California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working • Hacker News Board

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

#821

Post by 1letterunixname » Sat, Jun 03, 2023, 2:22 AM UTC

aeternum wrote: post #683

hnarn wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

Resettlement somewhere cheaper is the sensible thing to do. Unfortunately, this requires relocation and doesn't scale. This is something the federal government should pay for and coordinate.

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

#822

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jun 03, 2023, 2:26 AM UTC

ibeckermayer wrote: post #785

jandrese wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very hard to work around human nature and the whole "why am I paying rent like a sucker when the drug addicts on the street are getting free apartments?" I also think that people who point out that a huge percentage of the people on the street are on drugs, so the drugs are the problem are not entirely correct either. The drug use is a symptom that also exacerbates the problem. One of the big contributing factor…

This idea that the "homeless problem in SF" is primarily a problem of "people being unable to afford homes in SF" is just laughable. All you need to do is walk down almost any street in San Francisco and take a secondary glance at the homeless people you see, and its obvious that "can't afford a home" is just one of their many problems. Most of these people couldn't hold a job because they're addicted to really hardc…

[deleted]

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

#823

Post by 1letterunixname » Sat, Jun 03, 2023, 2:26 AM UTC

xp84 wrote: post #776

aeternum wrote: post #683

Earlier 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…

SF's attempts at "fixing" housing always amount to this lottery system. Rent control: A random windfall for whatever tenant snags these coveted apartments when someone dies in a 3 bedroom apartment they haven't needed in 30 years but "can't afford" to downsize from since they have been paying $650 since 1989. Also the illegal subletters who are numerous and shameless, from personal experience. Low-income housing mini…

A lottery system for a few people is the rich's approach to looking down on the poor.

Solving it requires relocation. There's no getting around it because the total cost of living is incompatible with people with slimmer means.

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

#824

Post by da39a3ee » Sat, Jun 03, 2023, 2:26 AM UTC

nwienert wrote: post #743

da39a3ee wrote: post #713

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even supposing that is true, which seems very unlikely, it is clearly untrue of the SF homeless population in general and of the East Bay homeless population.

I speak Spanish, my real name is in my profile, I talked to a few of them pretty often. I’ll try not to baselessly insult you back. More likely you don’t want it to be true.

OK, I don't go to the Mission much. What I was trying to say was that putting that anecdote out there risks being a bit misleading, since obviously the vast majority of homeless people on Market St / Tenderloin, and in the East Bay, are not Mexican immigrants, illegal or otherwise. Unless you concede that point, readers of this thread are going to conclude that it is you that is trying to shoehorn reality into a form that you find palatable. If you genuinely think that the majority of homeless people in SF / East Bay are illegal immigrants, then I don't know which adjective to choose -- deranged, deluded, absurd?

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

#825

Post by nonethewiser » Sat, Jun 03, 2023, 2:27 AM UTC

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…

> society around us partly disintegrates and additional effects start stacking up: substance abuse, violent crime, healthcare costs etc.

Sure, if the alternative is “do nothing.” But if you committed the mentally ill who are endangering themselves and others to mental institutions (not jail) then 90% of these problems go away.

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

#826

Post by neilk » Sat, Jun 03, 2023, 2:27 AM UTC

ibeckermayer wrote: post #785

jandrese wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very hard to work around human nature and the whole "why am I paying rent like a sucker when the drug addicts on the street are getting free apartments?" I also think that people who point out that a huge percentage of the people on the street are on drugs, so the drugs are the problem are not entirely correct either. The drug use is a symptom that also exacerbates the problem. One of the big contributing factor…

This idea that the "homeless problem in SF" is primarily a problem of "people being unable to afford homes in SF" is just laughable. All you need to do is walk down almost any street in San Francisco and take a secondary glance at the homeless people you see, and its obvious that "can't afford a home" is just one of their many problems. Most of these people couldn't hold a job because they're addicted to really hardc…

Those are the homeless you can see.

You're right that people who have several physical or mental health issues would be hard to help, in any system.

But the number one cause of homelessness isn't addiction; it's poverty.

And for that matter, the overwhelming majority of people who are substance-addicted don't become homeless. Lots of the people you work with are addicted to something.

