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

We can reduce homelessness if we follow the science on what works

newscientist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 110 posts

Re: We can reduce homelessness if we follow the science on what works

#41

Post by ErikVandeWater »

I wish this article were more specific on what "housing first" means. My understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) is that homeless shelters across the country have empty beds, and that these are not considered housing.

When the article describes an alternative of providing the homeless "housing," what does this housing look like? What aspects of housing are provided that are not generally provided at homeless shelters? Is it privacy, security of belongings, a place to stay during the day, quietness during the night, or other factors that are most substantially different from what is currently available?

Re: We can reduce homelessness if we follow the science on what works

#42

Post by kQq9oHeAz6wLLS »

LarryMullins wrote: post #21
epicureanideal wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guarantee I could produce a program that would be acceptable to conservatives and provide free housing. Note also that Utah, a very conservative state, solves homelessness in exactly this way. It just might be that the housing would not be provided by funneling huge amounts of tax dollars to the rentier class, and might involve constructing more houses, and therefore would be opposed by the left.

> I guarantee I could produce a program that would be acceptable to conservatives and provide free housing. That's trivial; prison. (Ignoring the part where prisons now charge prisoners rent...) Finding a solution everybody can agree on is much harder than finding a solution only one side or the other can agree with.

> That's trivial; prison.

This comment proves you don't know your adversary, which is a dangerous situation to be in.

Re: We can reduce homelessness if we follow the science on what works

#44

Post by larsiusprime »

not_the_fda wrote: post #26

Progressive cities have tried housing first solutions, yet they have a bigger homelessness problem and it keeps getting worse. Cities that have done treatment first policies have seen a reduction homelessness. A great book on this topic is San Fran-sicko. https://www.amazon.com/San-Fransicko-Progressives-Ruin-Citie...

Here's a good (critical) review of that book: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-san-fransi...

Re: We can reduce homelessness if we follow the science on what works

#45

Post by rib3ye »

chizhik-pyzhik wrote: post #3

This article is a good overview of the research about treatment-first vs housing-first approaches. The last paragraph is pretty clear on the real difficulty: >The major obstacles to resolving homelessness remain ideological. It is politically hard to sell the idea that people who take drugs or are disruptive should get free housing – even when the evidence shows that is actually what works.

My observation is that it's more politically contentious to decide where to put these free homes. We have a lot of them in the SF Bay Area (some legit, many not), and they all attract activity that "I don't love" having kids around.

I try to fight my internal NIMBYism, but clutter horde and verbal assaults are where I draw the line.

Re: We can reduce homelessness if we follow the science on what works

#46

Post by Ancalagon »

LarryMullins wrote: post #35
trynewideas wrote: post #29

Portland, cited in the article, announced it's beginning yet another sweep of homeless encampments yesterday. At the press conference announcing it, the mayor - who's been ordering sweeps his entire tenure - admits they don't and haven't ever helped the people being swept. He's also still pushing his plan to establish city-run outdoor camps for homeless people, and to criminalize rejecting those city-run camps when s…

From a NIMBY perspective, a city-run homeless camp sounds even worse than a normal homeless camp. At least in the latter case you can hope that the city will get rid of the camp soon, but if the camp is made by the city itself then what hope can you have? So I think this plan of his will never be implemented. Politically, talking about it makes more sense than actually implementing it.

Don't these permanent "homeless camps" already exist though? When I was in Portland last January I saw a large grouping of what I can only describe as very-tiny homes - essentially glorified shacks on rollers and stilts - which were obviously city-sanctioned homeless encampments next to a bypass.

Re: We can reduce homelessness if we follow the science on what works

#47

Post by vkou »

unity1001 wrote: post #34
chizhik-pyzhik wrote: post #3

This article is a good overview of the research about treatment-first vs housing-first approaches. The last paragraph is pretty clear on the real difficulty: >The major obstacles to resolving homelessness remain ideological. It is politically hard to sell the idea that people who take drugs or are disruptive should get free housing – even when the evidence shows that is actually what works.

> people who take drugs The majority of effectively homeless in the US are working people. This means people who dont own or rent any kind of housing. They crash in other people's places, frequently going homeless for periods. This includes working families. Their size is estimated in millions. The chronic homeless are people who dont even have any place to crash from time to time. People refer to these people as 'th…

This is one big root of the problem. There are very few resources that someone falling into homelessness can lean on, that are not their friends/family.

People who have that safety net can spend a few weeks or months crashing on couches until they get their housing situation sorted out. People who, for whatever reason, don't, are the ones trying to hold a job while living out of a car, and one bad encounter with the police can cause them to lose that job.

And once you fall into the same strata as the chronic homeless, it is almost impossible to crawl out of it.

If you want to reduce the number of chronic homeless give years from now, we need services for the temporary homeless, today. If you're getting kicked out of your apartment next Tuesday, and have nobody you can lean on, what you need is four walls and a roof so that you don't land on the street.

Neither section 8 housing, nor the current shelter system supply that. Especially if you're a man, or are queer, or, or, or...

Re: We can reduce homelessness if we follow the science on what works

#48

Post by enkid »

millimeterman wrote: post #40
enkid wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm so confused by this comment. Are you suggesting the left is against public housing and pro landlord?

Directly? No. But indirectly? Yes. The rampancy of NIMBY, PHIMBY, and "anti-gentrification" attitudes leads to decreased construction, increased housing prices, and the enrichment of (existing) landlords at the expense of tenants.

How is this a "left" only thing?

Re: We can reduce homelessness if we follow the science on what works

#49

Post by tommiegannert »

This doesn't seem to address that if you are the nicest place to move to as homeless, more will move there, perpetuating the need for the chosen solution. I'm all for helping people, but if it's not sustainable, it will eventually screw everyone, not just the previously homeless.
Post reply on HN