> But in that time my city has continued to rapidly change and seemingly deteriorate. Although my wife and I both work and make good money by any typical standard, in San Francisco it is never enough. The constant tax increases, in property tax, sales tax, property tax levies, and continually burdensome regulation has made it almost impossible to live and raise a family. So, I started to look at where all the money really goes…
> The City of San Francisco, a city of 870,877 people and only 49 square miles, is slated to spend $10.1 billion dollars next fiscal year, which started July 1.
> You read that right: a city of less than 1 million people plans to spend over $10 billion dollars.
> Let’s compare that to other California cities of even greater size: San Diego has a population of 1.2 million people, an area of 372 square miles, and spends $3.1 billion. San Jose has a little over 1 million people, an area of 180 square miles, and also spends $3.1 billion.
> San Francisco has less than half the size in land area and a few hundred thousand less people, yet spends over three times the amount of money per year.
...
> Even just using the budgeted figure of $245.9 million, the OHSH says in its “Performance Measures” that in 2015-16 it provided 285 families with a rental subsidy. 648 families kept housing through a one-time grant; 566 adults left homelessness do to placement in permanent supportive housing; 880 people were given bus tickets to be sent back to a willing family member in another city or state, and 790 people maintained housing due to a one-time grant. This means by their own measure the OHSH served 3,169 clients, made up of families or individuals. If the OHSH serves the same amount of clients, the office will spend $77,595 per client served.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/18217/paradise-lost-san-francisco-leftists-their-finest-rich-cibotti
SF would be great place to live if it weren't for the homeless