Robots Keep the Homeless Away in San Francisco

DooKey

DooKey

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 25, 2001
Messages
12,696
The SPCA in San Francisco noticed that many homeless were setting up encampments around their campus and the area was being contaminated with used needles and other refuse. In order to do something about this they put security robots to work that patroled the area and notified authorities if homeless were in the area. As a result the litter and tent problems began to abate. However, do-gooders in the area complained to City Hall and the SPCA has to stop for the moment until they get permission to do this. It just boggles my mind that some people would rather have used needles, tents, and human waste all over the place instead of allowing a simple little bot to roam around the campus preventing this.

For the SPCA, the security robot, which they've dubbed K9, was a way to try dealing with the growing number of needles, car break-ins and crime that seemed to emanate from nearby tent encampments of homeless people along the sidewalks.
 
tumblr_md8vuryitv1rgjas2o1_500.png
 
I don't understand the complaints. Unless they are the pushers who are upset that their local users are being dispersed. Maybe they aren't do "good" ers.
 
It's all fun and games poking the homeless with robots, but that fades fast when you need to call in Tom Selleck to deal with the Runaways.
tom-selleck-runaway-poster.jpg


killer-robots-spider.jpg



Though I wouldn't mind being on the Screamers research team.

screamers-robot-dinosaur.jpg
 
Dekoth-E- said:
It boggles my mind that anyone would find it ok to simply run the homeless off instead of you know..being a decent fucking human and helping them.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you are volunteering to do this.
Please visit this location and assist with the problem, then report back once it is fixed. /s

On a more serious note folks here do help. Unfortunately this is just one more example of SF lunacy at work.
 
Guessing the problem is the non-human approach people are having issues with. Humans normally feel better with a human approach to these type of issues. Understandable.

There could be more to the story as well. A Campus is mentioned. Could be a simple budget issue. Meaning, it's a Campus so the have to reply on Campus Security. The Robot is the cheaper solution. San Fransisco is a very very expensive place to live. Also with Terrorists plaguing the news they probably hire expensive Security types comprised of ex-law enforcement / moon lighting Police officers that carry sidearms or whatever the case may be. Do you pay one of those guys $80K or buy a $50K Robot?

Used needles and homeless camps, human waste sounds pretty disgusting.

There is a place here in Kansas City,an over-look that is a really cool spot dating back to the late 1800's that has a real issue with homeless people camping out and they piss and shit all over that area. It's pretty terrible at times. Thankfully they are building apartments literally within a 30 second walk of that area and it should run all the homeless out of the area.
 
So why not just shoot the homeless and bury them? It is obvious no one gives a fuck anyway so what is the holdup? Not ok to shoot them but ok to let them suffer?

Humans are mostly fucking stupid.
 
SomeoneElse said:
Goes to show you that people care more about pets and animals than their fellow man.....put the pets in shelters but shoo the homeless away to continue living on the street. o_O Seems a bit backwards to me
Click to expand...
Being on the street breaking into cars and leaving needles everywhere, which is the status quo isn't good for ANYONE. Also, SF has shelters for actual people. This may not have occurred to you but not every homeless person breaking into cars, leaving trash everywhere, and harassing other people wants help and may actually go out of their way to avoid someone's idea of "help".

Instead of applying logic, you seem to think people are going out of their way to be dickheads in this circumstance. If the homeless are causing problems and ignore help in location A, then what's the difference if they're causing problems and ignore help anywhere else?
 
I live in Downtown Phoenix, AZ. The area near my place has had a major homeless problem for years. Many groups an individuals have TRIED to help them over the years. Mental health rehab, and job services have been offered to get these people out of their situations, shelters were set up, people drop off food and water, and the local churches do what they can. The truth is, a lot of these people don't want to be helped! They don't want to do anything at all. So they just lay around pissing and shitting on everything, leaving piles of trash all over the place and generally just wasting their lives away. My point is, you cant help them if they don't want to be helped.
 
FTA:

Last week, the city ordered the SPCA to keep its robot off the sidewalks or face a penalty of up to $1,000 per day for operating in the public right-of-way without a permit.

and there is the issue, they were operating the robot on the sidewalks, not the actual grounds of their property
 
Devilpup said:
Would it still be a problem if it was a security guard instead of a robot?

they-took-er-jerbs.jpg
Click to expand...

