5 ms·

SF spends over $300M a year on homeless and we still have homeless people defecating openly on Market Street during the day. They don’t even collect metrics to

SF spends over $300M a year on homeless and we still have homeless people defecating openly on Market Street during the day. They don’t even collect metrics to figure out if the money is working (which it’s not) or have any accountability.

komali2 8y ago
It seems you're implying that we should pull that money out of "on homeless" (not exactly sure what that means, can you clarify?) So then what happens? The homeless die? What solution do you want?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- ekianjo 8y ago
  how about measuring the effectiveness of the programs using that money, and improving them at least even if you want to keep at the same budget? why is bad acceptable when you spend 300M a year?
  - komali2 8y ago
    Do you have evidence that the city council is not measuring the effectiveness of that money, and improving methodologies?
    - ekianjo 8y ago
      If they are, then it looks like they are pretty bad at what they are doing. And since its a public program all measurements should be public as well, by definition.
- woah 8y ago
  There’s a common refrain that “SF doesn’t spend enough money on the homeless, because they are rich and greedy etc etc. if only there was some compassion!!!!” In fact SF spends as much money on the homeless as they spend on the streets and parks. This shows that throwing money at the problem hasn’t helped.
pests 8y ago
"on homeless"? I'm sorry, but are these even people to you any more? Most might say "homeless people" at least. The current thought is not to identify a person based on their primary characteristic at all any more. These are not "homeless people." These are "people who are currently homeless." Not to point you out specifically as others in the discussion are using word choices like yours as well. Lets put the person first.
- gsich 8y ago
  And what is the primary characteristic of a homeless person? "homeless" describes it pretty good.
  - pests 8y ago
    How about being a person? Or friendly? Or a good father? When someone goes bankrupt most don't say "Oh this bankrupt person tried to [blah blah]." It just seems weird to me with homeless we replace their entire personality with the trait. The following sentences say the same thing but I feel they come across vastly different. "The mentally handicapped person went to the store." vs "The person, who is mentally handicapped, went to the store."
    - gsich 8y ago
      >How about being a person? Or friendly? Or a good father? First one is obvious, every person is ... a person. 2nd and 3rd are not determinable by looking.
      - pests 8y ago
        So then let them be people. Why do you need to distill a person down to one adjective? Anyways, I can see this is pointless. I hope your day is as pleasant as you are.
        gsich 8y ago
        I know they are people. Why do you think otherwise? Don't you think about people when you read "homeless"? Makes me wonder, since you so strongly react to it.
mac01021 8y ago
Surprisingly (to me) it seems this is approximately true [1]: > San Francisco reportedly is set to spend nearly $280 million in its next budget fighting homelessness – an average of $37,300 for each of the city’s estimated 7,499 homeless residents I live in a place where I don't see homeless people even on a monthly basis. Maybe a fuew time's per year when I've ventured an hour or more from home. So I'm sure there is a lot of nuance to the problem of homelessness that I don't understand. Still, considering these facts naively, I fail to see how such a large amount of spending can fail to address the issue: 1. $30k per year is more than enough to enable a person to be not-homeless. Rent them an apartment, buy them groceries and medical care, etc. 2. If they refuse to live in that apartment because they have itchy feet, schizophrenia, or just don't like the wallpaper, then perhaps we should suppose that they don't consider their homelessness to be much of a problem. 3. If any of those folks who don't take the city up on the free apartment do something illegal, like defecating in public, they can probably be incarcerated or institutionalized for $30k per year. 4. Some of the people from #2 might not be eliminated in step #3, because they don't break any laws. Being that that's the case, even if we consider them to be a nuisance, shouldn't we just get over it and ignore them? [1]: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/19/san-francisco-continues-to-spend-big-in-fight-against-homelessness-but-is-it-working.html http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/19/san-francisco-continues...
- kofejnik 8y ago
  > If any of those folks who don't take the city up on the free apartment do something illegal, like defecating in public, they can probably be incarcerated or institutionalized for $30k per year. Should a non-homeless person be institutionalized or incarcerated for defecating in public?
  - _exobin_ 8y ago
    Really there is a small but seriously problematic population of people in need of a high level of mental health care who I would guess are the primary perpetrators of public defecation + urination (schizophrenia, addiction/intoxication, etc.). The 1,320 homeless people needing the most aid required $106 million in emergency medical and mental health services in 2015. Putting this money to work institutionalizing these chronic cases seems like a sensible and responsible thing to do – and it isn't hard to pick these individuals out. Staff at the General know all the regulars.

