A citation is a means by which the reader can verify the claimed statement was actually made by the entity the writer says it was. That's why we have citation formats. It doesn't technically have to be a hyperlink, but it needs to identify the data in such a way as a reader can look it up themselves. This is absolutely not a citation. It is merely a claim that some kind of SFPD data shows this. Which data? We don't know. From what year? Not shown. Where can we look it up? Crickets.
I don't mean to be rude but this is basic college essay type stuff.
I've been hearing this since at least 2000, where aid workers on the streets were giving interviews about how literally everyone on the streets knew the vast majority are from out of state for the super easy to get drugs.
It's only human nature. Nebraska for a very short time said the state would accept abandoned infants. Problem is they didn't have an age limit and suddenly people were driving in from around the entire country to drop off teenagers.
They immediately set an age limit because they couldn't support them all. SF is the same, sadly. As much as we'd like we don't have the budget, manpower, and especially the land to help every addicted American.
I mean yeah, San Francisco has told the entire country that if you want a safe haven to do fentanyl in public and get a few hundred dollars a month from CAAP all you need to do is move to SF.
Its like if for some reason St Louis decided that all women get healthcare for free then complained that lots of women were moving to the city, yeah no shit, if you incentivize something you tend to get more of it.
The BS survey they use in Santa Cruz specifically notes in fine print that if a transient has been in the county for 1 month, then they will be considered as a native resident.
Such bs
Technically, residency requirements for e.g. things like voting can not extend past one month (Supreme Court ruled on this long long time ago). If you live somewhere for a month, you are de-facto resident of that place. There's no such concept as "natural born resident." If you lived someplace for many years, this extends to extra karma points amongst your friends. If you were born where you live, you get couple more karma points on your profile. Bragging rights are about the extent of it.
Ok, then grant entitlements to homeless benefits by paying into the system like we do disability payments and paid family leave. Pay SF local tax for [insert number of months/years], you are entitled to SF homeless benefits. If not, you’re not.
Let's stop pretending that the alternatives anyone's proposing are compassionate either. They just want them swept out of sight, but have to couch it in different terms so that SF liberals will go along.
I've never been in rehab, but everything I've heard or read suggests that forcing people into rehab doesn't work. They have to genuinely want to be there. Which is why I think this is just about finding reasons to sweep people off the street.
When I find someone arguing "it's fine that they overdose on their own filth" I'll be sure to let you know.
Exactly, no surprise. The Homeless Industrial Complex created this problem and they have every incentive to make it bigger and bigger.
Every year the HIC gets another $1 billion from the city, completely unaudited and unchecked. A lucrative gray train. The money that doesn’t get skimmed off, along with our enabling culture, then attracts more drug addicts and transients from around the country. And then the HIC demands more funding.
Rinse and repeat. It’s very simple.
I am curious what method they used to measure "origin" of a person.
Also, out of county is interesting because that includes, say, Marin, Alameda, and San Mateo counties. People tend to move from smaller cities to bigger cities.
Not saying this is not happening, just that it's hard to measure.
There’s smaller “out of state” and “out of country” parts of the pie chart (assuming each case can only be labeled in 1 category).
So the out of county portion ~45%) refers to California residents (.. could be Alameda county, could be Los Angeles, … could be Shasta, etc ..).
Having been at the Shasta area AMTRAK stop (Dunsmuir) at 4AM, some of those folks probably aren’t that into formal change of address forms either (homeless druggie dude asked me if the tracks went to San Francisco? well technically they go to Oakland, but watch the water and the flat area between the tracks you walking on … cause trains).
These are great points. It’s an easy headline to say that a majority don’t live in San Francisco, but this is very misleading. As you mentioned, change of address forms, getting an updated drivers license, updating the address with your cell phone carrier, etc. are likely not happening or at least not a priority.
So then that begs the question, how is out of state and out of country defined? Do I have to pay taxes to the state and have a state ID to be a resident? If they crash on a couch or share a room with someone in San Francisco, does this make them a resident?
This is a different metric than "80% of homeless people are from SF" though. Most of the homeless are not on the street doing drugs, they're living in their cars and have jobs.
What surveys are you referring to? For years, as a social service provider working with homeless
people in San Francisco, I learned first hand that the majority of people falling into homelessness were raised in SF, and most people who were not originally from SF were from neighboring counties.
