C'mon, spread the wealth around San Franciscans! It didn't work in Seattle, but maybe they're just not stupid enough? I can't imagine that this won't be a magnet for other homeless people, as well. Glad I'm half a country away from this place.



San Francisco has come to be known around the world as a place for aggressive panhandling, open-air drug use and sprawling tent camps, the dirt and despair all the more remarkable for the city's immense wealth.

Some streets are so filthy that officials launched a special "poop patrol." A young tech worker created "Snapcrap" — an app to report the filth. Morning commuters walk briskly past homeless people huddled against subway walls. In the city's squalid downtown area, the frail and sick shuffle along in wheelchairs or stumble around, sometimes half-clothed.

The situation has become so dire that a coalition of activists collected enough signatures to put a measure on the city's Nov. 6 ballot that would tax hundreds of San Francisco's wealthiest companies to help thousands of homeless and mentally ill residents, an effort that failed earlier this year in Seattle. Proposition C would raise $300 million a year, nearly doubling what the city already spends to combat homelessness.

"This is the worst it's ever been," says Marc Benioff, founder of cloud-computing giant Salesforce and a fourth-generation San Franciscan, who is supporting the measure even though his company would pay an additional $10 million a year if it passes. "Nobody should have to live like this. They don't need to live like this. We can get this under control."

"We have to do it. We have to try something," said Sunshine Powers, who owns a tie-dye boutique, Love on Haight, in the city's historic Haight-Ashbury neighborhood. "If my community is bad, nobody is going to want to come here."

The proposition is the latest battle between big business and social services advocates who demand that corporate America pay to solve inequities exacerbated by its success. 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. San Francisco has already dramatically increased spending on homelessness, she said, with no noticeable improvement.

San Francisco spent $380 million of its $10 billion budget last year on services related to homelessness.

"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."

Cities along the West Coast are grappling with rampant homelessness, driven in part by growing numbers of well-paying tech jobs that price lower-income residents out of tight housing markets. A family of four in San Francisco earning $117,000 is considered low-income.

Business prevailed in Seattle, when leaders in June repealed a per-employee tax that would have raised $50 million a year, after Amazon and Starbucks pushed back. In July, the city council of Cupertino in Silicon Valley scuttled a similar head tax after opposition from its largest employer, Apple Inc.

Mountain View residents, however, will vote this fall on a per-employee tax expected to raise $6 million a year, largely from Google, for transit projects.

The San Francisco measure is different in that it would levy the tax mostly by revenue rather than by number of employees — an average half-percent tax increase on companies' revenue above $50 million each year. It was also put on the ballot by citizens, not elected officials.

Online payment processing company Stripe has voiced opposition and contributed $120,000 to the campaign against Proposition C, but other companies have stayed quiet. The San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, whose board includes representatives of Microsoft, LinkedIn and Oracle, is leading the fight.

Up to 400 businesses would be affected, with internet and financial services sectors bearing nearly half the cost.

The city says confidentiality precludes revealing tax information, but some of the companies expected to pay the most are big names across major industries. Wells Fargo & Co., retailer Gap Inc. and ride-hailing platform Uber declined to comment.

Pharmaceutical distributor McKesson Corp. referred questions to a private-sector trade association, the Committee on Jobs, which called the measure flawed. Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Corp. said it has not taken a position. Twitter declined to comment, but chief executive Jack Dorsey said via tweet last week that he trusts Breed to fix the problem.

"Anyone can take a look at the status quo and understand it's not working, but more money alone is not the sole answer," says Jess Montejano, spokesman for the "No on C" campaign.

Benioff disagrees. A $37 million two-year initiative he helped start with the city and to which he contributed more than $11 million has housed nearly 400 families through rent subsidies, he said.

Benioff has pledged at least $2 million from company and personal resources for the November tax campaign. He said he was ultimately swayed by a report from the city's chief economist, which found the measure would likely reduce homelessness while resulting in a net loss of 900 jobs at most, or 0.1 percent of all jobs.

"I said, 'Well, I'm the largest employer in the city, and the city is in decline from homelessness and cleanliness. We have to take action now,' " he said.

At least half of the new revenue would go toward permanent housing, and at least a quarter to services for people with severe behavioral issues. A 2017 one-night count found an estimated 7,500 people without permanent shelter in San Francisco. More than half had lived in the city for at least a decade.

Tracey Mixon and her daughter, Maliya, 8, are among the hidden homeless.

Mixon, 47, a San Francisco native, lives and works in the notoriously dangerous and drug-infested Tenderloin neighborhood. They were forced out of their rental this summer, partly because the company that managed her property lost its federal accreditation, she said on a recent afternoon while working a crossing guard shift.

One of the hardest parts was finding a place to go for the day when mother and daughter were kicked out of an overnight-only emergency shelter.

"I have to shield her from people that are using drugs," she said. "I have to shield her from people who might be fighting."

Hanging out on Haight, the street that played a central role in the "Summer of Love," Stormy Nichole Day, 22, says she would love a place to live. Currently, Day is sleeping in a doorway. She could thrive if her basic needs were met, she said.

"And that includes a house, and a place to cook food and a place to take a shower."



http://www.nydailynews.com/new...-20181015-story.html

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Sigmanic,

Stormy Nichole and Sunshine.
Hurry, earthquake!

quote:

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...

Gee Skippy, ya' think so..?

We are flying into SF in a couple of months. Not looking forward to it.

