4 ms·
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,
by 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 agoThat'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 agoI think what he's saying it may be giving with the right and taking with the left.
- ameister14 9y agoIt 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?