4 ms·

Using the point-in-time count as a divisor for the entire budget is so ridiculously asinine I'm shocked so many folks are engaging with it in good faith. "Let'

by jawnv6 8y ago

Using the point-in-time count as a divisor for the entire budget is so ridiculously asinine I'm shocked so many folks are engaging with it in good faith. "Let's figure out how to use that money" might begin with understanding how it's already spent. Here's a more in depth article correcting this fallacy: http://beyondchron.org/sfs-homeless-spending-myth/ http://beyondchron.org/sfs-homeless-spending-myth/ “Since the 1980’s, the media has created an impression—now shared by the public and some supervisors—that you can simply divide homeless spending ($165 million) by the homeless numbers (7000) and then give that amount of money (over $20,000 per homeless person) to get them off the streets. But most of SF’s “homeless budget” is spent on people already housed. The city is not spending $165 million on 7000 reported homeless, but on thousands more living in supportive permanent housing.” - same author, from 2014 This is dangerously ignorant analysis and I'd hope you would take some time to research where that money is spent before sharing your opinion again.

RobertRoberts 8y ago
A vital figure is missing from the article, how many people are actually being housed with that budget? If it's 10k people, that is $16,500 per person (ignoring administrative costs). So that is pretty damn effective budgeting. (roughly) But, it's 1k people that is $165,000 a person, which is piss poor. So just shouting down someone else that is missing a few numbers is pointless without all the numbers. You may end up agreeing with their sentiment if you find the end results are the same. (ie, possibly the budget is going to rich land owners pockets instead of actually helping more people)
- jawnv6 8y ago
  I'm sorry, taking a budget for homeless and homeless assistance and dividing by point-in-time count is destined for asinine useless territory no matter what information I lack. 50% of the budget is housing assistance. 10% is eviction prevention. 20% is medical care. So just napkin math and 2/3rds of the 77k/y figure is for folks outside the point-in-time count. His "sentiment" is wholly based in steadfast ignorance over what those numbers pay for. Pretending to have a firm enough grasp to _direct_ future spending when whiffing on those basics isn't as endearing as you'd think. I'm thrilled by the success of the Navigation Centers pioneered by Ed Lee. But it's really, really hard to talk about those specifics with people who just want a numerator and denominator to talk about per-person abstract figures as if policy can drop out of an equation. This may shock the HN crowd, but I live in SF and have awareness of this issue not gleaned from the immediate article. If you're going to baselessly insinuate that "rich landowners" are pocketing funds, I'd appreciate if you could name the organization you suspect? Hamilton Families? Community Housing Partnership? C'mon, lets rat out those fat cats!
  - RobertRoberts 8y ago
    A charity group for the "police and fire fighters" calls me up and asks me to donate. I ask a simple question "how is donated money spent?" I ask them to send me info on this to research before I donate and I never get any. If we can't see how the money is spent (ie, audited by an actual CPA as the ultimate) then we are all guessing as to how it's spent and who ends up with the money in the end. You are guessing unless you have seen the books. Outrage against uncontrolled and unmonitored spending is appropriate.
    - jawnv6 8y ago
      I'm sorry? I listed two specific charities that receive this money and your chosen example, wholly ignoring those two or anything approaching relevance to the topic, is "some rando scam call" you got? I really don't know what you want out of this conversation. So far beyond anything even masquerading as good-faith engagement.
      - RobertRoberts 8y ago
        I have had some experience researching charities. Just because you listed two doesn't mean they are good or spend their money ethically. (most do not) The fact that you think they are good implies that either you researched them and have proof, or you have blind faith in them. If you researched them, can you provide your sources? If you have not, why do you think they are ethical with their spending practices?
        jawnv6 8y ago
        I brought them up. You hand waved about unrelated scams from unrelated persons. The sheer gall to act like you've been engaging in good faith is remarkable. Do folks normally volunteer for your made up research quests after this much acrimony and baseless conjecture? Ridiculous.
SilasX 8y ago
The only thing "dangerously ignorant" is giving someone a free place to live on top of the most expensive real estate in the world, merely because they threaten they might be on the street instead of moving somewhere cheaper like everyone else.
- jawnv6 8y ago
  A free place to live? Which program is that, exactly? Refresh my memory if you'd be so kind. I mean, I'm certain you're not denigrating housing assistance programs for persons who lived in the city before they were homeless and painting it as dangerous outsiders getting free rent. That would be unconscionable.
  - SilasX 8y ago
    It would be “unconscionable” to object to a 90% housing subsidy (but not a 100% subsidy) for someone to live on the most valuable real estate in the world rather than moving somewhere cheaper like everyone else? Um, okay then. Forget I said anything, I guess.
    - jawnv6 8y ago
      Nah, I'm referring to how you're wildly misrepresenting your position and now presenting an exceptionally poor reading of the objection. If you manage to say anything of substance I'll be sure to recall it. But really, I'm game! Name a specific program you object to? Single out one of the nonprofits that receives these funds? I'm curious what the nice folks down at Hamilton Families did to deserve this much of your ire. I mean, it couldn't possibly be sour grapes that those lucky ducky homeless folks get to stay in smoke-drenched SF while you had to bounce to Austin like "everyone else?" How was ACL this year?

