Posted on 07/02/2015 6:21:37 AM PDT by Kaslin
Just another day in the workers paradise.
That's $26,279 per homeless person. Yet they still sh!t in the streets. So, it's not just about the money...
Don't worry. A Republican is never going to be elected there.
SCOOPS!
That’s the correct answer!
THE SCOOPS ARE COMING!!!!!
THE SCOOPS ARE COMING!!!!!
As a bay area resident for the last, oh, 40+ years, I rarely travel into San Francisco unless it’s absolutely necessary.
There’s a significant number of aggressive panhandlers to commute into the city on a daily basis, just to earn a living shaking down visitors. It pays even better if you have a mangy mutt on display.
San Francisco used to be a beautiful place to visit, but it’s become such a challenge to overlook the human vermin that prey on everyone, I no longer go.
And I don’t miss it at all.
, I see street people passed out on high-traffic sidewalks, and I am afraid to walk around them.
**************************************************************************
Don’t “walk around them”, step on them.
A common framing of San Francisco's "homeless problem" might be called the magnet theory.
The city has allocated $165 million to homeless services. Over time, it has succeeded in offering 6,355 permanent supportive housing units to the formerly homeless. Nevertheless, the number of homeless people accounted for on the streets has remained stubbornly flat. The city estimates there are about 7,350 homeless people now living in San Francisco.
Since the city has invested so much with such disappointing results, the story goes, there can only be one explanation: Offering robust services has drawn homeless people from elsewhere, like a magnet. By demonstrating kindness, the city has unwittingly converted itself into a Mecca for the homeless, spoiling an otherwise lovely place for all the hardworking, law-abiding citizens who contribute and pay taxes.
and lastly I love the line.........In 2004, city officials and community advocates released a 10-Year Plan to Abolish Chronic Homelessness.
http://www.sfbg.com/2014/03/25/san-franciscos-untouchables
They deserve far worse, but because they are wealthy, they manage to avoid what they deserve.
“”What is BART fare?””
That was your post and your question...People misunderstood what you were asking. It sounded as if you were asking what the “fare” was to ride BART. I took it that way and it appears others did also. If you’d said, “What is BART?”, one answer would have been sufficient instead you got a rogues gallery of answers.
$1 for each homeless person, the rest is for those six-figure positions masquerading as "administrative costs".
If the homeless disappeared overnight, mass unemployment would follow.
What can be done? Increase the number of uniformed officers on the street.
***
The real answer, which nobody wants to deal with, is to find a way to have these individuals declared mentally incompetent and confined to institutions. It is the humane way to treat them. Most of them are mentally ill and cannot make proper decisions for themselves.
This was (ahem) 20 years ago. We drive into San Francisco and looked at a few apartments. I saw the roving bands of homeless, the needle drop boxes at Safeway and picked up a local paper that had a Dear Abby style article where the writer was looking for advice as to whether he should approach the librarian at his local library who had a stump leg for a liaison because the writer had a "stump fetish" and I said, "Not for me, I can't live here".
Little did I know 20 years later, that would all appear fairly tame and moderate.
In my beatnick days, going out to SanFran to sit and read in City Lights Bookstore, the winter of 1972, I recall it being the first city I ever witnessed that had no dog laws. They ran and crapped everywhere. I thought at the time: So the Haight-Ashbury mentality percolates down to doggie freedom/anarchy, and the result isn’t pretty.
what are they doing buying each of them a house ???
$25,000 might cover property tax on a house in SF.
I’m convinced many of the mentally I’ll homeless would not use toilets even if such public toilets were widely available
True but those few who do use public toilets make such a mess that the toilets are useless or plugged up, often on purpose.
Many of these street people are out to destroy all that is community. I lived in SF for 30 years and moved out in 2002.
It was sad to see the decline over those 30 years.
In Frisco I don’t think $25G would buy a room.
With the way the homeless act in SF, I wouldn’t be surprised if they ended up training them....
Woof!
Then again, there are no dog laws in SF (as another poster commented), so we solve one problem, and exacerbate another: piles of dog and wolf poop.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.