Each day we overwhelm your brains with the content you've come to love from the Louder with Crowder Dot Com website.
But Facebook is...you know, Facebook. Their algorithm hides our ranting and raving as best it can. The best way to stick it to Zuckerface?
Sign up for the LWC News Blast! Get your favorite right-wing commentary delivered directly to your inbox!
San Francisco's Homeless Problem is Getting Worse. A Lot Worse.
Ghiradelli isn't the only one leaving brown goodies all over the San Francisco streets. The homeless population, which calls San Francisco home, is dropping little brown poopy packages all tied up with strings... of drugs. These are not a few of residents favorite things. When the dog bites, when the bee stings, when you're feeling stabbed...
London Breed says the amount of feces scattered on the streets of the wealthy city in recent months is among the worst she has ever seen, and San Francisco reportedly is set to spend nearly $280 million in its next budget fighting homelessness – an average of $37,300 for each of the city’s estimated 7,499 homeless residents.
If you haven't been to San Francisco recently, allow me to describe it to you. From a window, San Francisco is a gorgeous city. One of the prettiest cities in America. I'm serious about this. Like if Harambe had a love child with Nikki Haley's UN speeches. Bet you're glad I tacked on the "UN speeches" there, huh? I got you.
The reason people live in San Francisco, in spite of the homeless wiping their asses all over it, is because of how stunning it is. From a distance. As a port city, San Francisco's early start on the American dream, largely thanks to the gold rush, launched San Francisco as a business and cultural hub. Of which it remains. A lot of very wealthy people live in San Francisco. A lot of people who work in San Francisco live in San Francisco. So for the taxpayers, "just move" isn't as simple as some commentators might suggest.
What also isn't as simple as leftists might suggest, is to throw even more money at the crappy problem:
City supervisor hopeful Nick Josefowitz, however, said he believes San Francisco shouldn't “invest a single public dollar without knowing if it is doing any good."
“Despite decades of well-intentioned bills, spending efforts, or guiding plans, the same tragic scene continues day after day and year after year,” he wrote in an April article on Medium. “Indeed, in recent years the situation has become so much worse. Yet too often City Hall is still making decisions on homelessness based on folk wisdom rather than hard evidence.”
I have some personal suggestions. I'd advise the people of Seattle do the same since the two cities have too much in common. When it comes to the homeless, maybe don't subsidize their illegal activities. Like providing clean "injection sites." Think of it this way. If you don't want to attract more of something, you don't set up a breeding ground for it. If I could use an analogy for a smidgen of your time. Say you're dealing with wasps. It's summertime, so hear me out. If you want to have fewer wasps in your yard, would you designate an area of your yard where the wasps could come and get clean sugar water? Or would you make your yard as uninviting as you could for the wasps? No, setting traps isn't the same. That's trying to eliminate wasps by catching them. That's not what San Francisco is doing. San Francisco is just making it easier for the wasps to sting, sending the people scurrying.
San Francisco is running itself based on do-good feelings. With possibly some government chicanery at play:
“That a city can spend $241 million a year on programs and still confront such human misery suggests those dollars are not being spent with anything close to optimal effectiveness,” the board wrote in 2016. “Eight city departments and 76 private and nonprofit organizations draw from those funds in 400 contracts, yet the degree of accountability is highly suspect.”
The newspaper said as of 2017, the waiting list for nighttime shelter beds was at 1,100.
I have another idea, which may be naive. What would happen if the city stopped funneling money into the homeless problem entirely, and let private charities work their magic? Kind of seems like after all the hundreds of millions the government has thrown at it, nothing is sticking. What if more city funds were channeled into law enforcement, and law enforcement were allowed to enforce laws? I know right. Let's not get crazy.
Another idea: more of San Francisco's upper crust elites should be putting more political pressure on San Francisco's bureaucrats to actually solve the problem, instead of leveraging the problem as an election platform. Goes to taxation without representation. If the city officials aren't solving the city's problems, then the city's wealthy taxpayers need to flex their economic muscles. It starts with just a few leaders calling the elite out for their garbage. Like this lady did with her full-page ad:
Finally, big businesses can pull an Amazon, and threaten to leave the city entirely. Taking their hundreds of millions of tax dollars with them. Bet that would light a fire under their dirty heinies.