18 ms·

Just as a point of comparison, one of the programs San Francisco introduced during the pandemic was "safe sleeping sites", which are parking lots where homeless

by abeppu 5y ago

Just as a point of comparison, one of the programs San Francisco introduced during the pandemic was "safe sleeping sites", which are parking lots where homeless can have their tent without it being periodically swept by police. To that, they add chemical toilets, a water supply and (I'm not sure why) 24/7 security staff. For this, the city pays around $60k per tent site per year. I'm not sure if this is in part due to some unsavory relationship between the org administering the program and some city official. Recently the program was extended. It would be cheaper to rent apartments at current market rates, even in San Francisco. Our revealed preference seems to be that we'd rather have homeless people live in tents than have poor people get free or nearly free housing.

baron816 5y ago
The city is still giving out lots of housing. Except when the city tries to build housing, it takes many years and $800k per unit. The city has put up so many regulatory hurdles that make it almost impossible to build anything. Consider this project that would've added 19 housing units https://twitter.com/samdman95/status/1415839145386196993 https://twitter.com/samdman95/status/1415839145386196993. It was blocked because it would've increased shadow cover on Delores Park by .001% (as if SF has a shadow problem instead of a housing problem). There really is no point in the city trying to build housing for the homeless without addressing the regulatory issues first. If the city were to try to build housing for all its (by the official count) 8000 homeless people, it would cost >$6 billion.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  And solving the regulatory hurdles might also might start to reduce the homelessness problem before the city even starts giving away free units to anyone in need.
- malandrew 5y ago
  Relative to pretty much all other markets, it's practically impossible to solve homelessness in San Francisco. There are at least two major considerations. The first is the one you pointed out that there are far too many barriers. The second is that San Francisco is a fundamentally hard city to succeed in. Even competent folks with good educations and no real personal problems struggle to do well in San Francisco. If it is hard for such people, it's only going to be far more difficult for people without the same education and with many personal problems. With these two major constraints in mind, it boggles my mind that we continue to try and solve the problem in San Francisco, instead of directing all the resources to other markets without these constraints. Providing resources elsewhere and removing support in San Francisco will serve to incentivize the homeless to relocate to places where programs like housing first can be tried and where they have a chance of actually getting on their own two feet because they aren't in a hyper-competitive local market. Last time someone asked me to donate money to the homeless problem in San Francisco, I told them no, but then proceeded to donate money to a homeless program in another city (at the time I chose a program in Sacremento) because it's beyond stupid to keep putting money into trying to solve the problem in San Francisco if you actually want to see results from the money you spend on the problem. People working on this problem in San Francisco either have more heart than brains or they are part of the San Francisco homelessness industrial complex and have a vested interest in keeping these programs in San Francisco because they want to live in San Francisco and are employed in this industry. Social worker salaries in San Francisco are $60k to $100k a year. If you can pay for two to three social workers in other markets instead for the same price, why pay for such people to work in San Francisco.
  - nextaccountic 5y ago
    San Francisco can change! But only if people demand more housing to be built and stop the nonsense linked by previous comment. Its up to the people of SF to fix this.
Cpoll 5y ago
> the city pays around $60k per tent site per year Is this number missing a zero? That sounds very reasonable for use of land and 24/7 security. And at $5k a month I'm not sure how many apartments you can afford. Or is that meant to be $60k per tenant? How many people can you house in one of these sites?
- graeme 5y ago
  $60K per tenant
  - morsch 5y ago
    https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/S-F-officials-want-15-million-for-tent-sites-16269998.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/S-F-officials-w...
- bzbarsky 5y ago
  "Tent site" usually means "place for a single tent". If grandparent has the usual usage, it's $60k/tenant, unless people are sharing tents.
  - Cpoll 5y ago
    Thank you for the clarification, that makes much more sense.
- sologoub 5y ago
  It’s $5k per tent per month - you can rent 2-3 studios for that, even in SF. A similar program in LA is coming in at $2100 per rent per month, definitely enough for at least one apartment: https://ktla.com/news/local-news/east-hollywood-tent-village-meant-to-be-pathway-to-housing-at-cost-of-2140-per-person-each-month/ https://ktla.com/news/local-news/east-hollywood-tent-village... That’s the point the original article made - they were throwing money at short-term shelters and other things, just like everyone else and the problem got worse not better. Instead, doing stable housing first and applying conditions later allowed people to adapt. I suspect that they also get to re-use units the NGOs bought to house next set of people once the initial occupants have improved their situation enough. If one were to use the $2100 for mortgage payment as well, with taxes/hoa/insurance included, that would finance over $400k worth of unit.
derefr 5y ago
> and (I'm not sure why) 24/7 security staff You can lock your stuff in a house or car and walk away. You can't lock your stuff in a tent and walk away. This is the real reason for homeless people "keeping their life in a shopping trolley": they need to move their possessions around with them because there's nowhere secure to keep them. Security staff, preventing randoms from stealing these people's possessions out of their tents (or especially, discouraging them from stealing from each-other) makes a tent into something much closer to a home. ----- An alternate approach I've seen applied to my local area (downtown east-side Vancouver) is to offer something half-way between "safety deposit boxes" and "storage units" as a free/cheap service — where each homeless person gets their own assigned 53-litre storage tote, with mediated check-out to ensure nobody has access to your tote but you. This doesn't solve exactly the same set of problems — you can't usefully store your food and cooking implements in a place that's only open 9-5 — but it at least allows you to trust that your sentimental objects, small collectibles, etc. are being kept safe.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  And, sadly, to prevent random people from attacking the homeless people.
  - ralusek 5y ago
    And to prevent homeless people from attacking each other.
    - riffraff 5y ago
      Parent comment was down voted but AFAIK it's correct, many homeless people avoid shelters because they consider them unsafe due to other homeless people, some of which are dangerous to others.
      - nextaccountic 5y ago
        And that's why programs that segregate homeless people (put them on shelters, or put them on government-designated parking lots) won't ever ever succeed. You need to properly integrate the homeless into society, which in our society generally means having an apartment for each family unit.
whoknowswhat11 5y ago
"(I'm not sure why) 24/7 security staff." Despite your doubts - homeless folks are not idiots. I live near a similar site. It has a no visitor policy, 24/7 security etc. I would call it a huge success relative to the surrounding homeless impacts. The issue for the homeless and many govt run programs is that it's often easier for govt to do nothing. Ie, your stuff is stolen, visitors etc cause problems etc. A huge amount of public housing really suffered from this - despite being govt run it was worse, not better. If you can carve a (small) space, no zoning issues, tent on pallet, secuirty for your stuff and yourself, no visitors causing trouble - you can give people some basic stability in sleeping etc. As to the $60K - you need to be comparing to costs in SF generally for services for a homeless person - I'd estimate $110 - $150K (higher end is if you include the excess ambulance runs etc). So this is relatively competitive.
- onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
  Something is seriously wrong if it costs $150k per year to be homeless in SF. 6 years ago, I lived there quite comfortably making only $70k BEFORE taxes, and was able to save a decent bit per year on top of that. Even now, I /only/ spend $90k per year - and my lifestyle is quite extravagant. It's just out of control if it costs almost twice as much money to have almost nothing.
  - whoknowswhat11 5y ago
    SF does $600 million to $800 million per year just through DHSH. My guess is around 300 - 400 million through other depts (SF DPH etc). Behavioral health services alone run $500M and DPH is at $2.4 billion in their budget. I'm excluding Fire / Police / MOCD / other services (there are a ton). Rough numbers maybe $1B/year? for 8-12,000 folks? This is both very large, but SF probably only spends around 8-10% of budget on this - the SF budget is very large.
    - mardifoufs 5y ago
      That's crazy! I know american cities handle services that are handled at a provincial level here in Canada but the budget for the city of Montreal is only around 6B$ in Canadian dollars. And that's with all the costs that come from snow removal and the never ending repairs our roads need due to winter damage.
skybrian 5y ago
Consider whether you would be safe sleeping there in a tent? And how about keeping all your stuff there too? Some neighbors may have mental issues, there may be a criminal element (crime is high in San Francisco), and others (who aren’t dangerous, or even if they are) need to be protected from them. So I’m not sure this is best thought of as similar to normal housing or similar to a campsite where they can easily kick out anyone dangerous since they’re far away from the city. Instead you might compare with hospitals, nursing homes, or even prisons, but in primitive conditions and without the necessary security infrastructure. The costs aren’t going to be similar. Actual walls and doors with locks would probably help a lot to reduce the staffing needed.
harikb 5y ago
It is nearly impossible for an entity (city or state), with a limited budget and no borders to enforce, to provide a perfect solution. The “country” on the other hand is a completely different matter..
ashtonkem 5y ago
The majority sentiment appears to be that homeless people deserve to suffer to some degree, and that without pain they’ll never be properly motivated to get a job and rejoin society. The fact that this never works doesn’t really seem to dissuade anyone. No city has managed to solve the homelessness problem with anti-sleeping architecture and police crackdowns, but they’ll keep trying.
- seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  > No city has managed to solve the homelessness problem with anti-sleeping architecture and police crackdowns, but they’ll keep trying. That isn’t true, of course they’ve solved their problem using such measures…by pushing them to another city. For example, Bellevue WA will have the riot squad out pretty quickly if you so much as lay down on a bench, and it works since Seattle WA is right across the lake.
- joshribakoff 5y ago
  I don’t think homeless people should suffer but there should be rules. Instead of allowing people to ruin a sidewalk by storing 100 stolen bicycle scraps and other trash, they should be relocated to safe sleeping sites. Should tax payers have their view ruined, live in stench, and have HIV positive schizophrenic folks with an ax running into their place of business? My friend owns a business and had to stop selling merchandise due to theft. This literally happens daily here. The mayor doesn’t want to place some of these people in conservatorship which is what’s required at a certain point. (I’m aware I’ll be down voted by people who do not live here, haven’t had to call the cops for help themselves, and think I am just exaggerating)
  - noobermin 5y ago
    Your comment seems to suggest you don't actually want the situation to get better, you want people to suffer for some reason. The point is the Finland solution actually works and that's why it should be done.
    - joshribakoff 5y ago
opportune 5y ago
You can’t give apartments away at market rates to fix homelessness because about half of the homeless people are too mentally troubled/addicted to be able to handle an apartment. So you still have to pay for security and now you also have to pay for people to come and clean the apartments. Also, SF has indoor shelters and such. Including putting people in hotels. The tents, AIUI, are for people who wouldn’t be allowed in the shelters for whatever reason (like people with dogs or people who are using drugs very frequently, not allowed around children, etc.)
- joshribakoff 5y ago
  Incredible that you’re down voted for simply speaking the truth. There are literally people who fling their HIV positive blood or feces at anyone who approaches them and carry machetes and axes. They need conservatorship not an apartment
  - opportune 5y ago
    I guess what I said just sounds callous to people who are aware of homelessness but don’t have direct experience trying to help them. It’s a complex problem and there’s a reason beyond graft that it hasn’t been fixed. As with many things I’m sure 80% of the resources are going to the 20% of people who are the most difficult to handle. Many homeless people are normal people who are just very down on their luck. But those homeless people are often “invisible” to the general public since they usually don’t sleep rough, yell at people on the street, etc. Finland can probably solve it because they fund “inpatient mental health services” which is what can actually fix homelessness for the most difficult people suffering it. That is super expensive though.
    - AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
      On the other hand, you cannot force people into the wards unless they pose grave danger to themselves or the society. And the current sentiment is that yelling slurs or urinating in a subway is not grave enough to justify involuntary confinement.
eplanit 5y ago
They used to be called "Hoovervilles" [1]. San Fran can instead appropriate newly vacated office buildings and turn them into modern, high-rise versions. Because they've created the shithole that the city is now, it's frankly hard to give a damn how much more they befoul themselves. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooverville https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooverville
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dnautics 5y ago
> Our revealed preference Is this revealed preference? It's clearly due to political drag, corruption, hubris, or something that is not necessarily preferences of individuals in SF. It's not like people aren't trying. IIRC Marc Benioff (who I have no particular love for) donated 30 million to homelessness "research" to UCSF, and 17 million to various direct programs. Last homeless point in time count estimates 8k homeless in SF; let's round up to 10k; leaving aside the soft corruption that might have gone into that grant (come on, we have a probably 80% correct model of what causes homelessness), that's TWO PEOPLE who could have given enough money to go a third of the way to paying $1500mo/homeless person rent. estimating that the all-in cost for social services per person is a generous $1000/mo.... it seems that this situation is eminently solvable.
- scottLobster 5y ago
  In any democratic system the government exists with the consent of the majority of people. If solving the homeless is a priority for the constituents, they can vote out the ruling government as punishment. That hasn't happened yet, indicating it's just not a high priority for most people living in SF. The gap between voicing an opinion and taking action is large. Of course voting out the ruling government might mean voting in someone they disagree with on other issues, but this is why single issue voters get more things done politically than their "wiser" counterparts who try to consider all the variables. It's the same with the various opinion polls that make headlines showing "75% of Americans want X, so why is the government still refusing?" The simple answer is far less than 75% are willing to base their vote solely on X, whereas the opposition often is.
  - nerdponx 5y ago
    > In any democratic system the government exists with the consent of the majority of people. This is incomplete to the point of being incorrect. The correct version is: > In any democratic system the government exists with the consent of the majority of people who happen to have the time/energy/intelligence to research candidates and physically cast a vote in spite of various barriers to voting, choosing from among the small number of candidates who happen to be running.
