Why does the Bay Area have low poverty but high homelessness? (living in, housing)

[bmw335xi]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

You keep talking about this 100 million, have you ever done any research to see how it is being spent? I'm sure you haven't so here you go- and it's actually 167 million and I don't see where much of that money is being handed out to "Smith the public meth addict" do you?

Permanent supportive housing: $81,531,010

Transitional housing: $9,925,013

Emergency shelters: $17,607,081

Resource centers/drop-in clinics: $6,745,696

Outreach and case management: $14,646,525

Substance abuse/mental health: $8,787,085

Primary care: $14,300,890

Education/employment services: $1,638,034

Eviction prevention: $10,529,295

TOTAL: $165,710,629

This proves my point exactly, money is being spent in the wrong places. Only a small percentage of the $165M is actually being spent on mental health, education and employment services. These three areas should be the bulk of it.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

This proves my point exactly, money is being spent in the wrong places. Only a small percentage of the $165M is actually being spent on mental health, education and employment services. These three areas should be the bulk of it.

how sad, even after I took the time to post that you refused to go online and investigate the components of each of the programs.

[bmw335xi]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

how sad, even after I took the time to post that you refused to go online and investigate the components of each of the programs.

Mmmhmmm, you are an expert all the way from Sacramento, aren't you?

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

Mmmhmmm, you are an expert all the way from Sacramento, aren't you?

that's the best you can come up with?

[bmw335xi]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

that's the best you can come up with?

Congratulations on being the first person I block

You absolutely contribute nothing except to derail any real discussion.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

Mmmhmmm, you are an expert all the way from Sacramento, aren't you?

The world has gone global. Is there something about the facts posted that can only be accessed from SF?

Point is bmw, you have been posting some wildly inaccurate generalizations in several threads on this topic - when accurate information is readily available. As observed previously, you're not inherently lacking intelligence. But, you are failing to use what you have to work with on this topic.

I see good posts from you scattered around various threads at times. Surprised here at your lack of intellectual curiosity and willingness to process information.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

Congratulations on being the first person I block

You absolutely contribute nothing except to derail any real discussion.

Really?

Any "real discussion" should be fact based, don't you agree?

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

You can take a walk through Tenderloin and see more homeless than you can count on all your fingers and toes that are publicly high on some type of serious drug or intoxicated. A normal person would be arrested, but the city just allows it to happen. If you call the police to report it, they don't do squat about it. That is what I call supporting and nurturing their addictions. My point is the city already spends well over $100 million to "help" the homeless, but in reality they are just wasting money because the source of the problem is drug/alcohol abuse that feeds their mental problems. If it were up to me, I would create a clean up program, where the city hires sober homeless people to clean the streets, parks etc. Those who are abusing drugs or alcohol should be put in prison to sober up and then some charity can provide counseling for those who want it. The homeless that continue substance abuse should serve longer terms in order to be forced to get sober, also the drug should make a difference just like for any other person, weed and public drunkenness aren't the main concern, it's those on meth etc. However, right now just letting them abuse various substances in public is not helping them at all, it is hurting them. My mom used to be homeless when she was a child, so I know people fall on hard times, sometimes its financial reasons, sometimes its an domestic violence reasons etc. There is a difference between Joe who was laid off and can no longer afford rent vs Smith who is a public meth addict.

How is "more homeless than you can count on all your fingers and toes" a significant number when discussing thousands of individuals?

You seem to have now narrowed your "discussion" to drunks and drug addicts - which is, in some degree, a step in the right direction away from your broader attacks on "the homeless" as if all are some kind of common community - as opposed to homelessness being merely one symptom of many possible root issues.

That said, why the focus on San Francisco as if it is the Ground Zero Mother of All Homeless Problems?
As I have demonstrated, it doesn't even hit America's Top Ten. Facts don't matter?

You do realize that drunks and addicts wander the streets of nearly every sizable city in the world, and have for thousands of years, right? And that very few places have ever been able to deal effectively with this sad contingent of humanity?

What makes contemporary San Francisco the focus of your vituperative attacks? And how, in gods' names do you arrive at the conclusion that "San Francisco doesn't care"? What other places are your models for compassionate success?

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

How is "more homeless than you can count on all your fingers and toes" a significant number when discussing thousands of individuals?

You seem to have now narrowed your "discussion" to drunks and drug addicts - which is, in some degree, a step in the right direction away from your broader attacks on "the homeless" as if all are some kind of common community - as opposed to homelessness being merely one symptom of many possible root issues.

That said, why the focus on San Francisco as if it is the Ground Zero Mother of All Homeless Problems?
As I have demonstrated, it doesn't even hit America's Top Ten. Facts don't matter?

You do realize that drunks and addicts wander the streets of nearly every sizable city in the world, and have for thousands of years, right? And that very few places have ever been able to deal effectively with this sad contingent of humanity?

What makes contemporary San Francisco the focus of your vituperative attacks? And how, in gods' names do you arrive at the conclusion that "San Francisco doesn't care"? What other places are your models for compassionate success?

careful now or he will block you

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

careful now or he will block you

Whoa! That would be a career ender, no?!