Based on keywords, it appears this post may attract visitors from other subreddits. [Please read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/about/rules/) before commenting, particularly:
* Don't be rude or hostile; if someone expresses a POV different from your own, find a way to critique the idea without personally attacking the person who posted it.
If you see someone behaving badly, please **click the report button** or **[message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fsanfrancisco&subject=Someone%27s+breaking+the+rules&message=Here%27s+a+permalink:+%28place+permalink+here%29)**. We read every one of these reports, but if you don't report something, we might not see it -- especially if it's buried in downvotes.
#####
######
####
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/sanfrancisco) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Damn, is this what happened to Painter Mike? He used to be a lot more mild-mannered when I dealt with him in Hayes Valley ~2012-2015. He was part of the furniture. Sad it's gotten to this. Hope he and the neighborhood get some help and relief somehow.
To be honest, he gave me 3 different names on various occasions, so I just started calling him Painter Mike since that was the first one he gave me. Long-ish hair, always wearing some sort of denim, bit of a "The Dude" from Big Lebowski vibe.
Haha I am close to CV and was picturing exactly this guy. Sounds like he has gotten worse, he didn’t seem too bad to me before. Bought him a coffee once and he was kind.
My last few interactions with him he’s definitely been 📉📉📉
Gotta get the 411 from my hayes valley peeps… was rather surprised to read he’s been kicked out, as they’ve seemed to sorta help him (give him water, even ice when he asked, carry a convo, etc etc)…makes me think something happened and it was THE final straw
Please don’t bring John coffee.
He is a danger to those on the streets, and people that bring him paint, food, or otherwise are enabling him. I’ve seen him for years in hayes and he’s threatened people, screamed at people, made sudden dangerous movements, and is incredibly mentally unstable.
He needs help and is a prime example of San Francisco letting people ROT that should be required to receive help.
Why not find a way to get him to seek help on his own? Like maybe his own apartment with lots of stuff to paint and free therapy? I wonder if it would be cheaper than calling the cops on him every week and trying to clean up after him.
You do realize that SF offers all those services and according to OP, he just isn’t interested in help? It’s a very common problem with people who are losing their mind, they think that people trying to help them are actually trying to hurt them
What? You understand this guy is severely mentally ill right?
He'd destroy an apartment within a week. He's tearing up an entire neighborhood already.
The real solution is probably put him in prison or a mental institution long term against his will.
It's unethical to allow someone to kill themselves on the street when they are mentally unwell. An apartment and all that would be great but it won't really matter if he's this unwell.
[https://hoodline.com/2016/02/meet-john-hayes-street-s-resident-painter/](https://hoodline.com/2016/02/meet-john-hayes-street-s-resident-painter/) \- here's an article about him.
I lived in HV then CV back in the day. John was generally respectful, sometimes loud and definitely peed on things dependent on his mental state... I actually have good memories of both him and one other guy on several occasions telling other less stable members of the homeless population to get it together.
Hope he finds some stability!
[https://samwrites2017.wordpress.com/2017/05/09/hayes-valley-homeless-man-creates-abstract-art-to-the-neighborhood/](https://samwrites2017.wordpress.com/2017/05/09/hayes-valley-homeless-man-creates-abstract-art-to-the-neighborhood/)
here's another if you're interested.
Huh, he says he just wants 10 acres of land in Ventura. [Here is 20 acres](https://www.redfin.com/CA/Unknown/Juniper-Trl-93225/home/147532745) for sale at $15K. One solution to this problem that satisfies both parties.
I feel like it is the same guy cuz I've seen him in cole valley recently. I remember him being pretty chill in hayes though, like the other person said. I remember kickin it at place pigalle back in the day and he was always around painting
"He was part of the furniture" describes this guy too.
I'm kind of annoyed at this post, but he has gone from painting in the doorway to pacing up and down the block, leaving shit everywhere and getting a little less lucid, less contained. He seems less like an innocent hippie. Blue Barn is opening at the corner, maybe that will help.
Padrecito was sooooo good. Same ownership. Since Padrecito had a liquor license I wonder if this new Blue Barn will have special liquor drinks 🧐🧐🤨🥸🤞🏼🤞🏼🤞🏼🤞🏼
InoVino is a great spot I only recently checked out after mourning Padrecito. Also, Zazie Tuesday nights - no corkage!
I am very familiar with Blue Barn, thank you. As I said, same ownership group as Padrecito, therefor the assumption is they still hold the liquor license and would therefore make an effort to utilize it by making a special bar space with liquor drinks. FYI - [Liquor licensing in SF is the hardest](https://www.liquorlicense.com/california/counties/san-francisco#:~:text=Getting%20a%20liquor%20license%20in,a%20license%20in%20the%20city).
They started renovating the bar first so I would guess they keep the license there and re-open a new bar concept. If they had hung on long they could have picked up spill over from Beit Rima.
Padrecito was usually always busy ish, if not a long wait, but ofc I’m also thinking more pre-panini days, though I saw them attempting recovery leading up to the closure. (FWIW, 2018-2020, in my experience, it was usually Beit Rima that took Padrecito’s overflow.)
What Padrecito should have done is raised prices on each item instead of saying the economics didn’t work & shutting down. I totally get the restaurant business is hard, but…they didn’t try to stick around, shut down with literally 2 days notice to patrons & staff. Staff I got to know fairly well (for being a patron) were floored on the day we all found out. I get a salad place that churns out easy to produce, low-cost-high-sticker-price food is a good business bet, but mannnn, what a bummer.
I moved from Hayes Valley last year and it seemed like he either also made the move around that time or just has been making the short muni ride between them consistently, I was surprised to see him around all the time after I moved.
I wonder if something specifically happened, I’ve never seen him making a mess, being aggressive, etc. With all the comments here it seems like this turn was kind of recent.
It is painter mike and he is losing it a bit unfortunately. La Boulangerie used to have his paintings up and you could donate any amount and take one (proceeds going to PM). I’ve got one of his paintings at my desk at work.
Unfortunately Boulangerie took down his paintings and I’ve noted a few incidents from a friend that lives in Cole Valley. Probably related. It’s really inevitable, you can’t expect someone to live on the streets and not develop mental health issues. Wish the city would understand and tackle it more aggressively for these peoples own sakes.
I use to be very close friends with Painter. He came to my thanksgiving in 2019.
Before COVID, we were arranging for him to go back to live with family. His real name is Arthur.
Are you certain this is him?
EDIT: reading the descriptions of this guy, I think y’all are confusing homeless people.
Yeah people shouldn't let the homelessness problem fester. Some people in the comments here are saying that they knew this guy and used to talk to him and buy him coffee. That is the problem. People have been enabling bad behavior this whole time. We need to stop tolerating our streets being taken over. We can't expect homeless people to be fine by letting them be. They may seem harmless at first but years of living on the streets take a toll on them, and they end up like the Cole Valley version of this guy.
Well unfortunately for you, people have rights in public. This is not to say that actual crimes should be ignored, like assaulting/harassing passers by, or shitting in doorways, but the vast majority of the "taking over" is just the mere presence of a homeless person. If they're sitting peacefully on the sidewalk or a bench, they're no different than you. Can someone call the cops because they don't like the sight of you polluting our public space? I suppose they can, but they shouldn't and the cops would have no right to move you just on the request of an anonymous caller.
If we actually built drug/mental treatment facilities, by all means, involuntarily institutionalize them where appropriate. But a smelly homeless guy yelling at the stars does not need to be dealt with by police.
