21 ms·

For Homeless Advocates, a Discouraging Lesson in L.A.: Money Is Not Enough

45 points by Mz 9y ago

jdavis703 9y ago
Are there any online tools that YIMBYs can use to see and alert when a new development is planned for their neighborhood? I'd love to know when I need to go the local council and tell them to just build some damn housing.
- Top19 9y ago
  +1 for this
- mynameishere 9y ago
  So you want the 49 unit building full of mentally ill, momentarily-homefull homeless people living next to you? If you're serious that's great, but it seems like maybe you haven't thought about it too much. On another note, I'm curious about the ease with which the taxpayers were convinced to blow money on said project. "Free cash for bums? Sign me up!" Was the proposal written in a way that made it seem like they'd be doing the opposite of what was intended? That's really, really common for particularly insane referenda.
- deepsun 9y ago
  You should get those notifications by regular mail, they must notify the neighborhood. At least I keep receiving all those mails.
- unionstrong 9y ago
  Get involved. Go to meetings. Talk to people. This isn't a technology problem so much as an involvement problem. RSS feeds of some of these things already exist too. But first and foremost, talk to people.
  - davidw 9y ago
    Yes, but, it's also a tech problem. For instance, here in Bend, I like to comment favorably on proposed developments, but it's hard to catch the open comment period. I've talked with city staff about the issue, and eventually they'll switch to another platform that allows it, but for now, it's a matter of looking at the site every now and then.
- apike 9y ago
  Local YIMBY groups often send notices like this out. For example, in Vancouver, the Abundant Housing Vancouver group has a mailing list and Twitter feed for proposed housing developments worth supporting. Supporters of housing can then be the "yes" voice that city councils rarely hear on these projects.
- pfarnsworth 9y ago
  It's not housing that's the issue. It's mental health. Most homeless people are suffering from mental health so giving them a place to stay won't solve anything.
  - cbhl 9y ago
    I've spent a few nights in the psych ward at Zuckerberg General. There were quite a few homeless people. There were people that faked being crazy to get a bed and a hot meal, and the psychiatrist had to kick them back out onto the street. Mental health services are ineffective if a person's basic needs aren't met. Giving homeless people a home is far from enough, but you can't expect a homeless person to get better if they are stuck out on the streets.
    - cal5k 9y ago
      In Toronto many people who were formerly institutionalized are now living on the streets. I walk through an area with a high concentration of shelters on a daily basis, and I can tell you that most of these people suffer from some kind of mental health disorder ranging from mild to severe. It's certainly not helped by addiction, but I can't help but feel like homeless shelters or the streets are not the right place for these people. Nor could most of them be expected to look after their own needs if they were given enough money - we already have a reasonably generous welfare system in Canada.
  - oblib 9y ago
    That's not entirely true. There are a lot of working homeless living in cars, nightly and weekly rental motels, tents, staying with family, friends, etc.
    - prostoalex 9y ago
      Those ones are actually quite rare in LA. People who are down on luck have access to shelters, church outreach efforts and government assistance. They also have access to a fairly large job market and a public transportation system that's pretty reasonable for the US, so being rational people they are generally off the street pretty quickly.
eridius 9y ago
> “A majority of people who live around the project were opposed to it. The people who are in favor of it live someplace else.” This is the very definition of NIMBY. Where exactly do these people think projects like this should go, given that NIMBYs exist everywhere?
- jdavis703 9y ago
  In somebody else's backyard. That's why you have concentrated areas of poverty. The government used to enforce this through "red lining" but since that has now fallen out of favor the language used to oppose these projects is now based around environmental impacts (the schools are full, the traffic is bad, it's a potentially toxic site, etc).
  - vkou 9y ago
    You forgot 'it'll ruin the character of the neighbourhood.'
    - masterleep 9y ago
      What if those things are all true?
      - zanny 9y ago
        You leave tens of thousands of people to run around trashing public spaces and consuming ~100k each year in emergency healthcare and maintenance costs to repair the damage they do, and that number keeps going up as the property bubble keeps going up.
      - kqr2 9y ago
        It's probably true, however, what is the correct point to "freeze" all development? Most of silicon valley before the tech boom was orchards. Before the orchards, it was undeveloped land. An argument could be made that development should have been frozen when it was orchards since it provided food, farming jobs, and bucolic scenery. Environmentalists perhaps would prefer that even the orchards shouldn't have built and that the land was best kept as natural habitat.
