6 ms·

It's sad that one of the most richest places on Earth (the San Francisco Bay Area) is unable to house, feed, clothe and provide drug/alcohol/mental health treat

It's sad that one of the most richest places on Earth (the San Francisco Bay Area) is unable to house, feed, clothe and provide drug/alcohol/mental health treatment to a mere 10,000 homeless people. I know homelessness is more than "houselessness", but it seems like a pretty simple problem to solve. Even considering that other states bus their homeless to Calfornia, fixing the 600,000 who sleep outside (and the 1.5 million who visit homeless shelters each year) doesn't seem particularly difficult. Though obviously mobile laundromats are a complete waste of finite resources and absolutely not the way to solve homelessness.

whb07 6y ago
I volunteer you for the challenge.
pwgentleman 6y ago
Most problems seem pretty simple until one actively tries to solve them. One thing that _is_ actually simple is simply criticizing. I would argue that a lot more good has been done by individuals that decided to "do something about it" that big government initiatives.
- sonotathrowaway 6y ago
  Homelessness and home insecurity is especially pernicious, as it ties into many other issues - income inequality, zoning and city policy, mental health. That’s why it’s much easier to sit behind a keyboard and make snide remarks about people who actually act.
- wintermutestwin 6y ago
  I wonder if individuals stepping up decreases or increases the chance that government will solve problems that are clearly systemic in nature (and thus the responsibility of government to resolve). Is charity making it easier for governments to shirk their responsibilities?
  - mdip 6y ago
    > clearly systemic in nature It's surprising to me how many people believe this. Are there systemic problems? Sure. Is the only solution to solve these? I hope not. I think some would like to convince the world that this is required. I'd love to see some good, practical, options that have been tried and have been successful, but so far capitalism appears to be the one that involves the least death/suffering. Having been involved in charities, and having witnessed the destruction that a well meaning government program can bring, I'm not sure that even if charity is making it easier for governments to shirk their responsibilities that it would really be a bad thing. That's not coming from the position of "Big Government Bad(tm)" but rather a practical one -- at least as far as America is concerned, most of the money comes from Washington and it doesn't come without strings attached. It is the least efficient way to pay for something, and they are operating in a vacuum of information. A (local) charity is in the community and knows what the community needs. The money is spent very efficiently, and there's not much of it to spend. They get taken advantage of less frequently, as well. Even injecting government into that situation breaks it. Once a large amount of money is a potential outcome, criminal activity is not far behind -- you see small organizations getting formed out of larger ones, spending 90% of donations on administration (spending all of that money on the appearance of being the right, small, charity ... because the real ones don't have the budget for lobbiests).
    - wintermutestwin 6y ago
      >The money is spent very efficiently Doesn't the fact that there are systemic causes at the root of a problem means that trimming the branches is not an efficient manner of resolving the issue? Note that I am asking this as someone who spends more than 1/2 of my life "trimming the branches." Obviously, the way that government deals with systemic issues is highly flawed, but that is all tied up in the systemic issues that need to be resolved right?
- mdip 6y ago
  > I would argue that a lot more good has been done by individuals that decided to "do something about it" that big government initiatives. You couldn't be more right. "It's amazing to me in a country as rich as ours", "In a city with the wealth of San Francisco", etc... Check your calendar. How many of us did something, last year, anything (beyond voting/picketing/"complaining") that directly helped this problem? Hell, how many of us gave even $100 to an organization helping the homeless? How many of us even did the basic research to find a suitable organization to donate to (rather than just tossing that money at a charity run like a big government initiative)? There was a movement a while back to get people used to the idea of spending $4.00 for an app (you spend that much on a cup of coffee!). We have tons of government initiatives to help with poverty/homelessness. Upset that too much of our taxes are spent on war? Your donation is tax deductible. So tossing some money at a homeless support organization results in you indirectly re-balancing things. Less of your money supports things you don't and the money you've moved away from things you "do support" is being used more efficiently toward that support.
  - triceratops 6y ago
    > how many of us gave even $100 to an organization helping the homeless? I did. > How many of us even did the basic research to find a suitable organization to donate to (rather than just tossing that money at a charity run like a big government initiative)? You may sneer at "big government". But the advantage of having an efficient government that does good work is people can simply throw their money at it and assume that things will be taken care of. By making everyone do research, it increases the barrier to help for a lot of people . Not everyone has the time or knows what to look for in a good charitable org. Imagine if government health inspectors didn't exist and you had to rely on Yelp reviews and word of mouth to decide if a restaurant was clean enough to eat at. > Your donation is tax deductible. Only if you itemize taxes. Most renters do not. And it's a deduction to taxable income, not a tax credit.
    - mdip 6y ago
