MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

San Francisco Just Passed the Largest Tax Increase in City History. It's Anybody's Guess if It's Legal.

Prop C hikes business taxes by $300 million to pay for homeless services.

Ray Chavez/TNS/NewscomRay Chavez/TNS/NewscomSan Francisco voters just passed a huge tax increase on business to pay for homelessness services, but it's anyone's guess if the new levy is legally enforceable.

On Tuesday, some 60 percent of Bay City residents voted in favor of Proposition C, a ballot initiative that would raise an estimated $300 million a year for housing, mental health treatment, and other services for the city's 7,500 homeless residents through a hike in the city's business gross receipts tax.

That's a huge amount of new revenue, increasing the take from the city's current business taxes by some 33 percent, and nearly doubling the $380 million the city currently spends on the homeless.

Because it's a gross receipts tax, it would tax companies' total revenue, regardless of how profitable they are.

The specter of such a huge tax hike—the largest in the city's history—proved controversial long before Tuesday. San Francisco mayor London Breed, State Sen. Scott Weiner (D–San Francisco), and many of the city's tech businesses came out against it.

Supporting Prop C were a coalition of homeless advocates, as well as Marc Benioff, the colorful billionaire CEO of Salesforce. Benioff spent at least $7 million of personal and corporate funds supporting the measure.

Despite a commanding win at the polls, the future of Prop C is still very much up in the air thanks to a confusing court ruling which has left California's cities unsure of what percentage of the vote tax initiatives must win to become law. The California Constitution requires that "special taxes"—those dedicated to funding a specific government program—must be approved by two-thirds of voters. That would seem to invalidate Prop. C, which garnered only 60 percent of the vote.

However, in August 2017, the California Supreme Court ruled that some constitutional limitations on ballot initiatives only apply to those measures placed on the ballot by local governments, and not to citizen initiatives that earn their spot on the ballot through signature gathering campaigns. While that particular case did not specifically address voting thresholds, it has nonetheless provided ammo for those claiming that special taxes put on the ballot as citizens initiatives—which would include Prop. C—need only a simple majority approval.

In October 2017, City Attorney Dennis Herrera sent a memo to city election officials saying, "[I]t seems very likely that voters may now propose special taxes by initiative subject only to a majority vote."

Then in June, San Francisco passed two special taxes—one for teacher salaries, the other for subsidized childcare—with less than a two-thirds majority. Shortly thereafter, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association—an anti-tax group—sued the city, claiming that the two taxes were illegal.

This has city leaders in a pickle.

Going ahead with spending Prop. C tax dollars will undoubtably get the city sued again. Sitting on its hands will piss off the sizable majority of voters who approved the tax, and are clearly anxious for the city to do something about the rising tide of homelessness.

That would include Benioff, who's urged the city to get spending, legal consequences be damned.

"Let's enforce Prop. C. There's no legal question. If anyone is coming after this, the City Attorney's job is to defend it, and of course we are going to give him our full support as well," Benioff told the San Francisco Examiner on Wednesday.

City Controller Ben Rosenfield, however, has said that his office cannot sign off on spending any of this money given the ongoing legal uncertainty surrounding the tax.

"Should Proposition C fall short of approval by two-thirds of voters," wrote Rosenfield in a Wednesday letter to Breed, "my office would not be able to certify these funds given current legal uncertainties."

This kind of legal confusion is one of the reasons Breed advocated against passing Prop. C in the first place.

"If it passes, Proposition C will likely immediately become part of an ongoing lawsuit to invalidate it," she wrote in an October blog post, warning that "the lawsuit could go on for years, preventing us from even moving forward similar homelessness funding measures. The City could be left balancing its budget with a $300 million unknown baked in."

In that same post Breed also laid out a number of policy objections to Prop. C, saying the initiative's spending plan is both vague and unaccountable.

Indeed, there are a lot of reasons to be skeptical that Prop C is what San Francisco needs to address its serious homelessness issues. Getting homeless folks off the streets and into a position where they can look after themselves is no easy task, and belies one single policy solution.

A growing consensus among experts is that "housing first" approach—where you get the homeless into permanent housing first and then get to work solving other substance abuse or mental health issues—is the way to go. That's a tall order in a city that managed to add only 1,400 units of affordable housing last year, and where publicly-funded affordable housing can cost as much as $700,000 per unit to construct.

