6 ms·

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 m

by 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.

by ketzo 6y ago

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.