Haight-Ashbury homeless think McDonalds dropped 'dollar menu' to get rid of them

Hassle in Haight over McDonald's menu change

What would seemingly be an issue of capitalism and supply and demand in any other city, or any other neighborhood in San Francisco, has instead morphed into another battle between merchants and the homeless in the Haight-Ashbury neighborhood:

The McDonald's at the corner of Haight and Stanyan streets eliminated its Dollar Menu about a month ago, making the items on it too expensive for the people who spend the better part of their day on the sidewalk in front.

Street people who for years have depended on the McDonald's to eat say it's become a de facto sit/lie ordinance. But the franchise owner says she's just trying to make a little extra money.

--------------


While that price increase may seem trivial, for Newhart and his colleagues it can mean the difference between eating and going hungry. Many homeless think taking away the Dollar Menu is the restaurant management's ploy to get them to go somewhere else. Management locks the bathroom door and frequently calls the cops. On top of that, Mayor Gavin Newsom and several Haight Street merchants are pushing a November ballot measure that would ban sitting or lying on public sidewalks.

-----------


"Yeah man, it ... sucks," he said Thursday while sitting foodless on the McDonald's patio with a half dozen hungry friends. "I eat less. I have to get more money. If I don't have a dollar and I want food, I just end up going to a trash can."



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/09/05/BA7H1F4J2T.DTL#ixzz0ylrtUCT2

I mean I understand the homeless' need for inexpensive food, but they need to understand that if they then hang around all day, they are going to cost the owner customers who don't want to wade through a homeless camp to grab a meal. Seems if the homeless folks would just agree to get their dollar meals and then eat and leave rather than hovering around on the patio all day or spending "the better part of their day on the sidewalk in front."

Where do you suggest they go that they won't be in front of someone's business or home?

staying all day in one place isn't the best choice. Perhaps a local park or hanging out in front of BoA or Citigroup or some other conglomerate that is more responsible than this local woman's McDs. Just saying, if you want someone to care to remain helpful to you (in this case keeping the dollar menu), then it seems some courtesy and consideration for their being able to remain in business would be prudent. Hang around places that don't service your needs when you know your presence is causing a problem for their survival.

The SF Chronicle is on a propaganda campaign in order to support Newsom's no sit/lie ordinance.

that Newsom had solved 60% of homelessness in town in 2006.

They help him catapult this propaganda at every opportunity.

But I suppose if the richest people in town can't see the homeless on their way to Gumps, then problem solved.

But the suits at the Chronicle are @ssholes and every time Newsom's spokesliars open their mouths, their spew gets printed as gospel. ETA: In fact, this issue is why I stumped for Matt and not for Gavin.

I also stumped for Matt. That was an exciting campaign.

He's a good guy. :)

They are free citizens and can go wherever they please. Nobody has a right to tell them to move on.

that contradict that premise.

Of course, its most likely different homeless people coming in and out, but the effect on the neighborhood client base is the same. They go elsewhere.

will get them ticketed or arrested for vagrancy.

They become easy targets for police.

In most cities homeless people will be immediately harassed to leave parks. Homeless people don't look good. They scare away the nice people the parks were "meant for."

If a homeless person spends even $1 in a McDonalds they are a customer, even if they are sitting there slowly nursing whatever they bought, and a police officer has no right to bother them. That represents a level of safety they can't get in a park.

If you have never been homeless you wouldn't think about these things. But these issues are important.

People who have never been homeless only think about making homeless people go someplace else. Always someplace else. Always someplace else. As long as it's out of sight and away from everyone else. :(

But as soon as ANYONE else goes there, then it's okay to drive the homeless people away from there too. So where do people think it's okay for the homeless people to go?

The answer ends up being, "Go to the homeless shelters and stay there." But that's impossible, because there aren't enough shelters, and they kick you out during the day.

lady has to shoulder all the issue by losing customers because she's inundated with homeless folks gathering all day.

or any other factor. She quite clearly stated that she wanted to make more money.

and that means that kicking out homeless people will bring in more customers, then that means bigotry against homeless people brings in customers...

Would we accept that racism is okay if racism increases business and brings in more customers?

Would we accept that a McDonalds has a right to kick out all black people because white customers are offended when they see black people sitting in a McDonalds?

or Visa Versa? Would we allow a McDonalds to kick out all white people so that it could be a Minority friendly McDonalds? How well would that go ever?

But kicking out homeless people so that other people feel more comfortable is acceptable. Tell me why?

subconscious feelings of disgust towards the homeless. So the article doesn't need to mention it--it goes without saying.

no reason NOT to disclose that information if it were true. Jeez. Is this how people read the press these days? Drawing conclusions from facts not in evidence? And yes, I do know how to read between the lines but there is not even a hint that the homeless people who ate at this McDonalds were driving any other business away.

Haight Street is full of homeless youths. It also draws far more resident and tourist shoppers. It is a wildly successful and very expensive area of town. Some business owners have gotten a lot of mainstream and political attention for complaining about business-killing homeless youths. There is absolutely no reason why this article, if it were true, could have elicited a similar sentiment from this business owner.

But it didn't because that is not the reason why she raised prices. She was very clear why. Because she followed the advice of a cost analysis which indicated that she would make more money by raising her prices.

If they didn't interview any customers other than one or two homeless people, and all they asked about was the dollar menu, then they really can't report about anything else.

They would need to talk to the non-homeless customers who are offended by homeless customers to really report about that, and it doesn't look like they really researched the article that far.

They would need to ask the management if anyone complained too. But if management is sticking to the story that "nothing is going on here. We just want to make more money." then they aren't going to get any information out of management about any complaints from anyone, regardless of who complained.

It's really easy to say that an article should report on more, but it isn't easy to get information if they don't have people to interview, and if the people that they can interview won't say much.

Thanks! :hi:

then I'm sure they would know. They would certainly notice.

Unfortunately, I have yet to see any situation where people AREN'T offended by having homeless people around. That is just the nature of people's prejudice against any visible signs of homelessness.

It defies believe to expect that people really ignore homeless people without any sign of hostility. It would be nice, but it doesn't happen. You're asking people to assume that people are far more civil and kind than people ever really are.

You might just as well ask that we assume police don't racially profile black people driving through mostly-white neighborhoods either. You're asking for us to assume behavior that would be very nice, very good, but very unrealistic.

should have some respect for her need to make money with other customers who spend more than a dollar. I've at no point advocated kicking out anyone. I guess you'll have to find someone who actually thinks they should be kicked out to get your answer.

or that she hasn't been treated with respect. The article clearly states that she wanted to make more money not that she was making less due to the homeless shopping and eating at her restaurant and needed to make up for lost revenue.

Most likely an analysis was done that charging $1.50 in a heavy traffic tourist area would offset any loss of homeless customers.

The McDonalds owner has every right to adjust prices as she sees fit. She is under zero obligation to make less money so that she can make it easier for vagrants to hang around.

In other words the price change affects everyone and trying to say that it is the same thing as refusing to serve a person for the color of their skin is disingenuous.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

that it is not available at all locations. Which means the owner has to honor the advertised price.

she might be able to hire more people.

dg

that money to hire more people?

Fast food restaurants have staffing formulas for exactly how many people they need, and exactly how many hours per week they need to have staffed.

Do you really think they are going to suddenly find more hours per week that need to fill just because there is more money coming in?

All that extra money is going to sit in the owners bank account.

she's not a corporate CEO. Franchisee owners actually do a lot of work in their own restaurants & yes, they DO hire more workers when more money comes in, because it will stop coming in if service is too slow. It costs money to operate a restaurant, keep it functional & clean, & they're under no obligation to provide free seats, air conditioning, or potties to anyone, unless they want to do it.

