San Trancisco gives free tents to homeless. Each tent costs $61,000!!!!

Legion said:
San Trancisco is paying $16.1 million to shelter homeless people in 262 tents placed in empty lots around the city where they also get services and food — a steep price tag that amounts to more than $61,000 per tent per year.

The city has created six tent sites, called “safe sleeping villages,” since the beginning of the pandemic to get vulnerable people off crowded sidewalks and into places where they have access to bathrooms, three meals and around-the-clock security.

The annual cost of one spot in one site is 2½ times the median rent for a one-bedroom apartment in San Trancisco.
Click to expand...

Legion said:
As San Trancisco expands a shelter-in-place hotel program that leases rooms for vulnerable homeless people during the pandemic, the city has run into a roadblock: Some residents find where they’re staying more appealing than another permanent option.

Shelter-in-place hotels, opened during the pandemic for vulnerable homeless individuals, offer free private rooms with bathrooms and three meals a day at no cost to residents.

In contrast, a newly available permanent supportive housing option in a recently renovated hotel has communal bathrooms and charges 30% of a resident’s income as rent.

So far, around 70% of shelter-in-place hotel residents offered spots at the refurbished 232-unit Granada Hotel, purchased with $45 million from the state last year, turned down spots, Abigail Stewart-Kahn, of the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, told supervisors last week.

“We have experienced a decline rate of people living in shelter-in-place hotels at a rate never experienced before in San Trancisco when offered permanent supportive housing,” Stewart-Kahn said.
Click to expand...

Godless piece of trash.
 
cawacko said:
I'll also acknowledge my own conundrum here. I think the war on drugs in the U.S. has been a failure yet there are places in San Francisco where it's like a Farmers Market of open drug selling. There are lines in the street of people buying drugs. Addicts lay all over the City streets.

It's not good and its not compassionate.
Click to expand...

Maybe we should take the money being spent by the DEA to wage this war in drugs and divert it to programs that help people get off of dangerous, addictive drugs.

Decriminalize possession and use of small amounts.
 
Nomad said:
You also can't force people to "improve" their lives by forcing them to conform to what society's standard of "normal" is.

How much is it worth to live in a society in which compassion for fellow humans remains a top priority?

Nobody is starving to death or doing without things they need because of the money being spent sheltering the homeless.

The conservative right tends to fancy themselves "good Christians" and one of the hallmarks of Christianity, is doing whatever one can to help the poor and less fortunate.

Conservatives should therefore, be more than willing to take on a higher tax burden, especially the wealthier ones, in order to continue to provide food and shelter for the homeless and the poor.

One cannot be a true Christian while being against spending whatever it takes to help these people.

They cannot have it both ways.
Click to expand...

I'm not really buying your argument for several reasons. Now I know you're a Florida guy but even you must be aware SF is one of the most liberal cities in the country. This isn't a hot bed of right-wing Christianity.

An argument can be made that if people want to live on the streets with mental illness and drug problems that should be their right. It's a very Libertarian argument but its an argument people have definitely put forth.

But I don't buy that to be a good Christian you have to support higher taxes and have the gov't distribute the money as they feel appropriate to get themselves re-elected. To each his own of course but I'm not familiar with too many people who walk around the City saying 'this is really compassionate and they've done a great job with all the money they are spending on the homeless'.

And again, this isn't your fault since you're not here, my guess is people who don't live here and see this on a daily basis don't truly comprehend how bad it is. Those who live here internalize it. It's the tourists who it really shocks.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
Just your standard democrat corruption. Every democrat who voted for this will get a huge kickback from the company that supplies these tents.
Click to expand...

Simple fact Brietfart left out, “average per night cost of $190 is $82 dollars less than what the city pays to shelter someone in the homeless hotel program” (https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/article/S-F-pays-61-000-a-year-for-one-tent-to-house-16001074.php)

https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/article/S-F-pays-61-000-a-year-for-one-tent-to-house-16001074.php
 
Nomad said:
Maybe we should take the money being spent by the DEA to wage this war in drugs and divert it to programs that help people get off of dangerous, addictive drugs.

