Live data from Hacker News

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

wsj.com

161–170 of 1001 posts

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

#161
post #7

It is mentioned in the article about a woman working full time, yet still unable to afford rent. I think a big steps towards resolving homelessness should go in addressing the housing market; which in California is really really bad. This isn't just "build more homes" (which is already an extremely difficult task in the state given the zoning laws) but comprehensive housing policies. Take a look at the way Austria ha…

Also, the "build more homes" makes a big assumption about _where_ the homes should be built.

There are already small towns across the US where homes are ridiculously cheap because no one wants to move there, and in fact people are moving out.

If you were to spread the homeless out around towns such as those (or create a new small town a couple hours away from a big city) you'd end up with a lot of supply.

Now, would the homeless be willing to move to such a place to get a home? The ones who really want to pull themselves up probably would.

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

#162

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…

You’ve correctly identified the issues with media today. Rage inducing articles are easier to read and get more views. As soon as you introduce facts then very quickly it becomes a nuanced debate on the issue which is far less interesting because and worth less revenue.

We really need some kind of regulations to disincentivize companies from producing drivel and more incentives for well researched material.

I don’t know what those regulations would look like. But without them we are drowning in material that does society more harm than good.

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

#163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>You are drowning. I throw $1000 at you. Are you saying I should have done more? What if we apply your logic to your own scenario? You are drowning. I will jump in and help you get to safety only after you have taken a blood and piss test. Are you saying I should have done more?

You are drowning.

I jump in and help you to shore.

You immediately jump back in and start drowning again.

Someone else helps you to shore

You jump back in and start drowning again.

Eventually everyone who would help you wants some kind of evidence that this time you won't just jump back in before they help you.

You drown.

Are you saying they should have done more?

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

#164

> has about half of the nation’s unsheltered homeless How many are from California and how many were given a bus pass to California by a government content to move the homeless around or on their own accord made their way to California as it has some of the best services? How many are the same homeless people and how many are new homeless people who have replaced the old homeless people, making it appear that no prog…

[deleted]

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

#165
post #158
post #66

I've decided most homeless social programs are a trap. By locating these programs in the centers of the highest cost of living cities, we can't reasonably expect them to succeed, assuming success is actually getting people housed and back on their feet. We need to encourage people to move some place they have a chance in hell of getting out of poverty. Centering these programs in rich city centers is a failed policy…

In some cases, these are indirect corporate subsidies. After all, who will work in low-paying jobs in SF, if they have to live far far away? Where could people move that would give them more opportunities? Rural areas often lack the social resources to support people in more precarious situations, and big cities is where the opportunities are.

Interesting idea, but do homeless folks actually end up working for corporations? They have a hard enough time getting any job in the first place (and remaining presentable enough for their job if they do get one)

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

#166

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.

I’m not at all against unconditional cash grants. I work for a non-profit that does just that. What I am against is a totally unstructured program where they hand cash out knowing that 90% of it goes into an open air drug market that they make no attempt to shut down or control. I’m not arguing for work requirements or time limits. People who are legitimately struggling will fall through the cracks. But I don’t think…

If the money is just going back to the drug dealers I would think that would just exacerbate the problem and make it even worse, as it just encourages drug dealers and producers to make and sell more.

There definitely needs to be case workers or someone involved to help provide these people a path to recovery.

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

#168

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…

I don't think this is a fair response. Throwing a conditional means-tested $1000 to a drowning man wouldn't save them either. You are grouping in different policies and treating them as if you have to accept a package deal or nothing. The binary choice is a false illusion.

I'd be happy to argue about the value of means-testing. However people who are in favor of means testing can rarely point to a study validating the effectiveness of it, because the reality of means-testing is that it: a) Increases administration costs, making it rarely cost efficient b) Increases barriers to access, leaving people who need help behind c) Tends to create poverty traps and weird distorting incentives.

I'd also be happy to look at data in terms of what services the unhoused need most, and what is the most helpful in terms of ending long-term homelessness and reducing the impact on society as a whole. This is a separate discussion.

In reality though, I think most people on both sides think of it on a local scale, and therefore are struggling to actually come up with solutions that will fundamentally solve the issue. Communities have generally gone with one of two solutions to these issues: 1) Making it difficult for those who are unhoused. 2) Trying to improve the situation of those who are unhoused.

The first approach doesn't actually solve the problem, it just shifts it to other locations. At its worst you see it with cities and towns busing their homeless to other places, but you see it expressed most frequently with the criminalization of homelessness. If this was the approach everywhere we would quickly enter an arms race of who could make things worse, and you would almost certainly see the problem nationally become worse.

On the other hand, you have communities trying to improve the lives of unhoused folks, which is really just a bandaid on the core issue.

The root of the problem is the cost of housing, and unfortunately this is an area which California has struggled to solve. However, this is completely orthogonal to how you treat your homeless populations. You can treat the homeless with dignity AND lower housing costs at the same time.

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

#169

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…

> Were there leaky buckets

Oh, yes. Some samples:

1. https://sfstandard.com/housing-development/city-audit-finds-...

2. https://thefrisc.com/sf-has-fought-homelessness-with-no-bid-...

3. https://sfstandard.com/politics/sf-homeless-nonprofit-housin...

This is common knowledge for folks in the Bay Area.

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

#170

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…

  but when you do the research
Can you point me to any of that research? If I'm wrong I'd like to update my belief.

Admittedly, my belief has only weak evidence:

- San Francisco pays homeless people more than most other places, and has relatively weak enforcement of laws related to camping, drugs and petty crime

- Anecdotes about people on the street being interviewed, and admitting that they lied about being from SF, in order to qualify for benefits

- Hearing some accents that don't sound (to me) like they're from around here

Post reply on HN