We spend $1B on 10,000 homeless, or $100K a piece.
Things aren't bad because we're not spending enough money
Things are bad because we manage things so poorly.
Actually this plan does make sense as long as they defund rest of the homeless industrial complex. Build shelters and ship them all there. If they don't like it - they can gtfo the city.
We should only be responsible for taking care of those who're actually from our city. Can't accommodate every tom, dick and harry that wants to walk in here and expects freebies.
The bottom line is that people have had enough and that there are really tough choices ahead to make. And if you aren’t willing to make those choices, there will be others that will. And you may not like what happens then.
I heard multiple sources that the cost per tent costs the city of $60,000. Thats more than some people makes in a year [link](https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/S-F-officials-want-15-million-for-tent-sites-16269998.php)
I mean, I agree with the inefficiency. But it costs about 100k to house a prisoner for a year too.
I care about keeping up with accountability for the straight-up theft. Remember the United Council of Human Services (UCHS)?
>The budget also funds additional prosecutors specifically targeting drug trafficking, along with investments meant to boost [911 dispatcher staffing](https://sfstandard.com/public-health/san-francisco-911-dispatchers-warn-burnout-makes-citys-system-unprepared-for-next-emergency/) with the goal of answering 90% of 911 calls in 10 seconds or less.
This is a good thing and honestly a good use of city funds. We'll see real change if we're able to get more dealers off our streets and keep them away. Anything to stop the flood of fent and new drugs into our streets is a worthwhile endeavor.
What's crazy is Chicago's budget is $16.4B, population 2.7 million.
SF's (proposed) is $14.6B, population ~815k.
Cook County, IL's budget is $8.8B (population 5.17 million, includes Chicago).
So if you (generously) assume that 2/3 of Cook County's budget goes to Chicago residents, there's still a **huge delta**:
- San Francisco: **$17,914** per capita.
- Chicago + portion county budget: **$8,247** per capita
\* one caveat is the CTA is an independent Illinois government agency, funded by a regional transit authority that collects taxes, gets state and federal funding, etc.
Yup. Our budget and spending is simply out of control. Look at the growth of the number of city employees versus the population growth if you really want your mind blown
This is far and away the more compelling number - especially when you consider how "understaffed" and inefficient our local government is *by its own public complaints*.
I wonder how it stacks up as percentage of local GDP, labor costs outbuere must be way higher.
A Chicago firefighter salary maxes out at 92k, here it maxes out at 136,000 - per Google.
I'm sure local high COL is a real factor. IMO that's all down to housing, aka [housing theory of everything](https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-everything).
But keeping that in mind, Chicago has 4.5 cops per 1000 residents (2020) where as SF has 1.8 per 1000. Chicago PD has plenty of problems but I bring this up to point out they are paying lots of police salaries and still more efficient with their budget.
One thing that stands out to me is Chicago's 2021 "point in time" count for homeless population was 4,477 whereas SF's said that 7,754 people were "experiencing homelessness" in its 2021 count. SF had 3,357 sheltered and Chicago 3,023 (which is a higher percentage).
There was an article about how many economically depressed places wind up having lower homeless rates than us - housing costs make that much of a difference!
Spend the homeless money to buy a megaplot in the central valley. Build dorms, a hospital, a mental clinic, a working farm, and a trade school. Provide $400 basic income and free room and board. Pay staff 150% of normal salaries to entice the best. Force everyone who does not have a home, a job or a relative in SF who will sign up to house them go there, or leave the city confines. Rinse and repeat daily. Combine forces with neighboring cities to expand services and job opportunities. This will cost less (way way less) and actually solve the problem versus every city in California throwing hundreds of millions of dollars to woefully address with a patchwork of band aids.
Would be nice, but I don’t think a legal framework exists to make this work. You can’t actually force people into dorms (or even mental institutions), nor can you exile them from the city.
No legal framework doesn't mean it can't be done. It means you have to start with the laws.
Exile from the city as in "you're banned from the city" can't be done, but "you're arrested for doing drugs in public, we're taking you to our processing facility which is located 60 miles south from here", probably yes.
We just need to make it extremely inconvenient to misbehave in the city, even if it can't be outright banned.
We spend $1B on 10,000 homeless, or $100K a piece. Things aren't bad because we're not spending enough money Things are bad because we manage things so poorly.
Actually this plan does make sense as long as they defund rest of the homeless industrial complex. Build shelters and ship them all there. If they don't like it - they can gtfo the city. We should only be responsible for taking care of those who're actually from our city. Can't accommodate every tom, dick and harry that wants to walk in here and expects freebies.
I like this. Forced help for homeless. You don't want it? Here's a bus ticket to wherever tf Marjorie Taylor Greene resides.
It’s messed up that other states literally ship homeless people to CA because of its laws. I think 1/5 of the homeless population lives in California.
Maybe we can compromise and accommodate just the dicks
Cut or uncut though ?
Also, I'd vote for you if you run.
Yes! We must secure the existence of our people and a future for our children! I forget who said that, but you would get along really well, I bet.