Decriminalize possession and use of small amounts.
Click to expand...

The issue here isn't really weed. It's the hard stuff. We had more people die of OD'ing in the City than COVID. We have a huge problem.
 
cawacko said:
I'm not really buying your argument for several reasons. Now I know you're a Florida guy but even you must be aware SF is one of the most liberal cities in the country. This isn't a hot bed of right-wing Christianity.

An argument can be made that if people want to live on the streets with mental illness and drug problems that should be their right. It's a very Libertarian argument but its an argument people have definitely put forth.

But I don't buy that to be a good Christian you have to support higher taxes and have the gov't distribute the money as they feel appropriate to get themselves re-elected. To each his own of course but I'm not familiar with too many people who walk around the City saying 'this is really compassionate and they've done a great job with all the money they are spending on the homeless'.

And again, this isn't your fault since you're not here, my guess is people who don't live here and see this on a daily basis don't truly comprehend how bad it is. Those who live here internalize it. It's the tourists who it really shocks.
Click to expand...

Imagine if some of these posters here had to spend time in the Tenderloin
 
yall-got-any-5b1bb0.jpg



Abigail Stewart-Kahn, interim director of the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing said, “We’ve never had shelter in many ways that’s nicer” than permanent supportive housing.

“We respect people’s right to decline their housing placements,” she said, adding the shitty city would work on more options.

It poses a problem for the shitty city, which has pledged not to kick out anyone who moved into a shelter-in-place hotel before Nov. 15 last year and participates in a rehousing program.

The shitty city is now trying to find them permanent places before federal reimbursements potentially run out by October.

Keegan Medrano with the Coalition on Homelessness criticized the shitty city for what he perceived as shifting blame to residents for rejecting placements. Medrano said permanent supportive housing doesn’t have the best reputation among the homeless community.

“We’re in a tough position where we want people to get into permanent supportive housing, but frankly a lot of it is unacceptable and not in good condition,” Medrano said. “Many don’t have Wi-Fi."


https://www.sfchronicle.com/local-politics/article/San-Francisco-offered-permanent-housing-to-15994868.php
 
anchovies said:
Simple fact Brietfart left out, “average per night cost of $190 is $82 dollars less than what the city pays to shelter someone in the homeless hotel program”
Click to expand...

Simple fact Anchovies left out: But unlike the hotel program, the tent sites are not eligible for federal reimbursement.

Poor Anchovies.
 
cawacko said:
I'm not really buying your argument for several reasons. Now I know you're a Florida guy but even you must be aware SF is one of the most liberal cities in the country. This isn't a hot bed of right-wing Christianity.

An argument can be made that if people want to live on the streets with mental illness and drug problems that should be their right. It's a very Libertarian argument but its an argument people have definitely put forth.

But I don't buy that to be a good Christian you have to support higher taxes and have the gov't distribute the money as they feel appropriate to get themselves re-elected. To each his own of course but I'm not familiar with too many people who walk around the City saying 'this is really compassionate and they've done a great job with all the money they are spending on the homeless'.

And again, this isn't your fault since you're not here, my guess is people who don't live here and see this on a daily basis don't truly comprehend how bad it is. Those who live here internalize it. It's the tourists who it really shocks.
Click to expand...

I've been pretty good friends with a guy on another forum who moved to SF from New Jersey back in the early 80's and lived there for 20 years in the Haight Ashbury section, before moving to Sacramento in the early 00's.

He was a part time doorman at a well known 80's comedy club and knew people like Robin Williams and Paula Poundstone.

He is also a far right conservative and partially attributes living in SF for his becoming that way.

But he's told me countless stories about the things he saw and experienced while living out there.

I still don't buy most of his politics, even though I'm not a far left, progressive type myself.

