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

231–240 of 270 posts

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

#231

Post by throwaway0a5e »

rp1 wrote: post #157
throwaway0a5e wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

I think you need to compare with what "bad behavior by the homeless" looks like on the other coast.

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

#232

Post by pboutros »

mulmen wrote: post #217
pboutros wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

_What if they want to sleep on the street?_ Let's start by sheltering as many people as we can, and when our problem becomes "too many empty beds", then we can move on to that problem. _Where do we build them?_ I bet there are choices we can make that house 100+ people for every 1 person who is mildly inconvenienced. _Are there barriers to living in these dorms?_ No.

Homelessness is not a single problem. We can't pretend there is a single solution. Reality is more complex than just saying "build beds" and not adding any rules or guidelines. Why should recovering addicts be forced to live in a setting where they are tempted by drugs? Why shouldn't they be given a chance to live in a drug-free setting? Why should victims of abuse be forced to live near potential abusers? Shouldn't…

Nobody in these threads is saying that housing them is the silver bullet. But shelter is part of the foundation of a human's hierarchy of needs, and being anything but single-minded about people's right to shelter distracts from helping them obtain it.

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

#233

Post by GhettoComputers »

phlakaton wrote: post #228
mulmen wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being a resident of Seattle I'm not thrilled about the state of Washington making decisions about what happens in my city. I can get behind something like gating funding based on results but I'm not thrilled about the state dictating how the city spends money. I could also get behind the idea of a state-owned-and-operated shelter network which happens to have locations in cities. But in general I have a preference to…

I might not be thrilled with state intervention either, but I do not doubt its necessity. Here in California the state has a new housing target that is allocated to regions. The regions then allocate new housing targets to cities. And pretty much every single one of the cities in the Bay Area is having to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to meet those targets. My own city is having to violate its own low-density re…

Rent controlled housing is intervention that drives the rest of it up, and causes hoarding where they want to keep the old prices in a multi bedroom apartment, higher prices for others that cause long vacancies, they’re dreading building a certain amount of affordable housing from upper bureaucrats, that prescribed only one solution that doesn’t fit into the data, so the problems of intervention are being solved with the same intervention that caused it.

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

#234

Post by gverrilla »

"To eliminate poverty it was necessary to conceive of an industrial system more productive than our own. Such will be universal harmony which will produce at least triple — yes, without exaggeration — at least triple the yield of the civilised system in a well-cultivated empire. Accordingly, while Harmony will greatly increase the wealth of the well-to-do, it will bring about an excessive increase in that of the people, to whom it will guarantee a salary or in old age a decent minimum below which they cannot fall. This beneficence will be all the more simple in that humanity will reproduce much less in Harmony than in civilisation.

This is far removed from the theories of the philosophers, some of whom, the Demagogues, seek to rob the rich to provide for the poor. The others, who are called the Economists, do not have the welfare of the people in mind. They think only of enriching empires without worrying themselves about the fate of the individual. Thus the theories of the Economists have greatly enriched England without enriching the English. According to the Tableau de Londres you can find 115,000 paupers, prostitutes, thieves, beggars and unemployed in the city of London alone; the workers of Scotland live in a frightful state of misery. This is nonetheless the consequence of the modern systems which claim to alleviate the suffering of the people."

Charles Fourier, December 1803

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

#235

Post by nostrebored »

lukeschlather wrote: post #144
nostrebored wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that people in the U.S. so often only see homelessness through the lens of where they live. Homelessness is a unique problem in each city. For example, the west coast has favorable weather and a history of being a destination for people after they are released from prisons or mental facilities. In cities on the east coast there is more leftist-narrative style homelessness: people who were depending on…

> But in all instances there is typically an oversupply of homeless shelters that people refuse to use (due to restrictions on substance abuse etc.) it’s a tough problem. This is not correct. In most places, there is a wild shortage of shelters. For example King County has ~4000 shelter beds and ~12,000 people who need shelter. AFAIK the only place where there are enough shelter beds is NYC where they are legally req…

Look at occupancy rates of those shelters — they’re almost all low.

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

#236

Post by telchar »

notJim wrote: post #114
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.

That seems to me to be a big mistake. People talk a lot about affordable housing but as far as I can tell they aren't talking about housing that would be affordable to build. People seem to only want to talk about subsidized housing in luxury developments, at least in the discussions I'm party to.

Of course only a few of these units get built in any development, after much wrangling from the city, and then the city and the developers pat themselves on the back while the lack of housing is hardly budged and the affordable housing advocates are unappeased. I think SRO-style housing is the only realistic way to make affordable housing widely enough available that people well below the median income for an area can be guaranteed housing.

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

#237

Post by spywaregorilla »

tdeck wrote: post #225
spywaregorilla wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a caricature. These people are easy to find in many cities. They're not uncommon sights, even if they don't resemble the average homeless person. The question was about the "severely mentally ill". If the counterpoint is that it's rude to acknowledge the people who seem to be utterly insane, well I think that's kind of shit. If it's that these aren't the people we're referring to when we say "severely mental…

A person can be severely mentally ill in many ways, not all of them are highly public and immediately offensive to passers by. So while the people you describe would indeed fall into that category, many readers would likely place other people with debilitating mental illnesses into that category as well.

That's true, but someone who is severely mentally ill in an invisible way is not going to be categorized as such by a passerby, so it's an obviously semantic ambiguity. Saying what is technically true but not understood is just distracting.

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

#238

Post by mulmen »

forgotmypw17 wrote: post #227
mulmen wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I see it as "anywhere it's not in someone's way" I think that's a reasonable take. I don't think that living in a public park is a valid lifestyle choice. Those places can't serve their purpose as public areas for recreation if they are also someone's home. I understand that people do it now because they are desperate. We should provide them with better options. Or at least acceptable options that allow the rest of…

I don't think mandating what's valid and not valid on public areas is valid. How is "recreation" any more valid than "sleeping"?

That’s disingenuous.

I’m not opposed to sleeping in parks. Like, sure, take a nap. But no, you can’t live there.

Take a look at the homeless camps in Seattle parks and greenbelts. That’s not staying out of anyone’s way. There’s nothing harmonious about it.

Basic services are mandatory in camping areas. Without bathrooms we get human waste accumulation and runoff. Without trash service we get fires. This isn’t hypothetical. Go look around Seattle.

Dictating what is done with public spaces is absolutely valid. That is how civilization works. It’s why we even have public spaces.

Without rules on what’s allowed in parks they’d be developed into something else.

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

#239

Post by mulmen »

pboutros wrote: post #232
mulmen wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Homelessness is not a single problem. We can't pretend there is a single solution. Reality is more complex than just saying "build beds" and not adding any rules or guidelines. Why should recovering addicts be forced to live in a setting where they are tempted by drugs? Why shouldn't they be given a chance to live in a drug-free setting? Why should victims of abuse be forced to live near potential abusers? Shouldn't…

Nobody in these threads is saying that housing them is the silver bullet. But shelter is part of the foundation of a human's hierarchy of needs, and being anything but single-minded about people's right to shelter distracts from helping them obtain it.

That’s an absurd statement. As you say, there is no silver bullet. In other words there is no single-threaded solution. We have to do better.

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

#240

Post by stillbourne »

chii wrote: post #204
stillbourne wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The apartment I rented for $1400 a month in 2015 is now $2200. It's still the cheapest in my neighborhood. Meanwhile I'm still making the same amount of money, I've hopped a couple jobs but the wages are stagnant. Also I don't like the tone of your voice you seem to be accusing me of some sort of moral failing for not making enough money. I make what's average for a developer in Denver. I'm putting as much as I can i…

I don't mean to accuse you of any failings (moral or otherwise). I meant to argue that a lot of people may mistakenly believe they're well paid, because in the past when they started their job, they were indeed well paid. But as time goes by, the situation changes, but the person doesn't make any changes and thus, get into a situation where they cannot fix themselves. So diagnosing a problem early, and making correct…

You are still arguing this point like its my fault.
Post reply on HN