2 ms·
Doesn't imply the opposite isn't true either. Spending on "fixing" the homelessness crisis in SF has ballooned as expected and a lot of nonprofits and agencies
by hackernewds 3y ago
Doesn't imply the opposite isn't true either. Spending on "fixing" the homelessness crisis in SF has ballooned as expected and a lot of nonprofits and agencies well positioned to take advantage have benefited from the unhoused bull market
- lisper 3y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39495635 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39495635
- kmeisthax 3y agoThe fault here lies with the SF electorate, who collectively wants their housing investment to be protected and homelessness to be fixed. Actually, I would argue that this isn't even a conflict, because SF homeowners probably do not want a durable solution to the homelessness crisis. That would require bulldozing the suburbs. They instead want SF to sweep the homeless under some proverbial rug so that their presence does not tarnish the value of their homes. House them, but house them somewhere else. This isn't even an instance of the Shirky principle, it's just people using words in confusing ways.