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

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

#971

Post by dv_dt » Sun, Jun 04, 2023, 4:02 AM UTC

fwungy wrote: post #729

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…

Housing prices in Canada are ridiculously high now and locals cannot afford to get into the housing market in major cities. Canada has started to ban outside investors from buying homes in certain areas[0]. Canada is also experiencing record high inflation[1]. Low skilled immigrants require major government assistance. The government will simply print money to handle their housing and services as needed. Trudeau is n…

The housing prices have little to do with immigration and everything to do with nimbyism, bad zoning practices, and indirectly, wealth inequality (which ends up being pressure for a capital biased landlord nimbyism in real estate)

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

#972

Post by bandrami » Sun, Jun 04, 2023, 6:12 AM UTC

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…

I'd agree about border control with a caveat: the real issue isn't entrance control (that's not really even noise in the overall picture) but the fact that the US doesn't track exits except for certain classes of non tourist visas.

Canada can tell you right now who entered on a tourist visa and hasn't left; the US lacks that ability because we refuse to implement universal exit controls.

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

#973

Post by timbo1642 » Sun, Jun 04, 2023, 6:44 AM UTC

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…

[dead]

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

#974

Post by Fatnino » Sun, Jun 04, 2023, 7:39 AM UTC

fallingknife wrote: post #883

Fatnino wrote: post #815

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say $1mil+ house and most people think we are putting up a select one or two homeless guys in mansions. 1 million dollars in San Francisco real estate is a one room (maybe two room if it's in extra bad shape) hovel. And that's the real problem. San Francisco is not a place for the poor to try to raise their lives to middle class. It's a place for middle class to struggle to stay above water. The homeless in sf ne…

Then get them housing outside SF

Thats what I said

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

#975

Post by nwienert » Sun, Jun 04, 2023, 8:18 AM UTC

krainboltgreene wrote: post #956

junofan wrote: post #103

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.

It is more powerful. Data is often meaningless without interpretation, missing many dimensions, easily and often manipulated, funded by unknown desires and forces, and generally unreliable. Outside of the hardest of sciences it’s worse than worthless.

Meanwhile a single sharp person who lives in a city and interacts with the right intersection of people will tell you closer to the truth than even the better quality studies or media outlets. To think otherwise is imo foolish.

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

#976

Post by sharts » Sun, Jun 04, 2023, 10:30 AM UTC

fallingknife wrote: post #883

Fatnino wrote: post #815

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say $1mil+ house and most people think we are putting up a select one or two homeless guys in mansions. 1 million dollars in San Francisco real estate is a one room (maybe two room if it's in extra bad shape) hovel. And that's the real problem. San Francisco is not a place for the poor to try to raise their lives to middle class. It's a place for middle class to struggle to stay above water. The homeless in sf ne…

Then get them housing outside SF

They would then cry that it's not their problem once outside SF jurisdiction. Thus perpetuating the same issue elsewhere.

CA should have taken the 17B and invested it the lowest-cost-of-living regions in the US to build out communities + housing with full wrap-around services for different purposes (homelessness, mental-health, vets, etc) and focus on therapy/recovery.

It seems spending 17B in CA would just get you a hotdog and bicycle these days.

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

#977

Post by Zemtomo » Sun, Jun 04, 2023, 11:31 AM UTC

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…

"homeless people need houses"

Vs.

Every one of us needs a roof over their heads.

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

#978

Post by stcroixx » Sun, Jun 04, 2023, 2:07 PM UTC

2devnull wrote: post #913

Mizoguchi wrote: post #898

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It takes a huge effort to sober up and it is almost never a voluntary action. Having experienced drug addiction, even with a strong support system of relatives and friends rallying around you with love but also holding you accountable for your recovery and dragging your arse to therapy three times a week, making sure you stick to the program and take your medications, with all that it is still very hard to get out, p…

That’s a solution to drug addiction. Homelessness is not coterminous with drug addiction. You can be a drug addict with a home quite easily. It’s hard to be homeless and not use drugs or drink. You have numerous incentives to use and almost no incentives not to.

Most drug addicts lose their housing after some time, so housed drug addicts are temporary and in the way to being homeless. Addicts don’t work reliably enough to pay monthly expenses. They also steal and vandalize from people offering them housing, so again, very temporary until they wear out their welcome.

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

#979

Post by adamwong246 » Sun, Jun 04, 2023, 2:39 PM UTC

joenot443 wrote: post #909

adamwong246 wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Important to remember that every one of us are just a few accidents away from being ejected from society too. I try to catch myself when I'm looking down my nose at the bum who make a mess of my recycling because there is another richer person looking down their nose at me!

I don’t think I’m a few accidents away from what I see people doing every morning in the east village. I’ve been in four should-have-died accidents, when are you expecting me to abandon society? It’s a silly fantasy to pretend the average white collar is a few bad missteps away from the chronic detachment you see from these folks. We must live in very different worlds, my friend.

I really hope you never have to experience it, because it is a very nasty rug pull. No, it's not a silly fantasy, it's a deadly reality. As long as you produce value, you can enjoy momentary security. But take away anyone piece of your capacity to produce money: maybe your hands to type, or your brain to think- and all that security rapidly comes undone. Maybe you're lucky enough to have a rich family to fall back on or you live in a country with a generous welfare. But barring that, you absolutely will find yourself out on the street given the right circumstances.

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

#980

Post by acyou » Sun, Jun 04, 2023, 2:42 PM UTC

One aspect of real estate investing is the utility of being able to control local property values.

Investors looking to build generational wealth, with deep pockets, are able to drive down property values of seemingly entire cities, buy up land at a low cost, then change policies and turn low value land back into high value land.

There are many ways to do this sort of real estate market manipulation, most of which rely on controlling levers of power in various levels of government.

Do you think that behavior is, or should be, considered by us as plausible, probable, real, illegal, irrational, or immoral? Do you think that it's conspiracy theory?

Personally, I look at real estate market manipulation as standard fare. Of course it happens everywhere. Politicians love to direct public funding towards public works and infrastructure in areas owned by them and their friends (and voter bases). They do this legally. When too obvious and well documented, politicians using public institutions for self enrichment might be unpopular among voters (unless these same voters also benefit). I'm not angry about this, I think the system works extremely well.

But, I protest against vulnerable people being weaponized for real estate investors' needs. It has happened to a greater or lesser extent. The extent to which that has occurred is extremely difficult to pin down or prove.

This is what conspiracy theory does. Without too much worry about proof, take irrational behavior and patterns and construct a framework to try to explain. Does it make sense?