3 ms·
I can say it's a lack of forward thinking policy. My city, for example, has a very small but visible homeless problem. The majority are housed in shelters and s
by yardie 5y ago
I can say it's a lack of forward thinking policy. My city, for example, has a very small but visible homeless problem. The majority are housed in shelters and shared housing. The remainder are the mentally, pedophiles, and physically violent. There is also a quantity of pet owners, pets aren't allowed in shelters so they chose the streets, but will use the shelter's showers. Our chronically homeless count has gone down from 8,000 to just over 1,000.
SF strikes me as nice but not kind city. If you're destitute they'll give you a dollar. But building affordable housing is too far a step.
- thatfrenchguy 5y ago> But building affordable housing is too far a step Building any housing that's not a McMansion in SF is literally almost impossible. NIMBY politics run deep in California.
- yardie 5y agoCalifornia has so many great things going for it the locals would rather it not change. So they’ll pretend it’s full. And aggravate people there to leave and convince outsiders it’s not worth going to. That’s how I interpret the laws. They are dysfunctional for a reason. Because no rational government could run this way.
- bombcar 5y agoI can understand affordable housing to help lower incomes - but couldn’t SF build housing for the actual unemployed homeless far away from the city, even unto another state?
- Seattle3503 5y agoIs this serious? Why should other states import SFs homeless problem?