4 ms·

I don't see how the state can manage a problem better than a city. > Over 150,000 persons have experienced homelessness in California That comes out to about

by bko 6y ago

I don't see how the state can manage a problem better than a city. > Over 150,000 persons have experienced homelessness in California That comes out to about $16k in extra funding per person who experienced homelessness. San Fransisco spends ~364 million to tackle the problem, and has between 8k - 17k homeless, meaning they spend between $21 and $45k per homeless [0]. Maybe it would be a lot worse if they hadn't spent that money, but throwing more money at it and moving up the governance to a higher level likely won't make a dent. I'd imagine local, on the ground officials would have a better shot at it as opposed to state officials. [0] https://sf.curbed.com/2019/12/19/21027974/san-francisco-homeless-decade-2010s-kositsky-navigation-center-friedenbach https://sf.curbed.com/2019/12/19/21027974/san-francisco-home...

ForHackernews 6y ago
> how the state can manage a problem better than a city. Well, for starters, $16k will pay a year's rent in many parts of California, just not in San Francisco.
- BobbyJo 6y ago
  I don't see how your comment is a response to what you're quoting. Most of the homeless in California live in the cities with the highest cost of living. Are you suggesting the state transport the homeless to low cost areas and rent them apartments?
  - piva00 6y ago
    I completely agree with you, transporting homeless people around is hygienestic policy and inhumane. Unfortunately in the US, it's already a thing [0] to ferry homeless people around... [0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/dec/20/bussed-out-america-moves-homeless-people-country-study https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/dec/...
  - akiselev 6y ago
    Homeless congregate in cities because density improves economies of scale. More shelters per square mile which is important if they fill up fast, more foot traffic for pan handling, more industrial/business areas where they are less likely to be harassed by police, more nooks and cranies to hide from the elements, more homeless people to group up with for safety, and so on. The vast majority of reasons that homeless people stay in urban areas is the failure of the surrounding areas in providing for their basic survival.
    - ineedasername 6y ago
      This is where a state level approach might be more effective (though I don't think renting them housing is the way) because cities are focussed on their own local factors and don't have the authority and perhaps not the perspective needed to see & act on the bigger picture.
  - rbanffy 6y ago
    The state could create development programs for those regions and subsidize people moving there by their own will. This could drive down housing costs in cities under pressure and benefit everyone.
  - ForHackernews 6y ago
    The state could absolutely offer free- or low-cost subsidized apartments in cheap areas like the central valley or the inland empire. I imagine they'd have a quite a few takers. I know Utah has had great success with a housing-first model that gets people off the street first and then helps them work on other issues like addition and mental health problems.
koolba 6y ago
> I don't see how the state can manage a problem better than a city. This is the core argument of economic conservatism. One level up is “CA knows CA better than the Feds”. One level down is “I know my family better than my town”.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ardy42 6y ago
  >> I don't see how the state can manage a problem better than a city. > This is the core argument of economic conservatism. One level up is “CA knows CA better than the Feds”. One level down is “I know my family better than my town”. And one argument against it is that the lower level that "knows better" may not actually have the resources or capabilities to actually address the problem with that knowledge. That's pretty easy to see when you get down to the “I know my family better than my town [does]” level, when the only individual-level solution is some improbable pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps fantasy.
Shivetya 6y ago
If you look at the programs closely, examine who is on the committees overseeing these, and such, you will find what effectively is a friends and family jobs program. here in Atlanta they just hire each other between city and county. So county leaders get on Atlanta committees and vica versa. People don't understand how ingrained the idea of padding paychecks of themselves, friends, and family, that politicians have turned the system into. government has more than enough money to solve problems but the problem they set about solving was how to enrich themselves, their friends, their supporters, and other party members. In Georgia tax commissioners have in law the right to sell their services to cities on top of what they are providing by their job title! The number of political appointment if not elected jobs that pay over 100k is ridiculous and many pay a quarter a million or more per year. Worse this all factors into their public pensions and many can take them before 50.
- NoOneNew 6y ago
  It's not just Georgia. The fact is, this is the norm to all forms of gov, all across the world, since the beginning of any form of ruling body. There are pockets where it's better or worse, but what you described is part of the norm, no matter the political party. While that sounds super debbie downer, I think the reason it's this way is the open secretiveness of politics. Everything is out in the open, but no one cares. If the general public applied the same amount of passion and reseach for celebrities, the latest Star Wars/Marvel show or games to the local, state or fed gov affairs, the amount of gov ineptitude and corruption would be a fraction of what it is today. Even more so, representative gov is supposed to make that a whole hell of a lot easier for the public. Hold the few experts accountable that can better trudge through everyday politics. But... that's all wishful thinking and ranting.
ineedasername 6y ago
The state can, arguably, address the problem more systemically than a city focussed on the local aspects. Whether or not it will actually achieve that...? I don't know. And not for "government is incompetent" reasons, but because it's a hard problem with root causes that are difficult to address.
- bko 6y ago
  I agree that its a difficult problem, one that money won't solve. I think the more local the action the more effective. For instance, a neighbor can help out one person most effectively. That person may need shelter, food, mental health services, mentorship or something else. When you expand that out to a city, it makes it more difficult since the organization has less knowledge about the individual. And as you expand it to larger and more disconnected entities, the results become worse. One argument could be that corruption and general incompetence may be lower on the state level as opposed to local, since state level is a more competitive political climate. In other words, I think governors are more likely to get voted out as local officials, many of whom are unelected, but I could be wrong. The other argument is that state has more shared resources and more experience that would overcome the fact that they're more disconnected from the subjects they're trying to help. But the trade-off exists and I believe that the most effective way organizations are small local organizations as opposed to large top down state-level organizations. And since local organizations have failed, my impression is that higher level, more bureaucratic organizations will similarly fail. I think we should focus on re-thinking about how we handle the problem and not just throw money at it, because the moneyed interests may even be hindering the effort.
  - calciphus 6y ago
    One of the most effective solutions to homelessness is...housing. However, many individual cities are either unwilling or unable to actually build and designate housing for the unhoused. The fact that San Francisco spends so much and is largely ineffective at solving this issue might imply that cities are not, in fact, suitably equipped to tackle this issue (even if well funded and motivated), and that instead a group which can centralize planning, concentrate resources and expertise, and deploy them where they are currently needed would do better.

