7 ms·

The way 'housing first' has been implemented in SF is terrible. It is operated as a lottery helping a very tiny percentage of the homeless with a house/apt wor

The way 'housing first' has been implemented in SF is terrible. It is operated as a lottery helping a very tiny percentage of the homeless with a house/apt worth $1mil+. Those numbers will never solve the problem. If I saw a reasonable housing first program where it actually provides cost-efficient housing for all that need it, I'd be a strong proponent. The current system is not that, it's incredibly unfair, a tax-payer funded lottery in which residents provide accolades to homeless advocacy groups in return for inclusion on lists that make them more likely to win a spot in the residences. Huge amounts of tax-payer money is siphoned off into these non-profits throughout the process. https://sfstandard.com/politics/san-francisco-nonprofits-contracts-money-city-controller/ https://sfstandard.com/politics/san-francisco-nonprofits-con...

1letterunixname 3y ago
Resettlement somewhere cheaper is the sensible thing to do. Unfortunately, this requires relocation and doesn't scale. This is something the federal government should pay for and coordinate.
- imtringued 3y ago
  It requires the relocation of businesses, not people.
8f2ab37a-ed6c 3y ago
It's unfortunate that some of the smallest, most expensive, most mismanaged and ideological 7x7 mile real estate in the US is being used as the dumpster for humans in need of serious medical attention and societal support. SF can barely build a public toilet without it turning into a taxpayer trough feeding frenzy, so expecting it to be the Mecca of the homeless, the addicted and the downtrodden is comedic at best, and tragic at worst. Even if someone were to get back on their feet from addiction, SF is the last place where they would want to try to live, given the astronomical cost of everything, unless they're going to suddenly become senior ML engineers who can afford a downpayment on a $1M 500sqft cockroach shoebox. Most people with regular jobs can't afford to live in SF... think school teachers driving in every morning from Sacramento, and that's without fighting every day against a crippling meth addiction. There's practically infinite room in Bakersfield, Stockton, Lancaster, Fresno, housing is more affordable, the local governance more amenable, the cost of living night and day, but nobody in policy will ever be able to pull that off, so we'll be stuck with the current status quo that nobody is happy with.
- b33j0r 3y ago
  I am not serious, completely. But you called it a dumpster for the underclass (not judging either way). But it points to an irony when you’re there, going to a meeting at the Transamerica pyramid or walking past the headquarters of Salesforce, or having a michelin starred meal, then walking down the street and a guy in an alley has a knife. (Yeah, personal experience. I wasn’t very scared. Probably because I just had michelin starred wine pairings…)
  - scrubs 3y ago
    When demand on resources exceeds available resources and/or current plans are not moving the ball, management must act. Moving homeless to lesser cost places is in scope. The poster above is right. While getting stable is a huge win, it's silly to think they can then continue to live in sf They are not entitled nor are tax payers obligated to insure they have parity with people who can afford to live and work in SF. And I buy the argument providing homes is humane and cost efficient compared to options. Any treatment medical or mental in the US is stupid expensive. But I think/hope DBT which is effective mental side is not the most expensive
- narrator 3y ago
  There are a lot of public employees and contractors who would have no way to live in the bay area if it wasn't for the $300 million a year homeless budget for a few thousand homeless. They need those homeless to provide justification for their good government jobs, which is why they cater to them so heavily by allowing them to sleep anywhere, ignoring most crimes they commit and providing them with a safe place to buy and take drugs. All that has to happen is tax revenue has to fall and the spending will decrease and the homeless will go to some other place where they can live a better drugs and camping lifestyle. Having lived for some time a few years ago in the Tenderloin, the idea that the homeless in S.F are normal people who have fallen on hard times is a complete simulated reality that has almost nothing to do with the actual situation. SF is the solve everything with more money city because more money is always to the benefit of people working government jobs. For another example, look at the 1 billion dollar per mile recent subway extension, for example. That 1 billion went to somebody and employed a lot of people.
