Downtown Vagrancy

[vicupstate]

^^
I think in the case of San Francisco, it is a matter of the city becoming a mecca for Homelessness, such that even though new housing is taking formerly homeless off the street, those numbers are simply replaced with homeless that have been drawn there from other places. That could certainly explain what you witnessed.  There is a real danger in making homelessness too permissible or even 'comfortable' or to facilitate bad choices. As someone over 55, I can attest that homelessness was a rarity in the '70's but I can also attest that the cost of housing has exploded far beyond normal inflation since then too. In 1996, my PITI was less than $650 a month for a recently renovated 2 Br/ 2 Ba home.  Today that MIGHT get you a room rental (roommate situation) in a mobile home, several miles from the urban core. For comparison, the minimum wage was $4.75 then and it is $7.25 today.       

[WarDamJagFan]

Laying blame on "housing affordability" for the rise in downtown vagrancy is like blaming food inflation on the explosion of shoplifting in San Francisco. It's simply a tolerated behavior which in turn manifests itself into a bigger problem over time. As long as junkies are allowed to do whatever they want on the streets, they will continue to do so regardless of housing costs. While in San Diego a few weeks ago, literally saw vagrants emptying their urine bags onto the sidewalk in front of police. Nobody batted an eye. Tolerated behavior.

[Tacachale]

Yes, the issue is getting worse. The main culprit is the housing crisis and vastly increasing rents. It's not only a Jax or Florida problem but it's especially acute here due to the high population growth and too little supply.

I've noticed the same.  I keep thinking, did I accidentally bring some of the west coast demonic meth heads back with me and now they are multiplying?  Five Points as well...it's like a little San Francisco these days.  Lively and sometimes rowdy, but also ratchet, dirty and more than occasionally sketchy with a weird "dark" energy.

The only solution appropriate for them and for society is to force these people into a rehabilitation program and to separate them from hard drugs for a long period of time, with a jobs program coming out of it so they can work to get back on their feet.  If none of this works, and a massive failure happens again, then extended jail time is actually healthy for both the suffering individual and the public at large.  Allowing this to fester on the streets is both inhumane for those who made really wrong turns in their lives and are wreaking havoc on themselves, and for the public, that is also dealing with the actions and effects of these people.

Just going to throw that out there now because there is going to be a big "homeless advocacy" push (I'm already seeing signs of it here in Jax) to let these people live how they want and hopefully people with spines and a better moral compass can rise above those very misguided notions that have led to most of the western US's cities having a sizable zombie army in their urban cores and a "homeless industrial complex" to sustain it.

The West Coast has a worse homeless crisis because they have a worse housing crisis. It has nothing to do with "homeless advocacy", and it'll affect us soon enough. Considering the far lower incomes, Florida's housing unaffordability is already as bad as California's, and the problem isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

This is absolutely not true and a myth.  I'm not saying there's *no* homeless people/families that were "priced out".  BUT I lived in the Tenderloin in San Francisco for 2 years and got pretty acquainted with the world famous homeless population there, both from volunteering and from living.  I also developed a drug problem myself out there - hard drugs.  I nearly lived that life myself.  All from my own choices.  I lived within a half mile of 36 needle exchanges and the politics there absolutely encourages it.  Nearly NONE of the homeless people there were from San Francisco and 100% of them were on hard drugs, often meth.

It's true. The housing crisis is the main culprit of the homelessness crisis (go figure). The homeless people you happened to see from your apartment and office are not necessarily representative of the wider population. Your perceptions are not reality.

Additionally nearly 100% of all housing starts in SF for the past 5 years have been affordable housing and housing for "formerly homeless".  The homelessness gets worse and worse no matter how many units are built.  It's not a housing problem, but a spiritual problem.  Many of the homeless on the street in SF actually had a home, as well, believe it or not.

San Francisco is notoriously behind on creating new housing. The entire Bay Area and much of the West Coast is too. It would take them years to have any impact on the current problem even if they built nothing BUT affordable housing.

