3 ms·
EDIT: ignore this comment, the reasoning is wrong, see below. > San Francisco officially reported 8,640 homeless residents in 2002—a peak—and almost as many in
by cousin_it 6y ago
EDIT: ignore this comment, the reasoning is wrong, see below.
> San Francisco officially reported 8,640 homeless residents in 2002—a peak—and almost as many in 2019 ... San Francisco spends more per capita on homelessness solutions than nearly any other U.S. city—three hundred and thirty million dollars a year.
330000000 / 8640 = 38194
> the median monthly rent for a one-bedroom in the city is now, by one estimate, about thirty-five hundred dollars
3500 * 12 = 42000
These numbers are surprisingly close. Moreover, 1) you need one apartment per family not per person 2) you can pay below median if you buy in bulk and aren't very picky 3) many homeless have jobs.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- spaced-out 6y agoMost of that money goes to getting people like the guy profiled in the article into housing, after which they're no longer considered homeless. In other words, not all of the $330 million is for that 8,640 people, most of it is going toward housing people who would otherwise be homeless.
- cousin_it 6y agoWow, I'm stupid. Won't remove my comment, let it stay as a monument. Thank you!
- johnchristopher 6y agoI suppose that money isn't spent only on housing but on social workers salaries, vaccination campaign, STD prevention campaign, food distribution, etc., right ?