3 ms·

Note that SF already spends a large amount on the homeless http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record-241-million-on-homeless-6808319.php http

Note that SF already spends a large amount on the homeless http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record-241-million-on-homeless-6808319.php http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record... and that at least some politicians are starting to take notice http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2016/01/25/s-f-supervisor-scott-wiener-city-needs-fast-response-to-homeless-tent-camps http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2016/01/25/s-f-supervisor-scott-wie... It's not clear what the solution is to this complex problem.

m1sta_ 11y ago
Part of the solution will be a realisation that not everyone has a right to live in SF. Just like not everyone has a right to live in Newport. A part, but not a big part :)
- sandworm101 11y ago
  Or the solution may be to accept that the city owes a duty to everyone in it's boarders and cannot deport human beings based on circumstance. The city could tax the rich heavily, to the point that a balance is struck that both shelters the poor and dissuades further gentrification.
  - packetized 11y ago
    What do we do when some of the poor simply do not want to be sheltered?
  - knowaveragejoe 11y ago
    I hate that gentrification has become this bogeyman. It is the effects of gentrification that can sometimes be negative.
  - m1sta_ 11y ago
    What makes you think this duty exists? Can any person on earth move to SF and expect this to be fulfilled?
    - foldr 11y ago
      No, because of international borders. But within the USA there is freedom of movement.
  - 15charlimit 11y ago
    >owes a duty to everyone in its borders No. A local government owes a duty to tax-paying citizens who legally inhabit it. >tax the rich heavily Yes, drive out the people who are capable of starting and maintaining businesses, investing in area improvements, and spending money. That's a good idea. /s
- yoo1I 11y ago
  > not everyone has a right to live in SF. Ah, to see the American Dream expressed in such clarity in a comment on the internet. /me wipes a tear

m1sta_ 11y ago

Part of the solution will be a realisation that not everyone has a right to live in SF. Just like not everyone has a right to live in Newport. A part, but not a big part :)

sandworm101 11y ago
Or the solution may be to accept that the city owes a duty to everyone in it's boarders and cannot deport human beings based on circumstance. The city could tax the rich heavily, to the point that a balance is struck that both shelters the poor and dissuades further gentrification.
- packetized 11y ago
  What do we do when some of the poor simply do not want to be sheltered?
- knowaveragejoe 11y ago
  I hate that gentrification has become this bogeyman. It is the effects of gentrification that can sometimes be negative.
- m1sta_ 11y ago
  What makes you think this duty exists? Can any person on earth move to SF and expect this to be fulfilled?
  - foldr 11y ago
    No, because of international borders. But within the USA there is freedom of movement.
- 15charlimit 11y ago
  >owes a duty to everyone in its borders No. A local government owes a duty to tax-paying citizens who legally inhabit it. >tax the rich heavily Yes, drive out the people who are capable of starting and maintaining businesses, investing in area improvements, and spending money. That's a good idea. /s
yoo1I 11y ago
> not everyone has a right to live in SF. Ah, to see the American Dream expressed in such clarity in a comment on the internet. /me wipes a tear