      > the advantage of having an efficient government that does good work is people can simply throw their money at it and assume that things will be taken care of We have the government we have. It is far from efficient, and I'm not sure how it could be more efficient at solving this particular problem since what we're really trying to "solve" is the outcome of a number of problems that took place in that person's life. Those are going to be related, sometimes, to things unique to that area which will not be solved easily from hundreds of miles away. Unfortunately, what usually occurs is this large, resource-heavy (financially both directly and indirectly) organization becomes a really attractive target for people wanting to do things other than "help the homeless". And I'm not really picking entirely on government here. There are some very large charities that have made the mistake of attempting to centrally manage these sorts of assistance programs. It doesn't work as well as moving that money to local organizations that are already demonstrating their effectiveness. > Imagine if government health inspectors didn't exist and you had to rely on Yelp reviews and word of mouth to decide if a restaurant was clean enough to eat at. I sort-of laughed at this -- I've made the opposite argument time and again. How many times have I visited Yelp before "eating adventurously" because I have zero trust[0] in the effectiveness of a government health inspector to keep me safe. Yes, they check a lot of stuff -- much of it meaningless, and it's as good as department involved, the inspector and the things they check (where I live, that can really vary, and where my family has a home, the restaurant owner was the mayor, the chief of police[0]). On the flip side, Yelp reviews have been incredibly reliable at me avoiding bad food, dirty restaurants/bathrooms and -- I suspect -- food sickness. To be clear: I'm not saying taking away government inspections wouldn't result in things being worse than they are, today. I'm simply saying that given the choice between the two, I'd feel safer in a world with Yelp and no government inspections than the other way around[1]. I don't have data to back it up, and I'm one of those people that always looks up a place before we eat (my wife usually beats me too it, though). The "fun" stories I used to hear from my high-on locker partner about how he "got that large arm bandage" cooking at Ram's Horn... you don't want to know. Outside of restaurants, I would trust a large number of positive reviews (assuming appropriate context) for a hair stylist who is unlicensed (hypothetically, since I've never really paid any attention to the funny looking document hanging by the mirror -- I assume I've never visited an unlicensed stylist, but I can't be certain) over a stylist with a license and no reviews. There's a whole lot of services I'd be willing to ditch the government side for commercial options that didn't exist when the government option was created. I don't believe there's an adequate replacement for credentialing for doctors/surgeons, but -- even in those scenarios, if I have a choice, I'm going to research the hell out of that doctor -- the government-only solutions are helpful, but they're part of a broader set of data -- much of which are not/can't realistically be provided from the government source. > ... taxable income ... ... it must have been very late at night and considering I just went through this, recently, I shouldn't have had such a large brain-fart. And yes, you must itemize. Where I live, that's extremely common (though, less so since the last tax code changes). Renting is rare because it is usually less -- on purely monthly mortgage payments -- to own. Most will choose to have more money in their pocket every month, especially if it comes with something they can sell later. Even as a deduction, though, you can have a warm and fuzzy feeling that you've slightly reduced the amount of money you pay to things you don't support (assuming you don't support the vast majority of what the government spends your money on). [0] And had tens of visible violations -- one of which wagged its tail, looked longingly at me and occasionally left a foul-smelling gift. We loved the place, were never sick, and we ate there twice most weekends for three summers (as did many local celebrities, which was one of the reasons we loved the place). [1] I've put a little though to this one over the years ... Family who owned restaurants/personal/friends/family experience in food service. I have a sibling who was a C-Level exec at the company who's logo is on all of the equipment in the kitchen (I've even seen it on flatware) at practically every legally operating restaurant in the US (look at the soft drink machine for three letters in a circle -- they're one of those weird ubiquitous logos, like UL, that once pointed out, you see everywhere)
spacebear 6y ago
It's not so much "unable" as "deeply invested in exacerbating the problem".
gruez 6y ago
> [...] is unable to house, feed, clothe and provide drug/alcohol/mental health treatment to a mere 10,000 homeless people. This shouldn't be surprising at all considering that the city is already spending money on anti-homeless programs, and the 10,000 people are the people who are homeless despite those programs. Housing those 10,000 is hard because the "easy" homeless people have already been housed, and the 10,000 left are the "hard" ones. In the same way, ensuring that your SaaS is up for 1 hour isn't really hard, but ensuring that your SaaS has less than 1 hour of downtime a year (99.99% uptime) is significantly harder.
yardie 6y ago
