Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really. They're funded a bit differently.
A large portion of the funding comes from folks who give them attention.
Only 8% from government.
LA pays $2600 per homeless tent, per month
31–40 of 312 posts
Re: LA pays $2600 per homeless tent, per month
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is NPR reporting. Why would they mislead on an issue like this? I think they're a very credible source, given their progressive bent, to be asking these questions.
I have no idea why people believe NPR to be progressive. The joke name "Nice Polite Republicans" exists for a reason. Liberal news coverage of homeless issues rarely takes a progressive framing, anyway.
They are small-c conservative progressives.
They are not into spectacles or aggressive populism, generally correct, a little effete, but are definitely progressive.
They are like the 'Vermont' or 'Nice Schoolteacher' or 'Librarian' of Journalism.
Re: LA pays $2600 per homeless tent, per month
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. The article also clarifies why that price seems higher than it actually is (e.g. the program may reduce costs of policing elsewhere in the city by providing an orderly source of food and water (which that cost also includes)). It’s a more nuanced look than what the OP’s title suggests.
Nobody like nuance unless it supports their narrative. I know a guy who hated Obama who said he played too much golf. When Trump started playing golf and exceeding even Obama's outings, he said, well a man who works hard needs a vacation. That experience taught me that regardless of political affiliation most people employ nuance when it suits them so they can clearly think in shades of grey. But our problem is that…
Not everyone is a hack.
Some people use nuance as a bludgeon, but that fact wouldn’t imply that hand-waiving away details is somehow a valid approach.
Re: LA pays $2600 per homeless tent, per month
#34> the per-tent cost covers services, meals, sanitation and staffing OK, so $2600 gets a fair bit. Also looking at the report [1] this rate is calculated by dividing the total cost of the pilot by the duration and number of clients. So that is including one-time set up, planning and evaluation in the cost, which is probably a decent fraction of the cost as it's only an 8 month pilot. The recurring cost for extending m…
As long as the local government has tons of money doing nothing in their budget, they are going to find a way to spend it, and they're not going to care if they overpay because what else are they going to spend it on? In coastal California, the rule is never ever give that money back by lowering taxes. Taxes only go up. If there's too much money being generated by the taxes to spend, start spending it on homelessness…
> Some problems though, like healthcare and homelessness don't get better if you spend more money on them.
I very much doubt that on both counts! But even still, I have a feeling that there is a very high cap for dollars spent directly helping homeless folks that reduce indirect spending 1:1 on other budget line items.
Re: LA pays $2600 per homeless tent, per month
#35I think the main takeaway here is government, as usual, thinking short term and spending more money on bandaid solutions.
Yes, the $2600 gets you services, meals, sanitation and staffing. But in reality, you can get a decent 1BR apartment for $1500 that is waaay bigger than a tent, sanitation for free since it is an apartment, and have almost $1000 for groceries left over. And, you can fit more people in the apartment than a 12x12 tent. I know that this calculation is an over simplification of costs, but it still gives you a decent perspective on what can be done with that kind of money.
And I disagree this will save money long term or elsewhere. When you don't address the root cause and spend money wisely, you only leave room for more spending in the future.
Re: LA pays $2600 per homeless tent, per month
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is NPR reporting. Why would they mislead on an issue like this? I think they're a very credible source, given their progressive bent, to be asking these questions.
I have no idea why people believe NPR to be progressive. The joke name "Nice Polite Republicans" exists for a reason. Liberal news coverage of homeless issues rarely takes a progressive framing, anyway.
Yeah NPR is largely for wealthy college educated liberals, who largely gesture towards helping the homeless but have no substantial interest in doing so. NPR has had numerous articles that take the small business owner’s perspective over the worker, and other such things. They are in no way left-leaning.
Re: LA pays $2600 per homeless tent, per month
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
As long as the local government has tons of money doing nothing in their budget, they are going to find a way to spend it, and they're not going to care if they overpay because what else are they going to spend it on? In coastal California, the rule is never ever give that money back by lowering taxes. Taxes only go up. If there's too much money being generated by the taxes to spend, start spending it on homelessness…
What's the solution then? Utah built apartments for everyone. That seems to have worked.
Building more houses would help a lot in coastal California. Labor costs follow housing costs, so anything involving a local human being doing work is insanely overpriced.
If housing prices dropped, the labor market would stabilize, lowering the cost of more construction.
Instead, the planning commissions and zoning boards intentionally restrict the supply of housing, causing all sorts of market distortions.
Similarly, the transit system is repeatedly sabotaged. We spend a lot of money narrowing roads or intentionally lowering their rush hour throughput. Public transit is also systematically mismanaged. My theory is that they intentionally reduce practical commute distances to prop up housing values near the work.
(Sometimes they claim they make commuting worse to protect the environment. My car gets 50-66% as many miles per gallon in the bay area as it does in other cities. Even driving up a mountain is more fuel efficient than rush hour around here. It’s pretty clear the traffic engineering here is not concerned with CO2 emissions.)
Re: LA pays $2600 per homeless tent, per month
#38I'm super impressed by what Pallet[1] is doing in this space. I think LA is talking with Pallet to implement their temporary housing, which would be amazing. [1] https://www.palletshelter.com
I don't want to diminish the link above and it's efforts but how a first world society has to resort to stuff like this is just mind-boggling.
I'm an expat in a developing country and even for the poorest people a roof over their heads is affordable.
Everytime I go back to Australia or visit Europe I'm always shocked at the level of homelessness, it's just not right.
Why are dirt-poor countries able to house their citizens and the richest countries aren't? When will people see housing price appreciation far beyond wage inflation as a serious detriment to society?
Re: LA pays $2600 per homeless tent, per month
#39I think the main takeaway here is government, as usual, thinking short term and spending more money on bandaid solutions. Yes, the $2600 gets you services, meals, sanitation and staffing. But in reality, you can get a decent 1BR apartment for $1500 that is waaay bigger than a tent, sanitation for free since it is an apartment, and have almost $1000 for groceries left over. And, you can fit more people in the apartmen…
You're misunderstanding the fundamental function of modern government. That $2600 goes to a contractor (political crony, friend, or relative) who then mostly pockets the money through salaries, sub-contracts, and such. This is the purpose of the spending and there was never an intent to help anyone in the first place.
Re: LA pays $2600 per homeless tent, per month
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like NPR. But they're certainly progressive/left leaning. On the subject of homelessness, they've written many thoughtful stories: https://www.npr.org/search?query=Homelesss&page=1
Yeah... I have a hard time imagining anyone in the US describing today's NPR as "nice polite Republicans"... Perhaps Bernie Sanders would possibly describe them as centrist?
People with extreme views believe that everybody who doesn’t pursue the extreme is against them.