11 ms·
In 2013, SF had[1] 7350 homeless population. In 2017, that number is 7499. So in spite of spending $240M/yr on homelessness, the number just keeps on increasing
by RestlessMind 9y ago
In 2013, SF had[1] 7350 homeless population. In 2017, that number is 7499. So in spite of spending $240M/yr on homelessness, the number just keeps on increasing?
I would love to see detailed stats about: churn in homeless population (how many left the streets, how many joined), where exactly do we spend our tax dollars.
And then you see infuriating headlines like this[2] and wonder if "lack of money" is even a problem or is it just entrenched interests on all sides which won't let anything happen.
[1] http://hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/San-Francisco-PIT-Executive-Summary-FINAL-6.21.17.pdf http://hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/San-Francisc...
[2] http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record-241-million-on-homeless-6808319.php http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record...
- nine_k 9y ago$32k per homeless person a year? If they relocated them somewhere with a low cost of living, and just paid this money to each of them, all these people could just have a reasonably decent life, even without working. This is, of course, just a thought experiment; it is impossible for a number of reasons.