The Homeless, To Photograph; or not to Photograph

[Manfred M]

I think it is disrespectful to take a picture of someone without their permission. The fact that someone is down on their luck and destitute does not give a photographer the right to take their picture. If you really want that photograph then ask their permission. Or even better, take them to lunch at your favorite restaurant or invite them to your home for dinner.

In our "surveillance society" we are continuously recorded and photographed as we go on with our daily lives. I can't remember anyone asking me for my permission to do so anywhere I have been.

In most places in the world there is a pretty simple rule; if you can see someone from a "public place" you can also photograph them. No permission is required. The only country in the world that I am aware of where this is not the case is Hungary, where in theory you do require permission to do so. My understanding is that this law is being flouted continuously and has not been tested in the courts.

I have no issues in taking pictures of people, with and without their permission. The only rule that I have set for myself is that my images should be respectful. I as the photographer should take care to handle any of my subjects in a dignified manner and not appear to any negative comments based on their culture, race, religion or socioeconomic status. To date I have not taken any images of homeless people because I don't know if I can meet my personal criteria if I try to.

[Shadowman]

In our "surveillance society" we are continuously recorded and photographed as we go on with our daily lives. I can't remember anyone asking me for my permission to do so anywhere I have been.

In most places in the world there is a pretty simple rule; if you can see someone from a "public place" you can also photograph them. No permission is required. The only country in the world that I am aware of where this is not the case is Hungary, where in theory you do require permission to do so. My understanding is that this law is being flouted continuously and has not been tested in the courts.

I have no issues in taking pictures of people, with and without their permission. The only rule that I have set for myself is that my images should be respectful. I as the photographer should take care to handle any of my subjects in a dignified manner and not appear to any negative comments based on their culture, race, religion or socioeconomic status. To date I have not taken any images of homeless people because I don't know if I can meet my personal criteria if I try to.

There's so much information online that it takes quite a bit of time to untangle what is legit and just rumors, members from particular countries could shed light on what is accepted and what isn't. I read about restrictions in both Australia and Hungary, the Hungarian law supposedly went into effect after my visit; the Australian law prior to. I didn't have any issues in either country so don't know what is valid. Having a tour guide helps somewhat as they would know the laws, however some guides also have their own code of ethics/morals so they may simply provide info based on their own preferences. An example, when I was in Rio one year the guide didn't frown upon taking photographs but she did give a personal viewpoint when we asked her about taking a tour of the favelas. Perhaps she considered touring the favelas as being disrespectful or perhaps it was her way of warning us of the dangers, or perhaps she felt it was uncharacteristic to reward gang members who supposedly provide protection to tourists allowed in the favela.

[LePetomane]

My comment, (more an implied question), was that if you hold that opinion strongly enough, then maybe you should lobby to have laws to enforce it.

Why should I? If I choose to abide by that premise then I am satisfied. Why should I lobby for legislation regarding my opinions? I don't smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol either but I am not a prohibitionist.

I am well aware of privacy laws in this country, especially when it comes to medicine. I hold 4 patents on Class I medical devices and obtained permission from every patient involved in my research. Journalists in this country are afforded protection by several constitutional amendments. In my chosen career, I am not.

[William W]

Why should I? If I choose to abide by that premise then I am satisfied. . .

Indeed you might be satisfied - as am I satisfied with what I choose to photograph.

And I put forward NO reasons why you should (or should not) lobby to change the laws to conform with your opinion: but by the same procedure of your previous re-iterating concerning what you wrote - I re-iterate here - I wrote simply that if you feel strongly enough, then maybe (key word) you should lobby . . . the "implied question" offered was being one to consider asking yourself concerning how strongly you feel about this issue - and was not me asking you to do anything.

WW

[Manfred M]

There's so much information online that it takes quite a bit of time to untangle what is legit and just rumors, members from particular countries could shed light on what is accepted and what isn't. I read about restrictions in both Australia and Hungary, the Hungarian law supposedly went into effect after my visit; the Australian law prior to. I didn't have any issues in either country so don't know what is valid. Having a tour guide helps somewhat as they would know the laws, however some guides also have their own code of ethics/morals so they may simply provide info based on their own preferences. An example, when I was in Rio one year the guide didn't frown upon taking photographs but she did give a personal viewpoint when we asked her about taking a tour of the favelas. Perhaps she considered touring the favelas as being disrespectful or perhaps it was her way of warning us of the dangers, or perhaps she felt it was uncharacteristic to reward gang members who supposedly provide protection to tourists allowed in the favela.