by bko 6y ago

ForHackernews 6y ago

> how the state can manage a problem better than a city. Well, for starters, $16k will pay a year's rent in many parts of California, just not in San Francisco.

BobbyJo 6y ago
I don't see how your comment is a response to what you're quoting. Most of the homeless in California live in the cities with the highest cost of living. Are you suggesting the state transport the homeless to low cost areas and rent them apartments?
- piva00 6y ago
  I completely agree with you, transporting homeless people around is hygienestic policy and inhumane. Unfortunately in the US, it's already a thing [0] to ferry homeless people around... [0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/dec/20/bussed-out-america-moves-homeless-people-country-study https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/dec/...
- akiselev 6y ago
  Homeless congregate in cities because density improves economies of scale. More shelters per square mile which is important if they fill up fast, more foot traffic for pan handling, more industrial/business areas where they are less likely to be harassed by police, more nooks and cranies to hide from the elements, more homeless people to group up with for safety, and so on. The vast majority of reasons that homeless people stay in urban areas is the failure of the surrounding areas in providing for their basic survival.
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    This is where a state level approach might be more effective (though I don't think renting them housing is the way) because cities are focussed on their own local factors and don't have the authority and perhaps not the perspective needed to see & act on the bigger picture.
- rbanffy 6y ago
  The state could create development programs for those regions and subsidize people moving there by their own will. This could drive down housing costs in cities under pressure and benefit everyone.
- ForHackernews 6y ago
  The state could absolutely offer free- or low-cost subsidized apartments in cheap areas like the central valley or the inland empire. I imagine they'd have a quite a few takers. I know Utah has had great success with a housing-first model that gets people off the street first and then helps them work on other issues like addition and mental health problems.

