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

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

#521

Post by losteric » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 9:39 PM UTC

sroussey wrote: post #496

umvi wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the problems growing, and you are just sinking billions into it without making any measurable impact, where the fuck is the money going? A lot of these programs are hard to stop paying into once you start. Say you are a political leader and you try to solve homelessness by pouring $X per year into some new program. 5 years later it's clear the program is not effective. However, if you axe the program, good luck…

And places like SF with a budget of about $100k/yr/person for homeless, make it effectively illegal to get an accounting of where the money goes.

Can you elaborate? I don't follow how the amount of money spent "makes it effectively illegal" to audit.

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

#522

Post by oh_sigh » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 9:39 PM UTC

hnarn wrote: post #416

freddybobs wrote: post #302

There is an episode of the "you're wrong about" podcast, that discusses homelessness. In that episode there are several discussion about several projects in California around homelessness. Those projects provided housing. The studies based on those projects showed that overall the cost was less that not having some housing and services. The podcast goes into more details, but as I remember this was because * It remov…

The strategy is called “housing first” and has been proven to work in Finland: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jun/03/its-a-miracle... The idea that homeless people need homes to be able to advance further seems to trigger some people — after all, most of us pay for our housing, so why should they get it for free? What people don’t consider is that when “we”, the people with houses, don’t spend our dollars ho…

They don't get it for free in Finland - your link says it is important that they are tenants, have a contract, and pay rent(possibly with housing assistance).

Homelessness can be caused by a variety and combination of factors. Plain bad luck, drug addiction, mental illness, etc, and Finland may have a different distribution of causes of homelessness than, say, San Francisco. It's possible that housing first works for the plain bad luck types, but will just enable the drug addiction types.

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

#523

Post by meowtimemania » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 9:39 PM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #478

Spivak wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Definitely giving them $4700/month no strings attached will solve the problem quickly. I get it, white collar people are the heaviest drug users, but the fent will kill them in the street in a couple of months. That’s just $10,400 spent, which is much better than where we are now. It is, however, a very dark solution, and not humane at all.

That's kinda what's happened in some pilot programs in SF.

"Of the 515 residents the city tracked in permanent housing since 2016, 25% died, while 21% returned to the streets.”

https://twitter.com/garrytan/status/1659972231328583680?s=20

Not sure why someone would return to the streets but the 25% death rate is insane.

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

#524

Post by kristofferR » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 9:39 PM UTC

meowtimemania wrote: post #488

felix_n wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are _you_ saying that it's unfair, or are you speaking for the working class?

I'm open to giving someone free housing if they aren't on drugs. I just can't wrap my head around why we should reward people with free housing for being drug addicts. I have lots of sympathy for the drug-free homeless community. I think the drug addicted should be put in treatment programs or charged for possession of these drugs so that they can be treated in prison. I'm angry that we allow people to smoke fentanyl…

A lot of homeless people, perhaps the majority, use drugs as a consequence of not having a place to live.

Think about it, it's obviously much easier to use escapist drugs when you live on the streets. Not only do you want to escape, you are also surrounded by drugs and other misery.

You are thinking about it the opposite way. In reality, you can't get people to stop using drugs while keeping them on the streets.

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

#525

Post by Pulcinella » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 9:39 PM UTC

cute_boi wrote: post #505

umvi wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the problems growing, and you are just sinking billions into it without making any measurable impact, where the fuck is the money going? A lot of these programs are hard to stop paying into once you start. Say you are a political leader and you try to solve homelessness by pouring $X per year into some new program. 5 years later it's clear the program is not effective. However, if you axe the program, good luck…

This is the fundamental reason why democracies often face challenges. For instance, let's consider a country like India, where a significant portion of the population isn't financially well-off. As a result, there is an expectation for government assistance and benefits during each election cycle. Consequently, politicians who promise freebies or welfare programs tend to have a higher likelihood of being elected. Thi…

The government should help people and make their lives better. People should expect this, both as citizens and as tax payers. The government doesn’t just get free money from the people without being expected to offer something in return.

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

#526

Post by ajmurmann » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 9:39 PM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #461

x0x0 wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What people do consider is that it's extraordinarily unfair for many people who struggle with housing costs -- imagine what eg SF-area rents do to a cook or cleaner earning even $50k annually -- if we're going to provide that for free to junkies. Until there aren't large segments of SF who work very hard and are housing insecure anyway, it's just going to be politically impossible to provide homeless free housing.

Why do the unhoused have to be housed in high cost SF? The nice thing about doing this as a country is that they can place people not in their highest cost cities.

Right now these problems are being left to counties to figure out, just like mental health

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

#527

Post by worik » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 9:39 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #489

jonny_eh wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There’s no easy fix for homelessness True, but that's only because there's no easy way to add housing in modern society. Homelessness is caused primarily by a lack of homes.

It's not even a lack of homes--its a lack of access to existing homes. There are already ~16 million vacant homes in the USA, a tiny fraction of which could house the homeless if there were political will. We all can say homelessness is a problem, but if you ask these people hoarding vacant homes if they'd be willing to house a homeless person on their property, or if you ask a politician whether they are willing to…

> but if you ask these people hoarding vacant homes if they'd be willing to house a homeless person on their property,

I fail to see that "ask" is the correct approach

If you own a vacant property where there is homelessness, where does "ask" come in?

The appropriate verbs are "tell" or "compell"

Private property is not an absolute right

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

#528

Post by oh_sigh » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 9:39 PM UTC

legitster wrote: post #513

shepardrtc wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why should they get it for free? They shouldn't get it for free. They should be required to be in recovery programs and have jobs. Create state or federal jobs for them if necessary.

I want this person off of the streets for completely selfish reasons to myself . Recovery program or not, they are going to have to live somewhere . If it's not a publicly funded home then it's going to be a tent in a public park that I am paying taxes for.

It's not selfish to want the public to be able to enjoy public spaces.

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

#529

Post by HDThoreaun » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 9:40 PM UTC

hotpotamus wrote: post #462

shepardrtc wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why should they get it for free? They shouldn't get it for free. They should be required to be in recovery programs and have jobs. Create state or federal jobs for them if necessary.

What jobs do you imagine these people will be compelled to do?

Most homeless people are just normal people who dont have a home. They can pick up garbage or dig ditches or plant trees at the very least. Plenty of menial labor that needs to be done.

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

#530

Post by RhodesianHunter » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 9:40 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #480

fullspectrumdev wrote: post #413

Having lived/spent time in a few places with varying homeless problems and approaches to homelessness, I find it fucking depressing every time I read about how badly - and inefficiently - the US handles it. Probably because I see alarming parallels with my own country. Billions going where, exactly? If the problems growing, and you are just sinking billions into it without making any measurable impact, where the fuck…

> Billions going where, exactly? If the problems growing, and you are just sinking billions into it without making any measurable impact, where the fuck is the money going? Well, that’s simple. Most of the money goes to politically well connected non-profits with missions around alleviating homelessness. The problem is that if you alleviate homelessness, the money goes away and everybody at that non-profit loses thei…

>The problem is that if you alleviate homelessness, the money goes away

That actually isn't what happens at all though. When we handle this at the state level, spending on homelessness just makes that state more attractive to the homeless in other states and exacerbates the problem.