[#MakesYouThink] 'Liberal' Bastion San Francisco Cannot Solve Its Homelessness Problem

Its unaffordable on a SF teacher's salary....

 

Correct.

 

Yes it's the illegals fault that the rent on a one bedroom apartment is $4000. Did you get an award for being so smart?

 

why won't Jed Kolko come down from his high horse and offer potential solutions ?

​

propagandists, such Jed Kolko, would have people to believe that homelessness is unique to SF

 

I fail to see how a solution is possible and I also don't consider it much of a problem.

Lots of really well paid people have moved/want to move to the beautiful Bay area. Poorer folks cannot afford it. They have to live somewhere else.

Similarly, I cannot afford to live in River Oaks/Rice. It would be nice for sure but that's just the reality of my economic circumstance (so far, I'm working on it y'all). So I live somewhere else. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

 

Wow!

 

So what do they for schools and teachers?

 

Well, like anything, the school districts are going to pay a wage that supports their ability to live in that area or they won't have any school teachers.

 

That's the whole point. The school district isn't paying a wage that allows teachers to live in the area.

 

Well at some point that will reach crisis levels and will have to be addressed. Apparently that area brings in extremely large tax revenues and will have to increase the wages of public sector employees so that firefighters, teachers, police ... etc.. etc.. can service that community. If the tax revenues currently don't support that they will have to find new revenue sources.

 

Do you *like* being both stupid and wrong all the time?

 

All this focus on SF misses the point, I think. The better question is: why is homelessness now reaching epidemic levels in SF and elsewhere?

To answer that, look at the age(s) of the homeless: most (or at least many) are in their 50s.

What's significant about that? The welfare/single mother support state started (or grew dramatically) 50 years ago.

Now ask yourself: how can we reduce or end this problem? The answer is: by undoing and/or getting rid of the policies instituted 50 years ago.

 

Well, then that must be the cause. Or you've just posted another logic fail.

 

In case you did not notice the districts are not paying that wage which was the point of this.

 

San Francisco and the Bay Area have a number of factors that have made housing an issue.

First, San Francisco in the past was a very united area where there were very strict laws passed concerning expansion of housing and the size of occupancy in an area. The rule initially was that the downtown and surrounding areas were limited in the height/size and style of building so that it would fit into the historic theme of the area. While that has made the area very attractive, it has also made for a serious housing crunch as low income and large building plans were often not approved.

Also, the home owners in San Francisco are very powerful and involved in local government. Home owners do not want to see a lot of new housing development as they want to protect their investment and the golden egg.

Third, San Francisco is notoriously difficult to get approval for large projects/civil works. Be that a train or a large housing development. You have a lot of special interests that will ban together to prevent such developments.

Fourth, why is it the tech industries job to fix the homeless situation in San Francisco? They pay their taxes, they employ people and provide jobs. If the tech industry WANTS to do something, they can but the idea that they have an obligation to isn't grounded in reality. If the homeless issue is such a concern, then raise taxes and have the government address the issue.

The land that isn't developed in the San Francisco area, or is where the homeless people are located is in general very valuable and the property owners would make more selling to a corporation.

I find it odd that San Francisco becomes this odd pawn for conservatives to lash out against liberals. San Francisco is an incredibly wealthy and prosperous area and MANY people want to live there, in large part because of liberal policies and liberals living in the city. The same is true with NY and areas like Austin. I don't think labeling this areas as "liberal" really are helping the conservative ideal.

I also find it odd when liberals defend San Francisco. It isn't a utopia. It has corruption in the government, it is ran by special interests. The people of San Francisco are like people anywhere else. They are just as greedy or giving as any other area. Some of the demand of San Francisco is artificial in that the city so severely restricts housing developments. It is an extremely expensive place to live and it is getting worse.

At the end of the day, it isn't any better or worse than anywhere else.... it has it's pro and con arguments.

The idea that kicking out all of the illegal immigrants in San Francisco would solve the housing issue in San Francisco is odd. The easier solution would be to open up the restrictions and have requirements for housing. However, doing that would change the very culture of San Francisco.

 

WTF?

Does this really make sense to you?

 

I thought the point of "this" was to discuss the homelessness/housing affordability in the SF Bay area.

You shifted the focus to the teachers.

If you cannot afford to live in the Bay area. Don't live in the Bay area.

If teachers cannot afford to live in the Bay area then the Bay area will have no teachers. At some point push will come to shove because the Bay area and all the rich people living their need teachers and all types of other (relatively) low wage labor.