As for being a good Christian and not supporting higher taxes to pay for helping the homeless.... there comes a poin where one has to take a practical approach to it.

If the government does not address the problem and use tax dollars to do so, relying on people's consciences and charity to do it, will result in next to nothing.

From a purely practical standpoint, the only way the problem will ever be addressed and an attempt made to improve the situation, is for the government to mandate it, collect taxes and use the money for that purpose.

Good Christians may not have to agree that it is the best way if they have a better solution, but neither may they gripe, complain and hate or resent the government for attempting to address the issue.

If one hates the government for helping the homeless based solely on their taxes being used, then they are putting money ahead of human compassion and that is as unChristian as one can get.
 
cawacko said:
The issue here isn't really weed. It's the hard stuff. We had more people die of OD'ing in the City than COVID. We have a huge problem.
Click to expand...

Yes.

I agree 100%.

Decriminalize weed an other hard drugs but make mandatory counselling and treatment part of the deal.
 
Somad said:
I've been pretty good friends with a guy on another forum who moved to SF from New Jersey back in the early 80's and lived there for 20 years in the Haight Ashbury section, before moving to Sacramento in the early 00's. He was a part time doorman at a well known 80's comedy club and knew people like Robin Williams and Paula Poundstone. He is also a far right conservative and partially attributes living in SF for his becoming that way. But he's told me countless stories about the things he saw and experienced while living out there.
Click to expand...

:coolstorybro:
 
archives said:
Imagine if some of these posters here had to spend time in the Tenderloin
Click to expand...

Two things would happen I imagine.

1) They would be shocked to see it and that the City allows this to occur

and

2) They would be shocked you have to pay $2,500/mnth for one bedroom apt with all this occurring outside your front door
 
Nomad said:
I've been pretty good friends with a guy on another forum who moved to SF from New Jersey back in the early 80's and lived there for 20 years in the Haight Ashbury section, before moving to Sacramento in the early 00's.

He was a part time doorman at a well known 80's comedy club and knew people like Robin Williams and Paula Poundstone.

He is also a far right conservative and partially attributes living in SF for his becoming that way.

But he's told me countless stories about the things he saw and experienced while living out there.

I still don't buy most of his politics, even though I'm not a far left, progressive type myself.

As for being a good Christian and not supporting higher taxes to pay for helping the homeless.... there comes a poin where one has to take a practical approach to it.

If the government does not address the problem and use tax dollars to do so, relying on people's consciences and charity to do it, will result in next to nothing.

From a purely practical standpoint, the only way the problem will ever be addressed and an attempt made to improve the situation, is for the government to mandate it, collect taxes and use the money for that purpose.

Good Christians may not have to agree that it is the best way if they have a better solution, but neither may they gripe, complain and hate or resent the government for attempting to address the issue.

If one hates the government for helping the homeless based solely on their taxes being used, then they are putting money ahead of human compassion and that is as unChristian as one can get.
Click to expand...

Interesting story about your friend and I don't think it's totally uncommon. Neither my folks and sister are right-wingers. None of them voted for Trump. But listen to them talk about San Francisco politics and you'd think they were on the right. (I'm sure there are similar stories for some one growing up in an uber conservative town).

If I can offer a perspective from someone who has lived here a long time. We have raised taxes and voted for bond measures multiple times over the years to address the homeless issue and it has not improved at all. At a certain when they come back to you and say 'we are going to raise taxes again to address homeless' it's understandable (to me at least) that people show skepticism.

We've tried the same thing over and over. We need a different approach.
 
Nomad said:
Yes.

I agree 100%.

Decriminalize weed an other hard drugs but make mandatory counselling and treatment part of the deal.
Click to expand...

I agree but I still struggle with the street drug dealers who stand in the open on a daily basis selling their stuff. They get arrested but nothing happens and they're back on the block. It goes back to the conundrum referenced earlier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top