8 ms·

A new database gives a sharper picture of homelessness across California

46 points by infodocket 6y ago

ketzo 6y ago
California homelessness is, obviously, deeply tragic for a lot of reasons, and I think anybody selling a "simple solution" is either lying or just wrong. But man, when I drive through downtown L.A. and see street after street of tents on corners down below 70-story luxury condos with gigantic "LOTS OF VACANCIES! NEW, LOW RATES!" banners... boy, does it bum me the fuck out. Surely, I think, surely a just society would see those two elements and put the puzzle pieces together.
- esalman 6y ago
  If you put the puzzle pieces together, it spells s-o-c-i-a-l-i-s-m /s In other developed nations the government subsidizes housing for the disadvantaged- and more often than not this investment will pay back in the future.
  - blacksmith_tb 6y ago
    It does, but even in places in the US where that's actually been recognized[1] the political will to maintain it doesn't always stick around. 1: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-homelessness-housing-idUSKCN1P41EQ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-homelessness-housing-...
  - baggy_trough 6y ago
    There are enormous subsidies for the homeless in San Francisco to the tune of hundreds of millions a year. Due to incompetent governance, those subsidies are actually making the problem worse.
  - cosmodisk 6y ago
    Homelessness is often seen as a situation, rather than a consequence or an outcome of certain events. Giving people housing isn't always an answer. A lot of homeless people ended up being homeless because of addictions, psychological problems,and some unfortunate circumstances. Unless those things are addressed first and foremost,while also placing people in some sort of housing, whether it's a temporary hostel,or longer term social housing, there won't be any improvements in this situation.
    - jschwartzi 6y ago
      I actually think there are tons and tons of "homeless" people who are completely invisible because they're otherwise normal people who just happen to be living in their car or a tent for an extended period. The people I've met who have been in that situation were not dealing with addiction or psychological problems. They were simply victims of circumstance. In at least one case I'm aware of the person was kicked out by her husband with no job and no address and was totally unable to access any social services. Her getting housing enabled her to get a job and access services she didn't have access to when she was homeless. I think giving people housing is a huge part of getting them off the streets, and I think you underestimate the number of people who are homeless because you're not seeing the countless homeless people who are keeping their lives together in spite of not having a permanent address.
      - cosmodisk 6y ago
        I'm very well familiar with homelessness, probably much better than an average person on this forum. I do agree that a lot of people are victims of circumstances, as I mentioned in my previous comment, and you are right that they often tend to be invisible to the wider society. For this category, getting housing usually solves majority of issues and they can take it from there. The other categories, whether it's mental problems or addiction or anything else, require much wider and more complex approach.
        jschwartzi 6y ago
        That makes sense to me. I'm used to people not understanding that getting an address solves a lot of problems for a lot of homeless people. And since we're on the same page about that I understand now that you're wanting to focus elsewhere.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    > In other developed nations the government subsidizes housing for the disadvantaged- and more often than not this investment will pay back in the future. It depends on who you consider disadvantaged. In Berlin, 20-25% (~776k in 2018) qualify for subsidized housing. The state owns about 320k apartments, though they're mixed and provide subsidized and market-rates (mostly to finance the subsidies).
- labatyd 6y ago
  Unfortunately there are no puzzle pieces to be put together. That’s the system working exactly how it’s supposed to. What good is money if you can’t use it to convince other people to do things for you?
  - gruez 6y ago
    >What good is money if you can’t use it to convince other people to do things for you? Yes that's literally the point of money: a store of value and a medium of exchange.
  - nickthemagicman 6y ago
    Money should be more of a carrot and not a stick.
- Rebelgecko 6y ago
  Unfortunately as we've seen with Project Roomkey (and like you alluded to) the problem is a lot more complicated than just routing unhoused people to empty beds. The LA Times[1] actually did an interesting series of articles a couple years back, chronicling what happens the city basically moved an entire encampment into a block of apartments. People are homeless for different reasons. If someone just happens to be down on their luck or having financial trouble after fleeing an abusive family situation, housing seems to work fairly well. However for people with untreated mental illness and addiction, there can be problems. Especially since many of those people would actually turn down a free place to stay (as we saw recently in Echo Park). Maybe we can make more inclusive housing for the homeless that allows large pets and drug use, but the rent you see on those empty apartments is predicated on assumptions on a tenant's risk. Employees people who care about their credit score are going to have a much different risk profile than the homeless. [1]: Called The Streets Within, part 1 here: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-08-15/the-street-within-part-one-big-mama-neighbors-face-homelessness https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-08-15/the-stre...
  - tehwebguy 6y ago