Just giving a meth/fentanyl addict a home does not prevent said addict from being on the street and going insane (and in my opinion being possessed).  I am a born again Christian, and took a HARD turn to the Lord.  I was literally running around from my demons on the streets there and was helped by Catholic priests when I seeked that help, realizing the hard way that the devil is real and I needed the Lord to save me.  I took 2 RCIA classes and became a convert, and I'm a dedicated practicing Catholic to this day, completely clean, homeowner, good job, productive contributing citizen rescued from the HELL that is San Francisco (and unfortunately so many big cities today).  When a culture is rotten, it's easy to take a wrong turn and suffer hard consequences.

I'm glad you've found something that makes you happy and gives you meaning, but again, your personal experience and perceptions aren't representative.

There is a massive drug problem impacting our country.  There is total moral and cultural rot that is affecting our cities, and it's even more widespread than that now.  There is a true spiritual battle out there.  As more and more people have turned away from the Lord, look at the downward slope we are all on.  There is a massive misguided moral dilemma that is absolutely increasing our homeless population.

When I talk to anyone above the age of 55 they recall a time in our cities when there simply weren't homeless people, but there was also better enforcement of "loitering laws" and other laws too that just held people to a higher standard.  Lots more people went to church and put their faith and trust in the Lord.  There's just too much evidence out there for this, but it is prophesied over and over in the Bible "although they claimed to be wise they became fools".

Having dealt with the epicenter of zombiism myself, I refuse to cave into these misguided principles that it's all people just priced out and they just can't work.  I pass too many healthy looking men on medians around this city who CAN work but DON'T.  That's not something I'm looking to solve by just giving my hard-worked tax dollars over to a home for them (which won't actually help them).  They need fixing first, and it starts with fixing the addiction and the heart/soul.

Uhh, okay dude. Now you've totally lost the thread. That's a lot of rhetoric wrapped up in a lot of personal opinion, not the facts of the situation.

[Tacachale]

Laying blame on "housing affordability" for the rise in downtown vagrancy is like blaming food inflation on the explosion of shoplifting in San Francisco. It's simply a tolerated behavior which in turn manifests itself into a bigger problem over time. As long as junkies are allowed to do whatever they want on the streets, they will continue to do so regardless of housing costs. While in San Diego a few weeks ago, literally saw vagrants emptying their urine bags onto the sidewalk in front of police. Nobody batted an eye. Tolerated behavior.

We're talking about a few different things here. One is homelessness, the other is problem behaviors associated with the homeless which is definitely exacerbated by drugs, alcohol and mental illness. Most homeless people are not doing those things, but the numbers are increasing to the point that the problem behaviors are more visible and more in the open. And of course, homelessness itself has a causal effect on drugs and alcohol and mental health breakdowns. Cracking down on troublemakers behaviors isn't going to make the tent cities go away or keep people from getting evicted and spiraling.

[WarDamJagFan]

Laying blame on "housing affordability" for the rise in downtown vagrancy is like blaming food inflation on the explosion of shoplifting in San Francisco. It's simply a tolerated behavior which in turn manifests itself into a bigger problem over time. As long as junkies are allowed to do whatever they want on the streets, they will continue to do so regardless of housing costs. While in San Diego a few weeks ago, literally saw vagrants emptying their urine bags onto the sidewalk in front of police. Nobody batted an eye. Tolerated behavior.

We're talking about a few different things here. One is homelessness, the other is problem behaviors associated with the homeless which is definitely exacerbated by drugs, alcohol and mental illness. Most homeless people are not doing those things, but the numbers are increasing to the point that the problem behaviors are more visible and more in the open. And of course, homelessness itself has a causal effect on drugs and alcohol and mental health breakdowns. Cracking down on troublemakers behaviors isn't going to make the tent cities go away or keep people from getting evicted and spiraling.

I have no idea on what would completely fix the homeless problem. The human condition ensures there will always be crazies among us. All I know is that allowing certain behaviors to go unchecked does more overall harm than good. So unless City Hall truly doesn't mind seeing parts of our city become mini versions of Austin, Portland, Seattle, SF, etc... then we do need law enforcement to be a bit more proactive.