Other states do not simply bus their homeless to California. Their social workers will ask if they have a place to go. And if they respond they have a "cousin" in California the social worker sends them on their way. My family member is a NYC social worker and there is a bit of nudging and winking when it comes to working with the homeless. His job is to get them off the street and out the shelter and into a home. Some of that can mean purchasing bus tickets to warmer climates. Since he can't actually fly out there and verify they have a "cousin in California" he has to rely on the client being truthful. California has the unfortunate gift of being a coastal state with temperate, dry climate. Even if it was able to house all the homeless, more would show up because who wants to be homeless, wet, and cold when you can knock out the later 2 by moving to a warmer state.
carapace 6y ago
Homelessness is part of the structure of our society. If there wasn't a "hell" to avoid falling into then people would stop working.
- humbleMouse 6y ago
  Exactly.... it would cost a trivial amount to solve the issue...
  - carapace 6y ago
    Yup, yup. We in the USA have plenty of room and plenty of money, and we are a very generous and giving people overall, but we also often display a vindictive attitude toward our poor. We act like they are getting away with something when they live in tents and defecate on the sidewalk. Millions of people are unhappy at their jobs. If one could just "drop out", stop working, and be provided a decent home, enough food, and medical care some percentage of those unhappy workers would do it. People with homes and jobs actually resent homeless people, which, if you think about it, is a really weird reaction to have, eh? I'm a Bucky Fuller fan since childhood, so I've talked to a lot of people about using technology to set up a kind of utopia (economic, not political) where everyone's basic needs are met, and often folks ask, "But who would pick up the garbage?" There's a lot to unpack there. But the underlying assumption is clear: without the threat of destitution and vagrancy no one would do the unpopular or unpleasant jobs. I could go on, I could cite Freud's "Civilization and Its Discontents"[0], or talk about the Indian Wars et. al. and the tension between the New World and Old World cultures, the stigma attached to "going native", and the hideous efforts to remake indigenous people in the image of the colonist. Or we could talk about how mainstream culture tends to revile the "hippy", the "dropout" who just wants to be at peace and live in harmony with Nature. Long story, really, but yeah, the bottom line is that we have the technology to make a kind of secular economic utopia nearly overnight, and our problems now are mostly psychological or social. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_and_Its_Discontents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_and_Its_Disconten... > Freud enumerates what he sees as the fundamental tensions between civilization and the individual. The primary friction, he asserts, stems from the individual's quest for instinctive freedom and civilization's contrary demand for conformity and repression of instincts.
refurb 6y ago
Creating a rocket seems pretty simple to me when I look at the wiki page but I’m wise enough to know it’s because I’ve never tried.
xhrpost 6y ago
This seems to be a common theme, that these problems are easily solved with just a few extra dollars. I used to subscribe to this conclusion thinking government/people just didn't care. Then I found out NYC spends $3billion on the homeless problem every year! Yes you read that right, billion with a B [1]. Granted our numbers are a bit bigger, around 80k [2]. But if you think 10k could easily be solved in SF, then 80k with a 10 figure budget should do the trick no? Yet walk the streets and you'd have no idea. I still can't figure it out. You could build a massive sky scraper every year for $1B and house several thousand of them. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-citys-spending-on-homeless-hits-3-2-billion-this-year-11558562997 https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-citys-spending-on-home... [2] https://www.bowery.org/homelessness/#:~:text=people%20are%20homeless%3F-,In%20a%20city%20of%20more%20than%208.3%20million%20people%2C%20nearly,or%20in%20other%20public%20spaces https://www.bowery.org/homelessness/#:~:text=people%20are%20....
- ruined 6y ago
  3 billion for 80k people is enough to give everyone a on that list a living stipend and a dedicated full-time staff. the money is being used for something else.
- mdip 6y ago
  > easily solved with just a few extra dollars. And to that I ask this: Let's assume I could actually deliver on this promise: If I showed up at your door offering to solve this problem for the low cost of 20% of your income for the rest of your life, would you give me that money? There are two problems: (1) I can't guarantee I can deliver on this promise, and evidence would suggest that it's not a promise any person or group of people can make and (2) well, there's a variety of reasons a lot of us wouldn't accept that but it almost always falls into the category of "I worked for that money, I should get to choose what's done with it"[0] Sadly, a lot of government programs designed to solve this problem become "ways for the government to employ people". The motivation to solve the problem is missing -- even stabilizing the problem would reduce the (yearly increase to the) budget for the program, which will bring the unions out. After a while, we'll start fighting "in public" about the destruction of this "valuable program" but behind closed doors the argument is about not pissing off a special interest/lobbiest of some kind. [0] Yeah, some of us don't want to admit it but if you can't put your money where your mouth is, it's a really good idea to find out exactly why that is. If you feel it's wrong to feel entitled to the paycheck you worked for, and feel badly giving it away to something claimed a "life or death" cause, there's a moral contradiction taking place.
tablespoon 6y ago
> Though obviously mobile laundromats are a complete waste of finite resources and absolutely not the way to solve homelessness. So he should just throw up his hands and let the perfect be the enemy of the good?

