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

California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 1001 posts

Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working

#41

Post by devoutsalsa »

atdrummond wrote: post #8

That’s because Cali’s approach is insane. They give you hundreds a month in cash grants (some make $1k a month in SF) and require you to make NO alterations to your lifestyle. I was amazed when living in SF how many of the homeless are not locals. Not even Californians! I myself lived on the streets for a number of years and have dealt with addiction issues. It is absolutely insane how we’ve stopped treating homeless…

There's also simply no good solution for people with mental health issues. People who need help aren't scooped up & put somewhere for treatment. They're left on the street.

Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working

#42

Post by atdrummond »

crooked-v wrote: post #21
atdrummond wrote: post #8

That’s because Cali’s approach is insane. They give you hundreds a month in cash grants (some make $1k a month in SF) and require you to make NO alterations to your lifestyle. I was amazed when living in SF how many of the homeless are not locals. Not even Californians! I myself lived on the streets for a number of years and have dealt with addiction issues. It is absolutely insane how we’ve stopped treating homeless…

On the other hand, $1K a month in SF won't even get you a bed in a shared room. I mean that literally - I just checked apartments.com and there's exactly one listing out of 5,400 right now that's under $1000 and open to non-students.

They don’t need a bed or a room. You can camp quite comfortably throughout the city all year long thanks to the mild weather.

It’s a very different situation than being homeless in cities with more typical seasonal weather patterns; I nearly lost a number of toes due to frostbite when I was homeless in Saint Louis during a major blizzard. San Francisco’s climate and permissive camping policies help absolve a lot of the housing related issues that are involved with being homeless.

Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working

#43

Post by latency-guy2 »

atdrummond wrote: post #34
zhte415 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I was amazed when living in SF how many of the homeless are not locals. Not even Californians! Source? Because this seems to be banded around in comments without anyone sourcing. I dropped this actual source [1] in another comment, that measures 13% of unsheltered homeless as coming from out of state for LA. [1] https://www.politifact.com/article/2018/jun/28/dispelling-my...

I didn’t state any numbers. I don’t know. All I have is anecdotes from myself and others who work in this space. That said, you don’t think even 1 in 9 people being out of staters puts pressure on programs? That as more people see how you can migrate and live far more easily than in Midwestern/East Coast cities, that those numbers won’t increase? That there isn’t a negative psychic impact to homeless people who are a…

> I don’t think it is the non-issue you think it is.

Those words, phrases, and thoughts were never shared by the user. This is you inventing a person in your head, and you are arguing with that imaginary person.

Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working

#44

Post by devoutsalsa »

atdrummond wrote: post #10
rottencupcakes wrote: post #3

Homelessness is a failure of the Federal government that nobody there is even willing to talk about. This can't be solved at a local or state level in a country with unrestricted freedom of movement.

I don’t think the feds are to blame. SF and similar CA cities have set up a program that encourages people to move there because it makes being “homeless” an actual possible lifestyle choice. Even an enjoyable one.

Are you aware of this?

Reagan’s Legacy: Homelessness in America

https://shelterforce.org/2004/05/01/reagans-legacy-homelessn...

Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working

#45

Post by rhaway84773 »

pc_edwin wrote: post #30

[flagged]

So where is that 5% on your bell curve in Rio De Janeiro? Or most of Europe? Or most parts of Asia?

Why is the 5% of people in the world who according to you are uncivilized concentrated in the U.S.?

Because homelessness of the sort that you see in the US simply doesn’t exist in most countries in the world. Both countries that are as rich or significantly poorer than the US.

Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working

#46

Post by Cthulhu_ »

pc_edwin wrote: post #30

[flagged]

> These are uncivilised people (by definition), a lot of it is mental illness and the rest is refusal be a civilised human.

Spoken from a position of priviledge and perceived moral superiority. Where do you live, and how much do you earn? Have you ever considered what it would be like if you couldn't afford where you live, no matter how much you earn?

Cost of living has gone up but wages haven't. Minimum wage hasn't been adjusted in years, while rent & housing multiplied thanks to unfettered capitalism. I was lucky in that I managed to buy a house in 2017, but since then the prices have gone up and I would no longer be able to afford the house I live in were it to go on the market, despite my wage having gone up 50% or thereabouts.

It's a trite comment, but seriously, check your priviledge. A nontrivial percentage of the visitors of this website are homeless, couch surfing, live in a car, or pay more for a roof over their heads than they can actually afford.

Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working

#47

Post by mschuster91 »

realjhol wrote: post #31
pharmakom wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very frustrating to see the right blame the left for the homeless problem when the left are the only ones attempting to do anything about it.

The left's idea or "doing something about it" is making the problem worse not better. It would be better to do nothing than actively facilitate and incentivize homelessness and drug addiction with cash payments.

> The left's idea or "doing something about it" is making the problem worse not better. It would be better to do nothing than actively facilitate and incentivize homelessness and drug addiction with cash payments.

It at least keeps people alive. The problem is that the causes of homelessness are not addressed at all - there is nowhere near enough affordable housing stock.

Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working

#48

Post by atdrummond »

devoutsalsa wrote: post #44
atdrummond wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think the feds are to blame. SF and similar CA cities have set up a program that encourages people to move there because it makes being “homeless” an actual possible lifestyle choice. Even an enjoyable one.

Are you aware of this? Reagan’s Legacy: Homelessness in America https://shelterforce.org/2004/05/01/reagans-legacy-homelessn...

Yes. States aren’t powerless to implement mental health requirements and programmes though. It is a cop-out to suggest that states and cities don’t use the full breadth of their legislative powers because the federal government made a bad policy decision over 4 decades ago.

Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working

#49

Post by jxramos »

vmfunction wrote: post #26

with $17B, we can literally 3D print a bunch of micro housing. Seems like money is still wasted in Bureaucrat, red tap and some kind financial fraud.

I've heard it called the homelessness industrial complex, that was from some City Journal article someone posted to HN some years back that introduced me to that publication. It was a shocking thing to contemplate but yah with that sum of money what exactly do we have to show for it?

Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working

#50

Post by cumshitpiss »

atdrummond wrote: post #42
crooked-v wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, $1K a month in SF won't even get you a bed in a shared room. I mean that literally - I just checked apartments.com and there's exactly one listing out of 5,400 right now that's under $1000 and open to non-students.

They don’t need a bed or a room. You can camp quite comfortably throughout the city all year long thanks to the mild weather. It’s a very different situation than being homeless in cities with more typical seasonal weather patterns; I nearly lost a number of toes due to frostbite when I was homeless in Saint Louis during a major blizzard. San Francisco’s climate and permissive camping policies help absolve a lot of t…

[dead]
Post reply on HN