|
|
|
|
|
|
by FireBeyond
1102 days ago
|
|
|
I didn't say it was without benefit, whatsoever. But it's not a net positive. Now you have a bunch of people who the local populace is going to be bitter at, because they get subsidized shelter. There's no jobs to be had, so you have people living there who are now going to be taking more from local social services (and they're not contributing particularly to local taxes). There's not much of anything to do there (and not in the whiny sense, there's near zero amenities, it's a town of 250 people). They're stuck there, because any notable services and infrastructure require a car (there's no public transit infrastructure). In my mind? All you've done is create a powder keg. |
|
|
Versus the love they're getting from the populace now?
Perfect is the enemy of the good. San Francisco is three quarters of the way towards spending its median income on its homeless [1][2][3]. That is how you generate a toxic backlash against a subgroup.
Has anyone asked the homeless in San Francisco if they'd want a free apartment in Willard? When rates were lower, we could have probably paid for their mortgage for less than it costs to temporarily house them. That is the opportunity cost.
[1] https://abc7news.com/sf-homeless-plan-housing-all-san-franci... $70k/shelter bed/year
[2] https://smartasset.com/retirement/average-salary-in-san-fran... $96k/year median individual income
[3] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MHICA06075A052NCEN $120k/year median household income