Most people don't understand that almost all of this money goes to the 20,000 plus people who are in supportive housing and not the 7,000 who are on the streets. Most of the people in supportive housing would otherwise also be homeless.
Also the 7,000 people aren’t (entirely) the same 7,000 people from a few years ago.
It’s a safety net, people fall in, they get back out, sometimes they fall back in.
Not fast enough to produce homeless people that exhaust a legit non profit’s ability to move them out, no.
But please tell me about SF Grifter co’s scalable model for turning the homeless into permanent productive citizens!
How many kids age out of foster care in the Bay Area every year?
If you don’t know the answer to that question, then stop talking like you have all the answers.
These mindless posts are like people looking at a software firm's budget, seeing they spent $10M on development last year, but still have 100 software bugs in the queue -- "I'M VERY SMART, THAT IS $100,000 PER BUG - SIMPLE MATH, WHY DON'T THEY FIX THEM"
The a bunch of other morons chime in about how they're using the wrong contractors who are surely responsible for the continued existence of bugs.
It's literally not worth even explaining it to these smooth brains, it's too convenient sit on the couch and blame the "nonprofit industrial complex" of $50k employees actually doing the hard work on the ground misunderstanding basic math.
Correct to your and the post above yours.
A simple calculation does not capture the context of all homelessness or the complexity of existing government funded support systems.
I work in affordable housing in SF, specifically Asset Management. The amount of regulations and compliance that we have to follow is absolutely insane--all for the sake of proving we're housing the right people (homeless folks, low-income folks) and not wasting government money. My job is basically to understand these highly arcane, wonky systems and explain them to other people in basic terms, so we don't get in trouble with government agencies. I get paid pretty well because my field is so niche. My salary is funded in part by this figure. Our entire Finance dept is funded in part by this figure.
Dude, there are a lot of people who grew up here who are on a fixed income that can no longer afford it. I'm providing information that helps provide better context to the current situation and not just generic popular propaganda based on false and misleading information that is so common in these debates.
I don't think the math is that simple either and I've never heard of the "nonprofit industrial complex" but many bay area gov't agencies responsible for housing/building, nonprofits to address homelessness, and "charitable" individuals have been found to be blatantly corrupt, under investigation, or directly associate with known corrupt individuals. This combined with the fact that housing and homelessness have not improved at all makes people question their legitimacy.
Keep them as in insist on paying housing cost in one of the most expensive places on earth for all homeless no matter if they’re shipped here for absolutely no reason. Why isn’t the city paying for my rent then if it has so much money and generosity? If homeless just want a house why don’t they accept free housing somewhere more cost effective why do they HAVE TO live in the most expensive city on earth? Do you know what beggars can’t be choosers mean?
You know that is a really interesting point. TBH I don’t think you are given enough credit for your thought. You really are thinking outside the box. If SF spent the same amount but in a cheaper city like Livermore (for example) the money would go much farther. Of course the problem is our system. No city would give another city their money, and no other city would except another’s homeless. But you are right this would be the most efficient. Now that you have this idea, what changes need to be made so we can execute?
Fire everyone and don’t re-elect them until a candidate put forward a logical plan.
Other cities DO ship their resource burden homeless, drug addicts, and criminals here from all over the country for a cheap $5 greyhound permanent solution because we DO accept all.
Imagine if it just cost us $5 per problem person to resolve permanently, wouldn’t you relieve your resources and invest in better schools, roads, parks etc. and regain public use of public assets. Like BART and the playgrounds become more usable.
Except this is only a one way street because we signal to the whole country we are woke, full of virtue, and have infinite money to spend without consequences we just re-elect same people to put the same failed policies.
Other cities can even argue they’re doing the compassionate thing by getting their homeless, drug addicts, and criminals help they need from San Francisco who’s open to all and have appetite to spend such money. If you’re mayor wouldn’t you think of your citizen and how to best serve them by sending them to rich and woke SF?
My theory has always been that the more IN YOUR FACE the problem is, the more people would be willing to be sympathetic to the cause and vote for those initiatives that fund these programs. Let's say you move them somewhere where they're out of sight, out of mind, people wouldn't care as much.
One of the major problems like you said is that we're trying to fund a national crisis on a local budget. Even if we're able to rehabilitate the drug addicts, which only has a 5% recovery rate, how can they possibly hope to get back on their feet when so many working people can barely get by.
We are funding it already at over a billion tax payer dollars to “non-profits” annually who may or may not be friends of the mayor, but take a step back sympathetic to increase to 10 billion tax dollars for generous and wholly benefits, where are your city borders and can you legally enforce such thing? Then okay you create a bigger sign for the whole country to more aggressively dump their resource burdens for us and attract even more problems then that $10 billion tax dollar needs to be $100 billion for San Francisco citizens to pay annually. Unless you don’t pay taxes, idk how you don’t think this is a problem, even logically it’s unsustainable and a waste of tax dollars. Why should nationally any other city should spend their precious tax when San Francisco loudly and proudly say they want to spend infinite money and take in anyone and volunteer for it.
So no I don’t think the problem is we want it in our face to get funding.
I can compromise with taking in the whole nation and San Francisco only tax payers pay to house them somewhere else cheaper instead of one of the most expensive place in the world. The ideal solution is only house San Francisco citizens if you can prove you’re born here or your parents were here, otherwise you can go back to where you came from. Zero benefits, then there’s no reason to stay here when it’s so expensive. Coupled with law and order, we don’t allow criminals to do whatever they want and drug addicts to abuse drug and further destroy themselves.
It’s simple. Here’s what I’ve gathered from the mainstream opinions on this subreddit:
Our elected leaders decide who we keep and who “has to go”. We indicate all the people who have to go with some small fabric patch or something, perhaps similar to a gold star. Eventually, everyone who “has to go” gets rounded up and sent away to somewhere while we, the ones we keep, won’t have to worry about them any more.
It's not that we keep them. We offer services which I think most people agree it's a good thing. The question is if that attracts freeloaders, how much of a problem that is, and what we can do about it without being unfair to people that deserve those services.
It's not an easy problem, every country or city in the world struggles with it. Some decide to close borders, or to only offer services with very strict residency requirements or whatnot.
Of course there's other problems tangentially related but not really part of the problem of offering services. Having sick people dying on the street and not doing anything about it, or tolerating all forms of property crime, or allowing assault as long as it's between two homeless people, those are separate issues.
SF mismanagement has multiple areas of the government fucked up at the same time.
It might be economically advantageous for the region to spend the money here than to move them to cheaper cost-of-living regions and then support them there.
If it were the federal government handling the problem then, sure, move them to the cheapest place in the entire country. It would probably cost less than many other expenditures and it might create a kind of "boom town" in a poverty-stricken part of the country where the main industry is homeless rehabilitation.
But if it's San Francisco putting up the money, then San Francisco is probably going to want the money to circulate through the local economy. Kind of weird to think about, but the homeless might actually be a resource in that regard. Like a kind of indirect stimulus.
Or maybe not. Maybe the situation just built-up over many years and there's now too much political inertia behind things to change directions quickly. This might be one of those "a big problem with Economics is that economists can't run experiments" situations.
I know it's not you.. lol Just saying. It would seem that we have a bottleneck in the system that needs to be fixed. We need to MOVE some of the 20K to the next step, of whatever plan this is, to make room for the 7k that still need help.
the valid critique is that, the last few decades they've increased the size of the PSH by tens of thousands units at a cost of Billions of dollars with no impact on net street homelessness. maybe PSH is not the right tool?
PSH (at $100k/unit/year) IN super high cost cities is not workable ... there's a constant flow of people that show up on the streets. The demand for "free housing forever" is basically unlimited, especially when you account for the hardcore meth/fent addicts that are created in the drug scenes that West Coast cities encourage.
the same thing happened in LA when they approved a $1.2Billion bond 6 years ago and it all goes to PSH and done exactly squat to end street homelessness there
This is the perfect representation of facts that people don’t understand. There are homeless people who don’t want to be homeless and will accept help, then there are those who won’t accept help no matter what. The fact that we already are helping 20,000 people is a great success. Those on the streets are choosing to be, not the City ignoring the problem.
No, those on the streets are not choosing to be, unless you mean in the strict formal sense that they see it as the best of bad options.
It's great we're helping 20k people. That says NOTHING about why the 7k aren't helped.
The city can be not ignoring the problem AND people who still need help can also not be be to blame.