Meanwhile, the city's top economist estimates that the gross receipts tax hike contained in Prop. C will cost the city $200-240 million a year in GDP and anywhere from 14,700 to 17,500 jobs over the next 20 years. That's because under Prop. C, some 3 percent of the city's businesses would be responsible for paying about 67 percent of its business taxes, which is significantly more than the 57 percent they pay now. (Business taxes currently pay for about 8 percent of San Francisco's $12 billion annual budget. Under Prop. C, business taxes would cover closer to 10 percent of the city budget.)

"The risk of losing businesses is higher when a tax is shouldered by a small number of businesses rather than a broader set of taxpayers," warned local think tank SPUR (which ultimately came out in support of Prop. C.)

Before jacking up taxes on the goose that lays the golden egg, San Francisco voters and politicians could look at city policies that make it difficult and damn expensive to build new housing, including ludicrously restrictive zoning laws and a byzantine permitting approval process. After all, shaking down businesses for more taxes might not even be legal.

Photo Credit: Ray Chavez/TNS/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Ben_||

    San Francisco is going to be the homeless capital of the world.

  • Juice||

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    And half their homeless population will have 6 figure incomes.

  • Cy||

    It's good to be the victim.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    No, you just need a 7 figure income to be able to afford housing in San Francisco.

  • Sevo||

    Yes, it was easily sold, since it will be paid by KKKorparashuns, who will simply harvest the money from the trees in the board room.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    People should hate that Salesforce guy for spending the money on advertising the law rather than helping the homeless. Well within his purview.

  • BYODB||

    Yeah, that's the bit that should cause people to scratch their heads in confusion. Seven million dollars seems like it could probably help more when applied to actually helping instead of campaigning to force everyone else to pay. Especially when you're slitting the throats of businesses that actually pay the tax, meaning that after they are bled dry it seems that Benioff would be the next in line for bleeding.

  • Hank Phillips||

    SoCal beats the heck out of a barbed-wire-surrounded tent city in Texas, crawling with rape-murdering border guards. If I were a Guatemalan bracero I'd march West through Guadalajara to Puerto Vallarta then hitch a tramp steamer north to LA or SF and get in on some of that paradisical sanctuary for the homeless.

  • Remember to keep it all polit||

    I bet the homeless population doubles as quick as they can get there.

  • perlchpr||

    Migrant caravan?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    On Tuesday, some 60 percent of Bay City residents voted in favor of Proposition C, a ballot initiative that would raise an estimated $300 million a year for housing, mental health treatment, and other services for the city's 7,500 homeless residents through a hike in the city's business gross receipts tax.

    Only 60%? And people say there's no hope for San Francisco.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Oh, by the way, I presume this $300mm a year is over and above what San Francisco already spends on homelessness services.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    That's a huge amount of new revenue, increasing the take from the city's current business taxes by some 33 percent, and nearly doubling the $380 million the city currently spends on the homeless.

    That'll teach me to post before reading. I'm surprised SF only spends $380mm. That seems a bit light.

  • Juice||

    What is that per homeless person? Wikipedia says SF has about 7000 homeless people.

    As of 2014, the city is believed to have approximately 7,000 homeless residents. As of 2015, approximately 71% of the city's homeless had housing in the city before becoming homeless, while the remaining 29% came from outside of San Francisco.

    So $680 million per year is about $97,000 per person. Sounds like a halfway decent income even for that area. Get a few roomates and you've got a household income of almost $300-400k.

    That is, if you just directly gave homeless people the money, but of course that's not how it works. That's what it takes to pay 700 bureaucrats to administer the program for 7000 people. Because if you just gave away the money then all of a sudden the homeless would flock to SF and many more people would suddenly qualify as "homeless" so they could get the free money too. Because homeless people and other types are deeply influenced by these kinds of incentives, but bureaucrats and politicians are not.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    They spend the money on the homeless problem, not the homeless. If you were paid huge fees to study and solve a problem, what would your incentives be?

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    To make the problem bigger and/or re-define it in a way that it can never be solved no matter how much money you throw at it.

    The latter is what they have done with poverty in general. First, define it in relative terms, so a rising tide lifting all boats lifts the poverty line too, then exclude government entitlement payments from income in determining poverty. Even if the government could spend infinite money fighting poverty, the way it's defined, zero progress would be made.

  • TangoDelta||

    Throwing money at a problem usually makes the problem bigger.

