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).

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..

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).

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.