charonn0

Housing First has been the policy in San Francisco since 2008, and state-wide since 2016.

Most shelters do in fact allow people to bring their belongings with them (within reason). Some even provide storage space, and the city provides a free self-storage facility.

Prop F addresses CAAP (cash welfare), not housing. You don't have to be receiving CAAP to qualify for housing assistance, and you don't have to be homeless to qualify for CAAP.

SF has been struggling with a chronic homelessness problem for decades. Offering voluntary services does not work. To put in in Trek terms, the problem isn't the gimmes, it's the ghosts and dims. Gimmes are easy to help because they can act on their own behalf and in their own best interests. They accept services and don't end up being chronically homeless. The ghosts and the dims, on the other hand, are a different story.

Is sweeping their encampments an ideal solution? No, far from it. But what else is there for us to do? Let them languish on the streets? Honestly, what would you have us do?

I can't think of any.

Certification of homeless status from the city (already acquired if they were referred to us) and proof of income (if any).

I actually work in the SF housing industry, and worked at a housing site in SF that was converted to permanent supportive housing during COVID. In that case, barely 30% of the people even showed up to their intake appointments.

In reality, getting them to accept services and help is the #1 obstacle to getting them services and help.

It's not that it's an inconvenience, it's that it seems wrong. Like we're brainwashing children into venerating the state.

Be, is, are, was, am, were, being, been... are all the same word.

When in Vegas sell light bulbs.

Ask Robespierre how that works out in the end.

Some people need practical advice.

-George Carlin

The TOS doesn't say anything about crimes like murder, and of course you can't waive that anyway.

What it does say is that any disputes arising out of the use of their website are subject to arbitration. If the plaintiff is correct and Disney is liable because they posted the menu on their website, then that would be a dispute arising out of the use of their website.