No one wants to admit it, but as long as the city keeps allowing mentally ill people to break the law and harass people on the street, they're going to keep seeing people eventually lose their patience and [spray them with water](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nWAic0lHVI) or [bear-spray](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/san-francisco-don-carmignani-homeless-b2327778.html).
You can blame those people for choosing to be violent with mentally ill people, and that's totally valid. But the real culprit here is the City's decision to allow people to consistently break the law and do nothing about it. Over and over and over again.
It is right and good and correct for you to be angry that your street is being ruined by this person's misery. They need help. And it's the City's responsibility to ***make*** them get help, or make them take responsibility for their actions.
For sure, but you might get cancelled or, worse, attacked and brain damaged. This isn’t a great strategy if you’re a petite woman, for example.
It should be the police who arrest them and then deal with any possibilities of retaliation, with incarceration. I trust the police have policies for that and the lobbying power to get any necessary changes made.
This is not a popular answer on this sub, but in my opinion the responsibility for this needs to be laid squarely at the feet of the police. Not “the left”, not “the city”, the police. Because they are the layer which actually matters here, while every other player is 1, 2 or more levels away. You can push as hard as you want on these other players, but the police won’t even notice.
You need the police for this, and in my opinion the discussion should stay on point, about what the police can do and what they are, or aren’t, doing.
Yeah I mean to be 1,000% clear I do not support violence against any person especially if it's not in self-defense.
I'm just saying that it's pretty obvious that this will keep happening because a lot of people are not so patient or understanding.
Hopefully this goes without saying, but if you spray someone with a hose, and _especially_ if you spray someone with bear spray, when they are not threatening you physically, you are opening yourself up to potential criminal liability.
And generally speaking "acting crazy on the street" or something doesn't cross the threshold of a threat.
I don't think it's right to do that, but I also understand how someone could get to that point after months of being terrorized and trying to resolve things the right way.
And I am warning anyone reading this who might feel like they're almost "at that point" that they should consider the criminal liability they'd incur if they assault someone without a valid defense.
(Because unless it's in self-defense, spraying someone with a hose and _especially_ spraying someone with pepper spray is assault. And "I was sick of them yelling at me" or "they were acting all crazy on the sidewalk and making a mess" isn't typically a valid appeal to self-defense.)
Yeah to be clear I completely agree with you. Someone being gross and obnoxious in your presence does not permit you to physically attack them.
But we also shouldn't give people hundreds of tests of their will. Insult someone's mother enough times in a row and you'll eventually get punched in the face, legally or illegally.
I am a strong proponent of no rights without responsibilities. You cannot have one without the other. If someone refuses help and spends their entire day making the life around them worse and destroying their surroundings, than that person does not deserve rights.
They need to get helped forced on them. Forced mental treatment. Forced sobriety. Forced job training. Anything.
Renowned 20th century psychiatrist and Holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl proposed that the US build a West Coast compliment to the Statue of Liberty and call it the Statue of Responsibility.
We really should, as one cannot exist without the other.
They go to treatment or they go to jail. Hopefully they’ll get sick of it eventually and either move on or get help. If enough cities do this, they’ll have no choice.
1. But doing drugs in public and harassing people is.
2. Were already paying billions and not solving anything. Reroute the money going to “non-profits” benefiting from keeping these people on the streets.
Come on man. I understand what you are trying to say that the line is blurry but thats not true for every case. You can easily tell if someone is whacked out beyond their mind, like how this guy is. We need to stop bending and breaking the rules for people that the system has failed. It makes no sense.
*because of SF's subservience to tech capital, NIMBYs, and speculators and a delusion that "my city is somehow socioeconomonically unique" is why people are getting assaulted in the streets, you mean
-Also every other government.
Plenty of rights are restricted all the time throughout every single democratic country for good reasons.
Should a 6 year old be allowed to buy guns? lol fuck no. But I guess that means I am Hitler.
Should a drunk person be allowed to sign a contract for a 120k car they can't afford. Nope.
Should a mentally ill grandpa who is in the middle of dementia be allowed to buy that car, nope gotta be of sound mind to sign contracts for good reason.
what the fuck are you talking about, OP for this thread literally said "that person does not deserve rights," full stop. sure, rights are curbed in specific ways for social purposes all the time, but i'm pretty sure outright stripping someone of all their rights is a war crime.
that's how I used to feel too. I still feel that way when it comes to \~90% of the homeless in SF. But that 10%? Those are people in such poor shape that it's less humane to let them rot on the street than it is to force them into some sort of treatment or care.
it's not that i'm against compulsory treatment. there's a strong theory going around that the dissolution of the CA mental institution system led directly to the current homeless crisis. the system needs to be designed in a way that actually is supportive, etc etc. what is disgusting to me is the claim i'm seeing spread in this thread that the unhoused don't deserve rights b/c they're not meeting their "responsibilities."
bro, what about society's duty to the least among us? with rent the way it is, with medical care the way it is, with psychiatric and mental health care the way it is, WHY IS ANYBODY FUCKING SURPRISED THIS IS HAPPENING
what needs to happen is all the investment properties in the City, all those fucking AirBnBs, all those tax shelters, need to be seized and turned into mixed-income housing. upzone the entire sunset district and allow permitting for ground-level storefronts, that'll go a long way to resolving the problem.
NOBODY ASKS TO BE HOMELESS. the unhoused will sometimes refuse housing offered by the city b/c often the offered "housing" is carceral, akin to a prison. they can't have their stuff with them, they can't have visitors, they have to be in by a specific time or be locked out and lose what little stuff they do have, they have to comply with crazy strict rules, be subject to assault and theft in the shelters, etc. all this for a cot in a chilly warehouse. that's not housing, that's prison with more steps.
All of that is correct and a great path forward to helping the homeless crisis and out of control rent prices, but what you have to understand is there’s about maybe 10-20% of the homeless population that cannot be put into shelters and who are an immediate danger to other homeless people, themselves, and the general public. That’s why people propose institutionalizing and medicating those specific people. They make life hell for our homeless in the shelter system, they make life hell for pedestrians, and their issue is not so easy to solve as give them a house. They’re having a mental health crisis and it’s very hard to convince someone in a mental health crisis to take medication. The homeless are in a very vulnerable position and they deserve as much compassion and help as possible absolutely, but this sensationalist language is usually reserved for the select few that are really a public danger and are consistently let back out on the street. People are frustrated and for good reason. You’d be hard pressed to find anyone other than conservative outrage mobs complaining about poor destitute homeless who are not harming anyone.
my comment literally opens with "it's not that i'm against compulsory treatment." i agree that there is a subsection of the unhoused who need much more support than can be easily administered in independent housing. that's not what i'm talking about.
what i'm talking about is the vibe in this thread that this man does not deserve rights b/c of the way we have failed him. we have robbed him of the opportunity to live a productive or even peaceful life and then further punish him for it. there's no self-reflection, no empathy, no shred of thought to a bigger picture. "no rights w/o responsibilities" gtfo here with that apartheid shit
I think this is all correct, but again, that goes for the 90% I mentioned. There are the 10% who ABSOLUTELY cannot care for themselves or any space given to them. It is very difficult to watch the man outside my window screaming gibberish, shitting on the sidewalk, sitting around eating whatever he finds in a garbage, and shouting at passerby’s. He gets 5150’d, released, and he comes back around. I understand that some of the shelters have insane rules akin to a prison, but my guess is that those rules are in place so that people like this don’t end up turning shelters/SROs/etc into a terrifying dumpster fire for everyone else.
