San Frans New DA Panders To Homeless Won't Prosecute Public Urination And Camping

Seems like pretty much all of this could be solved if every major city just put some funds into creating safe, clean places for the homeless to go instead of trying to bully them into the commercial machine with harsh conditions and apathy. Obviously most of these people have problems that are not entirely their fault so why the hell would you want to kick them for it? They're sleeping and pooping on the sidewalks because they have no place else to go. I can't believe I live in a world that wants to criminalize homelessness when the only alternative to homelessness is to achieve a level of success that most of these people are obviously not capable of.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well, I still found it and I'm still resolved to move to South Carolina, the Welfare Queen of the Republic, so I can get seven fitty back for each dollar I send to the Treasury. I want my moochie bucks.

LOL ... sure.

You think it’s a coincidence that Lindsey Graham is an SC Senator? Hmmm.... you’d think he’d be agin’ taking that Washington money to hear him talk, wun’t cha.

That’s why I find all these “the liberals are destroying the country” threads so repulsive and so insidious ... in reality, the proponents are fine with corporate welfare and Federal interventionism as long is the guy with the R is doing it.

Short-sighted, disingenuous horsepuck.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
Seems like pretty much all of this could be solved if every major city just put some funds into creating safe, clean places for the homeless to go instead of trying to bully them into the commercial machine with harsh conditions and apathy. Obviously most of these people have problems that are not entirely their fault so why the hell would you want to kick them for it? They're sleeping and pooping on the sidewalks because they have no place else to go. I can't believe I live in a world that wants to criminalize homelessness when the only alternative to homelessness is to achieve a level of success that most of these people are obviously not capable of.

Bingo, as New York City discovered about 20 years ago.

Well said all round.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
That’s why I find all these “the liberals are destroying the country” threads so repulsive and so insidious ... in reality, the proponents are fine with corporate welfare and Federal interventionism as long is the guy with the R is doing it.

They also conveniently forget the non-Liberals that reside there, like myself, who are paying into a system that pays them more then I get back. You think I like seeing that places like Moochabama get three times back what they're paying in?

I should move there too, I could be the king of that state in about a year.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.

Fema camps for the homeless by force if necessary , Clean up the junkies by using the army and help for those with mental health issues .

Or just ignore the fact that is is happening and carry on like normal and hope it goes away ? or get tough on the problem and re-train those that can be helped to lay bricks and build social housing for the poor in the worst affected areas of the USA

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Edumakated
Can you link to the data and methodology that underlies the chart?

It was from last year, not sure if it's still there however it was fairly simple, it shows how much each state gets back in Federal aid for every dollar they contribute to the Treasury.

Actually, here's some recent data.


And here's the original data updated through 2017.

I haven't had time to dig into it deeply, but even my cursory look leads to some questions. The first is the study seems to posit that all federal funds going back to a state are in the calculation, but how do they control for things like military spending and other federal operations? If a state like SC gets a ton of military spending through military bases, but the overall economy in that region may be agricultural, low population, and on average lower cost of living and incomes the basic methodology could lead to a wrong conclusion. Does a state really control how much military spending they receive or even non-military federal jobs?

Take NJ for instance. Supposedly the number 1 state in this study for ROI. A relatively small state, but it is also is a high earning state as it basically serves as close in suburb for Manhattan. A ton of very wealthy Wall Street types live in Jersey. So naturally, they contribute a lot tax wise to federal government. On the other hand, they also have a low number of federal jobs in the state as the story points out. So is this a return on investment or just a function of Jersey having high incomes and not necessarily been a hub for a federal workforce?

The opposite could be true for a state like SC. Low incomes but high military / federal work forces.

My point is that I am very critical of a lot of these types of studies as they tend to be very superficial or they simply cannot get granular enough to be really insightful.

San Frans New DA Panders To Homeless Won't Prosecute Public Urination And Camping

Pretty sure exposing ones self in public is a crime everywhere else in the country.

Move over Detroit.

San Fransnipco is now the bowels of the country.

I would laugh, but it's just too damn sad.

a reply to: Edumakated

It's Federal funding for programs.

We evaluated those dimensions using three relevant metrics, which are listed below with their corresponding weights. Each metric was graded on a 100-point scale, with a score of 100 representing the highest level of federal dependency.
We then determined each state’s weighted average across all metrics to calculate its overall score and used the resulting scores to rank-order our sample.
State Residents’ Dependency – Total Points: 50
Return on Taxes Paid to the Federal Government: Triple Weight (~37.50 Points)
Note: This metric was calculated by dividing federal funding in U.S. dollars by IRS collections in U.S. dollars.
Share of Federal Jobs: Full Weight (~12.50 Points)
State Government’s Dependency – Total Points: 50
Federal Funding as a Share of State Revenue: Full Weight (~50.00 Points)
Note: This metric reflects the proportion of state revenue that comes from the federal government in the form of intergovernmental aid.

The following metrics were included in the infographic above for context only. They represent subsets of federal funding and are reflected in the first two metrics.
“Federal Contracts” divided by “IRS Collections”
“Grants” divided by “IRS Collections”
“Other Financial Assistance” divided by “IRS Collections”

Either way you slice it there are a host of states that mooch off of others.

a reply to: stonerwilliam

Very efficient plan, mein herr.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
Seems like pretty much all of this could be solved if every major city just put some funds into creating safe, clean places for the homeless to go instead of trying to bully them into the commercial machine with harsh conditions and apathy. Obviously most of these people have problems that are not entirely their fault so why the hell would you want to kick them for it? They're sleeping and pooping on the sidewalks because they have no place else to go. I can't believe I live in a world that wants to criminalize homelessness when the only alternative to homelessness is to achieve a level of success that most of these people are obviously not capable of.