Salgat 5y ago
The hardest part of dealing with homelessness in America is that homeless people will migrate to the best areas to live and beg, which unfortunately also means that certain cities become targets to bear the brunt of the nation's homeless expenses, which incentivizes them to try to push out homeless to make other city's/state's problem. Finland is smart by making this a nation-wide solution.
- umvi 5y ago
  Why don't all of EU's homeless simply migrate to Finland then?
  - bobthepanda 5y ago
    unfamiliarity of culture and language probably plays a big role compared to the US, where everything is available in English by default. A large amount of Finns speak English, but then that would require a person moving there to also speak English well, which I wouldn't say is a given. Also, compared to the moderate Mediterranean climate of, say, SF, Finland has very harsh winters, which would make it very unattractive for sleeping outdoors.
  - maqp 5y ago
    "You cannot secure your means of support with benefits paid by the society." See more info under "income requirement" under https://migri.fi/en/residence-permit-on-other-grounds https://migri.fi/en/residence-permit-on-other-grounds Sure, you can apply for e.g. political asylum, but even then some restriction apply.
  - gsnedders 5y ago
    There's a bunch of complexity in EU law around certain benefits, housing and unemployment benefits among them. Those who weren't already resident in Finland, Finland doesn't have any responsibility towards.
  - stepanhruda 5y ago
    Language and cultural barrier. Moving between EU countries is a much bigger psychological deal than between US states. Also, Finland’s weather is a negative if you are homeless.
joshribakoff 5y ago
Currently people experiencing homelessness can effectively sleep anywhere without being sweeped by the city. The police department lets me know they cannot physically move the tents without an eviction process and can only issue a misdemeanor which only entails fines that these people most likely will not pay anyway. The police department lets me know this is Chessea Boudin’s policy and that all they can do without a court order is ask the homeless people to move nicely. By Fulton and Great Highway there are often lines of cars to buy drugs from people living in this one RV who apparently have a “right” to be there. Police state the individuals turn down the help offered by the homeless outreach team. The individuals turn the area into a literal dump, junk yard, and trap. (I’m aware I’ll be down voted by people who do not live here, haven’t had to call the cops for help themselves, and think I am just exaggerating)
- swearwolf 5y ago
  For the record, this kind of thing is absolutely happening in San Francisco, and it’s happening in other West Coast cities as well, like Portland. The OP is a little off in their attribution. The biggest cause of this is the 9th Circuit ruling in Martin v. Boise, which dictated that cities cannot force a person not to camp on public land unless they can offer a meaningful alternative. Cities have built their own policies to deal with this, and then multiple cities on the West Coast also elected progressive District Attorneys, who explicitly consider things like what the OP is describing to be “non-violent” crimes, and therefore not a priority. Here’s what San Francisco DA Chesa Boudin said about this: “We will not prosecute cases involving quality-of-life crimes," he said. "Crimes such as public camping, offering or soliciting sex, public urination, blocking a sidewalk, etc., should not and will not be prosecuted. Many of these crimes are still being prosecuted; we have a long way to go to decriminalize poverty and homelessness.” That’s a noble goal, but it comes with a HUGE blind spot - namely the intersection of homelessness and criminality. The apparent implication is that the citizens impacted by these “quality of life crimes” can go pound sand.
jlmorton 5y ago
> It would be cheaper to rent apartments at current market rates, even in San Francisc Indeed it would, but that is not a realistic option. These are high needs groups, many with severe mental disorders and drug addictions. It is an embarrassment that we don't have better infrastructure to serve these groups, but it's tough renting out market rate apartments to serve them. Landlords of course have to agree. SF is able to do this with custom-built housing, or Project Roomkey, but it's not like we can find 4,500 private apartments where landlords will happily put up a schizophrenic guy with a meth addiction. It's also worth pointing out that $60k for these sites is not just payment for shelter. It includes three meals a day, social services, security, sanitation.
- noobermin 5y ago
  May be for some of the houseless but many don't have mental disorders or drug addictions, many people are just down on their luck. Also, pretty sure Finland has people with those issues as well.
  - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
    That isn’t a given. It could be that the standard strong social safety net is enough to keep people without substance abuse or mental illness problems out of homelessness. It would be interesting to do an honest accounting, at any rate.
    - noobermin 5y ago
      Are you saying talking about the social safety net in Finland or the US? I don't understand the argument you're making, if anything the weakness of the social safety net in the US bolsters my argument that a larger fraction of homeless people in the US are just down on their luck relative to the fraction of homeless people in Finland. EDIT: In order to avoid deepening the thread, may you restate your point so that I can understand what you mean?
      - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
pkdpic_y9k 5y ago
With that 60k number on the table Im wondering where people think a universal basic income might fit into this discussion?
- seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  UBI would work well for some homeless and would be a disaster for others (those with severe substance abuse issues).
  - maqp 5y ago
    What's the actual percentage of homeless people with severe substance abuse problem (i.e. one where its ~daily and they wouldn't agree to treatment)? This comment makes it sound like it applies to something like 50% of SF homeless and that can't be right.
    - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
      For the long term chronic homeless, pretty high (that and/or mental illness). For the less chronic short term homeless, not high at all (or they wouldn’t be short term).
    - HideousKojima 5y ago
      It actually is about 50%: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/programs_campaigns/homelessness_programs_resources/hrc-factsheet-current-statistics-prevalence-characteristics-homelessness.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjRh-2D2v7xAhWBvZ4KHbpSArIQFjABegQIAxAG&usg=AOvVaw2E8bKDNX8sdr2TqHLXmSJT https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/...
      - maqp 5y ago
        I'm sorry, where on that 23 page document does it say 50%? On Page 2 it says "On a given night in January 2010" -- "26.2% of all sheltered persons who were homeless had a severe mental illness" and "34.7% of all sheltered adults who were homeless had chronic substance use issues" of course that was 10 years ago, so I wouldn't be surprised if it has increased but still, I'd prefer more accurate numbers. Did I look at wrong page?
ralusek 5y ago
My revealed preference is that, due to the economic surplus produced by economic liberty, we have the luxury of being able to allocate resources to individuals in need. A luxury, mind you, in no way guaranteed by the conditions of nature. Now, given that we have the resources in order to allocate some resources to individuals in need, I think it's a perfectly serviceable objective to provide housing for those unable to house themselves. I don't, however, think it's a perfectly serviceable objective to provide housing for those unable to house themselves by saying that they have a right to remain on an extremely space-constrained peninsula which has led to one of the most competitive and expensive real estate markets on the entire planet. So to reiterate my revealed preference: no I don't think the homeless should be housed in tents in SF, and neither do I think that they have a right to be housed anywhere in SF. I think that we have the luxury of surplus resources to provide housing for those in need, but I think that this housing should be built in an area that is not space constrained, and is as economically viable as possible.