whb07 6y ago

I volunteer you for the challenge.

pwgentleman 6y ago

Most problems seem pretty simple until one actively tries to solve them. One thing that _is_ actually simple is simply criticizing. I would argue that a lot more good has been done by individuals that decided to "do something about it" that big government initiatives.

sonotathrowaway 6y ago
Homelessness and home insecurity is especially pernicious, as it ties into many other issues - income inequality, zoning and city policy, mental health. That’s why it’s much easier to sit behind a keyboard and make snide remarks about people who actually act.
wintermutestwin 6y ago
I wonder if individuals stepping up decreases or increases the chance that government will solve problems that are clearly systemic in nature (and thus the responsibility of government to resolve). Is charity making it easier for governments to shirk their responsibilities?
- mdip 6y ago
  > clearly systemic in nature It's surprising to me how many people believe this. Are there systemic problems? Sure. Is the only solution to solve these? I hope not. I think some would like to convince the world that this is required. I'd love to see some good, practical, options that have been tried and have been successful, but so far capitalism appears to be the one that involves the least death/suffering. Having been involved in charities, and having witnessed the destruction that a well meaning government program can bring, I'm not sure that even if charity is making it easier for governments to shirk their responsibilities that it would really be a bad thing. That's not coming from the position of "Big Government Bad(tm)" but rather a practical one -- at least as far as America is concerned, most of the money comes from Washington and it doesn't come without strings attached. It is the least efficient way to pay for something, and they are operating in a vacuum of information. A (local) charity is in the community and knows what the community needs. The money is spent very efficiently, and there's not much of it to spend. They get taken advantage of less frequently, as well. Even injecting government into that situation breaks it. Once a large amount of money is a potential outcome, criminal activity is not far behind -- you see small organizations getting formed out of larger ones, spending 90% of donations on administration (spending all of that money on the appearance of being the right, small, charity ... because the real ones don't have the budget for lobbiests).
  - wintermutestwin 6y ago
    >The money is spent very efficiently Doesn't the fact that there are systemic causes at the root of a problem means that trimming the branches is not an efficient manner of resolving the issue? Note that I am asking this as someone who spends more than 1/2 of my life "trimming the branches." Obviously, the way that government deals with systemic issues is highly flawed, but that is all tied up in the systemic issues that need to be resolved right?
mdip 6y ago
> I would argue that a lot more good has been done by individuals that decided to "do something about it" that big government initiatives. You couldn't be more right. "It's amazing to me in a country as rich as ours", "In a city with the wealth of San Francisco", etc... Check your calendar. How many of us did something, last year, anything (beyond voting/picketing/"complaining") that directly helped this problem? Hell, how many of us gave even $100 to an organization helping the homeless? How many of us even did the basic research to find a suitable organization to donate to (rather than just tossing that money at a charity run like a big government initiative)? There was a movement a while back to get people used to the idea of spending $4.00 for an app (you spend that much on a cup of coffee!). We have tons of government initiatives to help with poverty/homelessness. Upset that too much of our taxes are spent on war? Your donation is tax deductible. So tossing some money at a homeless support organization results in you indirectly re-balancing things. Less of your money supports things you don't and the money you've moved away from things you "do support" is being used more efficiently toward that support.
- triceratops 6y ago
  > how many of us gave even $100 to an organization helping the homeless? I did. > How many of us even did the basic research to find a suitable organization to donate to (rather than just tossing that money at a charity run like a big government initiative)? You may sneer at "big government". But the advantage of having an efficient government that does good work is people can simply throw their money at it and assume that things will be taken care of. By making everyone do research, it increases the barrier to help for a lot of people . Not everyone has the time or knows what to look for in a good charitable org. Imagine if government health inspectors didn't exist and you had to rely on Yelp reviews and word of mouth to decide if a restaurant was clean enough to eat at. > Your donation is tax deductible. Only if you itemize taxes. Most renters do not. And it's a deduction to taxable income, not a tax credit.