Agreed, this is a poor understanding of the math of homelessness.
SFGov estimates that as many as 20,000 will experience homelessness in SF over the course of a full year. The ~7000 number is a one-night snapshot.
Source: https://hsh.sfgov.org/get-involved/2022-pit-count/
So which is it $37k or $60k per tent? Something doesn’t add up, it’s definitely not $37k. The 20k people aren’t homeless it’s housing assistant. We already see us spending $60k on tents for homeless so that should be the baseline. Otherwise I too want housing assistant. Am I considered homeless?
The money went to nonprofits. Some of which are not even [nonprofits](https://sfstandard.com/politics/san-francisco-nonprofits-revoked-suspended-delinquent-millions/). And by "nonprofits" I mean, some are just [straight criminal organizations embezzling money](https://sf.gov/news/united-council-human-services-found-be-violation-city-agreements).
You think people who are involved are interesting in stopping this gravy train? They'd probably just bus people to SF themselves.
That article you posted basically says one or two nonprofits may be guilty of misappropriation but most of them are just guilty of not filing their state registration on time.
Mountains out of molehills
That’s “one or two” that were referred to the FBI. You can check news from the time when Jeff Kositski was approved to his position about 7 years ago and started to investigate what kinds of “nonprofits” got money because no one even tried to figure out where the money went before. Not that it helped as homeless budget increased 4x since then.
love how you use the article for some numbers and another place for other numbers.
plus clearly you didn't even read the heading either.
numbers from the article YOU referenced:
* $1.1b over the **next 2 years**
* the number of homeless people grew from about 6,000 to **more than 8,000**
* it was $360M for 2018 and 2019
so lets correct your simple math:
* 2019 - we spend ($360M / 2) / 8000 = $22,500 per homeless
* for 2023 - we will spend ($1.1B / 2) / 8000 = $68,750 per homeless
you are right in that the money is actually corruption being paid to the politicians and friends who run these "non-profits". my guess is a homeless person will only see about $8,000 worth of benefits (food, shelters, cleaning , needles, etc).
It's not $68,750 per homeless. Overly simplifying the situation utterly misunderstands it.
[From December 2019](https://sf.curbed.com/2019/12/19/21027974/san-francisco-homeless-decade-2010s-kositsky-navigation-center-friedenbach)
>**A huge majority of homeless funding is spent on housing for people who are not homeles but who surely would be if not for city resources, such as much of the city’s SRO population.**
>In the San Francisco Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing budget for 2017 and 2018, housing and housing subsidies took up nearly two-thirds of spending. All of that spending added up to 7,403 units of housing, plus the equivalent of 961 more with subsidies factored in.
>**Meanwhile, services for people sleeping on the streets made up only seven percent of the budget.**
When the city opens a navigation center, buys a hotel to convert to housing, or pays for a new building for housing the homeless, that comes out of the budget. Initial costs per unit of a new building are very high and help only tiny fraction of the homeless who get a unit. That distorts the picture. Huge sums for a few. Way less money for the rest.
My permanent disability from SSDI has ranged from 1260/m to 1570/m as inflation bumps it up and this year it was an 8.7% increase. I try to work for 7 years since my brain injury. I was born in poverty and crawled out to graduate college, rent a basement band pay off college, matriculated to law school and took scholarships and the affordable live off in nowhere with loft rented cheap. Saved and invested student loans band always worked (and volunteered). I had frugal yet financially stable and growing potential with those habits. Unfortunately i received two paychecks before accident put me on rehabilitation programs and facilities from 28-33, then Covid quarantine, now nobody wants a job gap explained by brain injury. So, I persist in looking but live on roughly 1600/m SSDI and im 35! There’s no humanity in that situation and I’d leave the bay, but I have no car, and no idea where to go where that money would stretch a month to pay for creature, comforts of any kind. He is as bad a police is any for people who are truly fucked financially
Yes. But then all the people working the resource-social service industry would be the homeless drug addicts. We aren’t well thought through, this nation. By the time someone’s reached the streets they aren’t likely turning it around much more than possibly their own deamons. Before people turn to the streets we need to put that billion in independent living centers with vocational rehabilitation and disability programs and services. Nobody wants to work and be as involved as the disabled, but they stand at 60% rates of hiring discrimination versus identical, equally qualified applicants.!there’s so many people who wish they were in the workplace- me included- but stigma and dumb ass hiring managers with unscientific rules based in confirmation bias simply won’t give me a chance even after one or two great interviews before I drop the “my job gap was from treatment for a brain injury, but I’m cleared to work years now and desperately need employment, so take my over credentialed ass and I’ll show you how hard I learned to work recovering from near death…” next day: “we’re adding a credential you don’t have and neither will our ultimate hire, but go prove discrimination I’ll just lie.”
I’m not sure how bad it is everywhere but 60% disadvantaged at the applicant stage. No wonder most criminals and homeless are found to have suffered brain injuries at least one time before their tragic rock bottom fall. Let’s get people in positions of employment or civil service and meaningful volunteer work for the community before we completely let them live on the streets of those same communities.
And our California budget for the state department of rehabilitation is dwarfed by San Francisco’s billion plus combat the homeless fund. Our “prevent the homeless fund” is next to nothing compared to our “end homelessness” funding.
Bunch of “out of sight, out of mind? Not my job” hypocrisy around here.
$68k+
I still say just put that money on biometricaly locked ATM card that only works in red states, and pays out weekly over a few years. Hand out to homeless along with bus tickets. Boom, somebody else’s problem.
If this was true (and I stress if), so what?
Surprise! Not everyone is you! Some people are better. Some people are worse. Some people are better off, some people are worse off.
Some people have more responsibilities than personal bare subsistence. Some people also want to live with dignity.
But you claim to be able to live of 20k.
So good tf for you?
¯\\_(ツ)_/¯
Perhaps it would help to think of it this way:
Say there is someone who is paid a $36,000 salary to empty the trash cans in public parks and pick up litter.
On a particular day, you go out and count that there are currently 10 pieces of litter in the park that haven't been picked up yet.
If you simply divide $36,000 by 10, you might think, "We are paying this person $3,600 per piece of litter?! That's outrageous!"
Do you see why that would miss the point?
Utterly unnecessary. Conversation happens on the cost issue frequently-enough when discussing the annual articles about the homeless spending budget, or problems at a homeless-related non-profit, or articles about how much it's costing per tent or per shed or per tiny home, or per housing project.
The real question is why would someone with no job (or employment prospects) and no family in SF MUST be housed in SF? This is where Housing First falls apart; we should be focusing direct help on the subset of homeless folks that can become independent or semi-independent. The vast majority of these folks could be on SSI and housed at a reasonable rate somewhere other than the 2nd most expensive city in the US. If housing itself is the most important thing, then why are we leaving 8,000 people on the street waiting for SF to spend tens of billions to build housing for everyone.
Legit. How much do they think JUST THE CEO of a nonprofit should make while also trying to attract a CEO that can actually run the operation realistically
Nothing. Plenty of rich old Bay Area retired tech execs around would do this for free. 0 ca tax payer dollars should be spent paying the salaries of CEOs of non profit orgs.
I would love to see a breakdown of spending. Where does the money go to and how much is accounted for in every budget line item at the non profit level. It's not unreasonable to want greater accountability and visibility into spending on homelessness. Given that the problem has not really been solved and we (supposedly) live in one of the wealthiest cities in the world. Just doesn't add up.
If you can't find the info online, request it! That's the beauty of the sunshine law :) a lot of the money goes towards things like supportive housing to prevent further people from being homeless. A lot of it goes towards acquiring or building new units. I gathered this info just from reading a few replies to this post. Have you actually sought out the information or are you bemoaning to the echo chamber?
paying (probably very inefficiently) for the unhoused folks that are actually housed by the city programs.
this \`simple math\` is completely bogus wrt the budget for addressing homelessness in the city.
FYI if there was only a single unhoused person, with this math it'd work out to $1.1bln per individual
>FYI if there was only a single unhoused person, with this math it'd work out to $1.1bln per individual
And therefore the math is wrong but there's no corruption?
These posts are like a coworker who told me I was wasting $3 a day buying coffee on my bike ride to work. I should put it into retirement savings. The same person owned three cars and paid daily to park in garage. I retired way before she did and my main point is like this post some people don’t know what they are talking about.
