Yes it does, in fact many. First homeless get off the street so maybe tourists return to be robbed....”gee Martha it looked safe in this nice area, look at the expensive homes”. Next, the homeless can steal from the home owner. Keeps the crime down in the stores! Third, maybe the homeowner just gives them the $60 a day in order to not have their items stolen and pawned, another crime prevention win. Fourth the homeowner better feed their new “guest”, he’s going to be using the kitchen anyway! Fifth the streets will be cleaner, the mess will be in someone’s home, out of sight.
So the load on police drops, public crime drops, the streets are cleaner and the budgetary load on the City is reduced. This is a win, win, win, win for the City and a big loss for the homeowner! Oh how long before a judge rules homeowners cannot evict their new permanent “guests”?
I hope that none of the homeowners decide to pay the “guests” for helping out around the house. Now an employee / employer relationship has been created and more City laws apply! Does the City have a minimum wage, health insurance and paid vacation law? Welcome to San Francisco Suckers! Forget moving, you are now an employer and would need to give the required notice of closing your facility and continue to pay....... 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Some City official must love The Eagles..... Hotel California........ But they can never leave.....
Well, that’s not quite true. I read yesterday that there are 47,000 vacant houses, condos, znd apartments in the SF metro area due to people moving out. So why doesn’t the gover ment appropriate these empty dewellings? Legally they can’t so it’s easier to make you feel guilty and take in a few street bums. Truth is, homeless hell, street bums.