Sponsored link
Friday, September 17, 2021

Sponsored link

UncategorizedThe T and T Show: Homeless miscues, Jerry Brown's...

The T and T Show: Homeless miscues, Jerry Brown’s senior problem — and how will Pablo survive Boston without Tom to support him?

Our weekly podcast with Tim Redmond and Tom Ammiano tells you all you need to know about the issues of the day

 

Tim Redmond
Tim Redmond has been a political and investigative reporter in San Francisco for more than 30 years. He spent much of that time as executive editor of the Bay Guardian. He is the founder of 48hills.
Sponsored link

36 COMMENTS

  1. What you see as concern and compassion, others see as confiscation and theft

    That you see as selfishness and greed, others see as self-reliance and a drive to succeed.

  2. @4th Gen: You see assisting those in need as giving them ‘free lunch.’ You see everyone who may have been successful but experiences an economic rough patch in life, a rough patch that is sometimes 100% due to the greed of wealthy individuals or corporations, as being free-loaders.

    I pity you.

  3. According to the Dem stats only 5.5% of the USA is unemployed. And people needed to move if they couldn’t afford to live here in SF. This is a tough city.

  4. This is my biggest issue with the ‘changes’ we’ve seen in San Francisco. We were a city of concern and compassion. Now we are a city of selfishness and greed, and all of the bleak new architecture reflects that.

    I can’t imagine that if something like the HIV/AIDS crisis were to hit now that the response would be anything close to the caring coalescence of so many people and government that we saw back then.

  5. Pathetic. Many people with children were financially secure before the 2008 economic meltdown and are now struggling. If anything, unfettered capitalism is to blame.

    If government isn’t going to help, we should push for reparations to be paid by the banking industry and Wall Street.

  6. Wow. It’s hard to believe people can feel righteous about small children living without homes. Those homeless six year-olds are real losers; they’ve made a lot of bad decisions. What a tough world we’ve created for ourselves if we can’t even extend basic services to children. All of our money has not done a dollars worth of good for our moral compasses.

  7. Relying on Uncle Sugar (aka the gov’t) is one way people get themselves into bad situations. People who have children they can’t afford and are relying on gov’t subsidies are people making bad personal decisions. Why should everyone have to cover for their bad personal decisions?

  8. No, it his/her world, only poor people should be held accountable. And given the regional volatility of real estate and cost of living, what he/she is advocating is the creation of a class of people we could call the ‘nomadic poor’ – those who need to constantly move to “places where they can afford” when the economics of a region change.

    Because in his/her twisted view of things, all that matters is that wealthy people continue to increase their wealth – that is the purpose of cities and government.

  9. And in the bad decisions that are not our fault we can add Johnson’s escalation of the Vientam War, George Bush’s evisceration of the budget surplus he inherited, investment banker’s 2008 destruction of the economy, and worst of all, George Bush’s invasion of Iraq. All of these were far more costly in multiple terms (bloodshed, economic, hearbreak, lost lives, productivity) than the failure of parents to move to a less costly place to live.

  10. Didn’t Tim report a while back that the city pension fund last year lost $60 million in a bad hedge fund investment? And worse, they were thinking about making the same sort of investment again.

  11. Why isn’t it the moral obligation of the parents that decided to have these kids to move to places where they can afford? Why are their bad decisions our fault?

  12. “Because in America we celebrate our independence fromthe government, not our depence onthe government” ~~~Scott Walker

  13. So if you could actually afford to build homes for the 5,000-6,000 homeless in San Francisco, what would you do when the next 5,000 homeless show up? Just curious.

  14. My point is that if we’re already committed to spending the money, we should look at models that are successful in achieving their goals. In San Francisco, there are over 2000 homeless children within the public school district. It seems, at the very least, we should be housing families with school aged children. I don’t think any child, living in this extremely wealthy community, should have to sleep in the streets or in a car or in a shelter. It is a moral obligation to help children who, by no choice of their own, have ended up being homeless. If we’re going to spend the money, let’s spend it on programs which have proven to work.

  15. IAWU, what I meant was that public employees DGAF about what the activists want and would instead want their investment $ in fuels as well because the SF city & county pension plans are really good and they’ve been investing well.