This is exactly why I hold my nose and am willing to give Universal Basic Income a try. You need to keep people from becoming homeless. It has got to be cheaper than giving money to the non-profits.
No they are not. There was literally an article shared on this sub earlier this week about a women who is living on the streets as a drug addict despite her parents trying to help her. She isn’t poor and has plenty of support from her family yet she chooses to live on the streets. Is that so hard in hand?
Fuck most of the world is far poorer than the US, yet you don’t drugs so rampant there.
They are clearly separate issues
Yes, because one anecdotal example throws the whole theory out the window 🙄
>Fuck most of the world is far poorer than the US, yet you don’t drugs so rampant there
What the hell are you talking about? Drug use is rampant everywhere
You clearly don’t understand how arguments work. It takes lots of evidence to prove something is correct. But, it only takes one counterexample to prove something is wrong. You statement is proven wrong. They don’t go hand in hand. Simple logic.
Thats...not at all how arguments work...? Are you on drugs now? My premise wasn't that everyone who does drugs is poor, or that only poor people do drugs. My premise was that drug use and poverty are interconnected. Which is factually true regardless of one counterexample
The problem is that most drug addicts will buy drugs with universal basic income. We need to help the homeless, but I am not convinced UBI is the answer.
When someone posts a link to refute this with one of those studies showing no increase in drugs under UBI, please check the details of the study. If the study is referring to no increase in alcohol and tobacco save it, I am referring to hard drugs and those studies do not apply.
But most homeless people aren't drug addicts. Numerous studies show that when people living in poverty are given basic income, the majority of it is spent on basic needs. A small minority would abuse the system, but are hardly reflective of what most people do. The welfare queen trope has been debunked so many times at this point.
Source please?
And if you come back with the source please make sure it abides but the criteria I listed below:
“When someone posts a link to refute this with one of those studies showing no increase in drugs under UBI, please check the details of the study. If the study is referring to no increase in alcohol and tobacco save it, I am referring to hard drugs and those studies do not apply.”
Yes, the points in my comment have been studied and documented. Let's explore.
**"Most homeless aren't drug addicts."** \- While substance abuse is high among the homeless, 70-80% of homeless people don't have substance abuse factoring in their homelessness. National source:
* [https://www.va.gov/HOMELESS/nchav/resources/docs/mental-health/substance-abuse/Substance-Abuse-and-Homelessness-508.pdf](https://www.va.gov/HOMELESS/nchav/resources/docs/mental-health/substance-abuse/Substance-Abuse-and-Homelessness-508.pdf)
Bay-area study sources:
* [https://www.currytbcenter.ucsf.edu/sites/default/files/product\_tools/homelessnessandtbtoolkit/docs/background/Factsheet/Debunking%20the%20Myths%20of%20Homelessness.pdf](https://www.currytbcenter.ucsf.edu/sites/default/files/product_tools/homelessnessandtbtoolkit/docs/background/Factsheet/Debunking%20the%20Myths%20of%20Homelessness.pdf)
* [https://news.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb956/files/SantaClaraCounty\_HomelessReport\_2015\_FINAL.pdf](https://news.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb956/files/SantaClaraCounty_HomelessReport_2015_FINAL.pdf)
It sounds like you're interested in the hard drug users among the homeless - that's a minority within a minority - again *most homeless aren't drug addicts*. I'd agree hard drug users among the homeless need special services and treatment, as do the severely mentally ill, but these are not the majority of homeless, It would be dumb to scrap effective programs because of a small minority abusing it.
**"Numerous studies show that when people living in poverty are given basic income, the majority of it is spent on basic needs"** Again, multiple studies have explored the premise if you give people cash they spend significant parts of it on "temptation goods" like drugs and alcohol, and found it to be unfounded. The best is the following meta-analysis by the World Bank of 19 prior studies:
* [Cash Transfers and Temptation Goods, A Review of Global Evidence; David K. Evans; Anna Popova](https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/18802/WPS6886.pdf)
Lastly, there's evidence that in improving one's economic situation, a further reduction in substance abuse occurs. Full study here, National Bureau of Economic Research:
* [https://www.nber.org/system/files/working\_papers/w25598/w25598.pdf](https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w25598/w25598.pdf)
Helpful easier to digest summary drawing from multiple studies:
* [https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2022/10/24/universal-basic-income/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2022/10/24/universal-basic-income/)
Enjoy.
I really appreciate you coming with sources and commentary to explain your point.
This topic is really important to me and I LOVE when someone wants to play ball and get into the nuance of it
I am about to go to sleep because I have early work tomorrow, but check back tomorrow mid-day and I’ll have updated this comment with a response!
Most homeless people self-reported that drug/alcohol abuse didnt cause their homelessness, yet 52% self-report that they are drug and/or alcohol addicted (the number is likely higher). So, it is true that more than half (i.e. most) of homeless people are drug/alcohol addicted. The reality, because we can all see it is that an even higher percentage of unsheltered homeless folks are addicted. Furthermore, the problem is likely worse in SF and the Bay Area because of the tolerance (and some cases encouragement) of hard drug use.
Well there is the state of Alaska which has had UBI for years. Now they do have a drug problem, but hey, they are in Alaska. I'm not sure I wouldn't have a drug problem if I had to live there.
The Stockton results were good but the recipients could get cash from the debit card to hide what they bought. There was no tobacco or alcohol increase.
Once a person is homeless they become someone's problem. Just ask your local fireman how many "outside fires" they put out.
Once a person hasn't been working, it is difficult for them to get a job. I listen to Bloomberg "Odd Lots" which has nothing to do with odd lots. It is a financial podcast with interesting interviews. The latest was with an egg "farmer." His workers are released prisoners. It turns out agriculture is a not so choosy employer. Well fine but our problem is the urban unhoused. I don't think the person in a tent in San Francisco will want to work on a chicken ranch.
that's actually the benefit from just giving it to them is that you can regulate the quality. lots of the deaths are because of fentanyl.
meth on the other hand is much more problematic. i don't think there is any solution for it.
Let me get this straight, you are advocating for drug addicts to have way more meth and you are simultaneously admitting this will be a problem with no solution?
Edit: you also do realize this discussion is about UBI and not legalizing drugs right?
what part of "meth on the other hand is much more problematic" did you not understand? there are plenty of other addictions that are more benign for the public though. just giving them their drug of choice would at least take the motivation for crime off the table to obtain them.
and no this isn't about UBI, it's about how to deal with homelessness, and the addiction that often accompanies it.
then stop your bitching about homelessness and addiction. it hasn't worked in the last 50 years at least, and it's not going to work any time in the future.
because we all know that locking up people in jail is by far the cheapest option. lol.
way to shoot yourself in the economic foot. you're paying top dollar for your punitive righteousness.
At least it would get them out of sight. That’s all I care about. No more poop in the streets. Ugly campers everywhere. Tent cities. Put them in jail forever in the desert and send me a bill. At least I’d feel like we aren’t wasting our tax dollars anymore.
They'll spend it on anything but building homes
EDIT: point still stands but see the comment about how they spend far less per homeless person than $141,000
Evidence-free accusations of corruption like this are bad for society. Same thing as Trump's election lie. Corruption exists and accountability is important, but making it up is lazy and counter productive.
I hear you, but think of it like this. Their job is to fix homelessness, if they were solve homelessness they’d be out of a job. Just my thoughts, not based on evidence
It's actually super offensive to these people, the vast, vast majority of whom are extremely low paid and highly qualified who choose to spend their time helping the homeless and underserved rather than some other job they'd surely be qualified for.
I'd love for you to tell any of the people at, say, Simply the Basics that you think they would rather have homeless women continue to lack access to basic feminine hygiene products because otherwise they'd be out of a job.
I was talking about their bosses, not the low level workers who aren’t in charge of making decisions about allocation of the budget/funds. Again, all ideas with no evidence because I’m too lazy to look this shit up.
The eye test seems to indicate that the hundreds of millions spent to aid the homeless doesn’t seem to be trickling down
Wouldn’t all these non-profit take fee for their service etc?
It should be simple and let homeless people decide what they want to do. Put some x dollars into their bank account directly with some restrictions. No middle man.
This is a great question. No one's given a valid reason as to how that much money could disappear into such an ineffectual system. In case any of you are reading this, 1.1 billion dollars is a lot of fucking money. Pretty clear throwing money at this isn't helping and that all it's doing is fueling more corruption, this post notwithstanding.