So, yeah, God damn this bitch for wanting to make a bit more money so she can keep her business running, her employees employed, and a roof over her own head, along with possibly hiring on more people.

dg

Like a lot of people, I worked in fast food when I was young. I worked in several fast food places for a bunch of years. None of the owners ever set foot in the places. The franchise owners owned a multiple locations and paid people to work in them for them.

It might be different if someone only owns one location. We don't know if this person only owns the one location. You don't know that, and neither do we. You don't know if the franchise owner works there or is absentee any more than I do.

The cost on the dollar menu is set and advertised by the parent corporation, and they don't have any disclaimer that the the prices may not apply at certain locations. I'll bet it's very unusual for anyone to change the prices for McDonalds food. Otherwise the prices would vary from location to location everywhere you go.

One thing McDonalds is KNOW FOR is that everything is standardized everywhere. Everything is the same in every McDonalds no matter where you go. That was the whole point of McDonalds, and that was what made them famous.

So for this location to change their prices and get rid of their dollar menu, and be different from every other McDonalds is incredibly unusual. So unusual that there has to be a very significant reason for it.

Just to make more money? Every Franchise owner is trying to make money. Did this one owner decide that the McDonalds prices that make everyone else other franchise owner money suddenly weren't enough? And that's the ONLY reason?

There is NO POSSIBILITY that the homeless people there had nothing to do with it? We're supposed to dismiss that possibility entirely? Why?

Why are you so incredibly ANGRY about anyone even considering that possibility? Why are you taking it so personally that it is making you so mad?

I'm not angry. I'm simply looking at the situation from both sides.

You, otoh, are speaking as though you know personally that this business woman is raising prices solely to chase the homeless away from her restaurant. Does she not have the right to run her business as she sees fit or doesn't she?

As for prices/menus/etc being different, yes, prices are not set in stone by the head corporation. They vary widely depending upon where you are. I've not seen a Dollar Menu at a McD's in an airport, for example, and the prices are higher than at a stand-alone restaurant. Prices at McD's in larger towns are higher than the ones in smaller towns. So it's not unusual for a McD's to not have a Dollar Menu or to have higher or lower prices. Others have posted that they too have seen difference in pricing depending upon location, so I'm not making this up.

dg

homeless people.

You just SWEAR that the owner has a right to make money. How is that looking at both sides, and how is that not getting angry?

Even if she has to sell it for a loss she's obligated to sell that menu at that price. She may in fact be in violation of her agreement.

But go ahead and defend this bit of spite on her part.

"Franchise owners frequently change the prices of certain menu items in response to customer demand, the Consumer Price Index and other factors, Julie Wenger, marketing director for McDonald's Pacific-Sierra Region, said in a statement."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/09/05/BA7H1F4J2T.DTL#ixzz0ytdD4kLs

Saw the McD's Dollar Menu commercial on TV last night & sure enough, it has a disclaimer. So her restaurant is no longer a "participating location."

I just love how the homeless advocates demand that *everyone* see things from their perspective (as in "the homeless should get everything for free"), but if you *dare* look at the situation from the owner's perspective, you're a Republican, troll, defender of a "bit of spite," etc. The owner is a greedy, heartless bitch because she dares to want to make a bit more money.

There is nothing in the article that suggests she dropped the dollar menu just to get rid of the homeless. It could be that she's held on to the dollar menu for as long as she could & it was either do away with it & stay in business or keep it & go under. Her suppliers might be charging more, her electric & water bills could have gone up. Don't hear any whining about that or allegations that the suppliers/electric & water companies are "greedy pieces of spite" from the homeless advocates. Oh no, just the one woman who owns a business where the homeless feel entitled to take up space & use the facilities without paying for them.

dg

I think you joined the wrong website. Heartless assholes post at the Free Republic.

prohibited from living under bridges. That may be true, but the prohibition only affects one group.

In this case, the increase in price may affect all groups, but it impacts one group more than all others. It so Very Obviously impacts that one group more than all others that it would be an obvious strategy to use against them. It isn't disingenuous to say that this could be a strategy against the homeless. It is naive to suggest that it couldn't be.

After all is said and done, if all the homeless people have been driven away, would that be just coincidental?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_WMpSC7nK3os/SBKN9pWF_vI/AAAAAAAABhs/2cM7GA72zls/s400/no+jews_allowed.gif

I can't even believe we are having to argue this on a "liberal" forum! :nuke:

we have become infested with republicans. They came here to stir up shit and stuck around. Mr. "easier for vagrants to hang around" joined in '08.

Really nice game.

Really nice.

:puke:

before the DLC you can get away with a bunch of shit, it would seem.

:rofl:

:yourock: :hi:

bow to no one (unless it is a sign of respect, like in Japan)

it.

That would mean HOUSING FOR EVERYONE, and a DECENT STANDARD OF LIVING FOR EVERYONE.

You see, your ignoring the problem is driving it right in front of you. It is showing your basic attitude toward others.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I really no longer care what that kind of mentally thinks that wants to prove we all are bad.

Why don't you just get honest, and campaign to have us all removed?

Insensitive (bigotry, hate, ridicule, stereotyping) toward certain groups of people.

Instead, we live in a country where cities just keep running the homeless from one place to another trying to hide them from the sight of 'decent' people.

I see it as forcing them to live like hunted animals seeking a safe place. Any refuge is subject to becoming unsafe at any moment. A person finds a little nook where they can sit and not be bothered and, as soon as it's discovered, someone is there demanding they be moved out.

It is a horror we do this to people here. It's hilarious in a morbid sort of way to remember growing up with the belief that we were lucky to have been born in a 'free country.' Free? Sure, we're free to starve on the streets if we fall on hard times so long as we remain, somehow, out of sight and 'decent' people do not have to be offended by knowing of our existence.

:cry:

Imagine if gay people or black people or Jews were run off...

Imagine.

What is really sick is that it doesn't matter to these people that so many of these actions lead to DEATH.

propaganda campaign started in the Reagan years to demonize the poor and the homeless (who increased exponentially with the advent of Reaganomics). It was all very clever. Change the American mindset from one that knew helping those who had less was the right thing to do, to a mindset where the poor and homeless were seen as being to blame for their own problems and, therefore, reviled and punished for their poverty.

Once a large segment of the population bought into this idea, it was then possible to put into place the policies which would insure we increased the population of poor and homeless, knowing there would be no outcry clamoring for help for those who needed it. The money formerly used for programs to keep people who needed our help housed, fed, and cared for was now able to be funneled to the top with impunity.

selves sooooo much smarter, yet couldn't understand they were played *then*, and they are being played *now*.

SMART, I tells ya... :crazy:

The problem now is to overturn that demonization.

But, that doesn't rank up there with all the other causes, does it?

It's up to those deemed the poster kids to change it around. :nuke:

one of the most shrillest, most odious theologies to ever be put forth.

Funny how the beliefs of the Calvinists dovetail perfectly with the needs of the elite, ruling class, isn't it?

Yup, if you think correctly and speak correctly, and work hard to eliminate any "negative" thoughts, you will "succeed".

Evil thoughts, evil speech, working hard = Calvinism.

And look what is the predominant ethos now... in religion, business, etc.

"We love you Calvin, oh yes we do, we love you Calvin, and we'll be true.

When you're not with us, we're blue. Oh Calvin, we love you!"

Re "Funny how the beliefs of the Calvinists dovetail perfectly with the needs of the elite, ruling class, isn't it?"