I have far less trust in the legal knowledge of tour guides (and others) than you do. I do believe that they are more likely to provide advice that favors their own opinions and values than things that would stand up to legal scrutiny. Unfortunately even law enforcement officials often have inadequate training or knowledge to the point where I know of a couple of cases where they definitely overstepped the law with regards to photography.

[RBSinTo]

Jack,
After reading your self-righteous diatribe, the stream of pro and con replies which it generated, and your continuing and tiresome sermonizing I felt compelled to contribute to the discussion. I’ll first make my position very clear by stating that yes, I do take photos of homeless people, and have been for about twenty years. And the reason I do is no different from the rationale that drives essentially all of my close to 40 years of street photography, which is simply to tell stories with pictures.

I do hope that the pictures I post of these people might make some tiny difference if only to raise some awareness in others of their situation, as indeed they have, if comments I’ve received over the years are any indication. Yet I never have been so naïve as to think my pictures would necessarily improve or make a difference in my subject’s lives. In many cases, only they themselves would be able to do that.
And I’m comfortable with that. My experience in the last 20 years meeting with, speaking to and photographing people who live on our streets has made me realize that I’m not going to change the world.
As you requested, I visited your gallery, and wonder exactly what your photos have done in that respect for the subjects you have chosen to portray. Likely nothing, I’d guess, so, your condemnation of others who have chosen to photograph subjects that you deem off-limits for those reasons seems puzzling.
And saying you are right just because you say you are right isn’t a compelling argument.
So no it doesn’t make me uncomfortable or cause me to question my decency, or even make me angry.
It is merely tiresome.
Please continue to do as you do, live as you live and photograph what you photograph. But at the same time please refrain from passing judgement on those of us whose philosophies differ from yours.
To my mind we are no worse nor no better than you. Just different.
Robert

[chauncey]

I might suggest that the 'holier than thou' attitudes are, to say the least, somewhat trite.

[flashback]

Jack,
After reading your self-righteous diatribe, the stream of pro and con replies which it generated, and your continuing and tiresome sermonizing I felt compelled to contribute to the discussion. I’ll first make my position very clear by stating that yes, I do take photos of homeless people, and have been for about twenty years. And the reason I do is no different from the rationale that drives essentially all of my close to 40 years of street photography, which is simply to tell stories with pictures.

I do hope that the pictures I post of these people might make some tiny difference if only to raise some awareness in others of their situation, as indeed they have, if comments I’ve received over the years are any indication. Yet I never have been so naïve as to think my pictures would necessarily improve or make a difference in my subject’s lives. In many cases, only they themselves would be able to do that.
And I’m comfortable with that. My experience in the last 20 years meeting with, speaking to and photographing people who live on our streets has made me realize that I’m not going to change the world.
As you requested, I visited your gallery, and wonder exactly what your photos have done in that respect for the subjects you have chosen to portray. Likely nothing, I’d guess, so, your condemnation of others who have chosen to photograph subjects that you deem off-limits for those reasons seems puzzling.
And saying you are right just because you say you are right isn’t a compelling argument.
So no it doesn’t make me uncomfortable or cause me to question my decency, or even make me angry.
It is merely tiresome.
Please continue to do as you do, live as you live and photograph what you photograph. But at the same time please refrain from passing judgement on those of us whose philosophies differ from yours.
To my mind we are no worse nor no better than you. Just different.
Robert

You're welcome to disagree with me, but to call my comments a "self-righteous diatribe" and "tiresome sermonizing" shows me the true depth of your character and the manner in which you choose to disagree with another. But you did open this particular can of worms so as a personal aside:
You commented to a member here that she should not describer her photos (to you) but to show them (to you). So why is it that that particular pearl of wisdom applies solely to her and not your postings? Every photo you post of a homeless comes with a description, why is that? Your photos don't stand well on their own? So why don't you just post your precious shots and let *them* speak for themselves?

"I do hope that the pictures I post of these people might make some tiny difference if only to raise some awareness in others of their situation, as indeed they have, if comments I’ve received over the years are any indication." "My experience in the last 20 years meeting with, speaking to and photographing people who live on our streets has made me realize that I’m not going to change the world." Really, and you think my comments are self-righteous? My point exactly, you take photos, pay a conscience fee of some sort and then do absolutely nothing to help your 'subjects' but look for *comments* and accolades for your shots. And why is that 40 years statement relevant? Proof you're old and generally disagreeable?

