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

[Legion]

Breitbart? ROTFL

[Legion]

San Trancisco is paying $16.1 million to shelter homeless people in 262 tents placed in empty lots around the city where they also get services and food — a steep price tag that amounts to more than $61,000 per tent per year.

The city has created six tent sites, called “safe sleeping villages,” since the beginning of the pandemic to get vulnerable people off crowded sidewalks and into places where they have access to bathrooms, three meals and around-the-clock security.

The annual cost of one spot in one site is 2½ times the median rent for a one-bedroom apartment in San Trancisco.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/article/S-F-pays-61-000-a-year-for-one-tent-to-house-16001074.php?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=emai l&utm_content=headlines&utm_campaign=sfc_morningfi x&sid=5d54065e91d15c7b08162233

[Legion]

As San Trancisco expands a shelter-in-place hotel program that leases rooms for vulnerable homeless people during the pandemic, the city has run into a roadblock: Some residents find where they’re staying more appealing than another permanent option.

Shelter-in-place hotels, opened during the pandemic for vulnerable homeless individuals, offer free private rooms with bathrooms and three meals a day at no cost to residents.

In contrast, a newly available permanent supportive housing option in a recently renovated hotel has communal bathrooms and charges 30% of a resident’s income as rent.

So far, around 70% of shelter-in-place hotel residents offered spots at the refurbished 232-unit Granada Hotel, purchased with $45 million from the state last year, turned down spots, Abigail Stewart-Kahn, of the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, told supervisors last week.

“We have experienced a decline rate of people living in shelter-in-place hotels at a rate never experienced before in San Trancisco when offered permanent supportive housing,” Stewart-Kahn said.


https://www.sfchronicle.com/local-politics/article/San-Francisco-offered-permanent-housing-to-15994868.php

[Nomad]

Unfortunately there’s no easy answer. A large majority of the homeless are mentally ill or drug addicts. Laws prevent putting the mentally ill in homes against their wishes.

The money is a real concern because it’s not an unlimited well. We have spent hundreds upon hundreds of millions on a problem only getting worse. No one is suggesting don’t spend any money. But at a certain point the spending almost creates incentives for people to come.

Ultimately the goal is to get more people into rehab with an opportunity to get their lives back together. We have not been able to do that well.

You also can't force people to "improve" their lives by forcing them to conform to what society's standard of "normal" is.

How much is it worth to live in a society in which compassion for fellow humans remains a top priority?

Nobody is starving to death or doing without things they need because of the money being spent sheltering the homeless.

The conservative right tends to fancy themselves "good Christians" and one of the hallmarks of Christianity, is doing whatever one can to help the poor and less fortunate.

Conservatives should therefore, be more than willing to take on a higher tax burden, especially the wealthier ones, in order to continue to provide food and shelter for the homeless and the poor.

One cannot be a true Christian while being against spending whatever it takes to help these people.

They cannot have it both ways.

[cawacko]

OK. Fine.

So what do we do?

Just give up and let them fend for themselves, twisting in the wind?

Nothing is ever going to be perfect and having a tent in the safety of a tent village is better than sleeping on a bench in a park or in a doorway.

The money? Secondary concern.

I'll also acknowledge my own conundrum here. I think the war on drugs in the U.S. has been a failure yet there are places in San Francisco where it's like a Farmers Market of open drug selling. There are lines in the street of people buying drugs. Addicts lay all over the City streets.

It's not good and its not compassionate.

[Nomad]

San Trancisco is paying $16.1 million to shelter homeless people in 262 tents placed in empty lots around the city where they also get services and food — a steep price tag that amounts to more than $61,000 per tent per year.

The city has created six tent sites, called “safe sleeping villages,” since the beginning of the pandemic to get vulnerable people off crowded sidewalks and into places where they have access to bathrooms, three meals and around-the-clock security.

The annual cost of one spot in one site is 2½ times the median rent for a one-bedroom apartment in San Trancisco.

As San Trancisco expands a shelter-in-place hotel program that leases rooms for vulnerable homeless people during the pandemic, the city has run into a roadblock: Some residents find where they’re staying more appealing than another permanent option.

Shelter-in-place hotels, opened during the pandemic for vulnerable homeless individuals, offer free private rooms with bathrooms and three meals a day at no cost to residents.

In contrast, a newly available permanent supportive housing option in a recently renovated hotel has communal bathrooms and charges 30% of a resident’s income as rent.

So far, around 70% of shelter-in-place hotel residents offered spots at the refurbished 232-unit Granada Hotel, purchased with $45 million from the state last year, turned down spots, Abigail Stewart-Kahn, of the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, told supervisors last week.