I always assumed that's what the Protestant Ethic (i.e. Calvinism) was FOR--to provide a theological justification for the "good fortune" (occasionally, but not most of the time) of the rich.

I worked with a hospice chaplain who was raised Lutheran. She attended seminary, a second career, at a Presbyterian institution. She once shared with me that she noticed there was a decided lack of sermons on topics like greed in her current denomination as compared to her childhood church.

REally, that is something that interests me....

Maybe that is my problem... I am a cradle Lutheran, and I don't understand the hard-hearted judgmentalism.

Thanks for that observation... I would really like to hear more.
:hug:

She was a PhD in physics who worked for the government for years before feeling she was called to the ministry.

At the time I was working with her, there was huge debate in the Presbyterian church over gay clergy. She was, of course, in favor of allowing gay clergy.

Another observation she made to me was that the more prosperous a congregation was, the less likely there would be much talk about the evils of greed. She could be quite outspoken in her criticism of the church and the 2 of us lamented that the days when the church was a force working to help the poor seemed to have passed. I was raised in the social justice wing of the Catholic church and she was raised in the comparable wing of the Lutheran church.

That is the downside of a strong middleclass... they think they are somehow more superior because they have done well.

They don't look at the perks they have had along the way, and look down from their perch and judge others.

It makes them feel sooo righteous.

What really disturbs me is that pastors have sold out in not confronting this. When you realize that it is the main way that people will be judged, according to Matt. 25, it seems dereliction of duty to not keep it firmly in front of people!

I was raised Lutheran so i know exactly what she is talking about.

Re "I see it as forcing them to live like hunted animals seeking a safe place. Any refuge is subject to becoming unsafe at any moment. A person finds a little nook where they can sit and not be bothered and, as soon as it's discovered, someone is there demanding they be moved out."

I live in San Bernardino, CA, a city that has been hard-hit by the recession. It was always kind of a grungy working-class city even at the best of times, and some areas are absolute slums now. There are a lot of homeless people here, even where I live which is in the relatively "nice" part of town.

There is a homeless man I have befriended who sleeps behind the dumpster at the local Mexican market where I do most of my shopping. During the day he hangs out in various places in that rundown shopping center--sometimes in the laundromat, sometimes on the sidewalk in front of the market, etc. I buy him ice cream or coffee and a doughnut sometimes, and make a point of bringing him home-cooked food whenever I can. I just make a little extra when I make soup or chili for myself.

I've lived all over SoCal in my 50+ years in this area, and the way you describe it how the homeless are always treated. Always forced to "move on" whenever they find some forgotten nook or cranny to hole up in. It's sickening!

to build a place on the outskirts of a small town, authorities will claim it is a fire hazard and knock it down.

SF, which I always thought had a more tolerant attitude. (the no sitting on the sidewalk ordinance seems pretty harsh and would be hard to enforce._ Maybe someone should open a soup kitchen nearby to help folks, or a drop in center where folks can go.

should be shouldering this issue. We should be demanding that we stop giving the MIC half of the hog while we routinely ignore those in need. Ronnie Raygun be damned, 95% (or more) of the homeless in this country are not there because they want to be.

"aware".

The ignorance is truly staggering.

"To believe that homeless people choose to be homeless may help you sleep better at night, but bears little resemblance to the truth." Mitch Snyder

July 21: July 2010 marks the 20th anniversary of the passing of tireless homeless advocate Mitch Snyder. Current and former staff remember and honor the legacy he left behind. Read more here

Remembering Mitch Snyder

July 2010 marks the 20th anniversary of the passing of the tireless homeless advocate, Mitch Snyder. As an organization, NCH was close to Mr. Snyder and believed in the principles of inclusion of people experiencing homelessness that he stood for. Here, a young advocate today explores Mr. Snyder's legacy. Also look for personal testimonies about Mr. Snyder's continuing influence on the NCH Blog.



The Community for Creative Non-Violence (CCNV), the former Federal City College building and, at one time, the largest homeless shelter in the United States, sits at what used to be the intersection of D and 2nd Streets Northwest and what is now the intersection of D Street and Mitch Snyder Place.

Snyder joined CCNV in 1973 and passed away in July of 1990. In only 17 years, Mitch Snyder became one of the most influential, controversial and, perhaps, important homeless advocates in American history. Now, 20 years after his death Mitch Snyder is remembered not only by the street which holds his name but also for an ongoing legacy of humanizing the homeless people.

Mitch Snyder was born on August 14, 1943 to parents who were atheistic Jews. His father, an electrical firm executive, left the family for another woman when Mitch was only nine. As a result, Mitch and his mother, Beatrice, fell from a comfortable middle-class lifestyle and into semi-poverty. The situation made the two of them close, but, as Snyder himself said of his life, he struggled without a father figure, eventually joining a street gang, quitting school, and being arrested a dozen or more times by his sixteenth birthday. Mitch was sent to a reformatory school, from which he dropped out in under a year, and returned to his native Brooklyn to pursue work and night school.

It was during this time that Mitch began to get on his feet, in the traditional sense. He met a woman named Ellen Kleiman, who would, a short time later, become Ellen Snyder and the mother of their sons, Ricky and Dean. Mitch found work selling vacuum cleaners door-to-door and enjoyed that it allowed him to speak with people for a living. Yet, Snyder also believed that something was amiss.

A capitalist lifestyle was something Mitch simply could not settle himself around. “I think anyone who works for money is stark raving mad,” Snyder was quoted as saying, “because prostitution is bad, and it doesn't matter whether you're standing on Fourteenth Street or in a boardroom for AT&T.” In 1969, Mitch left his family and took to the road.

A year later, he was convicted of car theft in Las Vegas, a crime he always maintained he was innocent of committing. Mitch spent the majority of his jail term in Danbury, Connecticut where he met and studied the Bible with radical Catholic Priests Philip and Daniel Berrigan serving time for burning draft cards. The Berrigans helped teach Mitch about protesting, social justice, and dedication to a cause. After serving his sentence, Mitch was released from Danbury in 1972. Thereafter, he tried to reconcile with his wife. The attempt failed, and, at the recommendation of an inmate-friend in Danbury, Mitch moved to Washington DC to join CCNV, a Christian inspired, anti-war and social justice group, that was working in the city.

For Mitch, CCNV and DC was the right place at the right time. Always loquacious Snyder enjoyed chatting with strangers, often homeless people. At the time of his arrival in Washington, he, himself, had never been homeless, but the transition of the protest fervor he developed in prison to a specific cause was inevitable.

In Danbury, Snyder focused his political energies on opposing the war in Vietnam. When he moved to DC, the war was coming to a close. As a result of a lack of transitional programs for veterans, among other causes, the number of homeless Americans was increasing dramatically. Mitch, like the CCNV community he joined, began to turn attention from ending the Vietnam War to supporting its survivors, from fighting a war against war to fighting a war against poverty.

The shift was trying: physically, emotionally, and spiritually. But Mitch was an energetic, engaged, and inspiring volunteer. He engrossed himself in his work, committing to tasks as varied as pamphlet passing, community organizing, legal work, and shelter management. The same, however, was true of many of CCNV's volunteers at the time. What made Mitch most important to CCNV and the homeless community as a whole was his unique sense of creativity and a charismatic ability to draw attention to the cause.

In 1981, Ronald Reagan was sworn in as President of the United States. For many the Reagan Administration is remembered for Reaganomics and ending the Cold War. Yet the poor and homeless of the time remember it rather for a dramatic reduction in housing and social services, Boss Tweed politics, and constant reminders that a mythical “welfare queen” in Chicago and exaggerated “welfare cheats” across America made their poverty their fault. "Mr. Reagan and Congress's housing cutbacks are directly responsible for the homeless problem," Snyder once said of the Administration.