The robot company charges $6/hr. From TFA, min wage in SF is $14/hr for humans. The SPCA has hired a couple of human guards for the busy season.

The problem with "Helping" the homeless is many of them LIKE the lifestyle. They get lots of free aid, have minimal responsibilities, and are mostly ignored by LEOs. They know there aren't enough jails to house them so they are free to commit minor crimes without risk of long term consequences. Oddly, more "help" often creates more homeless as the benefits keep getting better.

Here in OKC, the downtown homeless get a free breakfast at a local church, then leave a trail of trash on their way to the shelter that serves a free lunch, and then they migrate to the place where they can get a free supper. When not eating or migrating, they are harassing folks for handouts so they can visit the local source of booze or other mind altering substances. There is enough human crap left on the ground that the fecal ecoli in the downtown water attractions often exceed safe levels.
 
Merc1138 said:
Being on the street breaking into cars and leaving needles everywhere, which is the status quo isn't good for ANYONE. Also, SF has shelters for actual people. This may not have occurred to you but not every homeless person breaking into cars, leaving trash everywhere, and harassing other people wants help and may actually go out of their way to avoid someone's idea of "help".

Instead of applying logic, you seem to think people are going out of their way to be dickheads in this circumstance. If the homeless are causing problems and ignore help in location A, then what's the difference if they're causing problems and ignore help anywhere else?
Click to expand...
IF they don't want help it doesn't mean they don't need it, pushing it to the side doesn't deal with the issue it just sweeps it under the rug. Also this isn't the city doing it its a freaking SPCA, all this does it make the homeless move to another spot in the city. It's a public street not their facility.
 
Last edited:
In Portland, they had to ban them from sleeping and living outside of the businesses. People just didn't want to go to the business as they'd get harassed by the homeless people or have to wade through their trash to get to the doors.

It always seems like those that deal with that shit everyday are against the homeless being there. Those that live in better places seem to want to feel bad for the homeless. But, they refuse to open their own doors to them. Only other people's. That's my biggest deal. Homeless do need help. Not at the expense of someone else. It's just the nice way of saying "You deal with it, leave me out of it" by forcing others to let them stay there.
 
DrLobotomy said:
So why not just shoot the homeless and bury them? It is obvious no one gives a fuck anyway so what is the holdup? Not ok to shoot them but ok to let them suffer?

Humans are mostly fucking stupid.
Click to expand...
You're ahead of your time. We're decades away from that.
 
DESTROY!!!!!

a. I'm all for supporting the homeless (and even begger monks etc)
b. however you have to keep a balance approach... "dont leave your heroin needles etc" ...

Its hard to seperate "hey your a jerk" from "hey you need my compassion/help". All homeless need our help, but people need to be decent human beings.

Drugs are also a major issue and not just a homeless issue... often drug users go back to their suburbs and trash the place. I have seen a ton of hippies at uw-milwaukee polute like crazy. I have gone to bonnaroo and seen more trash after "save the world" demonstrations than in my entire life by hippies lol.

Its a messed up place, however if your lost and in a world of pain ... try not to cause others suffering. You may have nothing (and feel like your lost) but try to make the world around you a better place.

Life is dukkha! However if you cannot help someone at least do not harm them.
 
Ur_Mom said:
In Portland, they had to ban them from sleeping and living outside of the businesses. People just didn't want to go to the business as they'd get harassed by the homeless people or have to wade through their trash to get to the doors.

It always seems like those that deal with that shit everyday are against the homeless being there. Those that live in better places seem to want to feel bad for the homeless. But, they refuse to open their own doors to them. Only other people's. That's my biggest deal. Homeless do need help. Not at the expense of someone else. It's just the nice way of saying "You deal with it, leave me out of it" by forcing others to let them stay there.
Click to expand...

That's classic human nature lack of empathy. When it affects you, you care. When it doesn't, you don't.
 
SomeoneElse said:
Goes to show you that people care more about pets and animals than their fellow man.....put the pets in shelters but shoo the homeless away to continue living on the street. o_O Seems a bit backwards to me
Click to expand...
I certainly care more about pets than homeless vagrants. I might agree with you if homeless people did no harm, cleaned up after themselves, and were not prone to criminal activity, but homeless people are not harmless. They leave trash everywhere, piss and shit all over the place, and they approach you begging for handouts and get insulted when you refuse. Wtf gives them the right to approach me begging for money and then get pissy when I refuse? Some are on the streets due to mental problems, but most are either druggies, alchoholics, or people who just don't want to work. The homeless people that genuinely want help to stand on their own two feet will be able to find it, but they have to want to help themselves. Most apparently don't. Fine, they made their choices but leave me out of it.
 
