6 comments
But, situated close to tourist attractions, seaside bike lanes, and – most notably – neighborhoods filled with million-dollar homes and condos, the site was primed for local pushback.
Look if you're paying for a million dollar home you should expect a little more. Also if you're the city do you want the homeless all over your revenue generating tourist sites, because lets face it if a location gets enough trip adviser reviews that say "tons of homeless people here nodding out and looking for money" that tourist site is not going be generating much money for the city. Also this area sounds like prime real estate which would mean that operating costs in such an area would be excessive.
The number of homeless people has remained constant despite massive investments, and the new shelter in the Embarcadero was to be part of the city’s promise to increase the number of shelter beds by 1,000. There are roughly 7,500 homeless residents in the city and more than 1,400 are waiting for temporary spots to open.
Obviously their investments suck and lack accountability, throwing money at the problem blindly rarely works... unless the problem is a stripper, then it usually works.
>But, situated close to tourist attractions, seaside bike lanes, and – most notably – neighborhoods filled with million-dollar homes and condos, the site was primed for local pushback.
Look if you're paying for a million dollar home you should expect a little more. Also if you're the city do you want the homeless all over your revenue generating tourist sites, because lets face it if a location gets enough trip adviser reviews that say "tons of homeless people here nodding out and looking for money" that tourist site is not going be generating much money for the city. Also this area sounds like prime real estate which would mean that operating costs in such an area would be excessive.
>The number of homeless people has remained constant despite massive investments, and the new shelter in the Embarcadero was to be part of the city’s promise to increase the number of shelter beds by 1,000. There are roughly 7,500 homeless residents in the city and more than 1,400 are waiting for temporary spots to open.
Obviously their investments suck and lack accountability, throwing money at the problem blindly rarely works... unless the problem is a stripper, then it usually works.
Also this area sounds like prime real estate which would mean that operating costs in such an area would be excessive.
That is a topic that is always avoided when it comes to discussing where to put the homeless. Many people make the argument that you need to build shelters all over the city rather than building shelters on say the outskirts of the city. The argument becomes that you are displacing the homeless if you relocate them and then that is somehow a violation of human rights. The cost of maintaining one shelter in a nice neighborhood would be better used to maintain multiple shelters in a lower cost district - not to mention the loss of tourist or business revenue having the shelter in a nice area.
I obviously support not building homeless shelters in the nicer areas, but at the same time I don't think creating large tent cities with thousands of homeless on the edge of a city is really a good idea...or is it?
> Also this area sounds like prime real estate which would mean that operating costs in such an area would be excessive.
That is a topic that is always avoided when it comes to discussing where to put the homeless. Many people make the argument that you need to build shelters all over the city rather than building shelters on say the outskirts of the city. The argument becomes that you are displacing the homeless if you relocate them and then that is somehow a violation of human rights. The cost of maintaining one shelter in a nice neighborhood would be better used to maintain multiple shelters in a lower cost district - not to mention the loss of tourist or business revenue having the shelter in a nice area.
I obviously support not building homeless shelters in the nicer areas, but at the same time I don't think creating large tent cities with thousands of homeless on the edge of a city is really a good idea...or is it?
don't think creating large tent cities with thousands of homeless on the edge of a city is really a good idea...or is it?
It certainly did not work for Herbert Hoover.
The cost of maintaining one shelter in a nice neighborhood would be better used to maintain multiple shelters in a lower cost district
I walk by a methadone clinic everyday, it's a homeless hotspot but because it's in a neighborhood between 2 super wealthy neighborhoods people are okay with it. It's kind of a happy medium, it's an area full of bars and music clubs so being a bit gritty helps them out a lot. I guess yu just have to be strategic about it, like how Oakland sends all their homeless to San Francisco..
> don't think creating large tent cities with thousands of homeless on the edge of a city is really a good idea...or is it?
It certainly did not work for Herbert Hoover.
>The cost of maintaining one shelter in a nice neighborhood would be better used to maintain multiple shelters in a lower cost district
I walk by a methadone clinic everyday, it's a homeless hotspot but because it's in a neighborhood between 2 super wealthy neighborhoods people are okay with it. It's kind of a happy medium, it's an area full of bars and music clubs so being a bit gritty helps them out a lot. I guess yu just have to be strategic about it, like how Oakland sends all their homeless to San Francisco..
We could go ask Nancy Pelosi for a comment but you can't get over her wall or through her gate. Oh well.