5 ms·

Town hall should house homeless in hotels as NYC and UK does. It would solve two problems and boost local economy!

by pixel3234 3y ago

mc32 3y ago
Turning upscale hotels into SROs isn’t a way to regain valuation.
- pixel3234 3y ago
  Not SROs! Hotels should be fully compensated at commercial rate! Maybe slight discount for long term stay could be negotiated. Even $500 per night would be cheaper than current policy!
  - briandear 3y ago
    You want taxpayers to pay $500 per night for homeless? I would be furious to be paying confiscatory taxes and have those taxes go to literally putting zombie drug addicts in hotels. Very unfair to those of us that work hard to pay all those taxes. Perhaps build work camps in the Mojave instead and ship them there. Start making intentional homelessness arduous and you’ll see less of it. Prosecute illegal drug dealing and usage in public. Prosecute shoplifting. San Francisco has one do the largest homeless populations in the country. It’s because of the policies. Change the policies and many homeless will leave.
    - mhuffman 3y ago
      >You want taxpayers to pay $500 per night for homeless? I would be furious to be paying confiscatory taxes and have those taxes go to literally putting zombie drug addicts in hotels. If my memory is working they are paying about $60k a year per homeless person to address it now, which is $160+ per night now. Yes $500 is high, but the $165 is closing in on a "nice" hotel room per night now.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - archagon 3y ago
      That’s an insane way to think about your fellow human beings. “Dump them in the desert?” Really? (Sadly not uncommon, though.)
      - mc32 3y ago
        It does not have to be a desert, it could be Manteca[1]. lots of people live and work in Manteca and call it home. If there would be people eligible who are productive (taking classes, working, providing care for someone) then we could keep them in SF, else, we need to be able to provide them affordable (to the city/taxpayers) shelter and recovery services in facilities set up for that and there is no reason Manteca could not be such a place. [1]Manteca, Stockton, Modesto, Fresno, etc.
        archagon 3y ago
        So we just keep passing the buck? Where do they get dumped when Manteca does not want them? (Not that there’s any point in discussing this in the first place, since it will never actually happen.)
        mc32 3y ago
        It's cheaper to operate in Manteca. That's the point. Paying 500/night for just shelter doesn't make sense. It could be in an unincorporated area. These people need shelter, supervision and treatment till they get better.
  - mc32 3y ago
    At 500/night that's... $15,000 mo. I can't imagine they could not find a cheaper solution renting housing in Manteca or elsewhere in the valley. At 500/night that's just lining pockets somewhere at the expense of multiple levels of taxpayers.

Town hall should house homeless in hotels as NYC and UK does. It would solve two problems and boost local economy!

mc32 3y ago

Turning upscale hotels into SROs isn’t a way to regain valuation.

pixel3234 3y ago
Not SROs! Hotels should be fully compensated at commercial rate! Maybe slight discount for long term stay could be negotiated. Even $500 per night would be cheaper than current policy!
- briandear 3y ago
  You want taxpayers to pay $500 per night for homeless? I would be furious to be paying confiscatory taxes and have those taxes go to literally putting zombie drug addicts in hotels. Very unfair to those of us that work hard to pay all those taxes. Perhaps build work camps in the Mojave instead and ship them there. Start making intentional homelessness arduous and you’ll see less of it. Prosecute illegal drug dealing and usage in public. Prosecute shoplifting. San Francisco has one do the largest homeless populations in the country. It’s because of the policies. Change the policies and many homeless will leave.
  - mhuffman 3y ago
    >You want taxpayers to pay $500 per night for homeless? I would be furious to be paying confiscatory taxes and have those taxes go to literally putting zombie drug addicts in hotels. If my memory is working they are paying about $60k a year per homeless person to address it now, which is $160+ per night now. Yes $500 is high, but the $165 is closing in on a "nice" hotel room per night now.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - archagon 3y ago
    That’s an insane way to think about your fellow human beings. “Dump them in the desert?” Really? (Sadly not uncommon, though.)
    - mc32 3y ago
      It does not have to be a desert, it could be Manteca[1]. lots of people live and work in Manteca and call it home. If there would be people eligible who are productive (taking classes, working, providing care for someone) then we could keep them in SF, else, we need to be able to provide them affordable (to the city/taxpayers) shelter and recovery services in facilities set up for that and there is no reason Manteca could not be such a place. [1]Manteca, Stockton, Modesto, Fresno, etc.
      - archagon 3y ago
        So we just keep passing the buck? Where do they get dumped when Manteca does not want them? (Not that there’s any point in discussing this in the first place, since it will never actually happen.)
        mc32 3y ago
        It's cheaper to operate in Manteca. That's the point. Paying 500/night for just shelter doesn't make sense. It could be in an unincorporated area. These people need shelter, supervision and treatment till they get better.
- mc32 3y ago
  At 500/night that's... $15,000 mo. I can't imagine they could not find a cheaper solution renting housing in Manteca or elsewhere in the valley. At 500/night that's just lining pockets somewhere at the expense of multiple levels of taxpayers.