3 ms·

I can think of three reasons other than outright waste and poor organization: * It's not the same 6000 every year. The number of people who are homeless in SF

I can think of three reasons other than outright waste and poor organization: * It's not the same 6000 every year. The number of people who are homeless in SF for any part of any given year could easily be several times that. * There are a few individuals who cost way, way more than that. The ones that SFFD refers to as their "regulars". The drug addicts and mentally ill who go on ambulance rides every week or more. I'm not saying they're the majority, but they certainly exist, and like any industry it only takes a few whales to add up. * Land to put shelters on is really, really expensive.

wtbob 11y ago
> The drug addicts and mentally ill who go on ambulance rides every week or more. These people are abusing their freedom and abusing free services. At what point do we either restrict their freedom or retract their free services? 'You get to do whatever you like, with no consequences' isn't a long-term plan for social success.
- contrast 11y ago
  Bottom line is, you don't. A modern society can bear the small burden this tiny slice of humanity represents; it's just immoral ones that decide they don't want to. If you're determined that there must be consequences for individuals abusing their - then prioritize the weak after you've dealt with the corruption of rich, powerful individuals, whose cost to society is far greater. Of course, the weakest are utterly powerless to prevent YOU from trying to ensure they suffer whatever meets your desire for "consequences", while there's little YOU can do about the truly powerful. This is why so many prefer to turn a blind eye to abuse of power, and focus instead on letting the powerless suffer. It doesn't make anybody's life better in the slightest. But some people seem to take comfort in it.
  - emp_zealoth 11y ago
    Im not the author of above post. Whether I agree with that post is irrelevant. Ive been reding HN since at least 2010. This is what ive got to say: Wow, the fucking downvotes are out of hand lately Ive seen so many inoffensive posts grayed out lately Don't downvote just because you disagree Please, make downvoting cost at least 10 karma (The downvoter pays, obviously) Please

wtbob 11y ago

> The drug addicts and mentally ill who go on ambulance rides every week or more. These people are abusing their freedom and abusing free services. At what point do we either restrict their freedom or retract their free services? 'You get to do whatever you like, with no consequences' isn't a long-term plan for social success.

contrast 11y ago
Bottom line is, you don't. A modern society can bear the small burden this tiny slice of humanity represents; it's just immoral ones that decide they don't want to. If you're determined that there must be consequences for individuals abusing their - then prioritize the weak after you've dealt with the corruption of rich, powerful individuals, whose cost to society is far greater. Of course, the weakest are utterly powerless to prevent YOU from trying to ensure they suffer whatever meets your desire for "consequences", while there's little YOU can do about the truly powerful. This is why so many prefer to turn a blind eye to abuse of power, and focus instead on letting the powerless suffer. It doesn't make anybody's life better in the slightest. But some people seem to take comfort in it.
- emp_zealoth 11y ago
  Im not the author of above post. Whether I agree with that post is irrelevant. Ive been reding HN since at least 2010. This is what ive got to say: Wow, the fucking downvotes are out of hand lately Ive seen so many inoffensive posts grayed out lately Don't downvote just because you disagree Please, make downvoting cost at least 10 karma (The downvoter pays, obviously) Please