komali2 8y ago

It seems you're implying that we should pull that money out of "on homeless" (not exactly sure what that means, can you clarify?) So then what happens? The homeless die? What solution do you want?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ekianjo 8y ago
how about measuring the effectiveness of the programs using that money, and improving them at least even if you want to keep at the same budget? why is bad acceptable when you spend 300M a year?
- komali2 8y ago
  Do you have evidence that the city council is not measuring the effectiveness of that money, and improving methodologies?
  - ekianjo 8y ago
    If they are, then it looks like they are pretty bad at what they are doing. And since its a public program all measurements should be public as well, by definition.
woah 8y ago
There’s a common refrain that “SF doesn’t spend enough money on the homeless, because they are rich and greedy etc etc. if only there was some compassion!!!!” In fact SF spends as much money on the homeless as they spend on the streets and parks. This shows that throwing money at the problem hasn’t helped.

pests 8y ago

"on homeless"? I'm sorry, but are these even people to you any more? Most might say "homeless people" at least. The current thought is not to identify a person based on their primary characteristic at all any more. These are not "homeless people." These are "people who are currently homeless." Not to point you out specifically as others in the discussion are using word choices like yours as well. Lets put the person first.

gsich 8y ago
And what is the primary characteristic of a homeless person? "homeless" describes it pretty good.
- pests 8y ago
  How about being a person? Or friendly? Or a good father? When someone goes bankrupt most don't say "Oh this bankrupt person tried to [blah blah]." It just seems weird to me with homeless we replace their entire personality with the trait. The following sentences say the same thing but I feel they come across vastly different. "The mentally handicapped person went to the store." vs "The person, who is mentally handicapped, went to the store."
  - gsich 8y ago
    >How about being a person? Or friendly? Or a good father? First one is obvious, every person is ... a person. 2nd and 3rd are not determinable by looking.
    - pests 8y ago
      So then let them be people. Why do you need to distill a person down to one adjective? Anyways, I can see this is pointless. I hope your day is as pleasant as you are.
      - gsich 8y ago
        I know they are people. Why do you think otherwise? Don't you think about people when you read "homeless"? Makes me wonder, since you so strongly react to it.

mac01021 8y ago

Surprisingly (to me) it seems this is approximately true [1]: > San Francisco reportedly is set to spend nearly $280 million in its next budget fighting homelessness – an average of $37,300 for each of the city’s estimated 7,499 homeless residents I live in a place where I don't see homeless people even on a monthly basis. Maybe a fuew time's per year when I've ventured an hour or more from home. So I'm sure there is a lot of nuance to the problem of homelessness that I don't understand. Still, considering these facts naively, I fail to see how such a large amount of spending can fail to address the issue: 1. $30k per year is more than enough to enable a person to be not-homeless. Rent them an apartment, buy them groceries and medical care, etc. 2. If they refuse to live in that apartment because they have itchy feet, schizophrenia, or just don't like the wallpaper, then perhaps we should suppose that they don't consider their homelessness to be much of a problem. 3. If any of those folks who don't take the city up on the free apartment do something illegal, like defecating in public, they can probably be incarcerated or institutionalized for $30k per year. 4. Some of the people from #2 might not be eliminated in step #3, because they don't break any laws. Being that that's the case, even if we consider them to be a nuisance, shouldn't we just get over it and ignore them? [1]: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/19/san-francisco-continues-to-spend-big-in-fight-against-homelessness-but-is-it-working.html http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/19/san-francisco-continues...

kofejnik 8y ago
> If any of those folks who don't take the city up on the free apartment do something illegal, like defecating in public, they can probably be incarcerated or institutionalized for $30k per year. Should a non-homeless person be institutionalized or incarcerated for defecating in public?
- _exobin_ 8y ago
  Really there is a small but seriously problematic population of people in need of a high level of mental health care who I would guess are the primary perpetrators of public defecation + urination (schizophrenia, addiction/intoxication, etc.). The 1,320 homeless people needing the most aid required $106 million in emergency medical and mental health services in 2015. Putting this money to work institutionalizing these chronic cases seems like a sensible and responsible thing to do – and it isn't hard to pick these individuals out. Staff at the General know all the regulars.