This measure doesn't increase spending on the homeless issue but, honestly, the San Francisco govt has shown the ability to absorb funding increases without noticeable impact in services. This is especially true of homeless services.

My impression is that this measure is born of frustration with the governmental inaction on the homeless problem in SF.

[0] http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record... [1] http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-budget-increase-aim... [2] http://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/default/files/2015%20San%20Franc...

"Eight city departments oversee at least 400 contracts to 76 private organizations"

That says a lot about how spending $31,967.10 for every homeless person can amount to, well, no one seems to know.

I'm curious what happened in New Orleans and the other places referenced that have seen success helping their homeless populations. Knowing even a little bit about systems, layering more complexity (and money) on top of a dysfunctional effort in SF isn't going to meaningfully help.

One thing to clarify is that, because some (~$60 Million in 2015 [3]) goes to housing assistance. The people helped by the budget includes more than 7,539 represented by the point in time count, so the $31K/person number is a bit high.

That said, SF spends a lot of money on homeless and the homeless population hasn't significantly decreased in over a decade.

[3] http://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/FileCenter/Documents/56... page 6

The "76 private organizations" that all this money is being funneled toward probably know.

"As Randy Shaw points out (in an article that has other problems, but gets this absolutely right), almost half the money that the Chron identifies as “homeless” spending is actually money spend on people who are in supportive housing. That’s housing money, not homeless money."

http://48hills.org/2016/02/16/five-myths-about-the-homeless-...

Something really interesting: "Hawaii has the highest homeless rate per capita in the nation, according to federal statistics."

Hawaii the state spends something around 40m a year on the homeless.

But a lot of Hawaii homeless live in tents on the beach!

Just some interesting numbers. I know a lot of the homeless kids in Hawaii also get picked up by school buses as well.

This is inhumane.

This feels like wealthy people wanting to erase the daily reminders about inequality so that they don't have to think about it.

If the supporters of this measure really cared about homelessness, there would be provisions for actual reintegration into society instead of just a stick. But that costs money and effort.

I think they just tell them to go to a shelter.

But provides no funding (or even specific requirements that would imply funding; e.g. "shelter for 30 days"). Which basically means, in effect "umm, actually we're not really going to provide shelter. We're just going to keep rousting you and rousting you until you head out over to Oakland, or down the Peninsula".

Just that people like Moritz, Conway, Oberndorf, Bogue and Mayer don't want to come out an say it. Even though it's apparently exactly what they want.

It's as insane as it sounds to you.

Edit: what's a progressive, sensitive solution? It starts with something as simple as responding with basic kindness and decency instead of stepping over them on our way to work. Some believe this is pointless or insufficient. It may not work on its own, but it's the only thing that will point us in the right direction.

The point is, human problems are often intractable until the humans in question are treated with some dignity. And it's hard to treat someone with dignity when you are unable to look them in the eye.

Some would characterize the resources devoted to services for the most vulnerable among us as kindness and decency expressed. Which suggests that a progressive, sensitive solution started decades ago. What's the next step?

Kind motivation can be expressed fiercely (as in "tough love"), and conversely, many seemingly-kind actions sprout from an unwholesome place. So I can't tell you what "kind behavior" looks like.

The progressive solutions you see today are the natural result of blossoming intent. _First_ we start learning to see black people, gay people, women, etc. as equal to ourselves, and then our actions, behaviors, and ultimately policies reflect that choice. We're headed in the right direction.

When a behavior is only _ostensibly_ kind -- like when I'm trying to shovel dirty people away under the guise of helping them -- at best I prolong the real problem, and at worst I get an atrocity.

So I cannot give you an actual solution to the homelessness problem, other than to say: motivation matters a lot more than we tech types often consider.

OK. Focused. Right here with you.

> The progressive solutions you see today are the natural result of blossoming intent.

The progressive solutions I see today look like kindness and decency unmoored from any notion of efficiency. There's no concern for what actually advances the goals we purport to care about with kindness and decency. There's just actions that leave us feeling that we've seen the homeless as equal people and thought kind things about them and expressed this with large dollops of cash and social tolerance.

