5 ms·

> Any attempt to solve the problem locally in a "humane" way has a high risk of just attracting more folks in the same circumstance to the area. This is just p

by flaque 8y ago

> Any attempt to solve the problem locally in a "humane" way has a high risk of just attracting more folks in the same circumstance to the area. This is just provably false. Utah solved it's homelessness problem by just giving people homes. And it was pretty effective.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ArchTypical 8y ago
> This is just provably false Utah is not an example that proves anything. It's a fairly unusual area when talking about this problem. Utah's entire population is less than Los Angeles. The claim that 91% of Utah's homeless population was abated is somewhat suspicious, given the remaining 14k would mean they had a previous 155k+ - which outstrips the homeless count of most major cities (including Los Angeles). This is not as cut an dry as "make more housing" because that isn't demonstrated. Certainly not with numbers that are all over the place.
- hedvig 8y ago
  Does it make sense that they get the same number of senate seats as California?
  - 6cd6beb 8y ago
    That's why we have the house of representatives.
  - idontpost 8y ago
    At the time that was the whole point -- that states like Rhode Island and Connecticut wouldn't be outvoted by states like Virginia, New York, and Pennsylvania.
- oh_sigh 8y ago
  Excluding CA, only texas, Florida, and NY have bigger populations than the LA metro area.
DoreenMichele 8y ago
From what I have read, Utah's ability to pull that off is tied to the strong influence of the Mormon church there and its institutions. So it's probably not readily replicable in other US states.
- reaperducer 8y ago
  The Mormon Church played a big role in it because that organization is involved in its community. But it's not like it only helped Mormons. Everyone was helped, regardless of religion or lack thereof. Why can't the Utah success be replicated elsewhere? There are no religion-specific aspects to the Utah plan. Are you implying that atheists are incapable of compassion, generosity, or the need to help their fellow man?
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    I didn't say it only helped Mormons. From what I gather, the Mormon church has a very complex and well developed infrastructure for deciding who gets help, what kind of help they get, etc. This seems unlikely to be readily and easily replicable without the Mormon church. It has nothing to do with whether or not one believes in god. It has to do with social infrastructure.
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      It's a bit more than that. It's also a mindset that, yes, we really will give real money and effort to help people. A government agency could eventually build the social infrastructure (though they might make a mess of it). But building the consensus that we're going to solve this problem, even if it costs us a lot is... difficult. As you said, probably not reproduceable elsewhere. I'm a non-Mormon living in Utah. I don't praise the Mormon Church very often. But on this I think they have done well, to have the desire and willpower to address the issue.
      - DoreenMichele 8y ago
        Thanks. Though, to my mind, the willpower and desire is part and parcel of what I am talking about when I say social infrastructure. That sense of community and social responsibility etc is something we tend to see closely tied to religious groups and tend to not see to that degree for, say, government run social programs.
Rebelgecko 8y ago
Based on my experience walking down the street in Utah, I don't think they've "solved" homelessness.
lacker 8y ago
Utah is pretty different. You can’t afford to live in San Francisco on a teacher’s salary. If it were possible for all homeless people to get housing in San Francisco, does that apply for all teachers, too? For everybody making minimum wage? There just isn’t enough housing in San Francisco to provide it to everyone with a low-paying job in the area, regardless of how it is paid for, regardless of whether you overthrow capitalism and institute an all wise dictator. Either we need to build lots more housing in San Francisco, or house the homeless somewhere else, or accept a permanent homeless underclass in San Francisco.
ryanmercer 8y ago
>Utah solved it's homelessness problem by just giving people homes. And it was pretty effective. Utah doesn't have a climate suited to living on the streets. When you're averaging just shy of 4 feet of snow a year and 3-4 months of freezing temps it's a lot different than say Seattle or San Francisco where the average low is above freezing all year.

by flaque 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

ArchTypical 8y ago

> This is just provably false Utah is not an example that proves anything. It's a fairly unusual area when talking about this problem. Utah's entire population is less than Los Angeles. The claim that 91% of Utah's homeless population was abated is somewhat suspicious, given the remaining 14k would mean they had a previous 155k+ - which outstrips the homeless count of most major cities (including Los Angeles). This is not as cut an dry as "make more housing" because that isn't demonstrated. Certainly not with numbers that are all over the place.

hedvig 8y ago
Does it make sense that they get the same number of senate seats as California?
- 6cd6beb 8y ago
  That's why we have the house of representatives.
- idontpost 8y ago
  At the time that was the whole point -- that states like Rhode Island and Connecticut wouldn't be outvoted by states like Virginia, New York, and Pennsylvania.
oh_sigh 8y ago
Excluding CA, only texas, Florida, and NY have bigger populations than the LA metro area.

DoreenMichele 8y ago

From what I have read, Utah's ability to pull that off is tied to the strong influence of the Mormon church there and its institutions. So it's probably not readily replicable in other US states.

reaperducer 8y ago
The Mormon Church played a big role in it because that organization is involved in its community. But it's not like it only helped Mormons. Everyone was helped, regardless of religion or lack thereof. Why can't the Utah success be replicated elsewhere? There are no religion-specific aspects to the Utah plan. Are you implying that atheists are incapable of compassion, generosity, or the need to help their fellow man?
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  I didn't say it only helped Mormons. From what I gather, the Mormon church has a very complex and well developed infrastructure for deciding who gets help, what kind of help they get, etc. This seems unlikely to be readily and easily replicable without the Mormon church. It has nothing to do with whether or not one believes in god. It has to do with social infrastructure.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    It's a bit more than that. It's also a mindset that, yes, we really will give real money and effort to help people. A government agency could eventually build the social infrastructure (though they might make a mess of it). But building the consensus that we're going to solve this problem, even if it costs us a lot is... difficult. As you said, probably not reproduceable elsewhere. I'm a non-Mormon living in Utah. I don't praise the Mormon Church very often. But on this I think they have done well, to have the desire and willpower to address the issue.
    - DoreenMichele 8y ago
      Thanks. Though, to my mind, the willpower and desire is part and parcel of what I am talking about when I say social infrastructure. That sense of community and social responsibility etc is something we tend to see closely tied to religious groups and tend to not see to that degree for, say, government run social programs.

Rebelgecko 8y ago

Based on my experience walking down the street in Utah, I don't think they've "solved" homelessness.

lacker 8y ago

Utah is pretty different. You can’t afford to live in San Francisco on a teacher’s salary. If it were possible for all homeless people to get housing in San Francisco, does that apply for all teachers, too? For everybody making minimum wage? There just isn’t enough housing in San Francisco to provide it to everyone with a low-paying job in the area, regardless of how it is paid for, regardless of whether you overthrow capitalism and institute an all wise dictator. Either we need to build lots more housing in San Francisco, or house the homeless somewhere else, or accept a permanent homeless underclass in San Francisco.

ryanmercer 8y ago

>Utah solved it's homelessness problem by just giving people homes. And it was pretty effective. Utah doesn't have a climate suited to living on the streets. When you're averaging just shy of 4 feet of snow a year and 3-4 months of freezing temps it's a lot different than say Seattle or San Francisco where the average low is above freezing all year.