Oh, I'm all for it. Tax the shit out of 'em, so to speak.

I'm no math wizard but $380,000,000 spread over 7,500 people is $50,000 each. Per year. I'd would be cheaper to give them bus tickets back to wherever they came from and pay their rent.

quote:

We have to try something

Said Sunshine.

This is one crux of the problem they've created. This, like many problems, are not grand social experiment where you try this and that at random. You need structure and specific, meaningful metrics and objectives. They will forever struggle w/ a problem if they just try different 'solutions' at random.

At the cost of taxpayer expense. Stupid fucks.

Didn't they try something like this in Seattle and then backed down?

quote:

Originally posted by Blackmore:
Didn't they try something like this in Seattle and then backed down?

I can hear the Gestapo agent in Raiders of the Lost Ark-

"Tax zem. Tax zem both."

Yep, they wanted to tax the top companies in Seattle per employee. At some point Amazon halted all construction they had contracted for.

Austin's long lost sister, Sunshine Powers? At least she's not a hyphen, I guess.

Okay, So at least they won't have all the needles and poop out on the sidewalk. Wait a minute... Nevermind.

I will always contend that if you want something totally FUBAR'd up, let the government handle it. Hell, I'm sure SF's homeless problem is only a feature of inadequate spending. So as PARA noted, tax the hell out of the businesses in SF and lets see what happens.

...and tax the tax.

U-Haul is gonna love it!

quote:

Originally posted by berto:
I'm no math wizard but $380,000,000 spread over 7,500 people is $50,000 each. Per year. I'd would be cheaper to give them bus tickets back to wherever they came from and pay their rent.

But you failed to account for government administrative expenses to collect and disburse the funds. First they'll need to do a study. Then a new department.
That should account for most of it.

quote:

Originally posted by berto:
I'm no math wizard but $380,000,000 spread over 7,500 people is $50,000 each. Per year. I'd would be cheaper to give them bus tickets back to wherever they came from and pay their rent.

You apparently fail to grasp that government defrauding producers of their lawfully acquired revenue is not about helping the homeless. This whole game is about enriching political friends and supporters in the liberal hierarchy, with whatever remaining crumbs going to the mentally ill and homeless folks shooting up and defecating on the sidewalks. Like Solyndra had anything to do with the production of clean energy. Not even close.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by berto:
I'm no math wizard but $380,000,000 spread over 7,500 people is $50,000 each. Per year. I'd would be cheaper to give them bus tickets back to wherever they came from and pay their rent.

You apparently fail to grasp that government defrauding producers of their lawfully acquired revenue is not about helping the homeless. This whole game is about enriching political friends and supporters in the liberal hierarchy, with whatever remaining crumbs going to the mentally ill and homeless folks shooting up and defecating on the sidewalks. Like Solyndra had anything to do with the production of clean energy. Not even close.

I’m quite aware of the homeless industrial complex. Multiple groups supposedly dedicated to serving needs or studying the issue all with executive directors pulling down six figure incomes. Quit funding your buddy’s wife’s feel good job and send the beggars back to their hometowns. Pay their rent directly. Can probably give most of them a living stipend so they can feed their addictions if that’s what they want. If the money is going to be spent SF should at least be rid of the bums and their feces.

I hate going to San Francisco but I usually have to a couple times a month.

It cracks me up when people in San Francisco ask for a discount on my products...I love telling them I can't because of the government mandated wages and taxes.

Tax and tax some more That will fix it.

Seattle has tried tiny houses to move homeless off the streets. In short order the neat houses have been overwhelmed by trash, drugs and crime.

“An activist nonprofit group that manages Licton Springs, Seattle’s only tiny-house village that allows homeless residents to use alcohol and drugs onsite, is ending its role there, leaving control of the site to the city and another nonprofit.

The group known as SHARE/WHEEL, which for decades has defined a politically powerful and often controversial wing of homeless activism in Seattle, said it notified city officials Saturday that it will cease management of the Licton Springs tiny-house village off of Aurora Avenue in North Seattle by the morning of Oct. 22. That would end its tenure about five months before permanent closure of the site, which was announced by the city last month.”
“The city has criticized the group for not doing enough to move individuals into permanent housing, while the group accuses the city of not providing enough funding and personnel support for the communities it runs.”

Clearly, moving people into neat little homes isn’t enough. When they move in the bring their problem along. There seem to be three type of homeless. Families and those that need a hand up and will quickly become self sufficient. Then there are the mentally ill and drug impacted.finally are those that like their situation. When the Pierce County Sheriff cleared a homeless camp, social workers went in to help people move, to enter programs and to get help. Nobody took the offers. The county offered to pay occupants to clean the camp. They got no takers.

https://www.seattletimes.com/s...d-of-citys-shutdown/
https://www.kuow.org/stories/t...-aurora-set-to-close

quote:

Originally posted by PR64:
I hate going to San Francisco but I usually have to a couple times a month.

It cracks me up when people in San Francisco ask for a discount on my products...I love telling them I can't because of the government mandated wages and taxes.

Tax and tax some more That will fix it.

I won't do it. When I say I am going to the city I mean Concord. After 30 years am trying to check out of this place, but I have that Hotel California thing going on. I have been a North Dakota resident for months and soon I am heading up there again with anouther truck full of stuff. I will get there in plenty of time to vote against a certian senator, and i hope she loses by 1 vote, mine.