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

691–700 of 1001 posts

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

#691

Post by [deleted] »

rank0 wrote: post #624
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…

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…

[deleted]

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

#692

Post by Alupis »

bhhaskin wrote: post #570
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unless you force people to relocate, they likely won't relocate themselves.

They relocated to where they are though. A lot, or even most of the people living on the streets of SF are not from SF, or even California for the matter.

They aren't "tech bros" down on their luck either... they're not failed entrepreneurs, or folks who just couldn't afford one too many rent payments.

They're people who chose to be there for many reasons, including the friendly environment that tolerates their lifestyle.

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

#693

Post by mrtweetyhack »

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…

[dead]

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

#694

Post by dionidium »

supercheetah wrote: post #585
commandlinefan wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> overall the cost was less that not having some housing and services This is always the justification for socialist-style programs. It makes for a great red herring, but it's always misleading. What it ignores (willfully or not) is that if you start to incentivize homelessness, you're going to suddenly find yourself with a lot more homeless than you used to have. Your studies assume a stable population of homeless,…

Can you cite any studies on that?

You want citations for, "if you make something easier to consume, more people will consume it?"

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

#696

Post by kelnos »

rank0 wrote: post #624
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…

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…

See my response to this upthread[0]. Moving requires time and money, which many people in this situation don't have to spare. In a way they are locked into their current location, because even though it's already financially precarious, the simple act of trying to find a new location and a new job could easily tip them into deep financial trouble.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36171583

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

#697

Post by Brainfood »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #548
Brainfood wrote: post #515

LA resident since 2015. I have a proposed solution that no one ever seems to bring up on here but I would love to know the HN response to this: If a big essential part of the American Dream is home ownership, and we are short on homes, why do we allow corporations to own them all? How about we have a middle ground or cap on size of corporate entity and # of units or something? Some of the argument seems to be stuck o…

Large corporations don't actually own many homes. It is true that they started buying them during covid, but that is mostly because they realized they are extremely good investments due zoning making it hard to build them. In order for housing to be affordable it can't be an investment. It needs to maintain its real value over time, meaning the wage to price ratio remains constant. If housing wasn't a good investment…

Wow thanks everyone for the replies!

I hear you on homes but housing overall - apartments included should not be owned by corporations for investment purposes imho.

Rough stats I’ve seen are 25% of homes are now owned by institutional investors. And 44% of CA residents are renters. Having a quarter of the inventory taken off the market means the prices are going to go up.

Land is expensive. We can build more. We can also stop allowing those who have more than enough already continue to apply downward pressure.

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

#698

Post by [deleted] »

p_j_w wrote: post #615
TexanFeller wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My best friend from high school is homeless right now despite my efforts to help him. My best friend from grade school was homeless in my town for a few years(I wasn't aware at first to help). My wife was a social worker. I've had many interactions, albeit brief, with homeless in my city. I'm not exactly ignorant and I'm not sure the fellow from your article isn't an activist with an agenda. I'm also skeptical of the…

It seems awfully convenient that you get to dismiss all of the evidence that goes against what you'd like to believe with a simple wave of your hand.

[deleted]

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

#699

Post by morugam »

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…

Nah. I'm more pissed off that my tens of thousands of dollars per year in property taxes don't help a damn bit. I'm more than happy to have people have "free" housing when they need it. Unfortunately SF does not spend or govern responsibly or in the interest of its citizens.

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

#700

Post by cscurmudgeon »

RhodesianHunter wrote: post #609
cscurmudgeon wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/06/us/homeless-population.ht ... > As the data shows us, most of the homeless people you pass on the streets every day are in fact Californians. > “This is a local crisis and a homegrown problem,” said Peter Lynn, the executive director of the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, the agency that conducts the largest homeless census count in the country. > L.A.H.S.A.’s 2019 homeless…

Besides what the other person said, given that California is in fact, the most populous state, it seems obvious to me that what I said can be true while the majority of homeless in the state still originate from the state...

> it seems obvious to me that what I said can be true while the majority of homeless in the state still originate from the state...

This is one of the scenarios for which percentages were invented for.

Post reply on HN