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

921–930 of 1001 posts

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

#921

Post by than3 »

Mizoguchi wrote: post #878
jltsiren wrote: post #755

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think California also has a lot more homeless than Finland ever did. Finland had a massive homelessness problem after WW2. Many homes were destroyed in the war, and many people from lost territories had to be resettled. Most working age men were veterans, and mental issues were common. The problem persisted even after the "deserving" homeless had been housed due to popular attitudes. Vagrancy laws were still in f…

What Finland did not have was a drug epidemic affecting over 2/3 of their homeless population.

Its hard because the drug dealers follow where the vulnerable populations go. Crime increases because the drugs increase as the populations shift locations.

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

#922

Post by theshrike79 »

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…

Just the fact that you can have a safe place to store your belongings and sleep in peace is a huge improvement. A fridge to store food so it doesn't spoil and a place to cook food.

No need to sleep with one eye open hugging your boots and bag so that nobody steals them in the shelter's open housing.

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

#923

Post by Karsteski »

goatlover wrote: post #196
guardiangod wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you give housing to mentally unstable people, they are just going to trash the place. Vancouver has been building and rebuilding support housing because the units get trashed and literally ripped apart after a week. Vancouver is doing a lot more for homeless people than SF/LA and it is still not working.

Then incarceration in mental institutions and long term drug rehab facilities seems like the only answer.

Man how do you write this sentence and then not immediately delete it out of shame

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

#924

Post by [deleted] »

bombcar wrote: post #868
1letterunixname wrote: post #823

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lottery system for a few people is the rich's approach to looking down on the poor. Solving it requires relocation. There's no getting around it because the total cost of living is incompatible with people with slimmer means.

The problem is that eventually you need walls or forced relocation. We have evidence that people are already willing to live in SF with no shelter, and without changing fundamental ways America works, you can’t force them to leave and not come back (maybe a city can get a restraining order protecting itself? No idea).

[deleted]

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

#925

Post by trashface »

gre wrote: post #113
rottencupcakes wrote: post #3

Homelessness is a failure of the Federal government that nobody there is even willing to talk about. This can't be solved at a local or state level in a country with unrestricted freedom of movement.

Maybe China is on to something. Lifting 800 Million People Out of Poverty – New Report Looks at Lessons from China’s Experience https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/04/01/l... 90% of families in China own their own home https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7546956/

I'd actually consider moving to a "ghost city" if the US built one, especially if the housing was more affordable. I only need a basic job to get by.

Will never happen here though.

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

#926

Post by thx-2718 »

nonethewiser wrote: post #853
thx-2718 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Zoning and parking laws are ignored. Noise laws are ignored. Drug laws are ignored. There is zero effort to serve this population and get them out of the literal gutter. Pets are a massive problem. Children are living in the middle of this. " How do you pay to enforce all of this? Do jails have adequate space? Are there enough judges, courtrooms, and public defender's to handle this efficiently? Where should the chi…

> How do you pay to enforce all of this? Do jails have adequate space? Well if you cant enforce it and jails don’t have adequate space shouldn’t you put more resources to those things? Or do you not actually think it should be enforced nor should people be put in jail?

I didn't say that. I asked a questions. Now go ahead and fund doing that and let's see what happens.

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

#927

Post by lvl102 »

jerojero wrote: post #7

It is mentioned in the article about a woman working full time, yet still unable to afford rent. I think a big steps towards resolving homelessness should go in addressing the housing market; which in California is really really bad. This isn't just "build more homes" (which is already an extremely difficult task in the state given the zoning laws) but comprehensive housing policies. Take a look at the way Austria ha…

Don’t think building more homes in SF would help with homeless problems. The thing about SF and CA in general is that it is one of the most desirable places to live in the entire world.

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

#928

Post by pydry »

carom wrote: post #769
pydry wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 wi…

False

The fastest rate of home building was in New York during the 1950s. The strictest rent controls were in New York in the 1950s.

The slowest is today when rent controls are weakest.

It's not that it doesn't have an effect, but it is small and is absolutely overwhelmed by the lowering of property taxes. When property taxes are low, even the shittiest units making the most inefficient use of land like yours can tick over making a small profit and this eats land which would otherwise be used to build denser housing.

Lowered property taxes also kicked property values sky high which in turn led to the NIMBY revolution. This also inhibited home building in a massive, massive way.

In order to fix the housing crisis landlords who use land inefficiently to start losing money in a big way. That way they will finally dump their properties and the land can be redeveloped efficiently.

They must be subjected to market discipline otherwise the housing market will never be fixed. The velvet glove treatment of their rent entitlements is entirely unsustainable.

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

#930

Post by levifig »

Same thing with the argument "instead of spending $44B on a cesspool, that money could've ended world hunger".

The reality of poverty, homelessness, hunger, etc, is so much more complex than how much money is put into solving it, that promoting "monetary investment" as a solution for any of these problems is disingenous at best, and downright corrupt at worst.

Post reply on HN