|
|
|
|
|
|
by zghst
3251 days ago
|
|
|
The city tries certain efforts to fix homelessness, no one will ever go hungry or unclothed, but the way they spend money to fix the problem is sometimes asinine. They built a new shelter complete without running water or bathrooms [1]. At over $200m a year, they could have definitely had city sponsored housing for this issue, adding building by building year after year for the affected. But if they took that approach, there would be even more homeless flocking to SF for all of the freebies. 1 - https://www.google.com/amp/www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/neviu... |
|
|
"But if homeless campers don’t buy the idea, the city could be headed for an ugly scene. If San Francisco police or Department of Public Works employees go to the campgrounds and order residents to pack up the tents and leave, and the residents refuse, what’s the next step?
Because video of cops and DPW workers rousting homeless people out of tents, with the inevitable shouting and confrontation, would go viral. It would be fodder for the far left fringe homeless advocates and could feed into the uproar about the SFPD."
If it comes to it, and people need to be forcibly moved on to a semi-permanent shelter, so be it. I don't see this as a reason to stop pushing forward with plans like the Pier 80 shelter.
EDIT: Looks like San Francisco's local government bottled it, the shelter was shut less than 6 months after it opened:
https://sf.curbed.com/2016/6/6/11870806/san-francisco-homele...