21–30 of 184 posts
Man, I did not sign up to subsidize the homeless of the entire western US, and neither did my fellow Californians. We definitely need to reduce the social programs and put that $20bn somewhere else. No matter how you slice it, $609,000/yr per homeless person is simply absurd.
Who do you trust to put twenty billion dollars "somewhere else?"
Man, I did not sign up to subsidize the homeless of the entire western US, and neither did my fellow Californians. We definitely need to reduce the social programs and put that $20bn somewhere else. No matter how you slice it, $609,000/yr per homeless person is simply absurd.
I didn't sign up to live in a world where someone's wellbeing is tied to their ability to work for someone else's benefit. We all have unchosen obligations.
Man, I did not sign up to subsidize the homeless of the entire western US, and neither did my fellow Californians. We definitely need to reduce the social programs and put that $20bn somewhere else. No matter how you slice it, $609,000/yr per homeless person is simply absurd.
Democracy is the theory that the people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.
Man, I did not sign up to subsidize the homeless of the entire western US, and neither did my fellow Californians. We definitely need to reduce the social programs and put that $20bn somewhere else. No matter how you slice it, $609,000/yr per homeless person is simply absurd.
I didn't sign up to live in a world where someone's wellbeing is tied to their ability to work for someone else's benefit. We all have unchosen obligations.
It's not our responsibility to care for the homeless of the entire western US.
Because the bay area is home to many extremely rich people who give absolutely nothing back to their communities, encourage rampant gentrification and generally despise poor people and advocate for anti-worker policies. Take a scroll through the likes of some of the famous VCs who constantly complain about SF's homelessness and crime. They tend to be more mask off far-right in their likes vs tweets (some will straigh…
Man, I did not sign up to subsidize the homeless of the entire western US, and neither did my fellow Californians. We definitely need to reduce the social programs and put that $20bn somewhere else. No matter how you slice it, $609,000/yr per homeless person is simply absurd.
You can see the spend here: https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4640
> She’s right. San Francisco is under a federal injunction that bars officials from enforcing laws against camping or sleeping in public spaces as long as its homeless population exceeds available shelter beds. As we recently explained, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment creates a right to vagrancy.
NYC has a ban against encampments because they provide shelter to homeless. Even after southern states have sent 100,000 penniless migrants to NYC, they still are able to find beds for people.
If San Francisco politicians can't create enough shelters, it's on them. There are hotels, parking lots, rec centers, etc if you have to deal with the numbers in the interim before you get housing up.
> The city of San Francisco released data last week showing that 55% of homeless individuals rejected shelter when offered it
I think it's very important to understand why people turn down the beds. There are several reasons-
* Shelters have very restricted hours, so if someone has a job that includes nights they likely can't use a shelter. A large number of homeless people are employed.
* To accept space at a shelter homeless people often have to abandon their belongings. If they have a tent, for example, these normally aren't allowed.
* Getting a bed for one night does not mean that they'll have one the second night. So throwing away their tent for one night in a bed just doesn't make sense.
* Shelters often don't allow pets, and a lot of homeless people have dogs.
> She’s right. San Francisco is under a federal injunction that bars officials from enforcing laws against camping or sleeping in public spaces as long as its homeless population exceeds available shelter beds.
There's a really, really important point here. If every homeless person accepted a bed, there still would be no where near enough to cover the homeless population. This is part of the reason people aren't willing to accept temporary shelter, as they know it's temporary (since there isn't enough for everyone the city basically rotates people around)
It's also really important to note that SF has, per capita (of population, not of homeless population), the lowest amount of shelter beds of any major city in the US. The bay area itself is even worse, as some cities don't have any shelter space at all. A huge part of this is because housing is so expensive, as is building.
This article tries to play it off as people just choosing to be homeless, but the reality is a lot more nuanced than that.