    What was the offer for the people staying in Echo Park?
    - Rebelgecko 6y ago
      3 meals a day and a guaranteed hotel room for 6 months, and the city would make a best effort attempt to house everyone in a more permanent situation by September. However the hotel rooms have really strict rules. For example there's a curfew for a dumb reason[1], and people who get back to the hotel too late have to wait until the next day to return to their rooms. There's also limitations on how much stuff they can bring with them into the hotels (no more than 2 suitcases or shopping carts full of stuff) which if you've seen many encampments you know will be a dealbreaker for some. [1]: The city has designated COVID screeners during the day, but when they go home it's just security guards at the hotels. However the COVID screening is just a thermometer check so they could totally just teach the security guards how to use thermometers.
- tonymet 6y ago
  Let's say those people on the street moved into the luxury apartment. What do you think the outcome would be? would they suddenly get their life together?
  - adewinter 6y ago
    Did you miss the part where the op said those who suggest simple solutions are lying/wrong?
  - christophilus 6y ago
    On my phone, so can’t find the link easily, but I seem to remember reading that yes, it seems to work that way. Obviously not with 100% success. But yes. Giving someone a home, shower, etc to call their own does in fact help people get on the right track in a way that very little else seems to do.
    - jschwartzi 6y ago
      Simply giving someone a permanent address allows them to access tons of social services that are completely locked away when you're homeless. Food stamps, unemployment, disability, child care assistance, are some of the very important social programs which require a permanent, non-PO Box, non-General Delivery mailing address before you can access them.
    - tonymet 6y ago
      that one link that will save the world
  - pjanoman 6y ago
    1) Many times, yes. If we want to analyze things logically, oftentimes people just need a safe place to stay so that things are stolen from them/they can avoid drugs/they can tell an employer that they live somewhere in order to have a more stable life. 2) Even if they don't suddenly get their life together, that is looking at things too logically in my opinion. In my opinion, it is the moral thing to help out the needy, and that means providing housing. America's big enough to do it.
- nimbius 6y ago
  the situation with housing operates like an astable multivibrator, as the social bodies charismatic features express fully and demand real change from civic leaders and an end to homeless camps in the form of housing, building to a fever-pitch of bonds passed, reforms enacted, and funding applied. This all works well until the inevitable transition to action. These once noble creatures then cry foul and refuse the building of any potential settlements as it would decrease their property value. Since the enactment of proposition 13 transformed millions of californians into landed gentry and gilded elite, they are ardently opposed to any change that may in any way impact the hegemony of scarcity, rental profits, and the white dragon of property-as-investment. Exhausted and vanquished, political leaders coffer the bonds toward rehab progams, expensive rental payments to the landed gentry, and motel rooms to temporarily transfer homeless from street tent to temporary edifice. once funds are depleated, the cycle begins anew.
- Aunche 6y ago
  I'm sure a lot of property owners would be happy to let homeless people stay in their apartments for free or very cheap while there are a ton of market vacancies during the pandemic. However, squatter rights basically make it incredibly risky. The cost of this risk gets passed down from the landlords to lower-income renters, so it makes it even more difficult to escape homelessness. This is why you should never make political decisions based on empathy alone.
  - CoastalCoder 6y ago
    > This is why you should never make political decisions based on empathy alone. Is the following a fair way to re-frame your statement? "This is why political decisions based on empathy should consider the long-term wellbeing of everyone involved."
    - Aunche 6y ago
      Yeah. I suppose that's a more constructive way to frame my point.
      - CoastalCoder 6y ago
        FWIW, I didn't see anything wrong with your original wording. But I think sometimes conservative-like ideas are unfairly labelled as incompassionate. When in reality they're intended to be more compassionate in the long run.
  - unnamed76ri 6y ago
    No landlord would intentionally open their doors to a bunch of addicts so that they can destroy the property. Just not gonna happen.
asiachick 6y ago
280k homeless?!?!? Japan claims they are down to ~4k nationwide and AFAIK they don't have nearly as much support for the homeless (could be totally wrong on that). What they do have AFAICT is a culture of self reliance so that someone who is homeless generally feels guilty about asking for help (not saying that's good or bad thing, only saying that's what I believe is the culture) They aren't often easy to see but if go into a public park, if you see blue vinyl tarps in the bushes those are often a homeless person living there. There's a few in Yoyogi park and some in Shinjuku Central park (next to Tokyo's gov HQ). Otherwise in the winter some people try to sleep in the subway stations close to closing time. Japan does not have "free" medical support AFAIK. You have to pay into the national health insurance or otherwise pay your own medical bills. On the other hand, prices are regulated.
- cosmodisk 6y ago
  Japan has a lot of homeless that can only be seen by visiting certain places,such as internet cafes, where they can shelter at least for a bit or for the whole night.
- mc32 6y ago