tomjen3 9y ago
Why should the homeless in LA be housed in LA? Wouldn't the city be able to house many more homeless people by building the housing in a less expensive place?
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  Because you don't want to just house them. You want to get them to a place where they no longer need assistance. That means they need jobs. Housing them in Newberry Springs or some such place doesn't give them any opportunity.
  - ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
    Good point. But let's say 50% of those people aren't in the place to get jobs because they are Elderly, Mentally Unstable, Substance Addicted. Could we move those homeless people who aren't "job ready" outside the city to a cheaper area? And then maybe move them back into affordable housing once they are ready to transition into a job?
    - cag_ii 9y ago
      I was fairly certain that forced relocation was generally not tolerated in the US anymore until I read your comment and the sibling comment suggesting the same thing. These are human beings, and suggesting they be "moved" to different areas because of their socioeconomic status or being "Elderly, Mentally Unstable, Substance Addicted" is completely unacceptable to me.
      - fern12 9y ago
        Meet Travis. He's a notorious vagrant who likes to terrorize businesses in the Alameda business district of San Jose. https://video.nest.com/clip/cc20a6ffc52d485696c62b1708ffe5d6.mp4 https://video.nest.com/clip/cc20a6ffc52d485696c62b1708ffe5d6... https://video.nest.com/clip/7c5ff8b138d44bafb1ff3f44ef8154be.mp4 https://video.nest.com/clip/7c5ff8b138d44bafb1ff3f44ef8154be... (warning: 2nd link has profanity) -He has been sent by the court to literally every possible program in Santa Clara County for assistance, and has left everyone of them intentionally (usually after a few days) despite being ordered by the Court to complete the program(s). -As a result of constantly violating the Court's orders regarding these programs, he ended up spending the maximum amount of time in County jail that the Court could impose before being released. -Travis has made it very clear that he does not want help in any form, and that he likes his lifestyle and enjoys harassing people. -After he left jail, it did not take long for him to revert to his old bad behaviors - substance abuse, aggressive panhandling and petty theft, and harassing local businesses. The clips above are of him harassing the owner and patrons of Hannah's Coffee and Sweets. More recently, he emptied a trash can full of dog poop bags on the sidewalk, and kicked them all in front of a hair salon's door on the corner of Julian and Stockton. What is your solution for people like Travis, who continually harass and endanger people and businesses in San Jose?
sologoub 9y ago
> Lorena Plaza, which would cost about $23 million, would qualify for the funds. 49 units at $23 million or $469k/unit. Is it me or is this an insanely high number? Remember, it's not even a house.
- collias 9y ago
  Welcome to the California housing market. It's very difficult to buy anything under $400k in any of the larger cities, even something like a two bedroom condo.
  - sologoub 9y ago
    I’m LA resident and you can absolutely buy condos for less than that. In fact, here’s a whole house up the street from the lot for less: https://www.redfin.com/CA/Los-Angeles/411-N-Ditman-Ave-90063/home/6958329 https://www.redfin.com/CA/Los-Angeles/411-N-Ditman-Ave-90063... This project would be better off buying up some delapidated properties and making them habitable again.
    - dxhdr 9y ago
      > here’s a whole house up the street from the lot for less: https://www.redfin.com/CA/Los-Angeles/411-N-Ditman-Ave-90063.. https://www.redfin.com/CA/Los-Angeles/411-N-Ditman-Ave-90063.... LA housing: a 100 year old 900 sq foot place surrounded by chain link fences for the low price of $450k.
      - sologoub 9y ago
        Never said it was a palace, but it’s a house for less than what the program wants to spend on a unit, likely equivalent of a one bedroom.
- kqr2 9y ago
  In SF, some of the affordable housing units are from $600K - $825K. http://cityobservatory.org/the-high-high-price-of-affordable-housing/ http://cityobservatory.org/the-high-high-price-of-affordable...
katastic 9y ago
I'm sincerely trying not to be a dick here but I thought this was obvious... Lots of problems (most?) in many neighborhoods (and organizations in general) and families are not a simple function of "not enough money." They are deep rooted problems with self-sustaining feedback loops of vice. There's true poverty unhappiness, which is simply not enough money to pay normal bills. But science has basically settled at this point in that "after being enough to pay the bills and have a little in savings, happiness no longer increases with more income." And happiness is a pretty good qualifier of general well-being. You can't dump money into Afghanistan and have them all run around with American flags and Mustangs. You can't dump money into a neighborhood and expect everyone to become great workers who love each other. Likewise, you can't "love people" more and expect it either. You don't stop a drug abusing family member with only hugs. You send them to therapy. _Love is not enough_. The best summary is in