201–210 of 291 posts
Dumb decision, but we really just gotta build more homes mainly. A good overview of why this is the best solution to homelessness: https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/everything-you-think-you-know-...
In the last 30 years, we have lost ~1,000,000 SRO apartments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-room_occupancy In that time homelessness has grown to 600,000. It's a pretty obvious correlation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Most homeless are elderly and mentally Ill. The solutions are institutionalization and retirement housing/pensions but no state did this after Reagan and instead made homelessness an issue to ignore. Most homeless people are working age and homeless under a year. Costs of living are the strongest correlates of homelessness rates.
>Costs of living are the strongest correlates of homelessness rates. I suspect this is strongly skewed by half of all homeless living in California where they seem to be mostly from out of state and coming here for the weather, lenient drug laws, and many social benefits. You can just ask them and they will tell you--most of them are from red states where they'd be locked up for what they do here. As such, they came…
It's the other factors you mention, and "Cascadia/The PNW" has more in common with each other than it does with the rest of its countries (This is bioregionalism and it's strong out here). The only reason you'd know you went to Canada when you arrived at Vancouver BC from WA state is that you'll see a lot of tim hortons around. SF bay area and Vancouver BC have the same exact problems despite wildly different weather. It's culture and laws.
Honestly, our culture and laws which allow this to happen are super based and awesome, and having a large homeless population as externalities of booming economies, and lax drug laws is worth it. The rest of the world wishes it was the PNW, and being the "Prussia of the USA" is the position that California will naturally find itself in as a result of its northern half having the same factors which drive it to have so many unhoused.
I feel like the outcome of this is unilaterally bad. Most homeless are elderly and mentally Ill. The solutions are institutionalization and retirement housing/pensions but no state did this after Reagan and instead made homelessness an issue to ignore. Faced with the ability to legally incarcerate nearly 600,000 people, states likely won't hesitate to do just that without a second thought. For a country that prides i…
>The solutions are institutionalization Isn't there a lot of rose-colored glasses around institutionalization of the mentally ill? The reason we got rid of it is because it is essentially imprisonment, with all sorts of abuses and not some sort of all-inclusive luxury resort.
I feel like the outcome of this is unilaterally bad. Most homeless are elderly and mentally Ill. The solutions are institutionalization and retirement housing/pensions but no state did this after Reagan and instead made homelessness an issue to ignore. Faced with the ability to legally incarcerate nearly 600,000 people, states likely won't hesitate to do just that without a second thought. For a country that prides i…
> Most homeless are elderly and mentally Ill. The solutions are institutionalization and retirement housing/pensions but no state did this after Reagan and instead made homelessness an issue to ignore. Most homeless people are working age and homeless under a year. Costs of living are the strongest correlates of homelessness rates.
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
This is paraphrased unironically right there in the majority opinion. "The public-camping laws prohibit actions undertaken by any person, regardless of status."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A bunch of cheap land or vacant homes 3000 miles away aren't going to solve the homeless problem in your city, or any other major urban area. Ultimately people stay where they want to stay, for a variety of reasons.
And saying "just build more houses" isn't going to solve it either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A bunch of cheap land or vacant homes 3000 miles away aren't going to solve the homeless problem in your city, or any other major urban area. Ultimately people stay where they want to stay, for a variety of reasons.
And saying "just build more houses" isn't going to solve it either.
Assuming by houses you mean the high-density housing people are actually saying would help alleviate the issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It makes it, not just de facto, but de jure illegal to be poor. Wha? No, that's literally not true: Taking a de facto situation and making it more intense doesn't magically transmute it into de jure . If it is truly de-jure illegal to be poor now, you'd be able to point at a law on the books which says that .
> If it is truly de-jure illegal to be poor now, you'd be able to point at a law on the books which says that. Boise recently had to deal with this. Passed a law that said it was illegal to sleep on the streets or public property if a shelter bed was available. Problem? No shelter beds were generally available but two religious shelters said they were "always available", even when they had no actual beds. Ergo, polic…