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

151–160 of 270 posts

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

#151

Post by magicalist »

john_moscow wrote: post #111
cheriot wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 handf…

> rather than making homelessness the new norm

if more people have housing homelessness would be less of a norm

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

#152

Post by oblaff »

GaryTang wrote: post #55

I still have a difficult time understanding how increased homelessness is not a direct result of increased taxes and regulations. The data presented corroborates as much and though correlation doesn’t mean causation, correlation certainly doesn’t indicate a lack of causation either. We go to great lengths to justify the results when the simplest explanation is staring right at you.

I still have a difficult time understanding how increased homelessness is not a direct result of the number of comedy clubs per capita. The data presented corroborates as much and though correlation doesn’t mean causation, correlation certainly doesn’t indicate a lack of causation either. We go to great lengths to justify the results when the simplest explanation is staring right at you.

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

#153

Post by zwkrt »

agumonkey wrote: post #91
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

I've seen this first hand and its difficult to comprehend. Some people would rather sleep in dead cold winter than to be in shelters. That's worth investigating...

I worked on a shelter in Seattle for a year. The biggest reason people wouldn’t come in is because they needed to check in at a regular time every day, which is a ridiculous requirement. Other shelters were even more stringent, with no smoking (tobacco) or breathalyzer tests, needing to attend daily prayer, and/or daily social worker check-ins. The shelters are run like the residents are children.

The problem is that the rich people who give money to the shelter have moral stipulations along with their money, since they want to feel like they are “rehabilitating” people with the money they throw st the problem.

If I had to operate under the same requirements as the shelter to keep my apartment, I would be on the streets too.

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

#154

Post by hellbannedguy »

woodruffw wrote: post #73
nostrebored wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly spoken like someone who hasn’t been homeless or is close to anyone who has been homeless. A lot of people are severely mentally unwell and do not want shelter. And the complicating factor is the percentage of people like this depends on the city! Eg Utah’s approach to homelessness probably won’t work for Oregon.

I have spent my entire life around the homeless, in a city that has a universal shelter mandate. I’ve also spent the better part of a decade volunteering in food pantries and community kitchens. > A lot of people are severely mentally unwell and do not want shelter. No. What they don’t want is to be corralled like livestock into shared living spaces, with no privacy or protection for their property. That’s not becaus…

You nailed it.

The few that don't want a bed are trying to hang on to the shrewd of ego they might have.

Plus--when your life is crappy, you want a beer.

Every experiment where homeless are housed without a list of rules written by Aunt Bee; seems to work out.

I can only think of two programs where residents arn't micromanaged though.

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

#155

Post by ianhawes »

zwkrt wrote: post #153
agumonkey wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen this first hand and its difficult to comprehend. Some people would rather sleep in dead cold winter than to be in shelters. That's worth investigating...

I worked on a shelter in Seattle for a year. The biggest reason people wouldn’t come in is because they needed to check in at a regular time every day, which is a ridiculous requirement. Other shelters were even more stringent, with no smoking (tobacco) or breathalyzer tests, needing to attend daily prayer, and/or daily social worker check-ins. The shelters are run like the residents are children. The problem is that…

This is spot on. My experience volunteering at shelters is very similar.

The worst one was also the largest. They had a waitlist (effectively). You had to sign up in the beginning of winter, arrive between 7pm and 8pm, and mandatory breathalyzer. If they suspected you of using, urinalysis was also mandatory. There was a 3 strike policy but generally they would give you the boot after 1 infraction.

The majority of the people I interacted with there were chronic homeless, owing to the bureaucracy around being at that particular shelter.

That, and the egos associated with most directors of homeless shelters and soup kitchens.

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

#156

Post by refurb »

khazhoux wrote: post #147
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…

> Make it legal to build homes where people live (looking at you California, specifically LA, SF, SV) People keep saying this, but it's just a flavor of trickle-down economics. The idea that if we just let developers build out more (sure, yes they should) that then housing prices would drop and cascade down to where homeless people could afford a place to live. That's such a huge stretch, especially in those areas yo…

And just like building bigger highways induces demand so will building more shelters in SF.

