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

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

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

581–590 of 1001 posts

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

#581

Post by chinchilla2020 »

hnarn wrote: post #416
freddybobs wrote: post #302

There is an episode of the "you're wrong about" podcast, that discusses homelessness. In that episode there are several discussion about several projects in California around homelessness. Those projects provided housing. The studies based on those projects showed that overall the cost was less that not having some housing and services. The podcast goes into more details, but as I remember this was because * It remov…

The strategy is called “housing first” and has been proven to work in Finland: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jun/03/its-a-miracle... The idea that homeless people need homes to be able to advance further seems to trigger some people — after all, most of us pay for our housing, so why should they get it for free? What people don’t consider is that when “we”, the people with houses, don’t spend our dollars ho…

> Proven to work in Finland

Finland, a tiny baltic nation that has almost nothing in common with the USA.

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

#582

Post by TehShrike »

Brainfood wrote: post #515

LA resident since 2015. I have a proposed solution that no one ever seems to bring up on here but I would love to know the HN response to this: If a big essential part of the American Dream is home ownership, and we are short on homes, why do we allow corporations to own them all? How about we have a middle ground or cap on size of corporate entity and # of units or something? Some of the argument seems to be stuck o…

My understanding is that most houses in the US are owned by the people who live in them.

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

#583

Post by chinchilla2020 »

dv_dt wrote: post #492
meowtimemania wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the idea, but I don't think a homeless person should be entitled to free housing in one of the most expensive real estate areas of the world. Why work full time at mcdonalds to pay rent when you could just be a drug addict with a free house? Maybe we could create free housing communities where real estate is a bit cheaper.

This idea of worrying about who gets what for free before actually solving the problem, is a major blocker in solving the homelessness problem. And not only do the homeless suffer for it, the people who have work or homes in the area suffer for the lack of pragmatism about it.

If you offer free housing, there will be millions claiming they are homeless to take advantage. Just look at the PPP loans that were taken advantage of during the pandemic to get an idea how far people will go to get a bit of free cash.

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

#584

Post by ajmurmann »

Animats wrote: post #543
ajmurmann wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Zoning and planning issues can be dealt with trivially by the state almost anywhere, they just aren’t fucked doing so (we have this issue in Ireland)." This seems to not reflect reality in the US. There is strong local resistance to construction especially if it's for poor people or worse homeless, leading to tight zoning and rejection of projects during the byzantine approval process. If the government tries to bui…

> There is strong local resistance to construction especially if it's for poor people, or worse, homeless, The US used to do that. It led to high-rise ghettos.[1] And that was before drugs were big. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Taylor_Homes

Honestly, social housing isn't my preferred solution. My solution is radical upzoning; removal of minimum unit-sizes; drastically simplify the approval/permit process and remove all local hearings etc. from the process, if it fits the regulations, you can build it; forced rehab for addicts; institutionalize mentally ill who cannot take care of themselves (this is the hardest part, I am least certain about).

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

#585

Post by supercheetah »

commandlinefan wrote: post #565
freddybobs wrote: post #302

There is an episode of the "you're wrong about" podcast, that discusses homelessness. In that episode there are several discussion about several projects in California around homelessness. Those projects provided housing. The studies based on those projects showed that overall the cost was less that not having some housing and services. The podcast goes into more details, but as I remember this was because * It remov…

> overall the cost was less that not having some housing and services This is always the justification for socialist-style programs. It makes for a great red herring, but it's always misleading. What it ignores (willfully or not) is that if you start to incentivize homelessness, you're going to suddenly find yourself with a lot more homeless than you used to have. Your studies assume a stable population of homeless,…

Can you cite any studies on that?

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

#586

Post by kristofferR »

meowtimemania wrote: post #577
worik wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 25% died (overdose on drugs), and 21% returned to the streets You are cherry picking statistics Housing first has been shown over and over again to be a better solution than expecting people to recover their lives before they get any help What are your counterfactuals? How many die with no help? Where do those numbers even come from? Basically I am calling this out as disinformation. Lies

I'm quoting a tweet from the president of Y Combinator. I'm not against giving people housing, but I think there needs to be a sobriety requirement. Why would putting someone in a house cure them of their addiction? Put them through rehab, then give them a house when they leave rehab.

They use drugs because they live on the streets.

Treating a symptom instead of the cause is stupid, especially if the symptom (drug use) will likely return as soon as they return to the streets after rehab/prison.

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

#587

Post by jganetsk »

TexanFeller wrote: post #540
jganetsk wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a common misconception. Actually the primary fix is indeed to make affordable housing available. https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/everything-you-think-you-know-...

My best friend from high school is homeless right now despite my efforts to help him. My best friend from grade school was homeless in my town for a few years(I wasn't aware at first to help). My wife was a social worker. I've had many interactions, albeit brief, with homeless in my city. I'm not exactly ignorant and I'm not sure the fellow from your article isn't an activist with an agenda. I'm also skeptical of the…

Noah Smith is no activist. He was a professor of finance and a journalist for the Associated Press, Bloomberg, and other reputable outlets. He now writes a very successful Substack.

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

#588

Post by jlawson »

hnuser847 wrote: post #507
no-dr-onboard wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah it's caused by poor family cultures that lead to mental illness and drug addiction. Short of rounding up families and forcing them to be responsible for their children, teens, and young adults, there's actually nothing we can do to get these people off the street. You know it's funny. A lot of people look at the US and turn up their noses at our "poor infrastructure". Just a couple of months ago I watched a very…

I'm glad you brought up Singapore, since they can actually force people with mental health or addiction issues into shelters. Imprisoning people for being mentally ill or addicts is a viable to solution to homeless and it clearly works for Singapore, however this will never happen in the West. For better or worse, individual liberty is sacred in our cultural tradition, and it will never be politically palatable to fo…

Forcing people into treatment was our standard approach to this problem for decades and it worked very well. We need to bring it back.

There should be zero people doing meth on the street; if you see one it should be a single phone call to have the cops pick that person up and send them to the secured treatment facility on the edge of town.

This really is not complex or cruel or novel.

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

#590

Post by SamoyedFurFluff »

meowtimemania wrote: post #555
dv_dt wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This idea of worrying about who gets what for free before actually solving the problem, is a major blocker in solving the homelessness problem. And not only do the homeless suffer for it, the people who have work or homes in the area suffer for the lack of pragmatism about it.

I agree with you, I just feel like if I were working a minimum wage job busting my ass to pay rent to my landlord, I’d be deeply offended that you can be rewarded free housing essentially for being addicted to drugs.

I think culturally we need to get our heads on straight. There’s no reason for someone who is capable of work to be feeling offended that a sick person gets something they can earn. I’m not angry disabled people can get income just for being disabled: being disabled sucks ass! Similarly I wouldn’t envy a homeless/addicted person: being homeless rots your brain and being addicted is like being enslaved. I’m a free man and I’m happy with that. Yes I must work for my housing but I guarantee my quality of life is better than someone whose addiction drive them out onto the streets.
Post reply on HN