The San Francisco Trash/Needles/Poop in the Streets Containment Thread (San Jose: legally, farmers)

[HappyinCali]

Originally Posted by Shooting Stars

The studies say the vast majority of homeless in San Francisco are FROM San Francisco, and just couldn't afford rent anymore.

Over 30% of our homeless are out of San Francisco. A rate higher than any other city. Try again. So yes, obviously most homeless at a place will be from the place. Duh. but there is a big difference between 10% and 30% as far as ability to manage.

So how about the federal government deals with that 30% and we will deal with ours?

San Francisco is somewhat of an exception, as it does have a higher percentage of individuals who became homeless elsewhere: 31 percent of individuals counted during the 2017 PIT came from outside San Francisco, and many were newly homeless. Of the 3,149 individuals counted who had been homeless for less than one year, almost one-third (about 1,000) came from outside San Francisco.[4] The City helps roughly 2,000 individuals exit homelessness each year, but with an annual influx of roughly 1,000 newly homeless individuals from other cities, the cycle continues.

https://www.spur.org/publications/ur...sness-bay-area


Also.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-country-study

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by HappyinCali

Over 30% of our homeless are out of San Francisco. A rate higher than any other city. Try again. So yes, obviously most homeless at a place will be from the place. Duh. but there is a big difference between 10% and 30% as far as ability to manage.

So how about the federal government deals with that 30% and we will deal with ours?



https://www.spur.org/publications/ur...sness-bay-area


Also.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-country-study

Well, most of that 30% are still from neighboring counties to San Francisco or other counties in the state of California. Less than 10% travelled in from out of state. So maybe you / we need to call out the state on the assistance more than the feds, no?

[alliance]

Originally Posted by ssmaster

where I stand same could be said for republicans
what does conservative mean ?
fiscal conservative
neo nazi
tarrifs
supply side economics
anti abortion
alt right
free trade
gw bush nation building
trump isolationism
prayer in school oops CHRISTIAN PRAYER ONLY IN SCHOOLS
ALL muslims are terrorist
no gun control ever(even mentally disturbed)
white supremacist
all immigrants are rapist and murders.sorry all Hispanic or dark skinned immigrants

Exactly. That's the problem with labels, which for some reason people love to use.

If you talk to anyone here all republicans are racist, homophobic, sexist, rich, white, hate poor people, white supremacist, etc. Every single republic/conservative. All horrible human beings. Pretty much everything bad in the world. By default. I've called people out on their intolerance and bigotry, and it's funny to see them either get really defensive and lash out, or double down and go even further in their hateful generalizations. But every now and then...every so often...basically as often as my alma mater has won the national championship in college football...someone actually thinks for themselves and realizes their hypocrisy. It's a beautiful thing to watch and makes it worth listening to all the other vile things people say about people they've never met. There are still decent people everywhere. Go figure...

Long story short, labels are bad, (most) people are good.

[Shooting Stars]

Originally Posted by HappyinCali

Over 30% of our homeless are out of San Francisco. A rate higher than any other city. Try again. So yes, obviously most homeless at a place will be from the place. Duh. but there is a big difference between 10% and 30% as far as ability to manage.

So how about the federal government deals with that 30% and we will deal with ours?

So why DON'T you?

[HappyinCali]

Originally Posted by Shooting Stars

So why DON'T you?

I know some of you are pretty dense, so I will simplify it for you.

You have $1,000 and 10 sick people with a deadly disease. Treatment costs $140 per person. It cures 60% of the people. There is also another treatment that is a lot less effective but costs $100. Everybody stays sick and showing symptoms, but they continue to live.

In the above analogy, the extra 30% are making you unable to properly take care of the 70% that could be cured. Instead everyone is worse off.

Do you follow me? I know it requires marginally second level thinking that is not posted on the daily caller, but I am sure if you REALLY REALLY try, and SQUEEZE your little fists very hard, and you SQUEEZE your eyes and say "I BELIEVE, I BELIEVE I Can do it", you will be able to understand how having a homeless population that is 30% higher than it should be affects the overall ability to care for everyone.

[likealady]

They're just going to go wherever the best benefits for them are. Throwing more money at the situation is only making the problem worse.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by HappyinCali

Over 30% of our homeless are out of San Francisco. A rate higher than any other city. Try again. So yes, obviously most homeless at a place will be from the place. Duh. but there is a big difference between 10% and 30% as far as ability to manage.
So how about the federal government deals with that 30% and we will deal with ours?

It doesn't matter if 99% came from somewhere else you have to offer everyone the same benefits, that is settled law.

Saenz v. Roe 1999

This case successfully challenged the constitutionality of California’s one-year residency requirement before new Californians could receive full welfare benefits. In a groundbreaking decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that California’s law violated plaintiffs’ right to travel, as protected by the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. According to the Court, “[c]itizens of the United States, whether rich or poor, have the right to choose to be citizens of the State wherein they reside.” The majority opinion was written by Justice Stevens with Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas dissenting.

[HappyinCali]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

It doesn't matter if 99% came from somewhere else you have to offer everyone the same benefits, that is settled law.

If only I had implied that we shouldnt offer same benefits, you would have a point. My point was that the federal/state government should help us with funding and services for those that are not from SF.

[TCROX]

The federal government will be involved for sure- and I think a number of californian "public servants " are going to see prison for allowing this situation to do nothing but escalate in the name of money. The misappropriation of public funds is astounding.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by HappyinCali

If only I had implied that we shouldnt offer same benefits, you would have a point. My point was that the federal/state government should help us with funding and services for those that are not from SF.

Ok, point taken I apologize. But can you imagine the chaos it would create? Local agencies would probably be bribing or threatening the homeless to get them to claim they came from somewhere else so the feds would pay for them.

My personal opinion; this is a national crisis and HUD should be required to pay for and build shelter for the homeless AND provide assistance to all working Americans who have to pay more than 50 or 60% of their gross salary for rent. If we can bribe farmers with 12 billion dollars to keep them complacent over the tariff fiasco, why can't we spend some $ on things that matter to the majority of us.