Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on August 24, 2018, 05:45:36 PM
-
San Fran has hired five public works employees for $75k/yr + benefits to scoop human poop off the streets.
As a couple of the comments alluded to:
1) How about preventing it in the first place?
2) Isn't this the kind of thing you get guys in the county lockup to do as part of their "jail isn't fun fun playtime" training?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/08/24/san-franciscos-poop-patrollers-cleaning-up-on-streets-and-at-bank.html
-
Rules out the expression "I'm not getting paid enough for this *expletive deleted*it" >:D
-
2) Isn't this the kind of thing you get guys in the county lockup to do as part of their "jail isn't fun fun playtime" training?
According to the SJWs, requiring prisoners to do work without paying them the going wage rate is "slavery."
-
Rules out the expression "I'm not getting paid enough for this *expletive deleted*it" >:D
I was just thinking "I am indeed getting paid enough for this *expletive deleted*it", so I'm right along with you.
I have never made that much money even when I was in the USAF.
That said, SanFran is an expensive area, and human *expletive deleted*it has its own health concerns that dog poop and such don't.
-
Roughly $37.50/hour+ benefits.
It's just hard to believe that one of the most trendy, upscale, and "progressive" cities in America has a huge problem with people crapping on the sidewalks, so much so that they have to hire people to clean it up. (along with hypodermic needles, as I understand it.)
My mind boggles.
-
That said, SanFran is an expensive area, and human *expletive deleted*it has its own health concerns that dog poop and such don't.
Totally agree there, and I'm not sure I would take that job. I'm sure part of it is psychological, but I'd about take a burger flipper job before scooping up crap. Though I guess some nurses and hospital aids have to do it all the time, and in sometimes rather difficult situations.
-
https://www.rentjungle.com/average-rent-in-san-francisco-rent-trends
As of July 2018, average rent for an apartment in San Francisco, CA is $3738 which is a 2.41% decrease from last year when the average rent was $3828 , and a 1.1% increase from last month when the average rent was $3697.
One bedroom apartments in San Francisco rent for $3340 a month on average (a 4.52% decrease from last year) and two bedroom apartment rents average $4602 (a 1.46% decrease from last year).
$3738/mo = $44,856/yr, leaving a little over $30K to pay for taxes (Federal and state income tax, state sales tax, local sales tax, etc.), groceries, transportation, and so on. Not sure if these jobs are unionized (if so, $$ for dues).
-
According to the SJWs, requiring prisoners to do work without paying them the going wage rate is "slavery."
They should be paid a decent wage. Of course, the state would need to deduct rent, utilities, laundry services, building maintenance fees, gym membership, recreation fees, tuition, and personal security fees from their checks.
-
According to the SJWs, requiring prisoners to do work without paying them the going wage rate is "slavery."
And their point is? ??? Do they think prisoners are free men?
-
And their point is? ??? Do they think prisoners are free men?
They're SJWs. What makes you think they think? (At least, rationally.)
-
They should be paid a decent wage. Of course, the state would need to deduct rent, utilities, laundry services, building maintenance fees, gym membership, recreation fees, tuition, and personal security fees from their checks.
You forgot food.
-
You forgot food.
Oh, so now you want to feed them too?
-
Oh, so now you want to feed them too?
Only if they pay for it.
-
2) Isn't this the kind of thing you get guys in the county lockup to do as part of their "jail isn't fun fun playtime" training?
In this area, there have been union complaints when jail inmates do tasks ordinarily done by public works employees. The public works union claims that the jail inmates are taking work away from the union members. We have seen this with jail inmates picking up trash and doing parks maintenance.
-
In this area, there have been union complaints when jail inmates do tasks ordinarily done by public works employees. The public works union claims that the jail inmates are taking work away from the union members. We have seen this with jail inmates picking up trash and doing parks maintenance.
Put the union members in jail for being communists, problem solved.
-
Put the union members in jail for being communists, problem solved.
Please add me to your newsletter mailing list.
-
:lol:
-
Put the union members in jail for being communists, problem solved.
Would more or less work get done?