    Hmm... 7,500 homeless, 60% voted for it, were there much more than 12,000 votes in total?

    Wait 'til they find out a latte costs $147.50.

  • Cy||

    "If you were paid huge fees to study and solve a problem, what would your incentives be?"

    Helloooooo globa... I mean "Climate change!"

  • H. Farnham||

    I wonder if you have to be full-time homeless to qualify for benefits? I'd consider flying out to SF for a few days every couple weeks, sleep in subways, and shit on sidewalks. That should get me a cut of that $100k/yr I would think.

  • Juice||

    I'll shit on whatever you need me to shit on for $100k/yr. Hell, I'll do it for $90k.

  • H. Farnham||

    United Vagrants Brotherhood - Local 52 will not abide you driving down wages for public shitters like that.

  • TuIpa||

    "I'll shit on whatever you need me to shit on for $100k/yr. Hell, I'll do it for $90k."

    You sound like ENB.

  • John C. Randolph||

    ll of a sudden the homeless would flock to SF

    They already do. I remember a case a few years back where some bum got caught commuting from Sacramento to SF to fraudulently collect monthly handouts.

    -jcr

  • Sevo||

    Might have been farther up in the foothills rather than Sacto, but that was reported at the time.
    The cost of the Greyhound ride to SF was well under the handout amount, and since, as a 'homeless' person s/he did not need to provide an address, s/he got the free shit.
    Living in the foothills (I think that was the 'home') is pretty cheap, so the free shit went a long way.
    I don't recall being thanked.

  • Remember to keep it all polit||

    You probably presume lotto money is all pure gravy for school funding too.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Of course not, there are management costs, patronage jobs, studies to perform, consultants to pay, raises to be handed out, new executive level positions to create.

    People have no idea just how expensive it is manage a homelessness problem.

  • Remember to keep it all polit||

    I meant that money is fungible, and every dollar from the lotto just removed a matching dollar from the general fund for education. Only idiots thought they were adding to the school budget.

  • Sevo||

    "Of course not, there are management costs, patronage jobs, studies to perform, consultants to pay, raises to be handed out, new executive level positions to create."

    The SF city gov't replaced the "Bum Czar" several years ago with a guy who promised results. The Chron (local lefty rag) ran a puff piece on him, and (true story) mentioned that he had a white board in his office as evidence of how he was making progress.
    I really like to see how my tax dollars are being spent effectively, so you can imagine how satisfied I was as a result...

  • John C. Randolph||

    e had a white board in his office

    Obviously a racist.

    -jcr

  • Ficri P||

    People should hate that Salesforce for spending the money on advertising the law rather than helping the homeless.
    Jasa YouTube & Daily Ponsel.

  • Bubba Jones||

    That is $40k per year per homeless person.

    Lol.

  • Ron||

    33% tax on gross receipts why does anyone do business there and how long can they sustain that. don't they realize raising taxes only raises expenses and thus making it harder to live there. do they not know the 2+2 = 4

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    It's a city of rich people and homeless people. No word on how it got that way.

  • I'm Not Sure||

    In a perfect world, the people who voted for this thinking that they won't be the ones paying the tax will lose their jobs when their employers move out of state.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Supporting Prop C were a coalition of homeless advocates, as well as Marc Benioff, the colorful billionaire CEO of Salesforce. Benioff spent at least $7 million of personal and corporate funds supporting the measure.

    Greedy republican business leaders won't stop this from becoming law, because we're gonna get the money out of politi.... what's that? He supports it? He's dumping $7 mm into the campaign? Carry on.

  • IceTrey||

    How many homeless could have been helped with that 7 million?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Not very many, as history has repeatedly shown.

  • perlchpr||

    Well, it'd be what, $1,000 each? I wonder if the homeless would have preferred to just get a pay out.

  • Cy||

    Their drug dealers should would prefer that.

  • perlchpr||

    And then, bam. Smaller homeless problem.

  • Jerryskids||

    On Tuesday, some 60 percent of Bay City residents voted in favor of Proposition C, a ballot initiative that would raise an estimated $300 million a year for housing, mental health treatment, and other services for the city's 7,500 homeless residents through a hike in the city's business gross receipts tax.