Anyway I suggested viewing my photos simply to show that I practice what I preach. There are no homeless in my gallery. Yet you want to know how have my photos helped those I've shot? That is a best some weird twisted logic. I never stated that street photography was wrong, or that is should somehow help those subjects I've shot. I did however state that if you're going to shoot the homeless it should be with the intent of actually helping them not, as you point out, to simply get 'comments'. So your cross-over logic is petty at best.

And for those people who post photos of homeless or disposed as a casualty of war, famine, hurricane, drought etc, yes thank you I don't live in a cave and I am aware of what goes on around the world and NO I was not talking about photojournalists who, without their work perhaps none of us would be aware of tragedies around the world. I GET that. I don't get the gratuitous shooting and posting of homeless which is pretty much what one sees on photo sharing sites. Although I suppose so long as one uses film it's a different matter entirely.

So despite the many ranging (and some personally offensive) comments, I do appreciate the feedback. It doesn't change my viewpoint and likely it won't change yours. Some folks here seem to feel that somehow, somewhere, the posting of photos of homeless will perhaps through osmosis or telekinesis or some other supernatural means somehow help the homeless. After all it's easier and more convenient than actually doing something for them (and anything you do in exchange for the photo op is only self-serving). And if you are curious about how photographing the homeless CAN help, look up Jacob Riis, a Danish immigrant who actually used his photography to help bring awareness to the middle and upper class of New York. HIS photos actually accomplished something. If you can show me that yours have likewise you'll get one big, fat public apology from me.

Finally, I never addressed anyone directly in my "self-righteous diatribes" and "tiresome sermonizing." My approach was a very broad statement about what I felt. Certainly I painted it with some holier than thou, high moral ground absolutist statements. Not unlike what I've seen some here post in accordance with their opinions on all things photography. So if my onslaught was off putting you could have just not responded. Why some people would respond directly to me with animosity (or in a few cases, bloviating pomposity) is beyond me. I only called one person out here directly and that was because he choose to initiate a personal attack. This was a discussion about something that clearly is as personal an issue to me as it appears to be to others (unless I was flamed by trolls), and while many may disagree with my tiresome tirades I am as equally entitled to my opinion as are you. I really thought it would have gone more civilly; live and learn.

[flashback]

I disagree, Donald. Your statement assumes that impassioned comments cannot make a sensible discussion and that's not true in my mind. Some of the most impassioned thoughts were delivered by the likes of Ghandi, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King and others and it would be a shame to think that their impassioned ideas weren't sensible.

The entire thread is based on Jack's impassioned premise that people who take photos of the homeless (in his own words) are less humanitarian, that photographers who do that are only rationalizing their reasons for doing so, that such photographers are only adding another notch to their belt and the like. Such an impassioned premise deserves an equally impassioned response, whether in agreement or disagreement.

Photography is one of my passions. For people who feel as I do about that, it's appropriate when the occasion merits it to state an impassioned opinion.

Frankly, the premise of the thread is so bothersome to me that I will no longer be reading it, much less posting in it.

Donald, Robin, George, Izzie, John, Paul, Terry, John (jonjdoe), Manfred, chauncey, william thanks for looking and commenting.

[LePetomane]

Indeed you might be satisfied - as am I satisfied with what I choose to photograph.

William (call me Bill),
I guess we have a difference of opinion, nothing more.

[lunaticitizen]

In most places in the world there is a pretty simple rule; if you can see someone from a "public place" you can also photograph them. No permission is required. The only country in the world that I am aware of where this is not the case is Hungary, where in theory you do require permission to do so. My understanding is that this law is being flouted continuously and has not been tested in the courts.

Manfred,

Be advised, you are not allowed to take pictures/videos of someone without their permission in Japan (just in case you visit the country).

There is no law against it, just like there is no law against discrimination similar to Civil Rights Act in the USA; but the issue has been tested in the courts numerous times and they have always ruled against the photographers.

[Shadowman]

Manfred,

Be advised, you are not allowed to take pictures/videos of someone without their permission in Japan (just in case you visit the country).

