Hacker News Reader

Comment by buckle8017 | Hacker News Reader

It's purely a re-brand, the re-branders say that the "unhoused" have homes they're just not houses.

It's stupid.

if you look at the NGO that receive government grants they have been doing quite a bit of renovation. Simply changing their brand from "homeless industrial complex" to "unhoused industrial complex" they can bank on slow bureaucracy and continue to pay themselves tech salary to perpetuate the exact same situation that ultimately provides no uplift.

There's a correlation between "sanctuary ciies" and NGOs that ultimately hire based on political ideology rather than pragmatic policies.

If you do not remove the drugs from the equation the overall situation will not improve. There's a big contrast between homeless population in Japan vs West Coast America and the obvious reason is access to drugs.

SF should just buy some large area of land 2 hours away from the city and offer anybody downtown openly doing drugs free drugs if they leave.

We have an immense amount of free space in CA, it's just nowhere people find desirable, or nowhere the local community would appreciate you parking the temporarily dysfunctional members of society. You could build a fantastic homeless campus in Lancaster CA, there's abundant space, real estate is about as cheap as it gets, you have access to an airport, LA is not too far, it's already practically Meth Mecca.

There's fundamentally no reason for cramming 10k people in some of the most unaffordable NIMBY real estate land of one of the most expensive CoL countries in the world. Even if these folks were able to overcome years of raging addiction, what will they do in SF? Learn machine learning? Become a wealth manager? A teacher? A cop? How are they going to make enough to live in the city when even most regular middle class professions can barely make it there?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com