
1 in 200 San Franciscans Sleep on the Streets - SQL2219
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/san-francisco-homelessness-charts-data-causes
======
pascalxus
They listed several ancillary factors that could lead to homelessness, and yet
the article fails to mention the very largest reason for homelessness in SF:
an egregiously stubborn refusal to increase the supply of housing, for the
last 30 years! This problem wasn't created overnight. CA environmentalists,
lobbyist, NIMBYs and other progressives(actually highly conservative), have
been working hard to create laws that prevent the increased supply of housing.
It's just so sad that so many people don't understand the truth and the real
reason behind these things. Lack of housing supply affects everyone: the
spillover effects are massive: putting a strain on public transportation, the
roads, the surrounding housing areas, etc.

SF alone, spends 240 million dollars a year, just on combating homelessness,
and yet, it's not going to go very far, as long as housing costs are sky high
and the supply is way too low.

the solution: We really need a drastic increase in supply of housing. They
need to get rid of all height restrictions and work with developers to
eliminate every last law that prevents more supply. Then, provide legal
protection against NIMBYs. Then, 1 line item at a time, they need to look at
the cost of housing to find out why it's so high and start making cuts,
eliminating all the laws that result in such high housing costs. I know it
sounds drastic, but, we're in a state of emergency here. No one wants to
acknowledge that.

~~~
Kaibeezy
SF's homelessness is not all home-grown, though. People with minimal resources
drift there from across the US because it's amenable, for reasons like: a
perception that it is a free-and-easy or at least somewhat accommodating
place, the possibility of a chance to improve one's situation among the
overall prosperity, a climate that won't kill you, etc. Are there not stats on
this?

------
taxicabjesus
One night I got a passenger who needed a carseat. She was at her kid's state-
subsidized daycare, had missed the last bus home, and was too exhausted to
walk her infant home.

After the preliminary questions, I thought to ask, "Are you on food stamps?"

Passenger: "No, cash assistance."

Me: "What? Everyone says that food stamps are _much_ easier to get than cash
assistance. You should really look into that again."

I only charged her $2, instead of the $9 that was on the meter. As I drove
away I got a txt message, "Thanks, I appreciated that." Aww...

Some time later she told me that she originally wasn't eligible for food
stamps because the women's shelter who got her set up on public assistance
provided meals. After she got her apartment, she was eligible.

In Arizona, cash assistance is barely anything at all. The government's outlay
for the apartment is certainly substantial... Probably better that they pay
the bill, rather than just give her a bigger pile of cash.

I have lots more to say about this one, when I figure out how to say it
gracefully.

------
jaclaz
I don't know.

The article talks of 4,400 people, which is roughly (865,000/200=4,325)
correct but references this article here:

[http://projects.sfchronicle.com/sf-
homeless/numbers/](http://projects.sfchronicle.com/sf-homeless/numbers/)

where the number of people is counted/estimated as any among:

6,686

6,775

9,975

and the "curious" (I cannot understand its meaning):

"Friedenbach estimates there are closer to 13,000 homeless people in the city
over the course of an entire year."

The 1/200 is already an extremely high ratio, but 7,000 or 10,000 would make
double that at around 1/100!

