
San Francisco to Build 250 Modular Housing Units for Homeless in SoMa - rajnathani
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/10/04/san-francisco-build-modular-housing-homeless-soma/
======
awad
It doesn't say how much this actually cost but, as a taxpayer, I'm happy to
see this development. One can only hope for more of this _plus_ a combination
of services of those that actually need the help. I think SF is far more
complicated than other cities and, for once, would love to see money going
into the root of the problem instead of simple finger pointing from both sides
of the aisle without any action.

------
indubitable
It's always difficult to come to an opinion on things like this. Ostensibly it
seems like an incredibly humane and benevolent thing to do. On the other hand
is this how "Sanctuary Districts" [1] begin? It certainly answers the problem
of individuals being homeless, but I wonder if it might disincentivize
answering the question of how they became homeless?

\-
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_Tense_%28Star_Trek:_Deep_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_Tense_%28Star_Trek:_Deep_Space_Nine%29)

~~~
trhway
>I wonder if it might disincentivize answering the question of how they became
homeless?

If there is good quality safety net in place may be it wouldn't matter why
people may become homeless because they wouldn't as they would always have a
roof over their head. May be providing good quality safety net is much more
efficient [and humane] way to solve homelessness than trying to address
original causes ? Notes : 1. Not that i'm against addressing the original
causes, it is just that all the history so far hasn't provided for much hopes
of success here. 2. In no way though i think 250 units is a good quality
safety net by itself, at best it is just a humble beginning, though a
beginning in the right direction. I think more along the lines of good no-
questions asked welfare with guaranteed minimal, yet fully
compliant/acceptable housing.

~~~
indubitable
I completely agree with you about the critical importance of a social safety
net, and is a big part of the reason I'm an advocate for things like a
universal basic income. However, I think ideas this are much less likely to
succeed. The first thing is that, as you mention, 250 units isn't even
scratching the surface of tackling the problem. It will need to be expanded
substantially. And now we have two possible outcomes. These areas turn into
slums, or they don't turn into slums.

The case where they do turn into slums, perhaps in the longrun not all that
different than the _favelas_ of Brazil, is obviously undesirable. But it goes
further than that. This is going to lead to a desire to segregate these areas
from the rest of the city. At the most extreme you add an employment office to
help people get back on their feet, fence the region off to keep things a bit
more 'controlled' and you have created _Sanctuary Cities_ in all but name.

The second alternative is that the areas don't become slums. They become
decent places to live. Plenty of people are actually able to use these places,
and the implicit facilities (mental counseling, job programs, substance abuse
programs, etc) to get back on their feet again. This sounds incredible, but
what about how the rest of society will view them? For the homeless and
otherwise disenfranchised these cities would be a small lifeboat in an
otherwise endless sea. The desire to get in is not going to bring out the best
in people. And even for people who are getting by in 'normal' society. Many
people today struggle to make ends meet paying $xxxx a month to live in
glorified closets. Many are not going to be happy to see that their tax
dollars are going to let these people live comfortably completely for free.
Somebody in this very thread has already pondered if he would be allowed to
live there with a well paying job.

I think ultimately the goal should be to focus on fair programs. Means testing
is what I think is causing the fundamental breakdown of support for a social
safety net. When ever more people in the US are not living especially well,
unfair treatment condemns social programs to being contentious and divisive.
So in this case, what of having large scale coffin type 'hotels.' They would
be free of charge and the square of the hotel would offer various facilities
including a clinic, mental health facilities, job facilities, etc. But they
would be open to all. The question is how big would these things need to be
before an equilibrium is reached -- though I suspect this is what you were
alluding to, in rather fewer words!

------
maruhan2
I wonder if a person with a well paying job would be allowed to live there. I,
for one, would love to be in a cheap place for stay

~~~
d--b
No, as the headline says: this is housing for the homeless. If that's a
problem for you, just verbalize it and you'll see how that sounds.

~~~
cultofmetatron
I for one would love to be able to live in the city affordably. I currently
commute from Oakland and pay through the nose for the privilege.

------
RickJWagner
Good for San Francisco. They've got an overpopulation of wealth and poverty,
so it makes sense to use local taxes to provide for the disadvantaged.

More cities should follow this model. Wealth balancing should be a local
action.