  I get the impression many of the homeless on Japan are quite a bit tidier than their US counterparts. They try to keep their areas neat and coordinate to keep their surroundings clean as well. Yes, occasionally you can see someone who just doesn’t care about appearances, but that’s more an exception.
  - MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
    Theyre homeless out of necessity. They tidy up because they don't want someone complaining about them so that they get harassed. The japanese mindset on homelessness is shame.
- pjanoman 6y ago
  Seems like you can also get housing in Japan for $14/day which is much less than you can in LA, to my knowledge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_Japan#Internet_caf%C3%A9s_and_homeless https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_Japan#Internet...
splithalf 6y ago
Some like to pretend that we can just build infinite new housing, for free or almost no cost, and that will give everyone a nice American level luxury dwelling, all with no environmental costs. I feel like such opinions are built on ignorance or at the very least naïveté about the home building industry. One can invest in the home builders to profit from these misinformed opinions as they increasingly drive policy towards deregulation and corporate welfare for the mega-developers.
- pjanoman 6y ago
  Maybe some people believe that, but overall that seems to be more of a straw-man argument if anything. I believe what is more common is the thought that we, as a country, can provide housing for people who have no place to live without making a large impact on tax payers below the upper class. Or is this naive in your opinion as well?
  - splithalf 6y ago
    It’s innumerate I would argue. There are a lot of “ought to be” aspects to life but it’s not a very useful layer of thought. I prefer thinking about “what is” and from there think about changing things for the better. By “what is” I’m referring to empiricism, collecting data and using numbers to facilitate reason. The two modes, what ought to be vs what is, needn’t be incompatible, though acceptance is a difficult first step for many. In any case, if there is solid empirical evidence for the yimby-topian fantasies I hear, about how mixed used shopping plazas will solve the worlds ills, literally, I’ve yet to be convinced by any of it but I’d love to read any studies you might provide.
    - pjanoman 6y ago
      Public policy constantly requires leaps of faith to try to make the country better. You can't know that providing housing to the homeless helps them until you actually try it for the first time. What is: Based on currently available numbers, there are about 59 vacant housing units for every homeless person in the U.S.[1]. We do not have a shortage of houses, but instead a shortage of desire to house the homeless. What makes you think we, as one of the most powerful countries in the world, cannot provide housing to the homeless? Also, if you want to actually have a conversation about this, I would appreciate if you don't belittle my comments. [1]: https://www.self.inc/info/empty-homes/ https://www.self.inc/info/empty-homes/
annoyingnoob 6y ago
> 22% were under the age of 18 Really makes me sad, kids deserve better. We can do better.
davidw 6y ago
Homelessness increases pretty linearly with housing costs: https://www.zillow.com/research/homelessness-rent-affordability-22247/ https://www.zillow.com/research/homelessness-rent-affordabil... And California is really bad at providing housing that's affordable.
Pfhreak 6y ago
Build and maintain public housing. We should be making sure that housing is available for everyone. If you don't have housing it can be significantly more expensive and challenging to live (beyond the obviously visible challenges.)
- MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
  Part of the reason homelessness exists is to economically say "you can't afford to live here." Why do all these homeless people aggregate to large cities proportionally higher than in the midwest let's say? Cause nobody aspires to get famous and rich there. But homelessness is marginal in most areas because housing is hardly an issue.
- rasz 6y ago
  California plans just that, well sort off. I heard they will convert prime real-estate parings along best beaches into tiny house lots, top dollar beach front properties for the homeless.
DoreenMichele 6y ago
This is the wrong focus. This type of approach tends to make things worse. The more resources you pour into "helping the homeless," the worse the problem tends to get. You tend to magnify it. California has seriously bad housing policies that actively push up the cost of housing. They have also underbuilt housing for decades, which is known to push up the cost of housing. They need to be remedying that issue. You also need to identify factors that put people at risk of homelessness and help people who have those characteristics rather than helping people based on their current lack of housing. You need to help them regardless of their housing status. If you help people with serious problems conditional upon being homeless, you tend to entrench the problem of homelessness. It actively makes it harder to get off the street because you can't get help without first being homeless and then you may lose access to help if you get back into housing. So good programs help people with certain problems or characteristics which put them at risk of homelessness and do so regardless of their current housing status. "Helping the homeless" is an approach that tends to be subject to the Shirky Principle: It tends to preserve the problem it is supposedly aiming to solve. This data base is potentially of no real value in solving the problem, though it sure has terrific PR value for pretending to solve the problem. If you really want to solve the problem, start fixing issues that push up market-rate housing to crazy high prices. And, you know, people in California don't really, seriously want that and you will be very hard pressed to get credit for "playing hero" and "helping the homeless." I used to joke that "Someday, I will be a landlord providing affordable housing. No, I will not be celebrated as someone solving homelessness. I will be vilified in the press as a Slum Lord." People making headlines for trying to help the homeless are people who want pats on the back for Playing Hero. And they are very much Playing. I talked to a guy one day who was all "I have dreams of turning this entire block (of the small town where I currently live) into homeless services!" and I was like "Oh, look at the time! I have a meeting to attend! Buh-bye!" If you really care about the people, you don't dream of growing homeless services. You dream of making society work so that few people end up homeless. No one will call you a hero for that.