koolba 6y ago

> I don't see how the state can manage a problem better than a city. This is the core argument of economic conservatism. One level up is “CA knows CA better than the Feds”. One level down is “I know my family better than my town”.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ardy42 6y ago
>> I don't see how the state can manage a problem better than a city. > This is the core argument of economic conservatism. One level up is “CA knows CA better than the Feds”. One level down is “I know my family better than my town”. And one argument against it is that the lower level that "knows better" may not actually have the resources or capabilities to actually address the problem with that knowledge. That's pretty easy to see when you get down to the “I know my family better than my town [does]” level, when the only individual-level solution is some improbable pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps fantasy.

Shivetya 6y ago

If you look at the programs closely, examine who is on the committees overseeing these, and such, you will find what effectively is a friends and family jobs program. here in Atlanta they just hire each other between city and county. So county leaders get on Atlanta committees and vica versa. People don't understand how ingrained the idea of padding paychecks of themselves, friends, and family, that politicians have turned the system into. government has more than enough money to solve problems but the problem they set about solving was how to enrich themselves, their friends, their supporters, and other party members. In Georgia tax commissioners have in law the right to sell their services to cities on top of what they are providing by their job title! The number of political appointment if not elected jobs that pay over 100k is ridiculous and many pay a quarter a million or more per year. Worse this all factors into their public pensions and many can take them before 50.

NoOneNew 6y ago
It's not just Georgia. The fact is, this is the norm to all forms of gov, all across the world, since the beginning of any form of ruling body. There are pockets where it's better or worse, but what you described is part of the norm, no matter the political party. While that sounds super debbie downer, I think the reason it's this way is the open secretiveness of politics. Everything is out in the open, but no one cares. If the general public applied the same amount of passion and reseach for celebrities, the latest Star Wars/Marvel show or games to the local, state or fed gov affairs, the amount of gov ineptitude and corruption would be a fraction of what it is today. Even more so, representative gov is supposed to make that a whole hell of a lot easier for the public. Hold the few experts accountable that can better trudge through everyday politics. But... that's all wishful thinking and ranting.

ineedasername 6y ago

The state can, arguably, address the problem more systemically than a city focussed on the local aspects. Whether or not it will actually achieve that...? I don't know. And not for "government is incompetent" reasons, but because it's a hard problem with root causes that are difficult to address.

bko 6y ago
I agree that its a difficult problem, one that money won't solve. I think the more local the action the more effective. For instance, a neighbor can help out one person most effectively. That person may need shelter, food, mental health services, mentorship or something else. When you expand that out to a city, it makes it more difficult since the organization has less knowledge about the individual. And as you expand it to larger and more disconnected entities, the results become worse. One argument could be that corruption and general incompetence may be lower on the state level as opposed to local, since state level is a more competitive political climate. In other words, I think governors are more likely to get voted out as local officials, many of whom are unelected, but I could be wrong. The other argument is that state has more shared resources and more experience that would overcome the fact that they're more disconnected from the subjects they're trying to help. But the trade-off exists and I believe that the most effective way organizations are small local organizations as opposed to large top down state-level organizations. And since local organizations have failed, my impression is that higher level, more bureaucratic organizations will similarly fail. I think we should focus on re-thinking about how we handle the problem and not just throw money at it, because the moneyed interests may even be hindering the effort.
- calciphus 6y ago
  One of the most effective solutions to homelessness is...housing. However, many individual cities are either unwilling or unable to actually build and designate housing for the unhoused. The fact that San Francisco spends so much and is largely ineffective at solving this issue might imply that cities are not, in fact, suitably equipped to tackle this issue (even if well funded and motivated), and that instead a group which can centralize planning, concentrate resources and expertise, and deploy them where they are currently needed would do better.