“We have experienced a decline rate of people living in shelter-in-place hotels at a rate never experienced before in San Trancisco when offered permanent supportive housing,” Stewart-Kahn said.

Godless piece of trash.

[Nomad]

I'll also acknowledge my own conundrum here. I think the war on drugs in the U.S. has been a failure yet there are places in San Francisco where it's like a Farmers Market of open drug selling. There are lines in the street of people buying drugs. Addicts lay all over the City streets.

It's not good and its not compassionate.

Maybe we should take the money being spent by the DEA to wage this war in drugs and divert it to programs that help people get off of dangerous, addictive drugs.

Decriminalize possession and use of small amounts.

[Legion]

Godless piece of trash.

Why did you pick this moment to confess?

[cawacko]

You also can't force people to "improve" their lives by forcing them to conform to what society's standard of "normal" is.

How much is it worth to live in a society in which compassion for fellow humans remains a top priority?

Nobody is starving to death or doing without things they need because of the money being spent sheltering the homeless.

The conservative right tends to fancy themselves "good Christians" and one of the hallmarks of Christianity, is doing whatever one can to help the poor and less fortunate.

Conservatives should therefore, be more than willing to take on a higher tax burden, especially the wealthier ones, in order to continue to provide food and shelter for the homeless and the poor.

One cannot be a true Christian while being against spending whatever it takes to help these people.

They cannot have it both ways.

I'm not really buying your argument for several reasons. Now I know you're a Florida guy but even you must be aware SF is one of the most liberal cities in the country. This isn't a hot bed of right-wing Christianity.

An argument can be made that if people want to live on the streets with mental illness and drug problems that should be their right. It's a very Libertarian argument but its an argument people have definitely put forth.

But I don't buy that to be a good Christian you have to support higher taxes and have the gov't distribute the money as they feel appropriate to get themselves re-elected. To each his own of course but I'm not familiar with too many people who walk around the City saying 'this is really compassionate and they've done a great job with all the money they are spending on the homeless'.

And again, this isn't your fault since you're not here, my guess is people who don't live here and see this on a daily basis don't truly comprehend how bad it is. Those who live here internalize it. It's the tourists who it really shocks.

[Legion]

You also can't force people to "improve" their lives by forcing them to conform to what society's standard of "normal" is.

Nobody is forcing you to change, are they?

[archives]

Just your standard democrat corruption. Every democrat who voted for this will get a huge kickback from the company that supplies these tents.

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” (https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/ar...e-16001074.php)

https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/ar...e-16001074.php

[cawacko]

Maybe we should take the money being spent by the DEA to wage this war in drugs and divert it to programs that help people get off of dangerous, addictive drugs.

Decriminalize possession and use of small amounts.

The issue here isn't really weed. It's the hard stuff. We had more people die of OD'ing in the City than COVID. We have a huge problem.

[archives]

I'm not really buying your argument for several reasons. Now I know you're a Florida guy but even you must be aware SF is one of the most liberal cities in the country. This isn't a hot bed of right-wing Christianity.

An argument can be made that if people want to live on the streets with mental illness and drug problems that should be their right. It's a very Libertarian argument but its an argument people have definitely put forth.

But I don't buy that to be a good Christian you have to support higher taxes and have the gov't distribute the money as they feel appropriate to get themselves re-elected. To each his own of course but I'm not familiar with too many people who walk around the City saying 'this is really compassionate and they've done a great job with all the money they are spending on the homeless'.

And again, this isn't your fault since you're not here, my guess is people who don't live here and see this on a daily basis don't truly comprehend how bad it is. Those who live here internalize it. It's the tourists who it really shocks.

Imagine if some of these posters here had to spend time in the Tenderloin

[Legion]

Abigail Stewart-Kahn, interim director of the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing said, “We’ve never had shelter in many ways that’s nicer” than permanent supportive housing.

“We respect people’s right to decline their housing placements,” she said, adding the shitty city would work on more options.

It poses a problem for the shitty city, which has pledged not to kick out anyone who moved into a shelter-in-place hotel before Nov. 15 last year and participates in a rehousing program.

The shitty city is now trying to find them permanent places before federal reimbursements potentially run out by October.

Keegan Medrano with the Coalition on Homelessness criticized the shitty city for what he perceived as shifting blame to residents for rejecting placements. Medrano said permanent supportive housing doesn’t have the best reputation among the homeless community.

“We’re in a tough position where we want people to get into permanent supportive housing, but frankly a lot of it is unacceptable and not in good condition,” Medrano said. “Many don’t have Wi-Fi."


https://www.sfchronicle.com/local-politics/article/San-Francisco-offered-permanent-housing-to-15994868.php

[Legion]

Imagine if some of these posters here had to spend time in the Tenderloin

IMAGINE!

IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF

Poor Anchovies.