4 ms·
It was mostly tech funding the opposition (Stripe, Lyft, Dorsey) and the mayor’s campaign also was funded by tech. I love how you think it’s the government’s j
by abalone 8y ago
It was mostly tech funding the opposition (Stripe, Lyft, Dorsey) and the mayor’s campaign also was funded by tech.
I love how you think it’s the government’s job to solve homelessness but then don’t want to fund the government.
- twblalock 8y ago> I love how you think it’s the government’s job to solve homelessness but then don’t want to fund the government. That's an uncharitable interpretation of my views and I don't think you're arguing in good faith. I have no problem funding good government policies. San Francisco's policies are not good. The homeless services are a total administrative and bureaucratic disaster and pumping more money into that system is not going to help homeless people.
- komali2 8y agoWell, I'm curious, and the question is being begged - how are San Francisco policies an administrative and bureaucratic disaster?
- twblalock 8y agoThere are already more 70 agencies and other organizations spending over $200 million per year of city money with little to no accountability for their spending or their results. That's before the Prop C tax takes effect. That will add another $300 million or so.
- abalone 8y agoProp C has extensive accountability mechanisms and is directly overseen by the mayor: OVERSIGHT & ACCOUNTABILITY This initiative requires an Oversight Committee comprised of nine experts on homelessness, supportive housing, mental illness, substance use disorder, and development, who will recommend funding priorities, promote transparency and cultural competence, and produce regular reports about who has been served by this fund and what still needs to be done for the Board of Supervisors. The body will also conduct a needs assessment to direct recommendations. Four seats will be appointed by the Board of Supervisors, four seats appointed by the Mayor, and one seat by the Controller’s office. Funding will be allocated into three City agencies: the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, the Mayor’s Office on Housing and Community Development, and the Department of Public Health. That funding contracted out to non-profits will be carefully overseen by contracting managers in said department. Contract managers will carefully scrutinize budgets, check receipts, payroll records, perform audits and ensure funding is spent appropriately. They will also review units of service, types of services rendered, and review client satisfaction surveys. Contracting organizations will only get paid for actual services rendered. Funding for programs that are city run will have similar oversight and accountability measures.[1] I will not accuse you of making a bad faith argument, but it’s pretty clear to anyone who actually looks that there are accountability mechanisms. The root problem is that SF spends a fraction of what other major cities do per homeless person, because budgets are stretched thin keeping people housed. SF spends just $3.8K per homeless person.[2] “No accountability” is a political lie calculated to appeal to people’s biases about government. [1] https://www.ourcityourhomesf.org/san_francisco_prop_c_2018_explained https://www.ourcityourhomesf.org/san_francisco_prop_c_2018_e... [2] https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/Businesses-must-contribute-more-to-city-s-13178743.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/Bu...
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- komali2 8y agoWhy is spending 200 million inherently bad? Why is having 70 agencies and organizations inherently bad? Your facts may be right, but I don't automatically draw the conclusion that they equal "disaster."
- twblalock 8y agoThe main problem is the lack of accountability (they can't really tell where the money is going or what results they are getting per dollar). Source: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record-241-million-on-homeless-6808319.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-recor... But it's also extremely likely that there is duplication of effort that could achieve better results if things were more coordinated. Throwing more money into such an opaque and uncoordinated system is a bad idea. I'd much rather build a better system and defund this one.
- abalone 8y agoYou’re just saying that without citing any supporting evidence. It’s fact free.
- twblalock 8y agoI added a link. There are a number of articles on the lack of accountability in this system. It's not hard to find.
- abalone 8y agoThanks for adding a link. It's from 2016 and its author, Heather Knight, is in favor of Prop C. In the years since she wrote that she has investigated SF homelessness deeply. She's detailed how very little is actually spent on the SF homeless population ($3.8K per homeless person).[1] Because it turns out the cost of keeping at-risk people from losing their housing is high due to.. you guessed it, skyrocketing costs due to the tech boom. Prop C addresses this fundamental funding problem and details specific accountability measures, which I've quoted upthread. [1] https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/Businesses-must-contribute-more-to-city-s-13178743.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/Bu...
- alonmower 8y agoMy understanding was that most of the tech opposition came from 'lower' margin businesses as it's a tax on gross receipts (revenue) vs profit so it disproportionally hurts high volume low margin businesses (like stripe, square, lyft) vs high margin software businesses (like salesforce). I think it's a little unfair to demonize Dorsey and others who do seem to genuinely want to help solve the issue, but took issue with the specifics of this measure. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-19/square-s-dorsey-sees-unfairness-in-san-francisco-homeless-tax https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-19/square-s-...
- abalone 8y agoDorsey campaigned for the gross receipts tax in 2012. In his capacity as Square CEO. Here’s a video of him doing it.[1] He had no problem with the gross receipts structure for a low margin business. He only flipped his position when it became about helping the homeless. Again this is just another superficially plausible sounding argument (along with “no accountability”, etc.) that’s just cover for opposing anything suggesting the tech industry bears some responsibility for exacerbating the homelessness situation and should pay to help. [1] https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/SF-Citi-video-plugs-in-tech-Prop-E-3930793.php https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/SF-Citi-video-plugs-...