Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I Used to Be Homeless

yahoo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 320 posts

Re: I Used to Be Homeless

#161

Post by grogenaut »

alistairSH wrote: post #149
manfredo wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The latest tax increased it from 30k to about 60-70k. As to why it's doing so little, there's a variety of explanations. Some say that homeless often have mental or drug abuse issues that keep them from being able to live on their own. Others (including the mayor) say that the money is more than enough, and we need more accountability of what we already spend. 70k is about the median wage of a single person in SF.

Even losing half the bureaucracy, that leaves 35k/year for actual aid. Toss half of that at misc care and other programs. 17.5/year left for housing. Not much, but should still be enough for group home type arrangements. Or, at least I would hope so. I've never been involved in these programs on either side, but it's amazing that $70k/year might not be enough to house somebody.

You're going to be real surprised then when you find out what assisted living or memory care costs for your parents. Hint it's at least double what normal cost of living is. And many of these folks do need that level of care and supervision.

Re: I Used to Be Homeless

#162

Post by dredmorbius »

2RTZZSro wrote: post #139
megaman8 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SF just passed 300 million/year measure that's supposed to help the homeless and that's in addition to the 240 million/year of funding that's already there. Both of those combined exceeds the budgets of most cities. First I would say, let's figure out how to use that money so that it's actually working. 540 million/year is enough to give the 7000 homeless in SF 77,000$ per year. Let's put that to good use and make su…

The vast majority of that 300 million per year will go to bureaucrats for group meetings to discuss how to solve the homeless problem. San Francisco voters have no say in the matter and they are unable to influence change because these organizations are run by unelected bureaucrats. If you vote for another figurehead they will keep the same bureaucrats.

Reference, please.

Re: I Used to Be Homeless

#163

Post by psalminen »

guest2143 wrote: post #30
ryanmercer wrote: post #22

>You can start by not judging the homeless. Instead of flying out the gate accusing people of judging homeless, consider this: Not everywhere is like San Francisco where you have actual homeless people living in tent/tarp hovels on sidewalks in busy neighborhoods, come to downtown Indy and many of the 'homeless' people you find randomly around are absolutely not homeless and simply know they can make much easier mone…

Here in Colorado we have "actual homeless". Going to a homeless shelter in the winter time provides a great sample. And, there are dangers in those shelters where homeless people are still too scared to stay there. It's been enlightening to see the surveys of the homeless in my area: who they are, how they got that way, how long they've been homeless. There are now even prediction models for how unlikely an individua…

>The programs I've most been impressed with are the ones creating a stronger resistance layer to falling from having a home to homeless

I live in Colorado as well. Out of interest, which programs are you referring to?

Re: I Used to Be Homeless

#164

Post by badpun »

megaman8 wrote: post #48

To live in, In SF. your choices are a 1.5 million dollar condo or a 50$ dollar tent. Seriously people, we need to allow for more choices than that. I'm sure builders and entrepreneurs would line up around the block to build solutions that are cheaper and more cost effective, but you first have to make it legal (get rid of the mountains of regulations and zoning headaches that make this problem so insurmountable), wit…

> Sure, maybe you don't like what happens in version 1. But, if we never iterate on this problem, we'll never make progress on it and in a 100 years we'll still be talking about this same self imposed problem which is completely solvable.

I think the iteration already happened. The v1 was sometime at the XIX century and were currently and v1000 or something.

Re: I Used to Be Homeless

#165

Post by badpun »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #101
jaredklewis wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have friends in Tokyo renting 1 bedrooms in the city center for $500 ~ $900 month. Those buildings were not built as affordable housing. They became affordable housing when other developers built newer, nicer buildings somewhere else in Tokyo. Older buildings had to lower prices to keep tenants coming. Unless there is a literally infinite supply of rich people, I don’t see how increasing supply cannot create more a…

How big is a Tokyo 1 bedroom renting for $500/month? Are you sure it isn’t a < 50sqm micro-studio with shared bathrooms?

> Ah, the spoiled Americans. Here in Poland I live in a 1br appartment (two rooms, kitchen, bathroom) that's 37 sqm. Perfect for one person, livable for two or even two and a child.

Re: I Used to Be Homeless

#166

Post by elliekelly »

technobabble wrote: post #134
nyghtly wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you say that they won't accept help, what do you mean? What did you try to offer that they didn't accept?

I can't speek for the parent poster. I don't feel comfortable giving money, so instead I offer to get them something at a local restaraunt, or try to give them some of my food if I have it on me. In some (but not all) circumstances, I've been told to "f!ck off" and "suck a c!ck" becaue they want money, presumably for drugs/alcohol/etc. Again this is my experience. Your mileage may vary.

I don't give money to homeless people for the same reason. The occasional rude responses can absolutely be frustrating but I think it helps (and is very difficult) to try to put yourself in the shoes of someone suffering from addiction.

