the argument on behalf of tents in the street always seems to come down to a strange sense that every person on the planet is entitled to live, for free, in one of the most expensive cities in the world. this is not realistic?
Näytä tämä ketju
-
I’m sorry, call me crazy, but I’m just not convinced that deciding people can’t live in a city in tents and paying to move them to another city where they can live in a tent is a viable solution to the problem. I think it’s more complicated than that.
we're currently paying 60,000 dollars per year per tent in san francisco. nothing about your position is viable.
-
-
I don’t think anyone would argue that money is being spent effectively. That doesn’t mean the best solution is to outlaw living in the street in the city and pay for them to be transported somewhere else where we’d prefer they live on the street.
-
I like the idea of marked funds. That go directly to the homeless and do not pass through the hands of any government official. Here is $800 a month that can only be spent on shelter. Here is $800 that can only be spent on food. Have fun.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.