- nradov 5y ago
  So send all the homeless people to Bakersfield then? I wonder how the current residents of Bakersfield would feel about that.
  - ralusek 5y ago
    There's a lot of space in this country.
ineedasername 5y ago
The causes of homelessness may be different in SF vs. Finland. Mental health & drug addiction are common problems among long-term homeless in the US. Resolving homelessness requires better solutions to those issues as well.
- maqp 5y ago
  You need both, like here in Finland. E.g. see info on housing under https://www.espoo.fi/en-US/Social_and_health_services/Health_Services/Mental_health_and_substance_abuse_services https://www.espoo.fi/en-US/Social_and_health_services/Health...
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    Thanks for the reference, pretty much as I would expect things to be. Homelessness doesn't just happen, there's a cause that must be dealt with.
- kebman 5y ago
  As far as I can see, Finland has some of the lowest drug abuse in the world, so it stands to reason that providing homes is more affordable for them. As far as I remember, they used to have a bigger problem with alcohol than their Nordic neighbours, but I'm unsure if this is still the case.
kebman 5y ago
An important difference is that Helsinki regularly has temperatures down to -7°C or 19.4°F in the winter, on average. While you can live in tents at those temperatures, given well insulated sleeping bags and clothes, it's not exactly comfortable. And for people with drug or mental issues it can be deadly, say, if they're too far gone to take the proper precautions. Meanwhile San Fran winter temps are as far as I can see about 14°C or 52.2°F on average. But yeah, if the cost you're indicating is true, then it's completely outrageous. Though it's not the first time I've heard about high costs involved with social cases in the West. I suspect some of it is political, but some might also be due to simple profiteering since these people doesn't exactly present a strong political lobby themselves.
dehrmann 5y ago
> $60k per tent site per year...It would be cheaper to rent apartments at current market rates, even in San Francisco. That's $5k per month. Absolute best case, that's two one-bedroom apartments, so 6 people? Surely there are more than 6 people at the tent site.
- cldellow 5y ago
  No, the price seems to be $5k per _person_ per month: https://californiaglobe.com/section-2/sf-homeless-department-stuns-budget-committee-with-16-1-million-tent-program-revelation/ https://californiaglobe.com/section-2/sf-homeless-department...
  - LegitShady 5y ago
    At those prices some consultant/contractor/vendor must be getting outrageously rich.
dogorman 5y ago
> and (I'm not sure why) 24/7 security staff Are you trying to make some sort of point with a show of feigned ignorance, or do you really not get it? Security is the second rung on Maslow's hierarchy of needs, one of the most basic needs. You may as well write "and (I'm not sure why) water". Baffling. Any human being should be able to understand this need without having it explained to them.
zhoujianfu 5y ago
How many tents fit in one of those sites? $5K a month for maybe 50 people seems pretty affordable ($100/mo)?
- dannyr 5y ago
  It's 60K PER tent!
- dmlerner 5y ago
  It's 5k/mo/tent, not 5k/mo total.
baybal2 5y ago
> To that, they add chemical toilets, a water supply and (I'm not sure why) 24/7 security staff. For this, the city pays around $60k per tent site per year. This is ridiculous, it's more than enough for annual rent of a very decent apartment. The fact that a mighty country of America can't fix such a trivial problem shocks me. With countless billions thrown onto the problem, they can equally well build a few blocks of luxury skyscraper apartments, and give them away. Literally, for these money you can build an apartment block somewhere in Dubai.
- selectodude 5y ago
  You going to put a parking lot full of people into an apartment?
  - baybal2 5y ago
    I mean such money will be enough for multiple apartments. And with West Coast states allegedly spending countless billions on "doing something" about homelessness, just giving away luxury apartments doesn't sound that crazy in comparison to these digits.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mioasndo 5y ago
> For this, the city pays around $60k per tent site per year. I'm not sure if this is in part due to some unsavory relationship between the org administering the program and some city official. Recently the program was extended. It would be cheaper to rent apartments at current market rates, even in San Francisco. 60k per tent site, as in - multiple, like a dozen, tents? Or 60k per tent?
- option 5y ago
  60k per single tent
  - mioasndo 5y ago
    Wow, that's almost double the median individual income.
option 5y ago
people living in tents in SF are not just “poor” - many have severe mental health issues and drug addiction. In fact, many are there because of SF’s open-air drug market. My point is that the program you mentioned is even crazier and more cruel and wasteful. We need many of these people booked into the rehab (mandatory if needed) and then subsidize cheap apartments for them.
JamesBarney 5y ago
> For this, the city pays around $60k per tent site per year Is that 60k per tent site or per tent?
devwastaken 5y ago
Renters would rather have empty rooms than homeless. No commercial renter references, no full time employment, even a hint of "homeless" = no apartment. Friend in Canada is purely disabled along with their relative, and lives on disability - which is guaranteed rent. Renters wanted nothing to do with them. They had to go to a government agency that locates housing based on income, and they only got that because their parents cosigned and the landlord was nice.
durpkingOP 5y ago
How does it only cost $60k when 1 individual security guard would be homeless earning only $60k themselves in a year in San Francisco?
tdeck 5y ago
Presumably this is the source for that number, for those who might be interested in digging further: https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/article/S-F-pays-61-000-a-year-for-one-tent-to-house-16001074.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/article/S-F-pays-61-000-a-...
re-al 5y ago
"Our revealed preference seems to be that we'd rather have homeless people live in tents than have poor people get free or nearly free housing." Well, I'm sick of your preferences; they make no sense to me. I'm being facetious, but why talk that way? You are an individual. If you have an opinion state it. Government and its decisions are not you, you do not need to pretend that you agree with these decisions, or that they are somehow the result of a benign expression of voting decisions that you are bought into.
- Kalium 5y ago
  > I'm being facetious, but why talk that way? You are an individual. If you have an opinion state it. This phrasing makes clear the policy preference of the polity of San Francisco while also implying that the author does not agree with it. As you say, the author is an individual and does not need to pretend to agree! This author seems to agree with you. They have expressed their opinion as well as noted that of of the polity.
JoeyBananas 5y ago
> Our revealed preference seems to be that we'd rather have homeless people live in tents than have poor people get free or nearly free housing. The reason why such programs exist in the first place is because of San Francisco's highly liberal government. There is no doubt that the politicians would absolutely love to give people houses for free, but they can't because that would be even more expensive. The San Francisco system is flawed by design. It's not economical to support people with welfare because America is not a communist nation. Homelessness should not be considered to be primarily the government's problem. If the economy is strong, homelessness as a problem will largely disappear and charities will take care of the rest of them.
someonehere 5y ago
A lot of them don’t want the free housing because they are not allowed to do their vice indoors. Can’t smoke or shoot up illicit drugs so they opt to not take the free housing.
mbrodersen 5y ago
I think you are absolutely right. The difference is culture. The US culture is anti-poor while the Finish culture is pro-human. The US culture is “only these tools are allowed to solve problems” and the Finish culture is “do what works”. The US culture is “better to spend 10x more money than give people free money - even if spending 10x more money doesn’t solve the problem” while the Finish culture is “that is just silly.”