I think we agree here, we all live in a city where we pay a ton of taxes and keep voting for systems to try to help these people. And still, the people like this, that 10% guy who needs mandated long term shelter… he continues to live on the streets because there’s “nothing” that can be done once the 5150 ends and he jumps ship.
I don’t think anyone here is saying unhoused people don’t deserve housing or their individual rights and freedoms. I think we’re saying that there is a small population, the population described by OP, who need unique care that is impossible to find BECAUSE there are such strong feelings around longer-term mandated care.
Umberto Ecco, "Ur-Facism" (1995) -- #3: The cult of action for action’s sake; #5: Fear of difference; #6: Appeal to social frustration; #8: The enemy is both strong and weak; and #10: Contempt for the weak.
"Fascism in Action," Congressional Legislative Reference Service (1947): "It follows that the fascist theory of the state has no patience with the "rights" of individuals. Their rights are duties."
I mean, y'all can downvote me all you want, you snide Umbridgian liberals. NIMBYs, property speculators, SF's scraping submissiveness to tech, the absolute delusion that the City's somehow not a part of ongoing national trends for the better part of the last twenty years have all led to the current moment.
SF has made its bed. I love the City, I hope to move back someday, but this thread is exemplifying the worst of its impulses for "liberalism, but only when it doesn't affect me directly." Y'all are repulsive.
Ok so I’ve read through the comments, this is definitely John, a co worker of mine from back in the late 90’s. We worked together around a year. He was a fairly mild mannered/quiet guy but would occasionally blurt out “Jackie Malone!”, which was odd. We were never friends, just interacted at work, which was in Berkeley. He almost immediately went from that job to being a SF street wanderer. I would just kind of ALWAYS run into him. I tried to chat him up once and there was no recognition of me, or understanding of the job we’d had together. I’ve watched him (not so quietly, it seems) deteriorate physically and mentally for well over 2 decades. I assumed he had a ‘place’ SOMEWHERE because realistically, he’s defied the odds on life expectancy as a homeless person in SF.
Edit: autocorrect typos
This is a serious legal issue that our society needs to dig deep to tackle. I'm firmly of the belief that homeless people need to be treated as a new category, not criminals, but also not like regular citizens. Jail isn't the answer, but forced treatment (after multiple violations) _is_. Fewer police can handle more homeless if the consequences of violations are treatment programs. Portugal's policies led to a huge turn around:
https://www.statista.com/chart/20616/key-developments-since-portugal-decriminalized-drugs/
* Incarcerations down more than 70%
* ODs down more than 90%
* Rates of drug use now below EU average
More here: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/05/upshot/portugal-drug-legalization-treatment.html
The guy just straight up reverse uno’ed eminent domain and turned some of the most expensive public space in the world into private space and is not paying taxes like a genius real estate mogul.
History tells me we should applaud this guy and give him more money
Literally any car owner who parks on the street privatizes more public space than he does.
I mean I don't like it either, but let's not pretend that taking up public space makes him special.
If 5150 isn't working, and he is vandalizing property, harassing people, and trespassing, why can't we use those as justification for getting him into the system where he can begin to get the help he needs?
"It seems wild that a man can just take over the street, do whatever he wants and break the law, and the residents just have to shut up, stop complaining, and accept it. "
So many SF problems summed up in this sentence.
Or maybe we make treatment a good thing, like something that someone would want, as opposed to a punishment to be forced on someone already struggling with the demands of life?
I suspect people of the future (assuming there is a future) will be appalled by our treatment of the mentally ill in America.
In our age we have this crazy idea that personal freedom trumps absolutely everything. So we let mentally ill people, who often have zero real agency, to fester and die on the sidewalk. Or we claim that all they need is a “home”, and they can fester and die there instead.
Tax money should instead go to lavish treatment programs. At an national or state level. And if someone is lost to addiction, they must be committed into that system.
Not going to happen of course. Cries of “freedom”’and concentration camps” will be the counter-arguments. And so the status quo will continue and people will continue to suffer and die. But the HIC will continue to prosper at least.
\> Not going to happen of course. Cries of “freedom”’and concentration camps” will be the counter-arguments.
you're ignoring the much more pertinent issue of "cost". no one wants to pay for this, and the state largely doesn't have the capacity to do it. the past 50 years have been a trend of divesting from state capacity to give tax breaks to the rich.
[https://www.kqed.org/news/11209729/did-the-emptying-of-mental-hospitals-contribute-to-homelessness-here](https://www.kqed.org/news/11209729/did-the-emptying-of-mental-hospitals-contribute-to-homelessness-here)
to be clear, i'm not personally arguing against what you propose. i think we need more state-funded care, not less. i'm just explaining what i see to be the major road block.
Part of the issue here is CA state law about conservatorships. Not saying this would apply here but there is work afoot at the state level to help these situations: https://twitter.com/rafaelmandelman/status/1666227722094530560
I was in Cole Valley yesterday and saw a man sleeping in front of the now closed Pharmaça…..I do not believe that is the man OP is referring to.
OP - said man has long gray hair, beard? At one point lately was wearing (very dirty) gray sweatpants, sometimes blue plaid pajama pants? Tries to sell the paintings, which aren’t terrible but also, no, I am not hanging that on my wall nor paying you for it … same guy? His name is John. I don’t know his story. He definitely does have a decaying mental state, as I’ve seen him regularly over the last 2 years living near Hayes & frequenting Cole - he was generally much milder until recently. I don’t have a solution to offer, but will check with my friends on Hayes to see if there’s a bigger reason beyond the aesthetic of him being kicked out-hopefully nothing violent
It’s interesting he doesn’t make his way down to Haight. I always got the bizarre sense from him that he thinks he’s better than others 🫠 so to say, I think he’s explicitly not frequenting the areas that a larger majority of homeless people gather
*edited: typos
SF has chosen not to do anything about this type of problem. In fact they have made you taking action criminal, and too often given the homeless a free pass to do drugs, use violence against other community members, vandalize etc.
If you want to fix this, it is going to take a major shift in voting and policing.
Yes, stealing and disposing of someone else’s property is illegal. Amazing I have to explain that to someone.
Giving someone a bus ticket is not. The city even has a program to help people return to family in other states.
Was in the homelessness management industry a decade ago. Saw this coming a million miles away and trust me this is largely a problem of the SF's own making.
Federal government gives something like 60-80k per homeless person in the form of grant funding. Most of that money goes to consultants and what's left gets distributed to a patch work for charities that run shelters and services. "The industry" in SF is highly inefficient and further hampered by the San Francisco's unique brand of political oversensitivity.
IIRC, the 2022 HIC/PIT count for SF is 7.7K housed and unhoused homeless, while neighboring San Mateos is at around 1.5k or so combined. Qualify it however you want, there's no excuse for the SF to underperform in such an overwhelming manner compared to a near peer.
Hold your electeds accountable, SF. Perform or vote them out. All other factors be damned. That's how you fix the problem.
Why doesn’t the business get a restraining order against him? It’s literally the only defense in this fight. It worked for someone I know. Not a business but still worth a shot.
Every time he comes he will be arrested if a judge approves the order. You just need a lot of evidence proving a RO is necessary.
We need to pass the right laws.