[Tacachale]

Laying blame on "housing affordability" for the rise in downtown vagrancy is like blaming food inflation on the explosion of shoplifting in San Francisco. It's simply a tolerated behavior which in turn manifests itself into a bigger problem over time. As long as junkies are allowed to do whatever they want on the streets, they will continue to do so regardless of housing costs. While in San Diego a few weeks ago, literally saw vagrants emptying their urine bags onto the sidewalk in front of police. Nobody batted an eye. Tolerated behavior.

We're talking about a few different things here. One is homelessness, the other is problem behaviors associated with the homeless which is definitely exacerbated by drugs, alcohol and mental illness. Most homeless people are not doing those things, but the numbers are increasing to the point that the problem behaviors are more visible and more in the open. And of course, homelessness itself has a causal effect on drugs and alcohol and mental health breakdowns. Cracking down on troublemakers behaviors isn't going to make the tent cities go away or keep people from getting evicted and spiraling.

I have no idea on what would completely fix the homeless problem. The human condition ensures there will always be crazies among us. All I know is that allowing certain behaviors to go unchecked does more overall harm than good. So unless City Hall truly doesn't mind seeing parts of our city become mini versions of Austin, Portland, Seattle, SF, etc... then we do need law enforcement to be a bit more proactive.

In terms of the homeless population growing, it's already happening here. We're already as unaffordable as California considering the much lower incomes. In terms of stopping problem behaviors, maybe enforcement will help, but literally no one has come up with a great solution.

[Jax_Developer]

Hard to compare the solutions in CA to many other places. CA lacks available land and most of it is SFH's with plp who are very against any multi-family. They have done basically everything to create an affordable housing crisis.. while also completely lacking public transit.

NYC is somewhat the gold standard for affordability and access to housing. It is by some metrics the "richest" city in the world, certainly high up there income wise.. They have a massive transit network to allow for lower-income workers to live close enough to not make the commute excessive. They also give development entitlements specifically geared towards fixed-income housing & transit lines.. which has made a massive difference now several years into the program.

Ultimately for JAX, utilizing TOD hubs and development intensity incentives for fixed-income units would help a ton. We have this TOD program & zoning, with absolutely zero true TOD projects. Well.. that's how you can build smaller, cheaper units, while still making the planning & building department happy. Otherwise we will keep seeing the same types of projects for the same type of user.

Also, the system we have now of low-income or market rate properties is another form of housing segregation. Many cities recognized this after the fact and now force market rate properties to have a certain % be lower-income. Not saying we do that, but having a density bonus for requiring more affordable units, makes land more valuable & serves a public purpose.

Just some things that I feel like could help JAX's housing affordability issue.

[jaxlongtimer]

I would suggest, as reflected in the prior comments on this thread, that homelessness and vagrancy are complex problems.  One solution is not going to work.  It is a combination of housing access, mental illness, addiction and whatever else the stories of such people reveal.  It will take a multipronged approach to solve the problem:  More affordable housing, effective mental health resources, drug addiction treatment centers, etc.  The issue underlying all of this is funding sources.

And, no matter what, as WDJF notes, we are unlikely to ever totally eliminate the problem, people being what they are.

A bit of Jax history regarding vagrancy from 1972:  Jax is responsible for the U.S. Supreme Court throwing out virtually every vagrancy law in the U.S.  See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papachristou_v._City_of_Jacksonville#:~:text=The%20court%20held%20that%20a,encouraged%20arbitrary%20arrests%20and%20convictions.

[Tacachale]

I would suggest, as reflected in the prior comments on this thread, that homelessness and vagrancy are complex problems.  One solution is not going to work.  It is a combination of housing access, mental illness, addiction and whatever else the stories of such people reveal.  It will take a multipronged approach to solve the problem:  More affordable housing, effective mental health resources, drug addiction treatment centers, etc.  The issue underlying all of this is funding sources.

And, no matter what, as WDJF notes, we are unlikely to ever totally eliminate the problem, people being what they are.

A bit of Jax history regarding vagrancy from 1972:  Jax is responsible for the U.S. Supreme Court throwing out virtually every vagrancy law in the U.S.  See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papachristou_v._City_of_Jacksonville#:~:text=The%20court%20held%20that%20a,encouraged%20arbitrary%20arrests%20and%20convictions.

Worth pointing out that in Simms' post about how great things were back when there were vagrancy laws - this is what vagrancy laws looked like.

