The Bay Area Soiled/Homeless/Infested/Trashed Containment Thread (Paradise: assessment, donating)

[CorporateCowboy]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

Not arguing with you at all, it's crazy the price tag and what you get in return. Not just talking about size of home, but like I said, you can live in a multi-million dollar home neighborhood and still have to deal with crack heads outside.

As with any City, there is a premium for properties in/near downtown (single professionals who are in search of luxury, size and/or convenience as well as access to secured parking). If one seeks a suburban-y (or even rural) feel, one must venture farther from the City to find the more traditional 'wealthy neighborhood' (and no crackheads). You're simply speaking to the realities of City life vs. suburbia.

[CorporateCowboy]

Originally Posted by nashvilledemographer

The Bay Area isn't the economic or cultural behemoth that New York is and it doesn't have the weather or beach culture of Southern California.

Actually, the Bay Area would rank nineteenth in the world against national economies.

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Now it's a party Yes. Whoot


https://www.kron4.com/news/alcohol-p...o-hotel-rooms/

[Tulemutt]

Jealous Angry?

[Tulemutt]

The answer is: authorities aren’t prioritizing the health of the homeless in this effort ... they are prioritizing the health of the community.

For the segment of the homeless population who are addicted to tobacco, alcohol, drugs - addiction rules their life to the point where they will not contain themselves by sheltering without their habits. Thus, if the goal is to keep keep the virus from racing through the city streets, you take the street people out of the public equation. ... And the only way to do that includes providing housing, food, and habitual substances.

That said, as data floods in about transmission of this disease, it is becoming apparent that being outside is less risky than being inside ... thus the homeless seem to be at lower risk outside. (This does not speak to their risk by virtue of other factors such as immune system health ... only with regard to indoor/outdoor geo-location.)

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

The answer is: authorities aren’t prioritizing the health of the homeless in this effort ... they are prioritizing the health of the community.

For the segment of the homeless population who are addicted to tobacco, alcohol, drugs - addiction rules their life to the point where they will not contain themselves by sheltering without their habits. Thus, if the goal is to keep keep the virus from racing through the city streets, you take the street people out of the public equation. ... And the only way to do that includes providing housing, food, and habitual substances.

That said, as data floods in about transmission of this disease, it is becoming apparent that being outside is less risky than being inside ... thus the homeless seem to be at lower risk outside. (This does not speak to their risk by virtue of other factors such as immune system health ... only with regard to indoor/outdoor geo-location.)

Are they being locked down? I mean, if they are free to come and go I don't see this as much of a solution. Just more of a carrot than a cure.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer

Are they being locked down? I mean, if they are free to come and go I don't see this as much of a solution. Just more of a carrot than a cure.

I doubt they are ‘locked down’ ... but why would they care if they have what keeps ‘em stoned?

[nobodysbusiness]

Hotels that allow smoking?

[joosoon]

Dumb policy with bad optics but not surprising considering the way the state tries to deal with the homeless.
I especially liked how the article states they're only supplying the "medically necessary" amount of alcohol with meals.

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by nobodysbusiness

Hotels that allow smoking?

That too.
Who's going to want to stay in these places ever again?