4 ms·

This is a good question. There are many reasons for a city to be responsible to its homeless citizens. e.g. 1. Many homeless people actually have a job in the

by putlake 10y ago

This is a good question. There are many reasons for a city to be responsible to its homeless citizens. e.g. 1. Many homeless people actually have a job in the city. 2. Many homeless people need access to services that are only available in cities. e.g. drug rehab. Having the methadone clinic close to where you live (even if you live in a tent under the freeway) significantly increases the odds that you will go there. If you live in a rural area and have to travel 40 miles every day to get your methadone, you'll not have a good chance of recovery.

jmspring 10y ago
Yes, large cities can provide services at scale, but two things again factor in: 1. The original commentor above has a good point, who pays? A lot of times, a regional issue ends up costing a single municipality the bulk of the costs (Seattle w/ the east side communities; Santa Cruz as the county seat) 2. Services for locals first. I hope she has left, but here in SC, we had one young lady from Santa Barbara that was arrested over 15 times (i think 30 to date all told) for assorted drug and theft issues. She was still getting services from local homeless services. She arrived here, hopped on the Santa Cruz heroin/meth downward spiral and made a nuisance of herself. Honestly, I'm surprised she's survived this long, but as a community that she was new to, what obligation do we actually have to offer her a seat at the services table versus the grizzled vet or other local who's been here for years? Re: (2), municipalities should have an obligation to say "no". Unfortunately, I don't know about other areas, but locally, there is a cottage industry (hundreds of individuals employed, upwards of mid 8-figure overall budgets) around "homelessness". I am jaded, but locally when I hear "we want to cure homelessness", I know it's bullshit because the number of jobs that would be lost would be in the hundreds if not thousands. I also know, locally, those "in charge" preach "best practices" without any real evidence beyond arguing and name calling when you ask about results.
- ZanyProgrammer 10y ago
  Where do those people who serve you fancy food in restaurants and coffee shops on Pacific Avenue supposed to live?
  - jmspring 10y ago
    See an earlier comment -- regions should have an overall approach to affordable housing and transport. That said, specific to Santa Cruz? As an alumnus, I'm appalled at how much the university (and bureaucracy) has grown and that on campus housing hasn't kept up with enrollment figures. Hell, administration overhead has grown way more $$-wise than available bed space has. Santa Cruz has limited space to build, the UC system buying up property around town (taking it off the tax rolls), and not building more housing is a huge issue. If I decided to move, I could AirBnB my house for $200/night (like a neighbor) or charge $3300/mo for a 2/1. Things are messed up here. But, cities, counties, and state entities don't actually plan. And in this case, the city/county can't put restrictions on what a state institution does, yet, it can take parcels off the tax records and not build housing to keep up with enrollment.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

by putlake 10y ago

jmspring 10y ago

Yes, large cities can provide services at scale, but two things again factor in: 1. The original commentor above has a good point, who pays? A lot of times, a regional issue ends up costing a single municipality the bulk of the costs (Seattle w/ the east side communities; Santa Cruz as the county seat) 2. Services for locals first. I hope she has left, but here in SC, we had one young lady from Santa Barbara that was arrested over 15 times (i think 30 to date all told) for assorted drug and theft issues. She was still getting services from local homeless services. She arrived here, hopped on the Santa Cruz heroin/meth downward spiral and made a nuisance of herself. Honestly, I'm surprised she's survived this long, but as a community that she was new to, what obligation do we actually have to offer her a seat at the services table versus the grizzled vet or other local who's been here for years? Re: (2), municipalities should have an obligation to say "no". Unfortunately, I don't know about other areas, but locally, there is a cottage industry (hundreds of individuals employed, upwards of mid 8-figure overall budgets) around "homelessness". I am jaded, but locally when I hear "we want to cure homelessness", I know it's bullshit because the number of jobs that would be lost would be in the hundreds if not thousands. I also know, locally, those "in charge" preach "best practices" without any real evidence beyond arguing and name calling when you ask about results.

ZanyProgrammer 10y ago
Where do those people who serve you fancy food in restaurants and coffee shops on Pacific Avenue supposed to live?
- jmspring 10y ago
  See an earlier comment -- regions should have an overall approach to affordable housing and transport. That said, specific to Santa Cruz? As an alumnus, I'm appalled at how much the university (and bureaucracy) has grown and that on campus housing hasn't kept up with enrollment figures. Hell, administration overhead has grown way more $$-wise than available bed space has. Santa Cruz has limited space to build, the UC system buying up property around town (taking it off the tax rolls), and not building more housing is a huge issue. If I decided to move, I could AirBnB my house for $200/night (like a neighbor) or charge $3300/mo for a 2/1. Things are messed up here. But, cities, counties, and state entities don't actually plan. And in this case, the city/county can't put restrictions on what a state institution does, yet, it can take parcels off the tax records and not build housing to keep up with enrollment.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]