SF Human Services Agency occupied


"Human Services Agency occupied" was one of the premier tweets on the streets of San Francisco this afternoon, as members of Direct Action to Stop the Cuts DASC) occupied 170 Otis Street to pressure the city to find an adequate place to house sixty homeless people displaced by the closure of the night shelter at 150 Otis.

Folks with DASC reportedly say they applaud the fact that this shelter is slated to be converted into permanent housing for homeless veterans in 2012, but condemn that nearly five dozen people are being pushed onto the streets tonight. Stay tuned.


Everyone knew this shelter was going to close for six months or more. That's plenty of time for making other arrangements. Those who used this shelter could have easily transitioned into other shelters before the place closed.

To be honest, there are too many "homeless" in SF that have no reason to be here. They drift into town with no job and no money, and then assume the taxpayers must provide them with shelter, food, the usual substance abuse treatment, etc. Why?

The truth is, of course, the SF is broke. It's going to remain broke for years.

My advice to "the homeless" is to start making arrangements to relocate to another city that can afford them. We no longer can.

Posted by Scott on Jun. 29, 2010 @ 8:52 am

The truth is this city can't afford the rich. an estimated 30,000 units of housing sit vacant in sf while an estimated 15,000 people who cant afford to rent them must sleep on the streets. The rich should make arrangements to increase our pay or lower our rents, bottom line. Thats where homelessness comes from, all the stereotypes rich people have are more about the side effects of poverty, which again, is caused by the hoarding of wealth by the few.

If your idea of the social contract between rich and poor in this city is "let them eat cake" you should expect to be met with a resounding "off with their heads!" If that sounds a little inflammatory consider the current policy: "let them die in the street."

SF is broke because the rich don't pay their fair share, either to the general public through taxes or those who make them profit (the workers).

We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore! This city belongs to us all, it's you who can get out.

Posted by Housing for all! on Jun. 29, 2010 @ 1:13 pm

What vapid, 1960s tripe. "The rich". Please.

It isn't the responsibility of the taxpayers here to take care of every addict who blows in to town, every drop out drifter, every transient who thinks it's "cool" to come here and all the rest we see daily on the streets. SF already spends $200,000,000 a year on "homeless services"; money we no longer have.

And I don't know what planet you live on , but on this one those empty units belong to property owners.The reason they are empty is because of the draconian rent control laws here that keep property owners from making a PROFIT and being able to get rid of problem tenants.

It ain't your property.

I'm sure you're screaming "property is theft" by now - marching boldly into the 1960s. Old and tired.

Posted by Scott on Jun. 29, 2010 @ 2:28 pm

How about all the rich people who blow into town thinking its 'cool' to be in this city with so much history, art and culture, demanding you make a PROFIT from land that is not even your own. Property Rights. Huuummm, those started after the Ohlone people were killed and removed. By the way, this state has a treaty for San Francisco with the Ohlone that was NEVER ratified. You, my dear, are sitting on property that is not your own. Now, put the law to good use and MAKE GOOD on the land upon which you sit that is not yours by LAW.

No, you'd never do that. You'll draw a property line only when its convenient for you. This city is an embarrassment and the rich people of this city should be ashamed with what you have created. Tour buses go around this city, passing vacant storefronts, trash bags blowing in the wind. Not even the tourists areas like Market are much to speak of.

You have made all the profit you ever should have and now, you better sit down and pray.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 06, 2010 @ 10:24 am

I wonder if this commenter had thought out what will happen if "the rich," who pay the majority of taxes in the city, leave town. Where will all this cash come from to fund these city services?

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jun. 29, 2010 @ 4:37 pm


Property is theft!

You have little to no consideration for your fellow human beings, so this conversation will go nowhere. I have no problem sleeping in your vacant or otherwise abandoned buildings. This city has neither the funds nor the desire to take me to trial for trespassing in the rare occasions that I'm caught..... living. When I occupy a vacant building it is mine. I care not for your ideas of property, property laws, property enforcers, or property owners; be them personal, banks, companies, or State. I encourage others to do the same.

We have our own community. We never needed the likes of you. You complain about people being a burden on the city yet you'll never completely cut social services. You refuse to do this, not out of compassion but out of fear. Fear that we'll stop cooking your meals, cleaning your homes, watching your children. For fear that the disenfranchised of the city would stand with us in solidarity and take EVERYTHING.

Remember this bourgeoisie, we have the numbers. When the people awaken from this state of indoctrination, your time is over. Look at Greece and South America. It has already begun.

No War Between Nations. No Peace Between Classes

Posted by P.J. Proudhon on Jun. 29, 2010 @ 10:08 pm

Hopefully the rich leave the whole damn bay area so we can start using resources to help each other and not horde it all like the rich do. The basic issue here is that because of the capitalist (neo liberal) system we live in it is profitable to make jobs scarce because if gives the businesses and corporations incentive to export jobs to more impoverished nations where they can pay people less and have them work more hours therefore increasing profits (less paid for more work) and jobs here in the United States are intentionally left scarce because we have minimum wage laws and a higher expectation of salary (which is not a bad thing).

I do not advocate the government telling people what to do but I do think that when there are those in need that the common sense answer to that is to take the money for "Human Services" from those who have the top 20% of net income in the city, state and country but only as a solution until we can restructure to our communities toward organization based on mutual aid. We have more than enough resources in this world to provide basic living necessities, mainly food and shelter for all. Any thing else should be fought!

Posted by Mike on Jun. 29, 2010 @ 10:31 pm