- kodah 6y ago
  If you drive down home costs in hyper inflated cities in California, where people got legitimate loans on that hyper inflation, who is left holding the bag? Someone has to pay that debt that is now worthless due to decreased inflation, right? This problem perplexes me, because it seems like it's a runaway train once it gets started.
mensetmanusman 6y ago
If they use cell data, they will eventually be able to track real-time migration of non-residents living in the area. In the future, the census could be updated in real time.
- DoreenMichele 6y ago
  No Big Brother vibe to that. Nothing scary concerning about this trend in the name of helping the homeless. /s
  - hedora 6y ago
    You may be a godless anarcholibertarian, but surely, you’d be OK with helping homeless children, right?
    - DoreenMichele 6y ago
      Oh, well, as long as it's just children we are eartagging like animals in a science experiment, sure, I am down with that. Nevermind my previous objections in the name of freedom and privacy.
neonate 6y ago
https://archive.is/qR6Ey https://archive.is/qR6Ey
rootusrootus 6y ago
I don't know about California specifically, but I have observed that homelessness is getting really out of control in Portland. It's just crazy how many tent camps have cropped up in public places all over the city. Just in the last year it has exploded. I felt really embarrassed just driving up the interstate and seeing it on display. We don't lack the resources to deal with it. It seemed for a while like SLC had found a working solution. But as I recall, they eventually dropped it. It feels like a solvable problem, but as a society we will have to come to terms with our ideas of morality, as well as the role of gov't (specifically in health care and psychiatric treatment).
Flatcircle 6y ago
Why doesn't anyone ever mention homelessness exploding right as marijuana was legalized. Don't know why more people don't see the connection between these two things when.. 1. A large percentage of homeless people are addicted to drugs. 2. A popular drug was legalized in California at the exact same time homelessness exploded.
- cirxwave 6y ago
  Legal weed probably does draw some people in, but the ruling in Martin vs. Boise had a much bigger impact. In that case, the 9th Circuit court, which has jurisdiction over the West Coast, ruled that it was cruel and unusual to prevent people from sleeping outdoors if there was no meaningful alternative available to them, and granted them the defacto right to camp in public spaces. This ruling really caught every West Coast city with their pants down, because it laid bare the the fact that they had no effective strategy for managing the homelessness crisis, and were papering over the problem by using the police to harass homeless people until they moved on elsewhere. This is basically the strategy that the entire United States uses - make their lives miserable and hope they move on. Lots of people tend to move on in a western direction, until they get to the coast. Some cities are even brazen enough to buy one way Greyhound tickets for their homeless population, and they tend to send them to San Francisco, Portland and Seattle - cities that are trying to approach homelessness humanely. So essentially, the cities on the West Coast are footing the bill for the way the rest of the country treats the homeless, and being prevented from employing those same measures themselves. Add that to an explosion in housing costs, and you’ve got the mess we’re in right now.
Flatcircle 6y ago
Basically anyone that lives in a California city can use common sense to see through the flawed idea that the majority of homeless aren't addicts or mentally unstable. For whatever reason, the obviously false, "majority of homeless are law abiding victims of circumstance" narrative continually gets perpetrated through bias or bogus science. Maybe it's to make it seem like ending homelessness is an easy fix. Just provide cheap housing. Drive around Los Angeles and notice the tents and homeless encampments. There are square miles where it's easy to see literally hundreds of these encampments, under freeway passes, beside highways, encircling parks, etc. I could walk outside and find at least 50, if not more, within 10 city blocks of me. Then just do the math, 400 city blocks in a square mile, 500 square miles in Los Angeles. divide that by 15,000 or 20,000 homeless and it's easy to see that the overwhelming homeless are out in the open. It's tragic, and it's a hard to fix. We've been trying to provide cheap housing for homeless for decades and the truth is most don't want housing. I've toured treatment centers in skid row, the counselors there say they struggle to get people to come inside for treatment. Most are paranoid and struggle with addiction and illness and they need to want help. Because most homeless are unstable addicts and mentally ill. And that's a problem that can't be solved by building structures. They need treatment facilities, rules against open encampments and jail for repeat law violations.

