Live data from Hacker News

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

wsj.com

321–330 of 1001 posts

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

#321

This reads as a political ad, not a news story. The ad is good at pulling heart strings and getting people riled up (see comments here) but does not do any actual reporting. How did California spend the money? Were there leaky buckets? How does California have 50% of the homeless and 12% of the population? Are people being bussed in, making this a federal problem? Who's responsible? Don't just tell me the governor, t…

Why the homeless move to CA

Good climate

Cities provide cash payments to them

Legal marijuana

Open air drug markets

Soft on crime prosecutors

Liberal population that wants to provide for them

Note: I make no judgement value on any of these items, just proposing reasons

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

#322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similar to what I've seen in HI. I imagine there would be more in HI if it didn't cost an expensive plane ticket.

SF and further north are hardly nice weather locations.

Definitely, the winter I visited Mountain View it was 2C (35F) and ground frost.

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

#323

This reads as a political ad, not a news story. The ad is good at pulling heart strings and getting people riled up (see comments here) but does not do any actual reporting. How did California spend the money? Were there leaky buckets? How does California have 50% of the homeless and 12% of the population? Are people being bussed in, making this a federal problem? Who's responsible? Don't just tell me the governor, t…

Why the homeless move to CA Good climate Cities provide cash payments to them Legal marijuana Open air drug markets Soft on crime prosecutors Liberal population that wants to provide for them Note: I make no judgement value on any of these items, just proposing reasons

[dead]

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

#324
post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Detox doesn't really work if they don't want it. The active intervention w/r to homelessness would be to actually house these people. Lots of these people are using drugs to cope with other problems, without dealing with the other issues what are the chances of detox actually being worthwhile?

If you give housing to mentally unstable people, they are just going to trash the place. Vancouver has been building and rebuilding support housing because the units get trashed and literally ripped apart after a week. Vancouver is doing a lot more for homeless people than SF/LA and it is still not working.

> If you give housing to mentally unstable people, they are just going to trash the place.

This is underreported to a criminal degree.

Want to solve the homeless problem? Adopt one. Let one live in your home. You'll quickly come to find how even the most sympathetic cases ended up on the street in the first place.

We couldn't keep a roof over the head of a schizophrenic family member, and there are no grants or stipends available to renovate your own home to the security standards of a mental hospital. Unlike problematic foster children, there is no state agency that pretends to have your back in this endeavor. Meanwhile you're cohabitating with someone regularly insulting, screaming at, assaulting, battering, and occasionally molesting your family members, which does wonders for their mental health. Normally your entire family has to be incarcerated in state prison to share this sort of experience-- the mentally-ill adhere to the Rules of Society about as well as the criminal population. So in failing to solve one problem, you create five more.

Even more fun in California, since they become tenants of yours after something retarded like 14 days and the savvy ones will shake you down when you try to [unlawfully] evict them.

This isn't a problem we can currently solve. It's hard not to criminalize the mentally-ill when their behavior is indistinguishable from that of actual criminals. The only difference seems to be "they can't help it," which is the same argument that has been made to excuse criminal behavior itself. It's not an excuse to coddle either group.

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

#325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are doing exactly what you propose. Many communities have "housing first" homeless strategies. Some people do in fact get off the street. But we also have some "service resistant" homeless populations that do not want to live in your rule-based housing, they want to live without those rules even if it means living on the street.

On this note, LA has hundreds of shelter beds the remain empty every night because they're located in "sober" facilities (meaning that the facilities do not allow alcohol or drug use) and the putative residents would rather be able to drink and use drugs than to have shelter.

One problem is the binary of "sober".

Opioid substitution therapy has a long track record of effectiveness, but when treating homeless addicts we all too often insist they go through withdrawal, to nobody's benefit. Not all homeless are addicts, but an individual suffering opioid addiction has very different behavior from someone who isn't, and that requires particular attention. Opioids have the worst relapse rate of all addictive drugs.

Stimulant withdrawal on the other hand is generally less severe, and acute stimulant intoxication is more likely to cause serious behavioral problems than with opioids (or methadone). Cocaine has a surprisingly low relapse rate, once sobriety is maintained for a few months.

Alcohol is a little more difficult, because it not only has a dangerous withdrawal syndrome but it also causes aggressive or impulsive behavior. Treating withdrawal is imperative; substitution is difficult, since other anxiolytics can produce the same impulse control problems. Access to alcohol is pervasive, as well, and we would like to avoid constant monitoring.

When we see only the possibilities of permissiveness or restriction and not active and detailed intervention, we are not playing with a full deck. As another commenter mentioned, simply allowing shelter residents to use drugs creates risks to other residents and staff. But we should be as accommodating as reasonably achievable.

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

#326
post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that some groups have no problem taking facts and distorting them into untruths. We truly are living in an age of alternate facts. I’ve read papers put out by research groups that were easy to debunk. Most people won’t go to that effort and will take the glossy material and legitimate sounding author as being truthful when in fact every conclusion made in the report is a lie.

I think there are alternate facts. Both left and right have sources of information and narratives as to what is helping this country and what is harming it. Alternative facts are like alternative religions. Alternative orientations and life goals

"alternate religions" implies there are real religions. How does that work?

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

#327
post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-american ignorant here. Why don't they just build the houses? 17B sounds like a lot.

It's a lot of money but there's also a lot of people and a lot of costs in order to build. Setting aside that you can have both vacant residential properties and homelessness, let's say the government decides to just build a bunch of units and force people to live in them: Where do you put them? For lots of the cities in CA you'd be looking at a million bucks or more for the lots of land alone in order to build like…

I mean, the elephant in the room is that we easily build enough housing for 115k people for much less than $17B if we simply allowed it to be built outside an existing city in the Central Valley. There's plenty of relatively cheap land to build mid-density housing and all the services the population would need (hospitals, substance abuse assistance, public safety, etc).

It would be like having two new cities the size of Merced.

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

#328
post #171

What's crazy is that we decide to spend on homelessness in such inefficient ways. A "housing first" strategy would be more humane, and pretty affordable compared to what we're currently doing. This article says $3.7B for an estimated 115k homeless population which yields around $32k per person per year, or $2700 per person per month, and that's only state money. In SF it may be more like $57k/yr, or $4750/mo. At thos…

Or, let people build their own housing.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/11/oakland-home...

Allocate some land for this, let people create their own community/ies. Isn't America supposed to be about freedom?

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

#329
post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-american ignorant here. Why don't they just build the houses? 17B sounds like a lot.

Homelessness isn't just caused by someone not having a home. There is a massive overlap of mental illness and substance abuse/addiction. Just giving a homeless person a house will not solve the underlying problems that caused them to be homeless in the first place. There needs to be movement on multiple fronts - mental health, physical health, rehab, job training, personal finance, etc. If the solution was easy, some…

I think if you give someone a house they are definitionally no longer homeless, even if they remain mentally ill or addicted to drugs.

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

#330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a warm climate with large cities which provide sufficient incentive for people to choose to be homeless over other avenues of living Homeless people obviously want to live somewhere like Cali over Canada for the winter. California also provides massive welfare to homeless. They also have a very open arms policy to illegals who are often poor and homeless These aren’t exhaustive reasons why, but it’s a core part…

Your argument is that an immigrant would rather be homeless in the US than housed in their home country? Almost no data backs that up.

lol people would rather be poor in the US than mexico yes.

your dichotomy is a false representation. and a poor one at that

Post reply on HN