by abeppu 5y ago

baron816 5y ago

The city is still giving out lots of housing. Except when the city tries to build housing, it takes many years and $800k per unit. The city has put up so many regulatory hurdles that make it almost impossible to build anything. Consider this project that would've added 19 housing units https://twitter.com/samdman95/status/1415839145386196993 https://twitter.com/samdman95/status/1415839145386196993. It was blocked because it would've increased shadow cover on Delores Park by .001% (as if SF has a shadow problem instead of a housing problem). There really is no point in the city trying to build housing for the homeless without addressing the regulatory issues first. If the city were to try to build housing for all its (by the official count) 8000 homeless people, it would cost >$6 billion.

ashtonkem 5y ago
And solving the regulatory hurdles might also might start to reduce the homelessness problem before the city even starts giving away free units to anyone in need.
malandrew 5y ago
Relative to pretty much all other markets, it's practically impossible to solve homelessness in San Francisco. There are at least two major considerations. The first is the one you pointed out that there are far too many barriers. The second is that San Francisco is a fundamentally hard city to succeed in. Even competent folks with good educations and no real personal problems struggle to do well in San Francisco. If it is hard for such people, it's only going to be far more difficult for people without the same education and with many personal problems. With these two major constraints in mind, it boggles my mind that we continue to try and solve the problem in San Francisco, instead of directing all the resources to other markets without these constraints. Providing resources elsewhere and removing support in San Francisco will serve to incentivize the homeless to relocate to places where programs like housing first can be tried and where they have a chance of actually getting on their own two feet because they aren't in a hyper-competitive local market. Last time someone asked me to donate money to the homeless problem in San Francisco, I told them no, but then proceeded to donate money to a homeless program in another city (at the time I chose a program in Sacremento) because it's beyond stupid to keep putting money into trying to solve the problem in San Francisco if you actually want to see results from the money you spend on the problem. People working on this problem in San Francisco either have more heart than brains or they are part of the San Francisco homelessness industrial complex and have a vested interest in keeping these programs in San Francisco because they want to live in San Francisco and are employed in this industry. Social worker salaries in San Francisco are $60k to $100k a year. If you can pay for two to three social workers in other markets instead for the same price, why pay for such people to work in San Francisco.
- nextaccountic 5y ago
  San Francisco can change! But only if people demand more housing to be built and stop the nonsense linked by previous comment. Its up to the people of SF to fix this.

Cpoll 5y ago

> the city pays around $60k per tent site per year Is this number missing a zero? That sounds very reasonable for use of land and 24/7 security. And at $5k a month I'm not sure how many apartments you can afford. Or is that meant to be $60k per tenant? How many people can you house in one of these sites?

graeme 5y ago
$60K per tenant
- morsch 5y ago
  https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/S-F-officials-want-15-million-for-tent-sites-16269998.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/S-F-officials-w...
bzbarsky 5y ago
"Tent site" usually means "place for a single tent". If grandparent has the usual usage, it's $60k/tenant, unless people are sharing tents.
- Cpoll 5y ago
  Thank you for the clarification, that makes much more sense.
sologoub 5y ago
It’s $5k per tent per month - you can rent 2-3 studios for that, even in SF. A similar program in LA is coming in at $2100 per rent per month, definitely enough for at least one apartment: https://ktla.com/news/local-news/east-hollywood-tent-village-meant-to-be-pathway-to-housing-at-cost-of-2140-per-person-each-month/ https://ktla.com/news/local-news/east-hollywood-tent-village... That’s the point the original article made - they were throwing money at short-term shelters and other things, just like everyone else and the problem got worse not better. Instead, doing stable housing first and applying conditions later allowed people to adapt. I suspect that they also get to re-use units the NGOs bought to house next set of people once the initial occupants have improved their situation enough. If one were to use the $2100 for mortgage payment as well, with taxes/hoa/insurance included, that would finance over $400k worth of unit.

derefr 5y ago

> and (I'm not sure why) 24/7 security staff You can lock your stuff in a house or car and walk away. You can't lock your stuff in a tent and walk away. This is the real reason for homeless people "keeping their life in a shopping trolley": they need to move their possessions around with them because there's nowhere secure to keep them. Security staff, preventing randoms from stealing these people's possessions out of their tents (or especially, discouraging them from stealing from each-other) makes a tent into something much closer to a home. ----- An alternate approach I've seen applied to my local area (downtown east-side Vancouver) is to offer something half-way between "safety deposit boxes" and "storage units" as a free/cheap service — where each homeless person gets their own assigned 53-litre storage tote, with mediated check-out to ensure nobody has access to your tote but you. This doesn't solve exactly the same set of problems — you can't usefully store your food and cooking implements in a place that's only open 9-5 — but it at least allows you to trust that your sentimental objects, small collectibles, etc. are being kept safe.

ashtonkem 5y ago
And, sadly, to prevent random people from attacking the homeless people.
- ralusek 5y ago
  And to prevent homeless people from attacking each other.
  - riffraff 5y ago
    Parent comment was down voted but AFAIK it's correct, many homeless people avoid shelters because they consider them unsafe due to other homeless people, some of which are dangerous to others.
    - nextaccountic 5y ago
      And that's why programs that segregate homeless people (put them on shelters, or put them on government-designated parking lots) won't ever ever succeed. You need to properly integrate the homeless into society, which in our society generally means having an apartment for each family unit.

whoknowswhat11 5y ago

"(I'm not sure why) 24/7 security staff." Despite your doubts - homeless folks are not idiots. I live near a similar site. It has a no visitor policy, 24/7 security etc. I would call it a huge success relative to the surrounding homeless impacts. The issue for the homeless and many govt run programs is that it's often easier for govt to do nothing. Ie, your stuff is stolen, visitors etc cause problems etc. A huge amount of public housing really suffered from this - despite being govt run it was worse, not better. If you can carve a (small) space, no zoning issues, tent on pallet, secuirty for your stuff and yourself, no visitors causing trouble - you can give people some basic stability in sleeping etc. As to the $60K - you need to be comparing to costs in SF generally for services for a homeless person - I'd estimate $110 - $150K (higher end is if you include the excess ambulance runs etc). So this is relatively competitive.

onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
Something is seriously wrong if it costs $150k per year to be homeless in SF. 6 years ago, I lived there quite comfortably making only $70k BEFORE taxes, and was able to save a decent bit per year on top of that. Even now, I /only/ spend $90k per year - and my lifestyle is quite extravagant. It's just out of control if it costs almost twice as much money to have almost nothing.
- whoknowswhat11 5y ago
  SF does $600 million to $800 million per year just through DHSH. My guess is around 300 - 400 million through other depts (SF DPH etc). Behavioral health services alone run $500M and DPH is at $2.4 billion in their budget. I'm excluding Fire / Police / MOCD / other services (there are a ton). Rough numbers maybe $1B/year? for 8-12,000 folks? This is both very large, but SF probably only spends around 8-10% of budget on this - the SF budget is very large.
  - mardifoufs 5y ago
    That's crazy! I know american cities handle services that are handled at a provincial level here in Canada but the budget for the city of Montreal is only around 6B$ in Canadian dollars. And that's with all the costs that come from snow removal and the never ending repairs our roads need due to winter damage.

skybrian 5y ago

Consider whether you would be safe sleeping there in a tent? And how about keeping all your stuff there too? Some neighbors may have mental issues, there may be a criminal element (crime is high in San Francisco), and others (who aren’t dangerous, or even if they are) need to be protected from them. So I’m not sure this is best thought of as similar to normal housing or similar to a campsite where they can easily kick out anyone dangerous since they’re far away from the city. Instead you might compare with hospitals, nursing homes, or even prisons, but in primitive conditions and without the necessary security infrastructure. The costs aren’t going to be similar. Actual walls and doors with locks would probably help a lot to reduce the staffing needed.

harikb 5y ago

It is nearly impossible for an entity (city or state), with a limited budget and no borders to enforce, to provide a perfect solution. The “country” on the other hand is a completely different matter..

ashtonkem 5y ago

The majority sentiment appears to be that homeless people deserve to suffer to some degree, and that without pain they’ll never be properly motivated to get a job and rejoin society. The fact that this never works doesn’t really seem to dissuade anyone. No city has managed to solve the homelessness problem with anti-sleeping architecture and police crackdowns, but they’ll keep trying.

seanmcdirmid 5y ago
> No city has managed to solve the homelessness problem with anti-sleeping architecture and police crackdowns, but they’ll keep trying. That isn’t true, of course they’ve solved their problem using such measures…by pushing them to another city. For example, Bellevue WA will have the riot squad out pretty quickly if you so much as lay down on a bench, and it works since Seattle WA is right across the lake.
joshribakoff 5y ago
I don’t think homeless people should suffer but there should be rules. Instead of allowing people to ruin a sidewalk by storing 100 stolen bicycle scraps and other trash, they should be relocated to safe sleeping sites. Should tax payers have their view ruined, live in stench, and have HIV positive schizophrenic folks with an ax running into their place of business? My friend owns a business and had to stop selling merchandise due to theft. This literally happens daily here. The mayor doesn’t want to place some of these people in conservatorship which is what’s required at a certain point. (I’m aware I’ll be down voted by people who do not live here, haven’t had to call the cops for help themselves, and think I am just exaggerating)
- noobermin 5y ago
  Your comment seems to suggest you don't actually want the situation to get better, you want people to suffer for some reason. The point is the Finland solution actually works and that's why it should be done.
  - joshribakoff 5y ago

opportune 5y ago

You can’t give apartments away at market rates to fix homelessness because about half of the homeless people are too mentally troubled/addicted to be able to handle an apartment. So you still have to pay for security and now you also have to pay for people to come and clean the apartments. Also, SF has indoor shelters and such. Including putting people in hotels. The tents, AIUI, are for people who wouldn’t be allowed in the shelters for whatever reason (like people with dogs or people who are using drugs very frequently, not allowed around children, etc.)

joshribakoff 5y ago
Incredible that you’re down voted for simply speaking the truth. There are literally people who fling their HIV positive blood or feces at anyone who approaches them and carry machetes and axes. They need conservatorship not an apartment
- opportune 5y ago
  I guess what I said just sounds callous to people who are aware of homelessness but don’t have direct experience trying to help them. It’s a complex problem and there’s a reason beyond graft that it hasn’t been fixed. As with many things I’m sure 80% of the resources are going to the 20% of people who are the most difficult to handle. Many homeless people are normal people who are just very down on their luck. But those homeless people are often “invisible” to the general public since they usually don’t sleep rough, yell at people on the street, etc. Finland can probably solve it because they fund “inpatient mental health services” which is what can actually fix homelessness for the most difficult people suffering it. That is super expensive though.
  - AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
    On the other hand, you cannot force people into the wards unless they pose grave danger to themselves or the society. And the current sentiment is that yelling slurs or urinating in a subway is not grave enough to justify involuntary confinement.

eplanit 5y ago

They used to be called "Hoovervilles" [1]. San Fran can instead appropriate newly vacated office buildings and turn them into modern, high-rise versions. Because they've created the shithole that the city is now, it's frankly hard to give a damn how much more they befoul themselves. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooverville https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooverville

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

dnautics 5y ago

> Our revealed preference Is this revealed preference? It's clearly due to political drag, corruption, hubris, or something that is not necessarily preferences of individuals in SF. It's not like people aren't trying. IIRC Marc Benioff (who I have no particular love for) donated 30 million to homelessness "research" to UCSF, and 17 million to various direct programs. Last homeless point in time count estimates 8k homeless in SF; let's round up to 10k; leaving aside the soft corruption that might have gone into that grant (come on, we have a probably 80% correct model of what causes homelessness), that's TWO PEOPLE who could have given enough money to go a third of the way to paying $1500mo/homeless person rent. estimating that the all-in cost for social services per person is a generous $1000/mo.... it seems that this situation is eminently solvable.

scottLobster 5y ago
In any democratic system the government exists with the consent of the majority of people. If solving the homeless is a priority for the constituents, they can vote out the ruling government as punishment. That hasn't happened yet, indicating it's just not a high priority for most people living in SF. The gap between voicing an opinion and taking action is large. Of course voting out the ruling government might mean voting in someone they disagree with on other issues, but this is why single issue voters get more things done politically than their "wiser" counterparts who try to consider all the variables. It's the same with the various opinion polls that make headlines showing "75% of Americans want X, so why is the government still refusing?" The simple answer is far less than 75% are willing to base their vote solely on X, whereas the opposition often is.
- nerdponx 5y ago
  > In any democratic system the government exists with the consent of the majority of people. This is incomplete to the point of being incorrect. The correct version is: > In any democratic system the government exists with the consent of the majority of people who happen to have the time/energy/intelligence to research candidates and physically cast a vote in spite of various barriers to voting, choosing from among the small number of candidates who happen to be running.

