It’s $5k per tent per month - you can rent 2-3 studios for that, even in SF. A similar program in LA is coming in at $2100 per rent per month, definitely enough for at least one apartment: https://ktla.com/news/local-news/east-hollywood-tent-village...

That’s the point the original article made - they were throwing money at short-term shelters and other things, just like everyone else and the problem got worse not better. Instead, doing stable housing first and applying conditions later allowed people to adapt. I suspect that they also get to re-use units the NGOs bought to house next set of people once the initial occupants have improved their situation enough.

If one were to use the $2100 for mortgage payment as well, with taxes/hoa/insurance included, that would finance over $400k worth of unit.

Landlords aren't going to be so keen on letting the homeless be shoved in their rentals when they'll likely be filled by non-homeless soon enough.

Have you heard of Section 8? There are landlords who specialize in such programs - the benefits are quite compelling for the right cashflow setup, taking the Finnish model as the example: you rent to the NGO that has government backing (e.g. risk of nonpayment goes to near zero), the NGO assumes all risk and is responsible for the unit. That’s a pretty great deal compared to the Landlord being responsible for vacancy, individual tenant management, etc.

Plus here in Finland the city owned apartments etc. are distributed around the city (not the Manhattans but the rest). Thus there are no slums in Finland and thus there's practically zero gang problems: there's exactly two city districts in the entire Finland I would not feel safe walking at night. So individuals renting to NGOs, city buying apartments etc. benefit both the community as well as the individual who gets out of the crayfish trap.*

*There's a popular analogy with crayfish traps here in Finland wrt. one individual finding their way out of the trap, only to have the other crabs pull them back in.

Sorry, I was speaking specifically with regards to San Francisco w/the parent. And yes, I believe there is some Sec 8 in SF, but not exactly the point of the current issue.

We have to structure the incentives to drive the outcome. Sec 8 is one program that (for all its faults) has shown effective and manageable. The door swings both ways - need to ensure good landlords want to provide housing and the “slumlords” are identified and punished/removed from programs.

SF also has the BMR program that’s designed to provide ownership opportunities for low income people. If NGOs with State backing could be involved, BMR inventory could be an interesting starting point. Then you could provide additional incentives to developers to include even more BMR units, etc.

"Tent site" usually means "place for a single tent". If grandparent has the usual usage, it's $60k/tenant, unless people are sharing tents.

Thank you for the clarification, that makes much more sense.

is per tent site === one single 'parking space' for one homeless person's tent? if so it's outrageous.

Even if it means say a parking lot for 20, that seems pretty crazy. You can just give $2k to buy an apartment, if you are puritan and have to control whether or not they spend it on substances just pay the landlord directly. Probably has to be a place that can get cleaned up easily though after they move on.

It can't possibly be $60K just to provide 24/7 security for a year for a whole location, right? That's a bare minimum of 5 full-time employees, but more likely 6 to 8.

How much does a set of bullet proof window for a tiny one-bedroom apartment, and a security door cost? Guarded tent-site sounds like pouring truckloads of money to the sea.

That amount of money buys a lot of tiny houses - maybe 2 for $60k.

$60K per tenant