4 ms·

I live on the edge of that map and I can't wait for the Tenderloin to get gentrified like much of the rest of the city. A significant portion of homeless in th

by ggreer 12y ago

I live on the edge of that map and I can't wait for the Tenderloin to get gentrified like much of the rest of the city. A significant portion of homeless in the Tenderloin are violently insane. I've had several threaten to kill me in the past few months. I've had someone come up and start pushing me until one of his friends yelled, "Leave that cracker alone!" I've had a homeless woman run up to me waving a stick, threatening to beat me up. It's gotten bad enough that I carry pepper spray. There are some cool things in the Tenderloin, but I'd gladly trade them for not having to fear assault by crazy drug addicts. Oh, and to those who think nothing is being done about homelessness or that the US doesn't have social programs for this: The city of San Francisco (a city of a million people) spends over $150 million a year on the problem. That works out to $34 per homeless person per day.[1] 1. http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/S-F-spending-on-homeless-exceeds-many-5416839.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/S-F-spendi...

normloman 12y ago
Ok, so the tenderloin gets gentrified. Where do those homeless go now? You haven't solved the problem. Just moved it far away where you can't see it.
- ggreer 12y ago
  I can name several better places for insane violent people to go to: Mental institutions. Jail, sadly enough. Anywhere but the streets of an urban area full of tourists. People think that the homeless population here indicates a moral failing, when really it's due to factors outside the city's control. The weather is mild year-round, so transients tend to settle here. Also, other states ship their mental patients to San Francisco.[1] 1. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/22/us/once-suicidal-and-shipped-off-now-battling-nevada-over-care.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/22/us/once-suicidal-and-shipp...
jtfairbank 12y ago
The minimum wage in San Francisco is $10.74 / hr. That means that the amount of money going to the homeless is about three hours of work [0]. If we can hardly expect a full time minimum wage job to support someone, how can a third of that be enough to support "crazy drug addicts" who if anything need more help? Furthermore, if there are 1 million people in San Fran and the city spends $150 million a year, that means everyone is paying in $150. Which is a lot of money to the poorer end of the spectrum, but chump change to us techies. Indeed, there are 37,000 tech workers in San Fran who make on average $160,000 [1]. Even if the entirety of the social programs were paid for by tech workers, it'd come down to 4% of their after tax income [2]. Indeed, to pay for the equivalent of a full time minimum wage job for all of San Francisco's homeless would only cost its tech workers 16% of their post-tax salary, or about $10K [3][4]. And that's tech workers in the city alone, which make up just 3.7% of its million inhabitants. If you are not a tech worker and are not in a position to do more then please realize this rant is not about you. For everyone else who just wants to see the problem 'disappear', I completely understand why a portion of the city hates you. You don't need a tv, or a new car (used is a smarter choice economically anyways), or a daily latte. You want those things. They are nice perks, just like the free lunch at work. In the meantime the people who are struggling with the lifelong problems of homelessness and addiction are just trying to find a lil hit of crack and a spot by the freeway to get through the day. Some side notes: There will always be the homeless-by-choice, which is fine. If you want to camp under a bridge all summer go for it. But there needs to be an available bed and a warm cup of soup waiting for the people who actually have problems, temporarily or long term. [0]: 34 / 10.74 = 3.16 (minimum wage equivalent hours of homeless person's benefits) [1]: bottom of http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/tech-job-growth-is-booming-but-other-industries-still-dominate-san-francisco/Content?oid=2629996 http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/tech-job-growth-is-bo... [2]: 150,000,000 / (37,000 * 160,000 * .4) = .04 (percent of tech worker salary to pay existing homeless budget) [3]: 10.74 * 8 = 86.08 (daily income for minimum wage job) [4]: 150,000,000 * (86.08 / 34) / (37,000 * 160,000 * .4) = .16 (percent of tech worker salary to pay 'full time minimum wage homeless budget')
incision 12y ago
>'The city of San Francisco (a city of a million people) spends over $150 million a year on the problem. That works out to $34 per homeless person per day.[1]' My loose Wikipedia-driven math puts that at <0.5% of income working to support >1.3% of population to the tune of a not terribly luxurious $12k per year. I don't know how that compares to elsewhere, but it doesn't seem like a horrible deal at face value. Still, the important question is always going to be how that money is spent, not how much is spent. Everyone seems to agree that it could be more effective. Thankfully, some of the issues sound like things the tech community would quite able to assist with: "By highest-end users, Bamberger means the hardest of the hard-core homeless, who use far more emergency services, such as ambulance rides, than other homeless people. To figure out which ones those are, Salt Lake City uses a data tracking system that shows every time a homeless person gets shelter, counseling or other services from a government or nonprofit agency. Then counselors can tailor housing and services to the person's needs. This also makes it much easier for government and nonprofits to quickly coordinate their efforts. San Francisco doesn't have such a system. Its service providers have wanted one for a decade - and this summer, they plan to participate in a pilot project for just such a data-tracking system, led by the Human Services Agency and other city departments involved in aiding the homeless." 1: http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Salt-Lake-City-a-model-for-S-F-on-homeless-5587357.php http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Salt-Lake-City-a-model-...
- jshack 12y ago
  Thanks for adding that about the data tracking system in Salt Lake City, that could definitely be a step in the right direction.