by jawnv6 8y ago

RobertRoberts 8y ago

A vital figure is missing from the article, how many people are actually being housed with that budget? If it's 10k people, that is $16,500 per person (ignoring administrative costs). So that is pretty damn effective budgeting. (roughly) But, it's 1k people that is $165,000 a person, which is piss poor. So just shouting down someone else that is missing a few numbers is pointless without all the numbers. You may end up agreeing with their sentiment if you find the end results are the same. (ie, possibly the budget is going to rich land owners pockets instead of actually helping more people)

jawnv6 8y ago
I'm sorry, taking a budget for homeless and homeless assistance and dividing by point-in-time count is destined for asinine useless territory no matter what information I lack. 50% of the budget is housing assistance. 10% is eviction prevention. 20% is medical care. So just napkin math and 2/3rds of the 77k/y figure is for folks outside the point-in-time count. His "sentiment" is wholly based in steadfast ignorance over what those numbers pay for. Pretending to have a firm enough grasp to _direct_ future spending when whiffing on those basics isn't as endearing as you'd think. I'm thrilled by the success of the Navigation Centers pioneered by Ed Lee. But it's really, really hard to talk about those specifics with people who just want a numerator and denominator to talk about per-person abstract figures as if policy can drop out of an equation. This may shock the HN crowd, but I live in SF and have awareness of this issue not gleaned from the immediate article. If you're going to baselessly insinuate that "rich landowners" are pocketing funds, I'd appreciate if you could name the organization you suspect? Hamilton Families? Community Housing Partnership? C'mon, lets rat out those fat cats!
- RobertRoberts 8y ago
  A charity group for the "police and fire fighters" calls me up and asks me to donate. I ask a simple question "how is donated money spent?" I ask them to send me info on this to research before I donate and I never get any. If we can't see how the money is spent (ie, audited by an actual CPA as the ultimate) then we are all guessing as to how it's spent and who ends up with the money in the end. You are guessing unless you have seen the books. Outrage against uncontrolled and unmonitored spending is appropriate.
  - jawnv6 8y ago
    I'm sorry? I listed two specific charities that receive this money and your chosen example, wholly ignoring those two or anything approaching relevance to the topic, is "some rando scam call" you got? I really don't know what you want out of this conversation. So far beyond anything even masquerading as good-faith engagement.
    - RobertRoberts 8y ago
      I have had some experience researching charities. Just because you listed two doesn't mean they are good or spend their money ethically. (most do not) The fact that you think they are good implies that either you researched them and have proof, or you have blind faith in them. If you researched them, can you provide your sources? If you have not, why do you think they are ethical with their spending practices?
      - jawnv6 8y ago
        I brought them up. You hand waved about unrelated scams from unrelated persons. The sheer gall to act like you've been engaging in good faith is remarkable. Do folks normally volunteer for your made up research quests after this much acrimony and baseless conjecture? Ridiculous.

SilasX 8y ago

The only thing "dangerously ignorant" is giving someone a free place to live on top of the most expensive real estate in the world, merely because they threaten they might be on the street instead of moving somewhere cheaper like everyone else.

jawnv6 8y ago
A free place to live? Which program is that, exactly? Refresh my memory if you'd be so kind. I mean, I'm certain you're not denigrating housing assistance programs for persons who lived in the city before they were homeless and painting it as dangerous outsiders getting free rent. That would be unconscionable.
- SilasX 8y ago
  It would be “unconscionable” to object to a 90% housing subsidy (but not a 100% subsidy) for someone to live on the most valuable real estate in the world rather than moving somewhere cheaper like everyone else? Um, okay then. Forget I said anything, I guess.
  - jawnv6 8y ago
    Nah, I'm referring to how you're wildly misrepresenting your position and now presenting an exceptionally poor reading of the objection. If you manage to say anything of substance I'll be sure to recall it. But really, I'm game! Name a specific program you object to? Single out one of the nonprofits that receives these funds? I'm curious what the nice folks down at Hamilton Families did to deserve this much of your ire. I mean, it couldn't possibly be sour grapes that those lucky ducky homeless folks get to stay in smoke-drenched SF while you had to bounce to Austin like "everyone else?" How was ACL this year?