Hacker News Reader

Comment by closeparen | Hacker News Reader

This may work when the concentration is low. I’d estimate 15-20 homeless people on the daily walk between my front door in SOMA and the Muni Metro. Often in relatively dense tent encampments. I’d feel pretty weird giving to one and not the others on the same block. Especially since it’s probably the same people day in and day out. It’d take some serious preparation before going out the door to pack enough for everyone, and then stop every few feet to deliver it. At an even lower level than compassion fatigue, it’s logistics.

If only there were some sort of professional, centralized entity to collect some of our money and distribute it equitably.

View on HN

SF just passed 300 million/year measure that's supposed to help the homeless and that's in addition to the 240 million/year of funding that's already there. Both of those combined exceeds the budgets of most cities. First I would say, let's figure out how to use that money so that it's actually working. 540 million/year is enough to give the 7000 homeless in SF 77,000$ per year. Let's put that to good use and make sure it doesn't end up in administrative waste before throwing more $ at it.

Are those numbers correct? If so, that's insane. For $77k/year, SF should be able to house every single one of them with money to spare.

The latest tax increased it from 30k to about 60-70k. As to why it's doing so little, there's a variety of explanations. Some say that homeless often have mental or drug abuse issues that keep them from being able to live on their own. Others (including the mayor) say that the money is more than enough, and we need more accountability of what we already spend. 70k is about the median wage of a single person in SF.

Even losing half the bureaucracy, that leaves 35k/year for actual aid. Toss half of that at misc care and other programs. 17.5/year left for housing. Not much, but should still be enough for group home type arrangements. Or, at least I would hope so.

I've never been involved in these programs on either side, but it's amazing that $70k/year might not be enough to house somebody.

1/2 for bureacrazy? that sounds like a lot for just overhead

Well, whatever money you spend to provide a service goes straight into someones pocket first, before a homeless person gets anything in return.

You're going to be real surprised then when you find out what assisted living or memory care costs for your parents. Hint it's at least double what normal cost of living is. And many of these folks do need that level of care and supervision.

Sure, that doesn't surprise me.

But how many of those 7000 homeless need that level of care? Half? 2/3? SF should at least be able to get the "easy" people off the street.

Maybe they already have?

They have definitely worked hard to do so. On BART I happened to start talking with somebody wearing a jacket from the Homeless Outreach Team. It's his job to talk people into getting the help they need and getting off the streets. The ones we talked about are definitely the difficult cases.

That doesn't surprise me at all. There's a homeless guy in my neighborhood I've been talking with at least 7 years. He has mentioned being born at the hospital 3 blocks from my place, and I'm sure he grew up in the neighborhood. He's polite, friendly, and very set in his ways. I suspect he has some sort of alcohol-induced anterograde amnesia. He has absolutely no interest in living in any sort of setting where he'd be constrained by others. From the way he talks about it, I expect there's some sort of history of abuse by authority figures.

I don't think it's impossible for him to get help. But I think it would have to include living in his neighborhood and I think it would need a lot of patient and intensive help from professionals. Otherwise he's just going to do what's familiar to him.

There's a lot of bureaucrats and cronies taking their cut, I'd be surprised if 10% of that actually made it to the homeless

Considering the annual cost of a taxpayer for a prison inmate is $31k a year, surely thats a problem that can be solved with that budget.

In California it's about $75k/yr[1] so that budget should be roughly enough.

https://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/aug/09...

A fair amount of resources spent in prison inmates is dedicated to keeping them inside the prison.

The divisor should be 7000 people + however many people are not homeless because of the money SF spends reducing homelessness. I certainly hope that's a number much larger than 7000.

Ah, true enough. Maybe the 7000 are truly the worst off, and in need of extra services.

You're correct. A full 50% of the budget is housing assistance. 10% is eviction prevention. After that, we're getting into the services and support for the 7000+ people that the point-in-time count captures.

The vast majority of that 300 million per year will go to bureaucrats for group meetings to discuss how to solve the homeless problem. San Francisco voters have no say in the matter and they are unable to influence change because these organizations are run by unelected bureaucrats. If you vote for another figurehead they will keep the same bureaucrats.

Reference, please.