by ggreer 12y ago

normloman 12y ago

Ok, so the tenderloin gets gentrified. Where do those homeless go now? You haven't solved the problem. Just moved it far away where you can't see it.

ggreer 12y ago
I can name several better places for insane violent people to go to: Mental institutions. Jail, sadly enough. Anywhere but the streets of an urban area full of tourists. People think that the homeless population here indicates a moral failing, when really it's due to factors outside the city's control. The weather is mild year-round, so transients tend to settle here. Also, other states ship their mental patients to San Francisco.[1] 1. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/22/us/once-suicidal-and-shipped-off-now-battling-nevada-over-care.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/22/us/once-suicidal-and-shipp...

jtfairbank 12y ago

The minimum wage in San Francisco is $10.74 / hr. That means that the amount of money going to the homeless is about three hours of work [0]. If we can hardly expect a full time minimum wage job to support someone, how can a third of that be enough to support "crazy drug addicts" who if anything need more help? Furthermore, if there are 1 million people in San Fran and the city spends $150 million a year, that means everyone is paying in $150. Which is a lot of money to the poorer end of the spectrum, but chump change to us techies. Indeed, there are 37,000 tech workers in San Fran who make on average $160,000 [1]. Even if the entirety of the social programs were paid for by tech workers, it'd come down to 4% of their after tax income [2]. Indeed, to pay for the equivalent of a full time minimum wage job for all of San Francisco's homeless would only cost its tech workers 16% of their post-tax salary, or about $10K [3][4]. And that's tech workers in the city alone, which make up just 3.7% of its million inhabitants. If you are not a tech worker and are not in a position to do more then please realize this rant is not about you. For everyone else who just wants to see the problem 'disappear', I completely understand why a portion of the city hates you. You don't need a tv, or a new car (used is a smarter choice economically anyways), or a daily latte. You want those things. They are nice perks, just like the free lunch at work. In the meantime the people who are struggling with the lifelong problems of homelessness and addiction are just trying to find a lil hit of crack and a spot by the freeway to get through the day. Some side notes: There will always be the homeless-by-choice, which is fine. If you want to camp under a bridge all summer go for it. But there needs to be an available bed and a warm cup of soup waiting for the people who actually have problems, temporarily or long term. [0]: 34 / 10.74 = 3.16 (minimum wage equivalent hours of homeless person's benefits) [1]: bottom of http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/tech-job-growth-is-booming-but-other-industries-still-dominate-san-francisco/Content?oid=2629996 http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/tech-job-growth-is-bo... [2]: 150,000,000 / (37,000 * 160,000 * .4) = .04 (percent of tech worker salary to pay existing homeless budget) [3]: 10.74 * 8 = 86.08 (daily income for minimum wage job) [4]: 150,000,000 * (86.08 / 34) / (37,000 * 160,000 * .4) = .16 (percent of tech worker salary to pay 'full time minimum wage homeless budget')

incision 12y ago

>'The city of San Francisco (a city of a million people) spends over $150 million a year on the problem. That works out to $34 per homeless person per day.[1]' My loose Wikipedia-driven math puts that at <0.5% of income working to support >1.3% of population to the tune of a not terribly luxurious $12k per year. I don't know how that compares to elsewhere, but it doesn't seem like a horrible deal at face value. Still, the important question is always going to be how that money is spent, not how much is spent. Everyone seems to agree that it could be more effective. Thankfully, some of the issues sound like things the tech community would quite able to assist with: "By highest-end users, Bamberger means the hardest of the hard-core homeless, who use far more emergency services, such as ambulance rides, than other homeless people. To figure out which ones those are, Salt Lake City uses a data tracking system that shows every time a homeless person gets shelter, counseling or other services from a government or nonprofit agency. Then counselors can tailor housing and services to the person's needs. This also makes it much easier for government and nonprofits to quickly coordinate their efforts. San Francisco doesn't have such a system. Its service providers have wanted one for a decade - and this summer, they plan to participate in a pilot project for just such a data-tracking system, led by the Human Services Agency and other city departments involved in aiding the homeless." 1: http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Salt-Lake-City-a-model-for-S-F-on-homeless-5587357.php http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Salt-Lake-City-a-model-...

jshack 12y ago
Thanks for adding that about the data tracking system in Salt Lake City, that could definitely be a step in the right direction.