21–30 of 312 posts
The title of this post has been editorialized to be more provocative. The NPR article is actually titled “High Cost Of Los Angeles Homeless Camp Raises Eyebrows And Questions” and is far less inflammatory than this title suggests.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no idea why people believe NPR to be progressive. The joke name "Nice Polite Republicans" exists for a reason. Liberal news coverage of homeless issues rarely takes a progressive framing, anyway.
I like NPR. But they're certainly progressive/left leaning. On the subject of homelessness, they've written many thoughtful stories: https://www.npr.org/search?query=Homelesss&page=1
The title of this post has been editorialized to be more provocative. The NPR article is actually titled “High Cost Of Los Angeles Homeless Camp Raises Eyebrows And Questions” and is far less inflammatory than this title suggests.
The NPR title esp “High cost” is somewhat clickbait; the current title just gives the number outright.
> the per-tent cost covers services, meals, sanitation and staffing OK, so $2600 gets a fair bit. Also looking at the report [1] this rate is calculated by dividing the total cost of the pilot by the duration and number of clients. So that is including one-time set up, planning and evaluation in the cost, which is probably a decent fraction of the cost as it's only an 8 month pilot. The recurring cost for extending m…
As long as the local government has tons of money doing nothing in their budget, they are going to find a way to spend it, and they're not going to care if they overpay because what else are they going to spend it on? In coastal California, the rule is never ever give that money back by lowering taxes. Taxes only go up. If there's too much money being generated by the taxes to spend, start spending it on homelessness…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. Numbers are numbers.
But it’s not per-tent is it? It per-tent-and-services-and-meals-and-sanitation-and-project-overheads. That’s misleading. > Numbers are numbers. But the number isn’t what they say it is. The phrase per-tent either intentionally or unintentionally misleads you to think that’s the cost literally for the tent and should be compared against rent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The NPR title esp “High cost” is somewhat clickbait; the current title just gives the number outright.
I disagree. The article also clarifies why that price seems higher than it actually is (e.g. the program may reduce costs of policing elsewhere in the city by providing an orderly source of food and water (which that cost also includes)). It’s a more nuanced look than what the OP’s title suggests.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. Numbers are numbers.
But it’s not per-tent is it? It per-tent-and-services-and-meals-and-sanitation-and-project-overheads. That’s misleading. > Numbers are numbers. But the number isn’t what they say it is. The phrase per-tent either intentionally or unintentionally misleads you to think that’s the cost literally for the tent and should be compared against rent.
I think LA is talking with Pallet to implement their temporary housing, which would be amazing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no idea why people believe NPR to be progressive. The joke name "Nice Polite Republicans" exists for a reason. Liberal news coverage of homeless issues rarely takes a progressive framing, anyway.
I like NPR. But they're certainly progressive/left leaning. On the subject of homelessness, they've written many thoughtful stories: https://www.npr.org/search?query=Homelesss&page=1
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it’s not per-tent is it? It per-tent-and-services-and-meals-and-sanitation-and-project-overheads. That’s misleading. > Numbers are numbers. But the number isn’t what they say it is. The phrase per-tent either intentionally or unintentionally misleads you to think that’s the cost literally for the tent and should be compared against rent.
That seems obvious, doesn't it??
Either describing the number as per-tent is misleading, or the comparison to rent is misleading. Either way, part of it is misleading.
They even basically acknowledge it’s a misleading comparison in the article!