Using the point-in-time count as a divisor for the entire budget is so ridiculously asinine I'm shocked so many folks are engaging with it in good faith. "Let's figure out how to use that money" might begin with understanding how it's already spent. Here's a more in depth article correcting this fallacy: http://beyondchron.org/sfs-homeless-spending-myth/

“Since the 1980’s, the media has created an impression—now shared by the public and some supervisors—that you can simply divide homeless spending ($165 million) by the homeless numbers (7000) and then give that amount of money (over $20,000 per homeless person) to get them off the streets. But most of SF’s “homeless budget” is spent on people already housed. The city is not spending $165 million on 7000 reported homeless, but on thousands more living in supportive permanent housing.” - same author, from 2014

This is dangerously ignorant analysis and I'd hope you would take some time to research where that money is spent before sharing your opinion again.

A vital figure is missing from the article, how many people are actually being housed with that budget?

If it's 10k people, that is $16,500 per person (ignoring administrative costs). So that is pretty damn effective budgeting. (roughly)

But, it's 1k people that is $165,000 a person, which is piss poor.

So just shouting down someone else that is missing a few numbers is pointless without all the numbers. You may end up agreeing with their sentiment if you find the end results are the same. (ie, possibly the budget is going to rich land owners pockets instead of actually helping more people)

I'm sorry, taking a budget for homeless and homeless assistance and dividing by point-in-time count is destined for asinine useless territory no matter what information I lack. 50% of the budget is housing assistance. 10% is eviction prevention. 20% is medical care. So just napkin math and 2/3rds of the 77k/y figure is for folks outside the point-in-time count. His "sentiment" is wholly based in steadfast ignorance over what those numbers pay for. Pretending to have a firm enough grasp to _direct_ future spending when whiffing on those basics isn't as endearing as you'd think.

I'm thrilled by the success of the Navigation Centers pioneered by Ed Lee. But it's really, really hard to talk about those specifics with people who just want a numerator and denominator to talk about per-person abstract figures as if policy can drop out of an equation. This may shock the HN crowd, but I live in SF and have awareness of this issue not gleaned from the immediate article.

If you're going to baselessly insinuate that "rich landowners" are pocketing funds, I'd appreciate if you could name the organization you suspect? Hamilton Families? Community Housing Partnership? C'mon, lets rat out those fat cats!

A charity group for the "police and fire fighters" calls me up and asks me to donate. I ask a simple question "how is donated money spent?" I ask them to send me info on this to research before I donate and I never get any.

If we can't see how the money is spent (ie, audited by an actual CPA as the ultimate) then we are all guessing as to how it's spent and who ends up with the money in the end.

You are guessing unless you have seen the books. Outrage against uncontrolled and unmonitored spending is appropriate.

I'm sorry? I listed two specific charities that receive this money and your chosen example, wholly ignoring those two or anything approaching relevance to the topic, is "some rando scam call" you got? I really don't know what you want out of this conversation. So far beyond anything even masquerading as good-faith engagement.

I have had some experience researching charities. Just because you listed two doesn't mean they are good or spend their money ethically. (most do not)

The fact that you think they are good implies that either you researched them and have proof, or you have blind faith in them.

If you researched them, can you provide your sources? If you have not, why do you think they are ethical with their spending practices?

I brought them up. You hand waved about unrelated scams from unrelated persons. The sheer gall to act like you've been engaging in good faith is remarkable.

Do folks normally volunteer for your made up research quests after this much acrimony and baseless conjecture? Ridiculous.

The only thing "dangerously ignorant" is giving someone a free place to live on top of the most expensive real estate in the world, merely because they threaten they might be on the street instead of moving somewhere cheaper like everyone else.

A free place to live? Which program is that, exactly? Refresh my memory if you'd be so kind.

I mean, I'm certain you're not denigrating housing assistance programs for persons who lived in the city before they were homeless and painting it as dangerous outsiders getting free rent. That would be unconscionable.

It would be “unconscionable” to object to a 90% housing subsidy (but not a 100% subsidy) for someone to live on the most valuable real estate in the world rather than moving somewhere cheaper like everyone else?

Um, okay then. Forget I said anything, I guess.

Nah, I'm referring to how you're wildly misrepresenting your position and now presenting an exceptionally poor reading of the objection. If you manage to say anything of substance I'll be sure to recall it.

