171–180 of 270 posts
Homelessness expert here. This data set is garbage. HUD data only includes those in the federally mandated HMIS (Homeless Information Management System). This data excludes 1) people who don't access services; 2) people who access services from private, non-federally funded programs (like faith-based groups); and 3) typically undercounts those with SUD, mental-health issues, and especially people of color. A recent B…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shelter won't let you drink, even in moderation.
I get the reasons for that, even ignoring the moral mission ones; it's too much effort to monitor for abuse and just easier to issue an outright ban. A substantially different world if we had friendly AI to do that monitoring and maybe individual tiny-houses or apartments rather than a bunkhouse free-for-all like Squid Games.
for me the real issue is that some of these people - users and not, are quite messed up, and can really end up doing horrible things to the staff and the other residents.
policing that seems pretty impossible
Homelessness expert here. This data set is garbage. HUD data only includes those in the federally mandated HMIS (Homeless Information Management System). This data excludes 1) people who don't access services; 2) people who access services from private, non-federally funded programs (like faith-based groups); and 3) typically undercounts those with SUD, mental-health issues, and especially people of color. A recent B…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And just like building bigger highways induces demand so will building more shelters in SF. “Build it and they will come” Not sure why we’d aim to building housing for homeless in the most expensive city in the US
> And just like building bigger highways induces demand so will building more shelters in SF. "Induced demand" is a fallacy. The demand isn't induced, it was there the whole time and being suppressed by high prices (or, in case of highways, congestion). If there is very high demand, the amount of supply needed to satisfy it is equally high, but that is by no means the same as being infinite and impossible to do. Ther…
And we’re not building housing here we’re building shelters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also far too far away from jobs jobs jobs.
Yes, but its not like most of the formerly-homeless sheltered individuals are getting a job in the urban core near the business district where many of the shelters are
We're a country of 350,000,000 people. Leaving 500,000 outside simply because municipalities don't want them around is inexcusable. Solution in two parts 1. Make it legal to build homes where people live (looking at you California, specifically LA, SF, SV) 2. Build dorm style shelters for anyone that would otherwise sleep outside There's complicating issues like not enough addiction treatment and mental health facili…
> Make it legal to build homes where people live (looking at you California, specifically LA, SF, SV) People keep saying this, but it's just a flavor of trickle-down economics. The idea that if we just let developers build out more (sure, yes they should) that then housing prices would drop and cascade down to where homeless people could afford a place to live. That's such a huge stretch, especially in those areas yo…
Its obviously not true. Its a working theory - the more housing available, the lower the cost - is true. But SF has such a high demand you can probably double housing in SF and demand would not satiate. That said, seattle has built tons of housing, and stalled some of the exploding costs of housing.
There is probably no good solution to SF's issue - its so out of hand and so expensive that even if you doubled the city you wouldn't solve the issue. Like you said - 6 blocks just to homeless shelters is a lot (doable, but a lot). Especially for a city so geographically constrained.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What do you do if someone wants to sleep on the street? When all of the available shelters are full this is not a relevant question. > Where do you build these dorms? Near transit so people that can't afford a car can get around. There's not a shortage of underutilized land in west coast cities. > Are there barriers to living in these dorms? Sobriety requirements, job searching, etc? no, none of those situations ar…
> When all of the available shelters are full this is not a relevant question. It is relevant when we are talking about building more housing. Why build something if people won't use it? > Near transit so people that can't afford a car can get around. There's not a shortage of underutilized land in west coast cities. Underutilized land near transit ? What do you do about the NIMBYs? > no, none of those situations are…
> Why build something if people won't use it?
We know some people will use it since the ones already built are full. If we look at other cities - eg. NYC we see the ratio sheltered to unsheltered are different from SF. The difference? Availability of shelter. SF has hundreds of beds and thousands of homeless. Surely a few hundred more beds would be used.
> Should there be some that are drug friendly and some that aren't?
The article illustrated that the majority of the growth was with people that are not drug users, so this is a big issue, but you can exclude drug users and still make a difference without dealing with this question. (but maybe you should find a way to help them too).
> This assumes they want to find a job though.
Surely some do. If not, they're still a person and we should help them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is relevant when we are talking about building more housing. Why build something if people won't use it? If the shelters are full, it's clear people are using them. If we start seeing vacancies in shelters, then we can worry about this.
I don’t doubt we need more space now. Vacancies in shelters would suggest we created too much supply, which would be a waste of resources. I prefer to take the approach of understanding the current needs and working to address all of those needs.
So what is your proposed solution?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but its not like most of the formerly-homeless sheltered individuals are getting a job in the urban core near the business district where many of the shelters are
Are jobs concentrated specific places or all over? Where do transit lines run? Where are other services located?
> Are their jobs concentrated elsewhere? Knowledge worker jobs are concentrated downtown, and jobs that are likely to look favorably upon someone homeless are probably not concentrated in any one area.
It's really good to see the breakdown into the four broad classes. The big question: should we as a society be allowed to force permanently unsheltered people with substance abuse and mental illness into some kind of facility for treatment? Most people who even want to do anything about these problems would probably say no but I think it's at least worth asking.
I would say no, absolutely not. You should build optional facilities and if people don’t go maybe it’s because your facility sucks. For example lots of places require you to be in at a certain time every night and vacate early in the morning. This may seem fine but it leads to problems for anyone who wants to work a night job or socialize with friends after a day shift. It seems that housing-first is the way to go. G…
I'm not saying that help should be forced upon huge swaths of people (there are reasons to be against that in principle) or that they don't deserve a bed. I am just skeptical that housing-first would lead to much change in the mental health of that population. Addiction recovery rates are really not good even when looking at a much more financially comfortable population or people with family members that are trying their best to keep on top of them.
For many addicts, it is also difficult to recover and remain sober unless they stop spending time with others that are using. If only a minority of a dorm-style housing unit were serious about wanting to get clean this could make it even harder for them.