San Francisco elected a new mayor, London Breed (seriously, that’s her name).

She gave her first ever sit-down interview since her election and said something remarkable:

“I will say there is more feces on the sidewalks than I’ve ever seen growing up here.  That is a huge problem and we are not just talking about from dogs — we’re talking about from humans.”

Now “there’s more feces” is trending on Twitter.  Congratulations San Francisco, you will forever be immortalized in the annals of social media for drowning in shit.

In typical Liberal ineptitude, her plan to combat this weak.

San Francisco Mayor London Breed, in her first one-on-one interview since taking office, said homeless advocacy groups that receive funding from the city need to better educate the homeless to “clean up after themselves.”

“I work hard to make sure your programs are funded for the purposes of trying to get these individuals help, and what I am asking you to do is work with your clients and ask them to at least have respect for the community — at least, clean up after themselves and show respect to one another and people in the neighborhood,” Breed told the Investigative Unit, referencing her conversations with nonprofit groups aimed at serving the homeless.

When pressed about whether her plan calls for harsher penalties against those who litter or defecate on city streets, Breed said “I didn’t express anything about a penalty.” Instead, the mayor said she has encouraged nonprofits “to talk to their clients, who, unfortunately, were mostly responsible for the conditions of our streets.”

Just ask the homeless people receiving food and shelter not to shit in the street after they are done shooting up heroine.  Let me know how effective that will be.

San Francisco is slated to spend nearly $280 million this year on housing and services for the homeless — a roughly 40 percent increase compared to just five years ago. Over that same span, however, the number of homeless in the city has largely remained the same at about 7,500 people, according to city counts.

“About 70 percent of the people estimated to be homeless in San Francisco were actually housed in San Francisco before they became homeless,” Breed said. “We have to make sure people who live here, [and] sadly, people who are homeless here, that they are also held accountable for taking care of our streets. This is our home.”

Oh, so almost one-third of their homeless came to San Francisco after they became homeless.  Maybe drastically increasing the spending on the homeless to make them more comfortable in their homelessness is part of the reason the problem is as bad as it is.

It’s obvious the Mayor Breed is only going to make things worse, because she is pulling straight from the same Leftist playbook that turned San Francisco and Seattle into open air homeless sewers in the first place and is currently undoing all of the progress made in New York under Giuliani.

Here’s my suggestion, and it will be much cheaper.

Allow the homeless to shit and sleep and dump garbage everywhere.  Say this is a policy to make all the H-1B visa tech workers from India and Bangladesh feel more at home when they come to Silicon Valley.  Then state that anybody who criticizes this policy is a culturally insensitive, white supremacist, xenophobe.  I guarantee nobody will ever complain about the shit on the streets of San Francisco again, and you can save the $280 million per year.

Spread the love

By J. Kb

10 thoughts on “HA HA HA San Francisco”
  1. At one time I enjoyed visiting Frisco, pretty area, good food, neat architecture. Didn’t want to live there, mind you, but it was fun to visit. Now I cant’t think of a reason to get near the place.

  2. San Francisco, like all of California, was a beautiful place years ago. We lived in Oakland in the late 60’s and never wanted to leave. However life gets in the way with job opportunities and had to move out of State. Went back to California for the first time last year and never been so disappointed. What a waste of a beautiful city and state.

  3. The numbers given in the article indicate they are spending ~$37,000 a year per homeless person. This seems to be just city spending, and not including the myriad of non-profit and donation based spending by private entities. I wonder how much of those totals are spent on bureaucracy, and not actually “helping” the problem. . .

    I think the only possible conclusion here is that homelessness in SF is big money, and there will never be any incentive to actually fix the problem. That is the real story, but no one with any influence in the city will ever report on it.

    1. What you say is true for any government program to “help” some group, or “fix” some problem. The War against Poverty will not eliminate poverty — if it did, all the worthless parasites getting their paychecks from that program would be unemployed, and that clearly can’t be allowed to happen. Ditto the War on Drugs, and any other pretend-to-do-good-things program.
      Too bad there is no way to get the Constitution enforced.

  4. ” …immortalized in the annals of social media for drowning in shit.”

    Heh. What you did there…I saw it.

    ( ‘anal’ pun…)

  5. The word “homeless” annoys the shit out of me. Homeless, my ass! They used to be regular people, Then, they became alcoholics or drug addicts. They went from pillar to post, ignoring any attempt to help them from family and friends. Finally, the last friend they had got fed up with the stinking, unwashed, shit-assed bum sleeping on their couch, and threw them out. That is why they are homeless. NOT due to factors beyond their control, but because they brought it upon themselves. Do yourselves a favor. When someone, a friend or acquaintance, calls them homeless, remind your friend that the correct term is “Wino” or “Druggie,” or perhaps the more generic “Bum.” There were plenty of them in SF when I lived there 40 years ago, but nothing like the wino epidemic that we see today.

    1. There are quite a few with mental problems too. Many times the drugs are just a symptom of a much deeper issue. A lot of those people would not be able to function in society even if they were sober, and that is before decades of drug abuse fries their brains beyond recognition.

      We used to have institutions that cared for such people, but due to widespread abuse and neglect those facilities were shuttered, and the people inside were turned out with nowhere to go. Instead of fixing the problems, we just decided it was not anyone’s responsibility, and that `$37k a year is mostly spent on cleanup and avoiding real solutions.

      What we really need to do is figure out a way to bring back mental institutions in a safe and legal way. If a person is not capable of functioning in society, but is also not a real threat to anyone (other than as a public health hazard) we still need a way to take care of them and prevent them from fouling up our cities. I have a hard time believing that letting them rot on the streets is the best way to deal with the problem.

      1. Don’t forget that liberals lobbied hard to “mainstream” the mentally ill, and self-serving governments closed the state hospitals to “save” money, and of course provided no funding for follow-up care or assessment. Today the protocall is: here are your drugs, have a nice day. If the patient turns violent, well there’s a cell in prison, if not violent, but not capable of taking care of themselves, find a refrigerator box somewhere.

        There are no easy or cheap answers. However, continuing to approach mental illness by doing the same things that have failed spectacularly in the past make me wonder just who should be in the asylum

  6. Back in 2010 i was with a group of friends out meeting some new friends. I we t on a rant about the homeless- i said most not all are homeless cause they WANT to be.. they dont pay taxes rent utilites ect any money they get they keep a fella looked at me and said you are right- he is the director of a homeless shelter …

Comments are closed.