-
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/poop-patrollers-make-185k-in-san-franssco/
“Poop Patrollers” Make $185K in San FranS***sco
The San Francisco Chronicle has revealed just how much each member of the “poop patrol” team will cost the city: $184,678 in salary and benefits.
Buried in the San Francisco Chronicle‘s story on Mayor London Breed’s morning walks along downtown streets with her staff is the breakdown of the San Francisco Public Works budget items:
A $72.5 million-a-year street cleaning budget
$12 million a year on what essentially have become housekeeping services for homeless encampments
$2.8 million for a Hot Spots crew to wash down the camps and remove any biohazards
$2.3 million for street steam cleaners
$3.1 million for the Pit Stop portable toilets
$364,000 for a four-member needle team
An additional $700,000 set aside for a 10-member, needle cleanup squad, complete with it’s own minivan
There’s crucially now “the new $830,977-a year Poop Patrol to actively hunt down and clean up human waste.”
Causally mentioned in the San Francisco Chronicle, “By the way, the poop patrolers earn $71,760 a year, which swells to $184,678 with mandated benefits.”
-
And their point is? ??? Do they think prisoners are free men?
Okay, this just came up on my more liberal board. The going concern is that prison is basically "slavery 2.0/3.0", that people are enriching themselves off the back of subsidized cheap prison labor. More importantly, because they want said cheap labor, that they are thus pushing for "tough on crime" sentencing intended to put low risk offenders in prison for long terms in order to exploit their labor cheaply.
Socialized cost - keeping them in prison, Private profit - their sub-minimum wage labor.
Making it worse in some ways, a few prison managers, when faced with an order to release their safest prisoners in order to save money, responded with "But how will we get our work done without the trustees?"
MechAg94 - Yeah, it is a problem. I see three courses I would take to try to remediate it. In the short term though, I wouldn't have much choice but to have a poop patrol. Even if it is expensive, it's a job that needs to be done.
Longer term:
1. Fix the housing problem, whatever it takes. Make it easy for developers to make cheap dense housing, for example.
2. Fix the mental healthcare system. Whether they're drug addicts or mentally ill, they need to be in an asylum of some sort treating them as best as practical with modern medicine. Keep in mind that a number of the addicts are also mentally ill, using illegal drugs to try to treat an illness that they couldn't afford to have treated professionally.
3. Stop tolerating homeless camps but also stop taking measures though that merely attempt to drive the homeless away by doing things like removing public bathrooms, putting spikes over everything, making benches uncomfortable, etc...
-
You missed number 4.
Eliminate all the free stuff drawing all of these loafers like flies to.. poop.
-
Eliminate all the free stuff drawing all of these loafers like flies to.. poop.
Can you list "all the free stuff"?
I mean, they're obviously not being given housing if they're still homeless...
Remember when PETA rented that robot to try to drive homeless out of their parking lot?
-
Go read up on Homeless Connect, and Newsome's pet project (Care not Cash) of handing out $400/month no questions asked. There's also SNAP ($195/mo), and SanFrans take on phones. Those are the standouts.
Free stuff and still being homeless is another debate entirely, but I'm sure it won't be long until the "right" to a nice house in the burbs or trendy loft apartment is floated.
-
Put the union members in jail for being communists, problem solved.
Why are they communists?
-
Because there are so many homeless, no one wants to have public toilets. They’ll congregate around them and do drugs.
This problem is directly caused by a lack of sufficient public toilets.
-
The problem isn't a lack of public toilets. The problem is a group of people who enable this kind of behavior.
-
Seattle and Portland have done some experiments with accessible toilets in public areas, and they have worked reasonably well albeit at a high cost. The initial attempt in Seattle failed miserably insofar as the toilets became sites for prostitution and drug use. Portland then came up with the 'Portland Loo: http://portlandloo.com/ and that seems to be working pretty well.
https://www.citylab.com/design/2012/01/why-portlands-public-toilets-succeeded-where-others-failed/1020/
https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/seattle/seattle-to-install-public-toilets-in-ballard-u-district/460369165
Public sanitation requirement is a fact of life, and the more restroom access that people have, the less crap on the streets.
-
The problem isn't a lack of public toilets. The problem is a group of people who enable this kind of behavior.
