8 ms·

Interesting article. Several significant, long-term studies are brought up. Calif. spends much more per homeless person that most other countries, but has drama

Interesting article. Several significant, long-term studies are brought up. Calif. spends much more per homeless person that most other countries, but has dramatically worse results. Homelessness has risen 30% in calif, while other states have reduced their homeless populations. Interesting, striking differences.

anovikov 5y ago
I think it's kinda obvious: there are more homeless because this spending makes it easier to be a homeless. Fighting homelessness is easy: make it strictly illegal, a felony punished (for repeat offenders) with a real prison term. It will deter many delinquents from trying, they will try to stick with some sort of employment and housing.
- bsanr2 5y ago
  I feel like this is a joke, but can't tell and therefore seek further explanation.
- mrnotcrazy 5y ago
  Sounds like we will just be moving them from the streets to prison?(which is not cheap?) There is a portion of homeless who may be able to do better but mental health or other complications prevent others from pulling themselves up by their bootstraps.
- Supermancho 5y ago
  > Fighting homelessness is easy: make it strictly illegal Note: I have been homeless. I prefer a little more practical solution, which is unpopular with many people...as almost any solution will be. If a person is arrested for breaking a statute (municipalities usually have ordinances against camping in areas), without a residence in the county, move them to a staging area for identification and program entry (assign a sponsor). If they repeat offend without having participated in a program via the sponsor (or have violated out), move them to a minimal camp in an unincorporated part of the state. Filtering those who want to contribute versus those who are opting out, benefits those who try versus those who are not going to recover. I feel for the homeless people with master's degrees from various disciplines (see Youtube), but urban areas breed urban problems like illicit drug distribution, disease, sexual violations, open fires, burglary, etc. We know this historically. Why we continue to allow people to concentrate where they have the most opportunity to predate on the public and each other while simultaneously being enabled in self-destructive behavior is beyond me.
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    If the person has nowhere to sleep how can you charge them for the human need to sleep.
    - Supermancho 5y ago
      If the city cannot support and will not support the homeless that exist in the city, staying in the city is demonstrably degenerate. No amount of hand wringing gets around this. Public concern and municipal willingness to create shelter seems to consistently trail the homeless population severity by orders of magnitude. So what you have a scavengers* that have opportunity to predate on the public and each other along with a trickle of aggregate wealth from access to panhandling and such. Human need to sleep is an incidental trigger for identifying those in need. After it's clear an actor cannot be supported (or doesn't want to be helped), there's no humanitarian way forward that's better than another. Err on the side of society without additional harm to the actor. They are never "charged" nor are they supported beyond what services are available. *My particularly favorite thing was grazing at a grocery store in the morning when they are restocking and packages are open/damaged. Grab a fruit, eat a fruit walking through the store, grab a water and chug it, grab a granola or 2 or 3 or whatever you can get away with because who cares if you jack a couple waters? Dispose of cores/bottles/cans in a backroom box or behind a box or whatever. Move around a lot. Most city police let you go or city you for petty theft, but they tend to talk to each other and remember you.
- anfilt 5y ago
  What!? I hope your joking. Firstly, you cant legally force someone to have a home without violating their rights. Even if you force someone to have a home you cant force them to use it. Also what differentiates someone who is homeless vs going on extended camping/hiking trip. The biggest problem from a large homeless population is trespassing and litter to those around them. The act of not having a permanent residence is hardly criminal. I would have to lookup it up again but pretty sure there is a supreme court case from around the great depression era that says its unconstitutional to criminalize not having a residence. Its the other things some homeless do that is the problem, and honestly a lot them need help and a lot don't have friends or family to help them.
  - anfilt 5y ago
    The heck what are the down votes for. The government cant force someone to buy housing first. Its one thing to criminlize littering or sleeping/tresspassing on other peoples property. Its a whole an other thing to criminalize the act of not having a permanent residence.
    - anovikov 5y ago
