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

621–630 of 1001 posts

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

#621

Post by philwelch »

drcode wrote: post #541
legitster wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Without a recovery program, some people will still just spend their day smashing car windows to get money for drugs, then go home to their free apartment It might still be worth it regardless, but keep that in mind

There is a way around this dilemma that solves everyone’s problems. People who go around smashing windows etc. are arrested and thrown in jail. If they repeatedly offend, they receive longer and longer sentences, perhaps at some state penitentiary in a more cost effective location. If they are addicted to drugs, they are enrolled in mandatory treatment programs while in prison. This person is hence housed and separated from civil society, with much less incentive to cheat the system.

This even solves the other problem that you haven’t brought up: the person who sleeps on the street smashing windows all day is likely to wreck the free apartment you end up giving them, too.

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

#623

Post by kelnos »

hellojesus wrote: post #599
jandrese wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very hard to work around human nature and the whole "why am I paying rent like a sucker when the drug addicts on the street are getting free apartments?" I also think that people who point out that a huge percentage of the people on the street are on drugs, so the drugs are the problem are not entirely correct either. The drug use is a symptom that also exacerbates the problem. One of the big contributing factor…

What I haven't understood is: why don't people move away if they're doing min wage jobs in a place where they are clearly incapable of delivering any quality of life? Bring labor supply down and suddenly the market has to pay more. This seems to be simple oversupply in a saturated market.

Moving itself is expensive. If you're living paycheck to paycheck, you don't have the time or money to even travel to another location to look for better housing and a better job, let alone the time or money required to actually effect a move.

Consider that for many people in this situation, missing a few days of work to look for a new place to live might mean getting fired. Even if they don't get fired, the lost wages for missing those days of work could put them behind on their bills or make it difficult to buy food.

And even if they are able to spend time to find a new place to live without putting their finances in jeopardy, remember that they also have to find a new job in the new location, and doing that without further financial hardship could be difficult.

There are also other considerations: someone barely able to afford living in SF or NYC might not have a car, and walk or take transit to work and to do errands. Living in a lower-cost area might mean needing a car to do things like buy groceries or get to work. If you already can't save money, how are you going to afford a car before you move to the new area?

Many of us here can afford to take weeks or months off to take a break between jobs. Sometimes it's hard to understand that many people can barely take sick days without risking financial ruin.

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

#624

Post by rank0 »

jandrese wrote: post #563
hnarn wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's very hard to work around human nature and the whole "why am I paying rent like a sucker when the drug addicts on the street are getting free apartments?" I also think that people who point out that a huge percentage of the people on the street are on drugs, so the drugs are the problem are not entirely correct either. The drug use is a symptom that also exacerbates the problem. One of the big contributing factor…

Why isn’t moving out of the most expensive city in the world an option?

I believe the biggest factor is mental illness. The addiction and homelessness are the symptoms/results. (Obviously not in every case)

We’re at record low unemployment. If you’re able and willing to work you can 100% make enough money to pay rent somewhere…it just might not be in SF.

Idk why people feel that everyone should be entitled to live in any specific location.

Also, FWIW the US homelessness rate is below 0.2% among the lowest in the world.

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

#625

Post by Tiktaalik »

emodendroket wrote: post #534
TexanFeller wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only real solution is large scale construction of mixed use housing - some social, some affordable, some private. It's a LOT more than making affordable housing available. Most homeless where I am have severe mental health problems, drug addictions, or both. Some are also homeless in large part because of criminal records. Many many difficult social problems to fix before it's just a matter of affordability.

That’s just not borne out by any evidence. It’s likely you don’t interact (or don’t knowingly interact) with a large portion of homeless people who aren’t drawing attention to themselves.

Yeah the low drama homeless people that would be easiest to help don't make the headlines. They're quietly struggling, working some minimum wage job while living in a camper somewhere.

And yet the high drama people that make the headlines are used as an argument to not build affordable homes at all.

The hard to house with an array of overlapping severe challenges will always be hard to house, but we can't let that small minority be any sort of barrier to helping the broader amount of people that are easier to help that are nonetheless struggling to find anywhere they can afford to live.

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

#626

Post by dv_dt »

meowtimemania wrote: post #555
dv_dt wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This idea of worrying about who gets what for free before actually solving the problem, is a major blocker in solving the homelessness problem. And not only do the homeless suffer for it, the people who have work or homes in the area suffer for the lack of pragmatism about it.

