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

261–270 of 270 posts

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

#261

Post by StanislavPetrov »

whimsicalism wrote: post #244
StanislavPetrov wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That’s why people see it as a crisis: a lot of people in west coast cities feel increasingly unsafe. It's certainly not just west coast cities where this is happening. >So thousands of people might get a subconscious feeling of being unsafe, just from a small number of people who might not even be acting in unsafe ways. In large part, it is a small number of people who make the masses feel unsafe. The issue recently…

> The most basic and important job for any government is so maintain a basic, minimum level of public safety. Without that, nothing else they do much matters. Look, I agree that this is a problem - but I think it is laughable to suggest our current government doesn't provide this basic, minimum level.

Hop on a subway and take a ride through the Bronx and let me know how you feel then.

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

#262

Post by mulmen »

forgotmypw17 wrote: post #258
mulmen wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hypothe…

>But no, you can’t live there. What do you think gives you the right to make that call?

Democracy.

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

#263

Post by sershe »

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…

From this comment and below (and 99% vs 1% claim; I've heard very different numbers on addiction and debilitating mental illness), would you, or other people in the industry support my, "Housing First, OR ELSE" approach? Give homeless people SRO style housing with private rooms, purpose-built. No support, no wrap-around services - just housing and maybe food. They can stay there forever, or move out if they get it together. If the problem is really lack of dignity/etc., "99%" should accept it and get it together, right? On the flip side, if you get housing, or refuse housing, and still commit violent/property crimes (/especially/ against your SRO mates, to ensure the housing quality is not compromised) - it's speedily prosecuted and you go to jail with 3-strike-style escalating penalties.

In my view it would solve homelessness in a few years, housing people between SROs (99%?) and jails (1%?). That is if entire billion-dollars-combined homeless budgets could be redirected to SRO construction.

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

#264

Post by GhettoComputers »

cheriot wrote: post #254
GhettoComputers wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Rent control has only existed in a handful of CA municipalities, but the exorbitant housing costs are everywhere in the SF, SV, LA regions. To your point, CA's regional housing needs assessments are state level intervention to undo city level interventions (zoning, permitting) that prohibit housing.

Aren’t those the most important areas that need housing? Isn’t rent control being used as the proposed solution for affordable housing? Wouldn’t removal help? The cost is also less nature and it can lose attractive characteristics, like how gentrification changes environments.

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

#265

Post by MeinBlutIstBlau »

azinman2 wrote: post #138
MeinBlutIstBlau wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> If people are threatened with jail for being a vagrant, they'll eventually take the path of least resistance and get a job. I'd love to see the data to back this up. Sounds like you're coming from some idea that most homeless want to be lazy and not work and stay homeless, and if jail were threatened, that all of the sudden they'd get a job and re-integrate into society. That's extremely disconnected from reality.

I've never met a homeless person that actually wanted to get out of homelessness to not do so. Almost all homeless people I've ever run into are the severely mentally ill and drug addicts. It's awful to say this, but they are not worth devoting resources to if they can't fix themselves. They are lost causes until they decide themselves that they are not. It'd be great if we could help them, but it's an utter waste of time to devote resources to these people who just don't want to change. If they want to prove us wrong, they need to show us they want to change. We're not gonna be some sort of saviors to them to foster an enabling environment for them to just abuse.

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

#266

Post by stillbourne »

rufus_foreman wrote: post #260
stillbourne wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course fault matters, cost of rent going up so high no one can afford an apartment. Do you blame the residents, like chii is doing, for not making enough? Or do you blame the fucking assholes raising the god damn rent?

I don't blame. I don't find fault. There's just responsibility. Life is hard and things aren't fair. True. But that has nothing to do with responsibility.

Sure it does. When you or anyone performs an action there is a consequence. Consequences can be good or bad. When you raise the rent the consequence is people pay more for rent. The people who performed the action of raising the rent are responsible for their actions. Those actions also have the consequence that fewer people can afford rent. The increase in people that can't afford rents cause a crisis, that crisis is that people that cannot afford to live in an apartment live on the street. That has everything to do with who is responsible. The people that are responsible are the people that raise the rent. How is that not obvious?

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

#268

Post by phlakaton »

GhettoComputers wrote: post #264
cheriot wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rent control has only existed in a handful of CA municipalities, but the exorbitant housing costs are everywhere in the SF, SV, LA regions. To your point, CA's regional housing needs assessments are state level intervention to undo city level interventions (zoning, permitting) that prohibit housing.

Aren’t those the most important areas that need housing? Isn’t rent control being used as the proposed solution for affordable housing? Wouldn’t removal help? The cost is also less nature and it can lose attractive characteristics, like how gentrification changes environments.

The state mandates that some of the allocation go too "affordable housing" and that the placement of said housing is not obviously redlined (e.g. you can't just dump some flophouses on an abandoned military base and call that an affordable housing solution). The state does not mandate rent control, and not all cities with huge housing needs pursue rent control. So yes, there's a shape to the stare-level intervention, but nothing as draconian as you describe.

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

#269

Post by cheriot »

GhettoComputers wrote: post #229
cheriot wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There’s empty houses in SF. Your point? The rent controlled 5 bedroom that has the same price in 1999 for the single renter doesn’t feel burdened, if they could use the existing housing and rent at market value, more people will have housing and the government will save money. You’re assuming homeless who want to live in homes don’t know how to find cheaper housing and must be able to walk to work or that they can co…

SF has one of the lowest vacancy rates in the country, which is part of what drives up prices.

My point is that we need housing where the housing shortage is.

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

#270

Post by cheriot »

GhettoComputers wrote: post #264
cheriot wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rent control has only existed in a handful of CA municipalities, but the exorbitant housing costs are everywhere in the SF, SV, LA regions. To your point, CA's regional housing needs assessments are state level intervention to undo city level interventions (zoning, permitting) that prohibit housing.

Aren’t those the most important areas that need housing? Isn’t rent control being used as the proposed solution for affordable housing? Wouldn’t removal help? The cost is also less nature and it can lose attractive characteristics, like how gentrification changes environments.

Removing rent control does not address the housing shortage.

The city built office space for more jobs and prohibits housing for those new workers. That's the problem to solve.

Post reply on HN