San Francisco: wealthy opponents of new shelter claim homeless are bad for environment

[friendly_iconoclast]

Source: The Guardian

The wealthy San Francisco residents who launched a crowdfunding campaign to block construction of a new homeless shelter in their waterfront neighborhood are employing a new tactic: arguing that homeless people are bad for the environment.

In a lawsuit filed against the city of San Francisco and the California State Lands Commission, the residents called for the project to undergo an environmental review before breaking ground.

“This project will have a significant effect on the environment due to these unusual circumstances, including by attracting additional homeless persons, open drug and alcohol use, crime, daily emergency calls, public urination and defecation, and other nuisances,” the lawsuit states...

...In addition to the environmental concerns, the lawsuit states that the project is “likely to decrease the fair market value” for any future projects in that location.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/11/san-francisco-navigation-center-shelter-lawsuit

---

Neoliberalism in its purest ray serene...

Walter Benn Michaels had these assholes number years ago:

Let Them Eat Diversity: multiculturalism as an artifact of neoliberalism

https://jacobinmag.com/2011/01/let-them-eat-diversity/

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10022969789

...I think you can find examples in American society everywhere of the extraordinary power, the hegemony of the model of anti-discrimination, accompanied by defense of property, as the guiding precepts of social justice. You can see this in the study that people have recently been making fun of — the one that shows that liberals are not as liberal as they think they are. What it showed was that when people were asked about the question of redistribution of wealth they turned out to be a lot less egalitarian than they thought they were. People who characterized themselves as “extremely liberal” nevertheless had real problems with the redistribution of wealth. And someone pointed out, I think he teaches at Stanford, that that’s the wrong way to think of this, because yes it’s true that especially as people get more wealthy they tend to become less committed to the redistribution of wealth but there are lots of ways in which they become “more liberal” — with respect to gay rights, antiracism, with respect to all the so-called “social issues,” as long as these social issues are defined in such a way that they have nothing to do with decreasing the increased inequalities brought about by capitalism, which is to say, taking away rich liberals’ money.

[Thomas Hurt]

1. I don't know the origins of the term, but redistribution of wealth is another term...

that the far right has appropriated and is using as an christofascist slogan like socialist, witch hunt, fake news, welfare queen, so on and so on. Again they own the narrative not the left.

[True_Blue]

16. We do have a redistribution of wealth

From the 99% to greedy 1%.

[Me.]

2. THey're Living Off Everyone Else's Taxes

and better they shut up before it's discovered and they have real trouble on their hands. I can't imagine wanting to deny someone shelter, the ability to sleep safely, wash, cook...truly a sorry state of affairs that they could help solve so easily. Imagine the depravity of crowdfunding to deny people homes.

[bucolic_frolic]

3. pre-construction zoning nuisances

with a cost-benefit analysis chaser

gerrymandering for the housing market

there is no absolute answer. we want pluralistic institutions and policies. we need workers from all socioeconomic levels. yet we try to try to build a moat around upscale communities

a case to watch

[elleng]

4. Anyone tell them the 'wealthy' have and continue to destroy society?

[B Stieg]

5. Another example of NIMBY!

"Not in My Backyard"

[kimbutgar]

6. It's all these transplant tech residents who brought new developments on the Embarcadero.

Who are whining. That area has always been sketchier.

[DBoon]

7. So building housing for the homeless is bad for the environment

but forcing them to live on the streets isn't?

[Akacia]

12. Exactly what I was thinking. nt

[SergeStorms]

8. They're gentrifying every bit of San Francisco.

Techies have taken over everything. The Tenderloin, Dogpatch, Hunter's Point.......you name it, gentrification has taken over every nook and cranny of San Francisco. No one can afford to live there anymore but high-paid techies.

[NBachers]

9. Here's the one I like "Build luxury condos, & set some development money aside for low-cost housing"

So the extra "low-cost housing" money is factored into what the development costs. That money gets siphoned off, and no-one ever knows where these "low-cost housing someplace else" units are. It's all a racket.

[marble falls]

10. The wealthy are bad for the environment! What's worse a new Tesla or a ...

homeless person who lives in and on recycle?

[moonseller66]

11. Carlin had it right years ago...

they're NIMBYs:
[link:

|
Not In My Back Yard!]

[ROB-ROX]

13. California has 30% conservatives

These people are everywhere in the state and these people are poor to rich. My guess is that a herd of GOP thinking,with no moral ethics,who are rich, are being disturbed by the thought of "common" people close to their homes. I was born in S.F. and I lived near the "projects" (WWII housing for officers.) These apartments are nice big places at low rent. I think this project for the homeless will go through and the snobs will be mingling with some common people really soon......

[ansible]

14. There are lots of assholes here who are liberals too

Don't forget that, the NIMBYness among certain people here is just absolutely fucking disgusting to an insane degree.

[eilen]

15. I don't know how this is construed as "neoliberal"

However it is a case of NIMBYism, Wealthy people (of all political persuasions) who purchased property never want subsidized housing, solar or windfarms, group homes etc. in or close to their neighborhoods. While it may be true that housing values could be impacted I hardly doubt it will in San Francisco which, like most of California, seems only to have increased housing shortages and higher prices.

It is not up to the government to protect their housing value assessments.