There is no law against it, just like there is no law against discrimination similar to Civil Rights Act in the USA; but the issue has been tested in the courts numerous times and they have always ruled against the photographers.

That's surprising considering how the costuming is so popular in Japan, however as laws are written by an older generation it shouldn't come as a surprise. However, just because a person dresses in costume doesn't always give us photographers the right to just snap away; the venue makes the difference as I was given this stern warning at a ComiCon convention last year "ask first unless you are at a far distance". And the far distance calls into play the use of telephoto lenses as I'm sure the gear has a deep impact on the interpretation of SP laws.

[William W]

ASIDE to address this:

There's so much information online that it takes quite a bit of time to untangle what is legit and just rumors, members from particular countries could shed light on what is accepted and what isn't. I read about restrictions in both Australia and Hungary . . .

This provides a good outline in lay terms and has links to specific authorities’ rules and regulations.

*

There are many ordinances enforced by Municipal or Shire Councils, but these mostly all concern the prohibition of Photography in certain areas or the requirement of the purchase of licence for Photography for “commercial purposes”.

An example of the former is the prohibition of carrying a camera or mobile phone into toilets and change-room located at sports fields or ovals - which is a bit silly as the obvious idea is to prohibit the use of those items and who is going to leave their camera bag and the 100~400 zoom they just bought to take the photos of their kid playing soccer outside while they use the toilet . . . and just about everyone carries a mobile phone in their pocket or handbag.

An example of the latter are areas like the Sydney Foreshore, where one might like the Opera House or Sydney Harbour Bridge as a backdrop for an image to be used commercially (for example that include ‘Portraiture’ for which one is being paid).

*

You might note that some local ordinances provide the Ranger the power to confiscate one’s camera – but this almost always is after one does not comply with the order to stop taking photos – and that order would either be because it is apparent/likely that the images are for commercial purposes or the Photography Gear is set unsafely or it restricts pedestrian or traffic flow; or the images are being made on, or are of, a “restricted site” – the obvious ‘tourist photographer’ would never fall into these situation.

Setting of a Tripod is one situation where tourists should be aware: but a polite “oh OK sorry I didn’t know I wasn't allowed to use a tripod" should suffice if one was challenged by a Ranger or Police Officer.

But I have seen many Tripods set in unauthorized/illegal situations to allow the tourist photographer to get “their shot”. It is pretty obvious that they are on holiday and having fun and provided that they set up and pull down the tripod quickly and not in the middle of the footpath and not at a busy pedestrian time, it all seems to flow in a pretty relaxed fashion. Anyway tripods are much becoming passé and replaced by ‘selfie sticks’ – but there are still the diehards who strive for the perfect image of the Aussie Landmarks - and good on that too.

*

Most States and Territories also have something similar to an “Enclosed Lands Act” which mainly concerns shopping centres, malls, cinemas, theatres and similar complexes: in simple terms this Act empowers the owner or their agent to restrict or prohibit photography (and sound recording) within the complex area – it is in these areas where one is more likely to engage an over-zealous and/or ignorant (of the law) private security guard, the most common reaction being: "you can't bring your camera gear in here", which is often not the case - it is just that one cannot USE it.

Though for establishments where entry is paid (for example a theatre) one should check the TERMS of ADMISSION, because these typically prohibit the CARRIAGE of BAGS over a certain size or type e.g. a back pack; some establishments now are more detailed in the restrictions and prohibit entry with the carriage of certain items e.g specifying cameras, but it seem mobile phones (equipped with a camera) are OK and are never asked to be checked at the cloak room . . . go figure? These types of rules are fairly common in some other countries, too.

*

In general terms the “tourist photographer” can take photos for personal pleasure (i.e. NOT for commercial purposes’) in all public places, and even I have seen this performed in "restricted sites" as listed (if one interprets and applies the law as it is strictly written). A typical example is taking photos at, or of, some of the beautiful (and also the not so beautiful) Railway Buildings/Yards/Stations.

If one uses a ‘common sense’ and ‘polite interaction’ with any official if challenged is a very good rule of thumb to apply – and I have never had any issue when challenged after applying those guidelines and not really any big issue in dealing with the ignorant private security guard after taking a very calm approach in explaining my situation and requesting they seek advice from his supervisor, whilst I stop shooting and just wait.

*

You might note that, in Australia, there is currently no law specifically concerning “Invasion of privacy”, but there are laws which address the making and using of images in situations where a person might assume that there would be privacy for there actions: for example whilst using the toilet; undressing indoors; or engaging in sex indoors.

