4 ms·

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.

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.