“Build it and they will come”

Not sure why we’d aim to building housing for homeless in the most expensive city in the US

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

#157

Post by rp1 »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #80
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…

>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. I dunno man. I've ridden Boston and DC light rail systems pretty extensively (and NYC to a small extent) and never had an obviously homeless person ruin my ride. Heck, I can't even think of a specific instance where one did anything of not…

Just ask anyone in NYC if this is familiar:

“Excuse me everyone. I’m sorry to bother you. My name is Mark and I’m homeless. I’m between jobs right now and I have two kids. If anyone could spare a few cents or even a dollar, then I would really appreciate it. God bless you.”

Happened multiple times a day on my commute.

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

#158

Post by cheriot »

khazhoux wrote: post #147
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…

> Make it legal to build homes where people live (looking at you California, specifically LA, SF, SV) People keep saying this, but it's just a flavor of trickle-down economics. The idea that if we just let developers build out more (sure, yes they should) that then housing prices would drop and cascade down to where homeless people could afford a place to live. That's such a huge stretch, especially in those areas yo…

> it's just a flavor of trickle-down economics

Trickle down economics is a Republican justification for cutting taxes for the rich. Building new homes under Prop 13 increases the taxes paid by rich people.

Between 2015 and 2019 SF built 19,000 new homes and added 60,000 new jobs. In what world does that not drive up prices? This obsession with developer profits is convenient rhetoric to justify a hunger games like housing market.

Even SRO rooms were going for $1,200 pre-pandemic. This is how struggling people become homeless. Houston doesn't have less homeless because Texas has a better safety net. It's because housing is cheaper.

Here's a simple fact: we need to have enough homes for everyone that works here, retired in place, and that's growing up here. We do not have that right now. Luckily building large residential buildings is something humanity has known how to do for the last 100 years. We "just" need the political will to do it.

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

#159

Post by cheriot »

zz865 wrote: post #100
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…

> Make it legal to build homes where people live (looking at you California, specifically LA, SF, SV) Sorry this is BS. Better solution is move people to where the homes are. Lots of cheap empty houses in America, just not on California beaches. Yeah I'd rather live in a tent on Venice beach than a run down house in Ohio too, but homeless dont have a right to live anywhere.

Housing needs to be where the economic opportunity is. That's why there's empty homes in Detroit and a rent burdened population in coastal cities.

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

#160

Post by cheriot »

mulmen wrote: post #59
cheriot wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of the shelters where I live are full. The article describes increasing chronic unsheltered populations in west coast cities. Do any of these have empty shelter beds? SF and LA do not. "Underutilized land near transit? What do you do about the NIMBYs?" Tell them to take a hike. The state needs to get more involved with objective rules so we don't have a game of each neighborhood screaming NIMBY. > Of course, but…

Thanks for the thoughtful response. Telling NIMBYs to take a hike isn’t simple. How do you actually achieve that? The question is not if we have enough shelter space. The question is if there are homeless who do not want shelter space. In other words do we have another problem to focus on in parallel .

California had a lot of success with Project Home Key that acquired existing hotels and converts them to supportive housing. It worked well because it was quick and often required only one vote by local authorities. In contrast, building new shelters is too easy to drag out and kill with a thousand paper cuts. Some SF Supervisors have spent years saying they want a homeless shelter in their district, but just can't find a place to put it. Others propose a site and then drag out funding forever.

My ideal solution would be a state agency that funds and builds shelters, supportive housing, public housing etc. Each municipality gets a list of how many beds it needs and can pick the locations. BUT if they refuse to pick sites then the state does it for them. Then the state builds it without any more bottlenecks on local politicians.

imo the key is allowing local choice, but not to say no.

If we make shelters a realistic option and a large number of people won't take them we'll have another problem. But we haven't gotten to that bridge yet.

Post reply on HN