5 ms·

Except that in the US, the problem is not a lack of funding. In California, one of the places in the US with the worst homeless problem, there are about 150,000

by darawk 7y ago

Except that in the US, the problem is not a lack of funding. In California, one of the places in the US with the worst homeless problem, there are about 150,000 homeless people[1]. Over the last two years california has spent $2.7 billion dollars. That's approximately $18,000 per homeless person. Which is literally enough to pay their rent, even in a major metropolitan city like Los Angeles. The issue isn't funding. It's how the funds are being spent. 1. https://calmatters.org/explainers/californias-homelessness-crisis-explained/ https://calmatters.org/explainers/californias-homelessness-c... 2. https://www.10news.com/news/local-news/san-diego-news/lawmakers-call-for-audit-of-californias-homeless-spending https://www.10news.com/news/local-news/san-diego-news/lawmak...

chadcmulligan 7y ago
Oh ok, we have a crime and misconduct commission to investigate this stuff. Currently there are three local councils in my local surrounds where the mayor is on charges or in jail and the councils are "under administration" for doing this stuff. Our federal government is fighting tooth and nail to not have one - one can only wonder why.
dllthomas 7y ago
> That's approximately $18,000 per homeless person. IIUC, a lot of that spending is to get (or keep) people in housing. The people thus supported aren't reflected in the homelessness figures, and redirecting that portion of money to the presently homeless would lead to these people being homeless instead. It could be that the result would still be an improvement, but that's not obvious.
- base698 7y ago
  In a lot of cases to divert funds to private companies. There are companies setup to extract federal resources for states. However that many in many cases ends up in the general fund and not to help those in need. https://nyupress.org/9781479874729/the-poverty-industry/ https://nyupress.org/9781479874729/the-poverty-industry/
  - dllthomas 7y ago
    I make no claim about the scope of waste, large or small. I was just pointing out that the reasoning presented had the wrong denominator.
- darawk 7y ago
  I agree that you are correct in principle. However, its pretty overwhelmingly clear that the denominator is not 2x the figure I cited. There has been no 2x reduction in homelessness since this spending started. The problem has only gotten larger.
  - dllthomas 7y ago
    You may or may not be drawing the correct conclusion, but your reasoning is still wrong. We should expect a 50% reduction (which is what I expect you mean by 2x) in homelessness to be implied by the money covering 2x the people you cited only if we expect the rate of homelessness to have otherwise remained unchanged. That's a terrible assumption over a period that has seen housing prices rise dramatically. Taking a quick look for some numbers before I get to work, I find that (per [0]) there are "over 20,000" receiving support in San Francisco alone, where there are (per [1]) about 8000 individuals remaining homeless. I have no idea how those compare to the rest of the state, and would welcome more info from other sources. [0]: https://sfmohcd.org/sites/default/files/Documents/MOH/SF%20Housing%20Resource%20Guide.pdf https://sfmohcd.org/sites/default/files/Documents/MOH/SF%20H... [1]: https://sfgov.org/scorecards/safety-net/homeless-population https://sfgov.org/scorecards/safety-net/homeless-population

by darawk 7y ago

chadcmulligan 7y ago

Oh ok, we have a crime and misconduct commission to investigate this stuff. Currently there are three local councils in my local surrounds where the mayor is on charges or in jail and the councils are "under administration" for doing this stuff. Our federal government is fighting tooth and nail to not have one - one can only wonder why.

dllthomas 7y ago

> That's approximately $18,000 per homeless person. IIUC, a lot of that spending is to get (or keep) people in housing. The people thus supported aren't reflected in the homelessness figures, and redirecting that portion of money to the presently homeless would lead to these people being homeless instead. It could be that the result would still be an improvement, but that's not obvious.

base698 7y ago
In a lot of cases to divert funds to private companies. There are companies setup to extract federal resources for states. However that many in many cases ends up in the general fund and not to help those in need. https://nyupress.org/9781479874729/the-poverty-industry/ https://nyupress.org/9781479874729/the-poverty-industry/
- dllthomas 7y ago
  I make no claim about the scope of waste, large or small. I was just pointing out that the reasoning presented had the wrong denominator.
darawk 7y ago
I agree that you are correct in principle. However, its pretty overwhelmingly clear that the denominator is not 2x the figure I cited. There has been no 2x reduction in homelessness since this spending started. The problem has only gotten larger.
- dllthomas 7y ago
  You may or may not be drawing the correct conclusion, but your reasoning is still wrong. We should expect a 50% reduction (which is what I expect you mean by 2x) in homelessness to be implied by the money covering 2x the people you cited only if we expect the rate of homelessness to have otherwise remained unchanged. That's a terrible assumption over a period that has seen housing prices rise dramatically. Taking a quick look for some numbers before I get to work, I find that (per [0]) there are "over 20,000" receiving support in San Francisco alone, where there are (per [1]) about 8000 individuals remaining homeless. I have no idea how those compare to the rest of the state, and would welcome more info from other sources. [0]: https://sfmohcd.org/sites/default/files/Documents/MOH/SF%20Housing%20Resource%20Guide.pdf https://sfmohcd.org/sites/default/files/Documents/MOH/SF%20H... [1]: https://sfgov.org/scorecards/safety-net/homeless-population https://sfgov.org/scorecards/safety-net/homeless-population