While the problem is multi-faceted, this certainly is a big part of it. If someone has stats to prove me wrong, feel free to post and I'll reevaluate my opinion, but the greatest homeless problems (separate from homelessness in general) seem to really focus on liberal cities. Even taking climate into account, San Diego has less of a homeless problem than San Francisco. San Diego has a homeless problem, but they don't have as many "problem homeless".
I certainly saw that in Santa Barbara. We had homeless who spit on you there. All the downtown businesses, Chamber of Commerce, etc. complained and asked the city council to do something, but the city council wanted to be diverse and understanding. When the local government enables the behavior, that city will become a magnet for the problem homeless. So while San Diego has homeless camping out and sitting around downtown with "need money" signs, but generally being this side of polite, you have problem homeless in San Francisco doing all the crap they do there because the city enables them, like by scooping up their poop and giving them needles. It's like the parent giving in to the child who is having a tantrum in the middle of Walmart.
-
Seattle and Portland have done some experiments with accessible toilets in public areas, and they have worked reasonably well albeit at a high cost. The initial attempt in Seattle failed miserably insofar as the toilets became sites for prostitution and drug use. Portland then came up with the 'Portland Loo: http://portlandloo.com/ and that seems to be working pretty well.
https://www.citylab.com/design/2012/01/why-portlands-public-toilets-succeeded-where-others-failed/1020/
https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/seattle/seattle-to-install-public-toilets-in-ballard-u-district/460369165
Public sanitation requirement is a fact of life, and the more restroom access that people have, the less crap on the streets.
I would rephrase that, the less homeless people you have the less crap there is on the streets.
Homeless people taking a crap on the street is a symptom, it isn't the real problem. And there isn't just one problem to solve, either. The northern CA town I lived in for 8 years had enough shelters that every single homeless person could get three meals a day and sleep with a roof over their head. Large numbers of homeless still slept outdoors and passed up those free meals according to the PD and local charities. Why would they choose to do that?
-
Seattle and Portland have done some experiments with accessible toilets in public areas, and they have worked reasonably well albeit at a high cost. The initial attempt in Seattle failed miserably insofar as the toilets became sites for prostitution and drug use. Portland then came up with the 'Portland Loo: http://portlandloo.com (http://portlandloo.com) and that seems to be working pretty well.
Public sanitation requirement is a fact of life, and the more restroom access that people have, the less crap on the streets.
Interesting. I don't imagine with all that stainless steel and open breezy grating it would be all that much fun to use in a good hard Midwest winter.
-
Why would they choose to do that?
Generally because said homeless shelters have policies that disallow the homeless from using them without jumping through what I would term "excessive" hoops. One of the major requirements to be sober/dry before being let in. Withdrawal sucks enough that sleeping outside while intoxicated is better than attempting to sleep inside undergoing withdrawal. In other cases the person needs to have a clean criminal record, not bring XYZ in(when XYZ is about all the person owns), etc...
That's why there is currently a big push towards "housing first" policies, that isn't restricted to liberal cities, that studies have shown to save substantial amounts of money.
The idea is simple: Get the homeless housed in a permanent way first. It turns out that the temporary nature of "shelters" ends up being both expensive(you could put them up in hotels for the nightly cost), and ineffective(psychological stuff).
By getting them into housing that they don't have a set time limit after which they have to leave, they can afford to "settle in", check off that box in the pyramid of needs(shelter), and move up.
Once they're settled in, that is when you move in with things like addiction treatment, counseling, metal health care, etc...
Interesting. I don't imagine with all that stainless steel and open breezy grating it would be all that much fun to use in a good hard Midwest winter.
Still better than taking a crap on the pavement?
-
$75K for a fairly simple job. I'd be willing to clean up poo for $75K.
But it's nowhere near enough just to pay me to move to San Fancisco.
-
I've never been to Frisco, but from what I'm hearing the public pooping is rather a new problem. Did all of those public toilets for the homeless just vanish? If the problem is that they've not enough public facilities, shouldn't that be easy to prove by just finding the data on public toilets per 100,000 of the city's population, over time?