      I strongly believe in exactly that: not having a permanent resident address (even if you don't actually live there, it's OK to live elsewhere if you can afford), being a felony. In Belarus, it works this way: if someone is caught in the street in a distressed state or suspected to be a homeless, he's brought into a sorting station (приемник-распределитель), where he is checked. If he can produce papers showing where he lives, get in contact with relatives and it appears obvious that it was an accident (someone partied too much and got "lost"), he's released, although his employer is notified. If not, they check if he's an alcoholic or a drug-addict, he's placed into a prison-style rehab. Escape from it is difficult and it is punishable with an actual prison. After rehab, they are given a dorm bed and a job, and a social worker tracks to make sure they stick with it. If he's mentally disturbed, a commission examines him and puts him into a prison-like mental institution, with similar consequences. If he already been in any of the above and it didn't help, they try again, but after ~3 tries, he goes to prison. It works. There are no bums in Belarus. Streets are safe. And yes, technically there is no way to legally become homeless in Belarus. You parents can't check you out when you grow up unless you buy a place of your own and can transfer your permanent registration there - there is no way to not have a permanent registration, citizen registration office just won't accept an application to "check out my 25 year old son coz it's time for him to live on his own" if he doesn't have that new place to check in to. There are some cracks in that system so a very very small fraction of people (<1%) end up without registration, but it is technically illegal (although no one will bother before they find you in the street drunk), and must be in theory impossible. And yes, registration is separate from ownership. You can sell your apartment with people still registered there and they retain that registration and a right to live there (ofc when you file papers to buy an apartment, there's a way to check if there are any people still registered, so no one in their sane mind would buy a place with anyone still registered). So here's a fix: make it legally impossible to not have a place of your own, and make it illegal not to.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > I think it's kinda obvious: there are more homeless because this spending makes it easier to be a homeless. Fighting homelessness is easy: make it strictly illegal, a felony punished (for repeat offenders) with a real prison term. It will deter many delinquents from trying, they will try to stick with some sort of employment and housing. So, basically kick people while they're down until they're so bloodied and broken that they spring up and go get a job?
- coliveira 5y ago
  You're just creating a recipe to inflate even more the number of people in jails.
- paxys 5y ago
  So spend a lot more to put them in prison than you would for a shelter. Makes perfect sense.
- jamil7 5y ago
  I can’t tell if this is trolling or you’re really this out of touch with reality.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  So let's talk about a hypothetical. You lose your job and within 30 days you are out on your rear and don't have anywhere to crash. At that point do you start living in fear of being caught while you try to get your life on track? When you finally get caught and go to the homeless concentration camp if they find marijuana in your pee are you now stuck with paying for drug treatment for your imaginary addiction. Maybe we can force homeless to do labor to earn their keep without paying them beyond room and board. Then we can partner with local business who can acquire cheap labor while teaching homeless valuable skills! I'm sure it won't turn into permeant disease ridden hellholes of exploitation that effectively transfer the people's wealth to whomever runs or owns the gaol. When your plan starts with if only we could do away with thpse inconvenient constitutional rights and build a wall to keep out those pesky ACLU lawyers it might be a good indicator that you are starting off on the wrong foot and may want to take the time to rethink your strategy.
- DemocracyFTW 5y ago
  This is the kind of solution the NSDAP will approve of. Effectively, just jail and kill everybody.
redis_mlc 5y ago
Gee, imagine if there was a state with nice weather and a policy not to arrest the homeless - what a magnet that would be! Even better, LA and now SF are constructing waterfront apartment buildings for homeless people. Best views in town.
paxys 5y ago
While I agree the numbers are high, just saying "California spends more than other states/countries on [xyz]" is pointless by itself. California spends more on everything. It's an expensive state. If San Francisco is spending 2x more per capita on housing, social services etc. than Harrison, Arkansas, that is still a lot less than it should be given how much everything costs in the city.
narrator 5y ago
Same situation with healthcare. America spends double on it as a percent of GDP vs all other developed countries, yet with worse outcomes. The primary solution proposed by progressives to the health care problem is to spend more money. The same thing with homelessness. At some point there's a point of diminishing marginal returns on the effort expended as it becomes more about the people running the system than the people they're helping.

