3 ms·
Efficient in what sense? Lower cost? That doesn't seem likely in a city like San Francisco, where the cost of real-estate, construction, labor is sky high and
by freyr 7y ago
Efficient in what sense?
Lower cost? That doesn't seem likely in a city like San Francisco, where the cost of real-estate, construction, labor is sky high and the housing supply is extremely limited.
Helping more people? In that sense, efficiency is meaningless if it's not efficacious. And all evidence suggests that social services in places like San Francisco and Seattle are not working well, despite the hundreds of millions of dollars spend each year.
As we've also seen, housing addicts in neighborhoods where open drug use and drug dealing is tolerated is not efficient. Yet that's exactly what happens in the Tenderloin today.
It's almost too stupid to be believed.
- dredmorbius 7y agoUltimately, yes. The fixed costs may be lower elsewhere, but so too is the served population, hence, per-person costs. There's no way around this save by exclusion zones and forced concentration camps or prisons, each of which have their own exhorbitant externalities.
- freyr 7y agoAgain, per person costs don't matter if they are unsuccessful. And concentration camps? I'm not sure you know what a concentration camp is.