Two year wait for Stockholm flat

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by Gordo

^Where are you getting the count of 11,000+ homeless in SF? It may be true, but I've never seen any count that high (it's usually estimated in the 6,000 range).

http://sfhsc.org/site/statistics-and-educational-information/

I wouldn't put much stock in that non-profit group that you linked to earlier. They've had some significant corruption issues over the years and have every reason to inflate numbers.

Oh I believe you, same reasons I think that Stockholm number posted by Gava is likely inflated.

And last - I'm certainly not one to dispute there being significant homeless problems in some US cities, including SF (and far worse problems than I've ever seen in western European countries), but it's a totally separate issue from rent control.

So why is everyone trying to battle me over this. I was just responding to Crawford who claimed the opposite.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by SHiRO

So why is everyone trying to battle me over this. I was just responding to Crawford who claimed the opposite.

You brought up the homeless issue in the first place as somehow having something to do with rent control! That's why people are "battling" you - if you bring up an issue that has nothing to do with the one at hand and imply that it does, people will call you on it. Simple as that.

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by Gordo

You brought up the homeless issue in the first place as somehow having something to do with rent control! That's why people are "battling" you - if you bring up an issue that has nothing to do with the one at hand and imply that it does, people will call you on it. Simple as that.

Yes it was a knee jerk reaction to 10023 with his "socialism" comment.
Sweden is not socialist and wanting to provide affordable housing to everyone is not socialism either.
And even if it was, appearantly they are doing something right cause (nearly) everyone at least has a house contrary to the US where homelessness is a far greater problem. Maybe the US could use a little more "socialism" then instead of less...

Funny how everyone here always falls over comments like these but appearantly all sorts of bullshit can be claimed about other countries without anyone calling it out...

Socialism has nothing to do with the issue at hand either but I don't see people responing to that...

[Gava]

Originally Posted by SHiRO

That's still only 1/3 of San Fransisco, which is a similar sized city.
Plus I don't believe it anyway. Amsterdam had 2600 in 2006 now drastically reduced to 1200 or so, with only 80 or so that actually sleep outside.
Rotterdam has had an even more drastic reduction virtually eleminating homelessness. Latest reports say only 100 homeless and 20 who sleep outside. This is as far down as you can go probably. Stockholm is a lot colder than Amsterdam or Rotterdam, has less immigrants and a similar social situation so I'd expect less homeless in Stockholm than in Amsterdam, but it's possible there are factors that cause them to have more. It still is a far cry from American cities though.
3863 is probaly the amount of people who at one point were homeless during the year, not total amount of homeless at any given time.

The number of homeless sleeping outside in stockholm have been in the 400-500 persons range the last two decades. But homeless are not only those who sleep in a cardboard under a bridge but also those who sleep in shelters, temporarily at a friends house, in a tent or caravan at the campsite etc.

Stockholm I think has a much more severe problem with homelessness than most developed countries capitals on a per capita basis. Not only do you have to stand in queue for ages to get a contract (5 years in my municipality), but the limited stock (rapidly diminishing) force many to find alternative solutions.

I used to lived in a typical suburban commie block neighbourhood about 15km north of Stockholm. Right next to my neighbourhood there was a campsite with a 130 permanent occupants, among them a dossen families living in caravans and these were not immigrants, junkies, temporary workers or nature lovers but 100% swedes that saw themself forced to live there since there was no alternative on offer, not because they couldn´t afford a rent, to live at the campsite you had to pay upfront a yearly fee of about 4.500 USD.

[SHiRO]

I wouldn't call someone who sleeps at a friend's house "homeless" and if we are counting trailer parks then surely the US takes the cake...

It's funny because you actually seem semi shocked about the fact there was such a thing in your neighbourhood. Just goes to show the difference in attitute.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by johnnypd

the homeless situation in the us cities ive been to is incredible. nothing remotely like it exists in europe.

I don't really see this at all.

Go to any pedestrian zone in W. Europe (or, to be fair, Germany and Austria, since this is where I have lived) and there are lots of gutterpunk types with their dirty dogs, old drunk dudes and the like.

I have seen the same in Paris, London and Amsterdam, particularly around pedestrian zones and main train stations.