    And I'm sure the homeless will be grateful for the money when all the volunteer homeless helpers come around with the checks. It's not as if an obscenely large chunk of the money is going to be in the form of paychecks for the humble public servants and professional do-gooder "community activists" who, purely out of the kindness of their hearts, minister to the needs of the less-fortunate among us whilst haranguing the taxpayers about their lack of compassion.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Uh, the businesses are empty at night. The homeless need some place to go at night. Am I the only one seeing an easy solution here? Come on people, it's right in front of your noses. Pay the homeless to stand guard outside the front door of businesses all night!

  • CE||

    Stand guard? There's perfectly good cubicles just sitting empty. A lot of these companies have break rooms with kitchens too.

  • Presskh||

    Yeah, that's a workable solution, for sure - let homeless people who litter, piss, and shit on the streets while shooting up heroin occupy your business offices at night, with all of your expensive computer and other office equipment just sitting there. What could possibly go wrong?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    A growing consensus among experts is that "housing first" approach—where you get the homeless into permanent housing first and then get to work solving other substance abuse or mental health issues—is the way to go.

    I'm sure that sounds good on paper, but Seattle has been doing this and it's almost a complete failure.

    "housing first" means... what exactly? You are placed in a structure? Ok, are there any rules to being placed in the structure? Yes? There are rules? Oh shit, huge percentages of homeless refuse shelter and services because they don't like the rules. So Seattle creates what's called a "low barrier" village. And then this happens:

    That was a draw for many of the city's hardest-to-serve homeless people who had previously refused offers of shelter. But it incensed residents of the surrounding north Seattle neighborhood; calls for police service on the block where Licton Springs sits spiked 62 percent in a year, according to a Seattle Times analysis.

    So they shut it down.

  • creech||

    $300 million? So that's like, what, 15 or 20 houses at the current real estate market value?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    A state bank makes lending on that really cheap. Free, in fact.

  • Nonstopdrivel||

    German news outlets are reporting that Ruth Bader Ginsburg fell in her office and fractured some ribs. Fractured ribs aren't as worrisome as fractured hips, but they're still concerning. The morbid side of me is already gearing up for the shitshow that is going to ensue when the Senate convenes confirmation hearings for Trump's third Supreme Court nominee.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Great, Steve Smith II: The Revenge of Steve Smith, Nominee. I can't wait.

  • Presskh||

    Time for old Ruthie to take her dirt nap!

  • Cyto||

    That is an astonishing amount of money. $40,000 per homeless person, per year, using their numbers.

    And as noted above, this is the increase in spending on the homeless. The total is really close to $100k each.

    That is beyond nuts. If you can't take care of "the homeless" for less than $50k per year each, you are doing something wrong. That's double the median income per capita. (and of course, that number does not include medicaid, food stamps, HUD, and other federal and state programs)

  • Juice||

    That is an astonishing amount of money. $40,000 per homeless person, per year, using their numbers.

    That's the increase, not the total.

  • Juice||

    LOL sorry. Not sure why my eyes passed right over the next sentence.

  • Cyto||

    I hate it when that happens.

    This is when you need your Emily Litella voice... "Oh. Well that's different then. .... Never mind."

  • John||

    This is an employment and payoff program for liberal activists.

  • Trollificus||

    "take care of "the homeless" for less than $50k per year each,"???

    You must be kidding. You won't get a world-class homeless problem by going cheap on it! You need money, lots of it, and a lot of hard work by the activists who worked hard to make that money available to hard-working activists!

    Even then, it remains problematic...a study of Portland's homeless 'solutions' showed that while they increased the amount of money available for homelessness by 50% over 3 years, actual homelessness in the area increased by only 37%. This speaks to how inefficient-but-politicaly-useful just handing money out to the 67 organizations, advocacy groups, and activists trying to fix the problem really is.

  • Calidissident||

    Why do I have a feeling that the results of spending $100k per homeless person aren't going to be what one might consider a reasonable outcome of spending that amount of money?

    Beinoff should have donated the $7m he spent on this measure to homeless charities.

  • H. Farnham||

    My thought exactly, Beinoff could have cut $10,000 checks and given them directly to 10% of the homeless population. Though I guess it's not "fair" if you give money to a cause you deem worthy, and nobody else has to.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    He could have done targeted helping as well. Which is much more effective.

    The difference between short term and long term homeless is significant. And the helping each of them is quite different. The latter group having a large amount of mental illness as well, which has a huge amount of it's own difficulties to deal with.