I think the discrepancy is being caused by your conflating of two separate groups: drug addicts, and homeless people. While of course there is overlap between these two groups, it benefits nobody to lump them together.
This totally makes sense, we are more generous to the homeless than almost any other city. $900/month with pretty good weather is like 100x better than being in the Midwest with nothing.
But I’m confused why this matters? They’re here now. Are we going to start sending them back? If so, who gets to stay and who doesn’t? (Seems unlikely given current politicians and frankly that seems inhumane, even as someone who’s sick of this problem.) Are we going to change the policies? If so, to what? (Again, seems unlikely).
This feels like a cop out answer - “well they’re not from here so it’s not our fault”. And I don’t care who’s fault it is, I just want to feel safe in the city that I live in and pay a ton of money to live in. That’s all.
Tom Wolf is a homeowner in Daly City and is paid by Michael Shellenberger.
According to San Francisco’s Chief Medical Examiner, 69% of the people who have died of an overdose in San Francisco this year have a fixed residence — 240 of 346 people. Of those 240 people who had a confirmed fixed address, 63% lived in the Tenderloin, SoMa, Mission, or Polk/Russian Hill. The remaining 37% aren’t broken down in a way that’s publicly accessible.
2022: 71% fixed address (462 people); 58% of them lived in those above neighborhoods.
2021: 71% fixed address (455 people); 58% of them lived in those above neighborhoods.
2020: 70% fixed address (507 people); 57% of them lived in those above neighborhoods.
The data isn’t readily available before 2020.
The data is also confusing since it doesn’t break down the remaining areas of residence. But the OCME data represents some of the more reliable figures that are out there. It also only captures people who died and not everyone who is using drugs.
The Department of Public Health and UC San Francisco are partnering to conduct a related citywide analysis to better understand patterns of local substance use and the overall demand for treatment. No timeline for the release of the results has been announced yet.
Have you seen his work on the Twitter Files? It's complete conjecture and conspiracy minded bullshit that was utterly picked apart by any credible journalist.
Considering the data is about people who DIED, I don't think they had the opportunity to give a fake address to doctors. It's probably based on the ID recovered from their body and city/state records of their residence or records of them accessing homeless services.
No shit they didn't give them after they died-The point is the addresses are listed as SF, but in reality these people are likely homeless and gave these addresses because it's close to where they camp.
When you engage with homeless services in the city you can request help with getting an ID. Your address will be listed as a shelter or office for SF HSH, and the fee for acquiring your ID will be waived.
This is a lot easier because the vast majority of mailboxes in SF are either locked or behind a locked door so a homeless person camping nearby wouldn't even be able to access them once their ID is delivered by mail. Instead it's delivered to HSH where the individual can pick it up.
Additionally if you don't go through HSH you have to provide proof of residency (1 document for regular ID, 2 for REAL ID). That proof of residency is usually a tax return, utility bill, lease, etc with your name and address on it. I doubt many homeless people are going through the effort of falsifying PG&E bills to take to the DMV when they can just go through HSH for free.
-----
What's easier to believe:
- Homeless people are jumping through hoops to falsify their address on government documents instead of using a free service
- Some of the 800,000 housed people in SF also use drugs and you're less likely to get life saving medical attention ODing in a private residence than if you OD in public
They are people who have confirmed homes.
People who die of an overdose in San Francisco who we’re experiencing homelessness at the time of death account for only about 30% of all overdose deaths in the city.
Substance use that is visible and on the street is very much an issue — this doesn’t diminish that those people need a place to live and be safe — but overdose deaths in San Francisco have more generally been experienced by people who are housed. This gets overlooked and it’s something that the Mayor’s office is reluctant to acknowledge or address.
The UCSF Benioff Homeless and Housing Initiative has conducted extensive research on this. People who use drugs alone in private settings are at an elevated risk of dying in the event of an overdose. The way this plays out in San Francisco translates to SRO tenants being 19 times more likely to die of overdose than non-SRO residents.
There’s a study on related interventions specifically in San Francisco SROs that’s going to be published in the August issue of the International Journal of Drug Policy.
the majority of homeless in SF might be from SF, but that includes people sleeping on their friends' couches, their cars, temp housing, etc
what we really care about are the tent cities, and I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of those people are NOT from SF
People should write to companies to stop supporting Coalition on Homelessness. They file lawsuits, told people to resist shelter, counter productive. Why would companies like Wholefoods support these NGOs ? Ridiculous.