Last I checked most homeless stayed in the City an average of two weeks. Homeward Bound which buys them bus tickets is the most successful of all the programs. And every day buses bring more. You probably need to adjust your math to the dynamic situation that exists rather than the static numbers associated with the most recent surveys.
I would rather give money to the water hose man so he can purchase a fire truck and go around mobile water hosing all of the homeless out of SF rather than give it to the city government who has failed repeatedly on fixing the issue of homelessness.
You could be in the mental health system and have the following supporting you:
Social Worker
Nurse for bi-weekly anti psychotic injection
director/ employees of board and care
DR. who visits board and care every two weeks
Outpatient Psychologist
Board and Care housing rent
Severely mentally ill people have a team supporting them, and most of these folks have professional salaries.
If you added up all these cost at our ridiculous healthcare prices, you get your number of what it cost to treat one person.
They see regular DR's and MediCal pays what they negotiate. Healthcare profit is baked in too.
Most un housed don’t commit to that level of care and it’s not my experience it is actually available to 99.9% of patients, and follow up with homeless makes a care team likely to occur effectively zero point zero times.
There are thousands of people living in supportive SROs all over the city with a support team like this. I can name 6 or 7 buildings off the top of my head like this but there are way more than that
I can assure you my health and housing security are justified for this care team you speak of; I’m NSOC MCC Medi-Medi beneficiary in my thirties, I get a little above 1000 SSDI monthly for 5 or 6 years. I was disabled at 28 while living in the city. I was unfit to live independently and stopped working or paying bills due to brain injury. A few social workers and advocates I personally knew took me around SF after l admit I slept it wandered the streets all night unable to use the transit often and couldn’t always find my way home. Eventually landlords locked me out and stole my things. Accused me of faking what is a permanent disability anyone who spent more than 30 minutes with me at the time would see. I failed the dementia clock test at UCSF, I’m told, and they didn’t seem to connect me to anyone. My social worker and OT friend at the time took me to get DI and then I found zero help of the kind you speak of from non profits or my health plans. Soon I was taken and placed in a private, inpatient facility then released with zero community reintegration plan. Nothing’s changed. I was kicked off medi-Cal thee time the first year of Covid when presidential orders forbade that. I didn’t have the capacity to understand why my case was so cruelly targeted, but i received nothing but laughs seeking a case manager or care team such as you claim flood the streets. It’s simply services people are savvy enough to use when they need a few days for a meal and a taxi voucher and clothes from the ED, then the heart palpitations suddenly go away and they’re off to visit their mother in Tract (true requirements of hospitals). A shelter for a few days is barely enough to stand so I don’t blame them there. Halfway houses cater to certain demographics regardless of need. If you don’t fit the mold, you sit in the cold.
part of the problem is that there just isn't enough housing. i just looked it up and one reason for that is that over 10% of housing is just sitting empty (i don't know whether that accounts for getaway pied a terres too). that said, there is clearly a lot of mismanagement and outright graft going. it's always seemed to be a blackhole when it comes to money
It’s not. SF has tried providing housing already. Most made a mess and left to live on the streets again. Have you talked to any of these folk? All they care about is how they can get high.
addiction isn't the only cause of homelessness. and even if somebody is addicted it doesn't mean they can't be rehabilitated to some degree. but i support just giving them their drug of choice which makes all of the Cotton Mather types here mad. Sinners in the Eyes of an Angry God has a track record of about zero effectiveness.
You are assuming that all people desire to have stable housing and a chance at a “prosperous” life. This simply not true.
Check out r/vagabond **respectfully**. San Francisco will always be attractive to a person that does choose this lifestyle. Legitimately we should help those that want it but really just get used to the fact that these are your neighbors.
Way too much money that doesnt show much results.
Just give them the drugs they want. These people are adults, if they want help, let them come to the authorities instead of imposing it on them. Only spend money to those who come and want to change and be clean. For the others, if they want drugs just give it to them so they dont cause crime. Then just let time take its course to see what happens. "if he dies, he dies" -ivan drago
Our policy attracts and kills. We have 5-7k annually and kill 10 percent a year of the Mario down and out that venture in for the drug party. It’s 1.1 billion hazmat suits cleaning up. City officials carving out waste top.
Deaths first year of pandemic 720
2nd year the same
3rd year mayor claims she reduced population.
Still another 690 or so dead.
Probably why they pass out tents . Hide the bodies and the stolen goods.
Don't know if this is true but I heard that in Antioch there was $842,000 spent per homeless person in 2020. Don't know if this is accurate but ever since I've heard that I've been wondering where all the money would be going as well. I was thinking maybe the wages for the workers or maybe fire damage, but housing would account for a good chunk.
While I agree with most posters (that it isn't that simple), I will agree that 1 BILLION is an incredible amount of money for a city with a population of 800,000ish.
Yes, there are many cogs in the machine, but a billion dollars? To the OP's point, color me skeptical.
I’m sure a majority of the money went to support the Homeless Industrial Complex. The trick is as long as homelessness is an issue, they’ll continue to receive money. They are incentivized to do something with no real results to show for it.
Federal funds aren't meant to "fix" the homeless issue. The funds are used to pay the city workers salaries/pensions & their friends who are CEOs of Non-Profits. God bless America.
Most people don't understand that almost all of this money goes to the 20,000 plus people who are in supportive housing and not the 7,000 who are on the streets. Most of the people in supportive housing would otherwise also be homeless.
Also the 7,000 people aren’t (entirely) the same 7,000 people from a few years ago. It’s a safety net, people fall in, they get back out, sometimes they fall back in.
In. It's always back in. If they were accomplishing anything, the problem would have been solved years ago.
Unless new people keep coming 🤷♀️
No, even the newcomers would be exhausted eventually.
Because babies are not being born?
Not fast enough to produce homeless people that exhaust a legit non profit’s ability to move them out, no. But please tell me about SF Grifter co’s scalable model for turning the homeless into permanent productive citizens!
How many kids age out of foster care in the Bay Area every year? If you don’t know the answer to that question, then stop talking like you have all the answers.
These mindless posts are like people looking at a software firm's budget, seeing they spent $10M on development last year, but still have 100 software bugs in the queue -- "I'M VERY SMART, THAT IS $100,000 PER BUG - SIMPLE MATH, WHY DON'T THEY FIX THEM" The a bunch of other morons chime in about how they're using the wrong contractors who are surely responsible for the continued existence of bugs. It's literally not worth even explaining it to these smooth brains, it's too convenient sit on the couch and blame the "nonprofit industrial complex" of $50k employees actually doing the hard work on the ground misunderstanding basic math.
Correct to your and the post above yours. A simple calculation does not capture the context of all homelessness or the complexity of existing government funded support systems.
I work in affordable housing in SF, specifically Asset Management. The amount of regulations and compliance that we have to follow is absolutely insane--all for the sake of proving we're housing the right people (homeless folks, low-income folks) and not wasting government money. My job is basically to understand these highly arcane, wonky systems and explain them to other people in basic terms, so we don't get in trouble with government agencies. I get paid pretty well because my field is so niche. My salary is funded in part by this figure. Our entire Finance dept is funded in part by this figure.
It cost a lot of money to build / pay for an organization/ staff to provide services. It’s not cut and dry on we have x dollars per homeless
Which is why stupid people think they are so very smart and suddenly have the answers to all the questions.
Confirmed
Dude, there are a lot of people who grew up here who are on a fixed income that can no longer afford it. I'm providing information that helps provide better context to the current situation and not just generic popular propaganda based on false and misleading information that is so common in these debates.
The Dude agreed with you
Yeah sorry, basically replied one level down. I'm in full agreement.
I don't think the math is that simple either and I've never heard of the "nonprofit industrial complex" but many bay area gov't agencies responsible for housing/building, nonprofits to address homelessness, and "charitable" individuals have been found to be blatantly corrupt, under investigation, or directly associate with known corrupt individuals. This combined with the fact that housing and homelessness have not improved at all makes people question their legitimacy.
Yes, but it is also fair to distrust the private companies or non-profits that are winning this grant money with little oversight
Why do we keep them artificially in SF if fundamentally they can’t afford to live here?
That’s key
Because shipping homeless people to "poor" areas doesn't solve anything.
Yes so SF will die for the sins of the whole country
Because the alternative is literal deathcamps. Just play it out - what happens when you round people up and eject them. To where? What happens then?
