3 ms·

> Unless they're planning on these people never improving their situation to the point of moving out and for the unit to be destroyed in the process, the units

> Unless they're planning on these people never improving their situation to the point of moving out and for the unit to be destroyed in the process, the units can be reused. You'd be surprised to learn how little planning is done for the next step. Authorities (at least here in SF) are myopically focused on moving people into housing; there is no step 2 after that. That's why we have to keep building more housing, as people are not graduating out of the housing to make room for others.

rhizome 5y ago
No, I wouldn't be surprised, that's why I used the word "planning" instead of "assuming" or "leaving them to..." As the saying goes, "Failing to plan is planning to fail." In SF you have to account for the fact that the city is de facto prohibited from spending money on anything other than piecemeal programs, not to mention the upkeep and staffing to alleviate the deterioration of existing housing options. Every few years somebody manages to convince enough Supervisors that they've found a silver bullet and to give them some money for a meager pilot program to help a hard problem that requires actual money, experts, and priority. Oh, but there's pushback from $300K/yr techbros who have lived in SF for over two years and are sure it's all gone out of control ever since they had to step over a needle once. There are lots of knowledgeable and motivated people working in homeless and drug outreach along with related organizations that have like zero dollars. I'm not one of these experts and experienced people, but I'm pretty sure they should be funded and integrated more into an overall program. In Sacramento they're preparing to kick people out of their hotel program, but the Sheriff is waiting with bated breath right outside the door: https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article258051333.html https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article258051333.html I half expect them to describe putting the homeless in jail as a savings.

rhizome 5y ago

No, I wouldn't be surprised, that's why I used the word "planning" instead of "assuming" or "leaving them to..." As the saying goes, "Failing to plan is planning to fail." In SF you have to account for the fact that the city is de facto prohibited from spending money on anything other than piecemeal programs, not to mention the upkeep and staffing to alleviate the deterioration of existing housing options. Every few years somebody manages to convince enough Supervisors that they've found a silver bullet and to give them some money for a meager pilot program to help a hard problem that requires actual money, experts, and priority. Oh, but there's pushback from $300K/yr techbros who have lived in SF for over two years and are sure it's all gone out of control ever since they had to step over a needle once. There are lots of knowledgeable and motivated people working in homeless and drug outreach along with related organizations that have like zero dollars. I'm not one of these experts and experienced people, but I'm pretty sure they should be funded and integrated more into an overall program. In Sacramento they're preparing to kick people out of their hotel program, but the Sheriff is waiting with bated breath right outside the door: https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article258051333.html https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article258051333.html I half expect them to describe putting the homeless in jail as a savings.