https://twitter.com/jack/status/1053312149815091200?s=21 Jack Dorsey of Square saying that the revenue tax is unfair to payment processors and fintech, they will pay twice what Salesforce does. Patrick Collision of Stripe said something similar. Lyft’s reasoning is unclear but they donated against it. I am against Prop C, but I don’t say that IRL.
We had an internal discussion about this. I'm against prop c as well. Comparing between SF and NYC spending on homelessness is actually eye opening. Similar COL but we spend something like 31% more per capita than NYC while having less homeless per capita. Given that SF doesn't have extreme weather conditions for half the year that NYC does, it's embarrassing how much we're spending. I'd be ok with it if it wasn't just a black hole of wasted money. But it is and everyone immediately says that you hate homeless kids if you're against it. Prop C isn't going to fix the issue. It's just a band-aid fix that will help mask our incredibly inefficient spending. I'd rather us get our shit together first and understand the actual issue. But you can't do that without a bunch of people yelling about how you're an awful human being. San Francisco is a great example of how being too liberal is not a way to run a government. Edit: 40% -> 31%
^ this Curious to see reputable links proving your percentages here. They're definitely believable to me, having lived in both cities.
Of course! SF previously spent $250M. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/29-million-increase-for-San-Francisco-12902707.php NYC spent almost 1.687 billion in 2017: https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2018/04/26/de-blasio-adds-386m-to-city-budget-for-homeless-services/amp/ NYC is 8.623 million, SF is 884,363. SF has approx 7500 homeless (https://www.businessinsider.com/why-is-san-francisco-so-dirty-2018-2#nbc-bay-area-hit-the-streets-of-the-tenderloin-and-the-surrounding-mid-market-area-a-neighborhood-known-for-its-mix-of-high-powered-tech-companies-and-homeless-people-1) while NYC has 77,000 (https://www.businessinsider.com/new-york-homeless-crisis-deblasio-solutions-2018-2). Spending: $1.687B/8.623M = $195.64/person. $250M/884363 = 282.69/person. SF is spending 31% more than NYC. Homeless per population: 77000 / 8.623M = 0.0089 7500/ 884363 = 0.0085, so SF actually has less homeless than NYC. This is actually pretty sad.
Why is fintech Particularly targeted by prop c?
Because Prop C taxes revenue, not profits. Stripe/Square’s revenue is every transaction at every random store/website, even though a majority of that goes straight to the card companies (Visa, MasterCard, Discover, Amex etc).
Why they conservative with money? I thought liberal
San Francisco can’t fix the homeless problem with more money. It can’t fix the housing crisis unless it opens up its market & tells historic areas that new development is more important. There’s a lot of cronyism in the bay are if you ask me.
New houses are for you, not for homeless. They don't even have money but you do.
The market has zero solutions for homelessness - you need below-market rate housing for that to happen - as long as a walk to the FiDi is a lot nicer than the freeway or trains, then no amount of additional units would create enough of a glut in homes in SF that working-poor, let alone outright homeless could afford it. NYC has a pretty good public housing program from what I heard. That would be a start.
People in this thread have argued that “throwing” resources towards people without resources will not solve a problem of lack of resources. I think this is a bad argument because it’s just turning a priority (less government spending) as some kind of absolute without explaining why or how: “programs just can’t fix it-any program-you just can’t!” Stepping out of this specific prop question, what in your view would solve homelessness in SF?
Given that the mayor herself has no confidence in this influx of money to be properly handled, how exactly is that a bad argument? Reminder that our mayor grew up in public housing. She's much more connected to this than anyone and she doesn't believe it's the right thing to do at this time.
Well I’m not talking about this prop specifically. But on the voting record, Breed has favored developers (and is favored by developers) and voted against measures that would restrict landlords from kicking tenements out to “airbnb” the unit or turn it into a condo. Breed thinks that relaxing regulations for developers will create more housing which will include some low income housing (she’s voted to lower the amount of low-income housing required for new developments) but will mostly trickle-down eventually. She was opposed by tenant groups while receiving more campaign contributions from developers than her opponents. She may have grown up in public housing, but her career and livelihood today depend on developers, not decent public housing. https://www.48hills.org/2016/09/the-real-housing-record-of-london-breed/amp/
She's right about relaxing regulations for developers. The way to do affordable housing that actually works is to give people money to buy housing on the same market as everyone else, just like we do with "affordable food". https://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2014/10/24/what-works-and-what-doesnt-in-low-income-housing
Make another city for homeless need money
Yikes, as expected that Twitter thread has a lot of people who can't come up with a better argument than "YOU LIKE KILLING HOMELESS PEOPLE". As a liberal that's just a disgusting amount of ignorance.
I love watching liberals destroying themselves with utterly stupid laws 😂
San Fran spends more than enough money on homeless. Taxing and throwing more money at this problem isn’t going to solve it, smart politicians who are willing to fix it is the real solution. The politicians that get elected in San Fran are the worst bunch.