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

Breakdown of data on homeless populations across the U.S.

dynomight.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 270 posts

Re: Breakdown of data on homeless populations across the U.S.

#111

Post by john_moscow »

cheriot wrote: post #37
nradov wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We absolutely should build more homeless shelters. However many homeless people refuse to stay in current dorm style shelters because they don't allow drug use, or pets, or the other residents are dangerous.

This is a debate that comes up and I'm only familiar with the specifics in San Francisco. I won't claim it's the same anywhere else. The shelters are full so the obvious problem is not people refusing to sleep in them. At the same time, many of the "offers" of going inside are disingenuous. People giving up all of their belongings (specifically tent and camping stove), leaving loved ones, and the promised shelter is…

I can bet, the shelter utilization is highly correlated with the cost of square foot in the area, which is a proxy for general desirability.

And the solution should be to increase the desirability of other areas, rather than making homelessness the new norm. As a nice side effect, this will solve the general housing availability issues as well.

Except, the public opinion is that we should somehow all stick to a handful of coastal megacities and join the race to the bottom in terms of square feet per person, noise and cleanliness. This certainly benefits big property developers, big vendors and big employers that wouldn't be economically viable in a much sparser area, but I genuinely don't understand why so many people are happy to voluntarily move into a hamster wheel.

Re: Breakdown of data on homeless populations across the U.S.

#112

Post by mulmen »

forgotmypw17 wrote: post #105
mulmen wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn’t answer the question. I’m not opposed to building more shelter space. But what do you do with the people who don’t want to stay there? Do you make it non-optional? Do you just accept that there will always be some people living on the street? At what point can a camping ban in public parks be reinstated and enforced? Can it ever be? Should it?

I think that camping should be legitimized and allowed. For example, I saw in LA camping areas being cleaned by city workers peacefully (with a token police car watching over) and it seemed like a nice middle ground.

Do you mean dedicated camping areas or putting tents in existing public parks?

Something like https://campsecondchance.rumblecrash.com/ but for tents?

Re: Breakdown of data on homeless populations across the U.S.

#113

Post by MeinBlutIstBlau »

cheriot wrote: post #9

We're a country of 350,000,000 people. Leaving 500,000 outside simply because municipalities don't want them around is inexcusable. Solution in two parts 1. Make it legal to build homes where people live (looking at you California, specifically LA, SF, SV) 2. Build dorm style shelters for anyone that would otherwise sleep outside There's complicating issues like not enough addiction treatment and mental health facili…

Wasn't there a study that came out showing every single one of those things done by CA or Seattle failed?

Re: Breakdown of data on homeless populations across the U.S.

#114

Post by notJim »

cheriot wrote: post #9

We're a country of 350,000,000 people. Leaving 500,000 outside simply because municipalities don't want them around is inexcusable. Solution in two parts 1. Make it legal to build homes where people live (looking at you California, specifically LA, SF, SV) 2. Build dorm style shelters for anyone that would otherwise sleep outside There's complicating issues like not enough addiction treatment and mental health facili…

> 2. Build dorm style shelters for anyone that would otherwise sleep outside

We used to allow SROs, like the classic YMCA you'd see where people down on their luck would live in old movies. These are now illegal to build in most places, and the existing ones are being closed down.

Re: Breakdown of data on homeless populations across the U.S.

#115

Post by MeinBlutIstBlau »

notJim wrote: post #109
paxys wrote: post #22

> There are some exceptions. For one thing, despite being close to California, Nevada and some of the Montana-esque states saw big decreases in certain categories. Someone people would look at this and go wow, Nevada and the rest did a great job providing shelters and help to their homeless. I think a more realistic answer is that they just shipped them to California.

From what I've seen, it's more likely that it's because it's easier and cheaper to building housing in Nevada than in California. The states where homelessness has improved are generally business-friendly and low-regulation states.

And also make homelessness a crime. But conveniently they push you toward places that help with people on the verge of homelessness. All things combined with yours that these coastal places do not. If people are threatened with jail for being a vagrant, they'll eventually take the path of least resistance and get a job.

Re: Breakdown of data on homeless populations across the U.S.

