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

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

#861

Post by nonethewiser » Sat, Jun 03, 2023, 3:02 AM UTC

fullspectrumdev wrote: post #413

Having 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…

> Billions going where, exactly? If the problems growing, and you are just sinking billions into it without making any measurable impact, where the fuck is the money going?

Towards more homelessness. They are subsidizing it. Literally paying people money to be homeless.

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

#862

Post by dragonwriter » Sat, Jun 03, 2023, 3:02 AM UTC

robomartin wrote: post #859

AgentOrange1234 wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Saying the issue is lack of homes implies these people could actually pay for a place to stay.” Or we could just… choose to house people, regardless of their ability to pay?

> Or we could just… choose to house people, regardless of their ability to pay? That solves absolutely nothing. I refer you to the $17B we spent in CA on this problem. The fundamental issues are mental health and addiction. All you achieve is making the problem invisible so everyone can feel like they did something. When, in reality, the root causes are not addressed at all. It is critical to understand that our laws…

> I refer you to the $17B we spent in CA on this problem.

The $17B on homelessness wasn't all on housing.

> The fundamental issues are mental health and addiction.

A lot of money is spent on those, too. By your own logic, the failure of that to correct the problem proves those are the wrong issue.

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

#863

Post by nonethewiser » Sat, Jun 03, 2023, 3:03 AM UTC

poorbutdebtfree wrote: post #635

fullspectrumdev wrote: post #413

Having 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 doesnt seem wrong at all

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

#864

Post by nonethewiser » Sat, Jun 03, 2023, 3:03 AM UTC

muglug wrote: post #803

poorbutdebtfree wrote: post #635

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Its not even close. She deserves every penny.

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

#865

Post by mr-ron » Sat, Jun 03, 2023, 3:03 AM UTC

frankfrankfrank wrote: post #839

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…

What all, and I mean all of those measures miss, often even intentionally, is that homelessness is a symptom, not the problem. People like throwing money at homelessness because it is a subconscious absolution for their own guilt in causing it by being part of a machine that defrauds the mass of humans through money printing, i.e., fraud, that sees the value of someone’s labor diluted in order to provide ever more wo…

This is a very nihilistic, hyper libertarian take on all of this.

This comes off as just a rant against the boogyman fed which prints money and creates inflation.

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

#866

Post by _8j50 » Sat, Jun 03, 2023, 3:11 AM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #783

_8j50 wrote: post #780

My disagreement with "housing first" is that the state should provide housing indirectly by building regular housing and bringing home prices down along with price regulation and redeveloping urban areas with apartments and condos. I.e.: the housing market is thr problem in cali, not people being homeless (that is just one symptom).

> I.e.: the housing market is thr problem in cali, not people being homeless (that is just one symptom). A bold assertion, and if your premise is wrong, your solution won’t work.

Not bold at all since everyone but the super rich struggles with housing there, worse than any other state.

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

#867

Post by wonderwonder » Sat, Jun 03, 2023, 3:14 AM UTC

arcticbull wrote: post #737

wonderwonder wrote: post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legal weed as you are not going to get arrested for possession friend, not where they buy it.

lol, if that's the only thing you've got on a homeless person, you need to move along.

How are any of these things I've got on homeless people? They are just reasons they congregate in California. Strange, no need to be glib.

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

#868

Post by bombcar » Sat, Jun 03, 2023, 3:18 AM UTC

1letterunixname wrote: post #823

xp84 wrote: post #776

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The problem is that eventually you need walls or forced relocation. We have evidence that people are already willing to live in SF with no shelter, and without changing fundamental ways America works, you can’t force them to leave and not come back (maybe a city can get a restraining order protecting itself? No idea).

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

#869

Post by bombcar » Sat, Jun 03, 2023, 3:22 AM UTC

jackson1442 wrote: post #828

kelnos wrote: post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 do…

You’d basically have to build a new city for it because otherwise the residents of said city are going to be quite unhappy.

Maybe you could revitalize and absolutely dying city somewhere by hiring everyone who lives there to support the incoming population.

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

#870

Post by kangaroozach » Sat, Jun 03, 2023, 3:22 AM UTC

8f2ab37a-ed6c wrote: post #860

narrator wrote: post #809

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bu…

Even Scott Weiner mentioned in the interview with Ezra Klein in April that he would have not been able to live in SF if he hadn't gotten lucky and found a 500sqft place 15 years ago. You know something is off when your state senator can't even afford to live in his own district.

This is the case across most of the US. It’s also why our senators are wealthy people taking “bribes” and kickbacks, friendly business deals or benefiting from insider trading. Feinstein, Pelosi are good local examples.