I agree with you, I just feel like if I were working a minimum wage job busting my ass to pay rent to my landlord, I’d be deeply offended that you can be rewarded free housing essentially for being addicted to drugs.

Why would you imagine that free housing would be something to envy over regular rentals? Minimal housing, possibly surrounded by other at-risk people working through serious issues seems like not something to envy.

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

#627

Post by mjevans »

travisjungroth wrote: post #601
delusional wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What people don’t consider is that when “we”, the people with houses, don’t spend our dollars housing homeless people, we pay sooner or later in other ways whether we want to or not when society around us partly disintegrates and additional effects start stacking up: substance abuse, violent crime, healthcare costs etc. There's a different way to look at it as well. I don't so much pay for housing as I pay for my c…

I think it’s harder for people to see it that way when there’s means testing. Also when you’re at the just-better-than free tier, but paying full price. I think that’s the nice thing about UBI. It’s a little different to rail against u employed people getting $1,000 a month when you’re also getting $1,000 a month.

UBI won't answer the problem of RENT. The rent will always rise to pickup the new headroom until there is no longer headroom. All the profit will go to the rent seekers who leave nothing for anyone to get ahead.

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

#628

Post by Dig1t »

rcpt wrote: post #596

Luckily a San Franciscan figured it all out over one hundred years ago: > THE GREAT PROBLEM IS SOLVED. We are able to explain social phenomena that have appalled philanthropists and perplexed statesmen all over the civilized world. We have found the reason why wages constantly tend to a minimum, giving but a bare living, despite increase in productive power: > As productive power increases, rent tends to increase eve…

There is already an incentive to build densely and provide more housing, developers already want to do this because they make more money by doing so. They are literally not allowed to build anything other than single family homes though, the local homeowners actually control what is allowed to be built.

That is to say: the people who have an incentive to keep housing supply low are the ones deciding what is allowed to be constructed in their town.

If I go buy a piece of land in Cupertino and I want to build an apartment complex, I have to go apply for permits and get approval from the city of Cupertino zoning board. The people on that board are all people who live in Cupertino that own single family homes, they have a strong incentive to deny my application if I am building my apartment complex anywhere near their neighborhood. Basically every single city in California has zoning laws that prohibit you from building anything other than suburban single family homes in most of the town.

You can fix the housing crisis by passing a law that limits the power of the zoning board to deny permits for these types of housing.

Take a look at the Cupertino zoning map: https://map.gridics.com/us/ca/cupertino#11.93/37.31591/-122.... if you click layers -> planning -> zoning you can see an overlay of the zoning for the whole city. The light beige color is "single family" zoned, meaning that nobody is allowed to build anything other than low-density homes. Notice how _most_ of the city is designated "single family". This is the cause of the entire problem. Nobody is allowed to build anything more dense than the single family homes that are already there.

Not-so-coincidentally, Cupertino is one of the most expensive places to live in the US. Look at Houston, TX. They have no zoning laws (it's not perfect they still have deed restrictions which sometimes act similarly to zoning laws), and it is a massive city. The median house price is ~340k, something that most normal people can afford. There is a clear correlation between reduced zoning restrictions and lower housing costs.

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

#629

Post by dbrueck »

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…

Utah has been doing a housing first program for about 20 years. It has definitely helped a lot of people, but it hasn't really solved the problem either.

(I'm not saying the strategy is flawed - maybe it is, maybe Utah is doing it wrong, maybe you need housing first plus a bunch of other things - who knows).

https://www.cato.org/blog/evidence-calls-housing-first-homel...

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

#630

Post by rank0 »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #605
zizee wrote: post #591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there any good studies into the most prevalent causes of homelessness? I'd be especially interested that are trying to tease apart cause and effect, without the study author trying to prove out their own preconceptions.

Years ago, I took a class on Homelessness and Public Policy . I've spent time homeless and read a lot, etc. There is a lack of affordable housing in all US states. It's extremely hard to live without a car in the US and cars are a huge expense, plus our car-centric culture means lack of a car is a barrier to employment, both practically and because people are reluctant to hire you. Medical expenses can be a factor in…

There is observably an abundance of cheap shelter. It’s just not where people want to live.

Something like ~97% of people live on ~3% of the land.

Post reply on HN