It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
In San Francisco, it's also become an intriguing fight between recently elected Mayor London Breed, who is siding with the city's Chamber of Commerce in urging a no vote, and philanthropist Benioff, whose company is San Francisco's largest private employer with 8,400 workers. Breed came out hard against the measure, saying it lacked collaboration, could attract homeless people from neighboring counties to the city, and could cost middle-class jobs in retail and service. "I have to make decisions with my head, not just my heart," Breed said. "I do not believe doubling what we spend on homelessness without new accountability, when we don't even spend what we have now efficiently, is good government."
If you change the word 'homeless' to 'illegal' and 'counties' to 'countries', it sounds suspiciously similar to what the right has been saying all through these years.
Maybe eventually they'll figure out that while they've kept raising taxes, they've been busy passing regulations that make affordable housing impossible to build. Between all of this, they've pretty much killed what passes for a middle class in California.
originally posted by: mikell
Last I looked they we're spending just under $50,000 per year per homeless. Big business keeping people on the street. Fine plantation to live in.
originally posted by: Dwoodward85
a reply to: [post=23863468]efabian[st]
If the money was ring fenced, protected and given to charities who deal with homelessness and the problem was worked on and you could actually see that it was being worked on then great I'm all for it but unless there is that protection then this does nothing and the same with the NHS, I'm happy to pay an extra 5p per person BUT only if it is a protected tax that only goes for the NHS.