3 ms·
Yeah, if only there were some way to tackle that ratio by adding more residents. More housing means more places to house the homeless, and a broader tax base to
by Empact 8y ago
Yeah, if only there were some way to tackle that ratio by adding more residents. More housing means more places to house the homeless, and a broader tax base to support them by, thus making this an easier problem to solve.
https://yimbyaction.org/voterguide/ https://yimbyaction.org/voterguide/
- abalone 8y agoThat’s not answering my question though. Collison claims money won’t solve the problem but uses a comparison that shows nothing of the sort. How does this make sense to anyone? Did he just whiff on logic here, or is he misleading us because he’s deep into a bare knuckle political fight, or am I missing something?
- Empact 8y agoMoney alone won't solve the problem. If the system is efficient, you need just a certain amount of money to solve the problem. If the system is corrupt / unaccountable, there are endless pockets to divert the money into, and no amount of money will solve the problem.
- abalone 8y agoStill doesn’t answer my question. The insinuation that the SF system is “corrupt” is based entirely on the apparently invalid comparison. We actually spend less per homeless person than NYC. If you’re not going to answer that’s fine, but please don’t thread hijack. I’m really just looking for an explanation of what seems to be an obvious (fatal?) logical flaw in Collison’s post.