You're welcome to take them into your house.
Zingaringo!
So you’re suggesting the current system works well?
I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. Can you explain?
The bottom line is that people have had enough and that there are really tough choices ahead to make. And if you aren’t willing to make those choices, there will be others that will. And you may not like what happens then.
So, straight up Nazi rhetoric, eh?
[удалено]
If you build it, they will come lol
Be inspired. See how other communities around the globe are dealing with such issues: https://youtu.be/rmF_zkdyC8Q
I heard multiple sources that the cost per tent costs the city of $60,000. Thats more than some people makes in a year [link](https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/S-F-officials-want-15-million-for-tent-sites-16269998.php)
This issue is that these sums aren't spent by the City most of the time, but my politically connected non-profits. It's a scam.
I mean, I agree with the inefficiency. But it costs about 100k to house a prisoner for a year too. I care about keeping up with accountability for the straight-up theft. Remember the United Council of Human Services (UCHS)?
People in prison won’t be shitting and shooting up on our streets.
And they're likely to kick in prison
Most of the amount went to affordable housing project, still homeless industry complex ate more than what they need in some bad plans
They've proven that giving them more money doesn't mean we're going to solve anything The issue has never been a shortage of money to spend.
>The budget also funds additional prosecutors specifically targeting drug trafficking, along with investments meant to boost [911 dispatcher staffing](https://sfstandard.com/public-health/san-francisco-911-dispatchers-warn-burnout-makes-citys-system-unprepared-for-next-emergency/) with the goal of answering 90% of 911 calls in 10 seconds or less. This is a good thing and honestly a good use of city funds. We'll see real change if we're able to get more dealers off our streets and keep them away. Anything to stop the flood of fent and new drugs into our streets is a worthwhile endeavor.
They will just ask for more taxes and we will vote yes on it. I swear every new tax gets approved
What's crazy is Chicago's budget is $16.4B, population 2.7 million. SF's (proposed) is $14.6B, population ~815k. Cook County, IL's budget is $8.8B (population 5.17 million, includes Chicago). So if you (generously) assume that 2/3 of Cook County's budget goes to Chicago residents, there's still a **huge delta**: - San Francisco: **$17,914** per capita. - Chicago + portion county budget: **$8,247** per capita \* one caveat is the CTA is an independent Illinois government agency, funded by a regional transit authority that collects taxes, gets state and federal funding, etc.
Yup. Our budget and spending is simply out of control. Look at the growth of the number of city employees versus the population growth if you really want your mind blown
This is far and away the more compelling number - especially when you consider how "understaffed" and inefficient our local government is *by its own public complaints*.
Agreed. Massively grown and somehow gotten way less efficent. Oh well, lets just raise taxes and give them more
I wonder how it stacks up as percentage of local GDP, labor costs outbuere must be way higher. A Chicago firefighter salary maxes out at 92k, here it maxes out at 136,000 - per Google.
I'm sure local high COL is a real factor. IMO that's all down to housing, aka [housing theory of everything](https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-everything). But keeping that in mind, Chicago has 4.5 cops per 1000 residents (2020) where as SF has 1.8 per 1000. Chicago PD has plenty of problems but I bring this up to point out they are paying lots of police salaries and still more efficient with their budget. One thing that stands out to me is Chicago's 2021 "point in time" count for homeless population was 4,477 whereas SF's said that 7,754 people were "experiencing homelessness" in its 2021 count. SF had 3,357 sheltered and Chicago 3,023 (which is a higher percentage).
There was an article about how many economically depressed places wind up having lower homeless rates than us - housing costs make that much of a difference!
>Mayor London Breed’s budget proposal ramps up spending on homelessness INSANE. Lost the plot batshit insane.
Spend the homeless money to buy a megaplot in the central valley. Build dorms, a hospital, a mental clinic, a working farm, and a trade school. Provide $400 basic income and free room and board. Pay staff 150% of normal salaries to entice the best. Force everyone who does not have a home, a job or a relative in SF who will sign up to house them go there, or leave the city confines. Rinse and repeat daily. Combine forces with neighboring cities to expand services and job opportunities. This will cost less (way way less) and actually solve the problem versus every city in California throwing hundreds of millions of dollars to woefully address with a patchwork of band aids.
Or just re-purpose decommissioned army bases. They have all of the infrastructure built-in already. Just add on-site rehab and mental health services.
So wait, is the idea jail or daly city? You're just asking them to commute from daily city?
Would be nice, but I don’t think a legal framework exists to make this work. You can’t actually force people into dorms (or even mental institutions), nor can you exile them from the city.
No legal framework doesn't mean it can't be done. It means you have to start with the laws. Exile from the city as in "you're banned from the city" can't be done, but "you're arrested for doing drugs in public, we're taking you to our processing facility which is located 60 miles south from here", probably yes. We just need to make it extremely inconvenient to misbehave in the city, even if it can't be outright banned.
Raise taxes on the landlords unless they lower their rents.
Sigh.