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

cawacko said:
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.
Click to expand...

move to a better neighborhood stupid
 
cawacko said:
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.
Click to expand...
First, make it nice for the homeless and more homeless will show up.

Second, most, if not all, chronically homeless are mentally ill. Some are drug addicts too. Mental healthcare and supporting legislation are very lacking in the US.

Lastly, while this is a State's Rights issue, I understand why cities seek to address it. Perhaps they'd put a requirement on homeless "residents" to attend an hour or two of group therapy classes every day to evaluate and help people.

https://mentalillnesspolicy.org/consequences/homeless-mentally-ill.html
SUMMARY: In January 2015, the most extensive survey ever undertaken found 564,708 people were homeless on a given night in the United States. Depending on the age group in question, and how homelessness is defined, the consensus estimate as of 2014 was that, at minimum, 25 percent of the American homeless—140,000 individuals—were seriously mentally ill at any given point in time. Forty-five percent of the homeless—250,000 individuals—had any mental illness. More would be labeled homeless if these were annual counts rather than point-in-time counts. Where do they live? Sixty-nine percent of the homeless (389,000) were sheltered (living in emergency shelters or transitional housing), but 31 percent (175,000) were unsheltered living on the streets or in abandoned buildings, vehicles, or parks. These estimates do not include homeless “couch-surfers,” who camp out on the sofas of friends and families, move every few days, and have no permanent address. Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), The 2015 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress, Office of Community Planning and Development, Abt Associates, November 2015, https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/2015-AHAR-Part-1.pdf (accessed July 9, 2016).

Read more at: https://mentalillnesspolicy.org/consequences/homeless-mentally-ill.html
 
Dutch Uncle said:
First, make it nice for the homeless and more homeless will show up.

Second, most, if not all, chronically homeless are mentally ill. Some are drug addicts too. Mental healthcare and supporting legislation are very lacking in the US.

Lastly, while this is a State's Rights issue, I understand why cities seek to address it. Perhaps they'd put a requirement on homeless "residents" to attend an hour or two of group therapy classes every day to evaluate and help people.

https://mentalillnesspolicy.org/consequences/homeless-mentally-ill.html
SUMMARY: In January 2015, the most extensive survey ever undertaken found 564,708 people were homeless on a given night in the United States. Depending on the age group in question, and how homelessness is defined, the consensus estimate as of 2014 was that, at minimum, 25 percent of the American homeless—140,000 individuals—were seriously mentally ill at any given point in time. Forty-five percent of the homeless—250,000 individuals—had any mental illness. More would be labeled homeless if these were annual counts rather than point-in-time counts. Where do they live? Sixty-nine percent of the homeless (389,000) were sheltered (living in emergency shelters or transitional housing), but 31 percent (175,000) were unsheltered living on the streets or in abandoned buildings, vehicles, or parks. These estimates do not include homeless “couch-surfers,” who camp out on the sofas of friends and families, move every few days, and have no permanent address. Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), The 2015 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress, Office of Community Planning and Development, Abt Associates, November 2015, https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/2015-AHAR-Part-1.pdf (accessed July 9, 2016).

Read more at: https://mentalillnesspolicy.org/consequences/homeless-mentally-ill.html
Click to expand...

I'm not an expert here so I could be wrong but the big issue is you can't force the mentally ill into treatment or a center. They have to right essentially to live on the street. It's been a major battle for a number of years. The argument is what's more compassionate, allowing them to live freely on the streets or 'forcing' them into some type of 'home'.
 
cawacko said:
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
Click to expand...

I’d say shocked is an understatement

It’s San Francisco, a segment of the City takes pride in their bohemian fame, unfortunately it doesn’t come without a cost
 
cawacko said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's entirely possible that there is no different (better) approach.

And again.... as long as the people whose taxes are footing the bill aren't going hungry themselves or doing without the necessities of life because of it, unless they have a better solution, they really should not complain too loudly.

cawacko said:
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.
Click to expand...

Court dockets are crowded and so are jails and prisons.

Judges know that.

I guess they are prioritizing that kind of punishment for violent and truly dangerous individuals.

Hiring more judges, prosecutors and public defenders then building and staffing more jails and prisons is astronomically expensive.

To end these problems would require fundamentally changing human nature.

Or reprogramming humans to not be bad anymore.

 
China Joe said:
They clearly fucked up. I would have built them al tool sheds for a mere $60k
Click to expand...

Tools imply work. :eek2:

The homeless are already refusing to move into housing that the shitty city spent millions to provide for them because the WI-FI isn't good.
 
cawacko said:
I'm not an expert here so I could be wrong but the big issue is you can't force the mentally ill into treatment or a center. They have to right essentially to live on the street. It's been a major battle for a number of years. The argument is what's more compassionate, allowing them to live freely on the streets or 'forcing' them into some type of 'home'.
Click to expand...

Correct in that being crazy isn't a crime. Only if a person is a danger to themselves or others can they be arrested and face a judge who will determine if prison or a mental facility is better for them.

However, there's no law against making it a requirement to attend a class if someone wants a public tent that night.

IMO, putting them into treatment is the most compassionate. The problem is determining who is mentally ill enough to require treatment. In the 50s, a husband could lock his wife up for "hysteria" then either leave her there or file for divorce (often illegal in many states hence Reno and Mexico for a quickly divorce) due to her "mental instability".
 
Legion said:
Which is largely passed on to people who don't live there.

Poor Anchovies.
Click to expand...

Interesting considering California is one the biggest giver states in the US, if others are paying for anything it is the stimulus given to many Red States every year
 
you can be homeless.

you can be a hoarder.

we simply cannot allow homeless hoarders.

you gotta be able to "move along" at daybreak.
 
anchovies said:
Interesting considering California is one the biggest giver states in the US, if others are paying for anything it is the stimulus given to many Red States every year
Click to expand...

So you say.

The biggest problem with the balance of payments argument is that it's contrary to a progressive income tax system.

The central principle of such a system is that taxpayers with a greater ability to pay, pay more.

Calipornians pay more in federal income taxes on average than Mississippians because on average they earn more.


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.
 
Micawber said:
Are you paying for them? Fuck off.
Click to expand...

bottom line. some people will just choose to be irresponsible, no matter what.

im not for rounding people up or outlawing pandhandling. can we just not have their shit all over our public spaces?

they should have to have a bag that fits in the overhead compartment.
 
Legion said:
Everyone who pays federal taxes is paying for them, angry boi.

The majority of the costs will be reimbursed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. [/SIZE][/B]https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/article/S-F-pays-61-000-a-year-for-one-tent-to-house-16001074.php [/marquee]
Click to expand...

Then tents are city, dumbass. Read your own fucking link, idiot.

unlike the hotel program, the tent sites are not eligible for federal reimbursement.

4ghhya.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top