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

Los Angeles is spending up to $837k to house a single homeless person

ktla.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 368 posts

Re: Los Angeles is spending up to $837k to house a single homeless person

#11

Post by kerneloftruth »

flerchin wrote: post #8
kerneloftruth wrote: post #5

The sad part is how long such spending has gone on across the state. They're homeless because they're mentally ill, not because of the tautological nonsense of "they're homeless because they haven't a home". The mental illness is exceeded only by the stupidity of the policies. Instead of the singular focus on establishing state-paid housing, _requiring_ treatment for the chronically homeless is far overdue. The optio…

Treatment would IMO, include housing while under treatment, and some sort of halfway-housing afterwards.

Yes, exactly right. That is where they can learn and establish structure in their life, and build a foundation. These were once referred to as Independent Living Skills. Once taught and established, then they can hopefully translate that into a healthier life on their own.

Re: Los Angeles is spending up to $837k to house a single homeless person

#12

Post by kerneloftruth »

lisper wrote: post #9
kerneloftruth wrote: post #5

The sad part is how long such spending has gone on across the state. They're homeless because they're mentally ill, not because of the tautological nonsense of "they're homeless because they haven't a home". The mental illness is exceeded only by the stupidity of the policies. Instead of the singular focus on establishing state-paid housing, _requiring_ treatment for the chronically homeless is far overdue. The optio…

> They're homeless because they're mentally ill Some but not all. There are many disparate causes of homelessness and mental illness is just one of them. > _requiring_ treatment for the chronically homeless That is hard to implement in a free country.

"That is hard to implement in a free country"

The past 2 years proves that entirely untrue.

Re: Los Angeles is spending up to $837k to house a single homeless person

#14

Post by lisper »

kerneloftruth wrote: post #12
lisper wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They're homeless because they're mentally ill Some but not all. There are many disparate causes of homelessness and mental illness is just one of them. > _requiring_ treatment for the chronically homeless That is hard to implement in a free country.

"That is hard to implement in a free country" The past 2 years proves that entirely untrue.

Huh? How?

Re: Los Angeles is spending up to $837k to house a single homeless person

#17

Post by nimbius »

the fact that any housing is getting built is frankly a refreshing turn of events.

for people unfamiliar with los angeles, is very much a city of landed gentry. republican legislation designed to curtail rising taxes for elderly residents 40 years ago wound up creating a cloistered elite of land-owners that pay nearly nothing in tax and resist any attempt to create additional housing. They coast on a bubble of six-figure increases in equity per year with little to prevent a ramshackle bungalow in inglewood from fetching a cash-only two million dollar price.

when legislators typically try to address the very same landed gentry's cries for relief from the homeless, they wind up collecting windfall bond measure revenue. as they gain momentum and start striking ground, most communities put up fierce NIMBY opposition and mire whatever initiatives that are approved in court. the city in turn eventually gives up, settles, and uses the remaining funds to quietly continue sanitation and cleanup efforts of camps, occasionally running the homeless away for a day or two.

for the city to bemoan rising costs and slow pace is a bit ironic as well. when LA decided to give up on property taxes it had to find a way to make up the difference. hence a league of esoteric inspections and byzantine permitting started popping up for new homes. it means contractors sit idle and watch the price of lumber skyrocket while your self-licking ice cream cone melts in the sun.

Re: Los Angeles is spending up to $837k to house a single homeless person

#18

Post by TheCondor »

flerchin wrote: post #8
kerneloftruth wrote: post #5

The sad part is how long such spending has gone on across the state. They're homeless because they're mentally ill, not because of the tautological nonsense of "they're homeless because they haven't a home". The mental illness is exceeded only by the stupidity of the policies. Instead of the singular focus on establishing state-paid housing, _requiring_ treatment for the chronically homeless is far overdue. The optio…

Treatment would IMO, include housing while under treatment, and some sort of halfway-housing afterwards.

Is there an "afterwards?"

I don't know if there are "one time" or "one shot" solutions. Certainly there are some unhoused that can be helped by that but I'm under the impression that most have issues that go substantially beyond a one time check or a pill or a one time treatment.

Re: Los Angeles is spending up to $837k to house a single homeless person

#19

Post by throwaway1777 »

lisper wrote: post #14
kerneloftruth wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"That is hard to implement in a free country" The past 2 years proves that entirely untrue.

Huh? How?

We required everyone to get COVID treatment. (Especially in california)

Re: Los Angeles is spending up to $837k to house a single homeless person

#20

Post by re6fae5Wied5tha »

kerneloftruth wrote: post #5

The sad part is how long such spending has gone on across the state. They're homeless because they're mentally ill, not because of the tautological nonsense of "they're homeless because they haven't a home". The mental illness is exceeded only by the stupidity of the policies. Instead of the singular focus on establishing state-paid housing, _requiring_ treatment for the chronically homeless is far overdue. The optio…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN