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

761–770 of 1001 posts

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

#761

Post by jayd16 »

cjpearson wrote: post #288
sovnade wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, some…

There's a compelling argument [0] that the biggest driver of homelessness is a shortage of housing. Mental illness and addiction can lead to homelessness, but homelessness can also lead to mental illness and addition. There are lots of places suffering severely from the fentanyl crisis, but where homelessness is less of a problem. The solution may be simple, but it's not easy. (And it's not the entire solution either…

If it was just a matter of house prices, why isn't California's homelessness solved by cheaper homes in Fresno or other parts of the state? I can't help but feel there's more to it than cheaper housing.

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

#762

Post by coffeebeqn »

adeon wrote: post #502
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…

Around year 2009-2010, I worked in public sector in Helsinki in the real estate department. I worked the phone handling tenants calling and needing repairs. A large portion of the tenants were people from the homeless program. At the time I did not know this program was unusual. My understanding of how it worked was that if you were functional enough and willing, you could walk into a certain building and they'd get…

Finland also has a very robust social safety network unlike California/US. Homelessness is usually a symptom of something else. Addiction, mental health issues, financial crisis of some sort, etc. Most of these are escapeable given the right support. But once you pile them all on with no escape - well then you have market street.

If you don’t fix any of the other issues then you just end up throwing money in a bottomless pit on housing

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

#763

Post by b33j0r »

8f2ab37a-ed6c wrote: post #720
aeternum wrote: post #683

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way 'housing first' has been implemented in SF is terrible. It is operated as a lottery helping a very tiny percentage of the homeless with a house/apt worth $1mil+. Those numbers will never solve the problem. If I saw a reasonable housing first program where it actually provides cost-efficient housing for all that need it, I'd be a strong proponent. The current system is not that, it's incredibly unfair, a tax-p…

It's unfortunate that some of the smallest, most expensive, most mismanaged and ideological 7x7 mile real estate in the US is being used as the dumpster for humans in need of serious medical attention and societal support. SF can barely build a public toilet without it turning into a taxpayer trough feeding frenzy, so expecting it to be the Mecca of the homeless, the addicted and the downtrodden is comedic at best, a…

I am not serious, completely. But you called it a dumpster for the underclass (not judging either way).

But it points to an irony when you’re there, going to a meeting at the Transamerica pyramid or walking past the headquarters of Salesforce, or having a michelin starred meal, then walking down the street and a guy in an alley has a knife.

(Yeah, personal experience. I wasn’t very scared. Probably because I just had michelin starred wine pairings…)

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

#764

Post by [deleted] »

vore wrote: post #401
pedroma wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People turn to pooping on the streets and shooting up in the middle of the street because they have nowhere else to go. Getting hoisted out of rock-bottom is extremely difficult, and the longer you slip through the cracks of any kind of support the more cemented you get there. If society is kicking the ladder out from under you like this then respectability is the last thing on your mind. Being shipped off to a deser…

[deleted]

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

#765

Post by jijji »

u can give every homeless person one billion dollars each, and 99% of them will squander it on drugs. Homelessness is a not a problem, its a symptom of a bigger problem. It's usually the result of years of bad choices and drug abuse turning into permanent mental disability. Giving them all the money in the world is not going to fix the bad choices that result in their situation.

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

#766

Post by fwungy »

screye wrote: post #754
bandrami wrote: post #723

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Canada has a more comprehensive welfare state than the US and a higher percentage of the population are immigrants than in the US. So there may at some point be a required tradeoff but the US isn't there yet. What Canada doesn't have is a "homelessness-industrial complex" of NGOs and nonprofits that soak up billions of dollars in public money without actually providing significant housing for homeless people: instead…

Canada has exceptional control of its borders thanks to a big USA absorbing low-skill labor shocks. The Canadian immigration system is based on points, which also means that they can easily control what kind of immigrants that are able to move here. Lastly, Canada has a worse housing crisis than the US right now and its healthcare system woes are well documented. I question your claim of Canada's welfare state stabil…

It's based on points, but certain groups like refugees and family of immigrants take high priority.

