4 ms·
> They simply cannot take care of themselves. And no one else wants to, which is part of the problem.
by mcbutterbunz 11y ago
> They simply cannot take care of themselves.
And no one else wants to, which is part of the problem.
- henrikschroder 11y agoWell, there's enormous amounts of charity that ensures noone starves to death, and there's enormous amounts of money spent by Fire departments/Police/EMT teams to handle emergencies, because those are deemed politically acceptable expenses. But those are band-aid responses that can never ever eliminate the root cause. I'm convinced that the public would spend way less money over the long term, and the affected people would be vastly better off, if they were given proper long-term care and treatment.
- 1024core 11y agoSF spends $241M/year on the homeless. That is way more money per homeless than NYC does (which spends about $1B/year, for 10x more homeless).
- pjlegato 11y agoAccording to the article, the City of San Francisco spends $242 million annually to do just that, and the City of New York spends over $1 billion to do just that. It's not that nobody wants to. Apparently the ways they are trying to take care of them now are not particularly effective.