Yes, should have been more clear. As someone who looks at this from a regional/state/natl/private and public perspective I don’t think of spending just as the City/County budget.
-
-
Replying to @mdweinberg @dataandpolitics and
What I said is “we,” not “the City.” But we’re spending a shit-ton and Public spending is spiraling upward without clear results. We all agree on that but Twitter tends to evolve into fighting about different frames. Ugh.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mdweinberg @dataandpolitics and
again, if you read the budget, it's pensions. Live & current services/depts, including DHSH, are all being asked to cut 2-3% http://sfcontroller.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Budget/Joint%20Report%20FY%202018-19%20through%20FY%202021-22%20FINAL.pdf …
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @dataandpolitics and
That said, I think that most of addressing homelessness is how we spend the money not whether we will spent 2% less next year
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @mdweinberg @dataandpolitics and
No, I do not. At the end of the day, we have 1600-1700 shelter beds for 7,000 people. Half the budget is spent on another 6,000 permanent supportive housing units, for which the city is trying to increase the re-housing rate so there's more turnover/exits.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @dataandpolitics and
What is your preferred way to raise the 100s of millions in additional city expenditures you’re proposing?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Don't know. Just being honest that given the way that broader CA state & federal systems treat housing/real estate, US cities are effectively running in place. SF *not* experiencing a 40% increase in PIT counts like Alameda Co. is not bad.
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.