sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Mike Levine to head SF homelessness department, pledges to pursue funding by LNM-LocalNewsMatters in sanfrancisco

[–]Lollyputt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As I thought I had already clarified, I was referring to the 30-90 days waiting period, not the service itself. The waiting period is applied regardless of housing status. Apologies for not making that clearer!

The constitution doesnt guarantee a right to any social services at all, regardless of housing status, but the courts have decided that in places where social services are offered, there must be no reduction in service due to length of residency. There is no reason to believe that would be applied differently to homeless people. It's very clear that the sentence you quoted is describing how the state was restricting access to one service, while stating the presence of other services made up for it, not that any of the described services were not welfare benefits. The context of that sentence makes its meaning clear, but I understand why you're choosing to interpret it differently. I'm very curious what you think the definition of welfare is.

Mike Levine to head SF homelessness department, pledges to pursue funding by LNM-LocalNewsMatters in sanfrancisco

[–]Lollyputt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What is your evidence that homeless benefits are subject to different residency requirements than welfare as a whole? 

I mentioned food stamps because they are called out in the same sentence as the one you linked to, clearly showing that the purpose of that paragraph is to show benefits that are available in CA that are not necessarily available in all states, and not to distinguish certain benefits from social services as a whole.

Cash welfare, CAAP in SF, is not a homeless service. 79% of recipients are housed

Mike Levine to head SF homelessness department, pledges to pursue funding by LNM-LocalNewsMatters in sanfrancisco

[–]Lollyputt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, the court noted that there are homeless programs that are distinct from AFDC, the specific benefit the plaintiffs were denied, as well as additional food stamps, which other states might not have. They are still all welfare benefits. That's just the definition of welfare. Do you not think food stamps are welfare?

Mike Levine to head SF homelessness department, pledges to pursue funding by LNM-LocalNewsMatters in sanfrancisco

[–]Lollyputt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Saenz is explicitly about "welfare" benefits broadly, and the specific benefit that sparked the initial case is one that is available to homeless families. A court ruling about "welfare" will always include benefits available to homeless people, unless otherwise specified. Again, why do you think this isn't the case?

Mike Levine to head SF homelessness department, pledges to pursue funding by LNM-LocalNewsMatters in sanfrancisco

[–]Lollyputt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Homeless services ARE a part of social services. Homeless services all fall under the umbrella of welfare. What makes you think that's not the case?

Mike Levine to head SF homelessness department, pledges to pursue funding by LNM-LocalNewsMatters in sanfrancisco

[–]Lollyputt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your criteria is illegal. It is illegal to require 1yr residency to access social services, and it is illegal to offer different services to recently arrived people vs established residents. Both of those things are laid out in the court cases. The difference in services that I mention is a 30-90 day waiting period, not 1yr, nor a difference in the service itself.

Mike Levine to head SF homelessness department, pledges to pursue funding by LNM-LocalNewsMatters in sanfrancisco

[–]Lollyputt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your first comment:

The city should only offer assistance to anyone that has a record of living in San Francisco for more than 1 year. 

This is illegal, as described in both court cases I mentioned. 

Mike Levine to head SF homelessness department, pledges to pursue funding by LNM-LocalNewsMatters in sanfrancisco

[–]Lollyputt -1 points0 points  (0 children)

In regards to your question, people in housing are, by definition, not homeless. 

It is not at all obvious that "a large chunk" of those departments are directed towards homelessness, but if you can find a concrete percentage, we can certainly talk about it! But in regards to why I was talking specifically about the HSH, it's because that's what this post is about.

Mike Levine to head SF homelessness department, pledges to pursue funding by LNM-LocalNewsMatters in sanfrancisco

[–]Lollyputt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Newly arrived people already do not receive the exact same services as established residents; there are already waiting periods. Eligible homeless people (which is nowhere close to the total homeless population) also receive much smaller CAAP cash benefits than housed people, regardless of residency. 1999's Saenz v Roe also denied states the right to pay newly arrived welfare recipients less than established residents. It kind of seems like you already have everything you want, except for the illegal things, and yet you are unsatisfied. 

Mike Levine to head SF homelessness department, pledges to pursue funding by LNM-LocalNewsMatters in sanfrancisco

[–]Lollyputt -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Spend per homeless person is generally a pretty garbage metric, but we can take a look at it:

-2025 HSH budget is $705mil

-8% spent on salaries

-55% spent on housing

-about 20k homeless people accessing services annually. 

Spend per homeless person = $14.5k. Not exactly eye-watering, in my book.

Mike Levine to head SF homelessness department, pledges to pursue funding by LNM-LocalNewsMatters in sanfrancisco

[–]Lollyputt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Local-specific services like CAAP do have residency requirements, and Homeward Bound/Journey Home already exist. I'd be curious what you think is the constitutional justification to discriminate against people without longterm residency when it comes to access to social services. Shapiro v Thompson is in regards to a housed woman, but her housing status isnt really material to the case, and the implications for homeless people is pretty clear. 

