The coalition of residents from surrounding neighbourhoods claims the plans would make the area less safe.
They have set a crowdfunding target of $100,000 (£76,000) and have received more than 135 donations, including from hedge fund managers, company executives and academics.
More than 7,000 in the San Francisco Bay area are homeless, according to recent estimates.
The average house in South Beach, the area where the shelter is proposed to be built, costs $1.2m.
“People want us to address the challenges on our streets and help our unsheltered residents into housing, and I am committed to doing the hard work to make that happen,” Ms Breed said.
“But it’s incredibly frustrating and disappointing that as soon as we put forward a solution to build a new shelter, people begin to threaten legal action. “I understand that people have questions about the site, and we are happy to demonstrate how these sites work and the positive impacts they have had in other neighbourhoods, but can’t afford unnecessary delays.”
A rival crowdfunding page was set up this week to counter efforts to block the shelter and raised more than $33,000 (£25,000) in a day.
“They’re [trying to stop] a shelter in the neighbourhood, and these are the same people who complain about homelessness all the time,” the page’s founder, William Fitzgerald, told the San Francisco Chronicle.
“I care about homeless people. I believe they deserve safe and humane shelter,” he wrote on his GoFundMe appeal, which is raising money for the Coalition Against Homelessness.
Yeah. That scans. Similar bullshit here in Austin, TX. They always “care deeply about the problem.” But it’s clear that what they really mean is that they “care deeply about the problem being pushed away from them and out of sight.”
I can see why people would object.
A homeless shelter just shifts a problem geographically. All the misfits who used to be dispersed, all move to this one place. They gain shelter but the neighbourhood gets all the city’s social problems, concentrated.
Maybe a compromise is possible.
Instead of just housing, build housing & workplaces & leisure & amenities all in one place. So the residents tend to congregate inside, out of sight, rather then in the street. This way also has a real chance of helping the homeless out of poverty.
I can see why people would object.
A homeless shelter just shifts a problem geographically. All the misfits who used to be dispersed, all move to this one place. They gain shelter but the neighbourhood gets all the city’s social problems, concentrated.
Maybe a compromise is possible.
Instead of just housing, build housing & workplaces & leisure & amenities all in one place. So the residents tend to congregate inside, out of sight, rather then in the street. This way also has a real chance of helping the homeless out of poverty.
And here we have a perfect example of someone who “cares deeply about the problem being pushed away from them and out of sight.”
I honestly didn’t expect a reply quite so soon and quite so on the nose.
Yes that’s literally what people want. Not just a few cunts but probably a majority. More than would openly admit it.
But you have to compromise if you want to get anything done fast. Starting a legal battle with your entire new neighbourhood sounds like a recipe for failure. And in this case the compromise solution could be the optimal one.
And you should totally advertise it like this, “the problem being pushed away from them and out of sight”. It’s important to be able to understand their perspective, even if you don’t agree. Then be able to talk in the language of your audience.
BTW you don’t need to quote the whole comment. That’s more for if you want to highlight a small part of it.
it’s always heartwarming to see neighbors coming together for a common cause like this
Zoning-Cops-Liberals; the NIMBY trifecta.
muh property values
