The bum's bill of rights (San Francisco: crimes, live, cost)

[pch1013]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

I mentioned SF earlier. If you know me you will know that I do not fall into these circular repetitious traps you people like to set.

Oh, now I'm one of "you people." Which "you people" might that be? I'd like to know what I'm being accused of here.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by pch1013

Oh, now I'm one of "you people." Which "you people" might that be? I'd like to know what I'm being accused of here.

Unfortunately the TOS does not allow me to elaborate.

[pch1013]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Unfortunately the TOS does not allow me to elaborate.

Now who's playing coy little rhetorical games?

And all because you are unwilling, or (more likely) unable, to address the question I posed earlier: why, if San Francisco spends $200M a year on homeless services, are there still so many homeless here?

Do you think throwing more money at the problem will help?

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

Now this got really interesting. You claim a JD (and from a "top ten"! whoa!) and 25 years of business litigation experience -- yet claim also that the homeless bill we are discussing is a scam platform for attorneys and / or has been pushed by attorneys looking for revenue. Now I am very interested to hear from you what kind of money attorneys think they can squeeze out of a homeless claim against the city. What are the damages and the root of the damages? What kind of documentation do you think the attorneys are going to get from the damaged party? Obviously all contingency-based fees, since the homeless are also penniless. So what lawyer / firm is going to put up the costs and time to work on the undocumented damages suffered by a homeless guy who couldn't find a place to pee?

Do tell.

Me and the homeless? I live in a van (and on a boat part of the year). I have properties, money, and resources and live as I do by choice. I am a disabled war veteran -- and yeppers, I work with homeless vets and other disabled persons, among other volunteer efforts. I help them with medical, legal, and personal challenges. I find them housing and resources and assist them in obtaining pensions if qualified. Direct them to training. And often just sit and chat with those who don't wish to re-integrate. For the past years of the national financial crunch, I have been donating half my rentals to the disadvantaged -- including vets and non-vets, with families. The rents I collect on the other units pay the expenses of the properties. I live on my little pension happily because I am a minimalist.

Nullgeo ina house!

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by pch1013

Now who's playing coy little rhetorical games?

And all because you are unwilling, or (more likely) unable, to address the question I posed earlier: why, if San Francisco spends $200M a year on homeless services, are there still so many homeless here?

Do you think throwing more money at the problem will help?

I already told you that what you say is irrelevant so I don't know why you keep attempting to have this discussion. because you're talking about something you've never experienced, the only thing I can do with you is use you for entertainment value. You of no use for anything else at this point. Keep trying though.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by pch1013

Now who's playing coy little rhetorical games?

And all because you are unwilling, or (more likely) unable, to address the question I posed earlier: why, if San Francisco spends $200M a year on homeless services, are there still so many homeless here?

Do you think throwing more money at the problem will help?

Here's a completely legitimate and serious question I want you to guess an answer for:
How many homeless do you think there are in the city?
Got an answer in mind?
Scroll down now.






It costs about $40,000 a year for municipalities to serve / suffer each homeless person.
$200,000,000 is a lot of money, yep. Now divide by $40,000. What did you get? Do you think there are more or fewer homeless than the actual math?

[pch1013]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

you're talking about something you've never experienced

I've lived in San Francisco for 4 years, and I see homeless people every day. There are a lot of them here in San Francisco, even though we as a city spend $200,000,000 a year on homeless services.

I'm not offering any expertise here, or claiming first-hand knowledge -- I'm asking you, as a self-proclaimed expert on the subject, to attempt to offer an explanation as to why all that funding hasn't put a dent in homelessness.

Can you do that, or will you resort once again to condescending put-downs while insinuating that the question shouldn't even be asked?

[pch1013]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

Here's a completely legitimate and serious question I want you to guess an answer for:
How many homeless do you think there are in the city?
Got an answer in mind?
Scroll down now.

It costs about $40,000 a year for municipalities to serve / suffer each homeless person.
$200,000,000 is a lot of money, yep. Now divide by $40,000. What did you get? Do you think there are more or fewer homeless than the actual math?

The latest "homeless census" whose results I can find, from 2011, revealed that there were 6544 homeless people in SF. I don't know how accurate that number is, or whether the number has increased or decreased since then; perhaps our resident expert on homelessness can provide some insight.

In any case, multiplying that number by $40K gives a total of $261M, which is more than the actual expenditure. So either the homeless were overcounted (not likely) or SF manages to serve each homeless person for somewhat less than $40K apiece.

Here's another interesting statistic: A group of only 10 individuals cost the city $2.3M in ambulance, emergency, detox, and psychiatric services.

Small group of vagrants costs San Francisco $20M | Katie Worth | Local | San Francisco Examiner

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by pch1013

The latest "homeless census" whose results I can find, from 2011, revealed that there were 6544 homeless people in SF. I don't know how accurate that number is, or whether the number has increased or decreased since then; perhaps our resident expert on homelessness can provide some insight.

In any case, multiplying that number by $40K gives a total of $261M, which is more than the actual expenditure. So either the homeless were overcounted (not likely) or SF manages to serve each homeless person for somewhat less than $40K apiece.

Here's another interesting statistic: A group of only 10 individuals cost the city $2.3M in ambulance, emergency, detox, and psychiatric services.

Small group of vagrants costs San Francisco $20M | Katie Worth | Local | San Francisco Examiner

Well, you didn't get my meaning, I guess. I can guarantee you there are more than 6544 homeless people in SF. And the point I was making with your $200 million figure is: the city ISN'T serving them all at a level of $40K apiece average. That's why the problem in SF is particularly egregious.

As a result of methodological and financial constraints, most studies are limited to counting people who are in shelters or on the streets. While this approach may yield useful information about the number of people who use services such as shelters and soup kitchens, or who are easy to locate on the street, it can result in underestimates of homelessness. Many people who lack a stable, permanent residence have few shelter options because shelters are filled to capacity or are unavailable.

National Coalition for the Homeless

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

Well, you didn't get my meaning, I guess. I can guarantee you there are more than 6544 homeless people in SF. And the point I was making with your $200 million figure is: the city ISN'T serving them all at a level of $40K apiece average. That's why the problem in SF is particularly egregious.

$40K is more than a lot of people with jobs earn in a year. What city/county services should be set aside to provide each homeless person with $40K worth of benefits?