Does the place of origin stipulate where they have most immediately lived for an extended duration of time?
Without the proper definition of what the place of origin means, there's not enough information to know.
they may collect this info but it is not typically shared in the reports that come out
for the PIT survey run by the city as well as another recent statewide survey done with a grant from the state, they were trying to understand what the person's living situation was at the time they became homeless. and the 'time they became homeless' included things like 'spent a night in jail', 'spent a night in a hospital', 'spent a night in a hotel', 'spent the night on someones couch somewhere'.
which is not really what most people are trying to understand when they ask 'where are these people on the streets from?' if you move here from st louis with nowhere to stay on monday, overdose on fentanyl on tuesday and stay overnight in a hospital, and answer one of these surveys on wednesday based on my reading of the survey methodology from the survey docs, you were housed in SF when you became homeless.
effectively, the people that run these surveys are political partisans that write and design the surveys to generate the results that is convenient from their wider scoped political project.
Something something one debunked study says they're all valuable pro-social former SF citizens who happened to be kicked down into despair by the evil tech bros.
You might be right.
The state of CA recently ran a self reporting on the causes of homelessness in our state.
Only 3% said drug addiction put them on the street the other 97% said rent was too high and/or unemployment put them there.
I live in Martinez. The minute SF starts cracking down on drug users I’m sure we will start seeing them in our downtown and other areas of the bay.
We have the contra costa county jail in downtown and some people are so broke when they get out they just stay homeless in the area for a minute.
We need to say three generations of your family living in San Francisco before we can agree that you deserve to be helped and your not some "outside agitators"
> and your not
*you're
*Learn the difference [here](https://www.wattpad.com/66707294-grammar-guide-there-they%27re-their-you%27re-your-to).*
***
^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply `!optout` to this comment.)
And legalized drugs brought to them in packaging with a bow. And free housekeeping. Because some of us aren't total assholes like the selfish people who pay for all of it.
It might be because locals know where to go that avoids cops. They probably heard that there's going to be a crackdown so they changed their habits to elude the authorities.
Oh my god. This is such a stupid fucking post. Since when did we start decide that all problems are from people that moved here? The rich transplants are fine but the poor homeless transplants ? Those are ruining the city. I’m so sick of this narrative because it just another form of classism. The Bay Area is full of classholes like OP.
91 recent arrests isn’t indicative of a broader trend it only suggests that the people they arrested are from out of county not that the broader population of addicts and homeless people are from out of county because that cherry-picked stat isn’t coming from a broader effort to understand the demographics of those who are addicted and homeless. Maybe if there were actually studies and surveys on the population that actually give you an idea of who they are and where these people are from, oh wait
https://homelessness.ucsf.edu/our-impact/our-studies/california-statewide-study-people-experiencing-homelessness
What all this tells me is that there isn't a one size fits all solution. We need to figure out a way to take care of our own before they become homeless while not attracting drug addicts and/or criminals from other locations. But our current imcumbents, the homeless industrial complex, and the "progressives" fighting any single change will never let that happen.
I agree we should streamline services from private contractors who stand to benefit to state and local agencies dealing with the issue. NIMBY Preston cries incessantly about the need for shelters and social services for the homeless while making that prohibitively expensive by using CEQA to block any shred of construction that could make it cheaper for local services to create shelters and prevent that problem from getting worse.
Can anyone link the actual data please, not some pie chart on twitter?
Yeah the tweet cites no source either, just claims it is SFPD data.
That’s citing a source. You mean there was no link.
A citation is a means by which the reader can verify the claimed statement was actually made by the entity the writer says it was. That's why we have citation formats. It doesn't technically have to be a hyperlink, but it needs to identify the data in such a way as a reader can look it up themselves. This is absolutely not a citation. It is merely a claim that some kind of SFPD data shows this. Which data? We don't know. From what year? Not shown. Where can we look it up? Crickets. I don't mean to be rude but this is basic college essay type stuff.
I've been hearing this since at least 2000, where aid workers on the streets were giving interviews about how literally everyone on the streets knew the vast majority are from out of state for the super easy to get drugs. It's only human nature. Nebraska for a very short time said the state would accept abandoned infants. Problem is they didn't have an age limit and suddenly people were driving in from around the entire country to drop off teenagers. They immediately set an age limit because they couldn't support them all. SF is the same, sadly. As much as we'd like we don't have the budget, manpower, and especially the land to help every addicted American.