  - mdip 6y ago
    > the advantage of having an efficient government that does good work is people can simply throw their money at it and assume that things will be taken care of We have the government we have. It is far from efficient, and I'm not sure how it could be more efficient at solving this particular problem since what we're really trying to "solve" is the outcome of a number of problems that took place in that person's life. Those are going to be related, sometimes, to things unique to that area which will not be solved easily from hundreds of miles away. Unfortunately, what usually occurs is this large, resource-heavy (financially both directly and indirectly) organization becomes a really attractive target for people wanting to do things other than "help the homeless". And I'm not really picking entirely on government here. There are some very large charities that have made the mistake of attempting to centrally manage these sorts of assistance programs. It doesn't work as well as moving that money to local organizations that are already demonstrating their effectiveness. > Imagine if government health inspectors didn't exist and you had to rely on Yelp reviews and word of mouth to decide if a restaurant was clean enough to eat at. I sort-of laughed at this -- I've made the opposite argument time and again. How many times have I visited Yelp before "eating adventurously" because I have zero trust[0] in the effectiveness of a government health inspector to keep me safe. Yes, they check a lot of stuff -- much of it meaningless, and it's as good as department involved, the inspector and the things they check (where I live, that can really vary, and where my family has a home, the restaurant owner was the mayor, the chief of police[0]). On the flip side, Yelp reviews have been incredibly reliable at me avoiding bad food, dirty restaurants/bathrooms and -- I suspect -- food sickness. To be clear: I'm not saying taking away government inspections wouldn't result in things being worse than they are, today. I'm simply saying that given the choice between the two, I'd feel safer in a world with Yelp and no government inspections than the other way around[1]. I don't have data to back it up, and I'm one of those people that always looks up a place before we eat (my wife usually beats me too it, though). The "fun" stories I used to hear from my high-on locker partner about how he "got that large arm bandage" cooking at Ram's Horn... you don't want to know. Outside of restaurants, I would trust a large number of positive reviews (assuming appropriate context) for a hair stylist who is unlicensed (hypothetically, since I've never really paid any attention to the funny looking document hanging by the mirror -- I assume I've never visited an unlicensed stylist, but I can't be certain) over a stylist with a license and no reviews. There's a whole lot of services I'd be willing to ditch the government side for commercial options that didn't exist when the government option was created. I don't believe there's an adequate replacement for credentialing for doctors/surgeons, but -- even in those scenarios, if I have a choice, I'm going to research the hell out of that doctor -- the government-only solutions are helpful, but they're part of a broader set of data -- much of which are not/can't realistically be provided from the government source. > ... taxable income ... ... it must have been very late at night and considering I just went through this, recently, I shouldn't have had such a large brain-fart. And yes, you must itemize. Where I live, that's extremely common (though, less so since the last tax code changes). Renting is rare because it is usually less -- on purely monthly mortgage payments -- to own. Most will choose to have more money in their pocket every month, especially if it comes with something they can sell later. Even as a deduction, though, you can have a warm and fuzzy feeling that you've slightly reduced the amount of money you pay to things you don't support (assuming you don't support the vast majority of what the government spends your money on). [0] And had tens of visible violations -- one of which wagged its tail, looked longingly at me and occasionally left a foul-smelling gift. We loved the place, were never sick, and we ate there twice most weekends for three summers (as did many local celebrities, which was one of the reasons we loved the place). [1] I've put a little though to this one over the years ... Family who owned restaurants/personal/friends/family experience in food service. I have a sibling who was a C-Level exec at the company who's logo is on all of the equipment in the kitchen (I've even seen it on flatware) at practically every legally operating restaurant in the US (look at the soft drink machine for three letters in a circle -- they're one of those weird ubiquitous logos, like UL, that once pointed out, you see everywhere)