    The short term homeless, people who have lost their job, had an emergency and gone bankrupt, etc, are very sympathetic. And they tend to actually to get out of it eventually.

    But there's a not insignificant contingency who just don't care about being homeless. That is, being homeless is preferable to them than working or whatever.

  • Nonstopdrivel||

    A few years back, the City of Philadelphia launched an initiative to get homeless veterans off the streets. They succeeded in housing all but fifteen of them. Those fifteen men all refused housing. I wonder what proportion of San Francisco's homeless population would refuse shelter that was offered to them.

  • Nonstopdrivel||

    Just to clarify, the city offered to put these folks up for free -- and fifteen of them still refused. That's why whenever someone walks up to me and asks if I'm willing to give a homeless vet a buck or two, I tell him to piss off. Because I know he's either lying about being a vet or willingly homeless. Either way, he doesn't need my hard-earned cash.

  • IceTrey||

    Vis a vis the article photo, if you're hungry and stranded is it a good idea to have a dog and smoke cigarettes?

  • Microaggressor||

    The panhandling income bonus for having a dog is worth the cost.

  • SIV||

    San Francisco is not overreaching enough.

  • Sevo||

    "Sitting on its hands will piss off the sizable majority of voters who approved the tax, and are clearly anxious for the city to do something about the rising tide of homelessness."

    The city is already 'doing something', and like the additional money, it adds to the problem.

  • Longtobefree||

    $300,000,000.00 in taxes
    $700,000.00 per unit
    428 homeless off the streets.
    Oh, wait; no permits to build new structures, no money left for utilities.
    So maybe 325 to 375 actually off the streets?
    In how many years?
    And how much will be raised from the companies that move?

    Oh, well; it's only California.

  • Armchair Lawyer||

    In fairness, it's 300 million per year, and not even SF charges $700,000 per unit per year yet...

  • Microaggressor||

    What are the odds that 300m figure takes capital flight into account?

  • CE||

    You can rent 3,750 two-bedroom apartments at 6K per month, and have money left over for utilities, for 300 million, and house all 7,500 homeless people.

    That would be too straightforward though.

  • MarkLastname||

    So a homeless person doesn't deserve his own apartment, he has to share one with a roommate? What kind of heartless monster are you? Next you'll suggest he should have to ride the bus to the bus stop where he panhandles and isn't entitled to a car of his own.

  • Juice||

  • AlmightyJB||

    That sort of thing isn't my bag.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Sick fuck.

    -jcr

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Stories like that are why I draw the line at shaving my legs.

    In related, but a bit outdated, news, Jordan's Prime Minister stepped down.

  • Trollificus||

    Almost half the words in the headline are cringe-inducing. Jebus.

    And what's the mother to do? Try and kind-shame the guy?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Usually the silicone in the scrotum thing is a little different from an inflation fetish. Pumping would be the more obvious real world inflation activity

  • XM||

    So if your business was breaking even in SF, these new taxes would guarantee that your company would lose money?

    It's a good thing tech companies only need working internet and talented Indians to start their business.

  • Hrimnir||

    I really wish some of these companies would have the balls to do something similar to what Magpul did here in CO and basically just say, "ok, cool, enjoy your 'tax revenue', we'll be taking our entire business out of your state, oh and we're offering to pay employees moving expenses if they'd like to join us, so enjoy that extra 'tax revenue' as well, dueces..."

    Of course sadly many of these silicon valley companies are so ideologically driven they supported this.

  • AlmightyJB||

    "but it's anyone's guess if the new levy is legally enforceable"

    They have thugs I mean cops right?

  • Ecoli||

    Personally, I think this is a great idea. The corporations on the hook for this can either pay it, or move their operations elsewhere. I think they will move. Their move will cause a population decrease. Fewer people competing for housing will cause home prices and rent to come down. The homeless will be able to afford homes, and no longer have to shit on the sidewalk.

    Problem solved.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    But what about the protesters who shat on the sidewalk as a political statement even though their apartments were 200 feet away?

  • Joe M||

    No one did the math?

    $300 million on top of $380 million already spent on the homeless.

    That's for only 7500 people.

    That's ~$90k per person.

    That's about 50% than the median household income.

    That's insane.

  • Joe M||

    50% more than*

  • Chupacabra||

    Sadly enough, $90k is poverty level income in San Francisco.

  • XM||

    yikes

  • Rob Misek||

    Obviously the stupid fuck do gooders in California are tired of hand wringing after all their ideas to empower these wastes of skin went up like a lead balloon.