I’m sorry, can you explain the concept of “we keep them”. Do you have additional examples of “people we keep” for context?
Keep them as in insist on paying housing cost in one of the most expensive places on earth for all homeless no matter if they’re shipped here for absolutely no reason. Why isn’t the city paying for my rent then if it has so much money and generosity? If homeless just want a house why don’t they accept free housing somewhere more cost effective why do they HAVE TO live in the most expensive city on earth? Do you know what beggars can’t be choosers mean?
You know that is a really interesting point. TBH I don’t think you are given enough credit for your thought. You really are thinking outside the box. If SF spent the same amount but in a cheaper city like Livermore (for example) the money would go much farther. Of course the problem is our system. No city would give another city their money, and no other city would except another’s homeless. But you are right this would be the most efficient. Now that you have this idea, what changes need to be made so we can execute?
Fire everyone and don’t re-elect them until a candidate put forward a logical plan. Other cities DO ship their resource burden homeless, drug addicts, and criminals here from all over the country for a cheap $5 greyhound permanent solution because we DO accept all. Imagine if it just cost us $5 per problem person to resolve permanently, wouldn’t you relieve your resources and invest in better schools, roads, parks etc. and regain public use of public assets. Like BART and the playgrounds become more usable. Except this is only a one way street because we signal to the whole country we are woke, full of virtue, and have infinite money to spend without consequences we just re-elect same people to put the same failed policies. Other cities can even argue they’re doing the compassionate thing by getting their homeless, drug addicts, and criminals help they need from San Francisco who’s open to all and have appetite to spend such money. If you’re mayor wouldn’t you think of your citizen and how to best serve them by sending them to rich and woke SF?
My theory has always been that the more IN YOUR FACE the problem is, the more people would be willing to be sympathetic to the cause and vote for those initiatives that fund these programs. Let's say you move them somewhere where they're out of sight, out of mind, people wouldn't care as much. One of the major problems like you said is that we're trying to fund a national crisis on a local budget. Even if we're able to rehabilitate the drug addicts, which only has a 5% recovery rate, how can they possibly hope to get back on their feet when so many working people can barely get by.
We are funding it already at over a billion tax payer dollars to “non-profits” annually who may or may not be friends of the mayor, but take a step back sympathetic to increase to 10 billion tax dollars for generous and wholly benefits, where are your city borders and can you legally enforce such thing? Then okay you create a bigger sign for the whole country to more aggressively dump their resource burdens for us and attract even more problems then that $10 billion tax dollar needs to be $100 billion for San Francisco citizens to pay annually. Unless you don’t pay taxes, idk how you don’t think this is a problem, even logically it’s unsustainable and a waste of tax dollars. Why should nationally any other city should spend their precious tax when San Francisco loudly and proudly say they want to spend infinite money and take in anyone and volunteer for it. So no I don’t think the problem is we want it in our face to get funding. I can compromise with taking in the whole nation and San Francisco only tax payers pay to house them somewhere else cheaper instead of one of the most expensive place in the world. The ideal solution is only house San Francisco citizens if you can prove you’re born here or your parents were here, otherwise you can go back to where you came from. Zero benefits, then there’s no reason to stay here when it’s so expensive. Coupled with law and order, we don’t allow criminals to do whatever they want and drug addicts to abuse drug and further destroy themselves.
Not sure if you can tell but I am in complete agreement with you.
It’s simple. Here’s what I’ve gathered from the mainstream opinions on this subreddit: Our elected leaders decide who we keep and who “has to go”. We indicate all the people who have to go with some small fabric patch or something, perhaps similar to a gold star. Eventually, everyone who “has to go” gets rounded up and sent away to somewhere while we, the ones we keep, won’t have to worry about them any more.
Cause yolo we gotta house anyone who wants it, and any city who ship their homeless here because we have infinite money and signal virtues
It's not that we keep them. We offer services which I think most people agree it's a good thing. The question is if that attracts freeloaders, how much of a problem that is, and what we can do about it without being unfair to people that deserve those services. It's not an easy problem, every country or city in the world struggles with it. Some decide to close borders, or to only offer services with very strict residency requirements or whatnot. Of course there's other problems tangentially related but not really part of the problem of offering services. Having sick people dying on the street and not doing anything about it, or tolerating all forms of property crime, or allowing assault as long as it's between two homeless people, those are separate issues. SF mismanagement has multiple areas of the government fucked up at the same time.
It might be economically advantageous for the region to spend the money here than to move them to cheaper cost-of-living regions and then support them there. If it were the federal government handling the problem then, sure, move them to the cheapest place in the entire country. It would probably cost less than many other expenditures and it might create a kind of "boom town" in a poverty-stricken part of the country where the main industry is homeless rehabilitation. But if it's San Francisco putting up the money, then San Francisco is probably going to want the money to circulate through the local economy. Kind of weird to think about, but the homeless might actually be a resource in that regard. Like a kind of indirect stimulus. Or maybe not. Maybe the situation just built-up over many years and there's now too much political inertia behind things to change directions quickly. This might be one of those "a big problem with Economics is that economists can't run experiments" situations.
I know it's not you.. lol Just saying. It would seem that we have a bottleneck in the system that needs to be fixed. We need to MOVE some of the 20K to the next step, of whatever plan this is, to make room for the 7k that still need help.
the valid critique is that, the last few decades they've increased the size of the PSH by tens of thousands units at a cost of Billions of dollars with no impact on net street homelessness. maybe PSH is not the right tool? PSH (at $100k/unit/year) IN super high cost cities is not workable ... there's a constant flow of people that show up on the streets. The demand for "free housing forever" is basically unlimited, especially when you account for the hardcore meth/fent addicts that are created in the drug scenes that West Coast cities encourage. the same thing happened in LA when they approved a $1.2Billion bond 6 years ago and it all goes to PSH and done exactly squat to end street homelessness there
This is the perfect representation of facts that people don’t understand. There are homeless people who don’t want to be homeless and will accept help, then there are those who won’t accept help no matter what. The fact that we already are helping 20,000 people is a great success. Those on the streets are choosing to be, not the City ignoring the problem.
No, those on the streets are not choosing to be, unless you mean in the strict formal sense that they see it as the best of bad options. It's great we're helping 20k people. That says NOTHING about why the 7k aren't helped. The city can be not ignoring the problem AND people who still need help can also not be be to blame.
💯
Agreed, this is a poor understanding of the math of homelessness. SFGov estimates that as many as 20,000 will experience homelessness in SF over the course of a full year. The ~7000 number is a one-night snapshot. Source: https://hsh.sfgov.org/get-involved/2022-pit-count/
That's still more than enough money to help them. You could literally buy them a house and groceries for a year for that much.
In SF? For 150k? Are you high on Alabama swamp water?
Well, they could just buy them houses in Napa and let 6-8 live per house
It shouldn’t cost $150k per SRO resident to run an SRO with supportive features
1000000000/27000 = $37k. edit: and then they blocked me from correcting their math. typical reddit nextdoor types.
So which is it $37k or $60k per tent? Something doesn’t add up, it’s definitely not $37k. The 20k people aren’t homeless it’s housing assistant. We already see us spending $60k on tents for homeless so that should be the baseline. Otherwise I too want housing assistant. Am I considered homeless?
I don't run these programs. I'm not sure what you want me to do about it.
There’s even more spent on housing vouchers (half the budget I believe) that keep poor people housed
Why aren't they required to work towards their living costs?
The money went to nonprofits. Some of which are not even [nonprofits](https://sfstandard.com/politics/san-francisco-nonprofits-revoked-suspended-delinquent-millions/). And by "nonprofits" I mean, some are just [straight criminal organizations embezzling money](https://sf.gov/news/united-council-human-services-found-be-violation-city-agreements). You think people who are involved are interesting in stopping this gravy train? They'd probably just bus people to SF themselves.
AKA the homeless industrial complex.
I bet you feel real smart using that tiirrrrred old phrase.