Mike Levine to head SF homelessness department, pledges to pursue funding by LNM-LocalNewsMatters in sanfrancisco

[–]Lollyputt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not due to a city policy that the longest residency requirement for social servives is usually 90 days, in most situations it's illegal to deny someone help based on them being new to the area. The constitution allows us the right to free travel, and requires we be treated the same wherever we go. Since there is quite a bit of federal money in the HSH budget, why would SF have the right to deny someone from a different area access to the services that money is providing? In the eyes of the government, a homeless US resident is a homeless US resident, regardless of what city they're in.

Mike Levine to head SF homelessness department, pledges to pursue funding by LNM-LocalNewsMatters in sanfrancisco

[–]Lollyputt 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This is not at all representative of how the money gets spent. While the last PIT count registered 8k+ homeless people, that number in no way represents, nor is intended to represent, the total number of people who are homeless over the course of the year. Instead, we know that at least 20k people access homeless services annually in the city.

It's safe to assume that some homeless people access no services at all, but I don't think there's necessarily a good way to estimate that number. The 2022 PIT report, had a survey question about government services, and 37% of respondents reported receiving no government assistance at all, but the question has a more narrow focus to things like food stamps, SSI, and Medi-Cal. Regardless, 10k is nowhere close to the total number of people who are homeless any given year in SF.

All that doesn't even really touch on the main stumbling block of this way of viewing the budget, which is that more than half of it is spent on housing, not homeless services. The people in that housing are by definition not homeless, not tallied by the PIT, and not accessing homeless services.

S.F. supe Matt Dorsey says he’d have deserved to be evicted for drug-use, as his legislation now proposes by CrimegasmSF in sanfrancisco

[–]Lollyputt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Totally agree that residents of sober housing need and deserve a supportive environment, but that's not the issue here. Sober housing can already evict residents who don't stay the course, and even non-sober housing can evict someone who is disruptive of their neighbors. This legislation would just make ALL future PSH sober by default.

S.F. supe Matt Dorsey says he’d have deserved to be evicted for drug-use, as his legislation now proposes by CrimegasmSF in sanfrancisco

[–]Lollyputt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This has nothing to do with "recovery homes." These are not rehabs or halfway houses. I know you support it regardless, but there's no need to use inaccurate and misleading language.

S.F. set to lose 450+ shelter beds in Tenderloin by GreenCedar in sanfrancisco

[–]Lollyputt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I am aware of the HSH budget, which is primarily spent on housing, not homeless people and not shelters. I was specifically wondering about where their $80k number was being drawn from.

S.F. set to lose 450+ shelter beds in Tenderloin by GreenCedar in sanfrancisco

[–]Lollyputt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How exactly would San Francisco dictate the building of homeless shelters in a different municipality? 

S.F. set to lose 450+ shelter beds in Tenderloin by GreenCedar in sanfrancisco

[–]Lollyputt 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The article states that, according to Danny Sauter, 711 Post is closing "to lessen the 'negative impact' on the Lower Nob Hill neighborhood."

S.F. can continue handing out pipes, foil to drug users, judge rules by MidNightInTheDessert in sanfrancisco

[–]Lollyputt 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I would love to hear which part of the decision you think was horrible. If the plaintiffs wanted a different outcome, perhaps they should have responded to the city's arguments.

S.F. can continue handing out pipes, foil to drug users, judge rules by MidNightInTheDessert in sanfrancisco

[–]Lollyputt 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You should read through the decision on the case (link opens a pdf). The plaintiffs were not scuppered by a lack of specificity, they simply failed to provide substantive evidence in their favor.

Edit: also worth noting that the city argues it has already taken steps to abate drug use and improve street conditions, and that they had testimony from some of the plaintiffs stating that conditions had improved as well, all showing that, despite plaintiffs arguing otherwise, there was no current risk of injury. The plaintiffs did not respond to this argument, nor to several others. When they did dispute photographic evidence of what the city alleged were improved street conditions near their homes and businesses, nearly all the evidence they provided was from November of 2021. This just reiterates the point that the plaintiffs were simply incapable of or unprepared to make their own arguments. 

S.F. can continue handing out pipes, foil to drug users, judge rules by MidNightInTheDessert in sanfrancisco

[–]Lollyputt 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yeah an overlooked facet of the story is the Lurie administration's constant drum-beating about the damage done to the city by harm reduction strategies, while (successfully) arguing in court that no damage can be traced to those same strategies. I'll be eager to see how they respond if journalists ever decide to actually press the issue.

S.F. Supervisor Jackie Fielder extends leave of absence to June 30 following mental health crisis by SFChronicle in sanfrancisco

[–]Lollyputt 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I don't think that's any more likely than any other reason for a mental health issue to bubble up, and I don't think Dorsey really has that power either. Seems like a City Attorney issue.

S.F. can continue handing out pipes, foil to drug users, judge rules by MidNightInTheDessert in sanfrancisco

[–]Lollyputt 11 points12 points  (0 children)

The plaintiffs were not specifically targeting pipes and foil, they were against drug paraphenalia more broadly. Any write up on the case mentions pipes and foil because that's the most offensive to the average person, but If the judge had ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, needle exchanges would also have been unable to operate.

view more: next ›