SF has one of the largest city budgets in the country — >$15billion — and struggles to staff park workers making $70-90k.
If the park workers only make $60k, but the city budget is 1/10th, 1/20th, 1/100th of SF’s, how does the math here ever work?
SF has one of the largest city budgets in the country — >$15billion — and struggles to staff park workers making $70-90k.
If the park workers only make $60k, but the city budget is 1/10th, 1/20th, 1/100th of SF’s, how does the math here ever work?
Spending $700M/year on homelessness crisis is straight up insane. There has to be a better way that doesnt cost as much. SF is kinda fucked.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/homeless-questions-an...
Btw even $690m isn’t the full picture:
> While that amount does not include what the Department of Public Health or SF Public Works or many other departments spend related to the crisis
There has to be some middle ground between "homeless in a park" and "living their own life with a job" and "locked up in prison at great cost" that would be satisfactory to everyone.
Now, I think there are otherajor issues with this idea (mostly that having a 0.1% population of assisted people is much more workable than a 10% population, as would happen if SF moved every homeless person to a smaller city).