San Francisco to consider tax on companies to help homeless

[Dashinka 24,601]

Apparently, San Francisco can do it better than Seattle.

 

Janie Har | Associated Press

 

SAN FRANCISCO — San Francisco voters will decide in November whether to tax large businesses to pay for homeless and housing services, an issue that set off a battle in another West Coast city struggling with income inequality.

The city elections department verified Monday that supporters had collected enough signatures to get the measure on the ballot. It would raise about $300 million a year — doubling what San Francisco spends on homelessness — for more shelter beds and housing for people who are homeless or at risk of becoming so.

The money would come from an average half-percent tax increase on companies’ revenue above $50 million each year.

Homelessness is a major problem in San Francisco, as well as other cities on the West Coast with growing numbers of high-paying tech jobs that price lower-income residents out of a shrinking housing supply. San Francisco’s new mayor, London Breed, vowed to clear the streets of its tent camps within a year of taking office.

 

https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/san-francisco-tax-companies-homeless-seattle-income-inequality/

[Steeleballz 7,550]

   In Vancouver, I saw the local government had purchased and converted some old hotels into low rent interim housing for homeless people. Not free, but supposedly it's a low cost lease, and managed by a group that addresses issues like drug abuse and mental health. Other cities should at least be giving this method a look and seeing if it's viable.

 

[Dashinka 24,601]

49 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

   In Vancouver, I saw the local government had purchased and converted some old hotels into low rent interim housing for homeless people. Not free, but supposedly it's a low cost lease, and managed by a group that addresses issues like drug abuse and mental health. Other cities should at least be giving this method a look and seeing if it's viable.

 

I agree, there are ways to address the issue other than local taxation on companies.  I just thought it interesting that San Fran was following the Seattle experiment that crashed and burned in a matter of a week.

[Umka36 781]

While this is about homeless people, I don't know how even a middle income family even affords to live in cities like SF/Seattle. These cities are going to end up being for the rich and poor.

[Dashinka 24,601]

6 minutes ago, Umka36 said:

While this is about homeless people, I don't know how even a middle income family even affords to live in cities like SF/Seattle. These cities are going to end up being for the rich and poor.

They already are aren’t they?

[Umka36 781]

I'm not sure if that's the case for Seattle yet, but it's getting there. Heck, many of my employees don't plan on retiring in WA as it's getting too expensive due to all the taxes.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

20 minutes ago, Umka36 said:

While this is about homeless people, I don't know how even a middle income family even affords to live in cities like SF/Seattle. These cities are going to end up being for the rich and poor.

got to love liberal elitist cities. Living misery for the poor.

[Dashinka 24,601]

10 minutes ago, Umka36 said:

I'm not sure if that's the case for Seattle yet, but it's getting there. Heck, many of my employees don't plan on retiring in WA as it's getting too expensive due to all the taxes.

No doubt, so many of these left wing bastions are massively taxed.  I like where I am at, taxes are not too high, and we have no issues with fresh water. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

17 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

No doubt, so many of these left wing bastions are massively taxed.  I like where I am at, taxes are not too high, and we have no issues with fresh water. 

 

   It also helps when you live somewhere that people don't want to go. The only thing that will really help SF is when people decide it's not worth living there. 

[Dashinka 24,601]

19 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   It also helps when you live somewhere that people don't want to go. The only thing that will really help SF is when people decide it's not worth living there. 

Based on the stories I have been reading, not really sure why anyone would want to live in San Francisco considering how dirty the city has become.  Michigan has a lot going for it and always has.  I could do without the length of the Winters, but if we believe all the Climate Change folks that will be diminishing over time and very soon.  Regardless, most areas of the country has positive aspects except for maybe Alabama and Mississippi.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

Based on the stories I have been reading, not really sure why anyone would want to live in San Francisco considering how dirty the city has become.  Michigan has a lot going for it and always has.  I could do without the length of the Winters, but if we believe all the Climate Change folks that will be diminishing over time and very soon.  Regardless, most areas of the country has positive aspects except for maybe Alabama and Mississippi.

 

  Just to clarify, not meaning that as an insult to Michigan (or anyone or anywhere). I saw the same thing when I was in Honolulu. All these cities where everyone wanted to go eventually get to the point where they are not even a nice place to visit anymore.  

[Dashinka 24,601]

2 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Just to clarify, not meaning that as an insult to Michigan (or anyone or anywhere). I saw the same thing when I was in Honolulu. All these cities where everyone wanted to go eventually get to the point where they are not even a nice place to visit anymore.  

I am still uncertain why anyone would want to live so close to an active volcano (the Big Island, not Honolulu) just as I am uncertain why folks would want to live in a flood zone, but people are willing to take risks for their slice of the planet.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

3 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

I am still uncertain why anyone would want to live so close to an active volcano (the Big Island, not Honolulu) just as I am uncertain why folks would want to live in a flood zone, but people are willing to take risks for their slice of the planet.

 

  Cheap land and a state law that requires subsidized insurance would be my guess. I actually knew a guy who lost his house back in the 90's and he was still having nightmares about lava years later.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

45 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Cheap land and a state law that requires subsidized insurance would be my guess. I actually knew a guy who lost his house back in the 90's and he was still having nightmares about lava years later.

As mentioned earlier giving someone who builds a 4 million dollar home at the beach cheap govt subsided flood insurance,  is insane 

[TBoneTX 45,543]

Unless it's built to ever-strengthened codes that require certain elevation and fortification against Category Whatever hurricanes.