10 ms·
In that case, why not move all the homeless from a park in a metropolis to a park in a cheaper/remote area? Then you can actually employ cheaper custodians in
by galimalint 2y ago
In that case, why not move all the homeless from a park in a metropolis to a park in a cheaper/remote area? Then you can actually employ cheaper custodians in those areas to look after these homeless.
- ggm 2y agoSee, thats why I don't like the reductive reasoning. After all, when you're moving them why bother with seat belts and comfy chairs? Just use a flatbed truck and they can hold their pathetic possessions on with string, if they have any. And you also neatly assume the resources in the remote location can cope with the burden rather than already being behind the cost curve, compared to rangers in the SF metro area with direct access to the agencies. Wait a minute, isn't this why it "paid" for the Texan and Floridan governors to ship their problems to the sanctuary cities?
- galimalint 2y agoyou might have misunderstood; if the homeless is now in a cheaper COL park, then more park custodians can be hired to take care of the homeless. And why should we assume that SF metro agencies are more apt to take care of these downtrodden than small town Nevada City? They haven't exactly done a stellar job so far for decades.
- ketzo 2y ago> custodians can be hired SF has one of the largest city budgets in the country — >$15billion — and struggles to staff park workers making $70-90k. If the park workers only make $60k, but the city budget is 1/10th, 1/20th, 1/100th of SF’s, how does the math here ever work?
- edmundsauto 2y agoSF budget is city and county services, fwiw. It is good to make apples to apples comparison.
- Redoubts 2y agoIt’s also services for less than a million people
- galimalint 2y agoPark rangers make $30k-40k in small cities/towns. Not to mention big cities can help pay for some of the transition costs for these homeless, with their 15 billion budget. Also, it would be way cheaper to house these homeless once they choose to transition from park to an apartment.
- edm0nd 2y ago>In fiscal year 2023–2024, San Francisco spent $690 million on homelessness, notes the San Francisco Chronicle. This is a 142% increase from five years ago. Spending $700M/year on homelessness crisis is straight up insane. There has to be a better way that doesnt cost as much. SF is kinda fucked. https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/homeless-questions-answers-18540773.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/homeless-questions-an...
- oefrha 2y agoWhen there is an enormous budget somehow used up but with barely any noticeable effect (and frankly, without much of an expectation that there’s noticeable effect), you can bet there’s someone or a lot of someones siphoning from it. Btw even $690m isn’t the full picture: > While that amount does not include what the Department of Public Health or SF Public Works or many other departments spend related to the crisis
- ryandrake 2y agoThey could just take that $700M and divide it up among the ~8000 homeless in the city. That $87,500 per year would be enough to help get someone on their feet pretty quickly. Probably more effective than whatever the hell they’re spending it on today. Salaries for administrators administrating other administrators?
- s1artibartfast 2y agoSF park workers are closer to 120K from those I know. A lot of labor intensive hand weeding because the city shuns herbicide. However, this is less than the median SF city employee, which makes 150k https://opengovpay.com/employer/ca/san-francisco https://opengovpay.com/employer/ca/san-francisco
- tsimionescu 2y agoThe point would be to still use SF's money to do this, I assume. The point was that SF's money would be better spent on park rangers in a smaller city than in SF itself. Now, I think there are otherajor issues with this idea (mostly that having a 0.1% population of assisted people is much more workable than a 10% population, as would happen if SF moved every homeless person to a smaller city).
- OgsyedIE 2y agoThen they'll have much further distances to commute on foot to their jobs.
- WillPostForFood 2y agoIf they could have a job they wouldn't be homeless.
- amanaplanacanal 2y agoMy understanding is that there are plenty of homeless folks with jobs.
- bombcar 2y agoIdentifying and assisting these people first would seem to be the thing to do. But reducing those homeless to 0% would likely not move the needle at all on the “problematic homeless” - the type everyone complains about. Nobody cares about Steve Wallis sleeping in a bush.
- genewitch 2y agoWhy would a job automatically mean housing? This is America, a job only means enough money for housing in some markets.
- anadem 2y agoIt's a lot hard to re-enter society if you're separated from everyone and everyplace you know. Sure, it could be cheaper in some ways to ship the homeless out to bumfuck nowhere, but might be less cost-effective than you think, and certainly less humane.
- aprilthird2021 2y agoYes it is harder, but it's also harder for society to offer you the services like free room and board, help getting a job, and the thousand other services we offer in a high cost of living area. Since society is taking up the bulk of the work in helping you re-enter, you have to make some compromises, and potentially moving to a new place seems like a reasonable one to make. If we want a robust and strong social safety net, we cannot commit to providing all these services in the most expensive place to do so.
- tomrod 2y agoWhy?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Redoubts 2y agoAre you asking why things have costs?
- tomrod 2y agoNo, but I could see why that is where your mind started. You have a deep, implicit assumption of a social contract in your statement here: > Since society is taking up the bulk of the work in helping you re-enter, you have to make some compromises, and potentially moving to a new place seems like a reasonable one to make. If we want a robust and strong social safety net, we cannot commit to providing all these services in the most expensive place to do so. Some people can't. I know several schizophrenia sufferers who would never be able to hit an expected checklist. Some are brilliant. Some think they talk to an esoteric God and babble prophecy. None are functional. We used to lock those folks up in sanitoriums for their safety, but due to systemic abuse this ended. Go back further, and the folks were tribal shamans, village jesters, and other elements of society which were supported by others until their (often untimely) deaths. The latter support more or less ended when we as a species started settling down out of nomadic lives. As a society, we dramatically underfund infrastructure (crumbling bridges and suburbs), healthcare (exploding costs without quality improvement), education (teachers salary is uncompetitive), government action (court systems aren't expedient, legislators xna be bought). If we don't want these things, we should have the society decide so. This would be through legislation. But we haven't. We ignore these friction instead of addressing them. Resolving friction takes effort, and effort has costs.
- drjasonharrison 2y agoPark Ranges and Social Services Workers are much cheaper than Police, Paramedics, and Emergency Room Staff. Your reductive suggestion could be implemented by busing the homeless to prisons. That's probably not what you were proposing, but it's one interpretation.