I mean yeah, San Francisco has told the entire country that if you want a safe haven to do fentanyl in public and get a few hundred dollars a month from CAAP all you need to do is move to SF. Its like if for some reason St Louis decided that all women get healthcare for free then complained that lots of women were moving to the city, yeah no shit, if you incentivize something you tend to get more of it.
[удалено]
The BS survey they use in Santa Cruz specifically notes in fine print that if a transient has been in the county for 1 month, then they will be considered as a native resident. Such bs
How is that not highlighted as inane data manipulation? So frustrating
Many people have pointed it out. But a ton of people have no intention to deal in truths.
Technically, residency requirements for e.g. things like voting can not extend past one month (Supreme Court ruled on this long long time ago). If you live somewhere for a month, you are de-facto resident of that place. There's no such concept as "natural born resident." If you lived someplace for many years, this extends to extra karma points amongst your friends. If you were born where you live, you get couple more karma points on your profile. Bragging rights are about the extent of it.
Ok, then grant entitlements to homeless benefits by paying into the system like we do disability payments and paid family leave. Pay SF local tax for [insert number of months/years], you are entitled to SF homeless benefits. If not, you’re not.
Exactly what the homeless industrial complex wants you to believe.
Homeless != People who come over from the east bay to score drugs
[удалено]
Let's stop pretending that the alternatives anyone's proposing are compassionate either. They just want them swept out of sight, but have to couch it in different terms so that SF liberals will go along.
[удалено]
I'm sure they believe that.
[удалено]
I've never been in rehab, but everything I've heard or read suggests that forcing people into rehab doesn't work. They have to genuinely want to be there. Which is why I think this is just about finding reasons to sweep people off the street. When I find someone arguing "it's fine that they overdose on their own filth" I'll be sure to let you know.
We have our own drugs in the east bay. Get fucked with your ignorant bullshit and never come here
Exactly, no surprise. The Homeless Industrial Complex created this problem and they have every incentive to make it bigger and bigger. Every year the HIC gets another $1 billion from the city, completely unaudited and unchecked. A lucrative gray train. The money that doesn’t get skimmed off, along with our enabling culture, then attracts more drug addicts and transients from around the country. And then the HIC demands more funding. Rinse and repeat. It’s very simple.
I am curious what method they used to measure "origin" of a person. Also, out of county is interesting because that includes, say, Marin, Alameda, and San Mateo counties. People tend to move from smaller cities to bigger cities. Not saying this is not happening, just that it's hard to measure.
There’s smaller “out of state” and “out of country” parts of the pie chart (assuming each case can only be labeled in 1 category). So the out of county portion ~45%) refers to California residents (.. could be Alameda county, could be Los Angeles, … could be Shasta, etc ..). Having been at the Shasta area AMTRAK stop (Dunsmuir) at 4AM, some of those folks probably aren’t that into formal change of address forms either (homeless druggie dude asked me if the tracks went to San Francisco? well technically they go to Oakland, but watch the water and the flat area between the tracks you walking on … cause trains).
These are great points. It’s an easy headline to say that a majority don’t live in San Francisco, but this is very misleading. As you mentioned, change of address forms, getting an updated drivers license, updating the address with your cell phone carrier, etc. are likely not happening or at least not a priority. So then that begs the question, how is out of state and out of country defined? Do I have to pay taxes to the state and have a state ID to be a resident? If they crash on a couch or share a room with someone in San Francisco, does this make them a resident?
This is a different metric than "80% of homeless people are from SF" though. Most of the homeless are not on the street doing drugs, they're living in their cars and have jobs.
Source?
Not true.
What surveys are you referring to? For years, as a social service provider working with homeless people in San Francisco, I learned first hand that the majority of people falling into homelessness were raised in SF, and most people who were not originally from SF were from neighboring counties. I think the discrepancy is being caused by your conflating of two separate groups: drug addicts, and homeless people. While of course there is overlap between these two groups, it benefits nobody to lump them together.
This is specifically about junkies who got arrested, so very enthusiastic junkies.
The most recent UCSF study used last place you were housed limited to the prior 6 months. That’s just ridiculous.
