You prop up this solution of something vague but close to socialism as a silver bullet, but with no evidence. If $46K per person doesn't show that socialism is failing to work, then what will?
1) City spending isn't the full picture. How much money does the city lose because tourists/people/businesses choose other places because they perceive SF as a dump? That's the true cost of the problem, and the obvious answer is that as long as you spend below that amount to solve the problem, it's a win.
2) $46k is a crazy amount of money in my mind. What? How? How can you spend all that money and not get any results other than basic survival? Is it incompetence on a massive scale? Corruption? A failure of imagination?
3) Again, my main point is that this is a solved problem. It is not a unique problem. Contrary to what a bunch of other commenters in this thread have said, SF is not a unique snowflake of a city where this problem is magically unsolveable. It's the fucking not-invented-here syndrome from the software world, but applied to city politics. This is not rocket science. This is not uncharted territory. Learn from others, ffs.
SF is already spending $305 million a year... That's $46K per person!
It probably does count much of the state and federal spending
Almost none of it goes to the homeless people themselves.
The homeless person now has a house, and so they're not homeless. (duh!) It's shockingly simple, and ruthlessly effective at not only getting people off the street but solving health, addiction, and employment problems. Oh, and did I mention that it's way cheaper than the traditional patchwork model of mitigating homelessness?
Again, and again, simply giving away houses is a cheaper and more effective way at ending this problem. Cases in point:
Utah cut homelessness by over 90%. [0]
Finland has had similar results. [1]
Just today, NPR reported that Chicago hospitals cut ER costs and improved the health of frequent homeless patients by simply giving them an apartment.[2]
Housing First works. It's a waste of time and money to do anything else. Oh and it's gasp socialist!
[0] https://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-chroni...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2017/mar/22/finl...
[2] https://www.npr.org/2018/01/30/581778796/er-use-goes-down-as...
Your references don't support this.
[0]
> The idea of Housing First is that housing comes first, services later. Clients do have to pay some rent — either 30 percent of income or up to $50 a month, whichever is greater.
They also review every case and only provide housing to those that aren't dealing drugs, and aren't violent.
[1]
> Tenants pay rent and are entitled to receive housing benefits. Depending on their income, they may contribute to the cost of the services. The rest is covered by the municipalities. They provide the support themselves or buy support from other service providers, mainly from the NGOs.
[2] is in reference to Chicago. I don't think that city is a success story.
It's effective.
It's cheaper.
It's giving housing first.
Finally, Numbers and Chicago don't care what you think.
> It's effective.
I never said there shouldn't be any social services. I don't think 100% socialism is the answer, though.
> It's cheaper.
You are comparing San Francisco to other areas which run these programs, and holding it up as if it is the only alternative to socialism. This is hardly true, isn't it?
> It's giving housing first.
Only to those that play by the rules. I think that is really the best solution out there. A compromise between self responsibility and care.
> Finally, Numbers and Chicago don't care what you think.
And? You thought I think they do?