[fieldafm]

We're already as unaffordable as California considering the much lower incomes.

With all due respect, Florida does not even play the same game as California.... much less be in California's league. 

They have done basically everything to create an affordable housing crisis

100% accurate.

[Tacachale]

We're already as unaffordable as California considering the much lower incomes.

With all due respect, Florida does not even play the same game as California.... much less be in California's league. 

They have done basically everything to create an affordable housing crisis

100% accurate.

Functionally, it's true. Most people here can't afford the median home price (to a similar percentage as in California), as even though the price is less than CA, wages are too. That's a problem that's only getting worse, especially as we're not doing much to avoid it.

[fieldafm]

We're already as unaffordable as California considering the much lower incomes.

With all due respect, Florida does not even play the same game as California.... much less be in California's league. 

They have done basically everything to create an affordable housing crisis

100% accurate.

Functionally, it's true. Most people here can't afford the median home price (to a similar percentage as in California), as even though the price is less than CA, wages are too. That's a problem that's only getting worse, especially as we're not doing much to avoid it.

California is dead last in both Cost of Living and Housing Affordability.   Florida has a housing affordability problem (that's statistically much less than California, by whatever metric you use), that is largely driven by an undersupply of homes and rapidly increasing demand.   

Florida also has the ability to alter this affordability problem... something California simply does not have the land supply (capacity) and functional ability (land use and taxation policies) to begin to unwind.   

In the Bay Area and the LA Basin, you have large swaths of land that has no legal basis for development rights due to agricultural buffers, hillside easements, and various growth boundaries.  You have a zoning code throughout CA that has massively favored single family homes... so while the major metro areas are dense from a building capacity, the density is severely underpopulated due to the overwhelming underlying preponderance of the built environment.  This land use pattern, which cannot be changed due to the MASSIVE amount of NIMBY'ism which has been prevalent in California since before my father was born, has resulted in massive sprawl that can no longer grow outward any further. 

Additionally, this land use form has been exacerbated by a transportation network which has prioritized the automobile (the interstate highway system forms the basis of CA's transportation network, and those highways can neither expand nor can be torn down).  Based on the highway system, the artificial limit of housing unit density, and the artificial boundary limits of California's sprawl... there is nowhere to go (but up, and the NIMBYs aint having that). So not only can you not build more housing stock, but the amount of housing stock already there has a vastly less unit density than the population requires... in fact the number of housing units per capita is at an imbalance of almost 3 to 1 (statistics, not opinion). This has resulted in a not-so-shocking economic reality: statistically (this is not opinion), CA has some of the least lowest housing production per capita in the country.  Oh, this also results in the nation's highest percentage of super commuters (coupled with strict emission laws specifically targeted at the auto industry-but not other industries like tech and agriculture, the cost of car ownership is higher in CA than 90% of the country)... which further cripples that COL problem faced in CA.

Then you have the totally backwards taxation policy which breeds NIMBY'ism.   These include, but are not limited to a state income tax that mostly goes towards paying off massive ballooning debt of yester-decades, real estate fees (doc stamps, etc) which are not earmarked to affordable housing funding buckets, and Prop 13. Prop 13 alone can be directly attributed to a 40% undersupply of housing units based on simple regression analysis.

The rampant NIMBY'ism in California isn't changing zoning laws and taxation laws in order to return to a sense of free market reality in the state's housing 'market'.   Comparing Florida to California is less a comparison of apples to oranges, and more of a comparison of apples to cartoons.

Florida has problems, but Florida doesn't have the fundamental and unchangeable, self-inflicted problems that California has.  There is hope for Florida, if political will can be found to address the underlying issues.  Florida's immediate affordability problem at the moment is the almost total collapse of the insurance market.  Until the legislative body can address this issue... the other challenges are a distant second fiddle. Its the old proverb that you can't help others until you first get the splinter out of your own eye.



Since this thread is about Downtown vagrancy... this morning I offered to drive a homeless man (who was sleeping on my property) to Sulzbacher to get a meal and an ID.  He refused a trip to Sulzbacher or City Rescue, got aggressive about wanting money, and went a block up the road to urinate on another building.  When I told him it was time to move along (after he refused my offer to get him to the services he needed), he told me to call the cops on him (knowing that he'd move on before the police came, and knowing that JSO wouldn't cite him anyway). 

