Biden may force American taxpayers to foot bill for San Francisco homeless hotels

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Bradford Betz | Fox News




San Francisco hotels used to house homeless people may be fully funded by the federal government this year, thanks to an executive order signed by President Joe Biden signed last Thursday.

Under the order, certain kinds of emergency housing for the homeless are eligible to be fully reimbursed through September.

San Francisco, which has one of the highest homeless populations in the nation, spends between $15 million to $18 million per month to house more than 2,200 people in about 25 hotels, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

The city’s hotel rooms were mentioned in Thursday’s executive order. But details as to how its housing program will be funded remain unclear.

"I think it’s safe to say it will apply from now until September, for those that are eligible," said City Controller Ben Rosenfield. His team is waiting on more detailed guidance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) before announcing precisely how the program will be affected.

The department said last year it would reimburse San Francisco’s program until the end of the COVID-19 pandemic, but it never made clear how it would define the end.

Still, city officials welcomed the news on Thursday. The Trump administration never made clear when the funding would be cut off, prompting worry that the city would have to pay for the housing program entirely on their own and scramble to relocate the homeless.

KQED reported last year that the Bay Area has one of the largest gaps in California between its highest and lowest income earners.

The report cited data from the California Budget and Policy Center which showed that between 2006 and 2018, income for the state's top 5% of households grew nearly 20%, while income for households in the bottom 20% fell by 20%.

Approximately during that time, homeless in California increased by more than 22%, according to data from the Homelessness Policy Research Institute.

[Pony]

spends between $15 million to $18 million per month to house more than 2,200 people

$8000 per person per month?

[Teh One Who Knocks]

$8000 per person per month?

They deserve the absolute best

[lost in melb.]

What are the alternatives, though?

[DemonGeminiX]

What are the alternatives, though?

Make Joe Biden and the Democrats pay for it instead. Anytime the Democrats want us to pay for something, they always include a clause in the text of the bill/order that exempts them from having to pitch in.

[lost in melb.]

Make Joe Biden and the Democrats pay for it instead. Anytime the Democrats want us to pay for something, they always include a clause in the text of the bill/order that exempts them from having to pitch in.

Ok, funny funny...

[DemonGeminiX]

Ok, funny funny...

I'm not kidding. That's the way it is.

Wanna go a little further? Why should the entire nation be on the hook for what the Californian government decided to implement in one of their cities? What would we get out of it? Nothing. So let California deal with it by themselves. If they didn't have the money to implement it, then they shouldn't have done it. They created the homeless population with their stupid policies to begin with. Why should we foot the bill for their continued malfeasance? Let them learn some political and fiscal responsibility.

[lost in melb.]

I'm not kidding. That's the way it is.

Wanna go a little further? Why should the entire nation be on the hook for what the Californian government decided to implement in one of their cities? What would we get out of it? Nothing. So let California deal with it by themselves. If they didn't have the money to implement it, then they shouldn't have done it. They created the homeless population with their stupid policies to begin with. Why should we foot the bill for their continued malfeasance? Let them learn some political and fiscal responsibility.

It's a philosophical position. Fine...but not really a solution for the homeless issue.

[DemonGeminiX]

It's a philosophical position. Fine...but not really a solution for the homeless issue.

Not a philosophical position either. Think about it. Every state in the union has its own economy. Some do better than others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._States_by_GDP

Do you see where California is in that list? If they're doing so well economically, then why do they need the rest of the nation to pay for their pet projects? They should be able to cover it all by themselves no problem. So where's all the money that California makes? Where's all that money going if they can''t cover their own feel good solutions?

[lost in melb.]

Not a philosophical position either. Think about it. Every state in the union has its own economy. Some do better than others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._States_by_GDP

Do you see where California is in that list? If they're doing so well economically, then why do they need the rest of the nation to pay for their pet projects? They should be able to cover it all by themselves no problem. So where's all the money that California makes? Where's all that money going if they can''t cover their own feel good solutions?

Ok, so Federal money only goes towards projects you like, in states that you like? Admirable. But I don't think it works like that.

I don't have time to check but I'm betting that the executive order was for a few things.

p.s. "may be fully funded"

Looks like another hit job on California.

[DemonGeminiX]

Ok, so Federal money only goes towards projects you like, in states that you like? Admirable. But I don't think it works like that.

I don't have time to check but I'm betting that the executive order was for a few things.

p.s. "may be fully funded"

Looks like another hit job on California.

No, federal money should go to the entire nation, not individual states or cities, unless there's a serious disaster/emergency. I.e. hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. Federal money should largely go to national security and infrastructure, things that benefit all of the citizens. If individual states want money for things, then they should raise it themselves, and California shouldn't need federal help with anything, given the amount of money their economy pulls in.

[lost in melb.]

No, federal money should go to the entire nation, not individual states or cities, unless there's a serious disaster/emergency. I.e. hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. Federal money should largely go to national security and infrastructure, things that benefit all of the citizens. If individual states want money for things, then they should raise it themselves, and California shouldn't need federal help with anything, given the amount of money their economy pulls in.

I broadly agree when you put it like that. however, often it doesn't appear to work like that. Stepping back from this particular issue, for example we have infrastructure projects that are matched 50/50 ish between state and federal levels here in Australia ( with further private outsourcing). It's a bit of a political horse trading thing, with the end process being 'negotiated' but it does get the stuff built.

When only have 7 States though...

[DemonGeminiX]

I broadly agree when you put it like that. however, often it doesn't appear to work like that. Stepping back from this particular issue, for example we have infrastructure projects that are matched 50/50 ish between state and federal levels here in Australia ( with further private outsourcing). It's a bit of a political horse trading thing, with the end process being 'negotiated' but it does get the stuff built.

When only have 7 States though...

It would work like that if people took responsibility for their decisions and actions, instead of crying to be saved every time something doesn't work out the way they intended. It would work like that if people kept their word. I'm not against helping people. In fact, if you knew me outside of this forum, you'd be surprised how generous I really am.

California is rife with corruption. There are earlier articles in this section about this very same project since its inception. We've been watching it for a while. They estimated a cost for a certain number of buildings and supposedly paid to have them all built. Somewhere along the line, money went missing, deadlines were missed, and the number of promised buildings were drastically reduced. The project was seriously mishandled from the planning stages, and you could set a watch to its impending failure, because it's California and California is run by Democrats.

[FBD]

You cant really explain results like this without corruption and graft. I'm sure its entirely a coincidence that all of the areas with the most severe fiscal problems are all democrat controlled.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Not a philosophical position either. Think about it. Every state in the union has its own economy. Some do better than others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._States_by_GDP

Do you see where California is in that list? If they're doing so well economically, then why do they need the rest of the nation to pay for their pet projects? They should be able to cover it all by themselves no problem. So where's all the money that California makes? Where's all that money going if they can''t cover their own feel good solutions?

To put it in even more context than just California vs other states: