4 ms·

I agree that you are correct in principle. However, its pretty overwhelmingly clear that the denominator is not 2x the figure I cited. There has been no 2x redu

• dllthomas 7y ago
  You may or may not be drawing the correct conclusion, but your reasoning is still wrong. We should expect a 50% reduction (which is what I expect you mean by 2x) in homelessness to be implied by the money covering 2x the people you cited only if we expect the rate of homelessness to have otherwise remained unchanged. That's a terrible assumption over a period that has seen housing prices rise dramatically. Taking a quick look for some numbers before I get to work, I find that (per [0]) there are "over 20,000" receiving support in San Francisco alone, where there are (per [1]) about 8000 individuals remaining homeless. I have no idea how those compare to the rest of the state, and would welcome more info from other sources. [0]: https://sfmohcd.org/sites/default/files/Documents/MOH/SF%20Housing%20Resource%20Guide.pdf https://sfmohcd.org/sites/default/files/Documents/MOH/SF%20H... [1]: https://sfgov.org/scorecards/safety-net/homeless-population https://sfgov.org/scorecards/safety-net/homeless-population