5 ms·

Clearly they need to get their rich guys to start paying their fair share.

by moduspol 9y ago

ameister14 9y ago
San Francisco spends about $35,000 per homeless person in an attempt to deal with the problem.
- ajeet_dhaliwal 9y ago
  Any source for this? That sounds high, it would be enough to pay the rent for a year for each one.
  - ameister14 9y ago
    Sure, http://www.sfchronicle.com/aboutsfgate/article/Despite-money-and-work-homelessness-in-SF-as-bad-11242946.php http://www.sfchronicle.com/aboutsfgate/article/Despite-money... http://projects.sfchronicle.com/sf-homeless/numbers/ http://projects.sfchronicle.com/sf-homeless/numbers/
  - megaman22 9y ago
    Or move them somewhere less expensive and give them a solidly lower-middle class lifestyle.
    - vinceguidry 9y ago
      The "bus ticket out of town" idea's been tried over and over. Are you saying SF city money should go directly to other area's rent markets?
      - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
        > Are you saying SF city money should go directly to other area's rent markets? If SF isn't able to handle the issue themselves, then why shouldn't they use their money to help them? Should it only be the poorer areas of the country that handle the issues that the rich areas cause?
        vinceguidry 9y ago
        Now that I think about it, it isn't such a bad idea after all. You're basically moving transient welfare programs from municipal to state concerns. It would be really nice if the government of California could set something up.
        deadmetheny 9y ago
        Hacker News decides the solution to San Francisco's homeless problem is to put them on a bus and send them somewhere else.
        TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
        Nothing like a good old oversimplification to brush away a proposal to improve the lives of people. Poverty and homelessness are complex issues, especially when regional inequality gets involved. If a certain city or state is too expensive for the poor to comfortably live in, why would it be bad to send them somewhere that would be easier to live? Why could it not be part of a number of steps to tackle the problem of poverty and homelessness?
      - tomjen3 9y ago
        Rent? I am pretty sure that would cover a mortage in plenty of places[1], which is less than 500 usd month[2] over 30 years. But even if it was not, we generally buy things where they are cheap, not where they are expensive - that naturally brings up the local price. [1]: https://www.realtor.com/news/trends/ten-homes-under-100k-easy-buys/ https://www.realtor.com/news/trends/ten-homes-under-100k-eas... [2]: https://www.dollartimes.com/loans/mortgage-payment.php?length=30&amount=100000&rate=3.25 https://www.dollartimes.com/loans/mortgage-payment.php?lengt...
  - vinceguidry 9y ago
    It states in the article that many of the homeless people already have jobs or other income that would pay for housing in a less onerous property market. The problem is that they can't or don't want to move.
- citation_please 9y ago
  This really doesn't mean anything to me without a citation. Wikipedia led me to this [1] article, that states "Nearly half of the homeless money, $81.5 million, goes for rent subsidies and programs to assist the 6,355 people living in "permanent supportive housing" - long the cornerstone of the city's program for helping the down and out.". I'm not sure if the 6,355 in the supportive housing contributes to the 7000 "homeless" statistic, but dollar spent per homeless person seems like a measurement that's at best misleading and at worst a propaganda soundbyte. [1] http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/S-F-spending-on-homeless-exceeds-many-5416839.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/S-F-spendi...
  - ameister14 9y ago
    That's not nearly half the money at this point. That article was from 2014 - SF spent 271 million this past year. So spending is up over a hundred million dollars, but it doesn't seem to have solved anything.
    - vorotato 9y ago
      I think what he's saying it may be giving with the right and taking with the left.
      - ameister14 9y ago
        It really isn't, though - if you spend 270 million to combat homelessness, shouldn't some of that go to making sure people stay off the streets after you get them off?

Clearly they need to get their rich guys to start paying their fair share.

ameister14 9y ago

San Francisco spends about $35,000 per homeless person in an attempt to deal with the problem.

ajeet_dhaliwal 9y ago
Any source for this? That sounds high, it would be enough to pay the rent for a year for each one.
- ameister14 9y ago
  Sure, http://www.sfchronicle.com/aboutsfgate/article/Despite-money-and-work-homelessness-in-SF-as-bad-11242946.php http://www.sfchronicle.com/aboutsfgate/article/Despite-money... http://projects.sfchronicle.com/sf-homeless/numbers/ http://projects.sfchronicle.com/sf-homeless/numbers/
- megaman22 9y ago
  Or move them somewhere less expensive and give them a solidly lower-middle class lifestyle.
  - vinceguidry 9y ago
    The "bus ticket out of town" idea's been tried over and over. Are you saying SF city money should go directly to other area's rent markets?
    - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
      > Are you saying SF city money should go directly to other area's rent markets? If SF isn't able to handle the issue themselves, then why shouldn't they use their money to help them? Should it only be the poorer areas of the country that handle the issues that the rich areas cause?
      - vinceguidry 9y ago
        Now that I think about it, it isn't such a bad idea after all. You're basically moving transient welfare programs from municipal to state concerns. It would be really nice if the government of California could set something up.
        deadmetheny 9y ago
        Hacker News decides the solution to San Francisco's homeless problem is to put them on a bus and send them somewhere else.
        TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
        Nothing like a good old oversimplification to brush away a proposal to improve the lives of people. Poverty and homelessness are complex issues, especially when regional inequality gets involved. If a certain city or state is too expensive for the poor to comfortably live in, why would it be bad to send them somewhere that would be easier to live? Why could it not be part of a number of steps to tackle the problem of poverty and homelessness?
    - tomjen3 9y ago
      Rent? I am pretty sure that would cover a mortage in plenty of places[1], which is less than 500 usd month[2] over 30 years. But even if it was not, we generally buy things where they are cheap, not where they are expensive - that naturally brings up the local price. [1]: https://www.realtor.com/news/trends/ten-homes-under-100k-easy-buys/ https://www.realtor.com/news/trends/ten-homes-under-100k-eas... [2]: https://www.dollartimes.com/loans/mortgage-payment.php?length=30&amount=100000&rate=3.25 https://www.dollartimes.com/loans/mortgage-payment.php?lengt...
- vinceguidry 9y ago
  It states in the article that many of the homeless people already have jobs or other income that would pay for housing in a less onerous property market. The problem is that they can't or don't want to move.
citation_please 9y ago
This really doesn't mean anything to me without a citation. Wikipedia led me to this [1] article, that states "Nearly half of the homeless money, $81.5 million, goes for rent subsidies and programs to assist the 6,355 people living in "permanent supportive housing" - long the cornerstone of the city's program for helping the down and out.". I'm not sure if the 6,355 in the supportive housing contributes to the 7000 "homeless" statistic, but dollar spent per homeless person seems like a measurement that's at best misleading and at worst a propaganda soundbyte. [1] http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/S-F-spending-on-homeless-exceeds-many-5416839.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/S-F-spendi...
- ameister14 9y ago
  That's not nearly half the money at this point. That article was from 2014 - SF spent 271 million this past year. So spending is up over a hundred million dollars, but it doesn't seem to have solved anything.
  - vorotato 9y ago
    I think what he's saying it may be giving with the right and taking with the left.
    - ameister14 9y ago
      It really isn't, though - if you spend 270 million to combat homelessness, shouldn't some of that go to making sure people stay off the streets after you get them off?