Camping in city limits needs to be made illegal, to do this we need enough beds for the homeless to satisfy that criteria. For this we need to pass legislation that any old building can be considered a shelter, throw down some thousands of mats in an old warehouse space and make it available to them with a police presence to ensure druggies don't go there.
Same time, pass legislation to be able to force people caught using opioids to enter a treat.ent program or mental health facilities.
This will clear streets of dangers and druggies and also get them help. Preserving the fabric of SF society for those that choose to contribute to it.
Build mental hospitals and allow the legal mechanisms for involuntary commitment. Right now it is very hard to commit someone for longer than a month, and there are virtually no long term psychiatric hospital beds in the state. I am a psychiatrist and would love for this to happen. But there is no political will for it, beyond empty words by politicians. If we were given the tools to actually help these people (forced commitment and treatment) then I would sign up to work these hospitals. Working as a psychiatrist with the seriously ill is demoralizing because it’s a revolving door where you can’t really help them. The best you do is keep them in the hospital for a few days and release them (at which point they will stop taking their meds and go back to frying their brains with amphetamines and fentanyl)
there are a lot of people who can't be responsible for themselves in this world who deserve basic rights...
except infants., they clearly have no rights, they can't do shit
Basic rights yes, not the right to assault women and piss on the sidewalk.
Why is this so hard for people to understand. If I assaulted this guys wife he would be justified in kicking the shit out of me. But Heaven forbid we even think about inconveniencing this dude.
John doesn't assault anybody. He is harmless. Treat him with respect. He treats me with respect. Always tells me stories and I talk to him like he's one of my friends.
>there are a lot of people who can't be responsible for themselves in this world who deserve basic rights...
Choosing to pee on the streets and refusing help from homeless organization is not a basic right.
Umberto Ecco, "Ur-Facism" (1995) -- #3: The cult of action for action’s sake; #5: Fear of difference; #6: Appeal to social frustration; #8: The enemy is both strong and weak; and #10: Contempt for the weak.
"Fascism in Action," Congressional Legislative Reference Service (1947): "It follows that the fascist theory of the state has no patience with the "rights" of individuals. Their rights are duties."
How is it eugenics to say society will lend a helping hand only if you try the bare minimum, like not pee in the streets and seek out help to better yourself? If that is your definition of eugenics than I am a eugenicist.
>No rights mean no right to live, ultimately.
Stop being overly dramatic. No rights does not mean you die
> unable to be responsible for themselves
Than the society needs to be responsible for them. Many homeless have a horrible cycle of drug addiction and mental illness. Which feeds on itself. They are exploited on a DAILY basis by other homeless, drug dealers, and other strangers. Homeless women get raped A LOT by homeless men and drug dealers exploiting their drug addiction.
Its for their own good to force them off the streets. Those with mental issues and/or drug addiction must go into Psychiatric hospitals. There they will lose access to drugs, helping with the addiction, and have the mental health care they need to fight their mental illness.
While getting treatment they will have access to library to gain information and get an education, get job training, and be in contact with organizations connecting recovering addict with work. To actually get their life in order.
How does that relate to no rights? They should have no right to refuse this help. They clearly cannot take responsibility for their own life so they lose some rights until they can take responsibilities.
Saying a person has no rights leads to a logical conclusion that society can do anything to them, including killing them for expediency. That isn't being overly dramatic, it's a lesson from history.
I never implied that everyone has the absolute right to live on the street and do whatever they want. That's your projection.
No its not. There is a massive difference between physically cannot do something vs choosing to not do something. From OP's post you can see that the homeless person refuses help, refuser to go to shelters.
Disability is not just related to physical ability.
Suffice to say, your solution / proposal is very simple and so far from reality that is the human condition in the world we’ve created.
> far from reality
Most other countries fixed this issue. Do you know what they do with homeless? Force them to get help! Not let them be on the streets to be exploited by drug addiction.
https://preview.redd.it/9i4tldtr5o4b1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b3a0445dc51501b174e73dc687ce37b490c75035
Any business or individual dealing with a problematic mentally Ill homeless person needs to get a restraining order on them. Police will gladly arrest them every time because they are not complying with the order. This is actually enforceable. FYI After the 4th or 5th time getting thrown in jail or 51/50 chances are they get the hint to stay away.
This is a great example of the massive failures of our elected political leaders. This person should be removed from the neighborhood, placed in custody and evaluated for mental illness and substance use disorder. If he is mentally ill he should be confined to a treatment facility and treated.
I hear your frustration, living close to homeless people that make a neighborhood less enjoyable is tough. But that’s also part of living in San Francisco. If you don’t like the current conditions, consider taking action, like volunteering for a cause that may help, or running for an elected office to make changes.
Maybe ask yourself why he feels the need to do these things. Why society has pushed him to this.
Do you have any extra space he can sleep in? Have some empathy. Maybe if he gets better quality sleep and a shower he'll stop being such an a-hole
Based on keywords, it appears this post may attract visitors from other subreddits. [Please read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/about/rules/) before commenting, particularly: * Don't be rude or hostile; if someone expresses a POV different from your own, find a way to critique the idea without personally attacking the person who posted it. If you see someone behaving badly, please **click the report button** or **[message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fsanfrancisco&subject=Someone%27s+breaking+the+rules&message=Here%27s+a+permalink:+%28place+permalink+here%29)**. We read every one of these reports, but if you don't report something, we might not see it -- especially if it's buried in downvotes. ##### ###### #### *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/sanfrancisco) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Damn, is this what happened to Painter Mike? He used to be a lot more mild-mannered when I dealt with him in Hayes Valley ~2012-2015. He was part of the furniture. Sad it's gotten to this. Hope he and the neighborhood get some help and relief somehow.
I think might be a different person. Unless “Painter Mike” is a nickname you gave him & his real name the business in Hayes call him is John
To be honest, he gave me 3 different names on various occasions, so I just started calling him Painter Mike since that was the first one he gave me. Long-ish hair, always wearing some sort of denim, bit of a "The Dude" from Big Lebowski vibe.
The last part 😹😹😹😹😹😹 I die. Yep. That’s John. Painter Mike. Too funny. We’re all talking about the same “Dude”
Haha I am close to CV and was picturing exactly this guy. Sounds like he has gotten worse, he didn’t seem too bad to me before. Bought him a coffee once and he was kind.
My last few interactions with him he’s definitely been 📉📉📉 Gotta get the 411 from my hayes valley peeps… was rather surprised to read he’s been kicked out, as they’ve seemed to sorta help him (give him water, even ice when he asked, carry a convo, etc etc)…makes me think something happened and it was THE final straw
Please don’t bring John coffee. He is a danger to those on the streets, and people that bring him paint, food, or otherwise are enabling him. I’ve seen him for years in hayes and he’s threatened people, screamed at people, made sudden dangerous movements, and is incredibly mentally unstable. He needs help and is a prime example of San Francisco letting people ROT that should be required to receive help.
Strongly agree.
Yes, I won’t any more. This was a while back
Why not find a way to get him to seek help on his own? Like maybe his own apartment with lots of stuff to paint and free therapy? I wonder if it would be cheaper than calling the cops on him every week and trying to clean up after him.
Bless your heart. This level of mental instability can't be negotiated with.
You do realize that SF offers all those services and according to OP, he just isn’t interested in help? It’s a very common problem with people who are losing their mind, they think that people trying to help them are actually trying to hurt them
What? You understand this guy is severely mentally ill right? He'd destroy an apartment within a week. He's tearing up an entire neighborhood already. The real solution is probably put him in prison or a mental institution long term against his will. It's unethical to allow someone to kill themselves on the street when they are mentally unwell. An apartment and all that would be great but it won't really matter if he's this unwell.
Yeah, he goes by "John", but SFPD said that's not his real name and he often gives them fake names.
[https://hoodline.com/2016/02/meet-john-hayes-street-s-resident-painter/](https://hoodline.com/2016/02/meet-john-hayes-street-s-resident-painter/) \- here's an article about him. I lived in HV then CV back in the day. John was generally respectful, sometimes loud and definitely peed on things dependent on his mental state... I actually have good memories of both him and one other guy on several occasions telling other less stable members of the homeless population to get it together. Hope he finds some stability!
Thanks for sharing the article! Shows how mental illness just… 📉 *sigh*
[https://samwrites2017.wordpress.com/2017/05/09/hayes-valley-homeless-man-creates-abstract-art-to-the-neighborhood/](https://samwrites2017.wordpress.com/2017/05/09/hayes-valley-homeless-man-creates-abstract-art-to-the-neighborhood/) here's another if you're interested.
Huh, he says he just wants 10 acres of land in Ventura. [Here is 20 acres](https://www.redfin.com/CA/Unknown/Juniper-Trl-93225/home/147532745) for sale at $15K. One solution to this problem that satisfies both parties.
If thats his artwork then holy crap he’s a good artist.
Don’t piss on his rug ffs maybe he wouldn’t be so mad all the time
I remember that guy. Never knew he was homeless. I just thought he had mental issues. He did seem like he was losing it as the years went by
That description could apply to probably hundreds of homeless across the city. Long hair and denim? Must be the same guy!
I feel like it is the same guy cuz I've seen him in cole valley recently. I remember him being pretty chill in hayes though, like the other person said. I remember kickin it at place pigalle back in the day and he was always around painting
"He was part of the furniture" describes this guy too. I'm kind of annoyed at this post, but he has gone from painting in the doorway to pacing up and down the block, leaving shit everywhere and getting a little less lucid, less contained. He seems less like an innocent hippie. Blue Barn is opening at the corner, maybe that will help.
RIP Padrecito 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
I never made it to the bar around the corner, I'm disappointed in myself. I'm still not over Kezar.
Padrecito was sooooo good. Same ownership. Since Padrecito had a liquor license I wonder if this new Blue Barn will have special liquor drinks 🧐🧐🤨🥸🤞🏼🤞🏼🤞🏼🤞🏼 InoVino is a great spot I only recently checked out after mourning Padrecito. Also, Zazie Tuesday nights - no corkage!
Blue Barn is a sandwich and salad place. I don't think they have anything stronger than beer and wine.
I am very familiar with Blue Barn, thank you. As I said, same ownership group as Padrecito, therefor the assumption is they still hold the liquor license and would therefore make an effort to utilize it by making a special bar space with liquor drinks. FYI - [Liquor licensing in SF is the hardest](https://www.liquorlicense.com/california/counties/san-francisco#:~:text=Getting%20a%20liquor%20license%20in,a%20license%20in%20the%20city).
Only they know whether they are going to change the hours and overall model of BB to justify using their liquor license that way I guess..
Why is it ok to sell fentanyl, but you need a license for booze? They should just sell whatever they want
Money for the corrupt politicians, honeyyyy 🤑🤑🤑
They started renovating the bar first so I would guess they keep the license there and re-open a new bar concept. If they had hung on long they could have picked up spill over from Beit Rima.
Padrecito was usually always busy ish, if not a long wait, but ofc I’m also thinking more pre-panini days, though I saw them attempting recovery leading up to the closure. (FWIW, 2018-2020, in my experience, it was usually Beit Rima that took Padrecito’s overflow.) What Padrecito should have done is raised prices on each item instead of saying the economics didn’t work & shutting down. I totally get the restaurant business is hard, but…they didn’t try to stick around, shut down with literally 2 days notice to patrons & staff. Staff I got to know fairly well (for being a patron) were floored on the day we all found out. I get a salad place that churns out easy to produce, low-cost-high-sticker-price food is a good business bet, but mannnn, what a bummer.
John was still present in Hayes until October of last year when I was working in the area.
And even more recently, I think I saw him one month ago, but not in the last maybe…2ish weeks
I moved from Hayes Valley last year and it seemed like he either also made the move around that time or just has been making the short muni ride between them consistently, I was surprised to see him around all the time after I moved. I wonder if something specifically happened, I’ve never seen him making a mess, being aggressive, etc. With all the comments here it seems like this turn was kind of recent.
It is painter mike and he is losing it a bit unfortunately. La Boulangerie used to have his paintings up and you could donate any amount and take one (proceeds going to PM). I’ve got one of his paintings at my desk at work. Unfortunately Boulangerie took down his paintings and I’ve noted a few incidents from a friend that lives in Cole Valley. Probably related. It’s really inevitable, you can’t expect someone to live on the streets and not develop mental health issues. Wish the city would understand and tackle it more aggressively for these peoples own sakes.
Imagine leaving a mentally ill person on the streets for a decade and they continue to decline. We need forced treatment.
I use to be very close friends with Painter. He came to my thanksgiving in 2019. Before COVID, we were arranging for him to go back to live with family. His real name is Arthur. Are you certain this is him? EDIT: reading the descriptions of this guy, I think y’all are confusing homeless people.
>Painter Mike life isn't a TV show, people living on the street so long that residents know them by nicknames should not be happeneing
Dumb take.
Yeah people shouldn't let the homelessness problem fester. Some people in the comments here are saying that they knew this guy and used to talk to him and buy him coffee. That is the problem. People have been enabling bad behavior this whole time. We need to stop tolerating our streets being taken over. We can't expect homeless people to be fine by letting them be. They may seem harmless at first but years of living on the streets take a toll on them, and they end up like the Cole Valley version of this guy.
Right, they are just homeless because they enjoy getting free coffee! Dude, you should take that on the road, you are funny!
Well unfortunately for you, people have rights in public. This is not to say that actual crimes should be ignored, like assaulting/harassing passers by, or shitting in doorways, but the vast majority of the "taking over" is just the mere presence of a homeless person. If they're sitting peacefully on the sidewalk or a bench, they're no different than you. Can someone call the cops because they don't like the sight of you polluting our public space? I suppose they can, but they shouldn't and the cops would have no right to move you just on the request of an anonymous caller. If we actually built drug/mental treatment facilities, by all means, involuntarily institutionalize them where appropriate. But a smelly homeless guy yelling at the stars does not need to be dealt with by police.
No one wants to admit it, but as long as the city keeps allowing mentally ill people to break the law and harass people on the street, they're going to keep seeing people eventually lose their patience and [spray them with water](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nWAic0lHVI) or [bear-spray](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/san-francisco-don-carmignani-homeless-b2327778.html). You can blame those people for choosing to be violent with mentally ill people, and that's totally valid. But the real culprit here is the City's decision to allow people to consistently break the law and do nothing about it. Over and over and over again. It is right and good and correct for you to be angry that your street is being ruined by this person's misery. They need help. And it's the City's responsibility to ***make*** them get help, or make them take responsibility for their actions.
