3 ms·

I agree, homelessness should be a national issue as part of our other care taking measures/movements (e.g. Single payer health care). That said, a solution is

I agree, homelessness should be a national issue as part of our other care taking measures/movements (e.g. Single payer health care). That said, a solution is at your doorstep, when you have a desirable place to live, like SF, you have a ton of money flowing in which you can use to take care of folks with less means that want to live in the area. $50M a year isn't too bad and if you've got the support for the money, you ought to be able to get support for some high rises (money often being the harder thing to get support for). Buy a variety of locations, the good ones go to those showing improvements (e.g. getting off hard drugs, going to school). The mid to best spots should easily be better than a tent. Add some gardening programs and community related stuff (helps mental well being). I'm in favor of the government supplying drugs with clean needless and massive disgusting adverts on the needles about how bad it is for you. Saves cost on aids and other diseases related to the problem. Bonus money if you can keep your friend clean. Try to help the community help itself. Stuff like that. Also, I can think of lots of tech that would help the situation, but there isn't a profit motive, so it doesn't exist (yet).

cobookman 10y ago
Not sure where you are getting that 50mil is all it takes number. Sf spends much more than that right now. I believe the cities cost per unit is more then 500k. 50mil of housing in sf would barely make a dent. Now 50mil in Mississippi would go a long way. Which is why I hope this becomes a national issue where we can use money from sf and use it to address the issue in cheaper places. It also might help the cheaper places economies.
- state_less 10y ago
  $50M for a marked improvement, independent of current spend. Buy houses, bottom floor public baths/shower and upper floors house 10-100x more people than low density housing. Keep at it and you'll see a difference. Was thinking ~3M for property and not sure what the construction crew wants, maybe $2-3M for 30 units (think dorm style, shared bathroom per floor housing) Hotspots get 14 day max stay, inland you stay till u you find another place. Would agree, a sister city with comparable warm weather and you might persuade people to live in other warm areas like Mississippi. Phone makes elaborating challenging , sorry about any confusion.

cobookman 10y ago

Not sure where you are getting that 50mil is all it takes number. Sf spends much more than that right now. I believe the cities cost per unit is more then 500k. 50mil of housing in sf would barely make a dent. Now 50mil in Mississippi would go a long way. Which is why I hope this becomes a national issue where we can use money from sf and use it to address the issue in cheaper places. It also might help the cheaper places economies.

state_less 10y ago
$50M for a marked improvement, independent of current spend. Buy houses, bottom floor public baths/shower and upper floors house 10-100x more people than low density housing. Keep at it and you'll see a difference. Was thinking ~3M for property and not sure what the construction crew wants, maybe $2-3M for 30 units (think dorm style, shared bathroom per floor housing) Hotspots get 14 day max stay, inland you stay till u you find another place. Would agree, a sister city with comparable warm weather and you might persuade people to live in other warm areas like Mississippi. Phone makes elaborating challenging , sorry about any confusion.