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

131–140 of 1001 posts

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

#131

Post by rqtwteye »

godelski wrote: post #120

This reads as a political ad, not a news story. The ad is good at pulling heart strings and getting people riled up (see comments here) but does not do any actual reporting. How did California spend the money? Were there leaky buckets? How does California have 50% of the homeless and 12% of the population? Are people being bussed in, making this a federal problem? Who's responsible? Don't just tell me the governor, t…

Real data is not fashionable anymore to report. Same in health care and education. Tell me where all the f...ing money goes and why it's going up all the time. Don't single out one bad player but provide a full breakdown. That's what journalists should be doing.

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

#132

Post by soperj »

guardiangod wrote: post #109
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 w…

Detox doesn't really work if they don't want it. The active intervention w/r to homelessness would be to actually house these people. Lots of these people are using drugs to cope with other problems, without dealing with the other issues what are the chances of detox actually being worthwhile?

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

#133

Post by bawolff »

tptacek wrote: post #122
guardiangod wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 w…

There's a pervasive belief that homeless people in various comfortable climes are migrants from harsher locales, but when you do the research you apparently tend to find that they're overwhelmingly people who had stable living situations in those comfortable locations, and became homeless there: they aren't "imported". So the "warmest place in Canada" thing is unlikely to be meaningful, unless there's some reason a c…

I definitely see less homeless people in places that go to -40 in the winter. Now I don't know why, maybe they still exist but are less visible. Perhaps the threat of homelessness is a lot scarier when it is cold outside. Maybe homeless people in those climates move. I don't know, but anecdotally it does seem like there are much fewer homeless people in cold places.

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

#134

Post by youreincorrect »

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...

Reagan hasn't been governor of California or president of the US for a long time.

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

#135

Post by thx-2718 »

akira2501 wrote: post #57
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.

> How is giving people money unconditionally not treating them as “humans with potential and aspirations”? If access to money is not their actual impediment then you may be making their situation worse. > I’m not entirely sure what your point is. Are you saying that adding more rules and conditions and whatnot is better? You are drowning. I throw $1000 at you. Are you saying I should have done more? > argue for fewer…

"Zoning and parking laws are ignored. Noise laws are ignored. Drug laws are ignored. There is zero effort to serve this population and get them out of the literal gutter. Pets are a massive problem. Children are living in the middle of this. "

How do you pay to enforce all of this? Do jails have adequate space? Are there enough judges, courtrooms, and public defender's to handle this efficiently? Where should the children go?

"It's not working"

What are your suggestions for aiding people to be able to afford rent and sustaining themselves?

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

#136

Post by guardiangod »

tptacek wrote: post #122
guardiangod wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 w…

There's a pervasive belief that homeless people in various comfortable climes are migrants from harsher locales, but when you do the research you apparently tend to find that they're overwhelmingly people who had stable living situations in those comfortable locations, and became homeless there: they aren't "imported". So the "warmest place in Canada" thing is unlikely to be meaningful, unless there's some reason a c…

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouver-homeless-national-...

>In the City of Vancouver’s 2019 homeless count, based on those who responded, 16% (156 people) of the homeless reported they were from an area elsewhere in Metro Vancouver, while 31% (299 people) were from another area of BC, and 44% (435 people) from another area of Canada.

Where is the data backing up your claim?

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

#137

Post by soperj »

tptacek wrote: post #122
guardiangod wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 w…

There's a pervasive belief that homeless people in various comfortable climes are migrants from harsher locales, but when you do the research you apparently tend to find that they're overwhelmingly people who had stable living situations in those comfortable locations, and became homeless there: they aren't "imported". So the "warmest place in Canada" thing is unlikely to be meaningful, unless there's some reason a c…

Vancouver isn't just the warmest place, it's also the most expensive. There definitely have been cases of other parts of the country paying for a bus ticket out to the coast, just like they did to homeless people in Vancouver, sending them to Victoria during the Winter Olympics.

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

#138

Post by hobo_in_library »

Fauntleroy wrote: post #100
madsbuch wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drug-addicts is something you interpret. It is specified that they are homeless. Doing this conflation is the worst kind of anti-ethical you can be. Just like assuming other things about whole groups of people. For this debate, I can really recommend Rutger Bregman and his books. One of his important points about poverty is that people are that: Poor. And that is their problem.

I can see that you're not in California, so I feel like I should reiterate that drugs are a massive problem among our homeless population here. It is something that needs consideration when trying to help them. The main problem with just giving people $1,000/mo is that it is nowhere near enough to get off the street, but more than enough to continue fueling a drug problem.

That, and part of the problem seems to be that when people say "get them off the streets" the hidden statement is "but keep them in SF"

SF is a ridiculously expensive city that people from across the US consider (who have homes even) consider themselves priced out of.

It seems mind boggling that people think everyone deserves a home in SF itself, instead of relocation to, say, a new suburb constructed a couple hours away (where housing is cheaper!).

Constructing that suburb would create jobs. The infrastructure needed to maintain it would create jobs. And even if it remains a net cash drain, it'll still likely be cheaper than 17B a year while giving people actual homes with opportunities to work their way up and out

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

#139

Post by lr4444lr »

Tiktaalik wrote: post #108
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.

Pardon my ignorance, but how do you reasonably stop fires in attached wood homes from becoming a huge problem fast?

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

#140

Post by bonestamp2 »

tptacek wrote: post #130
godelski wrote: post #120

This reads as a political ad, not a news story. The ad is good at pulling heart strings and getting people riled up (see comments here) but does not do any actual reporting. How did California spend the money? Were there leaky buckets? How does California have 50% of the homeless and 12% of the population? Are people being bussed in, making this a federal problem? Who's responsible? Don't just tell me the governor, t…

California's homelessness problem is not caused by other states offloading their homeless to California.

That's a useful answer to one of the questions the article did not answer. Now, do you have a reliable source?
Post reply on HN