Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Breakdown of data on homeless populations across the U.S.

dynomight.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 270 posts

Re: Breakdown of data on homeless populations across the U.S.

#241

Post by [deleted] »

phlakaton wrote: post #228
mulmen wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being a resident of Seattle I'm not thrilled about the state of Washington making decisions about what happens in my city. I can get behind something like gating funding based on results but I'm not thrilled about the state dictating how the city spends money. I could also get behind the idea of a state-owned-and-operated shelter network which happens to have locations in cities. But in general I have a preference to…

I might not be thrilled with state intervention either, but I do not doubt its necessity. Here in California the state has a new housing target that is allocated to regions. The regions then allocate new housing targets to cities. And pretty much every single one of the cities in the Bay Area is having to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to meet those targets. My own city is having to violate its own low-density re…

[deleted]

Re: Breakdown of data on homeless populations across the U.S.

#242

Post by [deleted] »

GhettoComputers wrote: post #230
mulmen wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If that’s true, do houses with years long vacancies in NYC or LA mean that housing is too high in supply? Having been homeless, the needs are best served with a reliable friend network, an emergency place you can stay at that is a step above a shelter/church I never been to a woman’s only shelter, I heard they suck too though. I prefer staying with friends but hidden spots are fine like hammock in a park, storage uni…

[deleted]

Re: Breakdown of data on homeless populations across the U.S.

#243

Post by BurningFrog »

notJim wrote: post #114
cheriot wrote: post #9

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…

> 2. Build dorm style shelters for anyone that would otherwise sleep outside We used to allow SROs, like the classic YMCA you'd see where people down on their luck would live in old movies. These are now illegal to build in most places, and the existing ones are being closed down.

This seems weird until you understand the mechanisms.

The "Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics" says that when you observe or interact with a problem in any way, you can be blamed for it. It's probably part of our inherent "human nature" sense of ethics.

The SRO landlord is seen as exploiting poor people by taking their money in exchange for pretty terrible housing. So we ban the SROs, and now these people have to sleep in the streets.

But that actually feels OK, because NOW THERE IS NO ONE EXPLOITING THEM!

https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-eth...

Re: Breakdown of data on homeless populations across the U.S.

#244

Post by whimsicalism »

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #210
noahtallen wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely. As an example, say you walk in your neighborhood to the transit station. A single encounter with someone with a mental health issue will be enough to give you the impression that things are worse than they are. One isolated instance of feeling unsafe had an outsized impact on how you feel about the neighborhood in general. It’s just human! And unfortunately, in west coast cities, it’s not even that isolat…

>That’s why people see it as a crisis: a lot of people in west coast cities feel increasingly unsafe. It's certainly not just west coast cities where this is happening. >So thousands of people might get a subconscious feeling of being unsafe, just from a small number of people who might not even be acting in unsafe ways. In large part, it is a small number of people who make the masses feel unsafe. The issue recently…

> The most basic and important job for any government is so maintain a basic, minimum level of public safety. Without that, nothing else they do much matters.

Look, I agree that this is a problem - but I think it is laughable to suggest our current government doesn't provide this basic, minimum level.

Re: Breakdown of data on homeless populations across the U.S.

#245

Post by whimsicalism »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #80
rp1 wrote: post #29

This data is interesting because it illustrates how few chronic homeless people there are, and yet people who live in cities with large homeless populations will tell you how disruptive they can be. In NYC, a homeless person getting in your subway car ruins the entire ride. This tiny portion of the population has an outsized impact on everyone else. For this reason, among others, society should find some help for the…

>yet people who live in cities with large homeless populations will tell you how disruptive they can be. In NYC, a homeless person getting in your subway car ruins the entire ride. I dunno man. I've ridden Boston and DC light rail systems pretty extensively (and NYC to a small extent) and never had an obviously homeless person ruin my ride. Heck, I can't even think of a specific instance where one did anything of not…

DC does not have a light rail system outside of the small H street project.

I grew up in DC and a classmate of mine murdered somebody on the Metro, so it is certainly not all smiles and roses.

I agree it is much worse on the West coast.