46 points by infodocket 6y ago

California homelessness is, obviously, deeply tragic for a lot of reasons, and I think anybody selling a "simple solution" is either lying or just wrong. But man, when I drive through downtown L.A. and see street after street of tents on corners down below 70-story luxury condos with gigantic "LOTS OF VACANCIES! NEW, LOW RATES!" banners... boy, does it bum me the fuck out. Surely, I think, surely a just society would see those two elements and put the puzzle pieces together.

esalman 6y ago
If you put the puzzle pieces together, it spells s-o-c-i-a-l-i-s-m /s In other developed nations the government subsidizes housing for the disadvantaged- and more often than not this investment will pay back in the future.
- blacksmith_tb 6y ago
  It does, but even in places in the US where that's actually been recognized[1] the political will to maintain it doesn't always stick around. 1: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-homelessness-housing-idUSKCN1P41EQ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-homelessness-housing-...
- baggy_trough 6y ago
  There are enormous subsidies for the homeless in San Francisco to the tune of hundreds of millions a year. Due to incompetent governance, those subsidies are actually making the problem worse.
- cosmodisk 6y ago
  Homelessness is often seen as a situation, rather than a consequence or an outcome of certain events. Giving people housing isn't always an answer. A lot of homeless people ended up being homeless because of addictions, psychological problems,and some unfortunate circumstances. Unless those things are addressed first and foremost,while also placing people in some sort of housing, whether it's a temporary hostel,or longer term social housing, there won't be any improvements in this situation.
  - jschwartzi 6y ago
    I actually think there are tons and tons of "homeless" people who are completely invisible because they're otherwise normal people who just happen to be living in their car or a tent for an extended period. The people I've met who have been in that situation were not dealing with addiction or psychological problems. They were simply victims of circumstance. In at least one case I'm aware of the person was kicked out by her husband with no job and no address and was totally unable to access any social services. Her getting housing enabled her to get a job and access services she didn't have access to when she was homeless. I think giving people housing is a huge part of getting them off the streets, and I think you underestimate the number of people who are homeless because you're not seeing the countless homeless people who are keeping their lives together in spite of not having a permanent address.
    - cosmodisk 6y ago
      I'm very well familiar with homelessness, probably much better than an average person on this forum. I do agree that a lot of people are victims of circumstances, as I mentioned in my previous comment, and you are right that they often tend to be invisible to the wider society. For this category, getting housing usually solves majority of issues and they can take it from there. The other categories, whether it's mental problems or addiction or anything else, require much wider and more complex approach.
      - jschwartzi 6y ago
        That makes sense to me. I'm used to people not understanding that getting an address solves a lot of problems for a lot of homeless people. And since we're on the same page about that I understand now that you're wanting to focus elsewhere.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > In other developed nations the government subsidizes housing for the disadvantaged- and more often than not this investment will pay back in the future. It depends on who you consider disadvantaged. In Berlin, 20-25% (~776k in 2018) qualify for subsidized housing. The state owns about 320k apartments, though they're mixed and provide subsidized and market-rates (mostly to finance the subsidies).
labatyd 6y ago
Unfortunately there are no puzzle pieces to be put together. That’s the system working exactly how it’s supposed to. What good is money if you can’t use it to convince other people to do things for you?
- gruez 6y ago
  >What good is money if you can’t use it to convince other people to do things for you? Yes that's literally the point of money: a store of value and a medium of exchange.
- nickthemagicman 6y ago
  Money should be more of a carrot and not a stick.
Rebelgecko 6y ago
Unfortunately as we've seen with Project Roomkey (and like you alluded to) the problem is a lot more complicated than just routing unhoused people to empty beds. The LA Times[1] actually did an interesting series of articles a couple years back, chronicling what happens the city basically moved an entire encampment into a block of apartments. People are homeless for different reasons. If someone just happens to be down on their luck or having financial trouble after fleeing an abusive family situation, housing seems to work fairly well. However for people with untreated mental illness and addiction, there can be problems. Especially since many of those people would actually turn down a free place to stay (as we saw recently in Echo Park). Maybe we can make more inclusive housing for the homeless that allows large pets and drug use, but the rent you see on those empty apartments is predicated on assumptions on a tenant's risk. Employees people who care about their credit score are going to have a much different risk profile than the homeless. [1]: Called The Streets Within, part 1 here: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-08-15/the-street-within-part-one-big-mama-neighbors-face-homelessness https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-08-15/the-stre...