spacebear 6y ago

It's not so much "unable" as "deeply invested in exacerbating the problem".

gruez 6y ago

> [...] is unable to house, feed, clothe and provide drug/alcohol/mental health treatment to a mere 10,000 homeless people. This shouldn't be surprising at all considering that the city is already spending money on anti-homeless programs, and the 10,000 people are the people who are homeless despite those programs. Housing those 10,000 is hard because the "easy" homeless people have already been housed, and the 10,000 left are the "hard" ones. In the same way, ensuring that your SaaS is up for 1 hour isn't really hard, but ensuring that your SaaS has less than 1 hour of downtime a year (99.99% uptime) is significantly harder.

yardie 6y ago

Other states do not simply bus their homeless to California. Their social workers will ask if they have a place to go. And if they respond they have a "cousin" in California the social worker sends them on their way. My family member is a NYC social worker and there is a bit of nudging and winking when it comes to working with the homeless. His job is to get them off the street and out the shelter and into a home. Some of that can mean purchasing bus tickets to warmer climates. Since he can't actually fly out there and verify they have a "cousin in California" he has to rely on the client being truthful. California has the unfortunate gift of being a coastal state with temperate, dry climate. Even if it was able to house all the homeless, more would show up because who wants to be homeless, wet, and cold when you can knock out the later 2 by moving to a warmer state.

carapace 6y ago

Homelessness is part of the structure of our society. If there wasn't a "hell" to avoid falling into then people would stop working.

