Comment by dazc
15 hours ago
This kind of happened in the UK already. For instance, Bournmouth, a town on the South Coast, attracted homeless people for the obvious reason that the climate is typically warmer than most other places. I assume SF held a similar initial attraction?
In response to this small influx, local authorities encouraged charities to set up shop offering help to these people with drink/drug/social problems with a view to getting them back into regular housing.
Some years later, the problems have become much worse although the number of charities operating in the area has grown exponentially.
Speaking as someone who has experienced homelessness, for a short while, I believe the only practical solution is to give people housing at the outset before the desire/need to move elsewhere takes root.
The obvious response is that it is not that easy and would be unaffordable but my retort is that the current situation is likely costing a lot more while, at the same time, not fixing anything - other than creating multiple charity jobs.
> Speaking as someone who has experienced homelessness, for a short while, I believe the only practical solution is to give people housing at the outset before the desire/need to move elsewhere takes root.
Also national support not local. While there are some local issues with homelessness I feel lots of the problems are going to be the same across the country. If it was the same provision everywhere there wouldn't be the same draw towards certain locations.
love this idea in principle but can you name one successful program being ran at the national level? at local level, with the right people in place and adequate funding - shit can get done. at the national level I think no chance in America, whatever one Administration does and funds, regardless of which “side” it is, the next one will do everything in their power to dismantle
There should be a rule whereby charities are required to have a large percentage of their jobs given to the class they're trying to help.
This could help make the size and number of said charities to be self-regulating with the problem they're trying to solve. They will grow in number whilst the problem is large, but as it subsides they naturally go down. All at the same time giving those people who are in need, money that would be otherwise given to people who don't necessarily need it from that source.
No there shouldn’t, because then e.g. charities providing help to seriously ill cancer patients won’t be able to employ anyone.
Edit: I’m not against charities doing this where it makes sense. I wouldn’t want it to be more red tape they had to struggle with though.
Have you worked for a charity? You want the government to regulate them in a nonsense way so that they close up shop? Sure, there might be a few people that can be employed to help but to pick an arbitrary percentage picked by a prepresentative body whose never talked to them ? you dont’ employ the blind to lead the blind, you hire an eye doctor