3 ms·
I find it a bit ironic, that, instead of renting out the empty apartments, they jumped to hotels and paid 50%+ more than market rate. It makes sense, as it's o
by rootsudo 6y ago
I find it a bit ironic, that, instead of renting out the empty apartments, they jumped to hotels and paid 50%+ more than market rate.
It makes sense, as it's open, active and there's no real demand otherwise from business travelers or tourists.
But, wow, $8,000 a month in social services just for being in San Francisco.
That's what a low end tech person makes in SF, after taxes (approx.) 8,000*12=96,000
While it's a annual 1.5% city income tax for residents (payroll tax.)
- dogma1138 6y agoIt’s easier to negotiate with a few hotels than with 1000’s of individual landlords. It also puts them in one place where they can be easily monitored and where social services can find them. Hotels also can provide food, cleaning and laundry services which many homeless might need. Unless you have a large stock of concentrated social housing this is quite likely the most cost effective option. It simplifies negotiations, doesn’t involve housing contracts, takes advantage of existing infrastructure and available services and doesn’t trigger NIMBYism. They might be overpaying but one can easily understand why they went with this option.