In this sense, I fully agree with fsu813:

There in lies the rub.

Most homeless people aren't problematic and are relatively invisible.

A smaller potion of homeless people are very visible and problematic.

So, there's a simple fix* for the invisible problem, no simple fix for the visible problem.

*simple in theory.

[simms3]

Field, I definitely can concur with everything you just said about CA's housing crisis.  Prop 13 is a big issue in CA, *BIG*.  (For those who don't know, it's sort of like rent control but with taxes...has some similar effects)  NIMBYism as well.  From my experience working in real estate there, the NIMBYism was actually more acute and pronounced in areas that begged for higher density, because of the "activists" that wanted everything to be 100% affordable and made insane demands.  The Sierra Club came out against just about every new project in the city limits of SF, and so they just more sprawl instead in the East Bay.  This is why I can not take these progressive organizations seriously at all.  Hypocrisy abounds.

BUT

CA housing unaffordability is by no means the main culprit of its homelessness.  Most of the "visible" homeless are drifters and basically came to CA homeless, or were bred in the rank defiled overall lax culture that CA has now become.  CA offers them drugs and no enforcement for anything.  They literally come there to live their lives that way.  "Street kids" eventually become meth-addicted homeless adults.  Meth in CA and the west coast costs $40-60 per gram.  Meth can cost $300-500 per gram in the Northeast.

Similarly, if y'all recall during COVID when Jax was the first in FL to copy what they were doing in SF, LA and NYC in providing hotel rooms for the homeless on the street - the next week the homeless street population was immediately double what it was before from all of the homeless around the general area (SE GA, NE FL).  I saw this for myself and then saw local news interviews of these people and where they came from.  Word gets around, many have smart phones...this was totally predictable to me.  The same thing happened in SF immediately after their hotel housing program.

Regarding "fixes" for visible versus invisible.

I am not ashamed to make another plug for Jesus/Christianity.  Many of the "invisible" homeless (families, single moms, etc) end up receiving help from Christian church ministries.  There are great fixes and faith-based programs out there.  Many such people also actually seek help and eventually get on their feet, so that their homeless situation isn't permanent or a death sentence.

The challenge is the "visible" drug addled homeless problem and it's only a challenge because society has lost a moral backbone and feels "bad" about dealing with it.  "It's not their fault..."  "It's the housing affordability crisis..."  Of course it's never their own bad decisions and it's not their fault, it's society's at large so we just need to let them use drugs and defecate in public and harass the rest of civilization around them, cause property damage, whatever.

[Adam White]

Yes, the issue is getting worse. The main culprit is the housing crisis and vastly increasing rents. It's not only a Jax or Florida problem but it's especially acute here due to the high population growth and too little supply.

I've noticed the same.  I keep thinking, did I accidentally bring some of the west coast demonic meth heads back with me and now they are multiplying?  Five Points as well...it's like a little San Francisco these days.  Lively and sometimes rowdy, but also ratchet, dirty and more than occasionally sketchy with a weird "dark" energy.

The only solution appropriate for them and for society is to force these people into a rehabilitation program and to separate them from hard drugs for a long period of time, with a jobs program coming out of it so they can work to get back on their feet.  If none of this works, and a massive failure happens again, then extended jail time is actually healthy for both the suffering individual and the public at large.  Allowing this to fester on the streets is both inhumane for those who made really wrong turns in their lives and are wreaking havoc on themselves, and for the public, that is also dealing with the actions and effects of these people.

Just going to throw that out there now because there is going to be a big "homeless advocacy" push (I'm already seeing signs of it here in Jax) to let these people live how they want and hopefully people with spines and a better moral compass can rise above those very misguided notions that have led to most of the western US's cities having a sizable zombie army in their urban cores and a "homeless industrial complex" to sustain it.

