• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    3210 months ago

    This is the opposite of the advice in the book, The End of Policing. Book was so good that I bought copies for people close to me.

    Just take care of people. We can afford to. It costs less than enforcement costs.

    • @evergreen
      link
      8
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      From the article:

      Breed’s office has said the measure was intentionally designed to be flexible on the treatment component. Treatment options could range from out-patient services to a prescription for buprenorphine, a medication used to treat addiction. They noted it doesn’t include a requirement for participants to remain sober, recognizing that people often lapse in recovery and shouldn’t be kicked out of the program for a slip-up.

    • @mods_are_assholes
      link
      110 months ago

      Just take care of people. We can afford to.

      Sure we can, but we won’t, because to certain people in power the cruelty is the purpose.

      I mean the book is spot on, but taking care of people is socialism and that’s a dirty word nowadays.

      Plus scared and disconnected people buy more stuff so we suffer for the sake of capitalism.

      • @Etterra
        link
        210 months ago

        It helps them to have an enemy to blame for… whatever. They move the target a lot, but the poor are in the worst position to fight back. And the powers that be don’t want a fair fight; they want to punch down and then brag about how right they were and that that’s why you should re-elect them. Because they’re sociopaths.

        • @mods_are_assholes
          link
          110 months ago

          that’s why you should re-elect them. Because they’re sociopaths.

          Care to go back and edit or nah?

    • @Cryophilia
      link
      010 months ago

      Just take care of people. We can afford to

      Debatable. San Francisco spends a billion dollars a year on homelessness. That’s unsustainable even for SF. Only 800,000 people live in SF.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        110 months ago

        Debatable. San Francisco spends a billion dollars a year on homelessness. That’s unsustainable even for SF. Only 800,000 people live in SF.

        The costs for locking up homeless people is greater than the cost of providing housing. The following quote is from a slapdash search; I haven’t read the document because my original source is a book, The End of Policing, and that book had multiple citations that I’m not listing here.

        As identified in the chart above, the total cost of incarceration is estimated to be 25% higher than the total cost of providing equivalent supportive services to prevent recidivism.

        https://santabarbara.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=05bf1da9-a734-43e0-93fd-54ca33867e77.pdf&From=Granicus

        • @Cryophilia
          link
          010 months ago

          There’s a question of induced demand. We don’t have really good data, but anecdotally there’s a common belief that a lot of SFs homeless either migrated here from other parts of the country or were bussed here, because of SFs lenience.

          During most surveys, most homeless people report being born here. Which is a useless fact, because if they report being from somewhere else, they’ll likely get sent back there.

          In any case, San Francisco does not incarcerate the homeless. It allows them to live on the streets.