Re: Breakdown of data on homeless populations across the U.S.

#246

Post by whimsicalism »

ianhawes wrote: post #211
pgcj_poster wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that was enough to ruin your entire ride?

Not parent, but I’ve been approached by homeless people plenty of times and most of the time they’re just ready to move onto the next mark if you decline to assist them, but occasionally they will accost you for your perceived lack of empathy. The situations can be tense and make you feel uncomfortable. So yes, bring approached by a homeless person would definitely ruin a commute.

These are quite minor and (IMO) verging on acceptable.

Try someone shouting in your face about how they're going to kill you and your family and that is closer to the experiences I've had with BART and homelessness.

Re: Breakdown of data on homeless populations across the U.S.

#247

Post by whimsicalism »

rp1 wrote: post #213
pgcj_poster wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that was enough to ruin your entire ride?

Yes because an entire car of people are sitting there, minding their own business, and someone approaches them and violates their personal space. If someone grabbed you with the intention of disturbing you, would that not ruin your ride? How is someone entering your personal space by being loud and obnoxious any different?

How is someone talking to you to ask for money different from them grabbing you?

C'mon.

Re: Breakdown of data on homeless populations across the U.S.

#248

Post by tdeck »

spywaregorilla wrote: post #237
tdeck wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A person can be severely mentally ill in many ways, not all of them are highly public and immediately offensive to passers by. So while the people you describe would indeed fall into that category, many readers would likely place other people with debilitating mental illnesses into that category as well.

That's true, but someone who is severely mentally ill in an invisible way is not going to be categorized as such by a passerby, so it's an obviously semantic ambiguity. Saying what is technically true but not understood is just distracting.

That's not necessarily true either. Someone who is catatonic might be noticed by a passerby but doesn't scream "this person isn't safe to have in a shelter".

Re: Breakdown of data on homeless populations across the U.S.

#249

Post by cheriot »

bsder wrote: post #191
coryrc wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

#2 people won't let you build shelters where it's affordable to do so. Seattle's homeless shelters should be built outside Moses Lake, not where a studio costs $300k+. For the amount we already spend, every single chronically homeless person could be housed in dorms built out there and pay for the social workers. Since they aren't doing that, it's clear the real motivation is not to help the homeless.

Shelters won't fix the issue. San Francisco did a breakdown on their homeless. Almost 75% have some chronic health problem. 15% have a traumatic brain injury . That requires facilities for long term medical care. And it basically means universal healthcare. Unfortunately this puts us back to "You know all those facilities that we closed back in the 70s? Yeah, closing them was a stupid idea and we needed to fix them i…

100% agree that we need a lot more mental health facilities.

It's not about fixing every problem, but we can make the problem less bad. The instability and insecurity of sleeping outside makes everything else worse.

There are also a lot of people that are functional, but end up homeless because housing is too expensive. Texas doesn't have better healthcare than California, but Houston has fewer homeless because housing is cheaper.

Re: Breakdown of data on homeless populations across the U.S.

#250

Post by klyrs »

forgotmypw17 wrote: post #207
mulmen wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mean dedicated camping areas or putting tents in existing public parks? Something like https://campsecondchance.rumblecrash.com/ but for tents?

Honestly, I don't know exactly. I haven't thought this through in detail. I just think that living without being involved with a building and such is valid, and I'd like to see it recognized. I believe in harmonious co-existence, so I guess I see it as "anywhere it's not in someone's way", which is what I've practiced for lack of a better option, though I usually don't use a tent in the city. I think it is legitimate…

> I believe in harmonious co-existence, so I guess I see it as "anywhere it's not in someone's way", which is what I've practiced for lack of a better option, though I usually don't use a tent in the city.

There's a city in the Vancouver area which has a radically different approach, that I'd describe as YIMFY. Food bank, needle exchange, shelters, etc are in an otherwise affluent part of town (not coincidentally, there's a police precinct right there too). They don't want to hide the homeless, they want to keep an eye on the problem. And by keeping it in the public view, voters consistently fund the programs to get people help.

Post reply on HN