Now that I've discovered real people who think it wise to pay $6,000+ per month to put a single homeless person up in a hotel room w/ free weed delivery while the city budget looks set to *collapse* within the next year,,, I think maybe now is when I just give up on this one?
-
-
Meanwhile it's exceedingly unclear that the more vulnerable homeless folks are better off isolating in hotels alongside known exposures in quarantine vs. being given tents in open outdoor areas with strict supervision around distancing practices
Show this thread -
Instead we have an absurdly expensive and at least somewhat risky hotel stimulus program + an explosion in high-density tent encampments in the Tenderloin so startling that neighborhood orgs are suing the city for essentially leaving them for dead
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
They assume that because you disagree with their solution, you must disagree with their goal. It is quite a roadblock to genuine problem-solving.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The issue lies in the conflation of housing crisis/poverty and asociality/drug addiction, which need different types of support. SF has no policy and capacity for treating rock-bottom addiction, so it ends up throwing money at the symptoms of the problem
-
Local govs would likely prioritize partitioning skilled labor into controlled housing as the workers would tangibly offset costs, but that doesn't mean there isn't an opportunity for rehabilitation/MH for the less fortunate. Idealistic, yes. Unrealistic, ?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
real Prop C has never been tried
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You forget, my plan will solve that because (insert magical thinking).
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.