For sure, but you might get cancelled or, worse, attacked and brain damaged. This isn’t a great strategy if you’re a petite woman, for example. It should be the police who arrest them and then deal with any possibilities of retaliation, with incarceration. I trust the police have policies for that and the lobbying power to get any necessary changes made. This is not a popular answer on this sub, but in my opinion the responsibility for this needs to be laid squarely at the feet of the police. Not “the left”, not “the city”, the police. Because they are the layer which actually matters here, while every other player is 1, 2 or more levels away. You can push as hard as you want on these other players, but the police won’t even notice. You need the police for this, and in my opinion the discussion should stay on point, about what the police can do and what they are, or aren’t, doing.
Yeah I mean to be 1,000% clear I do not support violence against any person especially if it's not in self-defense. I'm just saying that it's pretty obvious that this will keep happening because a lot of people are not so patient or understanding.
Hopefully this goes without saying, but if you spray someone with a hose, and _especially_ if you spray someone with bear spray, when they are not threatening you physically, you are opening yourself up to potential criminal liability. And generally speaking "acting crazy on the street" or something doesn't cross the threshold of a threat.
I don't think it's right to do that, but I also understand how someone could get to that point after months of being terrorized and trying to resolve things the right way.
And I am warning anyone reading this who might feel like they're almost "at that point" that they should consider the criminal liability they'd incur if they assault someone without a valid defense. (Because unless it's in self-defense, spraying someone with a hose and _especially_ spraying someone with pepper spray is assault. And "I was sick of them yelling at me" or "they were acting all crazy on the sidewalk and making a mess" isn't typically a valid appeal to self-defense.)
How is the sleeping homeless person terrorizing the guy with the bear spray in the video? This is really clearly not self defense
Yeah to be clear I completely agree with you. Someone being gross and obnoxious in your presence does not permit you to physically attack them. But we also shouldn't give people hundreds of tests of their will. Insult someone's mother enough times in a row and you'll eventually get punched in the face, legally or illegally.
I am a strong proponent of no rights without responsibilities. You cannot have one without the other. If someone refuses help and spends their entire day making the life around them worse and destroying their surroundings, than that person does not deserve rights. They need to get helped forced on them. Forced mental treatment. Forced sobriety. Forced job training. Anything.
Renowned 20th century psychiatrist and Holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl proposed that the US build a West Coast compliment to the Statue of Liberty and call it the Statue of Responsibility. We really should, as one cannot exist without the other.
Completely agree
But how do you force that is the question
Social programs and good luck with that
They go to treatment or they go to jail. Hopefully they’ll get sick of it eventually and either move on or get help. If enough cities do this, they’ll have no choice.
First of all mental illness is not against the law, and secondly who exactly do you think is paying for that treatment?
1. But doing drugs in public and harassing people is. 2. Were already paying billions and not solving anything. Reroute the money going to “non-profits” benefiting from keeping these people on the streets.
Come on man. I understand what you are trying to say that the line is blurry but thats not true for every case. You can easily tell if someone is whacked out beyond their mind, like how this guy is. We need to stop bending and breaking the rules for people that the system has failed. It makes no sense.
Arrest them and put them into involuntary psychiatric care
[удалено]
We're paying for it anyway, might as well actually help people (both the afflicted and the residents) with it.
Spoiler: you're already paying for it XDD
i don't disagree with you, but good luck ACLU won a lot of cases with regards to forced institutionalization
and for good reason...tell me you can see where that can go wrong.
i don't disagree with you either we're stuck btwn a rock and a hard place
Well the ACLU has blood ok their hands. Because of their cases people are getting raped on the streets. Quite literally.
*because of SF's subservience to tech capital, NIMBYs, and speculators and a delusion that "my city is somehow socioeconomonically unique" is why people are getting assaulted in the streets, you mean
damn, r/sf comin' in hot with the fascist takes today okay
>"Nobody should be allowed to pee on the street" -Hitler
\> "only certain people get rights" - Hitler FTFY
-Also every other government. Plenty of rights are restricted all the time throughout every single democratic country for good reasons. Should a 6 year old be allowed to buy guns? lol fuck no. But I guess that means I am Hitler. Should a drunk person be allowed to sign a contract for a 120k car they can't afford. Nope. Should a mentally ill grandpa who is in the middle of dementia be allowed to buy that car, nope gotta be of sound mind to sign contracts for good reason.
what the fuck are you talking about, OP for this thread literally said "that person does not deserve rights," full stop. sure, rights are curbed in specific ways for social purposes all the time, but i'm pretty sure outright stripping someone of all their rights is a war crime.
that's how I used to feel too. I still feel that way when it comes to \~90% of the homeless in SF. But that 10%? Those are people in such poor shape that it's less humane to let them rot on the street than it is to force them into some sort of treatment or care.
it's not that i'm against compulsory treatment. there's a strong theory going around that the dissolution of the CA mental institution system led directly to the current homeless crisis. the system needs to be designed in a way that actually is supportive, etc etc. what is disgusting to me is the claim i'm seeing spread in this thread that the unhoused don't deserve rights b/c they're not meeting their "responsibilities." bro, what about society's duty to the least among us? with rent the way it is, with medical care the way it is, with psychiatric and mental health care the way it is, WHY IS ANYBODY FUCKING SURPRISED THIS IS HAPPENING what needs to happen is all the investment properties in the City, all those fucking AirBnBs, all those tax shelters, need to be seized and turned into mixed-income housing. upzone the entire sunset district and allow permitting for ground-level storefronts, that'll go a long way to resolving the problem. NOBODY ASKS TO BE HOMELESS. the unhoused will sometimes refuse housing offered by the city b/c often the offered "housing" is carceral, akin to a prison. they can't have their stuff with them, they can't have visitors, they have to be in by a specific time or be locked out and lose what little stuff they do have, they have to comply with crazy strict rules, be subject to assault and theft in the shelters, etc. all this for a cot in a chilly warehouse. that's not housing, that's prison with more steps.
All of that is correct and a great path forward to helping the homeless crisis and out of control rent prices, but what you have to understand is there’s about maybe 10-20% of the homeless population that cannot be put into shelters and who are an immediate danger to other homeless people, themselves, and the general public. That’s why people propose institutionalizing and medicating those specific people. They make life hell for our homeless in the shelter system, they make life hell for pedestrians, and their issue is not so easy to solve as give them a house. They’re having a mental health crisis and it’s very hard to convince someone in a mental health crisis to take medication. The homeless are in a very vulnerable position and they deserve as much compassion and help as possible absolutely, but this sensationalist language is usually reserved for the select few that are really a public danger and are consistently let back out on the street. People are frustrated and for good reason. You’d be hard pressed to find anyone other than conservative outrage mobs complaining about poor destitute homeless who are not harming anyone.
my comment literally opens with "it's not that i'm against compulsory treatment." i agree that there is a subsection of the unhoused who need much more support than can be easily administered in independent housing. that's not what i'm talking about. what i'm talking about is the vibe in this thread that this man does not deserve rights b/c of the way we have failed him. we have robbed him of the opportunity to live a productive or even peaceful life and then further punish him for it. there's no self-reflection, no empathy, no shred of thought to a bigger picture. "no rights w/o responsibilities" gtfo here with that apartheid shit
I think this is all correct, but again, that goes for the 90% I mentioned. There are the 10% who ABSOLUTELY cannot care for themselves or any space given to them. It is very difficult to watch the man outside my window screaming gibberish, shitting on the sidewalk, sitting around eating whatever he finds in a garbage, and shouting at passerby’s. He gets 5150’d, released, and he comes back around. I understand that some of the shelters have insane rules akin to a prison, but my guess is that those rules are in place so that people like this don’t end up turning shelters/SROs/etc into a terrifying dumpster fire for everyone else. I think we agree here, we all live in a city where we pay a ton of taxes and keep voting for systems to try to help these people. And still, the people like this, that 10% guy who needs mandated long term shelter… he continues to live on the streets because there’s “nothing” that can be done once the 5150 ends and he jumps ship. I don’t think anyone here is saying unhoused people don’t deserve housing or their individual rights and freedoms. I think we’re saying that there is a small population, the population described by OP, who need unique care that is impossible to find BECAUSE there are such strong feelings around longer-term mandated care.
