5 ms·

I can't help but wonder if 275M would be better spent by the city if they created a facility somewhere - anywhere - that is cheaper than the SF Bay. I'm not sa

I can't help but wonder if 275M would be better spent by the city if they created a facility somewhere - anywhere - that is cheaper than the SF Bay. I'm not saying ship the poor away and make them someone else's problem. I mean caring for people in a more cost-effective manner, and in a way that isn't just treating the symptoms. There are 6,686 homeless people in SF [1]. With a budget in the hundreds of millions, it is conceivable that all of these people can be housed and treated in an inland community in perpetuity. Many homeless suffer from mental disorders that require treatment, not just housing and food. [1]http://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/default/files/2015%20San%20Francisco%20Homeless%20Count%20%20Report_0.pdf http://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/default/files/2015%20San%20Franc...

djrogers 9y ago
Just a minor nitpick - your numbers appear to be several years out of date, as of January 2017 it's 7,499. [1]http://sfist.com/2017/06/26/2017_san_francisco_homeless_census.php http://sfist.com/2017/06/26/2017_san_francisco_homeless_cens...
- ameister14 9y ago
  Wow. The city has allocated over $36,000 per homeless person to deal with this and it hasn't improved at all? That's actually amazing.
ben_jones 9y ago
I see this opinion brought up a lot but what would the logistics be? You can't just cut or move the full 275M immediately because surely some of those funds are absolutely crucial, i.e. keeping the lights on at shelters or funding hospitals who otherwise would foot large bills.
- toast0 9y ago
  I don't think the logistics should be too hard, once you have some idea of how to do this in an ethical manner; start with a pilot program that addresses maybe 100 homeless individuals, see if it works, and if so, slowly increase the number of participants, while decreasing the scope of the current measures. In the end, even if providing services at another location is effective, you need to provide some services directly in the community anyway; and I don't think the proportion is predictable, you would need to try and see what works.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> I can't help but wonder if 275M would be better spent by the city if they created a facility somewhere - anywhere - that is cheaper than the SF Bay. Probably not. > I'm not saying ship the poor away and make them someone else's problem. But you are saying “ship the poor away”. Which is problematic, historically, to implement even locally, which is why much of that money is spent reaching then in the community. > I mean caring for people in a more cost-effective manner, and in a way that isn't just treating the symptoms. If you want to treat more than symptoms of poverty, you need to restructure the economy and society, not move the victims. > There are 6,686 homeless people in SF [1]. With a budget in the hundreds of millions, it is conceivable that all of these people can be housed and treated in an inland community in perpetuity. The number (and, even moreso, the identity of the individuals that are homeless) isn't static. Though forced relocation without any clear plan for improving the ability of people to escape homelessness will probably make the condition stickier.
- ProfessorLayton 9y ago
  I'll concede that it does indeed sound like "shipping the poor away". Historically, it meant making it someone else's problem (1-way ticket to SF) which I agree is indeed problematic, and is not what I'm advocating for. I do want to treat more than just the symptoms, but I don't think handwaving for socioeconomic restructures is a realistic way get anything done. I'm advocating for a way to make the ~30K/person go farther by not being in one of the most expensive areas of the country. Many of these people need long term mental healthcare, and is the main reason they are homeless. Our current system is not well suited at helping people with mental disorders. Perhaps I'm ill-informed and I don't pretend to have the answer, but evidenced by the fact that homelessness is a growing problem despite throwing more and more money at it. I do think we need to try another approach.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Historically, it meant making it someone else's problem (1-way ticket to SF) which I agree is indeed problematic No, even local relocation (like forcing people into shelters for services) has been problematic historically. > Many of these people need long term mental healthcare, and is the main reason they are homeless. Yes, a minority do, and institutionalization (which, generally, might as well be outside of SF) may help a fraction of that minority. Forced dislocation would also probably aggravate mental health problems for some others in (and out) of that that minority. > Our current system is not well suited at helping people with mental disorders. Sure, but “ship people elsewhere”, even if the responsibility doesn't shift, isn't a solution to that.
lowken10 9y ago
You idea is something that Marshall Brain wrote about in "Manna"... http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

djrogers 9y ago

Just a minor nitpick - your numbers appear to be several years out of date, as of January 2017 it's 7,499. [1]http://sfist.com/2017/06/26/2017_san_francisco_homeless_census.php http://sfist.com/2017/06/26/2017_san_francisco_homeless_cens...

ameister14 9y ago
Wow. The city has allocated over $36,000 per homeless person to deal with this and it hasn't improved at all? That's actually amazing.

ben_jones 9y ago

I see this opinion brought up a lot but what would the logistics be? You can't just cut or move the full 275M immediately because surely some of those funds are absolutely crucial, i.e. keeping the lights on at shelters or funding hospitals who otherwise would foot large bills.

toast0 9y ago
I don't think the logistics should be too hard, once you have some idea of how to do this in an ethical manner; start with a pilot program that addresses maybe 100 homeless individuals, see if it works, and if so, slowly increase the number of participants, while decreasing the scope of the current measures. In the end, even if providing services at another location is effective, you need to provide some services directly in the community anyway; and I don't think the proportion is predictable, you would need to try and see what works.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> I can't help but wonder if 275M would be better spent by the city if they created a facility somewhere - anywhere - that is cheaper than the SF Bay. Probably not. > I'm not saying ship the poor away and make them someone else's problem. But you are saying “ship the poor away”. Which is problematic, historically, to implement even locally, which is why much of that money is spent reaching then in the community. > I mean caring for people in a more cost-effective manner, and in a way that isn't just treating the symptoms. If you want to treat more than symptoms of poverty, you need to restructure the economy and society, not move the victims. > There are 6,686 homeless people in SF [1]. With a budget in the hundreds of millions, it is conceivable that all of these people can be housed and treated in an inland community in perpetuity. The number (and, even moreso, the identity of the individuals that are homeless) isn't static. Though forced relocation without any clear plan for improving the ability of people to escape homelessness will probably make the condition stickier.

ProfessorLayton 9y ago
I'll concede that it does indeed sound like "shipping the poor away". Historically, it meant making it someone else's problem (1-way ticket to SF) which I agree is indeed problematic, and is not what I'm advocating for. I do want to treat more than just the symptoms, but I don't think handwaving for socioeconomic restructures is a realistic way get anything done. I'm advocating for a way to make the ~30K/person go farther by not being in one of the most expensive areas of the country. Many of these people need long term mental healthcare, and is the main reason they are homeless. Our current system is not well suited at helping people with mental disorders. Perhaps I'm ill-informed and I don't pretend to have the answer, but evidenced by the fact that homelessness is a growing problem despite throwing more and more money at it. I do think we need to try another approach.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Historically, it meant making it someone else's problem (1-way ticket to SF) which I agree is indeed problematic No, even local relocation (like forcing people into shelters for services) has been problematic historically. > Many of these people need long term mental healthcare, and is the main reason they are homeless. Yes, a minority do, and institutionalization (which, generally, might as well be outside of SF) may help a fraction of that minority. Forced dislocation would also probably aggravate mental health problems for some others in (and out) of that that minority. > Our current system is not well suited at helping people with mental disorders. Sure, but “ship people elsewhere”, even if the responsibility doesn't shift, isn't a solution to that.

lowken10 9y ago

You idea is something that Marshall Brain wrote about in "Manna"... http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm