3 ms·

To paraphrase a quote I read a long time ago: you can't make a man understand something, if his paycheck depends on him not understanding it. The City spends $

To paraphrase a quote I read a long time ago: you can't make a man understand something, if his paycheck depends on him not understanding it. The City spends $240M/year on homelessness (and that doesn't include the money hospitals spend on ER visits by the homeless). There's a whole bureaucracy built around "solving" the homelessness problem; and this bureaucracy would be out of a job if the number of homeless people shrank dramatically. And that is why this problem may never be solved. The "solutions" proposed involve so much money that it makes you question the sanity of the proposer. Example: building 6,000 housing units for the homeless. Really?!? How have the dense urban housing projects turned out in other cities? And where will the billions of dollars come from? And who will maintain these units? etc. etc. Of course, these proposals are outrageous simply because the more outrageous the proposal, the more money your non-profit gets, it seems.

beatpanda 11y ago
Have you ever spent any time working for, or even around, any of these nonprofits that you so brilliantly deduce must only be in it to preserve their own jobs? I'll bet you haven't. You sould try it. Building housing for homeless people has worked great in other cities[1], and is significantly cheaper than the current alternative, which is housing them in jails or hospitals. [1] http://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-chronic-homelessness-by-91-percent-heres-how http://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-chronic...
Animats 11y ago
SF does have a moderate number of city-funded "supportive housing" units.[1] These are typically old SRO hotels now run by nonprofits, paid by the city. This sort of works. In addition to the visible homeless, there are even more "near homeless" in such facilities. It costs the city $20K - $40K per person per year in such facilities. This is called "Care Not Cash" in SF. Most of those facilities are pretty bad to live in, mostly because of the other tenants. Some people prefer living in a tent over living with crazies and druggies. "Hell is other people" applies. Until forty years ago, states ran big mental hospitals which warehoused the bewildered. The "Agnews Developmental Center", once called "The Great Asylum for the Insane", in Santa Clara was such a place. It's now an Oracle facility. In 1975, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in O'Connor v. Donaldson, that the Government does not have the power to confine people who are not dangerous, even if they are not sane. This began the shutdown of the big mental institutions. This is why homeless people can no longer be forcibly shipped to some big institution in the country and hidden away. This change, plus the decline of low-skill jobs and the rise in the cost of housing, created homelessness as a problem. Cuts in welfare didn't help. Estimates are that about half of SF's homeless are on drugs. Others are just broke. Some have skills, but the wrong ones. Printers, longshoremen - SF once had many of those. Not any more. There's no easy answer. [1] http://dishsf.org/ http://dishsf.org/ http://www.ecs-sf.org/programs/housing.html http://www.ecs-sf.org/programs/housing.html [2] http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/152/notsosupportive.html http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/152/notsosupportive.html
- nowthatsamatt 11y ago
  > Estimates are that about half of SF's homeless are on drugs. Others are just broke. Some have skills, but the wrong ones. Printers, longshoremen - SF once had many of those. Not any more. There's no easy answer. Hahahahahahah "There’s no easy answer!" I guess arresting people breaking federal drug laws is right out the window. NOTHING WE CAN DO, GUYS. TEE HEE.
eevilspock 11y ago
The man you paraphrase, Upton Sinclair (He said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"), was a socialist and would probably retort that it is your salary, your luck and privileged position, that prevents you from understanding. UPDATE: I did a little digging, and the quote is from I, Candidate for Governor and How I Got Licked, a book whose motivation was to grow support for Sinclair's End Poverty plan, which started out as his End Poverty in California Plan, the core of his platform when he ran for governor.
- ant6n 11y ago
  That the quote has a certain context doesn't mean it can't apply in different contexts.

beatpanda 11y ago

Have you ever spent any time working for, or even around, any of these nonprofits that you so brilliantly deduce must only be in it to preserve their own jobs? I'll bet you haven't. You sould try it. Building housing for homeless people has worked great in other cities[1], and is significantly cheaper than the current alternative, which is housing them in jails or hospitals. [1] http://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-chronic-homelessness-by-91-percent-heres-how http://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-chronic...

Animats 11y ago

SF does have a moderate number of city-funded "supportive housing" units.[1] These are typically old SRO hotels now run by nonprofits, paid by the city. This sort of works. In addition to the visible homeless, there are even more "near homeless" in such facilities. It costs the city $20K - $40K per person per year in such facilities. This is called "Care Not Cash" in SF. Most of those facilities are pretty bad to live in, mostly because of the other tenants. Some people prefer living in a tent over living with crazies and druggies. "Hell is other people" applies. Until forty years ago, states ran big mental hospitals which warehoused the bewildered. The "Agnews Developmental Center", once called "The Great Asylum for the Insane", in Santa Clara was such a place. It's now an Oracle facility. In 1975, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in O'Connor v. Donaldson, that the Government does not have the power to confine people who are not dangerous, even if they are not sane. This began the shutdown of the big mental institutions. This is why homeless people can no longer be forcibly shipped to some big institution in the country and hidden away. This change, plus the decline of low-skill jobs and the rise in the cost of housing, created homelessness as a problem. Cuts in welfare didn't help. Estimates are that about half of SF's homeless are on drugs. Others are just broke. Some have skills, but the wrong ones. Printers, longshoremen - SF once had many of those. Not any more. There's no easy answer. [1] http://dishsf.org/ http://dishsf.org/ http://www.ecs-sf.org/programs/housing.html http://www.ecs-sf.org/programs/housing.html [2] http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/152/notsosupportive.html http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/152/notsosupportive.html

nowthatsamatt 11y ago
> Estimates are that about half of SF's homeless are on drugs. Others are just broke. Some have skills, but the wrong ones. Printers, longshoremen - SF once had many of those. Not any more. There's no easy answer. Hahahahahahah "There’s no easy answer!" I guess arresting people breaking federal drug laws is right out the window. NOTHING WE CAN DO, GUYS. TEE HEE.

eevilspock 11y ago

The man you paraphrase, Upton Sinclair (He said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"), was a socialist and would probably retort that it is your salary, your luck and privileged position, that prevents you from understanding. UPDATE: I did a little digging, and the quote is from I, Candidate for Governor and How I Got Licked, a book whose motivation was to grow support for Sinclair's End Poverty plan, which started out as his End Poverty in California Plan, the core of his platform when he ran for governor.

ant6n 11y ago
That the quote has a certain context doesn't mean it can't apply in different contexts.