Berkeley has a tent community dead in the middle of downtown on some government property. Berkeley's homeless problem is really front-and-center. The otherwise nice parks in the area are pretty unusable.
I'm sorry, I have zero sympathy to people from Berkeley complaining. Considering the amount of money that Berkeley citizens collectively have and the progressive positions that they hold I am baffled why they do not add an addition $X thousand per year tax to everyone who makes more than a federal poverty level there to make sure that all out of luck homeless people have a real roof over their head, warm meals and medical care.
Unless of course the so called progressive population does not actually care that the middle of downtown Berkeley looks like a third world country.
20% of berkeley population lives below powerty level. So lets say it is 100k that are left.
36M/100k is what? $360 per person? There, I just solved Berkeley homeless problem at a price of less than 5 bottles of Napa Valley Cab per person who screamed at the sky in the city of Berkeley the day Trump became President Elect.
To wahsd (dead comment): I get your point, but you should ask if the people are poor because they vote Democrat, or they vote Democrat because they're poor (and see themselves better represented by the Democrat platform)?
Maybe not even/just poor, but excluded from local economy/politics due to race, gender, ethnicity, not being a member of the old boys' club, etc.
We've all seen the articles about Republican controlled cities putting homeless people on buses for Berkeley and other destinations in CA. wahsd is clueless.
This raises an interesting question: Do US democrats think inter-state immigration is bad? For example some liberal friends when talking about immigration last year kept posting that poem on the statue of liberty:
> "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free", etc.
The Republican controlled cities are giving huddled masses to the people who accept that immigration logic.
> Do US democrats think inter-state immigration is bad?
Not at all. The US has a big problem with homelessness, and for a long time we've been sticking our head in the sand.
Cities like SF have been trying to do something about it for a while, but I don't believe any city can solve the problem. This issue is greater than one city or one state. It's a national problem that requires national solutions.
Agreed. It's made worse by the fact that homeless people are often transient. When a city does a good job of providing services to homeless people, homeless people travel there. Rinse, repeat until the services are overwhelmed, and everyone goes back to "why are we failing to deal with our homelessness problem?"
It worked for SLC because SLC is isolated and expensive to travel to. In the tightly packed, interconnected megalopolises of the Bay Area, LA, and the Northeast, good luck getting anything to work long-term at just the municipal level.
Utah simply housed their homeless and it was cheaper because homeless people were no longer using emergency services for basic healthcare among other things[1]/
It's only a fraction of the people that are homeless in CA, but a great result none the less. Here is an article of just LA. Seems quite out of control compared with Utah. :(
