|
|
|
|
|
|
by adventured
2379 days ago
|
|
|
> Providing housing? It's one of the most affluent cities in world history. That is exactly the obvious solution that SF has intentionally avoided implementing. If it was a matter of 25,000 people, sure, I understand that would be a huge problem for a city of that size. It's a matter of closer to 5,000 people that need housing (out of SF's 8k to 10k homeless, some are long-term homeless, some are short-term homeless, so you end up with a lower tally of how much housing you need at a given time than the max figures). They have no excuse for the grotesque human rights abuses going on there. I'm overwhelmingly in favor of the Federal Government stepping in and doing some very unpleasant things - as necessary - to the city in order to force their hands on fixing homelessness there. If they won't fix it, bring the full weight of the US Government down upon their collective heads until they squeal and capitulate (as they are guaranteed to do). The Feds have dozens of ways to beat on the city until it does by forced measures what it should have been more than happy to do on their own. |
|
|
I get what you're saying here but you're expressing it poorly, and without regard to the fact that the overwhelming unpleasantness is likely to fall on the vulnerable rather than the excessively comfortable, as exemplified by the proliferation of bad policy choices currently taking place at the federal level.