-
Most of the shelter beds in Seattle are full on any given night; but interviews have been done of people who have passed up a shelter bed. I have read several articles about this in local media. The three most common reasons to pass up a bed are:
1. No drugs or alcohol are allowed
2. No pets are allowed
3. No couples are allowed
For people who are not mentally ill or have substance use disorders, the no pets and I can't stay with my wife/husband/partner are the big reasons. Just like those of us with homes, many of the homeless have pets and/or people for security and companionship.
-
Interesting. I don't imagine with all that stainless steel and open breezy grating it would be all that much fun to use in a good hard Midwest winter.
The designers of the Portland Loo actually talk about how the unit was designed to be relatively unpleasant to loiter in: do your business and leave.
-
Generally because said homeless shelters have policies that disallow the homeless from using them without jumping through what I would term "excessive" hoops. One of the major requirements to be sober/dry before being let in. Withdrawal sucks enough that sleeping outside while intoxicated is better than attempting to sleep inside undergoing withdrawal. In other cases the person needs to have a clean criminal record, not bring XYZ in(when XYZ is about all the person owns), etc...
To use Santa Barbara again, yeah, I saw a good bit of that. The shelters were available, but certain segments of the homeless population would not use them. They generally stayed in encampments under a couple of railroad bridges or in a couple of local parks. Paramedics were at those places at least weekly for alcohol poisoning or drug overdoses. Which I guess is fine as it's Darwin in action, except for at the parks some of the homeless were criminals and a danger to city residents, especially kids.
The kinds of people that went into the shelters seemed to be more of the "because of bad luck" homeless, who were more inclined to try and do something about their situation. I think it's much better for people like that to have some protection from the seedier elements, so I think the shelter rules are a good thing.
-
While the problem is multi-faceted, this certainly is a big part of it. If someone has stats to prove me wrong, feel free to post and I'll reevaluate my opinion, but the greatest homeless problems (separate from homelessness in general) seem to really focus on liberal cities. Even taking climate into account, San Diego has less of a homeless problem than San Francisco. San Diego has a homeless problem, but they don't have as many "problem homeless".
I certainly saw that in Santa Barbara. We had homeless who spit on you there. All the downtown businesses, Chamber of Commerce, etc. complained and asked the city council to do something, but the city council wanted to be diverse and understanding. When the local government enables the behavior, that city will become a magnet for the problem homeless. So while San Diego has homeless camping out and sitting around downtown with "need money" signs, but generally being this side of polite, you have problem homeless in San Francisco doing all the crap they do there because the city enables them, like by scooping up their poop and giving them needles. It's like the parent giving in to the child who is having a tantrum in the middle of Walmart.
I was shocked when the city came out with an anti pan handling campaign. I was even more shocked at how many liberals were in favor of it. My guess is that in a town of 10,000 people you can't really overlook how many homeless there were and the pan handlers were aggressive. The local shelters were all booze/drug free, that was the reason people chose to stay on the streets.
-
Why are they communists?
I suspect bad parenting, and lack of being taught to think, but with Union members it could just be they picked it up at the hall.
-
The designers of the Portland Loo actually talk about how the unit was designed to be relatively unpleasant to loiter in: do your business and leave.
No sink. That is unpleasent enough.
-
I suspect bad parenting, and lack of being taught to think, but with Union members it could just be they picked it up at the hall.
:lol:
-
No sink. That is unpleasent enough.
Looks like there's a hand sanitizer dispenser inside, and hand-washing facilities on the outside of the Loo.
-
Remember when PETA rented that robot to try to drive homeless out of their parking lot?
Ummm... What?
-
Why are they communists?
I think the history of organized labor will bail me out on that one.
My hostility towards union leadership is only outstripped by my hostility towards politicians.
-
Roughly $37.50/hour+ benefits.
It's just hard to believe that one of the most trendy, upscale, and "progressive" cities in America has a huge problem with people crapping on the sidewalks, so much so that they have to hire people to clean it up. (along with hypodermic needles, as I understand it.)
My mind boggles.
I wonder if they have different union rules for poop patrol and needle patrol, so one can't police up the other's mess?
-
I wonder if they have different union rules for poop patrol and needle patrol, so one can't police up the other's mess?
Yeah, but what if the needle has poop in it? Wasn't that trending right in between the ice bucket challenge, and the Harlem shake?