Live data from Hacker News

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

wsj.com

961–970 of 1001 posts

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

#961
post #950

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In thinking more about this, I'm starting to feel like developing solutions specifically for the most mentally ill/unstable individuals is important. 1) They're a danger to everyone including other homeless. 2) They have an outsize impact on people's frustration with and perception of homeless people. Walking down the street and worrying about being accosted by the guy yelling at himself is a powerfully bad experienc…

No, it doesn't make sense, and yes, most of this has been tried. 1. The vast majority aren't. The few that are, aren't going to be fixed by mental health services, because as I said, mental health services are totally ineffective when someone is experiencing the ongoing trauma of being homeless. And the fact that you said "including other homeless" doesn't fix the fact that your #1 concern is that homeless people are…

1. I know most aren't. Part of what I'm getting at is having different strategies for different segments of the homeless population with different needs. This idea would target that small number of the most...disruptive? of them (I'm really trying to use terminology that isn't offensive or dismissive, maybe you can help me out?), in a way that would be beneficial to everyone. I know that there is very little chance for most of them to be fixed. It's a bit like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest where many of them become lifers. But I truly believe this is better for everyone than having them just out on the street because there's no program or solution catered to them.

I'm not sure what you mean w.r.t the "including other homeless" comment. What I'm trying to say is that this small but highly visible population creates problems for the rest. I work next to a dining room and food pantry, and the majority of people that use those services and inhabit the area do so in a generally civil fashion. I would assume that they don't appreciate the few that cause a ruckus any more than anyone else, probably less even, for drawing unwanted attention and making things harder for them.

2. I'm just talking about solutions. The reality is that a lot of people are scared of and angry about homeless people, and develop a callous "just get them out of my neighborhood" attitude. My thought is that this is driven more by extreme encounters with the small number of outliers than truly having a problem with someone just trying to find a place to sleep.

"Talking to them in a way they don't like" is a huge understatement indicative the denial I was talking about where we don't want to confront the fact that there are some seriously damaged individuals. Almost daily I hear someone violently screaming deranged things and they're usually talking to themselves although actual altercations do happen as well. The other day a woman was blocking the road and taking her shirt off. When I lived in the Tenderloin on many days there was a guy outside a bahn mi shop that loudly said "HI. HI. HI." all day. Yes these people are badly traumatized and it's awful but is it really more humane to just leave them there traumatizing everyone else (again, including other homeless people) than to collect them and move them to a care facility? It was perhaps a mistake to call them dangerous, they're mostly not going to attack you or anything, but they exhibit erratic behavior like running out into a busy street.

3. The elephant in the room is that neither shelters nor homes are going to provide relief to the worst off. There are different types of homeless people with different needs, there is no one-size-fits-all.

4. I mean, we do have prisons, and while there is much to debate about whether we are using them properly, do you accept that it is a valid concept and some people should be jailed? Or would you abolish them altogether (honest question, I can see arguments for the latter)? What about people being committed to psyche wards? It's basically that. Again, the idea is not to just round up anyone on the street as the primary solution to homelessness, but to target the few individuals that have virtually no hope of benefitting from other solutions. The status quo here is that police come by and do their thing, either leaving without changing anything or pointlessly taking them to jail for a few days.

I imagine it would work similarly to every other type of rehab facility. What you described seems pretty accurate. Do all alcoholics, criminals, or schizophrenics come out of rehab magically completely fixed? No. Fixing people is hard, sometimes nigh impossible. Does that mean we should just not try? Just leave them on the street instead? Or build them a nice house and move them into it and hope it all works out?

5. I think homes should be made available to them. I just think there are other strategies that could be effective as well. You're laser focused on the one true and only solution that's perfect for every homeless person, simply place them in a home, boom, problem solved. I think there are a lot of people that would benefit from homeless encampments being made legal and more integrated with city services so they don't feel like criminals that can be fucked with at any moment. Maybe some lockers get installed. There are ways to help them out that don't require big capital projects and the challenge of displacing them and getting it to stick. Some of them do actually have a sense of community and home in an encampment even if it's not perfect.

6. The funds are a concern because the article was about a large amount of funds essentially being squandered, leading to the question of how they might be better used.

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

#962
post #776

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…

SF's attempts at "fixing" housing always amount to this lottery system. Rent control: A random windfall for whatever tenant snags these coveted apartments when someone dies in a 3 bedroom apartment they haven't needed in 30 years but "can't afford" to downsize from since they have been paying $650 since 1989. Also the illegal subletters who are numerous and shameless, from personal experience. Low-income housing mini…

> Rent control: A random windfall for whatever tenant snags these coveted apartments when someone dies in a 3 bedroom apartment they haven't needed in 30 years but "can't afford" to downsize from since they have been paying $650 since 1989. Also the illegal subletters who are numerous and shameless, from personal experience.