- tehwebguy 6y ago
  What was the offer for the people staying in Echo Park?
  - Rebelgecko 6y ago
    3 meals a day and a guaranteed hotel room for 6 months, and the city would make a best effort attempt to house everyone in a more permanent situation by September. However the hotel rooms have really strict rules. For example there's a curfew for a dumb reason[1], and people who get back to the hotel too late have to wait until the next day to return to their rooms. There's also limitations on how much stuff they can bring with them into the hotels (no more than 2 suitcases or shopping carts full of stuff) which if you've seen many encampments you know will be a dealbreaker for some. [1]: The city has designated COVID screeners during the day, but when they go home it's just security guards at the hotels. However the COVID screening is just a thermometer check so they could totally just teach the security guards how to use thermometers.
tonymet 6y ago
Let's say those people on the street moved into the luxury apartment. What do you think the outcome would be? would they suddenly get their life together?
- adewinter 6y ago
  Did you miss the part where the op said those who suggest simple solutions are lying/wrong?
- christophilus 6y ago
  On my phone, so can’t find the link easily, but I seem to remember reading that yes, it seems to work that way. Obviously not with 100% success. But yes. Giving someone a home, shower, etc to call their own does in fact help people get on the right track in a way that very little else seems to do.
  - jschwartzi 6y ago
    Simply giving someone a permanent address allows them to access tons of social services that are completely locked away when you're homeless. Food stamps, unemployment, disability, child care assistance, are some of the very important social programs which require a permanent, non-PO Box, non-General Delivery mailing address before you can access them.
  - tonymet 6y ago
    that one link that will save the world
- pjanoman 6y ago
  1) Many times, yes. If we want to analyze things logically, oftentimes people just need a safe place to stay so that things are stolen from them/they can avoid drugs/they can tell an employer that they live somewhere in order to have a more stable life. 2) Even if they don't suddenly get their life together, that is looking at things too logically in my opinion. In my opinion, it is the moral thing to help out the needy, and that means providing housing. America's big enough to do it.
nimbius 6y ago
the situation with housing operates like an astable multivibrator, as the social bodies charismatic features express fully and demand real change from civic leaders and an end to homeless camps in the form of housing, building to a fever-pitch of bonds passed, reforms enacted, and funding applied. This all works well until the inevitable transition to action. These once noble creatures then cry foul and refuse the building of any potential settlements as it would decrease their property value. Since the enactment of proposition 13 transformed millions of californians into landed gentry and gilded elite, they are ardently opposed to any change that may in any way impact the hegemony of scarcity, rental profits, and the white dragon of property-as-investment. Exhausted and vanquished, political leaders coffer the bonds toward rehab progams, expensive rental payments to the landed gentry, and motel rooms to temporarily transfer homeless from street tent to temporary edifice. once funds are depleated, the cycle begins anew.
Aunche 6y ago
I'm sure a lot of property owners would be happy to let homeless people stay in their apartments for free or very cheap while there are a ton of market vacancies during the pandemic. However, squatter rights basically make it incredibly risky. The cost of this risk gets passed down from the landlords to lower-income renters, so it makes it even more difficult to escape homelessness. This is why you should never make political decisions based on empathy alone.
- CoastalCoder 6y ago
  > This is why you should never make political decisions based on empathy alone. Is the following a fair way to re-frame your statement? "This is why political decisions based on empathy should consider the long-term wellbeing of everyone involved."
  - Aunche 6y ago
    Yeah. I suppose that's a more constructive way to frame my point.
    - CoastalCoder 6y ago
      FWIW, I didn't see anything wrong with your original wording. But I think sometimes conservative-like ideas are unfairly labelled as incompassionate. When in reality they're intended to be more compassionate in the long run.
- unnamed76ri 6y ago
  No landlord would intentionally open their doors to a bunch of addicts so that they can destroy the property. Just not gonna happen.

