4 ms·

> but the people that are homeless because they’re addicted to getting high all day? You've got it backwards: they're getting high all day because they're home

> but the people that are homeless because they’re addicted to getting high all day? You've got it backwards: they're getting high all day because they're homeless and doing what little they can to cope with the insane amounts of stress that entails. Once you recognize that inverted causality, the solution becomes obvious: provide them with housing and help them back onto their feet.

Jarwain 4y ago
I think both of y'all are right in different circumstances; imo a good policy would handle both cases
keneda7 4y ago
So you claim the solution is something that has already been done. SF uses millions to house homeless in hotels. They also have tens of millions dedicated to programs to help educate, find jobs, and get people off of drugs. Yet with your so called obvious solution the problem has gotten worse.
- HappySweeney 4y ago
  A hotel room is not a home.
  - keneda7 4y ago
    No its not. However a hotel room allows them a place to stay and clean while they look for a job and get on their feet. Once they have a job, they can look for a home. Seems to me you expect all the working people to just pony up money and pay for all the homeless peoples housing. A lot of people are renting their home and can barely afford to scrape by. They cannot afford to pay for someone else's housing as well. You want to screw these people who are trying to contribute to society. I am not okay with that. As far as affordable housing, the issue in SF is created and continued by its own residents. They deserve a big part of the blame. If they want to fix it, vote in people that actually allow some damn affordable housing to be built. They all say they want to fix it, as long as its not fixed by putting affordable housing around them.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - HappySweeney 4y ago
      > Seems to me you expect all the working people to just pony up money and pay for all the homeless peoples housing. A lot of people are renting their home and can barely afford to scrape by. They cannot afford to pay for someone else's housing as well. You want to screw these people who are trying to contribute to society. I am not okay with that. I think you may be responding to the wrong comment? I never said any of this stuff.
- yellowapple 4y ago
  > SF uses millions to house homeless in hotels. They also have tens of millions dedicated to programs to help educate, find jobs, and get people off of drugs. $100 million dollars divided by the approx. 8,000 homeless people in SF¹ (and that's just the ones the city was able to go around counting; I can guarantee that number's far below the actual homeless population) comes out to $12,500 per person. That doesn't cover the year's rent for even so much as a closet in SF, let alone something that even marginally qualifies as a home. So no, the solution I claim has not been done. Far from it. I'm quite frankly amazed the city could find hotel rooms for that cheap - or, the more likely explanation being that the city is only putting that money toward a fraction of the homeless population. ---- ¹: https://sfgov.org/scorecards/safety-net/homeless-population https://sfgov.org/scorecards/safety-net/homeless-population

Jarwain 4y ago

I think both of y'all are right in different circumstances; imo a good policy would handle both cases

keneda7 4y ago

So you claim the solution is something that has already been done. SF uses millions to house homeless in hotels. They also have tens of millions dedicated to programs to help educate, find jobs, and get people off of drugs. Yet with your so called obvious solution the problem has gotten worse.

HappySweeney 4y ago
A hotel room is not a home.
- keneda7 4y ago
  No its not. However a hotel room allows them a place to stay and clean while they look for a job and get on their feet. Once they have a job, they can look for a home. Seems to me you expect all the working people to just pony up money and pay for all the homeless peoples housing. A lot of people are renting their home and can barely afford to scrape by. They cannot afford to pay for someone else's housing as well. You want to screw these people who are trying to contribute to society. I am not okay with that. As far as affordable housing, the issue in SF is created and continued by its own residents. They deserve a big part of the blame. If they want to fix it, vote in people that actually allow some damn affordable housing to be built. They all say they want to fix it, as long as its not fixed by putting affordable housing around them.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - HappySweeney 4y ago
    > Seems to me you expect all the working people to just pony up money and pay for all the homeless peoples housing. A lot of people are renting their home and can barely afford to scrape by. They cannot afford to pay for someone else's housing as well. You want to screw these people who are trying to contribute to society. I am not okay with that. I think you may be responding to the wrong comment? I never said any of this stuff.
yellowapple 4y ago
> SF uses millions to house homeless in hotels. They also have tens of millions dedicated to programs to help educate, find jobs, and get people off of drugs. $100 million dollars divided by the approx. 8,000 homeless people in SF¹ (and that's just the ones the city was able to go around counting; I can guarantee that number's far below the actual homeless population) comes out to $12,500 per person. That doesn't cover the year's rent for even so much as a closet in SF, let alone something that even marginally qualifies as a home. So no, the solution I claim has not been done. Far from it. I'm quite frankly amazed the city could find hotel rooms for that cheap - or, the more likely explanation being that the city is only putting that money toward a fraction of the homeless population. ---- ¹: https://sfgov.org/scorecards/safety-net/homeless-population https://sfgov.org/scorecards/safety-net/homeless-population