5 ms·

> All of the money would then be spent fighting the NIMBYs who would prevent any homeless shelters from being built anywhere close to their neighborhoods If th

> All of the money would then be spent fighting the NIMBYs who would prevent any homeless shelters from being built anywhere close to their neighborhoods If this is an expected outcome, I would consider it fiscally irresponsible to propose building housing shelters in NIMBY neighborhoods and instead choose other places where money won't be wasted on litigation. There's no good reason for homeless shelters and other charitable services to be located on extremely valuable real estate and in NIMBY neighborhoods.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
michaelmrose 7y ago
If the mere perception that people might sue was sufficient to dissuade one from building at such a location wouldn't every neighborhood be a nimby neighborhood? At that point where do you build?
- malandrew 7y ago
  Those who can afford the legal costs should pursue such litigation if they think it's worth doing so. Organizations addressing homelessness are among the least able to afford such litigation. As someone who has donated to solve this problem, knowing that money is going to be wasted on litigation makes me less likely to support organizations who are going to waste it. When I donated money last year to address this issue, I donated to an organization in Texas, despite living in San Francisco, because I knew the money was going to be wasted on the problem in San Francisco. When people making 6-figures right out of college have difficulty finding stable living arrangements in a place, it's futile to try and keep people in that same place that don't have nearly the same capacity to support themselves in an extraordinarily expensive market. For many homeless people, keeping them in SF is tantamount to keeping them homeless in perpetuity because almost none of them have a chance of escaping homelessness in that environment.
tmh79 7y ago
> There's no good reason for homeless shelters and other charitable services to be located on extremely valuable real estate and in NIMBY neighborhoods There are tons of good reasons. The primary reason is that "place" is a huge determination of societal outcomes for individuals. Homeless individuals in a nicer neighborhood will on average have better outcomes (rehabilitation, returning to normal life, seeking mental health treatment) than homeless individuals in rougher neighborhoods.
- malandrew 7y ago
  I never said anything about putting them in rougher neighborhoods. You're projecting. There are plenty of places in the US where you're less likely to meet costly legal resistance where people can get rehabilitation, returning to normal life and seeking mental health treatment. Furthermore, even those services, such as rehabilitation and mental health treatment should be moved to lower cost of living markets where each dollar goes much further than in San Francisco. The salary of a social worker in SF is approximately 30% higher than some place like Dallas, TX.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

michaelmrose 7y ago

If the mere perception that people might sue was sufficient to dissuade one from building at such a location wouldn't every neighborhood be a nimby neighborhood? At that point where do you build?

malandrew 7y ago
Those who can afford the legal costs should pursue such litigation if they think it's worth doing so. Organizations addressing homelessness are among the least able to afford such litigation. As someone who has donated to solve this problem, knowing that money is going to be wasted on litigation makes me less likely to support organizations who are going to waste it. When I donated money last year to address this issue, I donated to an organization in Texas, despite living in San Francisco, because I knew the money was going to be wasted on the problem in San Francisco. When people making 6-figures right out of college have difficulty finding stable living arrangements in a place, it's futile to try and keep people in that same place that don't have nearly the same capacity to support themselves in an extraordinarily expensive market. For many homeless people, keeping them in SF is tantamount to keeping them homeless in perpetuity because almost none of them have a chance of escaping homelessness in that environment.

tmh79 7y ago

> There's no good reason for homeless shelters and other charitable services to be located on extremely valuable real estate and in NIMBY neighborhoods There are tons of good reasons. The primary reason is that "place" is a huge determination of societal outcomes for individuals. Homeless individuals in a nicer neighborhood will on average have better outcomes (rehabilitation, returning to normal life, seeking mental health treatment) than homeless individuals in rougher neighborhoods.

malandrew 7y ago
I never said anything about putting them in rougher neighborhoods. You're projecting. There are plenty of places in the US where you're less likely to meet costly legal resistance where people can get rehabilitation, returning to normal life and seeking mental health treatment. Furthermore, even those services, such as rehabilitation and mental health treatment should be moved to lower cost of living markets where each dollar goes much further than in San Francisco. The salary of a social worker in SF is approximately 30% higher than some place like Dallas, TX.