xp84 3y ago
SF's attempts at "fixing" housing always amount to this lottery system. Rent control: A random windfall for whatever tenant snags these coveted apartments when someone dies in a 3 bedroom apartment they haven't needed in 30 years but "can't afford" to downsize from since they have been paying $650 since 1989. Also the illegal subletters who are numerous and shameless, from personal experience. Low-income housing minimums: A random windfall for a few lucky lottery winners, while everyone else from indigent to middle-class has to struggle because the developers need to build only luxury housing to make up for eating the cost of the low income housing. And then this housing first thing is more of the same. > siphoned off into these non-profits Indeed. The homeless-industrial complex of nonprofits in SF is huge, but popular since it is a jobs program for all the people with social science bachelors and masters degrees, and no marketable skills.
- 1letterunixname 3y ago
  A lottery system for a few people is the rich's approach to looking down on the poor. Solving it requires relocation. There's no getting around it because the total cost of living is incompatible with people with slimmer means.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    The problem is that eventually you need walls or forced relocation. We have evidence that people are already willing to live in SF with no shelter, and without changing fundamental ways America works, you can’t force them to leave and not come back (maybe a city can get a restraining order protecting itself? No idea).
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - 1letterunixname 3y ago
      Force cannot be used but offers of food, shelter, and care elsewhere can and must be offered. In general, only the very rich can afford to live in the most central, desirable locations because the costs of everything are so damn high. It's only fair that most people who aren't insanely rich (like me) should find somewhere they can afford to live or where society can afford to help them. Trying to linger in SF Presidio or Manhattan is well above almost everyone's means.
35997279 3y ago
Austin has a great housing first community. https://mlf.org/community-first/ https://mlf.org/community-first/
Fatnino 3y ago
You say $1mil+ house and most people think we are putting up a select one or two homeless guys in mansions. 1 million dollars in San Francisco real estate is a one room (maybe two room if it's in extra bad shape) hovel. And that's the real problem. San Francisco is not a place for the poor to try to raise their lives to middle class. It's a place for middle class to struggle to stay above water. The homeless in sf need to be given decent places to live in a place where land costs something normal. That place does not currently exist in or near San Francisco, but can be reached by an hour or two bus ride.
- HWR_14 3y ago
  No one who lives in a $1mil+ home (absent subsidies) is middle class.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    Anyone who lives in just a $1 million house in LA or SF is more than likely middle class, not even on the upper end of it.
    - HWR_14 3y ago
      You have a skewed sense of the middle class. Assume it costs $50,000 a year to live in a million dollar house (which seems on the low end of reasonable.) The median tax-home pay for a household in San Fransisco is $84,500. So you think most people are spending 60% of their take-home pay on housing? Also, the median value for an owner-occupied house in SF is 1.15MM. So half the people live in something less than that.
      - jjav 3y ago
        > Also, the median value for an owner-occupied house in SF is 1.15MM. So half the people live in something less than that. This contradicts your earlier statement. If the median owner-occupied house 1.15M, that means more than half of homeowners are living in houses worth $1M or more. Clearly that includes middle class people, since it's more than half of the people. Also, note that it doesn't take much money to live in a $1M house if you bought it a while back.
than3 3y ago
I agree. SF has a lot of issues and the money went to places that were ineffective with only a small portion going to housing first. 17B shows this isn't a homeless problem, this is a corruption and accountability problem.
animitronix 3y ago
Housing costs in SF are too high to house them in situ. Gotta bus them somewhere else cheap and start there. Why would you ever try to keep them in the city, it makes literally no sense?!

