Imagine if all that money actually went to those that need it, instead of lawyers and miscellaneous bullshit. In the end that’ll be way over 100k (and probably much higher) that could have gone to actually helping people, instead of fueling some rich people’s tantrum.
SF spends about $57k-70k per homeless person. They have around 19k homeless people. It has had no overall effect on the problem due to the high COL and low affordable housing availability, ignoring the willfully homeless and hopelessly lost drug addicts that nothing but “inhumane” force can address.
SF is too favorable to homelessness and inhospitable to poverty to actually meaningfully address the issue with twice as much spending as they have now.
$57-70k
Source?
Here’s a source that disagrees
https://sfist.com/2016/04/12/no_san_francisco_does_not_spend_360/
Thank you for the information.
So a big chunk of the bad math done by people who never read the article is attributing money intended to prevent homelessness to being spent generically on the homeless. They see one number, divide by the other, and presto…outrage.
So you don’t seem insensitive in the future, they prefer to be called the “housing challenged” now.
A rose by any other name.
Fuck feelings and flowery names to assuage the feelings of the advantaged, I want results instead of a new coat of paint.
Someone once told me it was the material conditions of society that cause poverty and homelessness. But he was drunk a lot and lived with his friend, so he probably didn’t know what he was talking about.
Homeless shelters need to stop treating them like animals. Imagine picking the streets over a shelter with draconian rules.
I bet to cannot because you lack empathy with anyone in a lower socioeconomic situation than yours.
eah. im not in the san fran area, seattle, but i had a coworker who was homeless and yet they wouldnt be flexible enough to allow him to come in late from his job to get into the shelter. and it was my coworkers fault they were homeless, he let people stay with him that werent on his lease and didnt have money for get into a new place yet.
Some homeless people chose the streets because they want the freedom. They don’t want to participate in the rules of the system society provides to help them. They don’t want to live in the system, and that is their choice. Choices have consequences, but society should not be expected to tolerate their uncivilized behavior if they chose not to participate.
This take will remain ridiculous until there are systems in place to readily house (and fully assist with support services) every single houseless person to the point at which they can be self-reliant in the city they are currently in with no strings attached. Without those systems in place and showing results, asking any houseless person if they prefer to stay on the street is a poisoned question.
They don’t want to be subject to the rules.
It is our choice as a society to give them no alternative
Their “uncivilized” behavior is us dealing with the consequences of expecting them to be treated like work release prisoners.
You can’t go in with your bigger stuff, for a fair reason. ( Pests, weapons, drugs). Many avoid it on that reason alone.
But that’s not the big one.
In a bid to have full occupancy you have to line up early for daily intake. That means you don’t have time to get across town for a job interview, for food, for drugs (if you need them, no judge), for safety, etc.
So you line up early hoping to get in, essentially gambling you’ll get a spot. If you don’t you missed food, the good camping spots, etc. If you do get in you’re often only allowed a bag and have to abandon any other stuff you’ve collected.
These places need to be set up with safe isolated storage and some sort of expedited intake methods.
But then these places aren’t even safe, often folks feel safer camped out in the shadows than in a facility.
Shits fucked
too favorable to homelessness
Mate
The weather and general acceptance/generosity facilitates homelessness.
So your answer is to do nothing to help them? 100k can still feed a lot of people that otherwise would have gone hungry.
Edit: “An important reason why San Francisco policies continue to fail is that there is little or no accountability within the city’s government to evaluate the efficacy of its spending. Some of the city’s programs are so poorly managed that some homeless people likely prefer living on the streets to the facilities that are being provided to them at enormously inflated costs to taxpayers.” https://www.hoover.org/research/despite-spending-11-billion-san-francisco-sees-its-homelessness-problems-spiral-out
Sounds like the problem isn’t the homeless, it’s the people taking advantage of the system.
The problem with every form of social welfare is abuse of that system, from those who administrate and those who abuse. The most vulnerable are the victims and are made into the villains of a broken and unfixable system due to the character and moral faults of others.
Why is inhumane in scare quotes? Do you believe that the state abusing mentally ill people who often can’t even care for themselves is a reasonable course of action?
He wants all of the homeless forcibly removed from his sight, that’s all it is. He doesn’t understand providing cheap housing and easily accessible jobs homeless people can do would solve that problem, but he doesn’t care, because he thinks they’re an eyesore and that’s all he’s concerned about.
Relocation of homeless people to a more favorable economic area is “inhumane”.
60k is nothing