this quote from the article: >“You cannot force a project onto a community at all costs,” said Mr. Huizar, Even if politicans and "well meaning" people are hell bent on pushing something through, doesn't mean it's going to actually help people. ("The road to hell is paved with good intentions.") People are not simple. Adults have decades of experiences that got them where they are. And simply giving them something won't undo those experiences. They need counselling. They need structure and jobs that rewards positive character traits. And guess what? Plenty of people still aren't going to get better. Why? Because you can't improve people who don't want to get better. You can't "fix people" like solving a math problem. Both parties have to commit and genuinely desire change. If we actually want change--and not to just send money to feel better about ourselves (see: Live Aid, which gave almost nothing to actual victims and may have actually helped kill over 100,000 [1])--we can't simply "Give money." We need actual scientists doing research (they already exist) and we need to find and listen to them even if their recommendations don't align with our political ideologies. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/jun/24/g8.debtrelief https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/jun/24/g8.debtrelief
- Mz 9y ago
  I largely agree with you, except for the subtext that homeless people are all fucked up losers who aren't really trying/can't really be helped. There is a huge deficit of affordable housing in the US. This significantly contributes to people who have various problems being unable to keep a roof over their head. I actually think "homes for the homeless" is an oxymoron. We need basic, decent housing for people who are living at the fringe of society because they are elderly, handicapped, single moms, etc. We need homes for a certain demographic for whom the standard 3 bedroom, 2 bath house in the 'burbs simply does not work, in part because it is just too much money (in part because it is just too much space -- it is nigh impossible to find a small place in the US). I think two things need to happen: 1) We need to develop programs aimed at empowering homeless people to solve it themselves. 2) We need more affordable housing -- nationwide. I would actually prefer to see more market based affordable housing. We tore down most of that in the 60s and 70s, largely because the Baby Boomers who were coming of age didn't need a small, cheap place. But, they were a demographic anomaly, and we haven't rebuilt what we tore down. We are seeing the consequences of that.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
pfarnsworth 9y ago
Obviously money is not enough. SF spends more than $300 million on homeless per year, and SF is still a disaster. The money is not being spent usefully, but there is zero accountability and tracking. It's a complete disaster and yet no one is doing anything about it. The politicians who are making SF residents pay for this should be held accountable and a real solution should be made. You could build a mental hospital and fund it with the $300 million that SF spends for these homeless people. It's a disgrace. http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Despite-money-and-work-homelessness-in-SF-as-bad-11242946.php http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Despite-money-and...
starrychloe 9y ago
That's what you get from socialist cities that do not respect private property rights. https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2009-spring/houston-zoning-problem/ https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2009-spring/hous...
CodeWriter23 9y ago
Lots of thoughtful discussion here. But none of them address the truth of this situation. Boyle Heights is the next target for gentrification and LA’s City Council has demonstrated strong support for property developers (not to mention Mayor Garcetti’s riches sourcing from property development). I’m sure the NIMBY component in this case is contrived as most of the soon-to-be-displaced residents of Boyle Heights are low income and are too busy working multiple jobs to stay afloat in one of the city’s poorest neighborhoods. Anyway, what’s going to happen in this case is this organization is going to be starved out until some developer steps in to buy the property to put in a new strip mall or stack and pack development as the gentrification plan plays out.
diogenescynic 9y ago
Isn't it the same thing in San Francisco? Most of the homeless services in the Tenderloin are funded by people who don't live in the area... Same thing with section 8 vouchers--almost always grouped in one area. By grouping the poor and homeless in one area, it actually keeps them from ever recovering. If you spread them out, they are far more likely to succeed.
Overtonwindow 9y ago
We have this problem in DC. We have a large homeless population, an extremely liberal population, and countless cries for housing, and services for the homeless. Yet as soon as the city decides to build a new shelter, or low-income/free housing, it is those same people who are the first to scream: "Not in my backyard!" Homeless integration in established communities works, and we should not support those who want to banish the homeless, and their support systems, to far-flung places.

