4 ms·

>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. Sp

by 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 ago
When 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 ago
  They 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?
  - bombcar 2y ago
    There’s got to be some Appalachian town that would love to get paid $700m/yr to house and care for 8,000 people.
    - bagels 2y ago
      Maybe its facetious, but I also do not understand why they have to be accommodated in a top 5 most expensive place in the world to live in.
      - bombcar 2y ago
        It's half facetious but also half serious, as the amounts of money are simply staggering. There has to be some middle ground between "homeless in a park" and "living their own life with a job" and "locked up in prison at great cost" that would be satisfactory to everyone.
        bagels 2y ago
        I think it's impossible for everyone to be satisfied no matter what the solution is.

by edm0nd 2y ago

oefrha 2y ago

When 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 ago
They 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?
- bombcar 2y ago
  There’s got to be some Appalachian town that would love to get paid $700m/yr to house and care for 8,000 people.
  - bagels 2y ago
    Maybe its facetious, but I also do not understand why they have to be accommodated in a top 5 most expensive place in the world to live in.
    - bombcar 2y ago
      It's half facetious but also half serious, as the amounts of money are simply staggering. There has to be some middle ground between "homeless in a park" and "living their own life with a job" and "locked up in prison at great cost" that would be satisfactory to everyone.
      - bagels 2y ago
        I think it's impossible for everyone to be satisfied no matter what the solution is.