    Just throw more money at it. Insanity is doing the same thing expecting different results.

    Maybe if Californians asked him nicely, Trump would trade the homeless for caravaners. Homeless people should like the warm climate and the caravaners want a home. Win fucking win.

  • Trigger Warning||

    How long before SF resembles Detroit?

  • Juice||

    Interesting "libertarian moment" from the results in Colorado.

    Colorado's GOP Bloodbath, Explained

    Yesterday in Colorado, voters rejected numerous proposed taxes and government regulations. One of the biggest was Proposition 112, which was an anti-fracking measure that would have outlawed fracking in much of the state. That failed, with 57 percent voting no.

    Meanwhile, a proposed tax to fund government schools — for the children! — failed with 55 percent voting no. Two separate new taxes to fund new transportation projects failed with neither mustering more than 40 percent approval. There was a pro-hemp-industry measure, which passed with 60 percent approval, which is designed to allow more expansion for hemp businesses. 66 percent also voted against new proposed limits on campaign funds. Nor did voters look kindly on an effort to reduce the minimum age for serving in the state legislature to 21 (it's currently 25).The "youth vote" strikes out yet again.

    And yet republicans took a drubbing. Interesting to say the least.

  • Sevo||

    Can we get some of those voters to show up in SF on election day? If they claim to be 'homeless' they don't need a local address to vote.

  • John C. Randolph||

    So, with all this extra loot, how much more shit and dirty needles will there be on the streets of San Francisco? You get what you pay for, after all...

    -jcr

  • Eeyore||

    Say hello to the down slope on the Laffer curve.

  • ||

    San Francisco = Ralph Wiggum.

  • General_Tso||

    That's unpossible!

  • Agammamon||

    . . . are clearly anxious for the city to do something about the rising tide of homelessness.

    This is why all laws should require a supermajority to pass. If these idiots think that the 'do something' this ballot initiative allows will be anything other than 'triple the size of the homeless population' . . .

    On the plus side - at least the homeless problem in the rest of the country will be solved shortly.
  • Agammamon||

    One thing that will be interesting if this stays in effect - how long will San Fransisco remain the tech capital of the US?

  • NoVaNick||

    I give it three years to return to its former glory of seedy bars and urine-soaked sidewalks-oh wait a minute...

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    You'll notice many of the biggest companies are right outside of SF actually. Though Salesforce I believe is actually HQed in the city proper.

    Google, FB and the like are in the Pennisula though.

  • NoVaNick||

    It is somewhat satisfying to see progs ruining their beloved cities just like they did in the 1970s by raising taxes through the roof to fund more services for people who can't support themselves and driving those who pay the taxes out in the process. You would think they'd have learned.

  • perlchpr||

    You would think they'd have learned.

    No, I've talked to leftists. I really wouldn't think that, because they seem incapable of learning.

  • Rich||

    Getting homeless folks off the streets and into a position where they can look after themselves is no easy task, and belies one single policy solution.

    How about just taxing homelessness?

  • tomhynes75||

    Per numbers in article, San Francisco spends $50,000 per year for each homeless person, and plan to spend $100,000 per year

  • Here for the outrage||

    a ballot initiative that would raise an estimated $300 million a year for housing, mental health treatment, and other services for the city's 7,500 homeless residents through a hike in the city's business gross receipts tax.

    That's $40,000 per homeless person per year, more than the average American makes

  • Here for the outrage||

    Where's Tony and the Rev defending this progressive move toward their utopia?

  • juris imprudent||

    Hitchhiking their way to SF.

  • Miter Broller||

    300M for 7500 homeless? Make it 7501, I'll be there in a minute.

  • Cy||

    "On Tuesday, some 60 percent of Bay City residents voted in favor of Proposition C"

    It's like they all knocked back some Koolaid to ride the comet! Only these fucktards stayed here!

    VIRTUE SIGNALLED!

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Yes, they actually feel good about the homeless living on streets and spending the days in their libraries, and clearly want to support more doing the same. Then return to their gated communities and secure high rises and condos where they never have to actually encounter them beyond a passing notice and a buck thrown in their direction.

    They are so much better than us flyover bumpkin bitter clinging irredeemable deplorables [figured I give the Rev a day off by covering all his usual polemic].

