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

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

#841

Post by seanmcdirmid » Sat, Jun 03, 2023, 2:40 AM UTC

Spivak wrote: post #812

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Look, I get what you're saying but there's very little alternative. Putting strings on the aid makes it not do the one thing it needs to do which is provide unwavering stability and a sustainable alternative to their previous way of living. If you want to force people into rehab because their addiction is going to kill them then do that. That's an independent problem from being homeless. We can't be like addiction is…

> You disperse them into regular neighborhoods like any other renter.

Nobody wants to live by a potential meth lab. This is how NIMBY get credibility.

> but that white collar drug users aren't dropping dead like flies on vinegar.

Not before they become homeless, sure. Also, white collar drugs tend to be a lot more survivable than fent.

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

#842

Post by RetpolineDrama » Sat, Jun 03, 2023, 2:41 AM UTC

bandrami wrote: post #723

fwungy wrote: post #721

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cannot have a welfare state and a liberal immigration policy. Sure, if you do nice things for poor people their lives improve, and so does society, not only because we are kinder, but also because their problems don't become problems for unrelated people. But, if you do nice things for poor people as a government and open the door we have the objective truth that there are billions of poor people in the world who…

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 a more comprehensive welfare state than the US and a higher percentage of the population are immigrants than in the US

Canada is a joke of a country and basically a vassal state of the United States, they couldn't even shoot down a balloon over their own territory without US F-22's from Alaska.

Talking about them and how they spend their money/the outcomes they get is like discussing the "rich" 35 year old who has a nice car and big TV living with his parents (no rent, food, healthcare costs etc)

You can't ignore these realities and then pretend that the current state of Canada is replicable in other places, as if it was solely the result of policy.

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

#843

Post by jerojero » Sat, Jun 03, 2023, 2:42 AM UTC

nradov wrote: post #177

crooked-v wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most frustrating part of that is the absurd number of people who see the obvious problem of wildly expensive and tightly constrained housing supply, complain about it being impossible to buy a home, and then actively refuse to even allow for the possibility that cities may have been under-building for some time.

If those people bothered to actually vote instead of just complaining online then the problem would be less severe.

Well you can only vote either Republican or Democrat, should you become a single issue voter? What if neither of the parties is really proposing strong housing regulation anyway.

Like, who are people actually supposed to vote for that will solve this issue?

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

#844

Post by marcusverus » Sat, Jun 03, 2023, 2:43 AM UTC

ZoomerCretin wrote: post #518

marcusverus wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California has a democrat governor, a democrat Lieutenant governor, a state senate that's 80% democrat and a state house that's 75% democrat, and democrat mayors in all major cities. Conservatives are not the problem.

The Democratic party, especially at the local and state level, is almost always dominated by conservatives. Every election with low turnout skews conservative, and local elections frequently have <10% turnout.

"State lawmakers also approved SB107, a bill designed to protect out-of-state transgender children and their families from civil and criminal penalties when seeking gender-affirming care."[0] The bill passed the assembly with 60 ayes and 19 nays. It passed the senate with 30 ayes and 9 nays.[1]

They also passed anti-firearm legislation to allow private citizens to sue gunmakers.[0] It passed with 52 ayes/21 nays in the assembly and 26 ayes/9 nays in the senate.

So California democrats toe the party line and vote with progressives on wedge issues. In what sense are they conservative?

[0] https://apnews.com/article/california-gavin-newsom-climate-a... [1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xht... [2] https://www.capradio.org/articles/2022/07/22/newsom-signs-fi... [3] https://openstates.org/ca/bills/20212022/SB1327/

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

#845

Post by nonethewiser » Sat, Jun 03, 2023, 2:43 AM UTC

atdrummond wrote: post #8

That’s because Cali’s approach is insane. They give you hundreds a month in cash grants (some make $1k a month in SF) and require you to make NO alterations to your lifestyle. I was amazed when living in SF how many of the homeless are not locals. Not even Californians! I myself lived on the streets for a number of years and have dealt with addiction issues. It is absolutely insane how we’ve stopped treating homeless…

Its subsidized, simple as that. Subsidizing creates more. It’s inhumane honestly because homelessness is a real problem.

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

#846

Post by seanmcdirmid » Sat, Jun 03, 2023, 2:44 AM UTC

rcpt wrote: post #837

a_wild_dandan wrote: post #718

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moreover, it's irrelevant. Demand vastly overshadows supply, hence the insane prices. That's it. There isn't remotely enough of a basic human need. Everything else is window dressing until we address that fundamental, econ. 101 problem.

Demand would go way down if the government would stop favoring real estate investment with ridiculous tax incentives. Mortgage interest deduction 30 year fixed rate mortgage Opportunity zones 1031 exchanges Deprecation deduction The list goes on forever and none of it helps

The mortgage tax deduction is basically dead for most of us since Trump’s tax reform that raised the standard deduction way above what most people would get from tax deductible interest. At least until 2025, unless something changes.

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

#847

Post by nonethewiser » Sat, Jun 03, 2023, 2:45 AM UTC

guardiangod wrote: post #109

atdrummond wrote: post #8

That’s because Cali’s approach is insane. They give you hundreds a month in cash grants (some make $1k a month in SF) and require you to make NO alterations to your lifestyle. I was amazed when living in SF how many of the homeless are not locals. Not even Californians! I myself lived on the streets for a number of years and have dealt with addiction issues. It is absolutely insane how we’ve stopped treating homeless…

>It is absolutely insane how we’ve stopped treating homeless people as humans with potential and aspirations and assume that all they can be is a vacuum for drugs and cash. Vancouver has the same approach- warmest place in Canada. When I suggested active intervention (eg. force detox), the activists would accuse me of treating homeless people as sub-humans, that I am being cruel and inhumane and a monster, and that w…

Insisting on the conditions that see them living in squaller on the streets is treating them as sub human.

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

#848

Post by nemo44x » Sat, Jun 03, 2023, 2:45 AM UTC

It has long been time to bring back the asylum system. Many of these people need to be removed from society and committed so they can be helped. Pharmaceuticals alone are not enough and doesn’t work.

Bring back mental institutions to house and help these people and others.

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

#849

Post by nonethewiser » Sat, Jun 03, 2023, 2:46 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #122

guardiangod wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It is absolutely insane how we’ve stopped treating homeless people as humans with potential and aspirations and assume that all they can be is a vacuum for drugs and cash. Vancouver has the same approach- warmest place in Canada. When I suggested active intervention (eg. force detox), the activists would accuse me of treating homeless people as sub-humans, that I am being cruel and inhumane and a monster, and that w…

There's a pervasive belief that homeless people in various comfortable climes are migrants from harsher locales, but when you do the research you apparently tend to find that they're overwhelmingly people who had stable living situations in those comfortable locations, and became homeless there: they aren't "imported". So the "warmest place in Canada" thing is unlikely to be meaningful, unless there's some reason a c…

Homelessness is more attractive in warmer locations. Obviously. But that doesnt fit the narrative that all homeless are helpless victims of society.

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

#850

Post by dragonwriter » Sat, Jun 03, 2023, 2:50 AM UTC

jerojero wrote: post #843

nradov wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If those people bothered to actually vote instead of just complaining online then the problem would be less severe.

Well you can only vote either Republican or Democrat, should you become a single issue voter? What if neither of the parties is really proposing strong housing regulation anyway. Like, who are people actually supposed to vote for that will solve this issue?

> Like, who are people actually supposed to vote for that will solve this issue?

If its actually important, you might need to do more than voting, which is the minimum effort democratic engagement.