See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #1
   On May 14th, 2008 at 9:53 am, abstractmind said:

   I wonder, how much do the meters cost to install, and the program to implement? Is that cost being deducted from the funds deposited in the meters?

   ROFL, yeah right.

2. #2
   On May 14th, 2008 at 9:54 am, 30 pcs of silver said:

   “”Be a part of change. Don’t give change.”

   Unless, of course it’s going to Planned Parenthood, then it’s give, give, give.

3. #3
   On May 14th, 2008 at 9:58 am, Blind_Mule said:

   What a bunch of idiots, I’ll go out on a limb and say that 70% of these panhandlers have homes to go to sleep and eat, this is just a money making venture for them, it will not keep them off the streets but leave it to SF to think they have a better way. Maroons

4. #4
   On May 14th, 2008 at 10:05 am, Concerned Citizen said:

   “The reason people are panhandling is because there’s a market for panhandling,” Mayor Gavin Newsom said Monday. “We’re not helping these individuals by handing out cash. If there was strong evidence to suggest this helped people turn their lives around, we would not be using this approach.”

   Now he knows how conservatives feel about most of the governments social programs.

5. #5
   On May 14th, 2008 at 10:17 am, bloghooligan said:

   LOL. but i thought they had so much compassion for the homeless??

6. #6
   On May 14th, 2008 at 10:21 am, undrseige247 said:

   Some panhandlers make more money than I do. Next time a panhandler hits you up for money take a good look at his shoes.

7. #7
   On May 14th, 2008 at 10:23 am, tre said:

   #2 Unless, of course it’s going to Planned Parenthood, then it’s give, give, give.

   Or Code Stink, or the Folsom Street Perverts Show, or the…..

8. #8
   On May 14th, 2008 at 10:23 am, DagneyT said:

   “This is not going to solve poverty,” Kayhan said. “But it is another strategy to see if we can save lives out there.”

   Gainful employment is usually a good strategy to combating poverty, isn’t it?

   I think we need to build a large fence around SF, and when “the big one” hits, hope it floats of into the Pacific.

9. #9
   On May 14th, 2008 at 10:26 am, ajmontana said:

   I think we need to build a large fence around SF, and when “the big one” hits, hope it floats of into the Pacific.

   living in cal. thats not even close to funny.

10. #10
    On May 14th, 2008 at 10:28 am, abstractmind said:

    I can relate to the panhandling, and anyone from DC can confirm. I dont know about now, but it used to be REALLY bad down by the museums and places like that, because they would hit up on the school kids on field trips, who were young and naive enough to give them money.

    They do it here in Nashville, especially downtown (near Music Row is where i noticed alot of it).

    The litmus test for homeless, to whether or not they need your money or just want to get it from you:

    Offer that instead of giving them the money, you’d be glad to go with them to the closest sandwich shop, and buy them a sammich and a cup of joe. The ones who give you dirty looks, or curse…yeah, they didnt really need the help. The ones that thank you for the help, and then take the deal…well, i would consider them a bit more on the deserving side.

11. #11
    On May 14th, 2008 at 10:32 am, Donut44 said:

    This sounds so strange and transparent. This sounds like a hidden tax on the money that is given to the homeless. San Fransisco is mad that the homeless are living income tax free and they want the money siphoned through them first. Sometimes I don’t know if I am seeing things really clear or I have become major paranoid. I may be suffering a breakdown, I am not sure.

12. #12
    On May 14th, 2008 at 10:37 am, Misscheryl said:

    who’s doing all this panhandling in SF?

13. #13
    On May 14th, 2008 at 10:49 am, sambo said:

    bloghooligan said:
    LOL. but i thought they had so much compassion for the homeless??

    This is money that’s goes straight to the individule. They hate that. They can’t tax it or control it. They want all the money to go to one big pile… so when they get there grubby little hands on it…you know the rest of the story.

14. #14
    On May 14th, 2008 at 10:50 am, Old Scout said:

    I don’t think it’s a bad idea - no need to automatically oppose it just because it’s being implemented by a “Liberal” administration.

    I live in New York City, and years ago I resolved the issue. There’s a part of me that feels sorry for the panhandlers, BUT I got over that once I thought about the family running the 24-hour deli.

    Anyone who gives money to the panhandler outside the deli is encouraging them to stay there. And the presence of someone begging for money will keep customers away from the store.

    The San Francisco plan sounds good.

    Parking meters are being replaced by electronic muni-meters anyway, so now the meters aren’t going to waste.
    A act of charity can be performed, with the knowledge that the coins aren’t headed right to the liquor store.

15. #15
    On May 14th, 2008 at 10:57 am, Blind_Mule said:

    DagneyT said:
    I think we need to build a large Boat fence around round up all liberals in SF, and when “the big one” hits, hope it floats of into an Iceberg and sinks.the Pacific.

    There fixed it.

16. #16
    On May 14th, 2008 at 11:40 am, chris3cube said:

    If the non-homeless of SF really cared about the homeless of SF… there would be a toilet on every corner, there would be no locks on homes or businesses, there would be no charge for food or alcohol or drugs… you know ATMs are not just for humans with bank accounts! Parking meters are for hybrid-cars and VW buses with peace symbols, NO WAR4coins! FREE LOVE should be free for all!
    Just because the homeless are a little different is no reason for the Mayor to issue jackboots to his law ENFORCERS! I support the police but not their mission! The problems are not caused homeless people, it’s BUSHES fault, have you ever tried to sleep in a BUSH during spring? The selfish citizens of SanFrancisco should stop their violent HATE FILLED WAR on the poor. Many SanFran taxpayers claim their hatred keeps them warm at night… well I think that’s just awful! Homeless people should unite, immediately, in SanFrancisco!

17. #17
    On May 14th, 2008 at 11:51 am, rw said:

    Seattle was adding these meters a couple of years back in the Udistrict. It turns out they didn’t do so well.

    Jamie Van Leeuwen, with Denver’s Department of Human Services, said there’s been an 92 percent reduction in downtown panhandlers since the meters went up. He said a lot of that is due to educating the community about not giving to panhandlers.

    It certainly hasn’t been as smooth in all cities. In December, thieves stole two homeless meters days after they were installed in Chattanooga, and the rest of the meters had to be reinforced to prevent future thefts. And in Seattle, “giving meters” flopped after homeless advocates said they were really intended to drive out the homeless.

18. #18
    On May 14th, 2008 at 12:11 pm, rignerd said:

    When will they learn. If you leave milk out for a stray cat soon you will be over run with stray cats. If you have great benefits for homeless people you will soon be over run with homeless people. Stop giving benefits to homeless people and they will move to a city where it is cheaper to live and easier to get along. If the governement left this work to the charities they will establish a relationship with the homeless and get them the help they need to get back into the mainstream plan of gainful employment and pride of self reliance, or help them break the cycle of addiction that keeps them down.

19. #19
    On May 14th, 2008 at 12:59 pm, erikwhittington said:

    newsome is LAME

20. #20
    On May 14th, 2008 at 1:03 pm, JDinTX said:

    Very ironic that SF doesn’t want to help the panhandlers when they are a sanctuary city and want to help out all the illegals.

21. #21
    On May 14th, 2008 at 1:08 pm, ArmoredCAV said:

    “This is not going to solve poverty,” Kayhan said. “But it is another strategy to see if we can save lives out there.”

    Some awesome analysis by one of SF’s finest. Call me old fashioned, but I say that getting a job, and sticking with it, is the best cure for “solving poverty” and “saving lives.”
    This is why my hard-earned money goes to me and my family, or to charities that I select.

22. #22
    On May 14th, 2008 at 1:45 pm, bluesoc said:

    Stop giving benefits to homeless people and they will move to a city where it is cheaper to live and easier to get along

    - rignerd -
    You seem to be implying that no services (public or private) should be offered in expensive cities. Personally, I find that to be a bit naive and inhumane. Many homeless people have severe mental and physical disabilities which would prevent them from moving. It is also easier, and more cost effective, to offer services in highly populated areas (which also tend to be more expensive). I agree that private charities are better able to service the homeless, but I also think such services should be provided wherever they are necessary (expensive city or not).

23. #23
    On May 15th, 2008 at 7:51 am, DaveC said:

    Bluesoc

    the last homeless, legless man I saw panhandling was Eddie Murphy in ‘Trading Spaces’…

    all the others I’ve ever seen, and I do look out for them, have been able bodied.. dunno about the able minded..

    but it is about the cities and handouts they give..

    watch South Park, ‘Night of the living Homeless’ then you’ll get it..

24. #24
    On May 15th, 2008 at 2:09 pm, bluesoc said:

    DaveC

    1. Where do you live?
    2. Really? You’re citing South Park?
    3. I think you might be right that offering services to the homeless creates homelessness. If we stopped offering services, a lot of them would just die and we wouldn’t have to care for them anymore.

    PS: I am not advocating government services. I think private charities and nonprofits are much better at offering such services (I happen to work for one).