[mtrpcic]

The OP you replied to said this, and we're all aware. To solve the problem for good, systemic change is needed, but that doesn't mean we should let children freeze on the streets today while we wait for change tomorrow. You can do both.

[kethinov]

> You can do both.

OP isn't doing both though, and I think that's what JustUhThought is speaking to. OP just said (paraphrasing): "I know people like to talk politics on this subject, but I'm not going to do that, I'm just going to promote private charity."

It is reasonable to argue that we can do both, but just as we expect those talking primarily about political solutions to also highlight how private charity can help in the mean time, we should also expect those talking primarily about private charity to also highlight what political solutions we should also be exploring.

Also I think it's important to remember that some people believe government has no place in solving this problem, so they will promote private charity as an alternative to political solutions.

Likewise there are those who believe that private charity has no place in solving this problem, and the need for private charity represents a failure of public policy, so they will promote political solutions as a replacement for private charity.

So in some senses, we can't do both. The most extreme positions in this debate are mutually exclusive.

[rhizome]

Ironically, Larkin Street Youth Services satisfies both extremes. If you educate yourself, you'll find that LSYS is not a "private charity," it receives 2/3 of its budget from government agencies, and was founded by people in the neighborhood to fill a void not being handled by SF government.

So, in LSYS you have a charity that was begun in the neighborhood outside of government programs, which one extreme says shouldn't handle it anyway, which is in turn majority funded by government agencies, which helps the charity to do its work effectively. I'm not sure how this could be a problem for anybody outside of Kristol-Norquistian ghouls.