This is a misrepresentation of SF rent control. Rent increases for pre-1979 apartments are only capped if the same tenant lives there continuously -- when the apartment lease turns over, the rent can be raised to market rates.

That being said, there are some people that abuse the system by keeping a lease for a place they haven't lived in for 20 years and subletting it, sometimes for a profit, but there aren't apartments where the rent is permanently capped at 80s levels like you're suggesting.

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

#963
post #948

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do. But the people on the street would have trouble affording rent anywhere in the nation. SF has a very mild climate, and lots of social services, so it’s relatively better than other places to live outside. Like, why be homeless in low rent Houston when you can easily hop a bus to LA, SF, or Seattle?

Yes, but for the vast majority that don't want to remain homeless, even if you give them free housing and they find jobs, they still can't afford an apartment in california. Are they supposed to move back to "houston" and find another job? No way! So how can they escape homelessness? Some might hustle their way into actually affording a place in cali but that takes a lot of will power and overcoming a lot of things t…

We’ve been relying on supply and demand economic signals to decide who gets to live where they want. I don’t see a huge problem with that, there are plenty of de-populating areas in the Deep South and Midwest that could use more people.

You want to live housed in LA? Then pay the living in LA tax. At least you can crash with your parents if you are local. But the greyhound bus terminal has tons of people just showing up everyday who think they can make it but haven’t thought things through very well.

Houston has plenty of jobs and a bit cheaper rent. But many unhoused are unable to afford housing anywhere so it’s not useful to talk about just moving them to where rents are cheaper. They also lose the social services that rich cities can afford via their tax base. You would have to be deft to not move to California (or another rich city with mild weather) if you were homeless, I totally would do it so can empathize at least.

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

#964

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a common misconception. Actually the primary fix is indeed to make affordable housing available. https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/everything-you-think-you-know-...

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…

In today's climate in media and academia I'll take extensive personal experience and common sense over "data" and "studies" every time when it comes to societal and political issues. And they have nobody else but themselves to blame.

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

#965

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah you can just go talk to them to find out where your local homeless are coming from.

I'm glad HN has decided anecdotal evidence is more powerful than data. This is exactly what the tech sector needs to thrive.

[deleted]

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

#966
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…

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…

Housing costs in SF are too high to house them in situ. Gotta bus them somewhere else cheap and start there. Why would you ever try to keep them in the city, it makes literally no sense?!

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

#967

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Data which is 1) based on self-reported status 2) fails to distinguish between temporary hardship homelessness and that resulting of addiction/illness Should not be relied upon. For the first, there is an obvious incentive towards exaggerating one's stay in state, and no counter-incentive whatsoever. For the latter, these are two separate problems which need drastically different solutions.

May I point out the post I replied to had no data. If you have data that addresses the two points you made, please post them. > For the first, there is an obvious incentive towards exaggerating one's stay in state, and no counter-incentive whatsoever. Nothing obvious or even true about it. Using the word obvious just hides the fact it isn’t.

> Nothing obvious or even true about it. Using the word obvious just hides the fact it isn’t.

If you don't believe in the existence of incentives then unfortunately there's not enough shared reality for us to have a discussion.

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

#968
post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

0.2% is not "among the lowest in the world", or at least among OECD countries. Many countries have the rates way below 0.1% And not just rich countries, Brazil for example has 0.05% https://www.oecd.org/els/family/HC3-1-Homeless-population.pd...

That table you linked only measures rates of 34 countries. You realize there are ~200 countries on the planet right?

It’s just objectively true that the US enjoys much higher living standards than the rest of the world…even if Brazil’s homelessness rate in 2015 is 0.1% smaller than the US 2020 figure…

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

#969

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There are a lot of public employees and contractors who would have no way to live in the bay area if it wasn't for the $300 million a year homeless budget for a few thousand homeless. They need those homeless to provide justification for their good government jobs, which is why they cater to them so heavily by allowing them to sleep anywhere, ignoring most crimes they commit and providing them with a safe place to bu…

> the homeless will go to some other place where they can live a better drugs and camping lifestyle

They should just drive in their cars to those cheaper places, true

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

#970

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of public employees and contractors who would have no way to live in the bay area if it wasn't for the $300 million a year homeless budget for a few thousand homeless. They need those homeless to provide justification for their good government jobs, which is why they cater to them so heavily by allowing them to sleep anywhere, ignoring most crimes they commit and providing them with a safe place to bu…

> the homeless will go to some other place where they can live a better drugs and camping lifestyle They should just drive in their cars to those cheaper places, true

Or their (meth) RVs or vans. Those are surprisingly common, but they tend to go to cities that don’t enforce parking limits for unhoused (LA, SF, Seattle)…
Post reply on HN