But really, I'm game! Name a specific program you object to? Single out one of the nonprofits that receives these funds? I'm curious what the nice folks down at Hamilton Families did to deserve this much of your ire.

I mean, it couldn't possibly be sour grapes that those lucky ducky homeless folks get to stay in smoke-drenched SF while you had to bounce to Austin like "everyone else?" How was ACL this year?

Presumably, the things a government needs to buy to help are housing and personnel, which are unusually expensive here by a wide margin. So having far and away the highest spending per person needing assistance seems correct.

If only there were some sort of professional, centralized entity to collect some of our money and distribute it equitably.

Here ya go: https://www.catholiccharitiessf.org

I used to make regular donations in person when I was able to. It’s eye-opening to see what they do.

One day a random woman walked in because she’d pooed herself due to a medical condition. She was immediately whisked away to be showered, given clean clothes, and fed. No questions asked.

Charities? Some waste too much money on administration, but I think the smaller ones are pretty good.

True, but few of them waste 1/10 as much as the government and they all work off of willful contributions.

I understand what you're saying, but you're literally saying you feeling awkward is more important than someone having food that day.

Sure, it's not the most efficient or probably effective, but giving a little bit does make a difference.

>you feeling awkward is more important than someone having food that day

Have you ever spent any money on something that would make you feel less awkward that you could've donated to help feed the hungry? Have you ever bought new clothes when second hand would've worked and you could've donated the difference to feed the hungry? Have you ever spent money eating out when you could've saved money by cooking and donated the difference to feed the hungry?

I wonder if there is anyone who could answer no to such questions?

Let's consider a proposal, then. A simple approach. Whenever you encounter a homeless person, stop and interact for a bit. Treat them as a human being, deserving of respect and dignity and humane treatment as a friend and neighbor. Find out what they need. Give the at least enough for a meal.

I'm going to assume 5-10 minutes and $10 per person per encounter per day.

Given that I pass at least 20 of my neighbors experiencing houselessness on each leg of my daily commute, I'm looking at $400 a day in donations and upwards of three hours. This may be sustainable for you, but it would quickly leave me unable to afford to eat myself. And that's assuming everything always goes perfectly, which my experiences living in an area with a sizable population of my neighbors being unhoused suggests may not always reliably be the case.

With this pointedly ridiculous hypothetical in mind, it may be worth considering that people have to choose their own boundaries, in their own lives, and for their own reasons. Your heart is in the right place - compassion and kindness matter! - but it's possible that shaming people for choosing their boundaries might not be the most productive of all possible uses of your time and energy.

I choose one out of the many, and it doesn't have to be every day - or every week; and I do this only when I have some real time to spend to talk, in case a conversation gets deep, which can happen and is a good thing. At least a third of the time I bring say cherries or a couple of bananas (scurvy from Vitamin C deficiency is not uncommon for homeless people.) The food donations would be more common except that I don't always carry food, and I try to avoid theatrical and practiced begging, since that's more likely to be for drugs so won't stop for the first apparently homeless person I see.

I don't feel weird "giving to one and not the many," since I've read some Kant and know that I have no moral obligation to do the impossible; I don't even think I have an obligation to do so much that I start to hate doing it, and might quit. I don't mean to be unkind, but "I can't help everyone." and "It might feel weird" do seem like rationalizations to me.

The guy I've sat with most had a serious (obvious impact) brain injury, and when I last talked with him, he was drinking while contemplating whether he should go to a meeting that had been set up with his son, who he hadn't seen since his childhood. He was very worried his now-adult son might not like him. I told him (on the basis of previous our conversations) that he should be proud of himself; he was shouldering a huge burden better he would than most of us would. That it didn't really matter whether his son "got that" or didn't; he should go to help his son understand the world, and understand himself. I have no idea whether he ever met with his son or not.

Break some boundaries, experiment a bit, you don't have to go overboard.

Have you ever seen Schindler's List? There's a scene, near the end, where Oskar Schindler breaks down. He looks at all the little luxuries in his life, tallies their cost, and lists off how many more lives that could have saved. It nearly destroys him.

To Schindler, "I have no moral obligation to do the impossible" would have come off as a self-serving rationalization for not doing as much as you can.