On Thanksgiving Day 1981, tents appeared in Lafayette Park, across from the White House. A sign amidst the spread of tents read “Reaganville: Reagonomics at Work.” The tent city, an intentional throwback to the Hooverville encampments of the Great Depression, held 20-25 homeless persons and activists each night for the next four months. For many observers, a fine line had been drawn between what is real and what is theater. Such was precisely Snyder's desire.

In addition to being an activist, Snyder was a self-proclaimed actor. A master of social pageantry and what now would be dubbed “street theater,” Mitch was famed for his insatiable motivation to cause a public scene. Among his exploits, he orchestrated a blood spattering of the Capitol steps, sloshed through the world's biggest pie yelling “It's all mine,” sat outside the White House in an old Irish tradition of waiting outside the home of someone who had wronged you without appropriate remorse, often jumped the White House fence, and, most infamously, fasted, nearly unto death three times. These actions gained significant attention to Mitch, the cause of homelessness, and helped to energize and unify many homeless persons and advocates.

Mitch, both during and after his lifetime, has been criticized for manipulative protest, particularly for his fasts demanding various rights and services for the homeless. Snyder became something of a celebrity by means of his flamboyant activism. CCNV actions Mitch organized were frequently reported in the media. One of the most famous was a CBS 60-Minutes episode featuring clips of Mitch starving from a fast as part of a protest demanding that the federal government repair the Federal City Shelter to make it livable for its 1000 plus inhabitants. The episode aired just before President Reagan's second presidential election in 1984. With Snyder quite literally preparing to die, the federal government changed its policy and promised funds to the shelter. Manipulative or not, it is rarely said that Snyder was ineffective, and it is generally agreed that he reached and impacted diverse audiences with his message.

After all, it seems that eyes, if not cameras were always on Mitch. It was not only news media that captured Snyder's activities. He was also the subject of books, the PBS documentary Promises to Keep, and the TV-movie Samaritan: The Mitch Snyder Story, starring Martin Sheen as Mitch. But Mitch didn't only have an ability to make homelessness interesting, he made it the topic of the day.

It has been said of Snyder that he “never went Hollywood,” rather, “Hollywood went Mitch.” Sheen and other actors were so moved by working with Snyder that many of them donated time, money, and resources to the homelessness cause - Sheen even protested and was arrested with Snyder. In the mid to late 80's homelessness was a social issue in vogue.

With Snyder as its visual and vocal leader, the homeless movement grew tremendously. In his time, Mitch saw not only significant change for Federal City Shelter but also in DC as a whole and in America as a nation. Snyder's work was key in pushing homeless rights locally and nationally. He contributed to such legislation as Initiative 17, which was meant to mandate shelter for all and the McKinney-Vento Act, which provides federal homeless assistance. Snyder helped assure that the Federal City Shelter became CCNV, which did and continues to provide temporary-long-term shelter for more than 1300 DC residents.

Mitch Snyder accomplished a lot in 46 years of life, certainly more than most. The effort required took its toll. Struggling against devolution of homelessness policy in DC, as well as with a series of personal challenges, Snyder committed suicide on July 4, 1990.

July 5th, 1990 was a rainy day in Washington DC. Carol Fennelly, Mitch's partner of thirteen years, explained to a crowd of mourners that Mitch believed good things happen when it rains. “Today,” she said to them, “he was wrong.”

Today, 20 years later, it is not raining; it is simply very hot. Homeless persons in DC have increased around 5 percent in the last year due to America's economic downturn. Yet, the legacies of the efforts of Snyder and those who worked with him continue as new efforts are being established to address homelessness. DC Mayor Fenty's Administration recently celebrated the 1000th formerly homeless person housed by the Mayor's Initiative to End Homelessness. The Obama Administration recently announced the creation of a comprehensive 10-year federal plan to end homelessness.

The condition of homelessness continues to be demoralizing to those who live and have lived it. The work needed to be done to end homelessness is far from over, but the potential for large scale homelessness to be ended is a goal within reach. While this is to the great credit of all who have worked for the cause, it is only appropriate to give special remembrance to a dedicated, unique, and charismatic homeless advocate whose efforts continue to inspire across time.

Thank you and rest in peace, Mitch Snyder.

By Adam Sirgany, former NCH intern and Knox College (IL) '11


mods, this is from the National Coalition for the Homeless, and they LIKE to have their information shared.

McD's any money so I'm already boy/girlcotting them.

I think it's cruel they got rid of their $1 menu. I used to live in SF and this sounds so not SF, but I guess everywhere has gotten on the Greed Train.

It's too bad there isn't a designated place for the homeless in the park where there are port-a-potties, a place for showers, and a place to rest. That park is big enough to offer something like that.

When I traveled in Spain, there were public places where the poor could get soap, shampoo, and a towel and could take a shower.

And I would think that donated clothes would be available as well.

All the damn money we spend on killing people and we can't offer the poorest of our own a place to shower, rest, and relieve oneself....it's disgusting.

This all started with Raygun. It has been downhill ever since.

USA is #1 in Cruelty!

All the money we give subsidizing corporations that are already profitable, giving tax breaks to companies that don't pay any taxes, and yet we can't find any way to help the homeless.

We claim that we don't create poverty in this country, that is exactly what we do in this country. We deliberately create poverty, and then we deliberately punish people for being poor. :(

where they can have access to things that would make their presence less noticeable in the first place, or should I say, the fact that they are homeless less noticeable. It would also give them better odds when they do try to get jobs or just improve how they feel about themselves.

We need HOUSING and enough money to live on.

Period.

while Newsom is mayor. His solution is to cut aid and roust sleeping people and herd them across the county line.

He obviously wants violence. It is only a matter of time.

But, that won't be important to "peace" people.

have been calling this a war for years.

This isn't a zero sum game, thank goodness.

What I see is them using poverty for their own goals.

Some of us are really tired of that.

*We* didn't cause that division, and we are poor but not stupid... we see when we are being used.

that work their butts off and share the little they have.

Shame on you.

You know that I have seen the "peace" stuff, and how little it connects with poverty. I'll say it again.. "Peace" people use poverty for their own means... not in any serious way to actually take action against poverty, or, heaven forbid, to actually get to know poor people.

Shame on YOU for painting it otherwise.

You make terrible and baseless accusations without a second thought. I'm hope none of those "peace people" who helped me look for housing for YOU read these remarks of yours because I will need their help again for someone else or in the next fight when Newsom tries to pull more resources.

Quit making up crap. You sent me a teapot.. that is hardly a "home".

Your hatefulness is interesting.. you switch from cuddly to hateful in a snap.

Interesting phenomenon.

during which I asked those "peace people" for their help, including referrals which I then passed on to you. That isn't "making up cr@p", that's what happened. Your own personal experience should tell you "those peace people" are not self-interested exploiters of the homeless.

And I haven't "switched" in any way and no, I won't put you on ignore. It's your job to regulate your own behavior, not mine.

decided to make it PERSONAL. Clearly, the pleas for civility went over your head... some think it just doesn't apply to them.

You didn't respond about "peace people" being active in poverty and homeless issues here on DU, because it doesn't happen.

You didn't respond about "peace people" making poverty an important part of your incessant rallies, because it doesn't happen. There could have and SHOULD have been efforts to provide transportation so poor and homeless people could be there, and to give them mike time to speak. But, all that you have reported on is how much fun it is to meet with people you have "met" on DU, the funny costumes, and speeches to end war. Yeah, there is the USiNG part.... about how the safety net has been shredded because, as you say, the war has taken the money, yet, from the lack of actions to even so much as protest the cuts to Food Stamps, none of us poor folk see any indication that if the wars stopped tomorrow, there would be any change in priorities. As a matter of fact, many of us have come to the conclusion that you would suddenly find "more inmportant things" that money should be used for.

