It’s a fair point about the valley’s tremendous wealth and problems, but what would Om say? It’s a little off the topic of remembering his life and work?
Not even the richest person can simply cure thousands of people of addiction and set them on the right path in life. If you want to prove me wrong, surely even with non-millionaire resources, you could afford to just take in one into your home, feed them, and fix their problems. I’ll be genuinely glad to be proven wrong.
There's plenty of great examples of governments deciding to deal with drug abuse in a more humane way, resulting in much better outcomes, see Portugal or Switzerland etc
> I hear that SF has one of the highest rates of homelessness...
My understanding is that homelessness in California is a business similar to dating apps (tinder etc).
If dating apps would actually find you a partner, they would all go out of business. So dating apps mainly keep you on the hook, fishing for subscriptions.
You may be right, but your angle of causation is wrong. California is not creating homelessness to milk money out of rich MSNBC shitlibs. They created homelessness as a side effect of them making housing very expensive... in order to placate those same rich MSNBC shitlibs who you think are being defrauded.
California's ruling class is a landed gentry of boomers that all bought into the housing market before Prop 13 froze their tax rates in place. They will weaponize anything to stop any construction which they think might lower their property values. Hell, Beverly Hills used their school district in order to launch a frivolous lawsuit against the LA Metro D line expansion, because Beverly Hills is full of rich idiots who think public transit ruins property values[0].
So California can't get rid of homelessness - not because it means the homeless shelters[1] will be out of a job, but because homeless people are the natural consequence of making housing unaffordably expensive. The only actual solution to homelessness is the one thing California will never do on pain of death. The homeless shelters are there to create moral cover for NIMBYs making the city too expensive to live in. So the homeless shelters aren't ripping off the shitlibs; the shitlibs are paying them to sweep the problem under the rug, and they are dutifully doing so.
[0] Cars ruin property values, because cars require lots of very expensive infrastructure like highways and stroads, and nobody wants to live or shop next to a giant pollution generator. In contrast, access to public transit increases land value! But the California gentry all drive so they don't care about this.
[1] Please interpret "homeless shelters" to mean "any government agency involved with homelessness management". Technically speaking SF has a lot of unsheltered homeless because, well, living unsheltered is just not as hellishly awful as it is in other cities.
It’s a fair point about the valley’s tremendous wealth and problems, but what would Om say? It’s a little off the topic of remembering his life and work?
Not even the richest person can simply cure thousands of people of addiction and set them on the right path in life. If you want to prove me wrong, surely even with non-millionaire resources, you could afford to just take in one into your home, feed them, and fix their problems. I’ll be genuinely glad to be proven wrong.
You don't need to cure everyone to improve the homelessness situation.
There's plenty of great examples of governments deciding to deal with drug abuse in a more humane way, resulting in much better outcomes, see Portugal or Switzerland etc
> I hear that SF has one of the highest rates of homelessness...
My understanding is that homelessness in California is a business similar to dating apps (tinder etc).
If dating apps would actually find you a partner, they would all go out of business. So dating apps mainly keep you on the hook, fishing for subscriptions.
Who's benefiting from SF homelessness?
most probably all the bullshit government "agencies" run by people mostly interested on getting a salary.
If you erradicate homelessness all these jobs woudlnt exist.
Do you think your tax money really goes to get people out of the streets?
You may be right, but your angle of causation is wrong. California is not creating homelessness to milk money out of rich MSNBC shitlibs. They created homelessness as a side effect of them making housing very expensive... in order to placate those same rich MSNBC shitlibs who you think are being defrauded.
California's ruling class is a landed gentry of boomers that all bought into the housing market before Prop 13 froze their tax rates in place. They will weaponize anything to stop any construction which they think might lower their property values. Hell, Beverly Hills used their school district in order to launch a frivolous lawsuit against the LA Metro D line expansion, because Beverly Hills is full of rich idiots who think public transit ruins property values[0].
So California can't get rid of homelessness - not because it means the homeless shelters[1] will be out of a job, but because homeless people are the natural consequence of making housing unaffordably expensive. The only actual solution to homelessness is the one thing California will never do on pain of death. The homeless shelters are there to create moral cover for NIMBYs making the city too expensive to live in. So the homeless shelters aren't ripping off the shitlibs; the shitlibs are paying them to sweep the problem under the rug, and they are dutifully doing so.
[0] Cars ruin property values, because cars require lots of very expensive infrastructure like highways and stroads, and nobody wants to live or shop next to a giant pollution generator. In contrast, access to public transit increases land value! But the California gentry all drive so they don't care about this.
[1] Please interpret "homeless shelters" to mean "any government agency involved with homelessness management". Technically speaking SF has a lot of unsheltered homeless because, well, living unsheltered is just not as hellishly awful as it is in other cities.