland business owner was so impressed with what I started he even donated $50,000 to my campaign after learning of my circumstances.
Cost to the city for me to live in my truck? Zero dollars. Zero cents.
Juxtapose my homeless experience with what the Coalition on Homelessness offers for people experiencing homelessness. Beyond suing the city, do they even encourage people experiencing homelessness to register to vote? I think not. You might ask the question: How does helping the homeless scam, or become serial plaintiffs, help solve the problem of homelessness?
The Coalition on Homelessness makes it harder for the average San Franciscan to muster sympathy. Helping the homeless sue and celebrate “$10,000” judgments will not get one person off the street. And many of the winners of this ill-gotten gain might as well sign their checks over to the drug dealers. Because that is where the money will end up.
Though I could further criticize the Coalition on Homelessness, I offer a solution to encampment sweeps instead:
Living in a vehicle is frowned upon and, in some places, against the law. But if I did it for ten years, at no cost to the city, the city should try it. There is a humane way of clearing the streets of encampments if we come together with a pilot program to shelter people experiencing homelessness in older luxury cars. If you became homeless, would you rather live in a tent or this Lincoln Town Car?
One might argue against starting a trend of city-sanctioned living in cars. But consider the alternative trend of homeless suing municipalities as a trend spreading across the country thanks to San Francisco.
Of course, to turn these vehicles into a shelter, we must remove the engines. These vehicles, as I envision, are not intended to be drivable. Towable, yes, if a person commits serious violations of any use agreement. But all their valuables safely in the vehicle and retrievable.
But having them all equipped with solar energy would significantly improve comfort. Google “Living in a car,” you will find many people celebrate this style of living. Though I love living in my new apartment, I would still be living in my truck if it were not for a bad transmission.
Living in a vehicle can be challenging for some but easy for those who love the outdoors. A friend of mine took me to his SRO. It was so small after a year of complaining, he began breaking out windows. This act led to his eviction. Sure, even a large car is smaller than an SRO, but many homeless prefer outdoors and a car is shelter and usually kept outdoors. But now my friend wanders the streets and is rightfully harassed for sleeping in the doorways of businesses.
There are approximately 7400 city blocks and over 320,000 parking spaces in San Francisco. We would be wise, as, “The City that knows how” in starting a pilot program, where it purchases a few older gas-guzzling luxury sedans and place them in various areas of the city where encampments pop up or, on average, ten shelter cars parked around each of our 220 parks. Or be forced to answer countless ridiculous small claims court cases: Grandpa’s favorite chair was all I had left when I became homeless. It had sentimental value of $3,500.00, but it was tossed during a homeless sweep.
San Francisco can greatly discourage the practice of being sued for not respecting what little the homeless claim is valuable. Sure, it might cost $5,000 a car, not including modifications. But the going rate of the spike in court settlements is $5,000.00 to $10,000, according to the SF Chronicle.
The Coalition on Homelessness couldn’t care less about homeowners. But they may have given hundreds of homeowners an idea, to sue for the decreased home values due to tent encampments. Then what, Mr. City Attorney? According to the latest news, you are losing again in court.
From the April 4, 2023, San Francisco Chronicle: “The federal magistrate who prohibited San Francisco in December from removing homeless people from encampments without providing them immediate shelter refused to suspend her order Monday while the city appeals it.
City officials argued that the Dec. 23 injunction by U.S. Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu had put San Francisco in an ”impossible situation,” as City Attorney David Chiu put it in a court filing. He said some people on the streets have refused shelter, others have obtained shelter beds but still choose to live on the streets and Ryu’s order left the city “powerless to do anything in those situations.”
The city is not powerless to offer shelter to its homeless residents. It just lacks creativity. And the cost for this temporary shelter is one-tenth the ridiculous creative figure of $1 billion.
Update: I found this YouTube video recently and am confident that what I am proposing is a lot better than what I see in the video as rearranging a problem.
Update 2: I urge all to listen to this entire YouTube video. However, beginning at the 21:20 mark is a must.