  16. So you equate equity risk with left-wing ideology?

    In fact, many so-called “sin stocks” are low beta names

  17. What does the false blanket statement about what happens when you remove stocks from an index have to do with ERISA?

    If you can identify and remove very risky stocks from an index, you can decrease risk. Thinking about the risks of social screens requires a touch more thought than the ‘more stocks good, fire bad!’ unfrozen caveman lawyer approach.

  18. Fiduciary rules ensure that pension funds cannot invest in pink sheets stocks and other high-risk equities

  19. Any time you remove stocks from an index, you increase volatility and risk.

    So even an equal return is inferior if more risk was taken.

  20. the city spends $167m annually on homeless. over the last ten years that’s $1.5 BILLION.
    that number gets much bigger still when you count the value of the various nonprofits, corporate & individuals that provide money, volunteers, and in-kind donations to homeless.

    what’s all this spending bought us? a larger homeless population than before.

    throwing more money at this problem clearly isn’t the ‘easy’ answer.

  21. More 10-year stats vs the S&P:
    stdev, 14.61 vs 14.70
    beta, 0.98 vs 1.00
    sharpe, 0.45 vs 0.45
    drawdown, -49 vs -51

  22. No solution can be “easy” if it involves spending huge amounts of cash.

    Moreover, if SF becomes known as the “free homes” capital of the nation, we will be inundated with thousands more homeless people all seeking their free home

  23. Even during periods when so-called “ethical” funds do not under-perform the market, they did so with more risk.

  24. 4th, I think the employees do give a crap about their investment funds, and do not want to see gross deviations from the index for ideological reasons.

    The biggest problem is that many of the so-called “sin” or “unethical” businesses are cash-generative and defensive. A portfolio that omits tobacco, PG&E and other utilities, energy, arms, gambling, alcohol, big pharma etc will be more risky and potentially less profitable. Which in turn will mean higher employee contributions to fund the desired level of pension.

  25. IAWU about that. The activists are not even city employees, and most city employees DGAF about it.

  26. Tobacco stocks have been very good investments. Check out how Altria has massively out-performed the S and P 500:

    http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=MO+Interactive#%7B%22range%22%3A%22max%22%2C%22scale%22%3A%22linear%22%2C%22comparisons%22%3A%7B%22%5EGSPC%22%3A%7B%22color%22%3A%22%23cc0000%22%2C%22weight%22%3A1%7D%7D%7D

    Any pension fund that avoided tobacco was guaranteed to under-perform the market.

    I have never invested in South Africa because of the high crime rate there.

  27. I’m sure you were also pissed when jurisdictions divested from South Africa, supported the abused farm workers and dumped tobacco stocks.

    But most people supported these actions. Too bad for you and your ‘money is everything’, greed-driven attitude.

  28. Tom says we can never get rid of the homeless. Why not? I visit plenty of towns that don’t have any homeless people. How do they achieve that? Easy. Give the homeless no money, care or services, and put them on buses some place else.

    That is what those other towns do – they send them here. Time to fight back.

    Oh, and if I were a city employee, I’d be pissed that the city is playing ideological games with the retirement fund by divesting in one of the most inflation-proof stock sectors – energy.

    Although, on a more personal note, this could be a very bullish indicator for energy stocks, since bureaucrats invariably get investment ideas dead wrong

Comments are closed.

Sponsored link

Top reads

Giants food-service workers take job action, demanding safety

More than 200 briefly walk off the job and demand meeting with management; Giants brass ducks as strike looms.

50 years ago, San Bruno Mountain was almost cut in half

Remembering a successful community campaign to save the local environment—as climate challenges loom.

Screen Grabs: ‘Eyes of Tammy Faye’ blinks at real issues

Plus: Poignant sunset hippie idealism in 'Freeland,' Nic Cage's latest wild ride, and a St. Vincent hall of mirrors.

More by this author

New rules on search warrants moving forward with little public input

The public defender wasn't consulted. The DA hasn't been inolvolved. But the Police Commission wants a major policy change—now.

Why have DBI, Planning, and the cops gotten away with so much for so long?

Plus: $70 million for parking meters when the mayor says we can't afford to keep SIP hotels open to save lives. That's The Agenda for Sept. 13-19

COVID and wildfires are a double threat at state prisons

New outbreaks, and constant fire threats, have been largely ignored by the major news media.
Sponsored link

You might also likeRELATED