Given that this has been going on for decades, I harbor a seed of doubt that this blossoming intent is going to manifest as effective policy in the near future. I find myself thinking that warm fuzzies are great, but helping people is better.

> When a behavior is only _ostensibly_ kind -- like when I'm trying to shovel dirty people away under the guise of helping them -- at best I prolong the real problem, and at worst I get an atrocity.

Prolonging the problem, solving the problem, and causing atrocities are all things that can result from actions. They are things that can result from actions rooted in cruelty and from actions rooted in kindness alike. Mao starved millions of people while genuinely trying to help them.

Thank you for trying. You have helped me understand why SF's policies are so completely broken - they're created and executed by people whose only real measurement is purity of motivation and for whom actually helping people is largely irrelevant.

It's of course impossible to truly know another's motivations, but I don't agree that this was true of Mao.

For my part, I don't believe that the "only real measurement" is purity of motivation. But I do believe that when policies are created under the disingenuous guise of kindness (as I suspect the ones from this article are) they ultimately do more harm than good.

Anyway, thank you for at least remaining polite.

One cannot reverse-engineer intentions from results. Great suffering can result from the kindest of intentions. Such outcomes do not invalidate the deep and genuine kindness felt, the intent that bloomed therein, or the suffering that resulted. One should never confuse intent for effect and one should never assume good intent automatically leads to good results. More than one person has died from a misguided blooming of genuine kindness.

I implore you to consider something objective, countable, and measurable. Like people helped for money spent, rather than genuineness of kindness or blooming of intent. Think like an engineer trying to solve a problem. Decades of pure motives, deep and genuine kindness, and overflowing decency got us here. There's little reason to think more will fix matters, and there are thousands of people who could really use some practical help (and who won't look too closely at how genuine your kindness is if it drives help).

I don't think we disagree there. I even attended a conference (the Effective Altruism Summit) on just this topic. I also put my money where my mouth is. The only reason I spend time on any of this is because I've spent more than a little time introspecting on my true motives.

Maybe I can be more precise in what I'm trying to communicate.

Take two people with equal capacities for analytical reasoning and ask them to solve some human problem. Suppose that in the first person, the realization of empathy has not deeply taken root.

Even if they generate superficially similar solutions, the first will likely be infused with a self-serving agenda in ways that will become visible in myriad details of its implementation. (In fact, without such an agenda, the first person wouldn't ever consider solving the problem on his own in the first place.)

I'm not talking about a sociopath here. I'm talking about a mostly decent human being, whose mind is nevertheless generally too busy to perceive the tremendous amount of need around him (or else regards it disdainfully). This describes me (though hopefully a little less in recent years) as well as the vast majority of my colleagues.

Silicon Valley already has the talent. That talent could use a little more heart.

I don't think I agree. I think the kinds of problems Silicon Valley can effectively solve are limited in nature and scope. I think the problems surrounding homelessness in Silicon Valley and the larger Bay are fundamentally political, shaped by decades of an excess of empathy and kindness and decency and a dearth of pragmatism. I think that an understanding of this situation has driven away many with empathy for their own emotional self-preservation.

In short, I don't agree that the problem is that mostly decent human beings fail to see the tremendous amount of need around them. I think the problem is that mostly decent human beings see the need, and also that it exists within an intractable political framework. Thus, they retreat rather than break themselves on those rocks of kindness and decency gone horrifyingly wrong.

The problem is not a lack of empathy or lack of awareness. The problem is that we're in a scenario where you cannot question the cost-effectiveness of homelessness spending without someone retorting "Those people work really hard!", as if that is some kind of response to the point raised.

It's not that I think that Silicon Valley can solve the problem. It's really only that I think it's disingenuous to claim one is trying to help people if one is really only trying to shovel them out of sight, and that this chasm will ultimately be reflected in the outcome of any plan that results.

That said, I hope I am wrong about the protagonists of the story.

This should not be confused for a belief that setting out with good intentions will yield good results. It's far, far harder to improve things than it is to make things worse. Social policy does not function on the "Law of Attraction".

Thus an essential part of helping anyone is: be sure that you're really doing it to _help them_. It's not sufficient by a long shot (as you rightly point out), but it is more or less necessary.

Thanks for the frank discussion.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/sidewalks-san-francisco-133...