[robbrown451]

It seems a bit like trying to fix the pigeon problem in the city by putting out pigeon food.

The harsh reality is that the more accommodating to the homeless the city is, the more homeless there will be.

I think there are solutions, and they can be compassionate, but simply making life easier for the homeless has long term drawbacks that are greater than the short term upsides.

[SeckinJohn]

I agree that the goal shouldn't be making the life too easy for the homeless - instead I believe that we should focus on helping them re-integrate back to the society, at least for the ones that would like to.

Homelessness is the main concern for resident of San Francisco according to recent polls, and it would be a shame if this stayed like this for another 10 years.

With this campaign, we can start creating campaigns that are funded and lead by the citizens who are most passionate about solving this. Then, the idea that something like this could work would ideally propagate to other people that are more skeptic.

We need to also note that we are already paying around $20 per month each on fixing homelessness in San Francisco through the government. The main difference is that with a crowdfunding platform, we would be the ones that are choosing which campaigns make sense and which activists we would like to support.

[nickthemagicman]

Making it 'easy' for the homeless?

Lol you think basic fundamental survival goods like food and blankets are making it easy?

Are you SERIOUS?

Because I completely agree! You guys are absolutely right on. If you encourage homelessness EVERYONE will become one.

[robbrown451]

"Easy" is a relative term. The issue is whether you want to make it easier than it previously was.

[omgtehblackbloc]

You are implying that homelessness is a calculated choice, and that if it becomes unpleasant enough, an individual will decide to stop being homeless.

This is absurd because it fails to recognize that homelessness is not a choice, it is the default when no choice is available. It is literally the bottom of the list, lower even than jail (many homeless people try to get in jail on purpose, especially during the winter).

Making life more difficult (and dangerous) for homeless people won't stop them from being homeless. It might, however, get them to go be homeless in someone else's town - which is the real motivation for inhumane policies. Make human suffering someone else's problem, not in my back yard.

[robbrown451]

Well, I could suggest lots of ideas better than giving them stuff while leaving them living on the streets.

[losf]

I disagree. We should not make life more difficult than it is already for homeless people. We should provide them a path to integrate to society (access to shelters, bathrooms, education, medical and social help). Some homeless might grab the opportunity to leave homelessness, but let's not fool ourselves, some will remain homeless. The remaining homeless would be at least healthier and less outcast.

That will attract more homeless in SF, sure! (actually, some cities pay to send their homeless to SF already http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/09/11/2602391/san-franc...). But that is not a sufficient reason to not make what is right.

If every city in the Bay would do the same, there would less incentive for homeless to congregate in SF.

[robbrown451]

> If every city in the Bay would do the same, there would less incentive for homeless to congregate in SF.

So then any such program shouldn't be city specific. Why would residents of a city do things that result in more homeless in their own city? Basic game theory.

[losf]

It is not a game. The goal is not put homeless under the carpet. Because they are out of sight does not mean that the problem is solved.

SF is "the homeless capital of the United States"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_Stat...). So, SF must be doing something right, for homeless to come in the City. I wish other cities would do the same, for the homeless's wellbeing not necessarily to attract more homeless. But if every city would do the same, homeless would not need to travel, so no more no less homeless. Right now some cities do nothing (or even make life more difficult) for homeless, hoping they leave...

I don't think it is the right strategy.

[losf]

"My point is that from many SF residents' perspectives, spending their tax dollars to make the city the "homeless capital of the united states" is not a smart strategy."

I guess this is where we disagree. As a SF resident, I want my tax dollars to serve every residents including the homeless. I don't want my tax dollars to be used to push the "problem" out.

[robbrown451]

Game Theory is not about games. Please don't blame me if the name is confusing to you. It is about strategies and incentives.

My point is that from many SF residents' perspectives, spending their tax dollars to make the city the "homeless capital of the united states" is not a smart strategy.