For all that, you're absolutely right. Break some boundaries! Challenge yourself! Experiment! Just understand that some other people, having gone through similar processes, might arrive at personal conclusions that could in some instances perhaps differ slightly from yours. Perhaps you and I could be more careful in what we deem justified and what we deem a rationalization, knowing that those are intensely personal decisions.

If you read carefully you will find that I have argued for doing as much as you can sustain doing. (I have edited slightly to make that clearer, now.) At the same time, unlike yourself, I thought it a best marketing practice to encourage people to get started with good actions, not to sell them on saintliness immediately. "First get a yes," as salesmen say. Perhaps that seems like a bitter trick to you, but Aristotle advises that establishing the habit of good action takes time.

Also remember, you don't know my circumstances - I'm trying hard not to use a wheelchair now, for example, so I may not be as active as you. I'm not young. Kudos if your charity can be relentless.

So do note that my argument was a limited one, I was arguing in favor of at least some action, not trying to define ceilings other than what you can sustain doing. Which, as it turns out, over time - is actually the greatest possible effort one could offer.

Not to mention that homeless people are but one possible focus for charity so I can't accept your apparent insistence that I should devote all my energy to them exclusively; I spend far more time and effort trying to help the severely chronically ill in my own way and am not willing to give that up. If only because chronic illness often leads to homelessness.

It's cool that you do this and I enjoyed reading the comment, but I'm not too keen on the idea of actively encouraging random strangers on the internet to try the same when they clearly are openly hostile. I can readily see that going bad places.

When I was on the street, people sometimes treated me like a zoo animal they could gawk at and would waste my time and energy and violate my personal boundaries by peppering me with invasive questions. No, they weren't going to be a positive social experience for me. No, they weren't going to help me brain storm or problem solve. No, they weren't going to do anything for me.

People who have nothing but contempt and excuses can just keep walking as far as I'm concerned. They don't need to listen to stories of how you behave, filter it through their mind and come to bizarre conclusions that are likely to just add to the problems of the poorest of the poor.

I take your point, and it's a good one. My counter would be that I would like to encourage the less-narcissistic to be of a little help and make contact, in part because, just as you say, right now those who aren't homeless but are willing to interact with them are not always the best people - they often have selfish or trivial agendas. We need a few more making real contact who don't. You know, actual mature human beings.

So I wouldn't want to think that I've encouraged "poverty tourism" (which has a long history, right back to Victorian slum tours, and probably further back than that.) I'm absolutely not trying to indulge my curiosity when talking to a homeless person; that seems exploitative at best. If a question would be intrusive and unnecessary if you posed it to a billionaire, it's probably not polite question for a homeless person, either. You've better expressed what I meant when I said I always made sure I had time to talk: sometimes homeless people are new to town, or just have something on their mind, and I'm happy to brainstorm (or help fix a bike one time.) But that's up to them of course.

I guess I would say your first three paragraphs (of the comment in question) were fine, but your closing sentence is of questionable value and veers into territory that concerns me.

/unasked for feedback

I've no idea how to interpret your remark. It's always up to anyone to freely decide to engage in conversation or to refuse a chance to chat. To accept a hand fixing a bike or to decide instead that it's more likely that the job will get done properly if they do the whole thing themselves. Etc.

It’s a fair criticism. But if that’s the social contract - that a pedestrian in an urban area is obliged to empathize with and offer support for all the destitution along his path - then we are doomed to drive around suburbia forever. Walkability is a compelling goal, but at that price, it seems impossible. So I reject the notion that it’s the price. I realize that’s flawed reasoning.

It’s in San Francisco’s DNA to welcome the desperate and downtrodden from everywhere in the world. I don’t begrudge it that. But it means the streets will never be free of poverty until utopia reigns on every last inch of the earth. Which seems unlikely to happen soon. There’s got to be a pragmatic trade off for the next 50 years.

> distribute it equitably.

<sarcasm>You communist</sarcasm>

I was having a discussion a couple minutes ago about the situation of Cuban doctors in Brazil and the simplistic solution some supporters of the far-right government proposed - to give citizenship to the ones who take a test to validate their degrees.

Unsurprisingly, not that many would be attracted by the moving from a country with nearly zero crime, assured retirement and free education and healthcare from cradle to grave to one that's violent and just elected a xenophobic, homophobic and racist president. Life is much more complicated than that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com