The West Coast has a worse homeless crisis because they have a worse housing crisis. It has nothing to do with "homeless advocacy", and it'll affect us soon enough. Considering the far lower incomes, Florida's housing unaffordability is already as bad as California's, and the problem isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

This is absolutely not true and a myth.  I'm not saying there's *no* homeless people/families that were "priced out".  BUT I lived in the Tenderloin in San Francisco for 2 years and got pretty acquainted with the world famous homeless population there, both from volunteering and from living.  I also developed a drug problem myself out there - hard drugs.  I nearly lived that life myself.  All from my own choices.  I lived within a half mile of 36 needle exchanges and the politics there absolutely encourages it.  Nearly NONE of the homeless people there were from San Francisco and 100% of them were on hard drugs, often meth.

Additionally nearly 100% of all housing starts in SF for the past 5 years have been affordable housing and housing for "formerly homeless".  The homelessness gets worse and worse no matter how many units are built.  It's not a housing problem, but a spiritual problem.  Many of the homeless on the street in SF actually had a home, as well, believe it or not.

Just giving a meth/fentanyl addict a home does not prevent said addict from being on the street and going insane (and in my opinion being possessed).  I am a born again Christian, and took a HARD turn to the Lord.  I was literally running around from my demons on the streets there and was helped by Catholic priests when I seeked that help, realizing the hard way that the devil is real and I needed the Lord to save me.  I took 2 RCIA classes and became a convert, and I'm a dedicated practicing Catholic to this day, completely clean, homeowner, good job, productive contributing citizen rescued from the HELL that is San Francisco (and unfortunately so many big cities today).  When a culture is rotten, it's easy to take a wrong turn and suffer hard consequences.

There is a massive drug problem impacting our country.  There is total moral and cultural rot that is affecting our cities, and it's even more widespread than that now.  There is a true spiritual battle out there.  As more and more people have turned away from the Lord, look at the downward slope we are all on.  There is a massive misguided moral dilemma that is absolutely increasing our homeless population.

When I talk to anyone above the age of 55 they recall a time in our cities when there simply weren't homeless people, but there was also better enforcement of "loitering laws" and other laws too that just held people to a higher standard.  Lots more people went to church and put their faith and trust in the Lord.  There's just too much evidence out there for this, but it is prophesied over and over in the Bible "although they claimed to be wise they became fools".

Having dealt with the epicenter of zombiism myself, I refuse to cave into these misguided principles that it's all people just priced out and they just can't work.  I pass too many healthy looking men on medians around this city who CAN work but DON'T.  That's not something I'm looking to solve by just giving my hard-worked tax dollars over to a home for them (which won't actually help them).  They need fixing first, and it starts with fixing the addiction and the heart/soul.

Wait...you lived in San Francisco?

[jaxlongtimer]

To play devil's advocate:  I have family that lives in the Bay area so I have some experience there.  I can't speak for the LA area.  In the Bay area, I have noted lots of density at least on par with Jacksonville and maybe even greater in some spots. They have high rises and row houses in SF and small lots for homes that go for millions (equal to our homes here in the mid-hundreds of thousands  ) miles out in the suburbs. 

What I do see is lots more land that is withheld from development due to steep terrain, wetlands, reservoirs, soil not conducive to build on if an earthquake happens, hillsides with a native oily vegetation that quickly feeds fires and may need to be preserved to prevent soil erosion and downhill flooding and a great appreciation for preserving large chunks of natural beauty in the landscape (not chopping down the redwoods anymore).  If one ignores the human element, it is hard not to appreciate the overall beauty of most of the area.  At some point, there may be more people wanting to live there than can be affordably sustained.  When does an area become saturated within the bounds of maintaining a decent quality of life?  Not everyone wants to live in high rises.  Some parts of the world may be approaching (or have already exceeded) the limits of human occupation.  Just sayin'....

By the way, I have seen "homeless" people in Silicon Valley that are software engineers who make well into 6 figures but still can't afford housing there so they live in their vehicles.  If they can't find affordable housing, I have to wonder what hope there is for those less fortunate.

I might add that we should include our Beaches area when discussing this issue.  When homes blocks from the ocean now regularly sell in the millions, where will affordable housing go there?  In many ways, the Beaches are a city unto themselves more than ever.  St. Johns County also seems to now be grappling with this issue.  When hordes of people show up in short order, how can a community react fast enough to keep up?  This seems to be an age old problem and solutions seem hard to come by.