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

331–340 of 1001 posts

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

#331

Post by meowtimemania »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #310
aidenn0 wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found this chart[1] and I do wonder how Oregon and Washington have such a high unsheltered population; I'm not familiar with the PNW, are parts of the states mild? The rest of that chart is pretty much in line with how I perceive winters to be. 1: https://www.thecentersquare.com/florida/article_67aeebc1-e7b...

I'm not first-hand familiar with Oregon, but some parts of Washington have moderate temps. Coastal Washington gets a lot of rain but rarely freezes and -- anecdotally -- at least one city in Coastal Washington has vastly worse rates of homelessness on a per capita basis than some of the cities infamous for it, like Seattle and SF. And, yes, they are mostly camped outside, not in shelters.

Which city? I was in Spokane recently (obviously not the coastal city you are speaking about) and was surprised by how full of homeless people downtown was.

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

#332

Post by beerpls »

WeylandYutani wrote: post #281
beerpls wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a warm climate with large cities which provide sufficient incentive for people to choose to be homeless over other avenues of living Homeless people obviously want to live somewhere like Cali over Canada for the winter. California also provides massive welfare to homeless. They also have a very open arms policy to illegals who are often poor and homeless These aren’t exhaustive reasons why, but it’s a core part…

You think people choose to be fucked up? And what's the solution here, shoot the homeless? Guess what you're in a never ending war. Every day new crazy people are born or made by our wonderful society, poverty keeps spreading (where's my replicators!).

people who take this emotional and illogical approach is exactly why the homeless suffer to the extent they do

stop virtue signaling and start thinking or kindly avoid this topic because you’re only causing harm

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

#333

Post by Izikiel43 »

thebigwinning wrote: post #264
giantg2 wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similar to what I've seen in HI. I imagine there would be more in HI if it didn't cost an expensive plane ticket.

SF and further north are hardly nice weather locations.

Define nice weather. If we are talking winters with temperatures consistently over 0C (32F), little to no snow, seattle and portland are great for winter.

Nice weather for homeless people basically means not strong shelter required to survive, unlike the midwest and east coast which consistently freeze in winter.

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

#334

Post by Spivak »

hackernewds wrote: post #239
abeppu wrote: post #171

What's crazy is that we decide to spend on homelessness in such inefficient ways. A "housing first" strategy would be more humane, and pretty affordable compared to what we're currently doing. This article says $3.7B for an estimated 115k homeless population which yields around $32k per person per year, or $2700 per person per month, and that's only state money. In SF it may be more like $57k/yr, or $4750/mo. At thos…

Simply giving the homeless, a lot of them addicted and with mental health original, a $4700/month home or the money directly does not help them. Without being presumptive, it irks me to see internet experts barge it with their own theories and expertise, rather than the people who have studied and dedicated themselves for decades.

Edit: Unlike the sibling poster I am saying it give it to them directly.

I guarantee you it if you set the average homeless person up with a nice apartment and just gave them the change from that $4700 in a real bank account no strings attached in perpetuity the problem would get sorted real quick. Oh no they do drugs?! like the heaviest drug users I've ever met aren't white collar.

Even better offer them that same $4700 deal but pay to relocate them to the midwest and they'll be able to afford all but the penthouse luxury apartments, pay all their bills and expenses, and still put $2k in savings/discretionary spending every month.

Like we're talking about spending an amount of money that would be life changing to the average american household per capita and pretending that somehow it wouldn't change lives. Sure there's gonna be exceptions but buy some sandwiches and forties shoot the shit with some homeless folks sometime. They're mostly normal-ass people who've been traumatized by homelessness and stuck.

In a world where I become one of those rich people that can't spend money fast enough to not get richer that's 100% gonna be my lifetime project. Wonder if Bezos is looking for a new wife.

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

#335

Post by mbfg »

hackernewds wrote: post #271
russdill wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California has a housing crisis and there is no political will to fix it. Not wanting low cost housing in your neighborhood is something that unites people very strongly across the political spectrum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_housing_shortage

The implication that there is a Boogeyman political system that doesn't want to house the homeless in their neighborhood is suspect and laughter inducing. Politicians need the will of the people to persist. It is the PEOPLE that reside in these communities that consistently vote down measures for building ANY housing in their neighborhood to inflate their real estate holdings. Housing homeless is an far reaching exte…

i'm pretty sure that's what the op was saying.

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

#336

Post by mstratman »

Reason TV did an interesting video recently looking at several angles of homelessness: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcZhmUfDePE

There are a lot of things you can take from it, but one overarching opinion is that "housing first" gets in the way of helping those who are down on their luck and find themselves hopefully-temporarily without a home (as opposed to those who cannot or will not work to change their situation).

It makes the case you need multiple approaches to deal with the vastly different homeless situations.

Check it out.

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

#337

Post by femiagbabiaka »

milesvp wrote: post #248
tptacek wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

In the absence of data, this is pure conspiracy. And considering the obvious issue of California being one of the most expensive places to live on the continent, it seems like quite a stretch.

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

#338

Post by guardiangod »

magicalist wrote: post #307
guardiangod wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If you go to the actual report[1] instead of whatever this site is, you'll see that question (3.9) was asking where they lived before they moved to Vancouver , not before they became homeless or whatever that site is attempting to imply. If you scroll down slightly (3.11) you'll see 81% of respondents had a home in Vancouver before they became homeless, which is the data to match the claim ("overwhelmingly people who…

So they moved to Vancouver, had a home for a year, then become homeless. The news article did not claim that the homeless respondents were homeless before they moved; simply that they are not local to Vancouver.

If you become homeless after 6 months of moving, you weren't financially stable to begin with.

EDIT: It's a moot point anymore. The fact is, they are in Vancouver and are homeless. We should help them regardless of where they came from.

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

#339

Post by tlogan »

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…

Sadly, I think the problem is much simpler: corruption. Given that California is essentially governed by a single party, it is subject to corruption and inefficiency.

Lets take just example from this week: an announcement was made stating that the construction of a tiny house costs $1,600 per square foot [1]. All I can say is this: somebody is pocketing this money. I don't know who, how, or why. Regardless, it's clear that this money is going to someone, and that someone is not homeless.

[1] https://sfstandard.com/housing-development/a-builder-convert...

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

#340

Post by pedroma »

vore wrote: post #267
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…

I hope you never end up on the other side of the situation and have to see people on the Internet write about you in such contempt like this.

Not him, but it would likely be my own fault and weakness if I end up like that and people have every right to ridicule me for acting ridiculous. That is, pooping on the streets and leaving needles everywhere.
Post reply on HN