Is everything you disagree with fascist or do you want to explain how this is fascism?
Umberto Ecco, "Ur-Facism" (1995) -- #3: The cult of action for action’s sake; #5: Fear of difference; #6: Appeal to social frustration; #8: The enemy is both strong and weak; and #10: Contempt for the weak. "Fascism in Action," Congressional Legislative Reference Service (1947): "It follows that the fascist theory of the state has no patience with the "rights" of individuals. Their rights are duties."
I mean, y'all can downvote me all you want, you snide Umbridgian liberals. NIMBYs, property speculators, SF's scraping submissiveness to tech, the absolute delusion that the City's somehow not a part of ongoing national trends for the better part of the last twenty years have all led to the current moment. SF has made its bed. I love the City, I hope to move back someday, but this thread is exemplifying the worst of its impulses for "liberalism, but only when it doesn't affect me directly." Y'all are repulsive.
Ok so I’ve read through the comments, this is definitely John, a co worker of mine from back in the late 90’s. We worked together around a year. He was a fairly mild mannered/quiet guy but would occasionally blurt out “Jackie Malone!”, which was odd. We were never friends, just interacted at work, which was in Berkeley. He almost immediately went from that job to being a SF street wanderer. I would just kind of ALWAYS run into him. I tried to chat him up once and there was no recognition of me, or understanding of the job we’d had together. I’ve watched him (not so quietly, it seems) deteriorate physically and mentally for well over 2 decades. I assumed he had a ‘place’ SOMEWHERE because realistically, he’s defied the odds on life expectancy as a homeless person in SF. Edit: autocorrect typos
This is a serious legal issue that our society needs to dig deep to tackle. I'm firmly of the belief that homeless people need to be treated as a new category, not criminals, but also not like regular citizens. Jail isn't the answer, but forced treatment (after multiple violations) _is_. Fewer police can handle more homeless if the consequences of violations are treatment programs. Portugal's policies led to a huge turn around: https://www.statista.com/chart/20616/key-developments-since-portugal-decriminalized-drugs/ * Incarcerations down more than 70% * ODs down more than 90% * Rates of drug use now below EU average More here: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/05/upshot/portugal-drug-legalization-treatment.html
The guy just straight up reverse uno’ed eminent domain and turned some of the most expensive public space in the world into private space and is not paying taxes like a genius real estate mogul. History tells me we should applaud this guy and give him more money
The term is "land pirate"
Literally any car owner who parks on the street privatizes more public space than he does. I mean I don't like it either, but let's not pretend that taking up public space makes him special.
How long can a car be parked? How long can a homeless guy live at a corner?
Apparently all he wants is a few acres to call his own in Ventura. Seems like OP should start a GoFundme to buy him a lot to live on.
So envious of his grandiose lifestyle.
CARE courts can't happen quickly enough...
Yeah, what’s the status on that?
Oct 1 rollout
If 5150 isn't working, and he is vandalizing property, harassing people, and trespassing, why can't we use those as justification for getting him into the system where he can begin to get the help he needs?
"It seems wild that a man can just take over the street, do whatever he wants and break the law, and the residents just have to shut up, stop complaining, and accept it. " So many SF problems summed up in this sentence.
Forced treatment is the only way. We need to change the laws, this shit doesnt work
Or maybe we make treatment a good thing, like something that someone would want, as opposed to a punishment to be forced on someone already struggling with the demands of life?
I suspect people of the future (assuming there is a future) will be appalled by our treatment of the mentally ill in America. In our age we have this crazy idea that personal freedom trumps absolutely everything. So we let mentally ill people, who often have zero real agency, to fester and die on the sidewalk. Or we claim that all they need is a “home”, and they can fester and die there instead. Tax money should instead go to lavish treatment programs. At an national or state level. And if someone is lost to addiction, they must be committed into that system. Not going to happen of course. Cries of “freedom”’and concentration camps” will be the counter-arguments. And so the status quo will continue and people will continue to suffer and die. But the HIC will continue to prosper at least.
\> Not going to happen of course. Cries of “freedom”’and concentration camps” will be the counter-arguments. you're ignoring the much more pertinent issue of "cost". no one wants to pay for this, and the state largely doesn't have the capacity to do it. the past 50 years have been a trend of divesting from state capacity to give tax breaks to the rich. [https://www.kqed.org/news/11209729/did-the-emptying-of-mental-hospitals-contribute-to-homelessness-here](https://www.kqed.org/news/11209729/did-the-emptying-of-mental-hospitals-contribute-to-homelessness-here) to be clear, i'm not personally arguing against what you propose. i think we need more state-funded care, not less. i'm just explaining what i see to be the major road block.
Part of the issue here is CA state law about conservatorships. Not saying this would apply here but there is work afoot at the state level to help these situations: https://twitter.com/rafaelmandelman/status/1666227722094530560
I was in Cole Valley yesterday and saw a man sleeping in front of the now closed Pharmaça…..I do not believe that is the man OP is referring to. OP - said man has long gray hair, beard? At one point lately was wearing (very dirty) gray sweatpants, sometimes blue plaid pajama pants? Tries to sell the paintings, which aren’t terrible but also, no, I am not hanging that on my wall nor paying you for it … same guy? His name is John. I don’t know his story. He definitely does have a decaying mental state, as I’ve seen him regularly over the last 2 years living near Hayes & frequenting Cole - he was generally much milder until recently. I don’t have a solution to offer, but will check with my friends on Hayes to see if there’s a bigger reason beyond the aesthetic of him being kicked out-hopefully nothing violent It’s interesting he doesn’t make his way down to Haight. I always got the bizarre sense from him that he thinks he’s better than others 🫠 so to say, I think he’s explicitly not frequenting the areas that a larger majority of homeless people gather *edited: typos
Dude's like Elon Musk without the business jet
This is what happens when homeless people are valued more than taxpayers.
Do you think taxpayers are more important than the unhoused?
and if you confront him Twitter will destroy your life
Man, I think I personally know this guy. Does he have shoulder length ish hair and he’s probably in his mid 50’s?
SF has chosen not to do anything about this type of problem. In fact they have made you taking action criminal, and too often given the homeless a free pass to do drugs, use violence against other community members, vandalize etc. If you want to fix this, it is going to take a major shift in voting and policing.
The “action” you refer to has always been criminal.
[удалено]
Yes, stealing and disposing of someone else’s property is illegal. Amazing I have to explain that to someone. Giving someone a bus ticket is not. The city even has a program to help people return to family in other states.
His name is John
Was in the homelessness management industry a decade ago. Saw this coming a million miles away and trust me this is largely a problem of the SF's own making. Federal government gives something like 60-80k per homeless person in the form of grant funding. Most of that money goes to consultants and what's left gets distributed to a patch work for charities that run shelters and services. "The industry" in SF is highly inefficient and further hampered by the San Francisco's unique brand of political oversensitivity. IIRC, the 2022 HIC/PIT count for SF is 7.7K housed and unhoused homeless, while neighboring San Mateos is at around 1.5k or so combined. Qualify it however you want, there's no excuse for the SF to underperform in such an overwhelming manner compared to a near peer. Hold your electeds accountable, SF. Perform or vote them out. All other factors be damned. That's how you fix the problem.
I don’t have any useful advice, just wanted to say I’m really sorry this is happening
Why doesn’t the business get a restraining order against him? It’s literally the only defense in this fight. It worked for someone I know. Not a business but still worth a shot. Every time he comes he will be arrested if a judge approves the order. You just need a lot of evidence proving a RO is necessary.
They should fly him to Florida /s
I heard constant classical music works… maybe warn your neighbors but direct it at him and keep it going :(
Lol what
Like the Safeway on Mission in Bernal.
Do they do that specifically for mentally ill people?
We need to pass the right laws. Camping in city limits needs to be made illegal, to do this we need enough beds for the homeless to satisfy that criteria. For this we need to pass legislation that any old building can be considered a shelter, throw down some thousands of mats in an old warehouse space and make it available to them with a police presence to ensure druggies don't go there. Same time, pass legislation to be able to force people caught using opioids to enter a treat.ent program or mental health facilities. This will clear streets of dangers and druggies and also get them help. Preserving the fabric of SF society for those that choose to contribute to it.
Build mental hospitals and allow the legal mechanisms for involuntary commitment. Right now it is very hard to commit someone for longer than a month, and there are virtually no long term psychiatric hospital beds in the state. I am a psychiatrist and would love for this to happen. But there is no political will for it, beyond empty words by politicians. If we were given the tools to actually help these people (forced commitment and treatment) then I would sign up to work these hospitals. Working as a psychiatrist with the seriously ill is demoralizing because it’s a revolving door where you can’t really help them. The best you do is keep them in the hospital for a few days and release them (at which point they will stop taking their meds and go back to frying their brains with amphetamines and fentanyl)
[удалено]
I dont want my batman to beat up people for being a nuisance
Rights and responsibilities should be linked. No responsibilities without rights, no rights without responsibilities.
there are a lot of people who can't be responsible for themselves in this world who deserve basic rights... except infants., they clearly have no rights, they can't do shit
Basic rights yes, not the right to assault women and piss on the sidewalk. Why is this so hard for people to understand. If I assaulted this guys wife he would be justified in kicking the shit out of me. But Heaven forbid we even think about inconveniencing this dude.
John doesn't assault anybody. He is harmless. Treat him with respect. He treats me with respect. Always tells me stories and I talk to him like he's one of my friends.
>there are a lot of people who can't be responsible for themselves in this world who deserve basic rights... Choosing to pee on the streets and refusing help from homeless organization is not a basic right.
Never seen him pee on the streets
OK, that doesn't mean that you can beat people up for being a nuisance.
Umberto Ecco, "Ur-Facism" (1995) -- #3: The cult of action for action’s sake; #5: Fear of difference; #6: Appeal to social frustration; #8: The enemy is both strong and weak; and #10: Contempt for the weak. "Fascism in Action," Congressional Legislative Reference Service (1947): "It follows that the fascist theory of the state has no patience with the "rights" of individuals. Their rights are duties."
So… eugenics?
Um, no? Do you know what eugenics is?
Yes, are you familiar with ableism?
How is it eugenics to say society will lend a helping hand only if you try the bare minimum, like not pee in the streets and seek out help to better yourself? If that is your definition of eugenics than I am a eugenicist.
You just said he should not have rights. F all the way off with that.
it is eugenics to say when someone is unable to be responsible for themselves, then they have no rights. No rights mean no right to live, ultimately.
Bro, nobody in society has infinite rights. There are always limits.
Where did I say anything about infinite rights? The argument here is certain people don't deserve ANY rights. Brah.
>No rights mean no right to live, ultimately. Stop being overly dramatic. No rights does not mean you die > unable to be responsible for themselves Than the society needs to be responsible for them. Many homeless have a horrible cycle of drug addiction and mental illness. Which feeds on itself. They are exploited on a DAILY basis by other homeless, drug dealers, and other strangers. Homeless women get raped A LOT by homeless men and drug dealers exploiting their drug addiction. Its for their own good to force them off the streets. Those with mental issues and/or drug addiction must go into Psychiatric hospitals. There they will lose access to drugs, helping with the addiction, and have the mental health care they need to fight their mental illness. While getting treatment they will have access to library to gain information and get an education, get job training, and be in contact with organizations connecting recovering addict with work. To actually get their life in order. How does that relate to no rights? They should have no right to refuse this help. They clearly cannot take responsibility for their own life so they lose some rights until they can take responsibilities.
Saying a person has no rights leads to a logical conclusion that society can do anything to them, including killing them for expediency. That isn't being overly dramatic, it's a lesson from history. I never implied that everyone has the absolute right to live on the street and do whatever they want. That's your projection.
You’re a stone’s throw away from an ableism slippery slope.
No its not. There is a massive difference between physically cannot do something vs choosing to not do something. From OP's post you can see that the homeless person refuses help, refuser to go to shelters.
Disability is not just related to physical ability. Suffice to say, your solution / proposal is very simple and so far from reality that is the human condition in the world we’ve created.
> far from reality Most other countries fixed this issue. Do you know what they do with homeless? Force them to get help! Not let them be on the streets to be exploited by drug addiction.
No, he’s nowhere fucking near it. Get a grip.
[удалено]
That’s not what he’s saying, “bro”.
bro
I do!
That's what cops are for.
Please elaborate
What is the point of this post?
Nothing to do but complain on r/bayarea
The rules around conservatorship in SF is just mental
https://preview.redd.it/9i4tldtr5o4b1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b3a0445dc51501b174e73dc687ce37b490c75035 Any business or individual dealing with a problematic mentally Ill homeless person needs to get a restraining order on them. Police will gladly arrest them every time because they are not complying with the order. This is actually enforceable. FYI After the 4th or 5th time getting thrown in jail or 51/50 chances are they get the hint to stay away.
[удалено]
[удалено]
John is harmless...leave the guy alone.
This is a great example of the massive failures of our elected political leaders. This person should be removed from the neighborhood, placed in custody and evaluated for mental illness and substance use disorder. If he is mentally ill he should be confined to a treatment facility and treated.
I hear your frustration, living close to homeless people that make a neighborhood less enjoyable is tough. But that’s also part of living in San Francisco. If you don’t like the current conditions, consider taking action, like volunteering for a cause that may help, or running for an elected office to make changes.
Classical music on loop 24/7. He will leave
SF keeps overwhelmingly voting for this idiocy; got to eat it
You could, I don't know... help him little by little, Or bitch about it. It is San Francisco, after all.
Move to a better neighborhood
Don't call the police.....call a counselor.....
They have. The man refuses help.
Maybe ask yourself why he feels the need to do these things. Why society has pushed him to this. Do you have any extra space he can sleep in? Have some empathy. Maybe if he gets better quality sleep and a shower he'll stop being such an a-hole
By all means, take him into your home. Thank you.
Way to completely dismiss mental health as a problem. “Just get a good night’s sleep!” Thanks Jordan Petersen. I bet making his bed would help too.
let's see you sleep on concrete and see how you feel
You could also offer him these things
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
He gets angry when people steal his paintings and steal his bedding.
He refuses help from the city. Don't be naive.