45 points by Mz 9y ago

Are there any online tools that YIMBYs can use to see and alert when a new development is planned for their neighborhood? I'd love to know when I need to go the local council and tell them to just build some damn housing.

Top19 9y ago
+1 for this
mynameishere 9y ago
So you want the 49 unit building full of mentally ill, momentarily-homefull homeless people living next to you? If you're serious that's great, but it seems like maybe you haven't thought about it too much. On another note, I'm curious about the ease with which the taxpayers were convinced to blow money on said project. "Free cash for bums? Sign me up!" Was the proposal written in a way that made it seem like they'd be doing the opposite of what was intended? That's really, really common for particularly insane referenda.
deepsun 9y ago
You should get those notifications by regular mail, they must notify the neighborhood. At least I keep receiving all those mails.
unionstrong 9y ago
Get involved. Go to meetings. Talk to people. This isn't a technology problem so much as an involvement problem. RSS feeds of some of these things already exist too. But first and foremost, talk to people.
- davidw 9y ago
  Yes, but, it's also a tech problem. For instance, here in Bend, I like to comment favorably on proposed developments, but it's hard to catch the open comment period. I've talked with city staff about the issue, and eventually they'll switch to another platform that allows it, but for now, it's a matter of looking at the site every now and then.
apike 9y ago
Local YIMBY groups often send notices like this out. For example, in Vancouver, the Abundant Housing Vancouver group has a mailing list and Twitter feed for proposed housing developments worth supporting. Supporters of housing can then be the "yes" voice that city councils rarely hear on these projects.
pfarnsworth 9y ago
It's not housing that's the issue. It's mental health. Most homeless people are suffering from mental health so giving them a place to stay won't solve anything.
- cbhl 9y ago
  I've spent a few nights in the psych ward at Zuckerberg General. There were quite a few homeless people. There were people that faked being crazy to get a bed and a hot meal, and the psychiatrist had to kick them back out onto the street. Mental health services are ineffective if a person's basic needs aren't met. Giving homeless people a home is far from enough, but you can't expect a homeless person to get better if they are stuck out on the streets.
  - cal5k 9y ago
    In Toronto many people who were formerly institutionalized are now living on the streets. I walk through an area with a high concentration of shelters on a daily basis, and I can tell you that most of these people suffer from some kind of mental health disorder ranging from mild to severe. It's certainly not helped by addiction, but I can't help but feel like homeless shelters or the streets are not the right place for these people. Nor could most of them be expected to look after their own needs if they were given enough money - we already have a reasonably generous welfare system in Canada.
- oblib 9y ago
  That's not entirely true. There are a lot of working homeless living in cars, nightly and weekly rental motels, tents, staying with family, friends, etc.
  - prostoalex 9y ago
    Those ones are actually quite rare in LA. People who are down on luck have access to shelters, church outreach efforts and government assistance. They also have access to a fairly large job market and a public transportation system that's pretty reasonable for the US, so being rational people they are generally off the street pretty quickly.

eridius 9y ago

> “A majority of people who live around the project were opposed to it. The people who are in favor of it live someplace else.” This is the very definition of NIMBY. Where exactly do these people think projects like this should go, given that NIMBYs exist everywhere?

jdavis703 9y ago
In somebody else's backyard. That's why you have concentrated areas of poverty. The government used to enforce this through "red lining" but since that has now fallen out of favor the language used to oppose these projects is now based around environmental impacts (the schools are full, the traffic is bad, it's a potentially toxic site, etc).
- vkou 9y ago
  You forgot 'it'll ruin the character of the neighbourhood.'
  - masterleep 9y ago
    What if those things are all true?
    - zanny 9y ago
      You leave tens of thousands of people to run around trashing public spaces and consuming ~100k each year in emergency healthcare and maintenance costs to repair the damage they do, and that number keeps going up as the property bubble keeps going up.
    - kqr2 9y ago
      It's probably true, however, what is the correct point to "freeze" all development? Most of silicon valley before the tech boom was orchards. Before the orchards, it was undeveloped land. An argument could be made that development should have been frozen when it was orchards since it provided food, farming jobs, and bucolic scenery. Environmentalists perhaps would prefer that even the orchards shouldn't have built and that the land was best kept as natural habitat.

tomjen3 9y ago

Why should the homeless in LA be housed in LA? Wouldn't the city be able to house many more homeless people by building the housing in a less expensive place?

