San Francisco YC donation to defeat homeless prevention measure • Hacker News Board

Re: San Francisco YC donation to defeat homeless prevention measure

#11

Post by pucallpa » Wed, Oct 24, 2018, 5:45 PM UTC

"A yes vote is a vote in favor of authorizing the city and county of San Francisco to fund housing and homelessness services by taxing certain businesses at the following rates: 0.175 percent to 0.69 percent on gross receipts for businesses with over $50 million in gross annual receipts, or 1.5 percent of payroll expenses for certain businesses with over $1 billion in gross annual receipts and administrative offices in San Francisco. A no vote is a vote against authorizing the city and county of San Francisco to tax businesses at the above rates to fund housing and homelessness services."

we should at least have the money to address the symptoms if we cannot fix the problem.

it's definitely sad to see paulg's stance on this; it just shows where his values are .

Re: San Francisco YC donation to defeat homeless prevention measure

#12

Post by eindiran » Wed, Oct 24, 2018, 5:55 PM UTC

This knee jerk reaction of claiming that Paul Graham is somehow greedy or against the homeless is disappointing. That London Breed, who ran for SF mayor on the premise of trying to fix homelessness, is opposed to Prop C is very telling.

Before San Francisco decides to spend more money per homeless person, I think we should figure out why SF is already spending so much more money per homeless person that cities like LA and New York. Just adding more money to the pot with little oversight to how it is spent doesn't seem like a good solution at all.

Re: San Francisco YC donation to defeat homeless prevention measure

#13

Post by Kalium » Wed, Oct 24, 2018, 6:11 PM UTC

pucallpa wrote: post #11

"A yes vote is a vote in favor of authorizing the city and county of San Francisco to fund housing and homelessness services by taxing certain businesses at the following rates: 0.175 percent to 0.69 percent on gross receipts for businesses with over $50 million in gross annual receipts, or 1.5 percent of payroll expenses for certain businesses with over $1 billion in gross annual receipts and administrative offices…

> we should at least have the money to address the symptoms if we cannot fix the problem.

It may be worth mentioning that there's already a budget a at work approximately equal to the $300 million prop C is expected to raise. So while there are many, many problems with this whole scenario, it's possible that there being no money to address the symptoms at hand might not be among them.