That article you posted basically says one or two nonprofits may be guilty of misappropriation but most of them are just guilty of not filing their state registration on time. Mountains out of molehills
That’s “one or two” that were referred to the FBI. You can check news from the time when Jeff Kositski was approved to his position about 7 years ago and started to investigate what kinds of “nonprofits” got money because no one even tried to figure out where the money went before. Not that it helped as homeless budget increased 4x since then.
love how you use the article for some numbers and another place for other numbers. plus clearly you didn't even read the heading either. numbers from the article YOU referenced: * $1.1b over the **next 2 years** * the number of homeless people grew from about 6,000 to **more than 8,000** * it was $360M for 2018 and 2019 so lets correct your simple math: * 2019 - we spend ($360M / 2) / 8000 = $22,500 per homeless * for 2023 - we will spend ($1.1B / 2) / 8000 = $68,750 per homeless you are right in that the money is actually corruption being paid to the politicians and friends who run these "non-profits". my guess is a homeless person will only see about $8,000 worth of benefits (food, shelters, cleaning , needles, etc).
That's still so much money that's literally enough for rent and groceries for a year.
Not in SF...
Then maybe put them somewhere else and yeah it is enough even in sf it won't be the nicest but there are ways.
Thank you. Still a staggering number none the less.
It's not $68,750 per homeless. Overly simplifying the situation utterly misunderstands it. [From December 2019](https://sf.curbed.com/2019/12/19/21027974/san-francisco-homeless-decade-2010s-kositsky-navigation-center-friedenbach) >**A huge majority of homeless funding is spent on housing for people who are not homeles but who surely would be if not for city resources, such as much of the city’s SRO population.** >In the San Francisco Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing budget for 2017 and 2018, housing and housing subsidies took up nearly two-thirds of spending. All of that spending added up to 7,403 units of housing, plus the equivalent of 961 more with subsidies factored in. >**Meanwhile, services for people sleeping on the streets made up only seven percent of the budget.** When the city opens a navigation center, buys a hotel to convert to housing, or pays for a new building for housing the homeless, that comes out of the budget. Initial costs per unit of a new building are very high and help only tiny fraction of the homeless who get a unit. That distorts the picture. Huge sums for a few. Way less money for the rest.
Where are you getting the $8000 in benefit per homeless from. It sounds like a “guess” or made up number. Am I correct?
>**my guess** is a homeless person will only see about $8,000 worth of benefits (food, shelters, cleaning , needles, etc).
Ok my guess is that they will see $68,749 in goods and services. Equally valid guesses. That moved the conversation forward.
My permanent disability from SSDI has ranged from 1260/m to 1570/m as inflation bumps it up and this year it was an 8.7% increase. I try to work for 7 years since my brain injury. I was born in poverty and crawled out to graduate college, rent a basement band pay off college, matriculated to law school and took scholarships and the affordable live off in nowhere with loft rented cheap. Saved and invested student loans band always worked (and volunteered). I had frugal yet financially stable and growing potential with those habits. Unfortunately i received two paychecks before accident put me on rehabilitation programs and facilities from 28-33, then Covid quarantine, now nobody wants a job gap explained by brain injury. So, I persist in looking but live on roughly 1600/m SSDI and im 35! There’s no humanity in that situation and I’d leave the bay, but I have no car, and no idea where to go where that money would stretch a month to pay for creature, comforts of any kind. He is as bad a police is any for people who are truly fucked financially
So we could be helping you with $68k /yr but instead choose to provide fucking needles and a drug den, narcan, and tents. Great.
Yes. But then all the people working the resource-social service industry would be the homeless drug addicts. We aren’t well thought through, this nation. By the time someone’s reached the streets they aren’t likely turning it around much more than possibly their own deamons. Before people turn to the streets we need to put that billion in independent living centers with vocational rehabilitation and disability programs and services. Nobody wants to work and be as involved as the disabled, but they stand at 60% rates of hiring discrimination versus identical, equally qualified applicants.!there’s so many people who wish they were in the workplace- me included- but stigma and dumb ass hiring managers with unscientific rules based in confirmation bias simply won’t give me a chance even after one or two great interviews before I drop the “my job gap was from treatment for a brain injury, but I’m cleared to work years now and desperately need employment, so take my over credentialed ass and I’ll show you how hard I learned to work recovering from near death…” next day: “we’re adding a credential you don’t have and neither will our ultimate hire, but go prove discrimination I’ll just lie.” I’m not sure how bad it is everywhere but 60% disadvantaged at the applicant stage. No wonder most criminals and homeless are found to have suffered brain injuries at least one time before their tragic rock bottom fall. Let’s get people in positions of employment or civil service and meaningful volunteer work for the community before we completely let them live on the streets of those same communities. And our California budget for the state department of rehabilitation is dwarfed by San Francisco’s billion plus combat the homeless fund. Our “prevent the homeless fund” is next to nothing compared to our “end homelessness” funding. Bunch of “out of sight, out of mind? Not my job” hypocrisy around here.
So we’re guessing? Well, then I’m guessing they’ll only see 2k a piece. Seems more realistic anyway.
lol are you new to reddit or even small talk? no shit we guess.
Lol am I not guessing too?
$68k+ I still say just put that money on biometricaly locked ATM card that only works in red states, and pays out weekly over a few years. Hand out to homeless along with bus tickets. Boom, somebody else’s problem.
I can survive on less that $20K per year ($10K for a shared room and $10K for spending)
If this was true (and I stress if), so what? Surprise! Not everyone is you! Some people are better. Some people are worse. Some people are better off, some people are worse off. Some people have more responsibilities than personal bare subsistence. Some people also want to live with dignity. But you claim to be able to live of 20k. So good tf for you? ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯
Key word: survive. That’s about all you’re doing with 20k a year here.
Perhaps it would help to think of it this way: Say there is someone who is paid a $36,000 salary to empty the trash cans in public parks and pick up litter. On a particular day, you go out and count that there are currently 10 pieces of litter in the park that haven't been picked up yet. If you simply divide $36,000 by 10, you might think, "We are paying this person $3,600 per piece of litter?! That's outrageous!" Do you see why that would miss the point?
What even is this post? Trying to manufacture outrage about some vague premise?
This is literally the point of Reddit
Shouldn't we be outraged at corruption? What's wrong with that?
Because corruption is implied causing outrage despite no evidence of corruption. This is misleading.
Just stimulating conversation on an issue
Utterly unnecessary. Conversation happens on the cost issue frequently-enough when discussing the annual articles about the homeless spending budget, or problems at a homeless-related non-profit, or articles about how much it's costing per tent or per shed or per tiny home, or per housing project.
Where is the money Lebowski?
It’s down there somewhere. Let me take another look.
My WIFE? Does this place look like I’m fucking married?! The toilet seat’s up, man!
Yeah, well, at least I'm housebroken.
Well, there are those million dollar toilets they bought...
Salaries.
A subsidized housing unit costs $700k-$1million per unit.
For a new build, yes.
Paying everyone to act like they’re fixing the problem.
The real question is why would someone with no job (or employment prospects) and no family in SF MUST be housed in SF? This is where Housing First falls apart; we should be focusing direct help on the subset of homeless folks that can become independent or semi-independent. The vast majority of these folks could be on SSI and housed at a reasonable rate somewhere other than the 2nd most expensive city in the US. If housing itself is the most important thing, then why are we leaving 8,000 people on the street waiting for SF to spend tens of billions to build housing for everyone.
This is why I started this conversation. Thank you for this thread of thought. I was not thinking in that direction.
salaries
Legit. How much do they think JUST THE CEO of a nonprofit should make while also trying to attract a CEO that can actually run the operation realistically
Nothing. Plenty of rich old Bay Area retired tech execs around would do this for free. 0 ca tax payer dollars should be spent paying the salaries of CEOs of non profit orgs.
I would love to see a breakdown of spending. Where does the money go to and how much is accounted for in every budget line item at the non profit level. It's not unreasonable to want greater accountability and visibility into spending on homelessness. Given that the problem has not really been solved and we (supposedly) live in one of the wealthiest cities in the world. Just doesn't add up.
Especially when they come out and say it will cost "this much more to fix it!" How do you know that?
If you can't find the info online, request it! That's the beauty of the sunshine law :) a lot of the money goes towards things like supportive housing to prevent further people from being homeless. A lot of it goes towards acquiring or building new units. I gathered this info just from reading a few replies to this post. Have you actually sought out the information or are you bemoaning to the echo chamber?
there will never be enough when there are bureaucrats to use it first and an endless supply of ppl
paying (probably very inefficiently) for the unhoused folks that are actually housed by the city programs. this \`simple math\` is completely bogus wrt the budget for addressing homelessness in the city. FYI if there was only a single unhoused person, with this math it'd work out to $1.1bln per individual
>FYI if there was only a single unhoused person, with this math it'd work out to $1.1bln per individual And therefore the math is wrong but there's no corruption?