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
Because you don't want to just house them. You want to get them to a place where they no longer need assistance. That means they need jobs. Housing them in Newberry Springs or some such place doesn't give them any opportunity.
- ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
  Good point. But let's say 50% of those people aren't in the place to get jobs because they are Elderly, Mentally Unstable, Substance Addicted. Could we move those homeless people who aren't "job ready" outside the city to a cheaper area? And then maybe move them back into affordable housing once they are ready to transition into a job?
  - cag_ii 9y ago
    I was fairly certain that forced relocation was generally not tolerated in the US anymore until I read your comment and the sibling comment suggesting the same thing. These are human beings, and suggesting they be "moved" to different areas because of their socioeconomic status or being "Elderly, Mentally Unstable, Substance Addicted" is completely unacceptable to me.
    - fern12 9y ago
      Meet Travis. He's a notorious vagrant who likes to terrorize businesses in the Alameda business district of San Jose. https://video.nest.com/clip/cc20a6ffc52d485696c62b1708ffe5d6.mp4 https://video.nest.com/clip/cc20a6ffc52d485696c62b1708ffe5d6... https://video.nest.com/clip/7c5ff8b138d44bafb1ff3f44ef8154be.mp4 https://video.nest.com/clip/7c5ff8b138d44bafb1ff3f44ef8154be... (warning: 2nd link has profanity) -He has been sent by the court to literally every possible program in Santa Clara County for assistance, and has left everyone of them intentionally (usually after a few days) despite being ordered by the Court to complete the program(s). -As a result of constantly violating the Court's orders regarding these programs, he ended up spending the maximum amount of time in County jail that the Court could impose before being released. -Travis has made it very clear that he does not want help in any form, and that he likes his lifestyle and enjoys harassing people. -After he left jail, it did not take long for him to revert to his old bad behaviors - substance abuse, aggressive panhandling and petty theft, and harassing local businesses. The clips above are of him harassing the owner and patrons of Hannah's Coffee and Sweets. More recently, he emptied a trash can full of dog poop bags on the sidewalk, and kicked them all in front of a hair salon's door on the corner of Julian and Stockton. What is your solution for people like Travis, who continually harass and endanger people and businesses in San Jose?

sologoub 9y ago

> Lorena Plaza, which would cost about $23 million, would qualify for the funds. 49 units at $23 million or $469k/unit. Is it me or is this an insanely high number? Remember, it's not even a house.

collias 9y ago
Welcome to the California housing market. It's very difficult to buy anything under $400k in any of the larger cities, even something like a two bedroom condo.
- sologoub 9y ago
  I’m LA resident and you can absolutely buy condos for less than that. In fact, here’s a whole house up the street from the lot for less: https://www.redfin.com/CA/Los-Angeles/411-N-Ditman-Ave-90063/home/6958329 https://www.redfin.com/CA/Los-Angeles/411-N-Ditman-Ave-90063... This project would be better off buying up some delapidated properties and making them habitable again.
  - dxhdr 9y ago
    > here’s a whole house up the street from the lot for less: https://www.redfin.com/CA/Los-Angeles/411-N-Ditman-Ave-90063.. https://www.redfin.com/CA/Los-Angeles/411-N-Ditman-Ave-90063.... LA housing: a 100 year old 900 sq foot place surrounded by chain link fences for the low price of $450k.
    - sologoub 9y ago
      Never said it was a palace, but it’s a house for less than what the program wants to spend on a unit, likely equivalent of a one bedroom.
kqr2 9y ago
In SF, some of the affordable housing units are from $600K - $825K. http://cityobservatory.org/the-high-high-price-of-affordable-housing/ http://cityobservatory.org/the-high-high-price-of-affordable...