There are a lot of things that could be done Right Now to change the attitudes of 'Murkins towards homeless people, and I'm not talking about charity.... that hasn't worked, has it? But, "peace people" are NOT the ones we can approach and receive any response from. As a matter of fact, in my own town, the head of the local peace group told me to my face that she had NO INTEREST in the poverty issue at all. NONE. Needless to say, I stopped attending any of their activities, and other poor folk haven't any interest in it at all.

And that is the point I am making, if you will be bothered to hear it... all of the ME MY MINE stuff has infected "progressives", too. We used to be involved in ALL the issues, and take it seriously. Not any more. As several DUers put it, "Each has their own issue." Which is exactly how the powers want it. You are all cooperating with that agenda.

Poor people see very clearly that poverty comes waaay last, if at all, and that we are mostly on our own. Poor people don't even THINK of the "peace" issue, because we don't feel included. That is YOUR doing, and you can blame me all you want... you can make it my fault, and blame me personally. That will NOT change what poor people know from your actions.. that we are not important to you, and you USE us in your speeches, but in your actions your collective backs are toward us. Poor people really aren't dumb... we see what is. There is a lot more to advocacy than giving someone a list of calls to make!! That is rather pathetic, even though that never happend... just thinking that is advocacy is silly. Poor people know effective advocacy when we see it, and we know being used when we see it.

So, if you want to play dictator and follow me around to "correct" me, and act like the patronizing powertrippers who label themselves, "helpers", have at it. Just remember that there *are* rules about stalking, and just following someone around to "regulate" their behavior and be critical is controlling and very silly.

I had every right to point out the reality of the action of "peace people", and YOU are the one who made it personal.

:applause:

:wtf: :argh:

:grr:

Sometimes poor folk need to say it like it is.

I get really tired of being singled out with all the criticism that entails, but I know that I am not alone, and I know you struggle much, too.

Somehow, we are going to have to figure out how to get our voices heard!

:hug:

It's kind of sad, actually.

publicly who helped me when I was in real trouble.

Whatever. I'm going to use this as a reminder to appreciate people who do come though in the clutch. Like Skinner did for Beach Impeach when there was a media blackout. He and a friend at a site that's gone now were the only two people who did. (So, thanks, Skinner. I'll never forget that.)

:rofl: :crazy:

YOU were the one who went for the personal jugular.... YOU were the one who went to the gutter.

At least be honest. After all, HONESTY IS THE PEACEful WAY!

Or, you can be the first to declare war, and then cry pitifully to someone else.

:nopity:

I'm proud to say my daughter is one of that core group of activists. The goals of peace and justice are not mutually exclusive. In fact they are closely linked, and any peace activist understands this.

In fact, in these times, it rarely does.

:grouphug:

and campaign. And at nearly every event in San Francisco, economic justice is always linked to the end of war and the slashing of military spending.

laudable.

BUT, every "peace" person uses poverty, as I have said above and other times, for their own ends.

All you have to do is to pay attention to th "priority lists" posted here at DU, and it will become quickly obvious that poverty is NOT on most peoples' agenda.

So, saying that ending the war will mean a stronger safety net is quite disengenous. "Peace" people won't fight for that diversion of funds... they just want to use it as an issue against the wars.

We know when we are being used, and we are fed up with it.

Just like you and just like me...

And largely portrayed by the MSM as crazy radicals but they have a lot of respect with most advocacy groups in SF and it is rare that anything is done in this city without the involvement of Food Not Bombs.

a few months ago where the homeless were provided small apartments and it made a world of difference to them. Did you see it? Then they could look for a job.

Hell, I'd be happy to live in my old college dorm. You had privacy (a single or a double), a study area, and a huge bathroom on each floor. It was NOT coed. It was quite adequate. There was a social room w/ a TV on the first floor. They were made of concrete so it was quiet. Four stories and no elevators.

myself. My mother is fine. She has her SS and a roof over her head. I'm the 99er and I was thinking how nice those dorm rooms were when I was a freshman is college. There was privacy but also the ability to meet with others.

It beats the streets or the refrigerator box.

think we are all crazy.

Now, the point was there are many seniors like your mom, homeless. So, again I ask, do you want HER living out her life in a dorm, with a bathroom down the hall? Is that the life you would envision for HER?

I wish you would think these things through before you present this stuff.... it is nonsense.

no roof. I'm a senior. My mother is on SS and 85 years old and I have taken care of her.

I'm not going to converse with you any more if you can't be civil.

And my mom was the one who thought the dorm was great.

Just don't expect homeless people to be overjoyed at being all stuffed together to live out their lives that way.

In the richest country in the world, this is pathetic.

Beyond pathetic!

A dorm evidently isn't enough, so would a free one bedroom apartment be enough? Should everyone in the nation get free housing? Should homeless families get their own house with a yard?

I was homeless from 17 to 20. I slept in abandoned cars and in a disused equipment storage yard that the business in front thankfully never bothered to look at. I would have LEAPED at the opportunity to have a dorm room with facilities to wash and sleep under a roof. As it was I ended up sharing an apartment with four other people, so it ended up the same anyway.

which are false.

Give me a break.... There are a few areas in Africa and the Middle East who would beg to differ.

#3? But I don't know too many countries that invade other countries for basically no reason....and spend such a fortune on doing so thereby making its own citizens live with less and less.

I'm just speaking as a member of the Former Middle Class. Can we be #1 in Greed?

It is just the sheltered simpleton responses around here that make me shake my head... If you think the elimination of the dollar menu is cruel I would be loathe to imagine your reaction to the actual atrocities around the world happening right now....

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You obviously have a complaint against "the pathetic excuses for human male flesh" and I wish you luck with that...

Dollar menu to homeless to abuse of women.. Got it... Sheesh...

And because people are tortured, bombed, displaced, and exposed to disease and starvation (thanks to the U.S. government), we should care less about feeding, clothing, & housing the homeless here at home.

Or....

Most DUers seem pretty smart. I suspect that they can take a multitude of issues home for pets and advocate for all of them.

to talk 'atrocities.' You got it. Don't know many woman who are out there starting wars and committing violent sodomy against the unwilling, do you?

'Pet' issues, my ass....we're over HALF the population, the majority. And more atrocities are committed against women...we're the ones who die and suffer in war since it has become industrialized.

You are pathetic...and now just a stupid little name on a list of Ignoreds.

You're willfully ignorant...just like the freeps.

buh bye

you immediately lose the debate.

You just refused to even consider any opinion but your own because only your own opinion counts. Any issue that isn't yours is a "pet issue."

That makes you somebody who can't be reasoned with. :(

That really sucks, because we could all really benefit from networking with reasonable people here, allies... But stubborn people who only want to hear themselves don't help anyone.

Or don't care.

Do you really think that ANYONE thinks that men don't become homeless, or don't care about Anyone (man, woman or child) who is homeless?

Just because her list of atrocities are ones she knows most about, and those are ones that involve women, doesn't mean she doesn't also care about stuff that happens to men. It just means she knows more about stuff that happens to women.

You "seem" to be believing the worst about someone because you want to. Why would you want to believe the worst about someone? Just so you can imply that the person is bigoted against men?

This idea that anyone who pays attention to the plights of women is a man-haters is really getting old. :(

She went far beyond homeless.