There's a homeless man in my neighborhood named Kevin that I chat with most mornings when I walk my dog. He goes to a methadone clinic to help treat his addiction. I usually see him when I'm walking towards the coffee shop, ask him for his coffee/breakfast order, and he hangs out with my dog while I go inside. Most days he's a nice, personable, friendly guy who tells me "dad jokes" and has a bag of dog treats for his neighborhood friends. Sober Kevin is appreciative and would never dream of asking me for a dime. Some days he's coming off a bender and looking for money to buy more drugs and is kind of a dick. A lot of the benders coincide with him being unable to get to the clinic for one reason or another.

Occasionally sober Kevin will apologize for the way he spoke to me when he was single mindedly focused on his next high. He once offered the analogy of when you really need to pee. The absolute only thing your brain is capable of focusing on is finding a bathroom. You're urgently trying to solve this one, desperate problem. You're walking around asking and asking where the bathroom is and people keep saying "I can't help you find the bathroom, but here's a vending machine."

It's by no means an excuse for someone to be rude to a stranger trying to help but it certainly helps me have a little bit more compassion for those dealing with addiction. I think it's frustrating for them, too.

Re: I Used to Be Homeless

#167

Post by alistairSH »

grogenaut wrote: post #161
alistairSH wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even losing half the bureaucracy, that leaves 35k/year for actual aid. Toss half of that at misc care and other programs. 17.5/year left for housing. Not much, but should still be enough for group home type arrangements. Or, at least I would hope so. I've never been involved in these programs on either side, but it's amazing that $70k/year might not be enough to house somebody.

You're going to be real surprised then when you find out what assisted living or memory care costs for your parents. Hint it's at least double what normal cost of living is. And many of these folks do need that level of care and supervision.

Sure, that doesn't surprise me.

But how many of those 7000 homeless need that level of care? Half? 2/3? SF should at least be able to get the "easy" people off the street.

Re: I Used to Be Homeless

#168

Post by alistairSH »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #137
megaman8 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SF just passed 300 million/year measure that's supposed to help the homeless and that's in addition to the 240 million/year of funding that's already there. Both of those combined exceeds the budgets of most cities. First I would say, let's figure out how to use that money so that it's actually working. 540 million/year is enough to give the 7000 homeless in SF 77,000$ per year. Let's put that to good use and make su…

The divisor should be 7000 people + however many people are not homeless because of the money SF spends reducing homelessness. I certainly hope that's a number much larger than 7000.

Ah, true enough. Maybe the 7000 are truly the worst off, and in need of extra services.

Re: I Used to Be Homeless

#169

Post by jpm_sd »

Kalium wrote: post #122
tarboreus wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd read a little about the problems caused by involuntary commitment. Even a novel like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest or Maria, or the Wrongs of Woman or Woman on the Edge of Time might give you a different perspective. I understand where you're coming from, but making it possible for people to get others committed against their will has historically not worked out.

You're absolutely right . At the same time, it's worth considering that giving people the freedom to die in the gutter does not seem to be working out as well as might be hoped. So perhaps alternatives might be worth contemplating.

Part of living in a free society is the freedom to completely fuck up your life. But I agree that we should be funding housing and medical treatment, not drug wars and incarceration.

Re: I Used to Be Homeless

#170

Post by wjossey »

darpa_escapee wrote: post #155
ksenzee wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Homelessness != Substance Use Disorder True. But the Venn diagram overlaps a _lot_. If we magically solved homelessness for everyone with a substance-abuse problem, the people still left homeless would be the ones cities are already able to help.

The majority of homelessness is caused by economic issues like the loss of a job, lack of sufficient income, lack of affordable housing and domestic violence. I did some work for an Australian charity that works with the homeless, so I have this graphic[1] on hand. Here's a relevant graphic for the US[4]. The top three obstacles to obtaining permanent housing in SF are lack of affordability, unemployment and lack of…

Thanks for taking the time to provide background data. This is all really great.

I'm skeptical of the percentages you shared, not because I think people are liars, but that rooting out causative effects is complex, especially in self-reported cases.

I have an aunt who was homeless for the better part of a decade. If you had spoken to her during this period of time about why she was homeless, she would have said many things such as (1) she lost her job (2) she got evicted (3) her family kicked her out. In reality she is a paranoid schizophrenic, who does not understand when she's not on her medication that she has schizophrenia. So, was she homeless because she lost her job? Yes. Did she lose her job because she was scaring customers due to her mental disorder? Yes.

When my father was in the hospital and detoxing from his alcohol abuse, he was asked repeatedly "Russ, do you have an alcohol problem?" He uniformly responded "No I do not." He only changed his tune when he believed answering in the affirmative would get his release.

My general point is that homelessness and substance abuse are deeply intertwined, and that if we pull on the thread long enough in someone's backstory, we'll often find that substance abuse was a catalyst in the chain reaction that resulted in their homelessness, but they aren't willing to, or aren't self aware enough, to recognize it.

Post reply on HN