Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you cite any studies on that?
You want citations for, "if you make something easier to consume, more people will consume it?"
So, "If you make people's life better, more people will want a better life ?"
California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working
801–810 of 1001 posts
Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working
#802Luckily a San Franciscan figured it all out over one hundred years ago: > THE GREAT PROBLEM IS SOLVED. We are able to explain social phenomena that have appalled philanthropists and perplexed statesmen all over the civilized world. We have found the reason why wages constantly tend to a minimum, giving but a bare living, despite increase in productive power: > As productive power increases, rent tends to increase eve…
There is already an incentive to build densely and provide more housing, developers already want to do this because they make more money by doing so. They are literally not allowed to build anything other than single family homes though, the local homeowners actually control what is allowed to be built. That is to say: the people who have an incentive to keep housing supply low are the ones deciding what is allowed t…
If the problem is zoning that’s blocking density then why is the density of Cupertino (5,300/sq mile) almost double that of Houston (3000/sq mile)?
Houston is the example of why cities need zoning regs. No one wants to buy a home and have a high rise erected next to them.
Cheap housing comes from cheap land and cheap labor. Cupertino had neither of these and will continue to be expensive as long as there are companies paying high salaries in the area. It doesn’t matter if you allow high density housing if it costs $3M/single family home to acquire the land.
Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working
#803Having lived/spent time in a few places with varying homeless problems and approaches to homelessness, I find it fucking depressing every time I read about how badly - and inefficiently - the US handles it. Probably because I see alarming parallels with my own country. Billions going where, exactly? If the problems growing, and you are just sinking billions into it without making any measurable impact, where the fuck…
The Greater Boston Food Bank CEO cleared a $500K salary this year, for a job that's largely remote because the area is too dangerous for the non-profit white collar workers. Do you think she wants "food insecurity" to be solved? https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/427...
That CEO runs an organisation that delivered food for 90 million meals to residents of the greater Boston area last year (according to them).
That salary is on par with a senior engineer at a big tech company who, one might reasonably argue, does not contribute a similar good to the world.
Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working
#804Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working
#805Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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,…
Otherwise known as, "If you subsidize something you get more of it."
Which seems to be true. Right now chasing homeless people from place to place is the subsidized action, and they sure seem to get more and more funds to do it.
Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working
#806Having lived/spent time in a few places with varying homeless problems and approaches to homelessness, I find it fucking depressing every time I read about how badly - and inefficiently - the US handles it. Probably because I see alarming parallels with my own country. Billions going where, exactly? If the problems growing, and you are just sinking billions into it without making any measurable impact, where the fuck…
The Greater Boston Food Bank CEO cleared a $500K salary this year, for a job that's largely remote because the area is too dangerous for the non-profit white collar workers. Do you think she wants "food insecurity" to be solved? https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/427...
There are two ways to look at: (a) pay them more, and get the best results and less corruption (b) pay them less, and get the worst results with more corruption. In the states, politicians get paid, but they make through 'corruption' through revolving door, sinecure jobs for friends and family members, campaign contributions. In Singapore, politicians are paid better than the private sector, thereby reducing the corruption.
Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working
#807There 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…
I imagine "housing first" works best when there is any housing to have.
SF, like much of California, has refused to build housing for half a century, while the population has kept increasing.
To house a homeless person there, someone else pretty much has to move out.
Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working
#808It’s time for a Universal Basic Income. On the West Coast we’ll actually save money if we give poor people cash instead of wasting it on elaborate schemes.
Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working
#809Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way 'housing first' has been implemented in SF is terrible. It is operated as a lottery helping a very tiny percentage of the homeless with a house/apt worth $1mil+. Those numbers will never solve the problem. If I saw a reasonable housing first program where it actually provides cost-efficient housing for all that need it, I'd be a strong proponent. The current system is not that, it's incredibly unfair, a tax-p…
It's unfortunate that some of the smallest, most expensive, most mismanaged and ideological 7x7 mile real estate in the US is being used as the dumpster for humans in need of serious medical attention and societal support. SF can barely build a public toilet without it turning into a taxpayer trough feeding frenzy, so expecting it to be the Mecca of the homeless, the addicted and the downtrodden is comedic at best, a…
There are a lot of public employees and contractors who would have no way to live in the bay area if it wasn't for the $300 million a year homeless budget for a few thousand homeless. They need those homeless to provide justification for their good government jobs, which is why they cater to them so heavily by allowing them to sleep anywhere, ignoring most crimes they commit and providing them with a safe place to buy and take drugs.
All that has to happen is tax revenue has to fall and the spending will decrease and the homeless will go to some other place where they can live a better drugs and camping lifestyle. Having lived for some time a few years ago in the Tenderloin, the idea that the homeless in S.F are normal people who have fallen on hard times is a complete simulated reality that has almost nothing to do with the actual situation.
SF is the solve everything with more money city because more money is always to the benefit of people working government jobs. For another example, look at the 1 billion dollar per mile recent subway extension, for example. That 1 billion went to somebody and employed a lot of people.
Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working
#810Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way 'housing first' has been implemented in SF is terrible. It is operated as a lottery helping a very tiny percentage of the homeless with a house/apt worth $1mil+. Those numbers will never solve the problem. If I saw a reasonable housing first program where it actually provides cost-efficient housing for all that need it, I'd be a strong proponent. The current system is not that, it's incredibly unfair, a tax-p…
It's unfortunate that some of the smallest, most expensive, most mismanaged and ideological 7x7 mile real estate in the US is being used as the dumpster for humans in need of serious medical attention and societal support. SF can barely build a public toilet without it turning into a taxpayer trough feeding frenzy, so expecting it to be the Mecca of the homeless, the addicted and the downtrodden is comedic at best, a…
The "toilet" controversy was the set-aside maximum cost for a sheltered, multi-year maintenance project that involved road construction. It wasn't just a toilet seat like people keep repeating.