*

The most zealous rebuffs and confrontations that I have encountered have been from members of the public who think they know the law and also think that they are Officers of the Court – in these very few cases it has come down to them threatening to “call the police” and in each case I have answered, “please do” and I have continued making photos – that has usually diffused the situation each time.

I think that would be rare for a tourist photographer to find themselves in that position – although it was when making this image (below) when I was party to the biggest outbreak of law enforcement by the local suburban “Bush Lawyers” – so who knows what gets into some of the minds of these self appointed “Bush Lawyers”:


“Three Yellow Toys”

*

You also asked for guidelines apropos what is "accepted": and I suspect this question refers more specifically to Portraiture (i.e the Photography of People). Well, obviously my answer to that question will come with my own bias of my experience: it's been my experience that people in public places in Australia generally don't mind their photo being taken - some encourage it and will "pose" for you.

I think my experience has a lot to do with the approach the Photographer takes to the Subject and the confidence that the Photographer exhibits in their photography and also the choice of why, when and where to make the image.

I have made thousands photos of children, families, old people, tough people, people of all colours and creeds and in all sorts of situations, all around Australia and never really had any problem; as mentioned the biggest problem I ever encountered was making a photo of three yellow boats - go figure that?

WW
Image © AJ Group Pty Ltd Aust 1996~2016 WMW 1965~1996

[Shadowman]

ASIDE to address this:




This provides a good outline in lay terms and has links to specific authorities’ rules and regulations.

*

There are many ordinances enforced by Municipal or Shire Councils, but these mostly all concern the prohibition of Photography in certain areas or the requirement of the purchase of licence for Photography for “commercial purposes”.

An example of the former is the prohibition of carrying a camera or mobile phone into toilets and change-room located at sports fields or ovals - which is a bit silly as the obvious idea is to prohibit the use of those items and who is going to leave their camera bag and the 100~400 zoom they just bought to take the photos of their kid playing soccer outside while they use the toilet . . . and just about everyone carries a mobile phone in their pocket or handbag.

An example of the latter are areas like the Sydney Foreshore, where one might like the Opera House or Sydney Harbour Bridge as a backdrop for an image to be used commercially (for example that include ‘Portraiture’ for which one is being paid).

*

You might note that some local ordinances provide the Ranger the power to confiscate one’s camera – but this almost always is after one does not comply with the order to stop taking photos – and that order would either be because it is apparent/likely that the images are for commercial purposes or the Photography Gear is set unsafely or it restricts pedestrian or traffic flow; or the images are being made on, or are of, a “restricted site” – the obvious ‘tourist photographer’ would never fall into these situation.

Setting of a Tripod is one situation where tourists should be aware: but a polite “oh OK sorry I didn’t know I wasn't allowed to use a tripod" should suffice if one was challenged by a Ranger or Police Officer.

But I have seen many Tripods set in unauthorized/illegal situations to allow the tourist photographer to get “their shot”. It is pretty obvious that they are on holiday and having fun and provided that they set up and pull down the tripod quickly and not in the middle of the footpath and not at a busy pedestrian time, it all seems to flow in a pretty relaxed fashion. Anyway tripods are much becoming passé and replaced by ‘selfie sticks’ – but there are still the diehards who strive for the perfect image of the Aussie Landmarks - and good on that too.

*

Most States and Territories also have something similar to an “Enclosed Lands Act” which mainly concerns shopping centres, malls, cinemas, theatres and similar complexes: in simple terms this Act empowers the owner or their agent to restrict or prohibit photography (and sound recording) within the complex area – it is in these areas where one is more likely to engage an over-zealous and/or ignorant (of the law) private security guard, the most common reaction being: "you can't bring your camera gear in here", which is often not the case - it is just that one cannot USE it.

Though for establishments where entry is paid (for example a theatre) one should check the TERMS of ADMISSION, because these typically prohibit the CARRIAGE of BAGS over a certain size or type e.g. a back pack; some establishments now are more detailed in the restrictions and prohibit entry with the carriage of certain items e.g specifying cameras, but it seem mobile phones (equipped with a camera) are OK and are never asked to be checked at the cloak room . . . go figure? These types of rules are fairly common in some other countries, too.

