California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by jazzyjackson » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 6:34 PM UTC

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.

You can absolutely find a bedroom for 1000/m, but you're going to have to interact with people.

Check how long those apartments have been listed for, some of them have been listed for a year. If it's an actual competitive price it will get rented immediately.

There are shared housing groups on facebook that will reflect the situation more accurately.

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

#102

Post by stale2002 » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 6:35 PM UTC

ly3xqhl8g9 wrote: post #64

latency-guy2 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Homelessness has been on the downtrend for quite a few decades in the US. There is 0 countries in this world who have solved homelessness by the way. I don't think you're correct.

Not sure how much of a downtrend, seems rather stable [1]. There are also 0 countries that implement Georgist policies and most of the countries in the world are directly neoliberal or neoliberal-bent, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia [2], and friends included. Perhaps I am not correct, but what do you think will happen in a few years when we will have a 100 GB neural model able to drive any car in any environment, effect…

Ah, the Georgism fans. Thinking that every single problem in the world can be solved via a land value tax.

It is actually one of the few groups I've found that are worse than the socialist class reductionists, who think that every problem exists "because capitalism".

Yes, a land value tax can be a useful policy. But it simply has little relevance to the topic of people who are homeless because of mental issues.

And you bringing up georgism demonstrates a lack of engagement on the issue, and instead an attempt to shoe horn in your favorite ideology into any possible issue.

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

#103

Post by junofan » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 6:35 PM UTC

nwienert wrote: post #72

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...

On my street in the Mission there were mostly illegal immigrants living on the sidewalk in tents, they told me as much.

Yeah you can just go talk to them to find out where your local homeless are coming from.

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

#104

Post by stale2002 » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 6:37 PM UTC

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.

Well, the issue is also because homelessness isn't caused because people don't have a home.

People could move to the midwest and live very cheaply if that were the issue.

The true cause of homelessness is mostly mental health issues, at least in these big cities.

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

#105

Post by fragmede » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 6:39 PM UTC

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.

Who uses apartments.com? Craigslist is still the place to go.

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

#106

Post by ESTheComposer » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 6:41 PM UTC

zhte415 wrote: post #20

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…

> 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...

If I recall correctly, this source was criticized because their measurement for being "out of state" was that you haven't been in CA for 2 years or so. So if someone had come in 2+ years ago for the CA homeless benefits then they would be considered not out of state.

EDIT: I might be thinking of a different study, because going to that link shows that 65% were in LA county for 20 years supposedly: https://www.lahsa.org/documents?id=2059-2018-greater-los-ang...

I say supposedly because it doesn't mention how they got that information. If they used county records, it's a very different trust paradigm than if they just asked.

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

#107

Post by christkv » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 6:42 PM UTC

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 are a lot of people making money in the current system. It's pretty obvious that just giving money to people trapped in a cycle of addiction is not going to break that cycle.

They need treatment and in many cases it might need to be compelled to break the cycle. This then needs to be followed with integration programs (and jobs, schooling) that do not happen in the same area where they spent their time addicted.

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

#108

Post by Tiktaalik » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 6:43 PM UTC

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.

You don't even need any sort of novel new technology. We could build housing out of wood just like we have for hundreds of years.

The main problem is that new housing is largely banned as established wealth that already have detached homes vote for politicians that promise to not allow any new homes near them.

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

#109

Post by guardiangod » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 6:44 PM UTC

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…

>It is absolutely insane how we’ve stopped treating homeless people as humans with potential and aspirations and assume that all they can be is a vacuum for drugs and cash.

Vancouver has the same approach- warmest place in Canada.

When I suggested active intervention (eg. force detox), the activists would accuse me of treating homeless people as sub-humans, that I am being cruel and inhumane and a monster, and that we should give them (the users and the NGOs) money and safe-supply drug and leave them alone on the street.

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

#110

Post by mikeryan » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 6:44 PM UTC

realjhol wrote: post #17

skrebbel wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is giving people money unconditionally not treating them as “humans with potential and aspirations”? I’m not entirely sure what your point is. Are you saying that adding more rules and conditions and whatnot is better? I don’t have a well-formed opinion here myself, just that most people arguing for treating benefit recipients humanely argue for fewer rules, not more. So I’d like to understand your point better.

Giving addicts drug money instead of providing for their needs is the peak of inhumanity.

Giving addicts drug money instead of providing for their needs is the peak of inhumanity.

Not sure what you think a drug addicts needs are, because usually at the top of the list is "drugs".

There other services provided en-masse for homeless people with addiction problems but you can't force them to take advantage of them.

The "free-money" isn't about treating the root cause of the recipients addiction the hope is to address a symptom and prevent people with addiction problems from committing crimes to fuel their habits.