Azphira said:
tumblr_md8vuryitv1rgjas2o1_500.png
Click to expand...
I just saw this episode earlier lol, the daliac or something like that.

As far as homeless go, they're trash. I have no sympathy for anyone living like that, either because they can't cope with problems or don't want to. Somehow everyone has to feel sorry for them and give them money because they had a hard go of it. Fuck that, kick em in the ass into the water. Maybe that way they will actually wash themselves.
 
Last edited:
DrLobotomy said:
So why not just shoot the homeless and bury them? It is obvious no one gives a fuck anyway so what is the holdup? Not ok to shoot them but ok to let them suffer?

Humans are mostly fucking stupid.
Click to expand...

So you're advocating that the robots shouldn't have been deployed and we should allow the use of illegal drugs and criminal activity in a public location?

What better solution do you propose?
 
I was going to comment with a "INB4 someone screams about the rights of the homeless..." but I was thinking more about pro-bono organizations in the city not here... not here...

Blakestr said:
That's classic human nature lack of empathy. When it affects you, you care. When it doesn't, you don't.
Click to expand...
Could say the same about your comment, it's real easy to be empathetic about a problem, when it's not a problem that does not affect you, and it's another person's (entity's) job to fix it not yours.

That said, there is no single cause of homelessness in this city. A lot of people always claim the high cost of housing, but the reality is it's more about poor decisions of people, can't afford to live in San Francisco? Congratulations you have joined most of the country in that regard, now are you going to do a smart thing like migrate to somewhere you can afford? or just demand to live somewhere you can't afford to and now it's their problem not yours? Homelessness is a real problem here, a lot of people imagine Will Smith "Pursuit of Happiness" type of homelessness, but that really is the 1%ers, it's a figment of your imagination that homeless people are working hard to try and get out of it, for most it's an accepted lifestyle that becomes routine and that's the end of it, sure they might try to find a shelter but no shelter is going to want the ones that have a huge pile of crap as their possessions, so they do the next best thing they build their own shelters. And one homeless tent turns into 10, turns into a whole encampement. Which then becomes the problem.

The newest form of homelessness that is popping up in this city though are the RV homeless, where they simply live in an RV parked on the street. Right now it's relatively small as a problem, but I see the potential hazard in the future as 1 RV turns to 10 (we're already there in some areas), then we get RV parks everywhere on city streets.

The city doesn't give a fuck about homeless, they'd rather sell off city property to a private developer who will promise to build a number of homes which will do absolutely ZERO to help the homeless, and a rather small percentage that are classified as "affordable" (which is in itself laughable), and then collect the property taxes off that for all of eternity than turn an area into a homeless shelter or something. So at the end of the day the city does feel for poor people sure, but poor people still pay rent and shit like that, homeless are not "poor people"
 
SomeoneElse said:
Goes to show you that people care more about pets and animals than their fellow man.....put the pets in shelters but shoo the homeless away to continue living on the street. o_O Seems a bit backwards to me
Click to expand...
Why animals and pets? Why not say cars, auto dealers take up a huge amount of space, people should care more about their fellow man than your ability to go buy a new car too!

They're not shooing away the homeless because of the animals and pets, they're doing it because they are creating a hazardous situation and are caring about the health and welfare of their workers first and foremost, and IMO that is not a selfish or harsh attitude to have. They have to hire security because their workers are regularly leaving to go take care of animals elsewhere, that says there there is a real problem, yes the homeless that are creating the problems might be a small percentage, but how do you single out the bad ones? Signs that say "homeless can sleep here, as long as you don't leave needles, pee or shit in the streets, or harass our employees"

I would not want to work there, if I drive you have to worry about your car getting broken into, and it's a very real worry, if you take the bus, then you have to worry about safely getting to work.
 
FlawleZ said:
So you're advocating that the robots shouldn't have been deployed and we should allow the use of illegal drugs and criminal activity in a public location?

What better solution do you propose?
Click to expand...
Um, that was my solution. We Euthanize sick and abandoned animals but let humans suffer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top