Posted on 07/17/2008 7:38:45 AM PDT by SmithL
A long overdue civil grand jury report released Wednesday says that the city should be proud of getting over 4,000 homeless people into housing since 2004 but distressed at the scene on the streets.
Panhandling, public drunkenness and street loitering are still an unpleasant reality downtown.
The mayor and others are now admitting what the grand jury reported - that a majority of those on the streets are not homeless. The head of the city's homeless program, Dariush Kayhan, estimates that 50 to 75 percent of street people live in supportive housing.
"We just warehouse addicts," said the grand jury's Stuart Smith. "Granted, it is a nicer place for them, but it doesn't address the problem."
In short, the jury is reflecting the views of many San Franciscans who made the choice to live here. They understood that housing and taxes would be higher, and so would the cost of a meal in a restaurant. They understand and believe that the city needs to provide for its poorest homeless residents and don't begrudge what the grand jury says is $186 million a year in city funds spent to finance homeless programs.
But, they ask, can't someone stop the panhandling? And, given all the programs and services, is it unreasonable to ask those who are being given supportive housing to start making some effort to be self-sufficient?
"People's conduct has to be held to account," Supervisor Bevan Dufty said. "They can't engage in conduct that is hurtful to them or others."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
$186 million divided by 4000 homeless works out to $46,500 per person.
“$186 million a year in city funds spent to finance homeless programs”.
...that is one of THE most OUTRAGEOUS sums of money flushed down a toilet I’ve ever seen! Not one nickel goes to something useful. All of it is wasted!
I don't tolerate anyone involved in it, anymore. I think maybe 5% of the people involved in helping the homeless are genuinely good people trying to make the lives of the unfortunate, better...everyone else are using the "homeless" to make an easy living.
It turns into a revolving door too. If they do too good of a job, they can’t justify the budget for the next year. They have to create a system the maintains or creates a larger budget to keep themselves in business.
Well, I’m not sure it is easy if you have to work with the homeless because most of them are pretty difficult to stomach. That said, there is definitely a homeless socio-politico complex bent on appropriating as much as the taxpayers’ money as possible on a quixotic notion that the homeless are American Jean Valjean characters who need just a taste of the milk of human kindness to turn their lives around. Rather, the homeless are mostly two groups: mentally ill persons who used to be cared for in institutions but who were “liberated” by predecessors to the Animal Liberation Front of today and who are preyed upon by the other big faction of the homeless, the persons formerly known as bums. Bums are those who don’t want to live by the rules that guide civilization and prefer to prey upon those who do, either through crime or nowadays shaking down naive do-gooders.
Birmingham’s “idea per minute” Mayor has proposed a Curfew for homeless people. I’ll let yall know how that works out.
{...everyone else are using the “homeless” to make an easy living.”
You obviously haven’t worked with the hardcore homeless. Mentally ill, addicts, alcoholics, sometimes violent. Unless you have a complete scam that doesn’t actually work with the homeless, there’s nothing “easy” about it. In fact, the few people I know who have done it burned out and moved on to something else. One friend runs the AA-type program at the local Rescue Mission and while not as physically challenging as digging ditches, it’s the hardest work he’s ever done. And he ain’t getting rich, either.
However, this new attitude by the Leftist Elite is a bit troubling in that, having created soft landings for the last two generations of layabouts, they now will focus all their resentment on those they thought they were helping. Enabling victimhood always creates a smoldering resentment by the one doing all the damage.
Republicans should feel no vindication in this, as it is not a true "coming into the light of reason" by the Left. It is the beginnings of a personal reaction much like the person who gets bit by the stray dog it took in, and the umbrage will propel them to do something. But it likely won't be the right thing. Hang onto your wallets...
I recall cutbacks in mental health spending in California in the 70’s under Gov. Reagan resulting in many previously housed mentally ill people ending up on the street. It was a bit of an issue in its day.
“$186 million divided by 4000 homeless works out to $46,500 per person.”
While I’d be outraged by this it were my city, your calculations are wrong. 4,000 is the number of “homeless” they’ve housed since 2004. The “homeless” programs cover many more people than that, including feeding, clothing and probably medical care for many who are not in that 4,000.
Still, $186 million is completely ridiculous. You can bet there’s lots of administrative salaries in there.
I didn't mean the rank and file employee that actually deals with the bums and mentally ill.
“My fault: I should have parsed my statement better....when I said “easy” I had in mind the middle and upper management of all these organizations designating themselves as “helpers of the homeless”. I consider those folks to mostly be the equivalent of used car dealers.
I didn’t mean the rank and file employee that actually deals with the bums and mentally ill.”
No problem.
I have more respect for the used car dealers. Everyone pretty much understands that the salesman is out to make money.
My own organization is the same. It has a political structure within that rewards those who create more jobs within their departments. Having more and more people under you secures your position and importance, and your distance from the problem.
Meanwhile, I just try to remember that many of the folks who sit before me looking for a handout have been conditioned to expect one. The truly homeless are living in the woods not far from here and would never darken my door, except for a bit of food.
BTW, USDA handouts are free from any need for verification from the supplicant. No questions asked, here's some food. Nobody, not even ex-cons living in the woods, has to go hungry.
I am glad I read your article before I replied.
I have a relative who just got back from San Francisco. I had hoped it had improved since I had been there, but it appears to be still worse as they are even more aggressive and threatening.
It has taken decades, but I am no longer heartless toward them. I now simply hate them and want them gone.
Oh well, we only read about them during election years, anyway.
Aren’t all the liberals in California mentally ill?
i just had to comment on the coincedence of your post and the nature of your name.
“11:11:11 AM by Conspiracy Guy”
The closest thing to perpetual motion as we're likely to see.
It most likely works out to something like $25,000 to the "activists", "facilitators", and "advocates"; $10,000 to the unit's owner's; $5,000 to the "councilors", "house supervisors", etc.; with the rest spread around between kick-backs, bribes, "training", insurance premiums, and repairs.
Nearly all of it is taxable, and is a never ending cycle, with certain entities perpetually making a buck off the professional "pepetually disadvantaged".
You are comparing the grunts to the brass.
There is a continuous supply of starry eyed idealistic youth to scam into the system, use up, and throw away.
Meanwhile, the "advocates" and upper managers, and bureaucrats involved sit on the butts (when not standing on their soapboxes speechifying) and collect & control the "free" (taxes & grants, mainly) money.
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.