#116

Post by mjevans »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #75
1986 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> an oversupply of homeless shelters that people refuse to use (due to restrictions on substance abuse etc.) There's a lot hiding in that "etc". Some other reasons people refuse to use (some) shelters: - shelter is / feels unsafe due to a subset of the sheltered population - shelter has a curfew that does not allow you to maintain your work schedule - shelter won't let you bring your child or pet or stuff

Shelter won't let you drink, even in moderation.

I get the reasons for that, even ignoring the moral mission ones; it's too much effort to monitor for abuse and just easier to issue an outright ban.

A substantially different world if we had friendly AI to do that monitoring and maybe individual tiny-houses or apartments rather than a bunkhouse free-for-all like Squid Games.

Re: Breakdown of data on homeless populations across the U.S.

#117

Post by erik_seaberg »

whakim wrote: post #65
r00fus wrote: post #60

What about red states bussing homeless to the west coast? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/14/us/homeless-busing-seattl... Until it's not possible to simply ship your problems away (kind of like how we handle recycling), governments are incentivized to do the wrong things.

The article you cited literally states that only 5 percent of Washington state's unhoused population became homeless out of the state.

If we want to know the magnitude of states shipping homeless people away, we need to start measuring how many had been supporting themselves. I’ve seen studies about California homelessness where a participant was counted as in-state if they bussed here and crashed on a friend’s couch for a little while.

Re: Breakdown of data on homeless populations across the U.S.

#118

Post by MeinBlutIstBlau »

rp1 wrote: post #29

This data is interesting because it illustrates how few chronic homeless people there are, and yet people who live in cities with large homeless populations will tell you how disruptive they can be. In NYC, a homeless person getting in your subway car ruins the entire ride. This tiny portion of the population has an outsized impact on everyone else. For this reason, among others, society should find some help for the…

They should be punished for not taking the social service avenues intended to make them not homeless.

Re: Breakdown of data on homeless populations across the U.S.

#119

Post by mjevans »

pseudalopex wrote: post #104
coryrc wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

#2 people won't let you build shelters where it's affordable to do so. Seattle's homeless shelters should be built outside Moses Lake, not where a studio costs $300k+. For the amount we already spend, every single chronically homeless person could be housed in dorms built out there and pay for the social workers. Since they aren't doing that, it's clear the real motivation is not to help the homeless.

Outside Moses Lake is far outside Seattle's jurisdiction.

It's also far too far away from jobs jobs jobs.

Re: Breakdown of data on homeless populations across the U.S.

#120

Post by s5300 »

noahtallen wrote: post #71
rp1 wrote: post #29

This data is interesting because it illustrates how few chronic homeless people there are, and yet people who live in cities with large homeless populations will tell you how disruptive they can be. In NYC, a homeless person getting in your subway car ruins the entire ride. This tiny portion of the population has an outsized impact on everyone else. For this reason, among others, society should find some help for the…

Definitely. As an example, say you walk in your neighborhood to the transit station. A single encounter with someone with a mental health issue will be enough to give you the impression that things are worse than they are. One isolated instance of feeling unsafe had an outsized impact on how you feel about the neighborhood in general. It’s just human! And unfortunately, in west coast cities, it’s not even that isolat…

Personal anecdata is most definitely an issue, and a very hard one to solve.

For example - the greater LA metro area has roughly 19 million people (as of 2019 believe it's higher now)

19 million people is the equivalent of the populations of the 13 lowest population states. Including for example, South Dakota.

The last time I looked into this, roughly a year ago (and at 2019 numbers) the entire state of South Dakota has the same amount of crime as Los Angeles. However, the entire state of South Dakota is roughly 1/20th the population of Los Angeles.

We also have decades of data showing that people who grew up in or have lived large metropolises are at roughly 20%-25% greater disposition to severe mental illness such as schizophrenia. Simply for living in that environment.

So, that being said - I think somewhere like Los Angeles is doing pretty damn good for itself. It's an undeniably slightly crazy place to be living or growing up in, and their general crime levels are only at the level of a place with 1/20th of it's population, that is much less dense. In my eyes, it seems like a place with less population density would be less prone to crime.

Most people don't take any amount of time to become aware of information like this though... thus we get nowhere in solving issues.

Post reply on HN