5 ms·

Unfortunately, the way the system is setup, things won't change anytime soon. The reality is: often cities' homelessness departments are prime locations for emp

by ajays 16y ago

Unfortunately, the way the system is setup, things won't change anytime soon. The reality is: often cities' homelessness departments are prime locations for employing cronies and operatives. For example: the City of San Francisco spends $70M per year (about $10K per homeless person, given that the population of the homeless is just under 7K). On top of that you have churches and other charities helping out. And yet I see homeless people all around, sleeping in doorways, on sidewalks, etc. Heck, in the shadow of City Hall you'll see dozens of homeless people. But the department of homelessness (I don't recall the name of the department) was filled with people from (ex-mayor) Gavin Newsom's campaign staff (from his unsuccessful run for Governor). There is no accountability. There are no metrics on how many homeless people are in the City. All we have is a massive bureaucracy that is making a living off of claiming to help homeless people.

kevin_morrill 16y ago
Where does the $70M figure come from? Not challenging you, just want to be able to cite toe source myself. This is outrageous.
- krschultz 16y ago
  Is it? Thats $87 per citizen in SF. That accounts for 0.39% of my taxes in a given year, and I don't even make that much money because I just graduated college.
  - jonknee 16y ago
    You're paying $22k in city taxes a year and don't consider yourself making much money?
    - krschultz 16y ago
      "My taxes" != city taxes, but you probably already knew that and are trying to pivot the argument to be about me instead of about my point. That is usually a sign you can't argue my point. I'm saying, $87 a year out of my taxes is a tiny amount when you consider what you pay for other things. How much do you spend a year on defense? Since the effective tax rate is around 30% (roughly) and the defense budget is around 20% of the federal budget (roughly), I pay around 52x more for defense than for helping homeless people in a given year. Is defense 52x more important than social services? And I say this being a defense contractor who entire livelyhood depends on taxes and the military industrial complex.
      - jonknee 16y ago
        Considering the discussion was about what SF pays, I think talking about what you pay in SF taxes would make sense. But hey, that's just me.
        krschultz 16y ago
        Do you really think that the city budget is self-funded? I don't live in SF but in NYC a huge portion of the budget comes from state and federal grants. That is true even on the local town level. Almost all of the money sent to the federal and state governments is handed back down the chain with strings and stipulations attached. Otherwise, what would the state be doing? If the state spends a bunch of money on roads, it spends it on roads in towns. You might be driving down the street in your town seeing construction, but that money came from state taxes not town taxes. The same goes for programs big and samll. Medicaid is money collected on the federal level, but paid out on the state level.
- ajays 16y ago
  Oops, I was wrong. The figure is actually $150 million: http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-09-27/bay-area/24099065_1_homeless-problem-supportive-housing-permanent-housing http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-09-27/bay-area/24099065_1_ho... It is outrageous indeed. Every time I walk by a homeless person sleeping in the cold on the sidewalk, I am reminded of this figure.
gaius 16y ago
often cities' homelessness departments are prime locations for employing cronies and operatives Yeah, that is kinda the dirty little secret of the homelessness "industry". Take Shelter, by far the most well known homelessness charity in the UK. Do they actually run hostels and soup kitchens? Well, actually, and this comes as a surprise to most people, they don't. They just transfer money from their donors to "think-tanks" and well-paid consultants. It's a huge racket, but since they have glommed onto a "worthy cause" they're untouchable.
- sambeau 16y ago
  That's just not true. As you can see from their independently audited annual report most of the money they raise is spend on giving housing advice to people in trouble: http://england.shelter.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/290629/Annual_report_2009-10.pdf http://england.shelter.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/29... Money out £45.9 million; Housing and legal services: £27,809,000.
  - gaius 16y ago
    Well-paid lawyers rather than well-paid consultants, same difference.
    - NickPollard 16y ago
      I have a friend who is a lawyer that works largely giving in the housing-benefit sector, and I can tell you she is anything but well-paid. For people struggling to get by, getting legal aid to prevent them losing their house is priceless. They cannot afford to pay a lawyer, so that kind of donation to pay for one is incredibly important to them.
  - aristus 16y ago
    Actual housing, or housing advice? If I'm reading this right, they spent 355,000 on direct housing aid and grants, versus 5,400,000 on "fundraising costs". They also combined legal and housing services on the pie chart to make it look better. There is a line item for "housing services" which cost 21M and employs 441 people. But I can't find where they explain what all that money went to. It can't be housing aid because that's a separate line item. It's odd that they detail exactly where the 355K went to, but not the 21M. It's reasonable to assume the 21M is salaries for 441 people. So to a first approximation, this organization doesn't actually give out anything except advice. Their second key goal is "To make monies available to housing associations", but I only see some token grants, dwarfed by their advertising budget. That may all be well and good and necessary and proper for the situation in the UK, eg they lobby for govt funds that go direct to housing assocs. I don't know enough about it. But if their public image is of an organization that runs soup kitchens and provides housing, it's not supported by this report.