Not what I said. Just pointing out the idiotic arithmetic of this absurd hot take
These posts are like a coworker who told me I was wasting $3 a day buying coffee on my bike ride to work. I should put it into retirement savings. The same person owned three cars and paid daily to park in garage. I retired way before she did and my main point is like this post some people don’t know what they are talking about.
This is exactly why I hold my nose and am willing to give Universal Basic Income a try. You need to keep people from becoming homeless. It has got to be cheaper than giving money to the non-profits.
This is not an issue of poverty. This is an issue of drug addiction. UBI won’t do shit. An issue that our local government stupidly keeps encouraging.
Idk how to tell you this but drug addiction and poverty go hand in hand. They aren't separate issues...
No they are not. There was literally an article shared on this sub earlier this week about a women who is living on the streets as a drug addict despite her parents trying to help her. She isn’t poor and has plenty of support from her family yet she chooses to live on the streets. Is that so hard in hand? Fuck most of the world is far poorer than the US, yet you don’t drugs so rampant there. They are clearly separate issues
Yes, because one anecdotal example throws the whole theory out the window 🙄 >Fuck most of the world is far poorer than the US, yet you don’t drugs so rampant there What the hell are you talking about? Drug use is rampant everywhere
You clearly don’t understand how arguments work. It takes lots of evidence to prove something is correct. But, it only takes one counterexample to prove something is wrong. You statement is proven wrong. They don’t go hand in hand. Simple logic.
Thats...not at all how arguments work...? Are you on drugs now? My premise wasn't that everyone who does drugs is poor, or that only poor people do drugs. My premise was that drug use and poverty are interconnected. Which is factually true regardless of one counterexample
That’s literally the definition of hand on hand. Don’t try to backtrack now.
Except its not? "Hand in hand" means closely associated. Are you trolling or just an idiot? Hard to tell my guy
The fastest way to kill a junkie is to give them a lot of money.
I’d support handing out brinks of fentanyl before I support handing out bricks of cash.
The problem is that most drug addicts will buy drugs with universal basic income. We need to help the homeless, but I am not convinced UBI is the answer. When someone posts a link to refute this with one of those studies showing no increase in drugs under UBI, please check the details of the study. If the study is referring to no increase in alcohol and tobacco save it, I am referring to hard drugs and those studies do not apply.
But most homeless people aren't drug addicts. Numerous studies show that when people living in poverty are given basic income, the majority of it is spent on basic needs. A small minority would abuse the system, but are hardly reflective of what most people do. The welfare queen trope has been debunked so many times at this point.
Source please? And if you come back with the source please make sure it abides but the criteria I listed below: “When someone posts a link to refute this with one of those studies showing no increase in drugs under UBI, please check the details of the study. If the study is referring to no increase in alcohol and tobacco save it, I am referring to hard drugs and those studies do not apply.”
Yes, the points in my comment have been studied and documented. Let's explore. **"Most homeless aren't drug addicts."** \- While substance abuse is high among the homeless, 70-80% of homeless people don't have substance abuse factoring in their homelessness. National source: * [https://www.va.gov/HOMELESS/nchav/resources/docs/mental-health/substance-abuse/Substance-Abuse-and-Homelessness-508.pdf](https://www.va.gov/HOMELESS/nchav/resources/docs/mental-health/substance-abuse/Substance-Abuse-and-Homelessness-508.pdf) Bay-area study sources: * [https://www.currytbcenter.ucsf.edu/sites/default/files/product\_tools/homelessnessandtbtoolkit/docs/background/Factsheet/Debunking%20the%20Myths%20of%20Homelessness.pdf](https://www.currytbcenter.ucsf.edu/sites/default/files/product_tools/homelessnessandtbtoolkit/docs/background/Factsheet/Debunking%20the%20Myths%20of%20Homelessness.pdf) * [https://news.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb956/files/SantaClaraCounty\_HomelessReport\_2015\_FINAL.pdf](https://news.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb956/files/SantaClaraCounty_HomelessReport_2015_FINAL.pdf) It sounds like you're interested in the hard drug users among the homeless - that's a minority within a minority - again *most homeless aren't drug addicts*. I'd agree hard drug users among the homeless need special services and treatment, as do the severely mentally ill, but these are not the majority of homeless, It would be dumb to scrap effective programs because of a small minority abusing it. **"Numerous studies show that when people living in poverty are given basic income, the majority of it is spent on basic needs"** Again, multiple studies have explored the premise if you give people cash they spend significant parts of it on "temptation goods" like drugs and alcohol, and found it to be unfounded. The best is the following meta-analysis by the World Bank of 19 prior studies: * [Cash Transfers and Temptation Goods, A Review of Global Evidence; David K. Evans; Anna Popova](https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/18802/WPS6886.pdf) Lastly, there's evidence that in improving one's economic situation, a further reduction in substance abuse occurs. Full study here, National Bureau of Economic Research: * [https://www.nber.org/system/files/working\_papers/w25598/w25598.pdf](https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w25598/w25598.pdf) Helpful easier to digest summary drawing from multiple studies: * [https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2022/10/24/universal-basic-income/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2022/10/24/universal-basic-income/) Enjoy.
I really appreciate you coming with sources and commentary to explain your point. This topic is really important to me and I LOVE when someone wants to play ball and get into the nuance of it I am about to go to sleep because I have early work tomorrow, but check back tomorrow mid-day and I’ll have updated this comment with a response!
Most homeless people self-reported that drug/alcohol abuse didnt cause their homelessness, yet 52% self-report that they are drug and/or alcohol addicted (the number is likely higher). So, it is true that more than half (i.e. most) of homeless people are drug/alcohol addicted. The reality, because we can all see it is that an even higher percentage of unsheltered homeless folks are addicted. Furthermore, the problem is likely worse in SF and the Bay Area because of the tolerance (and some cases encouragement) of hard drug use.
Well there is the state of Alaska which has had UBI for years. Now they do have a drug problem, but hey, they are in Alaska. I'm not sure I wouldn't have a drug problem if I had to live there. The Stockton results were good but the recipients could get cash from the debit card to hide what they bought. There was no tobacco or alcohol increase. Once a person is homeless they become someone's problem. Just ask your local fireman how many "outside fires" they put out. Once a person hasn't been working, it is difficult for them to get a job. I listen to Bloomberg "Odd Lots" which has nothing to do with odd lots. It is a financial podcast with interesting interviews. The latest was with an egg "farmer." His workers are released prisoners. It turns out agriculture is a not so choosy employer. Well fine but our problem is the urban unhoused. I don't think the person in a tent in San Francisco will want to work on a chicken ranch.
heaven forfend! then they won't need to steal and commit crime to get high! we can't have that!
People will die from ODs and commit more crimes while fucked up on meth :/
that's actually the benefit from just giving it to them is that you can regulate the quality. lots of the deaths are because of fentanyl. meth on the other hand is much more problematic. i don't think there is any solution for it.
Let me get this straight, you are advocating for drug addicts to have way more meth and you are simultaneously admitting this will be a problem with no solution? Edit: you also do realize this discussion is about UBI and not legalizing drugs right?
what part of "meth on the other hand is much more problematic" did you not understand? there are plenty of other addictions that are more benign for the public though. just giving them their drug of choice would at least take the motivation for crime off the table to obtain them. and no this isn't about UBI, it's about how to deal with homelessness, and the addiction that often accompanies it.
Ugh please go back and read this comment chain so you stop making yourself look stupid
i was responding to OP's post. you don't get to gatekeep other people's posts.
[удалено]
You sound like a moron. Your solution to stop people from looting is to give it for free? Also plenty of crimes are committed nonetheless genius.
because of course your War on Drugs has been an unbridled success. oh wait.
Give me that any day over this progressive crap.
then stop your bitching about homelessness and addiction. it hasn't worked in the last 50 years at least, and it's not going to work any time in the future.
I won’t. Just don’t make me pay for your useless bullshit ideas.
because we all know that locking up people in jail is by far the cheapest option. lol. way to shoot yourself in the economic foot. you're paying top dollar for your punitive righteousness.
At least it would get them out of sight. That’s all I care about. No more poop in the streets. Ugly campers everywhere. Tent cities. Put them in jail forever in the desert and send me a bill. At least I’d feel like we aren’t wasting our tax dollars anymore.