Salgat 5y ago

The hardest part of dealing with homelessness in America is that homeless people will migrate to the best areas to live and beg, which unfortunately also means that certain cities become targets to bear the brunt of the nation's homeless expenses, which incentivizes them to try to push out homeless to make other city's/state's problem. Finland is smart by making this a nation-wide solution.

umvi 5y ago
Why don't all of EU's homeless simply migrate to Finland then?
- bobthepanda 5y ago
  unfamiliarity of culture and language probably plays a big role compared to the US, where everything is available in English by default. A large amount of Finns speak English, but then that would require a person moving there to also speak English well, which I wouldn't say is a given. Also, compared to the moderate Mediterranean climate of, say, SF, Finland has very harsh winters, which would make it very unattractive for sleeping outdoors.
- maqp 5y ago
  "You cannot secure your means of support with benefits paid by the society." See more info under "income requirement" under https://migri.fi/en/residence-permit-on-other-grounds https://migri.fi/en/residence-permit-on-other-grounds Sure, you can apply for e.g. political asylum, but even then some restriction apply.
- gsnedders 5y ago
  There's a bunch of complexity in EU law around certain benefits, housing and unemployment benefits among them. Those who weren't already resident in Finland, Finland doesn't have any responsibility towards.
- stepanhruda 5y ago
  Language and cultural barrier. Moving between EU countries is a much bigger psychological deal than between US states. Also, Finland’s weather is a negative if you are homeless.

joshribakoff 5y ago

Currently people experiencing homelessness can effectively sleep anywhere without being sweeped by the city. The police department lets me know they cannot physically move the tents without an eviction process and can only issue a misdemeanor which only entails fines that these people most likely will not pay anyway. The police department lets me know this is Chessea Boudin’s policy and that all they can do without a court order is ask the homeless people to move nicely. By Fulton and Great Highway there are often lines of cars to buy drugs from people living in this one RV who apparently have a “right” to be there. Police state the individuals turn down the help offered by the homeless outreach team. The individuals turn the area into a literal dump, junk yard, and trap. (I’m aware I’ll be down voted by people who do not live here, haven’t had to call the cops for help themselves, and think I am just exaggerating)

swearwolf 5y ago
For the record, this kind of thing is absolutely happening in San Francisco, and it’s happening in other West Coast cities as well, like Portland. The OP is a little off in their attribution. The biggest cause of this is the 9th Circuit ruling in Martin v. Boise, which dictated that cities cannot force a person not to camp on public land unless they can offer a meaningful alternative. Cities have built their own policies to deal with this, and then multiple cities on the West Coast also elected progressive District Attorneys, who explicitly consider things like what the OP is describing to be “non-violent” crimes, and therefore not a priority. Here’s what San Francisco DA Chesa Boudin said about this: “We will not prosecute cases involving quality-of-life crimes," he said. "Crimes such as public camping, offering or soliciting sex, public urination, blocking a sidewalk, etc., should not and will not be prosecuted. Many of these crimes are still being prosecuted; we have a long way to go to decriminalize poverty and homelessness.” That’s a noble goal, but it comes with a HUGE blind spot - namely the intersection of homelessness and criminality. The apparent implication is that the citizens impacted by these “quality of life crimes” can go pound sand.

jlmorton 5y ago

> It would be cheaper to rent apartments at current market rates, even in San Francisc Indeed it would, but that is not a realistic option. These are high needs groups, many with severe mental disorders and drug addictions. It is an embarrassment that we don't have better infrastructure to serve these groups, but it's tough renting out market rate apartments to serve them. Landlords of course have to agree. SF is able to do this with custom-built housing, or Project Roomkey, but it's not like we can find 4,500 private apartments where landlords will happily put up a schizophrenic guy with a meth addiction. It's also worth pointing out that $60k for these sites is not just payment for shelter. It includes three meals a day, social services, security, sanitation.

noobermin 5y ago
May be for some of the houseless but many don't have mental disorders or drug addictions, many people are just down on their luck. Also, pretty sure Finland has people with those issues as well.
- seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  That isn’t a given. It could be that the standard strong social safety net is enough to keep people without substance abuse or mental illness problems out of homelessness. It would be interesting to do an honest accounting, at any rate.
  - noobermin 5y ago
    Are you saying talking about the social safety net in Finland or the US? I don't understand the argument you're making, if anything the weakness of the social safety net in the US bolsters my argument that a larger fraction of homeless people in the US are just down on their luck relative to the fraction of homeless people in Finland. EDIT: In order to avoid deepening the thread, may you restate your point so that I can understand what you mean?
    - seanmcdirmid 5y ago

pkdpic_y9k 5y ago

With that 60k number on the table Im wondering where people think a universal basic income might fit into this discussion?

seanmcdirmid 5y ago
UBI would work well for some homeless and would be a disaster for others (those with severe substance abuse issues).
- maqp 5y ago
  What's the actual percentage of homeless people with severe substance abuse problem (i.e. one where its ~daily and they wouldn't agree to treatment)? This comment makes it sound like it applies to something like 50% of SF homeless and that can't be right.
  - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
    For the long term chronic homeless, pretty high (that and/or mental illness). For the less chronic short term homeless, not high at all (or they wouldn’t be short term).
  - HideousKojima 5y ago
    It actually is about 50%: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/programs_campaigns/homelessness_programs_resources/hrc-factsheet-current-statistics-prevalence-characteristics-homelessness.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjRh-2D2v7xAhWBvZ4KHbpSArIQFjABegQIAxAG&usg=AOvVaw2E8bKDNX8sdr2TqHLXmSJT https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/...
    - maqp 5y ago
      I'm sorry, where on that 23 page document does it say 50%? On Page 2 it says "On a given night in January 2010" -- "26.2% of all sheltered persons who were homeless had a severe mental illness" and "34.7% of all sheltered adults who were homeless had chronic substance use issues" of course that was 10 years ago, so I wouldn't be surprised if it has increased but still, I'd prefer more accurate numbers. Did I look at wrong page?

ralusek 5y ago

My revealed preference is that, due to the economic surplus produced by economic liberty, we have the luxury of being able to allocate resources to individuals in need. A luxury, mind you, in no way guaranteed by the conditions of nature. Now, given that we have the resources in order to allocate some resources to individuals in need, I think it's a perfectly serviceable objective to provide housing for those unable to house themselves. I don't, however, think it's a perfectly serviceable objective to provide housing for those unable to house themselves by saying that they have a right to remain on an extremely space-constrained peninsula which has led to one of the most competitive and expensive real estate markets on the entire planet. So to reiterate my revealed preference: no I don't think the homeless should be housed in tents in SF, and neither do I think that they have a right to be housed anywhere in SF. I think that we have the luxury of surplus resources to provide housing for those in need, but I think that this housing should be built in an area that is not space constrained, and is as economically viable as possible.

nradov 5y ago
So send all the homeless people to Bakersfield then? I wonder how the current residents of Bakersfield would feel about that.
- ralusek 5y ago
  There's a lot of space in this country.

ineedasername 5y ago

The causes of homelessness may be different in SF vs. Finland. Mental health & drug addiction are common problems among long-term homeless in the US. Resolving homelessness requires better solutions to those issues as well.

