6000 more to go: Assessing San Francisco’s Homeless Count

First of all, you're adding to the community-based reporting on indybay. You've simply cut & pasted from an external editorial.

Second, the editorial you pasted from does not demonstrate accurate counting of the homeless population. The report suggests that the number of homeless people were counted by how many people registered for General Assistance.

There are a number of reasons this does not accurately reflect the homeless count. For one thing, not all homeless people apply for General Assistance. I never did as a homeless person. For another thing, the report suggests that twenty-five percent of people on General Assistance "lie" about being homeless. Being homeless is not a requirement for being on General Assistance. In fact, the expenses incurred from renting an apartment generally make one more qualified to receive General Assistance. I only applied for General Assistance once I had already established residency.

Another thing this reporting doesn't accurately take into consideration is *why* there has been a decline in the number of people applying for General Assistance. People who toute the decrease in number applying for General Assistance have clearly never applied for General Assitance themselves. The humongous decrease in the monetary assistance from GA makes it hugely illogical to go through the process of applying. There are hours upon hours of work required to apply and meet the qualifications to receive General Assistance. In fact, for myself, and when GA came to 300+ dollars a month, it was illogical for me to go through the hours of application process (waiting, returning, interviewing, 7:00 am interviewing, the hours of painting trash cans at below minimum wage, paperwork, monthly paperwork submission, finger printing, lines, ....) It made more sense for me to return to sex work than to go through this time comittment. I can't imagine how many people would go through that for the less than 100 dollars now offered.

There's an arguement that less people applying for General Assistance means there are less people who need General Assistance. What does this logic follow? How do people who aren't receiving GA suddenly manage the resources required to get off the streets? When they are 300+ dollars in the whole on top of their condition?

The article suggests that the needs of these people have been alleviated by homeless housing programs. Does the article mention that non-profits such as Conard House and Bakers House have been housing people prior to the decrease in GA? That there is a waiting list for homeless housing? That it takes up to years to be placed into housing? That one must be not only homeless, but mentally ill or dying to qualify for homeless housing? What kind of increase in housing does the article mention? None. The decline in GA recipiants has not been met with equal numbers of additional homeless housing.

I could go on.

Are there any good stories online that deal with this? I've heard some critiques on KPFA and the comment above is good but I havnt seen one good left-wing article online dealing with this.

GA, by law, is the "program of last resort" for people who are indigent. It does not exist as a means for able-bodied people to avoid work. Since the above poster says he felt it too onerous to go through all the paperwork for GA, and therefore returned to "sexwork", I can only assume he should have no trouble finding work in another field...possibly even in another city. It is not the responsibility of the taxpayers of SF to support you because you don't feel like working. Get a job and quit whining. As to the numbers of "homeless" dropping due to CNC, it's quite true. I used to work in that program, and I can testify that at least 25% of my clients did not live in SF at all. We almost always found out, and discontinued their cases. Our most common applicant who was "homeless" actually lived in Oakland or Richmond. Now that SF has an assistance program similar to those cities, the number of phony "homeless" has fallen. Bottom line, folks: when you rip off GA you are ripping off the people who need it most. And I hope you see the writing on the wall. The next step is going to be a serious increase in getting uncooperative people off the street. And then will come a time limit on GA, probably 6 months out of 12. Welcome to the new world. The party is over. You will never, ever, convince most taxpayers in SF that the offer of a clean bed in a shelter in not good enough. If you are destitute and on the street, you'll take it in a minute. If you want cash to shoot up or drink, then pay for it with your own money. You're not getting the taxpayers' cash anymore.

SSI is the program for people who are not able-bodied or able-minded. GA is not a program for disabled people. People on GA must either be working or enroll in the city works program.

While the purpose of GA is to be a service of last resorts, the reality for poor people is that GA does not work as a last resort. For one thing, GA does not cover any human's monthly expenses. The last resorts for people who are not provided work with a living wage are in illegal work, such as sex work, drug trade, thevery, or under the counter work which does not protect workers.

"It is not the responsibility of the taxpayers of SF to support you because you don't feel like working. Get a job and quit whining"

I was working two part time jobs when I applied for GA and was not able to find better employment. I am someone who has been employed at such places as Charles Schwab, as a Nanny and now as a Teacher. I have also been homeless, and have had to rely on sex work for my income. It *is* indeed telling that GA was not a viable option for me.

"You will never, ever, convince most taxpayers in SF that the offer of a clean bed in a shelter in not good enough."

Dear sir, I would gladly invite you to spend a month where the most comfortable provisions are a "clean" bed and a shelter. For starters, beds in shelters are rarely clean. Shelters are something that many of us can't get into, because they are over crowded. In addition, shelters operate under enter and exit time schedules that most humans don't. (For example, most shelters require that you are in the shelter at 6:00 pm or 8:00 pm. Do you go to bed at 6:00 or 8:00?) Finally, the worse thing about shelters is that they are unsafe. Very, very unsafe. They are not a place I would choose to stay in. And I'm very certain that you, dear dignified soul, would not, either. However, it seems pretty clear that you don't consider the dignity of homeless people. It's also rather telling that you believe a shelter is the best solution we can provide for our fellow humans that have no place to sleep.

"If you are destitute and on the street, you'll take it in a minute."

I love to hear the wisdom of someone who has never been on the streets.

" If you want cash to shoot up or drink, then pay for it with your own money."

Could you outline the new initiatives to combat drug and alcohol abuse under Newsom? What new programs has he initiated? How effective have they been? Has he worked to alleviate the reasons people resort to drug and alcohol abuse? Have you ever been addicted to drugs or alcohol?