"This idea that anyone who pays attention to the plights of women is a man-haters is really getting old."

That's not my idea but I can read what she wrote and the language she chooses speaks for itself.

then why are you drawing such warped conclusions from it?

Why are you ignoring the framing to sanitize her hate?

That's not what I'm seeing. Quite the opposite.

This particular franchise is raising the price to $1.50 to make more money. I guess there are no other fast-food dollar menus around in that part of the city or else we probably would have heard about it. Oh wait, we won't, because newspapers don't do any research anymore, they just post biased interviews and opinion pieces as factual news articles......and they wonder why they are going out of business?

there were very few chain restaurants. I think one McD's was on Van Ness Ave. I don't know if that has changed much.

I'm sure the owner will have her Karma come back to haunt her. She just might find that her profits go down.

Is El Faro still there? Goddess, do I miss those burritos!!!! I'm sorry but Chipolte (50% owned by McD's) is just pathetic.

I miss all the good food in San Fran....esp. the sourdough. In Ohio, all we have is chain restaurants.

It ruins them forever for anything else!

watering for one of those.

I'm ruined for life!

Who would go to McDonalds when that yummy taqueria is right nextdoor? There's also Escape From NY Pizza, and several other good, cheap restaurants.

NOW can you see that this is a larger issue than what *you* do and don't eat?

However, these said facilities also have rules against drug and alcohol abuse on-site which make them unpopular with some vagrants.

for several years. It's saving grace are the efforts of its citizens and citizen organizations. The powers that be keep trying to get us to stop advocating for and giving succor to the poor with one wasteful stupid scheme after another. But we won't.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106634667

What makes us mean is are propensity for making homelessness a criminal offense without the infrastructure necessary to alleviating the debilitating consequences of poverty and homelessness.

many of the homeless have mental illnesses. Or endured the military.

Those who need housing should be able to have it. How many families are one paycheck from homeless?

We used to have Mental Health Facilities. I even remember having what we called 'Poor Houses.'

Now we just shove them outside...thanks, Raygun.

Those who make such a nuisance of themselves in San Francisco are those REFUSING assistance, primarily because drugs and alcohol are more important to them than shelter.

You know, sometimes I think it just isn't any use to try.... people have their minds made up from any crap handed them, and they are convinced they are right. Good ole' Faux wins again.

:nuke:

My relative suffers from mental illness and he has found a home: Jail.

I understand there are as many reasons for homelessness as there are homeless.

But don't you dare tell me that I spout or support anything that has to do w/ Raygun. Do you understand that???

I don't deserve your insults.

THAT is Faux news crap, and Raygun crap.

Stop repeating lies.

Avail yourself of the truth, or don't walk out on those limbs.

Homeless people don't deserve YOUR insults, so stop spreading them. What you are doing by spreading lies is DAMAGING.

but that doesn't mean that most or even a large percentage of homeless people are all people with mental illnesses.

I was homeless for a while. I've known a fairly large number of people over the years who were homeless at one point or another. None of us have any mental or emotional disability.

We all were just very, very poor. Crushing poverty without any fall-back resources is the only universal cause of homelessness.

a relative of mine suffers w/ mental illness...he now has a home: Jail.

I understand there are many reasons for homelessness. So many are just one paycheck away from being homeless.

of homeless people are "mentally ill".

That kind of "reasoning" seems to me to smack of "mental illness".

Since you are unwilling to actually look up the facts, I will TELL you.. the National Coalition for the Homeless, which knows a lot more about homeless people than you do, says that 16% of homeless people are "mentally ill".

sixteen per cent!

Liberals learn facts.

"You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts."

:applause:

they also removed all the benches downtown so there isn't anywhere for them to sit or sleep, either. Our PTB decided long ago that the solution for the homeless problem is merely "Move along!".

you don't have rights anymore.

If you are homeless you are a "vagrant." That makes it illegal for you to be out in public in many places even though it is legal for absolutely everybody else to be there.

That is just one of many ways that people are criminalized just for being poor. Poverty becomes a crime.


Another example is open container laws. It is illegal in many locations to have an open container of any beverage in any public place. You are expected to drink your beverages indoors. But homeless people don't have an indoors to go to.

So if a homeless person is able to buy a beverage, the police will follow him or her and wait... until the homeless person opens that beverage somewhere... At some point that homeless person is going to get very thirsty and open it to take a drink.

And then the homeless person gets arrested for having an open beverage container in public. Again, criminalized solely for being poor.


a lot of people hate the homeless because they say that homeless people breed crime. They say that crime goes up when the homeless move into an area. It is true that the arrest rates go up when homeless people move into an area. But that is not because homeless people commit crimes, but because laws criminalize and punish homeless people just for being poor and homeless.

... drink a coke in a public park? Oh wait... You must be refering to the amazing thirst quenching capabilities of ...

http://bfcgroup.com/helluvatough/Double%20Malt%202,%20trimmed.jpg

Are you saying that homeless people only drink colt 45s?

I never once drank a colt 45 when I was homeless. I know other homeless people who also never drink beer too.

For one thing, it's hard to drink beer when beer is expensive! Other drinks are far cheaper and better at satisfying thirst!

When you are trying to satisfy your hunger and thirst for as little money as possible, every penny counts. You don't waste any penny of it. Some people drink alcohol. MANY, MANY DO NOT.

YOU ARE STEREOTYPING! AND YOU ARE WRONG!

I guess I'll ask for clarification. Are you saying that vagrants are being charged under open container laws for something other than alcohol?

Open container laws apply to any beverage. It applies to sodas, any fruit juices in bottles or cans, even bottled water.

The laws were passed supposedly as as anti-littering ordinances, so it doesn't matter what is in the bottle or can. It only matters that it is a beverage and it is in a bottle or can.

That's why I said "beverage" instead of "beer." I said beverage because I meant any beverage.

The law is article 1, section 21 of the police code, and it prohibits open alcoholic beverages. Furthermore, it's an infraction which means you're issued a ticket, not put under arrest unless there are other reasons to do so - because there is no jail time for such an offense, and the maximum fine is $100.

Your inaccurate statements are only confusing the issue.

SEC. 21. - CONSUMING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ON PUBLIC STREETS, ETC., OR ON PUBLIC PROPERTY OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW PROHIBITED; PENALTY.

(a)
No person shall consume any alcoholic beverage in any quantity on any public street, avenue, sidewalk, stairway, alley, or thoroughfare within the City and County of San Francisco; nor shall any person consume any alcoholic beverage within 15 feet of any public way or thoroughfare while on a private stairway, doorway, or other private property open to public view without the express or implied permission of the owner, his agent, or the person in lawful possession thereof; provided, however, that the provisions of this Section shall not apply to the interior portion of any private dwelling, habitat, or building, to the consumption by persons in the areas herein designated of any duly prescribed and dispensed medication having alcoholic content, or to those persons consuming alcoholic beverages while viewing a parade for which a permit has been granted pursuant to Section 367 of this Code. Further, this Section shall not be applicable in those prescribed areas and during such time for which permission for temporary use or occupancy of public streets and appurtenant areas has been granted by:

(1)
The Board of Supervisors pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.70 of the Administrative Code;

(2)
The Department of Public Works pursuant to the provisions of Article 5.2 of the Public Works Code for a business establishment anywhere in San Francisco that meets the requirements of a full-service restaurant, pursuant to Planning Code Section 790.92 as interpreted by the Zoning Administrator; or

(3)
The Department of Public Works pursuant to the provisions of Article 5.2 of the Public Works Code for a business establishment that had a valid tables and chairs permit and California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control beverage license or permit on the effective date of this ordinance.