Thing is that there are plenty of funds earmarked for it in those cities, and they go straight into the pockets of the bureaucrats charged to handle the problem instead of actually going to solve the problem.

a reply to: ketsuko

I’d love to see you prove that.

Even a first pass at evidence rather than narrative.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

But, but, but ... you’re not playing the Gish gallop AM ...

Surely all those things that sound reasonable but have nothing to do with the actual claim are important too!

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ketsuko

I’d love to see you prove that.

Even a first pass at evidence rather than narrative.

By state.

And that's who we know about. Pennsylvania is astonishing.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: stonerwilliam

Very efficient plan, mein herr.

I am used to cleaning up the builders mess for a living , and as you can tell i am real good at it , and unlike Churchill and Hitler who claimed to paint for pleasure not for profit , no cities would lye in ruins on my shift

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Cool list of dishonest politicians.

a reply to: stonerwilliam

I believe you completely.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: stonerwilliam

I believe you completely.

www.zerohedge.com...

www.zerohedge.com...
www.zerohedge.com...
That is the reality of the situation

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ketsuko

I’d love to see you prove that.

Even a first pass at evidence rather than narrative.

I'd love to prove it too, but since they don't really track that in City Hall, it gets hard.

In 2016 they spent $241 mill on a population they knew very little about and didn't actually track.

The $241 million is about equivalent to the annual budget for the Public Works Department, which cleans all the city’s streets, repairs its sidewalks, cleans up illegal dumping, maintains its trees, removes graffiti and more. That much money would pay for San Francisco’s entire library system for two years.

In truth, the figure is even higher. It doesn’t include emergency services from police or the Fire Department when they respond to homeless people in crisis, because spending by those departments isn’t broken out that way.

That was 2016, and they don't know how much they spent actually. They also don't know who they spent it on because they didn't know how many homeless there are or how they received whatever services were provided.

The last in-depth accounting of city spending on homelessness was conducted by Harvey Rose, the Board of Supervisors budget analyst, for the 2012-13 fiscal year.

Supervisor London Breed has asked Rose to update his report, a big undertaking considering the many departments and city-funded nonprofits that work on homelessness. There’s no way to tell from the thick annual budget book how the city is spending its homeless money in any detail.

“I want something comprehensive,” Breed said. “We’re talking about millions of dollars, and who’s getting what and what they’re spending it on. We’re looking at the effectiveness of their programs and who they’re serving. Have they delivered?”

There is every reason to believe this has not gotten any better, and this is being run with all the efficiency of the high speed rail project.

City Hall simple has no hard data on anything. And this was April of last year, showing that things had not changed between the first link and the second. No one knows anything about who the homeless are, how many there are, and how the funds are spent and distributed, even how many funds actually go toward the problem.

Hence, the money disappears.

The way we know how many homeless there are in San Francisco is through a visual count, which was last performed in January 2017. The count is performed every two years by hundreds of volunteers¹ who fan out across the city who are instructed to tally all those folks they encounter on the street, who after a visual inspection, appear to be homeless². The shelter population is also recorded, along with a separate count of homeless youths. In 2017, these volunteers tallied 7,499 homeless, with 4,353 of those unsheltered living on the street³.

City Hall apparently does a visual count with volunteers for those who look homeless. So they don't really know how many there are or who in order to track how funds are spent and who's using which services and how often.

The second piece further details that while they might track straight up housing allocations for homeless. They don't count expenditures for Emergency services and Medical that are directly tied to the homeless or Public Works that are the same way. So they don't account for ambulance and ER care or cleaning up poop and needles either one and homeless related costs which they very much are.

Oklahoma City, for example, started tracking every dollar it spends on homelessness in 2009¹¹ — from supportive housing to medical costs to education and food¹². This provided a baseline from which that city could evaluate the success of various interventions and pushed it toward developing a robust coordinated entry system. As a result, it has managed to maintain the number of people sleeping on its streets relatively steadily over the past five years at a rate more than 10-times lower, on a per capita basis, than San Francisco¹³.

Apparently, the idiot flyover hicks in Oklahoma City have figured out how to do this much and it's kept their homeless population stable and much lower the San Fran's. So why ignore a system that works unless it's profitable for some not to implement it?

This money goes toward many services offered by many organizations (8 city departments oversee 400 different contracts with 76 separate organizations¹⁵), and since 2016 funds the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing that was created that same year. Programs include rental and other housing subsidies for families, bus tickets back home for out-of-towners, and substance abuse and mental health services¹⁶. Yet without standardized tracking and accountability, we don’t have an accurate picture of how effectively this money is helping those who need it most and which programs are working best and which are not working at all. That has to change.

Oh, I answered my question. There's army of people dependent on the cash flow between government and nonprofit, and no one is checking whether or not any of what they do is any good. There's your sucking black hole right there. None of them have any reason to want an efficient, accountable system.

The new homelessness department is apparently working to create a single system to track the services that individuals are receiving and how their outcomes are improving. The need for such a system was initially identified in 2002 by the City Controller’s Office¹⁷ and the system was finally unveiled last year¹⁸. This integrated tracking system, though, has yet to launch¹⁹.

I guess they are working on it, but again with all the efficiency of the high speed rail project. When they finish, the pay day stops.

Heck, even Salt Lake has a better system than San Fran or OKC:

San Francisco should learn from Salt Lake City, which has virtually ended street homelessness. More than 60% of individuals entering Salt Lake’s shelters transition to housing within a month, and chronic homelessness has been declining to almost nothing since 2005²².

But no one ever said the Mormons don't know how to handle their money.

Even New York City has a tracking system.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Cool list of dishonest politicians.

Why thank you.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Was I Talking to you ? No , STFU . Your a Whole Other Problem here on ATS .........