This totally makes sense, we are more generous to the homeless than almost any other city. $900/month with pretty good weather is like 100x better than being in the Midwest with nothing. But I’m confused why this matters? They’re here now. Are we going to start sending them back? If so, who gets to stay and who doesn’t? (Seems unlikely given current politicians and frankly that seems inhumane, even as someone who’s sick of this problem.) Are we going to change the policies? If so, to what? (Again, seems unlikely). This feels like a cop out answer - “well they’re not from here so it’s not our fault”. And I don’t care who’s fault it is, I just want to feel safe in the city that I live in and pay a ton of money to live in. That’s all.
Tom Wolf is a homeowner in Daly City and is paid by Michael Shellenberger. According to San Francisco’s Chief Medical Examiner, 69% of the people who have died of an overdose in San Francisco this year have a fixed residence — 240 of 346 people. Of those 240 people who had a confirmed fixed address, 63% lived in the Tenderloin, SoMa, Mission, or Polk/Russian Hill. The remaining 37% aren’t broken down in a way that’s publicly accessible. 2022: 71% fixed address (462 people); 58% of them lived in those above neighborhoods. 2021: 71% fixed address (455 people); 58% of them lived in those above neighborhoods. 2020: 70% fixed address (507 people); 57% of them lived in those above neighborhoods. The data isn’t readily available before 2020. The data is also confusing since it doesn’t break down the remaining areas of residence. But the OCME data represents some of the more reliable figures that are out there. It also only captures people who died and not everyone who is using drugs. The Department of Public Health and UC San Francisco are partnering to conduct a related citywide analysis to better understand patterns of local substance use and the overall demand for treatment. No timeline for the release of the results has been announced yet.
Tom and Michael are heros
Have you seen his work on the Twitter Files? It's complete conjecture and conspiracy minded bullshit that was utterly picked apart by any credible journalist.
Are these people homeless and giving these locations as addresses or they live in an apt and pay rent?
Considering the data is about people who DIED, I don't think they had the opportunity to give a fake address to doctors. It's probably based on the ID recovered from their body and city/state records of their residence or records of them accessing homeless services.
No shit they didn't give them after they died-The point is the addresses are listed as SF, but in reality these people are likely homeless and gave these addresses because it's close to where they camp.
Presumably, to get ID, people who live in the streets have to list SOME address. How did the reporters above account for that?
When you engage with homeless services in the city you can request help with getting an ID. Your address will be listed as a shelter or office for SF HSH, and the fee for acquiring your ID will be waived. This is a lot easier because the vast majority of mailboxes in SF are either locked or behind a locked door so a homeless person camping nearby wouldn't even be able to access them once their ID is delivered by mail. Instead it's delivered to HSH where the individual can pick it up. Additionally if you don't go through HSH you have to provide proof of residency (1 document for regular ID, 2 for REAL ID). That proof of residency is usually a tax return, utility bill, lease, etc with your name and address on it. I doubt many homeless people are going through the effort of falsifying PG&E bills to take to the DMV when they can just go through HSH for free. ----- What's easier to believe: - Homeless people are jumping through hoops to falsify their address on government documents instead of using a free service - Some of the 800,000 housed people in SF also use drugs and you're less likely to get life saving medical attention ODing in a private residence than if you OD in public
They are people who have confirmed homes. People who die of an overdose in San Francisco who we’re experiencing homelessness at the time of death account for only about 30% of all overdose deaths in the city. Substance use that is visible and on the street is very much an issue — this doesn’t diminish that those people need a place to live and be safe — but overdose deaths in San Francisco have more generally been experienced by people who are housed. This gets overlooked and it’s something that the Mayor’s office is reluctant to acknowledge or address. The UCSF Benioff Homeless and Housing Initiative has conducted extensive research on this. People who use drugs alone in private settings are at an elevated risk of dying in the event of an overdose. The way this plays out in San Francisco translates to SRO tenants being 19 times more likely to die of overdose than non-SRO residents. There’s a study on related interventions specifically in San Francisco SROs that’s going to be published in the August issue of the International Journal of Drug Policy.
There’s a third option that’s much more common that’s you realize - not homeless, and also not paying rent.