(b)
Penalty. Any person who shall violate the provisions of this Section shall be guilty of an infraction, the penalty for which shall be a fine of not less than $25 nor more than $100.

"Another example is open container laws. It is illegal in many locations to have an open container of any beverage in any public place. You are expected to drink your beverages indoors. But homeless people don't have an indoors to go to.

So if a homeless person is able to buy a beverage, the police will follow him or her and wait... until the homeless person opens that beverage somewhere... At some point that homeless person is going to get very thirsty and open it to take a drink.

And then the homeless person gets arrested for having an open beverage container in public. Again, criminalized solely for being poor."

That law only applies to alcoholic beverages, and I bet you know this. Nor is enforcement confined to homeless people, I have seen plenty of party boy/girl types told to get rid of a brown bag beer or a drink they had carried out of a bar or party, and get a ticket - which is what usually happens, arrests are rare.

Your suggestion that any open beverage will earn an arrest is simply not true.

right across the street. Golden Gate Park.

These people are fucking douchebags okay. Kids most of them. All with dogs. All selling bunk ass shit on the street. Sitting and laying in cuddle puddles of as many as 20 or more.

I know them. They are the ones that the sit/lie ordinance is aimed at cuz they are fucking pieces of shit.

Just a bunch of punks, who stink and cause trouble. Not your ordinary homeless people, this and all the other rules etc are aimed at this particular group of people, not your every day homeless person (whom they are lumped in with)...

These people hang out at every Grateful Dead related event and cause the exact same problems there. Events in the park, there they are causing the same problems.

one hopes Gavin Newsom is not chasing them away from there.

Apparently, the residents of "hippy hill" are scaring the tourists. Also, Newsom and law enforcement is thinking about declaring GG Park a human-free zone from dusk to dawn.

:eyes:

I went to a local Denny's one day this spring and all the customers were bunched in one end of the store. On a table in the other end of the store was a homeless guy, enjoying the "all-you-can-eat-pancakes" deal. It was around 6pm. I headed his way, what with all the empty tables around him. Well, halfway there the smell hit me, I made about turn and headed back to the other side.
The waitress then told me that he comes ones a week in the morning, stays there until the evening and for this period of time nobody can use half of the restaurant.
Never been to the place again.

When YOU don't care enough to fight for housing for everyone, and then want those left homeless because of YOUR lack of pushing for housing, to be banned from BEING anywhere, then YOU are, in effect, telling homeless people to just go die.

Yes, it is damned time all you conservatives look at the results of your attitudes. You are leaving no options except for HUMAN BEINGS to die.

Beat me up for telling you the truth. I no longer care.

you can't beat up on me because I have cared enough, it's just that my wee single vote doesn't count so much. Additionally I haven't in anyway suggested that anyone be banned from anywhere. I simply understand the owner's POV, sorry I'm not narrow minded enough to only look at one POV. Now if you want to re-write your post with "society" in place of "YOU," then I agree with you that the primary problem is lack of affordable housing, lack of amenities for the homeless like showers and bathrooms, and the general "I've got mine, so screw you" attitude of conservatives.

And THAT is conservative.

When you begin to understand the real issues, and what needs understanding, then there will be more to discuss.

and in no way suggested that business needs should be ahead of or behind poor people. I'm guessing that you are somehow very angry that anyone considers anything except the plight of the homeless. I just can't do that. No matter the topic, I truly endeavor to look at all sides and consider what cooperation could solve the problems of both or all parties to some extent. I'm rarely in favor of one aspect getting 100% of what it wants while making all other aspects suffer or falter.

It is obvious you have never been in the powerless position, and can't empathize with those who are.

to make me feel powerless throughout my life starting with my father who thought it humorous to throw toddlers across the room and into the wall. Furthermore, changing menu options isn't bullying. Lastly, looking for common sense solutions that work for many parties involved rather than focusing only on one side of an issue is not a lack of empathy, though I do admit that with the severe abuses I've dealt with during my life has had a chilling effect on my empathy.

The fact that you don't see that is related to all these threads complaining that some of us really don't care about the vote anymore.

We see the lack of understanding and empathy and concern.

WE. GET. IT.

You have made your point loud and clear... it is the money that is important.

WE. GET. IT.

article indicates that the homeless folks were still hanging outside the McDs even after the menu changed. You are exaggerating and attacking and misconstruing everything being typed by myself and others. I understand your life is hard, so is mine, and so are many others' here at DU. You don't have a monopoly on it. If your hardships make you singly focused, then so be it, I'll let you carry on your rant with yourself.

Your little dismissal says it all about where you REALLY are with empathy. And yes, since other DEMS have so ably demonstrated that they can't be bothered with our issues, than I don't focus on any others, either. That's how it works, and that is why the polls are showing what they are showing.

Yes, the little problems we homeless people face are alllllll just exaggerations. That'w why there are so many deaths... we are all just exaggerating to make YOu miserable, ain't that a kick in the head.

And, yes, telling anyone what they should already know about the causes of homelessnes and the affect on people is just a "rant". Good, solid, conservative thinking.

giving them bus tickets out of town, raiding parks at night, ticketing them for "quality of life" issues (which everyone knows that can't pay and thus results in kicking the issue to law enforcement and our already over-taxed judiciary and our crowded jails) and pushing them out of tourist and shopping areas and into the neighborhoods.

Yes. Each and every day, there is no safe place for the homeless. No place to rest, no place to sleep and no place to eat without being bullied.

Yeah, real legislative "logic" :crazy:

to accommodate this cruel campaign. So, while the mayor gets to tout the cosmetic success of his initiative (and wasting a lot of money in the process) it is the poor folks who lose all their possessions, and up with warrants and become even more insecure (less food & fewer safe places to sleep).

Yet, it has been allowed,, because people think, "*I* won't ever be in jail, so it doesn't matter."

"First they came for homeless people, but I'm not homeless, nor will I ever be, so I really didn't care."

Every time I've seen that particular poster in a thread, she's doing backflips in order to fabricate excuses to take offense - regardless of what anyone else actually said or meant, even if they're supportive of her cause but didn't phrase it exactly as she would have dictated. And then takes additional offense when people are "dismissive." So don't let it bug you.

I could give a shit about the franchise owner of a McDonalds in a major city.

Yeah, get those dirty homeless outta here! Hide the problem! Hide the problem!

You have no idea why someone is homeless - and yet you judge them as human beings who "made their own misfortune". How do you know that? They could've been laid off through no fault of their own, as has happened to so many the past few years.

Hope you never have to walk a mile in their shoes ...

It's really sad and annoying to keep reading folks intent on misconstruing what's typed. If you want to have a rant, have one. Just understand that it's against your own imagination and not my post, as my post didn't say anything like what you're ranting against.

nice job trying to deflect that. I am not fooled.

to dollar meals regardless of how their constant presence (as opposed to non-homeless customers who eat and then leave) effects the ability of the business to stay in business. I am not insensitive to the overall issues of homelessness, and anyone that thinks a dollar menu is the solution to homelessness is a complete moron. This is a nothing issue compared to what needs to be done to resolve homelessness in USA. But hey, let's all continue to argue this tiny little issue while more and more folks are foreclosed on, unemployed, and becoming homeless, because really McDs dollar menu is really what it's all about. So long as every McDs has a dollar menu, the homeless have nothing to worry about.

Fuck, will you people please get real?

but more deflection is all you're capable of. Certainly not thinking about homelessness in a serious way. Your only contribution is to stick up for the owner in the situation. You still haven't told me where it is appropriate for the homeless to be. You won't answer that because your answer will be as ridiculous as your response to this post.

incorrect. I spend many sleepless nights concerned about how to be homeless, and none of the related thoughts include hanging all day around the one eatery I might be able to afford for fear that if I did, I'd kill their business and end up with nowhere affordable for me to eat.