by ajays 16y ago

kevin_morrill 16y ago

Where does the $70M figure come from? Not challenging you, just want to be able to cite toe source myself. This is outrageous.

krschultz 16y ago
Is it? Thats $87 per citizen in SF. That accounts for 0.39% of my taxes in a given year, and I don't even make that much money because I just graduated college.
- jonknee 16y ago
  You're paying $22k in city taxes a year and don't consider yourself making much money?
  - krschultz 16y ago
    "My taxes" != city taxes, but you probably already knew that and are trying to pivot the argument to be about me instead of about my point. That is usually a sign you can't argue my point. I'm saying, $87 a year out of my taxes is a tiny amount when you consider what you pay for other things. How much do you spend a year on defense? Since the effective tax rate is around 30% (roughly) and the defense budget is around 20% of the federal budget (roughly), I pay around 52x more for defense than for helping homeless people in a given year. Is defense 52x more important than social services? And I say this being a defense contractor who entire livelyhood depends on taxes and the military industrial complex.
    - jonknee 16y ago
      Considering the discussion was about what SF pays, I think talking about what you pay in SF taxes would make sense. But hey, that's just me.
      - krschultz 16y ago
        Do you really think that the city budget is self-funded? I don't live in SF but in NYC a huge portion of the budget comes from state and federal grants. That is true even on the local town level. Almost all of the money sent to the federal and state governments is handed back down the chain with strings and stipulations attached. Otherwise, what would the state be doing? If the state spends a bunch of money on roads, it spends it on roads in towns. You might be driving down the street in your town seeing construction, but that money came from state taxes not town taxes. The same goes for programs big and samll. Medicaid is money collected on the federal level, but paid out on the state level.
ajays 16y ago
Oops, I was wrong. The figure is actually $150 million: http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-09-27/bay-area/24099065_1_homeless-problem-supportive-housing-permanent-housing http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-09-27/bay-area/24099065_1_ho... It is outrageous indeed. Every time I walk by a homeless person sleeping in the cold on the sidewalk, I am reminded of this figure.

gaius 16y ago

often cities' homelessness departments are prime locations for employing cronies and operatives Yeah, that is kinda the dirty little secret of the homelessness "industry". Take Shelter, by far the most well known homelessness charity in the UK. Do they actually run hostels and soup kitchens? Well, actually, and this comes as a surprise to most people, they don't. They just transfer money from their donors to "think-tanks" and well-paid consultants. It's a huge racket, but since they have glommed onto a "worthy cause" they're untouchable.

sambeau 16y ago
That's just not true. As you can see from their independently audited annual report most of the money they raise is spend on giving housing advice to people in trouble: http://england.shelter.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/290629/Annual_report_2009-10.pdf http://england.shelter.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/29... Money out £45.9 million; Housing and legal services: £27,809,000.
- gaius 16y ago
  Well-paid lawyers rather than well-paid consultants, same difference.
  - NickPollard 16y ago
    I have a friend who is a lawyer that works largely giving in the housing-benefit sector, and I can tell you she is anything but well-paid. For people struggling to get by, getting legal aid to prevent them losing their house is priceless. They cannot afford to pay a lawyer, so that kind of donation to pay for one is incredibly important to them.
- aristus 16y ago
  Actual housing, or housing advice? If I'm reading this right, they spent 355,000 on direct housing aid and grants, versus 5,400,000 on "fundraising costs". They also combined legal and housing services on the pie chart to make it look better. There is a line item for "housing services" which cost 21M and employs 441 people. But I can't find where they explain what all that money went to. It can't be housing aid because that's a separate line item. It's odd that they detail exactly where the 355K went to, but not the 21M. It's reasonable to assume the 21M is salaries for 441 people. So to a first approximation, this organization doesn't actually give out anything except advice. Their second key goal is "To make monies available to housing associations", but I only see some token grants, dwarfed by their advertising budget. That may all be well and good and necessary and proper for the situation in the UK, eg they lobby for govt funds that go direct to housing assocs. I don't know enough about it. But if their public image is of an organization that runs soup kitchens and provides housing, it's not supported by this report.