asiachick 6y ago

280k homeless?!?!? Japan claims they are down to ~4k nationwide and AFAIK they don't have nearly as much support for the homeless (could be totally wrong on that). What they do have AFAICT is a culture of self reliance so that someone who is homeless generally feels guilty about asking for help (not saying that's good or bad thing, only saying that's what I believe is the culture) They aren't often easy to see but if go into a public park, if you see blue vinyl tarps in the bushes those are often a homeless person living there. There's a few in Yoyogi park and some in Shinjuku Central park (next to Tokyo's gov HQ). Otherwise in the winter some people try to sleep in the subway stations close to closing time. Japan does not have "free" medical support AFAIK. You have to pay into the national health insurance or otherwise pay your own medical bills. On the other hand, prices are regulated.

cosmodisk 6y ago
Japan has a lot of homeless that can only be seen by visiting certain places,such as internet cafes, where they can shelter at least for a bit or for the whole night.
mc32 6y ago
I get the impression many of the homeless on Japan are quite a bit tidier than their US counterparts. They try to keep their areas neat and coordinate to keep their surroundings clean as well. Yes, occasionally you can see someone who just doesn’t care about appearances, but that’s more an exception.
- MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
  Theyre homeless out of necessity. They tidy up because they don't want someone complaining about them so that they get harassed. The japanese mindset on homelessness is shame.
pjanoman 6y ago
Seems like you can also get housing in Japan for $14/day which is much less than you can in LA, to my knowledge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_Japan#Internet_caf%C3%A9s_and_homeless https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_Japan#Internet...

splithalf 6y ago

Some like to pretend that we can just build infinite new housing, for free or almost no cost, and that will give everyone a nice American level luxury dwelling, all with no environmental costs. I feel like such opinions are built on ignorance or at the very least naïveté about the home building industry. One can invest in the home builders to profit from these misinformed opinions as they increasingly drive policy towards deregulation and corporate welfare for the mega-developers.

pjanoman 6y ago
Maybe some people believe that, but overall that seems to be more of a straw-man argument if anything. I believe what is more common is the thought that we, as a country, can provide housing for people who have no place to live without making a large impact on tax payers below the upper class. Or is this naive in your opinion as well?
- splithalf 6y ago
  It’s innumerate I would argue. There are a lot of “ought to be” aspects to life but it’s not a very useful layer of thought. I prefer thinking about “what is” and from there think about changing things for the better. By “what is” I’m referring to empiricism, collecting data and using numbers to facilitate reason. The two modes, what ought to be vs what is, needn’t be incompatible, though acceptance is a difficult first step for many. In any case, if there is solid empirical evidence for the yimby-topian fantasies I hear, about how mixed used shopping plazas will solve the worlds ills, literally, I’ve yet to be convinced by any of it but I’d love to read any studies you might provide.
  - pjanoman 6y ago
    Public policy constantly requires leaps of faith to try to make the country better. You can't know that providing housing to the homeless helps them until you actually try it for the first time. What is: Based on currently available numbers, there are about 59 vacant housing units for every homeless person in the U.S.[1]. We do not have a shortage of houses, but instead a shortage of desire to house the homeless. What makes you think we, as one of the most powerful countries in the world, cannot provide housing to the homeless? Also, if you want to actually have a conversation about this, I would appreciate if you don't belittle my comments. [1]: https://www.self.inc/info/empty-homes/ https://www.self.inc/info/empty-homes/

annoyingnoob 6y ago

> 22% were under the age of 18 Really makes me sad, kids deserve better. We can do better.

davidw 6y ago

Homelessness increases pretty linearly with housing costs: https://www.zillow.com/research/homelessness-rent-affordability-22247/ https://www.zillow.com/research/homelessness-rent-affordabil... And California is really bad at providing housing that's affordable.

Pfhreak 6y ago

Build and maintain public housing. We should be making sure that housing is available for everyone. If you don't have housing it can be significantly more expensive and challenging to live (beyond the obviously visible challenges.)

MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
Part of the reason homelessness exists is to economically say "you can't afford to live here." Why do all these homeless people aggregate to large cities proportionally higher than in the midwest let's say? Cause nobody aspires to get famous and rich there. But homelessness is marginal in most areas because housing is hardly an issue.
rasz 6y ago
California plans just that, well sort off. I heard they will convert prime real-estate parings along best beaches into tiny house lots, top dollar beach front properties for the homeless.

DoreenMichele 6y ago

This is the wrong focus. This type of approach tends to make things worse. The more resources you pour into "helping the homeless," the worse the problem tends to get. You tend to magnify it. California has seriously bad housing policies that actively push up the cost of housing. They have also underbuilt housing for decades, which is known to push up the cost of housing. They need to be remedying that issue. You also need to identify factors that put people at risk of homelessness and help people who have those characteristics rather than helping people based on their current lack of housing. You need to help them regardless of their housing status. If you help people with serious problems conditional upon being homeless, you tend to entrench the problem of homelessness. It actively makes it harder to get off the street because you can't get help without first being homeless and then you may lose access to help if you get back into housing. So good programs help people with certain problems or characteristics which put them at risk of homelessness and do so regardless of their current housing status. "Helping the homeless" is an approach that tends to be subject to the Shirky Principle: It tends to preserve the problem it is supposedly aiming to solve. This data base is potentially of no real value in solving the problem, though it sure has terrific PR value for pretending to solve the problem. If you really want to solve the problem, start fixing issues that push up market-rate housing to crazy high prices. And, you know, people in California don't really, seriously want that and you will be very hard pressed to get credit for "playing hero" and "helping the homeless." I used to joke that "Someday, I will be a landlord providing affordable housing. No, I will not be celebrated as someone solving homelessness. I will be vilified in the press as a Slum Lord." People making headlines for trying to help the homeless are people who want pats on the back for Playing Hero. And they are very much Playing. I talked to a guy one day who was all "I have dreams of turning this entire block (of the small town where I currently live) into homeless services!" and I was like "Oh, look at the time! I have a meeting to attend! Buh-bye!" If you really care about the people, you don't dream of growing homeless services. You dream of making society work so that few people end up homeless. No one will call you a hero for that.

kodah 6y ago
If you drive down home costs in hyper inflated cities in California, where people got legitimate loans on that hyper inflation, who is left holding the bag? Someone has to pay that debt that is now worthless due to decreased inflation, right? This problem perplexes me, because it seems like it's a runaway train once it gets started.

mensetmanusman 6y ago

If they use cell data, they will eventually be able to track real-time migration of non-residents living in the area. In the future, the census could be updated in real time.

DoreenMichele 6y ago
No Big Brother vibe to that. Nothing scary concerning about this trend in the name of helping the homeless. /s
- hedora 6y ago
  You may be a godless anarcholibertarian, but surely, you’d be OK with helping homeless children, right?
  - DoreenMichele 6y ago
    Oh, well, as long as it's just children we are eartagging like animals in a science experiment, sure, I am down with that. Nevermind my previous objections in the name of freedom and privacy.

neonate 6y ago

https://archive.is/qR6Ey https://archive.is/qR6Ey

rootusrootus 6y ago

I don't know about California specifically, but I have observed that homelessness is getting really out of control in Portland. It's just crazy how many tent camps have cropped up in public places all over the city. Just in the last year it has exploded. I felt really embarrassed just driving up the interstate and seeing it on display. We don't lack the resources to deal with it. It seemed for a while like SLC had found a working solution. But as I recall, they eventually dropped it. It feels like a solvable problem, but as a society we will have to come to terms with our ideas of morality, as well as the role of gov't (specifically in health care and psychiatric treatment).

Flatcircle 6y ago

Why doesn't anyone ever mention homelessness exploding right as marijuana was legalized. Don't know why more people don't see the connection between these two things when.. 1. A large percentage of homeless people are addicted to drugs. 2. A popular drug was legalized in California at the exact same time homelessness exploded.

cirxwave 6y ago
Legal weed probably does draw some people in, but the ruling in Martin vs. Boise had a much bigger impact. In that case, the 9th Circuit court, which has jurisdiction over the West Coast, ruled that it was cruel and unusual to prevent people from sleeping outdoors if there was no meaningful alternative available to them, and granted them the defacto right to camp in public spaces. This ruling really caught every West Coast city with their pants down, because it laid bare the the fact that they had no effective strategy for managing the homelessness crisis, and were papering over the problem by using the police to harass homeless people until they moved on elsewhere. This is basically the strategy that the entire United States uses - make their lives miserable and hope they move on. Lots of people tend to move on in a western direction, until they get to the coast. Some cities are even brazen enough to buy one way Greyhound tickets for their homeless population, and they tend to send them to San Francisco, Portland and Seattle - cities that are trying to approach homelessness humanely. So essentially, the cities on the West Coast are footing the bill for the way the rest of the country treats the homeless, and being prevented from employing those same measures themselves. Add that to an explosion in housing costs, and you’ve got the mess we’re in right now.

Flatcircle 6y ago

Basically anyone that lives in a California city can use common sense to see through the flawed idea that the majority of homeless aren't addicts or mentally unstable. For whatever reason, the obviously false, "majority of homeless are law abiding victims of circumstance" narrative continually gets perpetrated through bias or bogus science. Maybe it's to make it seem like ending homelessness is an easy fix. Just provide cheap housing. Drive around Los Angeles and notice the tents and homeless encampments. There are square miles where it's easy to see literally hundreds of these encampments, under freeway passes, beside highways, encircling parks, etc. I could walk outside and find at least 50, if not more, within 10 city blocks of me. Then just do the math, 400 city blocks in a square mile, 500 square miles in Los Angeles. divide that by 15,000 or 20,000 homeless and it's easy to see that the overwhelming homeless are out in the open. It's tragic, and it's a hard to fix. We've been trying to provide cheap housing for homeless for decades and the truth is most don't want housing. I've toured treatment centers in skid row, the counselors there say they struggle to get people to come inside for treatment. Most are paranoid and struggle with addiction and illness and they need to want help. Because most homeless are unstable addicts and mentally ill. And that's a problem that can't be solved by building structures. They need treatment facilities, rules against open encampments and jail for repeat law violations.