That you cannot and will not see that each small setback for homeless people is a big deal, says a whole lot about the lack of awareness of homelessness and poverty.

So, take your four-letter dismissals, and go look at yourself in the mirror, because *you* have some deep issues.

Yes, dearie.. you made it personal, so deal with it.

:rofl:

Caring about homeless people is just a "rant".

:rofl:

Ranting about a fifty cent price increase isn't "caring". I mean really, as pointed out here by you, me, and many others, the issues of the homeless are much greater than this one McDs fifty cent price hike. Therefore ranting about this one issue, isn't caring, you pointed that out yourself many posts ago. Why aren't you ranting about all the other local eateries that don't and have never had a $1.50 menu much less a $1.00 menu? Why aren't the homeless hanging around their eateries? When I become homeless, I intend on respecting the places that do have options available to me, not the one's that don't. But hey, you go ahead and rant against the $1.50 menu, maybe she'll just close her doors and leave only eateries with menus starting at $2.99, that'll solve everything, huh?

"ranting" is just dismissable.

I feel sorry for you.

I've been unemployed for over two years, the biz has been stagnant for over four years, and unless I get lucky with a demand the note request from CitiMortgage, I'll be out in about a month or two with no prospects. I believe that would make me homeless, perhaps I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that constitutes homelessness. Or is it that you revel in the idea that someone who observes more than one POV and has some consideration for both POVs in this issue is tickling your schadenfreude bone?

They need to eat, don't they? Obviously, soup kitchens aren't active in this area.

If their food costs more, they'll have to get it from a much more expensive source. And that means more immediate revenue is needed to eat. So more panhandling.

They're not crowding around the McDonalds just for shits and giggles. This is their LIVING.

homelessness, like inadequate mental and physical health care, rampant foreclosures, and high unemployment, get addressed quickly and efficiently so neither the homeless nor the McDs owner have to at odds with each other. But that's currently a pipe dream. I personally don't believe that anyone intentionally chooses panhandling as a living.

And no, you're right. Panhandling is definitely not an intentional occupation.

We're supposed to be airplants.

:shrug:

Thanks for trying to make some headway with this... the ignorance is astounding.

:yourock:

There are people who are without a roof over their heads because they were living from low paycheck to low paycheck and lost a job. There are people who fled an abusive situation, often taking children with them. There are those who have mental issues that keep them from living by themselves. San Francisco and the Bay Area in general have a number of organizations that provide food, shelter, clothing, etc. to help them get by, including some within walking distance of the establishment mentioned.

Then there are the street people in the Haight, the ones the original Chronicle article talks about. They tend to be young, white people who came to San Francisco - and to other cities along the coast - because they expect to find the Summer of Love reborn or a free-wheeling society that will let them coast along on spare change. Living's expensive here, but the weather's generally good and you're not likely to die of exposure. So they hang out on the street and around the Panhandle, smoking and generally not caring about the future.

What I want to know is where they get the money to feed the dogs.

Many of the homeless I knew would rather panhandle and "pay their own way" rather than go to a "pantry" or a food kitchen. To them, it was like surrendering to poverty and dependence.

Many DO, of course. And maybe that's MOST of them. But until then, they'll try to squeeze as much as they can from "normal life" before seeking free help.

That's my experience in Toronto, Canada, anyways. It may be different in SF.

My point was merely to address yours about there being no or few soup kitchens in the area.

and saw lots of homeless folks...most seemed to be in their late teens or early twenties.

at the Safeway right there were intimidating. I don't think I'd ever seen armed security guards in a grocery store before.

/oops

I try never to go to McDs but that's another story.

Lots of bums around and most are in their 20s...

Owner is entirely within her rights to adjust the menu as needed. She is under no obligation to make it easy for a gaggle of homeless people to drag her business down.

I remember this area because I was offered pot twice within about 60 seconds. Amusing to me at least because I just scream "cop" with the shaved head, wrapped glasses and polo. Not the smartest bunch...

These so-called stupid homeless kids know that.

I wouldn't scream out loud "COP" but rather my appearance itself screams to the world that I am a cop.

they don't care if you look like a cop.

It was amusing to me only as I don't live in that fuzzy little world and was more than happy to move right along once that "vacation" was over.

Nothing like getting harassed every 20 feet by a new homeless person en route to get a bite to eat with your wife or when you stop to get on a tram or stop to use the phone...

Let's get those homeless bums outta sight.

It's funny how you insult them as not being the smartest bunch when I find you just not smart at all. But oh well, they're homeless so people like you can afford to feel superior in a pretend kind of way.

the franchiser has very stringent demands written in the contract. The franchisee doesn't even control where they can get the napkins for the joint. So it's entirely possible that she's in violation of the contract. I wouldn't shed a tear for someone so spiteful but that's a different discussion.

disgusted than intimidated (by various unpleasant smells, etc). Disgust usually decreases one's appetite.

There is no evidence presented that any customers were inconvenienced, repulsed, or intimidated.

The article simply states that the owner, after a cost analysis, she would come out ahead by raising her prices.

I've been there and was disinclined to make us of that particular McDonalds due to all the vagrants. One man's personal experience...

:crazy:

and also little Buena Vista Park are just a few blocks away and they've got benches and trees and lawn.

I've been to a lot of cities, and dealt with a lot of homeless, but I've never seen the type of "in your face" aggressiveness from homeless people that I've dealt with in SF. Not in L.A., not in New York, and nowhere in Europe.

One simple example (and I have a thousand of them). I was in SoMa on Friday for a meeting, and stepped outside during a break to get a few minutes of fresh air. In 5 minutes, I was approached by 3 different homeless people. The first asked for change, and when I politely told him that I didn't carry cash (I don't), he yelled in my face that I was a "lying motherf***er". The second guy, who HAD to have seen the first exchange, came up less than 15 seconds later and asked for money. I again responded that I didn't have any, and again I was insulted. The third guy was the worst. He walked up without saying a word and stuck a paper into my chest. I instinctively grabbed the paper, and as soon as I did he said, "Thank you, that will be a dollar". I spent the next 45 seconds arguing with the guy that I wasn't going to buy his paper (it was a singe 8x10 sheet with some gibberish printed on it). I finally threw the damned thing on the ground (he wouldn't take it back) and walked inside with him screaming at me that I was a "thief".

I don't know what it is about SF, but the homeless are just meaner there. It's no suprise that people have less tolerance for them.

And I decline to give change way more often than not. (I leave the house with 2 dollars a day to give away. Once that is gone, I don't give anymore.) Though, I've heard some remarkably nasty things yelled at homeless people.

After expressing a strong preference that he not urinate on my girlfriends car he followed us with his dick hanging out screaming random nonsense for about ten minutes.

I got punched at the Cafe Du Nord by a rich white pseudo punk. I live on 16th St. and every weekend, I hear a couple or two screaming the worst nasty shit to each other while toddling drunkenly from the local bars. A woman in an Escalade with dealer's plates rear ended me and sped away while giving me the finger and laughing into her cell phone. Two middle class youths in the Sunset cornered me in the bus shelter and demanded that I lift up my skirt to prove that I am a woman.

Your anecdote proves what?

(see post 17) making up *facts* that the rest of us who live here are supposed to believe.

Lord have mercy. Just please have mercy on the liars.

cops did something to stop it. You'd give them 50 cents and they'd complain about the amount or throw it on the ground in disgust.