S.F. spending on homeless exceeds many departments' budgets

sfgate.com ^ | Updated 8:26 am, Monday, April 21, 2014 | Phillip Matier And Andrew Ross

[BenLurkin]

With spring in the air and the homeless tents once again popping up under San Francisco's freeways, it's worth noting that the city is spending about $458,000 per day to house and help homeless people.

That's about $34 a day per homeless person, whether they are on the streets, in a shelter or in supportive housing.

The annual $167 million price tag is $20 million more than the operations budget for the Children, Youth and Family Services department, $6.3 million more than for Public Works and $3.8 million more than for Recreation and Park.

Nearly half of the homeless money, $81.5 million, goes for rent subsidies and programs to assist the 6,355 people living in "permanent supportive housing" - long the cornerstone of the city's program for helping the down and out.

[SADMILLIE]

When do we ,as a nation, say-”I want to pay for me and my family” Not some parasite dead beat — worthless bums?

[SkyPilot]

My wife visited SF a couple of years ago. The panhandlers were incredibly aggressive, hostile, entitled, and threatening, She said it was frightening, and the police and authorities did absolutely nothing to protect people.

[SolidRedState]

Pretty amazing when the money goes away, so do the “homeless”.

[Dilbert San Diego]

If I recall correctly, there have been court cases, in which judges decided the homeless have a constitutional right to live in the streets.

Whatever you allow, encourage, or subsidize, you get more of. These liberals may have thought that they were compassionate to set up policies to help those down and out as SF is doing. But it appears that all they did was encourage more homeless types to come to SF.

Years ago there were laws against vagrancy, but I get the impression those laws can’t be enforced anymore, because we have to be liberal on homeless issues.

[BenLurkin]

http://www.johnspeedie.com/healy/Uh_Yeah.mp3

[SpaceBar]

The same city passed a municipal ordinance a few years ago prohibiting the feeding of feral exotic birds that congregate near the embarcadero because the free food attracts them and they become pests, crapping on everything and being a nuisance. Yet the same city council can't seem put two and two together regarding their street people that do much the same thing.

[Java4Jay]

BUMP!

[Dilbert San Diego]

And it’s the same city which has a lenient public nudity ordinance. Homosexual men enjoy going nude, so SF wants to allow their self expression.

And it’s the same city which tolerates open public sexual acts at the Folsom Street Fair. Public officials are so hamgstrung on that one, that they suggested putting up a tent at the fair, so that anyone wanting public anonymous quick sex acts could at least have some shielding from public view.

[Dilbert San Diego]

What a city Sf is. Imagine a homosexual themed street fair with a sex tent.

[nascarnation]

I’m shocked to read this, honestly.

It’s the first reference to “homeless” I’ve seen in the MSM since Jan 2009.

[BenLurkin]

PIAPS intends to run against Hussein’s record.

[SpaceBar]

Generally speaking, the overt homosexuality you refer to isn't as visible as an outsider would think. Sure if you just happen to bump into the Folsom street thing, but that's a comparatively rare event. The “homeless” on the other hand are everywhere. Every corner, outside stores, living in bushes with a shopping cart full of crap. Virtually all have psychological problems including but not limited to alcoholism, drug abuse, or a mental condition, and most are generally belligerent. Many prostitute themselves, steal, and relieve themselves wherever they want. The homeless problem is many times worse and affects more people negatively than a few homos kissing in a coffee shop.

[roadcat]

I’ve seen a lot of this personally, having worked for the city in the past. Shelters have recreational facilities where the homeless can relax and play games including ping-pong. Free use of telephones. Free drug needles and prophylactics. Washing machines and clothes dryers, and all the detergent they want for free. These are not simple warehouses with bunk beds that people are imagining being used for the homeless. No, these are top-rate facilities similar to nice hotels. The city has vans and drivers dedicated to the purpose of picking up and dropping off homeless people every day, no need for taxis. A lot of money is wasted on the homeless in SF. It’s no wonder that they flood in from every part of the country.

[GeronL]

They are the real1%

[Mastador1]

When do we ,as a nation, say-”I want to pay for me and my family” Not some parasite dead beat — worthless bums?

Now don't be so unkind! There's a whole bunch of wealthy queers up there Frisco way that can't have children. I say let the queers adopt the homeless, it will give them family and purpose, and something to spend their money on other than another fabulous antique!

[reformedliberal]

This has long been true. I recall having to deal with an aggressive older female panhandler back in 1976, in the heart of the tourist area During Chinese New Year.

[SADMILLIE]

let their money go down the toilet.

[hinckley buzzard]

Great news. All cities across the Nation should offer their "homeless" a one way bus ticket to SanFransicko. And some flowers to wear in their hair.

[AllAmericanGirl44]

bkmk