1letterunixname 3y ago

Resettlement somewhere cheaper is the sensible thing to do. Unfortunately, this requires relocation and doesn't scale. This is something the federal government should pay for and coordinate.

imtringued 3y ago
It requires the relocation of businesses, not people.

8f2ab37a-ed6c 3y ago

It's unfortunate that some of the smallest, most expensive, most mismanaged and ideological 7x7 mile real estate in the US is being used as the dumpster for humans in need of serious medical attention and societal support. SF can barely build a public toilet without it turning into a taxpayer trough feeding frenzy, so expecting it to be the Mecca of the homeless, the addicted and the downtrodden is comedic at best, and tragic at worst. Even if someone were to get back on their feet from addiction, SF is the last place where they would want to try to live, given the astronomical cost of everything, unless they're going to suddenly become senior ML engineers who can afford a downpayment on a $1M 500sqft cockroach shoebox. Most people with regular jobs can't afford to live in SF... think school teachers driving in every morning from Sacramento, and that's without fighting every day against a crippling meth addiction. There's practically infinite room in Bakersfield, Stockton, Lancaster, Fresno, housing is more affordable, the local governance more amenable, the cost of living night and day, but nobody in policy will ever be able to pull that off, so we'll be stuck with the current status quo that nobody is happy with.

b33j0r 3y ago
I am not serious, completely. But you called it a dumpster for the underclass (not judging either way). But it points to an irony when you’re there, going to a meeting at the Transamerica pyramid or walking past the headquarters of Salesforce, or having a michelin starred meal, then walking down the street and a guy in an alley has a knife. (Yeah, personal experience. I wasn’t very scared. Probably because I just had michelin starred wine pairings…)
- scrubs 3y ago
  When demand on resources exceeds available resources and/or current plans are not moving the ball, management must act. Moving homeless to lesser cost places is in scope. The poster above is right. While getting stable is a huge win, it's silly to think they can then continue to live in sf They are not entitled nor are tax payers obligated to insure they have parity with people who can afford to live and work in SF. And I buy the argument providing homes is humane and cost efficient compared to options. Any treatment medical or mental in the US is stupid expensive. But I think/hope DBT which is effective mental side is not the most expensive
narrator 3y ago
There are a lot of public employees and contractors who would have no way to live in the bay area if it wasn't for the $300 million a year homeless budget for a few thousand homeless. They need those homeless to provide justification for their good government jobs, which is why they cater to them so heavily by allowing them to sleep anywhere, ignoring most crimes they commit and providing them with a safe place to buy and take drugs. All that has to happen is tax revenue has to fall and the spending will decrease and the homeless will go to some other place where they can live a better drugs and camping lifestyle. Having lived for some time a few years ago in the Tenderloin, the idea that the homeless in S.F are normal people who have fallen on hard times is a complete simulated reality that has almost nothing to do with the actual situation. SF is the solve everything with more money city because more money is always to the benefit of people working government jobs. For another example, look at the 1 billion dollar per mile recent subway extension, for example. That 1 billion went to somebody and employed a lot of people.

xp84 3y ago

SF's attempts at "fixing" housing always amount to this lottery system. Rent control: A random windfall for whatever tenant snags these coveted apartments when someone dies in a 3 bedroom apartment they haven't needed in 30 years but "can't afford" to downsize from since they have been paying $650 since 1989. Also the illegal subletters who are numerous and shameless, from personal experience. Low-income housing minimums: A random windfall for a few lucky lottery winners, while everyone else from indigent to middle-class has to struggle because the developers need to build only luxury housing to make up for eating the cost of the low income housing. And then this housing first thing is more of the same. > siphoned off into these non-profits Indeed. The homeless-industrial complex of nonprofits in SF is huge, but popular since it is a jobs program for all the people with social science bachelors and masters degrees, and no marketable skills.

1letterunixname 3y ago
A lottery system for a few people is the rich's approach to looking down on the poor. Solving it requires relocation. There's no getting around it because the total cost of living is incompatible with people with slimmer means.
- bombcar 3y ago
  The problem is that eventually you need walls or forced relocation. We have evidence that people are already willing to live in SF with no shelter, and without changing fundamental ways America works, you can’t force them to leave and not come back (maybe a city can get a restraining order protecting itself? No idea).
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - 1letterunixname 3y ago
    Force cannot be used but offers of food, shelter, and care elsewhere can and must be offered. In general, only the very rich can afford to live in the most central, desirable locations because the costs of everything are so damn high. It's only fair that most people who aren't insanely rich (like me) should find somewhere they can afford to live or where society can afford to help them. Trying to linger in SF Presidio or Manhattan is well above almost everyone's means.

35997279 3y ago

Austin has a great housing first community. https://mlf.org/community-first/ https://mlf.org/community-first/

Fatnino 3y ago

You say $1mil+ house and most people think we are putting up a select one or two homeless guys in mansions. 1 million dollars in San Francisco real estate is a one room (maybe two room if it's in extra bad shape) hovel. And that's the real problem. San Francisco is not a place for the poor to try to raise their lives to middle class. It's a place for middle class to struggle to stay above water. The homeless in sf need to be given decent places to live in a place where land costs something normal. That place does not currently exist in or near San Francisco, but can be reached by an hour or two bus ride.

HWR_14 3y ago
No one who lives in a $1mil+ home (absent subsidies) is middle class.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  Anyone who lives in just a $1 million house in LA or SF is more than likely middle class, not even on the upper end of it.
  - HWR_14 3y ago
    You have a skewed sense of the middle class. Assume it costs $50,000 a year to live in a million dollar house (which seems on the low end of reasonable.) The median tax-home pay for a household in San Fransisco is $84,500. So you think most people are spending 60% of their take-home pay on housing? Also, the median value for an owner-occupied house in SF is 1.15MM. So half the people live in something less than that.
    - jjav 3y ago
      > Also, the median value for an owner-occupied house in SF is 1.15MM. So half the people live in something less than that. This contradicts your earlier statement. If the median owner-occupied house 1.15M, that means more than half of homeowners are living in houses worth $1M or more. Clearly that includes middle class people, since it's more than half of the people. Also, note that it doesn't take much money to live in a $1M house if you bought it a while back.

than3 3y ago

I agree. SF has a lot of issues and the money went to places that were ineffective with only a small portion going to housing first. 17B shows this isn't a homeless problem, this is a corruption and accountability problem.

animitronix 3y ago

Housing costs in SF are too high to house them in situ. Gotta bus them somewhere else cheap and start there. Why would you ever try to keep them in the city, it makes literally no sense?!