humbleMouse 6y ago
Exactly.... it would cost a trivial amount to solve the issue...
- carapace 6y ago
  Yup, yup. We in the USA have plenty of room and plenty of money, and we are a very generous and giving people overall, but we also often display a vindictive attitude toward our poor. We act like they are getting away with something when they live in tents and defecate on the sidewalk. Millions of people are unhappy at their jobs. If one could just "drop out", stop working, and be provided a decent home, enough food, and medical care some percentage of those unhappy workers would do it. People with homes and jobs actually resent homeless people, which, if you think about it, is a really weird reaction to have, eh? I'm a Bucky Fuller fan since childhood, so I've talked to a lot of people about using technology to set up a kind of utopia (economic, not political) where everyone's basic needs are met, and often folks ask, "But who would pick up the garbage?" There's a lot to unpack there. But the underlying assumption is clear: without the threat of destitution and vagrancy no one would do the unpopular or unpleasant jobs. I could go on, I could cite Freud's "Civilization and Its Discontents"[0], or talk about the Indian Wars et. al. and the tension between the New World and Old World cultures, the stigma attached to "going native", and the hideous efforts to remake indigenous people in the image of the colonist. Or we could talk about how mainstream culture tends to revile the "hippy", the "dropout" who just wants to be at peace and live in harmony with Nature. Long story, really, but yeah, the bottom line is that we have the technology to make a kind of secular economic utopia nearly overnight, and our problems now are mostly psychological or social. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_and_Its_Discontents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_and_Its_Disconten... > Freud enumerates what he sees as the fundamental tensions between civilization and the individual. The primary friction, he asserts, stems from the individual's quest for instinctive freedom and civilization's contrary demand for conformity and repression of instincts.

refurb 6y ago

Creating a rocket seems pretty simple to me when I look at the wiki page but I’m wise enough to know it’s because I’ve never tried.

xhrpost 6y ago

This seems to be a common theme, that these problems are easily solved with just a few extra dollars. I used to subscribe to this conclusion thinking government/people just didn't care. Then I found out NYC spends $3billion on the homeless problem every year! Yes you read that right, billion with a B [1]. Granted our numbers are a bit bigger, around 80k [2]. But if you think 10k could easily be solved in SF, then 80k with a 10 figure budget should do the trick no? Yet walk the streets and you'd have no idea. I still can't figure it out. You could build a massive sky scraper every year for $1B and house several thousand of them. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-citys-spending-on-homeless-hits-3-2-billion-this-year-11558562997 https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-citys-spending-on-home... [2] https://www.bowery.org/homelessness/#:~:text=people%20are%20homeless%3F-,In%20a%20city%20of%20more%20than%208.3%20million%20people%2C%20nearly,or%20in%20other%20public%20spaces https://www.bowery.org/homelessness/#:~:text=people%20are%20....

ruined 6y ago
3 billion for 80k people is enough to give everyone a on that list a living stipend and a dedicated full-time staff. the money is being used for something else.
mdip 6y ago
> easily solved with just a few extra dollars. And to that I ask this: Let's assume I could actually deliver on this promise: If I showed up at your door offering to solve this problem for the low cost of 20% of your income for the rest of your life, would you give me that money? There are two problems: (1) I can't guarantee I can deliver on this promise, and evidence would suggest that it's not a promise any person or group of people can make and (2) well, there's a variety of reasons a lot of us wouldn't accept that but it almost always falls into the category of "I worked for that money, I should get to choose what's done with it"[0] Sadly, a lot of government programs designed to solve this problem become "ways for the government to employ people". The motivation to solve the problem is missing -- even stabilizing the problem would reduce the (yearly increase to the) budget for the program, which will bring the unions out. After a while, we'll start fighting "in public" about the destruction of this "valuable program" but behind closed doors the argument is about not pissing off a special interest/lobbiest of some kind. [0] Yeah, some of us don't want to admit it but if you can't put your money where your mouth is, it's a really good idea to find out exactly why that is. If you feel it's wrong to feel entitled to the paycheck you worked for, and feel badly giving it away to something claimed a "life or death" cause, there's a moral contradiction taking place.

tablespoon 6y ago

> Though obviously mobile laundromats are a complete waste of finite resources and absolutely not the way to solve homelessness. So he should just throw up his hands and let the perfect be the enemy of the good?