3 ms·
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 pr
by 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 agoSo 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 agoIt'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.