maqp 5y ago
You need both, like here in Finland. E.g. see info on housing under https://www.espoo.fi/en-US/Social_and_health_services/Health_Services/Mental_health_and_substance_abuse_services https://www.espoo.fi/en-US/Social_and_health_services/Health...
- ineedasername 5y ago
  Thanks for the reference, pretty much as I would expect things to be. Homelessness doesn't just happen, there's a cause that must be dealt with.
kebman 5y ago
As far as I can see, Finland has some of the lowest drug abuse in the world, so it stands to reason that providing homes is more affordable for them. As far as I remember, they used to have a bigger problem with alcohol than their Nordic neighbours, but I'm unsure if this is still the case.

kebman 5y ago

An important difference is that Helsinki regularly has temperatures down to -7°C or 19.4°F in the winter, on average. While you can live in tents at those temperatures, given well insulated sleeping bags and clothes, it's not exactly comfortable. And for people with drug or mental issues it can be deadly, say, if they're too far gone to take the proper precautions. Meanwhile San Fran winter temps are as far as I can see about 14°C or 52.2°F on average. But yeah, if the cost you're indicating is true, then it's completely outrageous. Though it's not the first time I've heard about high costs involved with social cases in the West. I suspect some of it is political, but some might also be due to simple profiteering since these people doesn't exactly present a strong political lobby themselves.

dehrmann 5y ago

> $60k per tent site per year...It would be cheaper to rent apartments at current market rates, even in San Francisco. That's $5k per month. Absolute best case, that's two one-bedroom apartments, so 6 people? Surely there are more than 6 people at the tent site.

cldellow 5y ago
No, the price seems to be $5k per _person_ per month: https://californiaglobe.com/section-2/sf-homeless-department-stuns-budget-committee-with-16-1-million-tent-program-revelation/ https://californiaglobe.com/section-2/sf-homeless-department...
- LegitShady 5y ago
  At those prices some consultant/contractor/vendor must be getting outrageously rich.

dogorman 5y ago

> and (I'm not sure why) 24/7 security staff Are you trying to make some sort of point with a show of feigned ignorance, or do you really not get it? Security is the second rung on Maslow's hierarchy of needs, one of the most basic needs. You may as well write "and (I'm not sure why) water". Baffling. Any human being should be able to understand this need without having it explained to them.

zhoujianfu 5y ago

How many tents fit in one of those sites? $5K a month for maybe 50 people seems pretty affordable ($100/mo)?

dannyr 5y ago
It's 60K PER tent!
dmlerner 5y ago
It's 5k/mo/tent, not 5k/mo total.

baybal2 5y ago

> To that, they add chemical toilets, a water supply and (I'm not sure why) 24/7 security staff. For this, the city pays around $60k per tent site per year. This is ridiculous, it's more than enough for annual rent of a very decent apartment. The fact that a mighty country of America can't fix such a trivial problem shocks me. With countless billions thrown onto the problem, they can equally well build a few blocks of luxury skyscraper apartments, and give them away. Literally, for these money you can build an apartment block somewhere in Dubai.

selectodude 5y ago
You going to put a parking lot full of people into an apartment?
- baybal2 5y ago
  I mean such money will be enough for multiple apartments. And with West Coast states allegedly spending countless billions on "doing something" about homelessness, just giving away luxury apartments doesn't sound that crazy in comparison to these digits.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

mioasndo 5y ago

> For this, the city pays around $60k per tent site per year. I'm not sure if this is in part due to some unsavory relationship between the org administering the program and some city official. Recently the program was extended. It would be cheaper to rent apartments at current market rates, even in San Francisco. 60k per tent site, as in - multiple, like a dozen, tents? Or 60k per tent?

option 5y ago
60k per single tent
- mioasndo 5y ago
  Wow, that's almost double the median individual income.

option 5y ago

people living in tents in SF are not just “poor” - many have severe mental health issues and drug addiction. In fact, many are there because of SF’s open-air drug market. My point is that the program you mentioned is even crazier and more cruel and wasteful. We need many of these people booked into the rehab (mandatory if needed) and then subsidize cheap apartments for them.

JamesBarney 5y ago

> For this, the city pays around $60k per tent site per year Is that 60k per tent site or per tent?

devwastaken 5y ago

Renters would rather have empty rooms than homeless. No commercial renter references, no full time employment, even a hint of "homeless" = no apartment. Friend in Canada is purely disabled along with their relative, and lives on disability - which is guaranteed rent. Renters wanted nothing to do with them. They had to go to a government agency that locates housing based on income, and they only got that because their parents cosigned and the landlord was nice.

durpkingOP 5y ago

How does it only cost $60k when 1 individual security guard would be homeless earning only $60k themselves in a year in San Francisco?

tdeck 5y ago

Presumably this is the source for that number, for those who might be interested in digging further: https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/article/S-F-pays-61-000-a-year-for-one-tent-to-house-16001074.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/article/S-F-pays-61-000-a-...

re-al 5y ago

"Our revealed preference seems to be that we'd rather have homeless people live in tents than have poor people get free or nearly free housing." Well, I'm sick of your preferences; they make no sense to me. I'm being facetious, but why talk that way? You are an individual. If you have an opinion state it. Government and its decisions are not you, you do not need to pretend that you agree with these decisions, or that they are somehow the result of a benign expression of voting decisions that you are bought into.

Kalium 5y ago
> I'm being facetious, but why talk that way? You are an individual. If you have an opinion state it. This phrasing makes clear the policy preference of the polity of San Francisco while also implying that the author does not agree with it. As you say, the author is an individual and does not need to pretend to agree! This author seems to agree with you. They have expressed their opinion as well as noted that of of the polity.

JoeyBananas 5y ago

> Our revealed preference seems to be that we'd rather have homeless people live in tents than have poor people get free or nearly free housing. The reason why such programs exist in the first place is because of San Francisco's highly liberal government. There is no doubt that the politicians would absolutely love to give people houses for free, but they can't because that would be even more expensive. The San Francisco system is flawed by design. It's not economical to support people with welfare because America is not a communist nation. Homelessness should not be considered to be primarily the government's problem. If the economy is strong, homelessness as a problem will largely disappear and charities will take care of the rest of them.

someonehere 5y ago

A lot of them don’t want the free housing because they are not allowed to do their vice indoors. Can’t smoke or shoot up illicit drugs so they opt to not take the free housing.

mbrodersen 5y ago

I think you are absolutely right. The difference is culture. The US culture is anti-poor while the Finish culture is pro-human. The US culture is “only these tools are allowed to solve problems” and the Finish culture is “do what works”. The US culture is “better to spend 10x more money than give people free money - even if spending 10x more money doesn’t solve the problem” while the Finish culture is “that is just silly.”