*

In general terms the “tourist photographer” can take photos for personal pleasure (i.e. NOT for commercial purposes’) in all public places, and even I have seen this performed in "restricted sites" as listed (if one interprets and applies the law as it is strictly written). A typical example is taking photos at, or of, some of the beautiful (and also the not so beautiful) Railway Buildings/Yards/Stations.

If one uses a ‘common sense’ and ‘polite interaction’ with any official if challenged is a very good rule of thumb to apply – and I have never had any issue when challenged after applying those guidelines and not really any big issue in dealing with the ignorant private security guard after taking a very calm approach in explaining my situation and requesting they seek advice from his supervisor, whilst I stop shooting and just wait.

*

You might note that, in Australia, there is currently no law specifically concerning “Invasion of privacy”, but there are laws which address the making and using of images in situations where a person might assume that there would be privacy for there actions: for example whilst using the toilet; undressing indoors; or engaging in sex indoors.

*

The most zealous rebuffs and confrontations that I have encountered have been from members of the public who think they know the law and also think that they are Officers of the Court – in these very few cases it has come down to them threatening to “call the police” and in each case I have answered, “please do” and I have continued making photos – that has usually diffused the situation each time.

I think that would be rare for a tourist photographer to find themselves in that position – although it was when making this image (below) when I was party to the biggest outbreak of law enforcement by the local suburban “Bush Lawyers” – so who knows what gets into some of the minds of these self appointed “Bush Lawyers”:


“Three Yellow Toys”

*

You also asked for guidelines apropos what is "accepted": and I suspect this question refers more specifically to Portraiture (i.e the Photography of People). Well, obviously my answer to that question will come with my own bias of my experience: it's been my experience that people in public places in Australia generally don't mind their photo being taken - some encourage it and will "pose" for you.

I think my experience has a lot to do with the approach the Photographer takes to the Subject and the confidence that the Photographer exhibits in their photography and also the choice of why, when and where to make the image.

I have made thousands photos of children, families, old people, tough people, people of all colours and creeds and in all sorts of situations, all around Australia and never really had any problem; as mentioned the biggest problem I ever encountered was making a photo of three yellow boats - go figure that?

WW
Image © AJ Group Pty Ltd Aust 1996~2016 WMW 1965~1996

William,

Thanks for the thorough breakdown of ordinances and also your personal experiences, I'll get to your link later as I was enjoying your thoughts on the subject. I recall seeing a sign in Sydney near the Bob Barker vessel, I had entered the area near the end of where the cruise ship was docked. Needless to say I turned around quickly although I didn't see an official, I assumed the area was probably under video surveillance. I also read an article during the trip about restrictions on photography, I had already spent about three days wandering the city snapping away and the only odd look I got was when I was taking photographs of a butcher's window of meats. As a matter of fact, I don't recall seeing an Sydney police during my entire visit, they must be good at blending into their surroundings. So needless to say I must have been a very good tourist on that trip.

[William W]

I guess we have a difference of opinion, nothing more.

I though that, too and from the beginning.

The way comments were worded might have encouraged a different (i.e. an adversarial combative) view of my intent, but hat was not so, just the employment of a literal writing style

WW

[William W]

. . . the only odd look I got was when I was taking photographs of a butcher's window of meats. . .

Oh so that was you taking those photos of the butcher's shop: I was the bloke next to the woman in the yellow tracksuit across the road. . .

[george013]

The topic changed from a moral question of shooting homeless into a legal question of what's allowed to shoot.

In Europe, I don't know if it's called the same outside, it's called the freedom of panorama. The European Commission is trying to equalize that in Europe, with more limitations. I don't know exactly what it all means.

Maybe this side will help to distinguish between different countries.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/C...om_of_panorama

George

[William W]

Oh, I didn't ever want to change the topic . . . but just meander sideways a little bit . . .

The topic of what's happening in Europe and the attempts at consolidating many views generally, has been and continues to be interesting. One wonders if the EU will actually survive it.

WW

[chauncey]

FWIW...http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-p...ess/ar-BBt5rAx

[Shadowman]

FWIW...http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-p...ess/ar-BBt5rAx

A tour guide told me that many of the homeless have been there after being misplaced during the last earthquake, this was related to me about 3 years ago and the last devastating earthquake was probably 3 years before my visit. Also, there will probably be even more homeless as the Mission district is going through gentrification, there's only so much real estate available and SF is a growing city.