There are so many steps before people literally have to sleep on the streets. They stay out of sight. You surely have noticed all the camper vans on some streets in SF. I'd bet that for every person actually on the street there are 10 who are effectively homeless but managing it in a way you can't see. Living at their place of work or study, living in a vehicle, couch-surfing, illegal sublets, and things I'm happy to never have to imagine.

The article the OP posted details many stories of people who are competent to hold down a job, even multiple jobs, but cannot find anywhere to live.

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

#827

Post by gamblor956 » Sat, Jun 03, 2023, 2:29 AM UTC

abeppu wrote: post #274

gamblor956 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look up the Skid Row Housing Trust's collapse for a detailed look at why housing first is doomed to failure. In a nutshell: homelessness is a symptom, not a cause, and housing doesn't address the reasons that individuals are homeless. The SRHT focused on housing first, but now has hundreds of unoccupiable units that were damaged by drug-addicted and mentally-ill individuals and rendered inhospitable (and this ultimat…

> For the 90+% of homeless that are homeless due to mental illness or drug abuse Where did you get this number? Do you think that number is a constant, and doesn't vary with the cost of housing?

I used to be a public defender in the LA area, and I used to work with LAHSA.

My 90+% number refers to the chronic homeless, not the temporary homeless for whom financial issues or fleeing domestic violence are the primary causes of their short-term homelessness.

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

#828

Post by jackson1442 » Sat, Jun 03, 2023, 2:29 AM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #611

adeon wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Around year 2009-2010, I worked in public sector in Helsinki in the real estate department. I worked the phone handling tenants calling and needing repairs. A large portion of the tenants were people from the homeless program. At the time I did not know this program was unusual. My understanding of how it worked was that if you were functional enough and willing, you could walk into a certain building and they'd get…

> I wondered a lot why California seems to be failing at the homeless problem. My take on it (after living in SF for many years): 1. Many homeless people do have mental illnesses and/or drug addiction problems (for some, this is the result of their homelessness, for others it's in part the cause). California is very much against involuntarily putting people in psychiatric hospitals or drug treatment programs. This is…

I think #3 could possibly work _if_ it was in conjunction with being housing-first. If SF had an agreement with another city with available housing, I think busing people there _if and only if they have a home ready_ could be a really reasonable solution.

No need to deal with the high housing prices of the bay area, and you're ensuring the person has a place to live when they get to where they're going. Definitely don't do this involuntarily, but I imagine many people (once such a program proves itself) would voluntarily sign up.

--

Random miscellaneous comment- I found it really challenging to get a part time job around where I lived without a car. One of the interview questions was typically "how will you get to work" and I could see a change in the interviewer's demeanor when I responded that I would walk or have someone drive me. I can't imagine how difficult it would be to get a job without a permanent address on top of that.

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

#829

Post by fzeroracer » Sat, Jun 03, 2023, 2:30 AM UTC

chinchilla2020 wrote: post #583

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.

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.

You can, right now, go buy a mobile home in pretty much anywhere you want for around $40-50k. Why aren't more people buying mobile homes if the housing market is such a problem? The answer to that question is the solution to the thing you think will be an issue.

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

#830

Post by nonethewiser » Sat, Jun 03, 2023, 2:31 AM UTC

bandrami wrote: post #723

fwungy wrote: post #721

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cannot have a welfare state and a liberal immigration policy. Sure, if you do nice things for poor people their lives improve, and so does society, not only because we are kinder, but also because their problems don't become problems for unrelated people. But, if you do nice things for poor people as a government and open the door we have the objective truth that there are billions of poor people in the world who…

Canada has a more comprehensive welfare state than the US and a higher percentage of the population are immigrants than in the US. So there may at some point be a required tradeoff but the US isn't there yet. What Canada doesn't have is a "homelessness-industrial complex" of NGOs and nonprofits that soak up billions of dollars in public money without actually providing significant housing for homeless people: instead…

Canada is more on a “pull” system with immigration. They pick and choose who and how many they want.

Regardless, when he says you cant have both he clearly means its not sustainable. Not that its literally impossible to hold both positions at some moment in time.