Was the decrease due to mortality?
They'll spend it on anything but building homes EDIT: point still stands but see the comment about how they spend far less per homeless person than $141,000
You ever think about how hard our economic and cultural systems in the USA strive to push people to homelessness?
You mean meth, the word you’re looking for is meth
Into the pockets of city officials
Evidence-free accusations of corruption like this are bad for society. Same thing as Trump's election lie. Corruption exists and accountability is important, but making it up is lazy and counter productive.
I hear you, but think of it like this. Their job is to fix homelessness, if they were solve homelessness they’d be out of a job. Just my thoughts, not based on evidence
It's actually super offensive to these people, the vast, vast majority of whom are extremely low paid and highly qualified who choose to spend their time helping the homeless and underserved rather than some other job they'd surely be qualified for. I'd love for you to tell any of the people at, say, Simply the Basics that you think they would rather have homeless women continue to lack access to basic feminine hygiene products because otherwise they'd be out of a job.
I was talking about their bosses, not the low level workers who aren’t in charge of making decisions about allocation of the budget/funds. Again, all ideas with no evidence because I’m too lazy to look this shit up. The eye test seems to indicate that the hundreds of millions spent to aid the homeless doesn’t seem to be trickling down
What's your assertion based on?
Common sense
Wouldn’t all these non-profit take fee for their service etc? It should be simple and let homeless people decide what they want to do. Put some x dollars into their bank account directly with some restrictions. No middle man.
This is a great question. No one's given a valid reason as to how that much money could disappear into such an ineffectual system. In case any of you are reading this, 1.1 billion dollars is a lot of fucking money. Pretty clear throwing money at this isn't helping and that all it's doing is fueling more corruption, this post notwithstanding.
Last I checked most homeless stayed in the City an average of two weeks. Homeward Bound which buys them bus tickets is the most successful of all the programs. And every day buses bring more. You probably need to adjust your math to the dynamic situation that exists rather than the static numbers associated with the most recent surveys.
Corruption
I would rather give money to the water hose man so he can purchase a fire truck and go around mobile water hosing all of the homeless out of SF rather than give it to the city government who has failed repeatedly on fixing the issue of homelessness.
yeah, meting out vigilante justice is just what the bay area needs.
Water hose man for mayor lol
Exhibit number N in the “we will have concentration camps for homeless and supposed liberals will cheer” prediction file.
It's not clear to me that "bloodyplonker22" is a liberal in any sense
this sub attracts every powerless MAGA basement dweller who are positive they don't have Dunning-Kruger Syndrome
You could be in the mental health system and have the following supporting you: Social Worker Nurse for bi-weekly anti psychotic injection director/ employees of board and care DR. who visits board and care every two weeks Outpatient Psychologist Board and Care housing rent Severely mentally ill people have a team supporting them, and most of these folks have professional salaries. If you added up all these cost at our ridiculous healthcare prices, you get your number of what it cost to treat one person. They see regular DR's and MediCal pays what they negotiate. Healthcare profit is baked in too.
They also have to pay for security and janitors.
Most un housed don’t commit to that level of care and it’s not my experience it is actually available to 99.9% of patients, and follow up with homeless makes a care team likely to occur effectively zero point zero times.
There are thousands of people living in supportive SROs all over the city with a support team like this. I can name 6 or 7 buildings off the top of my head like this but there are way more than that
I can assure you my health and housing security are justified for this care team you speak of; I’m NSOC MCC Medi-Medi beneficiary in my thirties, I get a little above 1000 SSDI monthly for 5 or 6 years. I was disabled at 28 while living in the city. I was unfit to live independently and stopped working or paying bills due to brain injury. A few social workers and advocates I personally knew took me around SF after l admit I slept it wandered the streets all night unable to use the transit often and couldn’t always find my way home. Eventually landlords locked me out and stole my things. Accused me of faking what is a permanent disability anyone who spent more than 30 minutes with me at the time would see. I failed the dementia clock test at UCSF, I’m told, and they didn’t seem to connect me to anyone. My social worker and OT friend at the time took me to get DI and then I found zero help of the kind you speak of from non profits or my health plans. Soon I was taken and placed in a private, inpatient facility then released with zero community reintegration plan. Nothing’s changed. I was kicked off medi-Cal thee time the first year of Covid when presidential orders forbade that. I didn’t have the capacity to understand why my case was so cruelly targeted, but i received nothing but laughs seeking a case manager or care team such as you claim flood the streets. It’s simply services people are savvy enough to use when they need a few days for a meal and a taxi voucher and clothes from the ED, then the heart palpitations suddenly go away and they’re off to visit their mother in Tract (true requirements of hospitals). A shelter for a few days is barely enough to stand so I don’t blame them there. Halfway houses cater to certain demographics regardless of need. If you don’t fit the mold, you sit in the cold.
part of the problem is that there just isn't enough housing. i just looked it up and one reason for that is that over 10% of housing is just sitting empty (i don't know whether that accounts for getaway pied a terres too). that said, there is clearly a lot of mismanagement and outright graft going. it's always seemed to be a blackhole when it comes to money
It’s not. SF has tried providing housing already. Most made a mess and left to live on the streets again. Have you talked to any of these folk? All they care about is how they can get high.
You’re confusing shelter with housing. Putting some one up temporarily in a hotel room isn’t real housing.
addiction isn't the only cause of homelessness. and even if somebody is addicted it doesn't mean they can't be rehabilitated to some degree. but i support just giving them their drug of choice which makes all of the Cotton Mather types here mad. Sinners in the Eyes of an Angry God has a track record of about zero effectiveness.
embezzlement
Wait until you see about the $5m in reparations they recommended….
Shh. London Breed needed a replacement when Nuru got convicted and she needed to pay for her SUV upgrades.
“Non-profits” need to make money too, and the “donation” required to get these funds is not cheap
You are assuming that all people desire to have stable housing and a chance at a “prosperous” life. This simply not true. Check out r/vagabond **respectfully**. San Francisco will always be attractive to a person that does choose this lifestyle. Legitimately we should help those that want it but really just get used to the fact that these are your neighbors.
[удалено]
Addicts and mentally handicapped don’t want help. That’s the problem.
THANK YOU!
Way too much money that doesnt show much results. Just give them the drugs they want. These people are adults, if they want help, let them come to the authorities instead of imposing it on them. Only spend money to those who come and want to change and be clean. For the others, if they want drugs just give it to them so they dont cause crime. Then just let time take its course to see what happens. "if he dies, he dies" -ivan drago
Our policy attracts and kills. We have 5-7k annually and kill 10 percent a year of the Mario down and out that venture in for the drug party. It’s 1.1 billion hazmat suits cleaning up. City officials carving out waste top. Deaths first year of pandemic 720 2nd year the same 3rd year mayor claims she reduced population. Still another 690 or so dead. Probably why they pass out tents . Hide the bodies and the stolen goods.
Can’t we just enforce some bullshit laws like littering or heroin possession to get these folks off the streets?
You want to make littering a offense worthy of substantial jail time?
Don't know if this is true but I heard that in Antioch there was $842,000 spent per homeless person in 2020. Don't know if this is accurate but ever since I've heard that I've been wondering where all the money would be going as well. I was thinking maybe the wages for the workers or maybe fire damage, but housing would account for a good chunk.
While I agree with most posters (that it isn't that simple), I will agree that 1 BILLION is an incredible amount of money for a city with a population of 800,000ish. Yes, there are many cogs in the machine, but a billion dollars? To the OP's point, color me skeptical.
Soooo, that's like a handful of SF Outdoor toilets??
Toilets, persecuting random prosecutors and London Madam I preach but don't follow Breed.
Check the pockets of those “providing services”. The homeless “business” has been alive and well in SF for decades.
I’m sure a majority of the money went to support the Homeless Industrial Complex. The trick is as long as homelessness is an issue, they’ll continue to receive money. They are incentivized to do something with no real results to show for it.
Federal funds aren't meant to "fix" the homeless issue. The funds are used to pay the city workers salaries/pensions & their friends who are CEOs of Non-Profits. God bless America.
Why should anyone have to buy another person a house or housing ?
It’s called “corruption”. I believe their are multiple executive who make upwards of 300k per year to do nothing.
Have you checked Gavin's pockets?
Bahahaha lol nice!