Slime__queen t1_jef1oxj wrote on March 31, 2023 at 3:21 PM

Reply to comment by XxCloudSephiroth69xX in Baltimore Safe Streets sites ‘clearly’ reduce homicides, shootings, Johns Hopkins evaluation finds by sit_down_man

Maybe then .. we bring similar resources to more areas

XxCloudSephiroth69xX t1_jef7glv wrote on March 31, 2023 at 3:59 PM

Yes that'd be nice, but those resources don't exist. Expanding programs like Safe Streets and GVRS takes manpower and money that the city does no have.

Slime__queen t1_jef8pia wrote on March 31, 2023 at 4:07 PM

I don’t know a ton about the budgeting situation of the city so I’m not gonna argue or agree with that, but I just mean that this seems to show that these kind of programs are a good goal to support and work towards. Just because we can’t make that happen right now, we can still identify this as something people want to make happen. And treat not having the resources for it as a problem to solve rather than a reason to dismiss the idea. Not that you necessarily were, but I see people often discount something because there’s not enough resources, but that isn’t a permanent thing.

[deleted] t1_jeg6nox wrote on March 31, 2023 at 7:50 PM

[deleted]

NoMoKraTo t1_jef6642 wrote on March 31, 2023 at 3:50 PM

There is no problem that more money can't solve. The problem is having enough money.

Slime__queen t1_jef74cv wrote on March 31, 2023 at 3:56 PM

Sure, I guess what I meant was that if something only works in the area it’s accessible that doesn’t mean it isn’t a good idea or isn’t working. It just needs to be brought to more areas. And that deciding something is worth spending money on is the first step to addressing the “not enough money” problem.