Compared to previous years. The 2022–2024 Immigration Levels Plan continues to build on the 2021–2023 Immigration Levels Plan with higher admissions targets to address pandemic related shortfalls. As outlined in the 2022–2024 Immigration Levels Plan, Canada aims to welcome from 360,000 to 445,000 new permanent residents in 2022, from 380,000 to 465,000 in 2023, and 390,000 to 475,000 in 2024. The 2022–2024 Immigration Levels Plan includes targets that build on the ambitious targets set in previous years. In 2022–23, it is anticipated that as border restrictions gradually ease and travel levels regain momentum, clients residing overseas will increasingly be able to land in Canada and be processed, which will support efforts to meet the objectives of the 2022–2024 Immigration Levels Plan. Furthermore, the Department’s efforts to reduce overall inventories of applications, including paper-based permanent resident inventories, as well as further digitization of services, will contribute to achieving the ambitious levels targets set out in the 2022–2024 Immigration Levels Plan. The Department will continue to monitor immigration levels and work with other federal departments and agencies to continue protecting the health and safety of Canadians as newcomers are welcomed to Canada.

Very interesting document.

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/co...

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

#767

Post by screye »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #760
screye wrote: post #756

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most homeless where I am have severe mental health problems, drug addictions, or both If drug addicts don't have to pay rent, then they do drug addict stuff within the premises of their house. It doesn't solve the mental health crisis, but it does solve tents in public areas. Secondly, it controls for for gateway drug scenarios. Eventually, a large percent chronically homeless & mentally ill people turn into addict…

A lot of drug addict stuff in their house is not safe for the house. A lot cooking meth RV and tent fires show us that.

A house is a house, if you want to burn it down, burn it down.

We can't give houses to 100 meth heads who're about to kill themselves, because 1 of them might actually kill themselves via immolation is a hard argument to defend.

Yeah, that's 99 alive meth heads off the street.

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

#768

Post by hcurtiss »

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'm there too. I'm blown away by all the "housing first" advocates here, as though that hasn't been the message for the last fifteen years and many, many billions of dollars. IT. DOESN'T. WORK. Yes, if in a magical land you held the number of homeless steady and efficiently built housing, you could solve homelessness. But that's not what happens. Not only are the government institutions in charge of building that housing hopelessly corrupt, but the more you build, the more you recruit.

We offer many, many hands to those who are down on their luck and need help. I personally donate to several every year. For those willing, there's a publicly-funded escalator to a better life. But the ones who used to shit on my sidewalk, throw beer cans in my flower beds, and graffiti everything in site (I've since moved out of the city) aren't interested in taking the escalator. They don't care about anyone. They only care about their next fix. They need to be involuntarily incarcerated. If they won't participate in the usual programs, then ship them to the desert. I just don't care anymore.

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

#769

Post by carom »

pydry wrote: post #151
davidw wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

High level, statistically speaking, there's a lot of evidence that homelessness correlates with housing prices. What's remarkable is how mad people get about the pretty self-explanatory notion that as a thing increases in costs, fewer people can afford it. They want to blame drugs or mental health or something. And while those do play a part for many people, the price of housing is what looms over it all: https://www…

>They want to blame drugs or mental health or something. Because the actual solutions involve taking a scythe to property prices and rents and thats the last thing investors want. They, and the media outlets they own, would prefer to see people dying on the street than that, but theyre not comfortable admitting it. Hence drugs, mental health crisis, yadda yadda anything except real solutions - 20ccs of rent control s…

False. I want more units. There is a demand and I want to meet that demand for money. I want to buy land that people can't afford and subdivide it to make it available to them. Win win.

Single family home owners are the people who oppose density with their entire being. I hear them cry about traffic, parking, their view, noise, about their neighborhood's character. That regime is the problem.

If it is profitable I will build housing all day long. If you cap rents and require unprofitable units to be built, I can't build as much. Then you are left competing for the finite supply of single family homes. Good luck!

My property has rent control. Two 600 dollar a month units. Unprofitable. No way to get those to market so I Ellis act the whole thing. Good work rent control, you just made a 4 unit building into a single family home.

Now there are some more regulations that disincentivize rebuilding by requiring unprofitable units or restoring the previous rental level. Great, let's delay building +10 units for a decade.

These controls are so hair brained and only make the situation worse. You don't need social housing, you just need to get out of the way of the market.

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

#770

Post by seanmcdirmid »

screye wrote: post #767
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #760

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of drug addict stuff in their house is not safe for the house. A lot cooking meth RV and tent fires show us that.

A house is a house, if you want to burn it down, burn it down. We can't give houses to 100 meth heads who're about to kill themselves, because 1 of them might actually kill themselves via immolation is a hard argument to defend. Yeah, that's 99 alive meth heads off the street.

It isn’t their house we are worried about, but the neighbors who live next to them. Are you volunteering?
Post reply on HN