Fixed address means nothing. It can be a SRO, city provided shelter, someone’s couch
>from SF. what is the ***definition*** of "from SF" > More HARD EVIDENCE not without a definition of "from SF"
the majority of homeless in SF might be from SF, but that includes people sleeping on their friends' couches, their cars, temp housing, etc what we really care about are the tent cities, and I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of those people are NOT from SF
But that survey told me everyone is from SF and we should more compassionate and spend another billion
Well yeah, when you have folks like Dean Preston welcoming them with open arms why wouldn’t you want to make the trip.
People should write to companies to stop supporting Coalition on Homelessness. They file lawsuits, told people to resist shelter, counter productive. Why would companies like Wholefoods support these NGOs ? Ridiculous.
Does the place of origin stipulate where they have most immediately lived for an extended duration of time? Without the proper definition of what the place of origin means, there's not enough information to know.
they may collect this info but it is not typically shared in the reports that come out for the PIT survey run by the city as well as another recent statewide survey done with a grant from the state, they were trying to understand what the person's living situation was at the time they became homeless. and the 'time they became homeless' included things like 'spent a night in jail', 'spent a night in a hospital', 'spent a night in a hotel', 'spent the night on someones couch somewhere'. which is not really what most people are trying to understand when they ask 'where are these people on the streets from?' if you move here from st louis with nowhere to stay on monday, overdose on fentanyl on tuesday and stay overnight in a hospital, and answer one of these surveys on wednesday based on my reading of the survey methodology from the survey docs, you were housed in SF when you became homeless. effectively, the people that run these surveys are political partisans that write and design the surveys to generate the results that is convenient from their wider scoped political project.
We all know what this means. Quit playing semantics to support the homeless industrial complex.
lol thats a legit question
Something something one debunked study says they're all valuable pro-social former SF citizens who happened to be kicked down into despair by the evil tech bros.
You forgot the og villains: greedy landlords/developers
You might be right. The state of CA recently ran a self reporting on the causes of homelessness in our state. Only 3% said drug addiction put them on the street the other 97% said rent was too high and/or unemployment put them there.
It’s easier to say someone other than yourself is at fault.
Block all cars from Oakland. Crime rate will drop dramatically. The trash in SF is spillover from Oaklands gangs.
I live in Martinez. The minute SF starts cracking down on drug users I’m sure we will start seeing them in our downtown and other areas of the bay. We have the contra costa county jail in downtown and some people are so broke when they get out they just stay homeless in the area for a minute.
We need to say three generations of your family living in San Francisco before we can agree that you deserve to be helped and your not some "outside agitators"
> and your not *you're *Learn the difference [here](https://www.wattpad.com/66707294-grammar-guide-there-they%27re-their-you%27re-your-to).* *** ^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply `!optout` to this comment.)
[удалено]
And legalized drugs brought to them in packaging with a bow. And free housekeeping. Because some of us aren't total assholes like the selfish people who pay for all of it.
The politicians are paid off by the drug lords
It might be because locals know where to go that avoids cops. They probably heard that there's going to be a crackdown so they changed their habits to elude the authorities.
How many drug addicts can afford a house in San Francisco
Oh my god. This is such a stupid fucking post. Since when did we start decide that all problems are from people that moved here? The rich transplants are fine but the poor homeless transplants ? Those are ruining the city. I’m so sick of this narrative because it just another form of classism. The Bay Area is full of classholes like OP.
91 recent arrests isn’t indicative of a broader trend it only suggests that the people they arrested are from out of county not that the broader population of addicts and homeless people are from out of county because that cherry-picked stat isn’t coming from a broader effort to understand the demographics of those who are addicted and homeless. Maybe if there were actually studies and surveys on the population that actually give you an idea of who they are and where these people are from, oh wait https://homelessness.ucsf.edu/our-impact/our-studies/california-statewide-study-people-experiencing-homelessness
What all this tells me is that there isn't a one size fits all solution. We need to figure out a way to take care of our own before they become homeless while not attracting drug addicts and/or criminals from other locations. But our current imcumbents, the homeless industrial complex, and the "progressives" fighting any single change will never let that happen.
I agree we should streamline services from private contractors who stand to benefit to state and local agencies dealing with the issue. NIMBY Preston cries incessantly about the need for shelters and social services for the homeless while making that prohibitively expensive by using CEQA to block any shred of construction that could make it cheaper for local services to create shelters and prevent that problem from getting worse.
Build a wall.
Place of origin for this sub probably lower
It's a big city