In contrast, I do not see a ton of visible homeless in the U.S. outside of the West Coast. I think they are more visible on the West Coast because of the year-round mild weather.

Now I don't know who has more homeless, because I obviously can't count everyone on either continent, and visible homeless may or may not be a proxy for overall homeless. Tons of folks may be "hiding".

[SHiRO]

There are nowhere near as many bums in Amsterdam, Paris and German cities as in cities like Philly and Atlanta. So if the West Coast is even worst, what the hell are we talking about?
The most bums I saw in Europe was London, but still less then in New York.

Anyway, the numbers don't lie and the numbers say around 1,200 in Amsterdam and 8,000-15,000 in similar sized San Fransisco.

[village person]

You go, girl! This is the kind of behavior we love around here! Off topic, unending. Stand your ground! Never submit!

[SHiRO]

Yes because it is only objectional if I do it.
Why didn't you say the same to Crawford? Hypocrite.

[village person]

Originally Posted by SHiRO

Yes because it is only objectional if I do it.
Why didn't you say the same to Crawford? Hypocrite.

Crawford's not taking everything so personally and hotheadedly resorting to name calling. There's no double standard here. I am very interested in seeing a calm discussion of the original topic and you're ruining it for anyone who wants to see or take part in that. Yeah there are others going back and forth, but I call you out as key to ending this, because you're basically half the conversation now. So.... make an attempt. It's not that hard.

[sopas ej]

I don't know the statistics, but I'm pretty sure that most of the homeless in the US are mentally ill; many of them can't hold down jobs because of their mental illnesses, and I'm sure many of them would be OK if they were receiving proper medications. If anything this says something about the way the US treats the mentally ill.

People (Republicans, mostly) have told me that it's a myth that it was Ronald Reagan who cut funding to mental hospitals, but I can believe it; the 1970s and 1980s seems to have been the age when fiscal conservatism spread. Even in California in the 1970s, we had Prop 13 which saved homeowners on property taxes but cut funding to public schools; community colleges in California used to be FREE until Prop 13. So, these homeless people who would otherwise be receiving treatment and hospitalization are left to fend for themselves, out in the streets.

Having grown up during the Cold War, as a child I was led to believe that if you couldn't be a functioning member of society, then if you lived in the Soviet Union, you'd be killed. Well, look at what the US does nowadays with its mentally ill.

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by village person

Crawford's not taking everything so personally and hotheadedly resorting to name calling. There's no double standard here. I am very interested in seeing a calm discussion of the original topic and you're ruining it for anyone who wants to see or take part in that. Yeah there are others going back and forth, but I call you out as key to ending this, because you're basically half the conversation now. So.... make an attempt. It's not that hard.

Well what triggered it was 10023 socialism comment. I admit my reaction to it was a knee jerk one. But you can't pretend that after that multiple people didn't jump on it in a Captain America way typical for this forum, with Crawford leading the way. Maybe you need another perspective on the "taking things personal" thing because that is all that happens here when you even mention "USA".
Where did I call you a name btw? Is hypocrite a name now also? Touchy touchy...

Well, back to Stockholm...

[village person]

I've been on this forum for 12 years and I've seen a lot of knee-jerk reactions and a disproportionate amount of complaining from you to what you actually complain about. You've had a bone to pick with this in-the-sky alleged commonly held sentiment of US forumers for years and for you to still be going at it, it must be a codependent relationship.

But yes, back to Stockholm.

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by village person

I've been on this forum for 12 years and I've seen a lot of knee-jerk reactions and a disproportionate amount of complaining from you to what you actually complain about. You've had a bone to pick with this in-the-sky alleged commonly held sentiment of US forumers for years and for you to still be going at it, it must be a codependent relationship.

But yes, back to Stockholm.

It's all about perspective...you should see this forum from mine...it aint pretty and only has gotten worse.
In this particular case I overreacted, usually I don't as there are many threads I let slide, especially recently. I just had two stints of not posting at all for three months.

Stockholm eh...

[10023]

Why are we still talking about the homeless?

There are a lot of reasons for homelessness, but the presence or lack of rent control is not one of them.

If you don't have a damn job, you can't afford shelter at any price.