katastic 9y ago

I'm sincerely trying not to be a dick here but I thought this was obvious... Lots of problems (most?) in many neighborhoods (and organizations in general) and families are not a simple function of "not enough money." They are deep rooted problems with self-sustaining feedback loops of vice. There's true poverty unhappiness, which is simply not enough money to pay normal bills. But science has basically settled at this point in that "after being enough to pay the bills and have a little in savings, happiness no longer increases with more income." And happiness is a pretty good qualifier of general well-being. You can't dump money into Afghanistan and have them all run around with American flags and Mustangs. You can't dump money into a neighborhood and expect everyone to become great workers who love each other. Likewise, you can't "love people" more and expect it either. You don't stop a drug abusing family member with only hugs. You send them to therapy. _Love is not enough_. The best summary is in this quote from the article: >“You cannot force a project onto a community at all costs,” said Mr. Huizar, Even if politicans and "well meaning" people are hell bent on pushing something through, doesn't mean it's going to actually help people. ("The road to hell is paved with good intentions.") People are not simple. Adults have decades of experiences that got them where they are. And simply giving them something won't undo those experiences. They need counselling. They need structure and jobs that rewards positive character traits. And guess what? Plenty of people still aren't going to get better. Why? Because you can't improve people who don't want to get better. You can't "fix people" like solving a math problem. Both parties have to commit and genuinely desire change. If we actually want change--and not to just send money to feel better about ourselves (see: Live Aid, which gave almost nothing to actual victims and may have actually helped kill over 100,000 [1])--we can't simply "Give money." We need actual scientists doing research (they already exist) and we need to find and listen to them even if their recommendations don't align with our political ideologies. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/jun/24/g8.debtrelief https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/jun/24/g8.debtrelief

Mz 9y ago
I largely agree with you, except for the subtext that homeless people are all fucked up losers who aren't really trying/can't really be helped. There is a huge deficit of affordable housing in the US. This significantly contributes to people who have various problems being unable to keep a roof over their head. I actually think "homes for the homeless" is an oxymoron. We need basic, decent housing for people who are living at the fringe of society because they are elderly, handicapped, single moms, etc. We need homes for a certain demographic for whom the standard 3 bedroom, 2 bath house in the 'burbs simply does not work, in part because it is just too much money (in part because it is just too much space -- it is nigh impossible to find a small place in the US). I think two things need to happen: 1) We need to develop programs aimed at empowering homeless people to solve it themselves. 2) We need more affordable housing -- nationwide. I would actually prefer to see more market based affordable housing. We tore down most of that in the 60s and 70s, largely because the Baby Boomers who were coming of age didn't need a small, cheap place. But, they were a demographic anomaly, and we haven't rebuilt what we tore down. We are seeing the consequences of that.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

pfarnsworth 9y ago

Obviously money is not enough. SF spends more than $300 million on homeless per year, and SF is still a disaster. The money is not being spent usefully, but there is zero accountability and tracking. It's a complete disaster and yet no one is doing anything about it. The politicians who are making SF residents pay for this should be held accountable and a real solution should be made. You could build a mental hospital and fund it with the $300 million that SF spends for these homeless people. It's a disgrace. http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Despite-money-and-work-homelessness-in-SF-as-bad-11242946.php http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Despite-money-and...

starrychloe 9y ago

That's what you get from socialist cities that do not respect private property rights. https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2009-spring/houston-zoning-problem/ https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2009-spring/hous...

CodeWriter23 9y ago

Lots of thoughtful discussion here. But none of them address the truth of this situation. Boyle Heights is the next target for gentrification and LA’s City Council has demonstrated strong support for property developers (not to mention Mayor Garcetti’s riches sourcing from property development). I’m sure the NIMBY component in this case is contrived as most of the soon-to-be-displaced residents of Boyle Heights are low income and are too busy working multiple jobs to stay afloat in one of the city’s poorest neighborhoods. Anyway, what’s going to happen in this case is this organization is going to be starved out until some developer steps in to buy the property to put in a new strip mall or stack and pack development as the gentrification plan plays out.

diogenescynic 9y ago

Isn't it the same thing in San Francisco? Most of the homeless services in the Tenderloin are funded by people who don't live in the area... Same thing with section 8 vouchers--almost always grouped in one area. By grouping the poor and homeless in one area, it actually keeps them from ever recovering. If you spread them out, they are far more likely to succeed.

Overtonwindow 9y ago

We have this problem in DC. We have a large homeless population, an extremely liberal population, and countless cries for housing, and services for the homeless. Yet as soon as the city decides to build a new shelter, or low-income/free housing, it is those same people who are the first to scream: "Not in my backyard!" Homeless integration in established communities works, and we should not support those who want to banish the homeless, and their support systems, to far-flung places.