  • LarryA||

    A growing consensus among experts is that "housing first" approach—where you get the homeless into permanent housing first and then get to work solving other substance abuse or mental health issues—is the way to go.

    That's like giving drivers who wrecked their cars new cars, then "going to work" discovering you spent all your funds on new cars and finding more funding and setting up programs and discovering you still don't have enough funding because the drivers have wrecked their new cars so you have to spend money to replace them and talking about maybe someday getting the drivers some more driver education. Someday.

  • VinniUSMC||

    San Francisco is just trying to see how fast it can convince all of the businesses there to leave. Then SF can just be a great big homeless cesspool.

    San Francisco: Detroit part 2.

  • CE||

    300 million PER YEAR? For 7,500 homeless people?
    For that much cash, the city could:

    1. Build 7,500 small houses for 40K each. Problem solved.

    or

    2. Rent 7,500 apartments at 3K per month. Okay, it's San Francisco so that's not possible, but they could

    3. Rent 3,750 apartments at 6K per month, and make 2 homeless people share each apartment. Problem solved.

    Then repeal the tax and go away.

  • dwshelf||

    Homelessness has nothing to do with housing.

    Build more housing, it will fill up, and twice as many homeless will take their place.

  • flyfishnevada||

    $300 million is $40,000 per homeless person. Add the $380 million and that's almost $91,000 for each and every homeless individual in S.F. Most families in America don't earn $90,000 a year, many don't earn $40,000. Though I suspect a huge majority of that money raised goes to pay for administration of programs, civil servants getting paid exorbitant wages and all manner of shelters that homeless people don't even use. Something tells me their might be a wee bit of waste, fraud, inefficiencies, vote buying and pocket lining going on.

  • Antilles||

    Doesn't affect me. I don't care. Isn't that the attitude of most voters?

  • ejhickey||

    Won't businesses in SF just raise prices because of the tax?

  • tommhan||

    How the heck can a single unit of " affordable" housing cost 700,000?

  • Home Care Agency CA||

    Yes, you won't get a world-class homeless problem by going cheap on it! You need money, lots of it, and a lot of hard work by the activists who worked hard to make that money available to hard-working activists...

  • Hank Phillips||

    See? What better destination for the locust swarm of clueless Central Americans fleeing God's Own Papacy? Minimum wage of a week's bracero pay per hour, sanctuary from La Migra, sensitive, concerned and aware politicians eager to hand out other people's money... I'll bet there's not even any barbed wire at Mexicali or Tijuana!

  • Rock Lobster||

    I'm surprised libertarians can't see the wisdom of this massive wealth transfer.

    Once the homeless population has achieved economic parity through this humanitarian miracle, they too can be taxed just as heavily as their fellow kulaks. Then, simply repeat the process ad infinitum.

    In this way, the Democrats will never run out of Other Peoples' Money, proving once and for all that the principle of scarcity is merely an illusion!

    Socialism can work! Utopia is at hand!

  • Rock Lobster||

    I'm surprised libertarians can't see the wisdom of this massive wealth transfer.

    Once the homeless population has achieved economic parity through this humanitarian miracle, they too can be taxed just as heavily as their fellow kulaks. Then, simply repeat the process ad infinitum.

    In this way, the Democrats will never run out of Other Peoples' Money, proving once and for all that the principle of scarcity is merely an illusion!

    Socialism can work! Utopia is at hand!

  • Rock Lobster||

    I'm surprised libertarians can't see the wisdom of this massive wealth transfer.

    Once the homeless population has achieved economic parity through this humanitarian miracle, they too can be taxed just as heavily as their fellow kulaks. Then, simply repeat the process ad infinitum.

    In this way, the Democrats will never run out of Other Peoples' Money, proving once and for all that the principle of scarcity is merely an illusion!

    Socialism can work! Utopia is at hand!

  • Rock Lobster||

    It seems that the squirrels have gotten a piece of the action. That's cool, I guess, as long as they're down with the struggle.

  • Pedro Martinez||

    So 380 million already spent on the homeless and another 300 million proposed with this new tax. Do the math. 680 million divided by 7500 homeless is over 90K per year per homeless person. Where will the money come from when the businesses skip town?

  • Hell Hound||

    "Getting the homeless into permanent housing first, then getting to work solving substance abuse or other mental health issues is the way to go" Didn't we used to do this? It was called an insane asylum.

  • fawem4||

  • Bessie54||

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online