right so why even run a measure like this if it doesn't do anything? You're using the poor as political pawns.
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler
the city budget is obscenely huge - they need to make better choices about allocating funds effectively.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kathycastro
it's also a county budget at the same time, which is a little different from all the other cities.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler
that's true. I was yes on Q/no on K not because I'm not supportive, but if we legislate the funds I want them to go to >>
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kathycastro
uh I might make fun for you for your votes especially given your Twitter bio as a "Lazy. Shallow. Californian."
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler
Feel free to make fun, up to you. We all vote our own consciousness and beliefs. My vision for SF may be different from yours.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kathycastro
I'm just saying the mental health services are usually most effective when the person is in stable housing.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler
I'd happily pay more for supportive housing for the mentally ill. Just think $241M is enough to provide beds for the non-ill.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kathycastro
ok, have to explain this every time. About half of that funding is for 6,000 people already in supportive housing.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @kathycastro
we have 6,800 currently homeless on top of that. You know what rents are in this city. You know that ~$11K per person is tiny.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
also our more expensive ppl are like $80K/yr in medical costs bc we treat them through the ER
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.