Did you know San Francisco spends $2 million a year on a "Managed Alcohol Program?" It provides free Alcohol to people struggling with chronic alcoholism who are mostly homeless. I stumbled upon the building where they have this program. This is what I saw.🧵
The location is an old hotel in SOMA. Inside the lobby, they had a kegs set up to taps where they were basically giving out free beer to the homeless who've been identified with AUD (Alcohol Use Disorder).
While there have been some limited studies showing some promise, I have to point out a couple of things that troubled me.
1. The Department of Public Health is spending $2 million of taxpayer dollars to give free alcohol to mostly homeless people struggling with alcoholism.
2. It's set up so people in the program just walk in and grab a beer, and then another one. All day.
The whole thing is very odd to me and just doesn't feel right. Providing free drugs to drug addicts doesn't solve their problems. It just stretches them out. Where's the recovery in all of this?
This is what harm reduction refers to as "safe supply" or "safer supply." There's currently a huge debate in Canada about this idea as British Columbia has been "expirimenting" on humans by giving them free Opioids in the hopes that they won't use fentanyl.
The results have been mixed at best and bad at worst in that it appears many of these "free" drugs just get resold on the street for fentanyl or worse. vancouversun.com/news/local-new…
I'm no doctor or "expert" on issues of drug policy. But I am a taxpayer. When did this Managed Alcohol Program get approved? Where were the public hearings? Why is it hidden away in an old hotel? Who approved a $2 million budget for it?
Do you think giving free alcohol to the homeless who are alcoholics a good idea?
If you want to hear from proponents of the program, you can watch this. I understand the reasoning, but it doesn't "feel" right. Especially for $2 million dollars.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Every neighborhood in San Francisco except 2 has seen a steep decline in tax revenue this year. The denialists will say it's because retail patterns have changed. I used to believe that. But it's bullshit. It's all about homelessness and public safety. And there's proof. 🧵
The @sfchronicle ran a story yesterday with data showing tax revenue breakdowns by neighborhood. With the exception of J-town and the Presidio every neighborhood has declined.
I've been visiting every neighborhood in the city. From the FiDi to North Beach to Hayes Valley. Every one of them has empty storefronts. Kearny St. for example is one of the most affected blocks I've seen. And with those empty storefronts comes a loss of revenue.
San Francisco is run by a professional political class. The means too many of our elected leaders have never had a real job. As a result, policy is decided within what I call "The City Hall Bubble." Let's dig in. 🧵
How many Supervisors were legislative aides before getting elected? How many started off on a school board or as a union or community organizer as their first "real" job before moving up the political ladder? How many actually ran a business or worked in the private sector?
If you do some research, you will find that nearly half have limited or no experience working outside of the political arena and moved up the nepotism chain to where they are now. This is a problem. Why? Let me tell you.
San Francisco has had a consistent homeless problem for years. According to the data, homeless counts have been relatively static since 2013. Why then, has it become the #1 issue only now? Let's find out. 🧵
San Francisco mayors going back to Dianne Feinstein have tried to "solve" homelessness. From shelters and housing (Agnos), to the "Matrix" program, (Jordan) to "Care not Cash" (Newsom), to creating the department of homelessness and supportive housing (Lee), to "spend billions" (Breed). None of it has worked. Why?
Why is the question we've been asking ourselves for years. It's nothing new. City leaders have been grappling with this and making bold statements like "We will end homelessness in 10 years." All of it met with failure. sfgate.com/politics/artic…
How did San Francisco squander the greatest economic boom in its history? People like to blame the "tech boom" for the current situation the city finds itself in. But is it tech's fault? Let's look at some data from 2010 to present and find out what actually happened. 🧵
Over the past decade +, San Francisco's GPD grew every year including the pandemic years. Fueled by the "tech boom," The city collected billions of dollars in taxes, gross receipts, rents and enjoyed some of the lowest unemployment rates in the country.
All of this occurred despite more than 50 companies leaving San Francisco in large part because of new taxes levied on top earning corporations (Prop C, 2018). The irony, is that the far left in San Francisco cheered this. despite the billions in revenue lost. buildremote.co/companies/busi…
Imagine being young, unemployed, with the economy shut down.
Oh, and you have a kid on the way, too.
For @packyM, this was the likely reality of choosing to go full-time writing a free newsletter at the beginning of COVID.
But Packy made a huge bet on himself, went all-in on a newsletter with 400 subscribers, and found more success than he ever could have imagined.
Packy's newsletter 'Not Boring' is now the #1 Business newsletter on Substack with 187,000 subscribers. notboring.co
And Packy was able to start a venture capital firm, Not Boring Capital, raise 3 venture funds, and invest in 200 companies because of the audience his newsletter generated.
I sat down with Packy to talk about why he made such a risky decision at such a pivotal time in his life.