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

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

#241

Post by Jackpillar » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 7:28 PM UTC

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…

I mean what did you expect from an article from the Murdoch owned rag of WSJ that is essentially Fox News with a little sheen on it.

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

#242

Post by hackernewds » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 7:28 PM UTC

EatingWithForks wrote: post #223

aorloff wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are doing exactly what you propose. Many communities have "housing first" homeless strategies. Some people do in fact get off the street. But we also have some "service resistant" homeless populations that do not want to live in your rule-based housing, they want to live without those rules even if it means living on the street.

Then figure out what rules can and cannot work. I listened to a podcast were a vet's fucking service dog disallowed him from getting into rehab. A service dog!

Disallowed him is a neat framing for, he made a hard conscious choice.

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

#243

Post by 65 » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 7:29 PM UTC

MentallyRetired wrote: post #197

I don't care anymore. Bus them out to the desert. Set up camp there. Provide food and busses into town for those with interviews and jobs. I really don't care, just get them out of the damn cities. I've seen too many people shit in the bushes or just peeing up against a building. Building tent cities on the beach and enjoyable areas, etc. I. Don't. Care. Get rid of them. I left California for this reason and housing…

Would you care if we murdered all the homeless?

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

#244

Post by mullingitover » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 7:29 PM UTC

s1k3s wrote: post #209

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…

Non-american ignorant here. Why don't they just build the houses? 17B sounds like a lot.

The majority of people on the internet want housing to be affordable.

The majority of people who vote in elections and show up to city council meetings want housing to be an investment that grows in value by 10% annually. Building more houses is a direct threat to that investment. Guess which group wins.

(Caveat: California's state legislature is slowly clamping down. Regions which aren't submitting realistic plans to meet their projected housing needs are getting their zoning privileges taken away, which will help. However, this is like trying to empty a swimming pool with a teaspoon when it comes to the supply and demand mismatch that exists today.)

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

#245

Post by hackernewds » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 7:29 PM UTC

bombcar wrote: post #228

gamblor956 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On this note, LA has hundreds of shelter beds the remain empty every night because they're located in "sober" facilities (meaning that the facilities do not allow alcohol or drug use) and the putative residents would rather be able to drink and use drugs than to have shelter.

There's a "missing middle" that we cannot provide in our current society. Nobody can provide "flop houses" where drugs and alcohol use are ignored unless you're harming someone, so there's nothing between sleeping rough under the bridge and being sober in a shelter. The liability alone would prevent any non-government agency from doing it, and even the government is scared.

Why should government provide this? It creates a perverse incentive as we observe in modern day SF

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

#246

Post by avrionov » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 7:29 PM UTC

Scott Alexander reviewed the book "San Fransicko" by Michael Shellenberger and as part of the review analyzed the top reasons for people to become homeless. [1]

Some takeaways from the review: - Number one predictor for homelessness are the housing prices. - 30% of the homeless in SF are from outside the city

[1] https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-san-fransi...

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

#247

Post by sovnade » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 7:29 PM UTC

s1k3s wrote: post #209

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…

Non-american ignorant here. Why don't they just build the houses? 17B sounds like a lot.

Homelessness isn't just caused by someone not having a home. There is a massive overlap of mental illness and substance abuse/addiction.

Just giving a homeless person a house will not solve the underlying problems that caused them to be homeless in the first place. There needs to be movement on multiple fronts - mental health, physical health, rehab, job training, personal finance, etc.

If the solution was easy, someone would have done it. The uncomfortable truth is when you have someone who is addicted to heroin or fentanyl or meth who isn't really participating in society like everyone else..sometimes there's not much you can do for them. Overcoming addiction is incredibly challenging even for people with means and support systems. Without those, sadly the numbers are abysmal.

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

#248

Post by milesvp » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 7:29 PM UTC

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.

I'm not sure you can make such a bold claim. If California is spending money on homelessness, then all things being equal, it will attract more homeless people than if it didn't spend money on homelessness. Some percentage of these homeless will come from other states. For any two states there is going to be migration of homeless between the 2, and the attractiveness of the state is very much effected by the amount of spending for homelessness. So California could very much be net importing homeless from many of the other states that choose not to spend on homelessness (thus offloading their homelessness problem).

I actually think this a fundamental problem with homelessness, any locality that chooses to affect change, may actually see numbers that make the problem look worse, when in reality they are helping to improve things globally. Worse, is it's all a collective action problem where each player can benefit by not spending on the problem. So there is constant pressure to do nothing with the problem. I wish I had solution to these kinds of problems, they're the type of thing that requires governments to tackle, but it quickly becomes political, and I'm not sure it gets any easier there either.

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

#249

Post by bluGill » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 7:29 PM UTC

bombcar wrote: post #221

aorloff wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are doing exactly what you propose. Many communities have "housing first" homeless strategies. Some people do in fact get off the street. But we also have some "service resistant" homeless populations that do not want to live in your rule-based housing, they want to live without those rules even if it means living on the street.

That second part is a seriously hard problem to deal with because we got rid of institutionalization except in some (very expensive and rare) situations. So we're effectively requiring the prison system to handle things, and only when it becomes too much of a big problem. I suspect we need something like actual government-owned and managed slums - basically jails you can leave at any time. It would be much worse than…

We got rid of institutionalization for very good reason. Many of them outright abused the people under their care. Cleaning up the system is hard. Many of the homeless have mental issues such that they cannot figure out how to report abuse even if it would be listened to, and of course institutions have easy means to ensure you can't report things. (or you can report, but the person doing the abuse investigates and finds nothing wrong)

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

#250

Post by moonchrome » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 7:30 PM UTC

bombcar wrote: post #221

aorloff wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are doing exactly what you propose. Many communities have "housing first" homeless strategies. Some people do in fact get off the street. But we also have some "service resistant" homeless populations that do not want to live in your rule-based housing, they want to live without those rules even if it means living on the street.

That second part is a seriously hard problem to deal with because we got rid of institutionalization except in some (very expensive and rare) situations. So we're effectively requiring the prison system to handle things, and only when it becomes too much of a big problem. I suspect we need something like actual government-owned and managed slums - basically jails you can leave at any time. It would be much worse than…

Implying that if you don't want to live in rule based housing you should be institutionalized ?