anovikov 5y ago

I think it's kinda obvious: there are more homeless because this spending makes it easier to be a homeless. Fighting homelessness is easy: make it strictly illegal, a felony punished (for repeat offenders) with a real prison term. It will deter many delinquents from trying, they will try to stick with some sort of employment and housing.

bsanr2 5y ago
I feel like this is a joke, but can't tell and therefore seek further explanation.
mrnotcrazy 5y ago
Sounds like we will just be moving them from the streets to prison?(which is not cheap?) There is a portion of homeless who may be able to do better but mental health or other complications prevent others from pulling themselves up by their bootstraps.
Supermancho 5y ago
> Fighting homelessness is easy: make it strictly illegal Note: I have been homeless. I prefer a little more practical solution, which is unpopular with many people...as almost any solution will be. If a person is arrested for breaking a statute (municipalities usually have ordinances against camping in areas), without a residence in the county, move them to a staging area for identification and program entry (assign a sponsor). If they repeat offend without having participated in a program via the sponsor (or have violated out), move them to a minimal camp in an unincorporated part of the state. Filtering those who want to contribute versus those who are opting out, benefits those who try versus those who are not going to recover. I feel for the homeless people with master's degrees from various disciplines (see Youtube), but urban areas breed urban problems like illicit drug distribution, disease, sexual violations, open fires, burglary, etc. We know this historically. Why we continue to allow people to concentrate where they have the most opportunity to predate on the public and each other while simultaneously being enabled in self-destructive behavior is beyond me.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  If the person has nowhere to sleep how can you charge them for the human need to sleep.
  - Supermancho 5y ago
    If the city cannot support and will not support the homeless that exist in the city, staying in the city is demonstrably degenerate. No amount of hand wringing gets around this. Public concern and municipal willingness to create shelter seems to consistently trail the homeless population severity by orders of magnitude. So what you have a scavengers* that have opportunity to predate on the public and each other along with a trickle of aggregate wealth from access to panhandling and such. Human need to sleep is an incidental trigger for identifying those in need. After it's clear an actor cannot be supported (or doesn't want to be helped), there's no humanitarian way forward that's better than another. Err on the side of society without additional harm to the actor. They are never "charged" nor are they supported beyond what services are available. *My particularly favorite thing was grazing at a grocery store in the morning when they are restocking and packages are open/damaged. Grab a fruit, eat a fruit walking through the store, grab a water and chug it, grab a granola or 2 or 3 or whatever you can get away with because who cares if you jack a couple waters? Dispose of cores/bottles/cans in a backroom box or behind a box or whatever. Move around a lot. Most city police let you go or city you for petty theft, but they tend to talk to each other and remember you.
anfilt 5y ago
What!? I hope your joking. Firstly, you cant legally force someone to have a home without violating their rights. Even if you force someone to have a home you cant force them to use it. Also what differentiates someone who is homeless vs going on extended camping/hiking trip. The biggest problem from a large homeless population is trespassing and litter to those around them. The act of not having a permanent residence is hardly criminal. I would have to lookup it up again but pretty sure there is a supreme court case from around the great depression era that says its unconstitutional to criminalize not having a residence. Its the other things some homeless do that is the problem, and honestly a lot them need help and a lot don't have friends or family to help them.
- anfilt 5y ago
  The heck what are the down votes for. The government cant force someone to buy housing first. Its one thing to criminlize littering or sleeping/tresspassing on other peoples property. Its a whole an other thing to criminalize the act of not having a permanent residence.
  - anovikov 5y ago
    I strongly believe in exactly that: not having a permanent resident address (even if you don't actually live there, it's OK to live elsewhere if you can afford), being a felony. In Belarus, it works this way: if someone is caught in the street in a distressed state or suspected to be a homeless, he's brought into a sorting station (приемник-распределитель), where he is checked. If he can produce papers showing where he lives, get in contact with relatives and it appears obvious that it was an accident (someone partied too much and got "lost"), he's released, although his employer is notified. If not, they check if he's an alcoholic or a drug-addict, he's placed into a prison-style rehab. Escape from it is difficult and it is punishable with an actual prison. After rehab, they are given a dorm bed and a job, and a social worker tracks to make sure they stick with it. If he's mentally disturbed, a commission examines him and puts him into a prison-like mental institution, with similar consequences. If he already been in any of the above and it didn't help, they try again, but after ~3 tries, he goes to prison. It works. There are no bums in Belarus. Streets are safe. And yes, technically there is no way to legally become homeless in Belarus. You parents can't check you out when you grow up unless you buy a place of your own and can transfer your permanent registration there - there is no way to not have a permanent registration, citizen registration office just won't accept an application to "check out my 25 year old son coz it's time for him to live on his own" if he doesn't have that new place to check in to. There are some cracks in that system so a very very small fraction of people (<1%) end up without registration, but it is technically illegal (although no one will bother before they find you in the street drunk), and must be in theory impossible. And yes, registration is separate from ownership. You can sell your apartment with people still registered there and they retain that registration and a right to live there (ofc when you file papers to buy an apartment, there's a way to check if there are any people still registered, so no one in their sane mind would buy a place with anyone still registered). So here's a fix: make it legally impossible to not have a place of your own, and make it illegal not to.
tablespoon 5y ago
> I think it's kinda obvious: there are more homeless because this spending makes it easier to be a homeless. Fighting homelessness is easy: make it strictly illegal, a felony punished (for repeat offenders) with a real prison term. It will deter many delinquents from trying, they will try to stick with some sort of employment and housing. So, basically kick people while they're down until they're so bloodied and broken that they spring up and go get a job?
coliveira 5y ago
You're just creating a recipe to inflate even more the number of people in jails.
paxys 5y ago
So spend a lot more to put them in prison than you would for a shelter. Makes perfect sense.
jamil7 5y ago
I can’t tell if this is trolling or you’re really this out of touch with reality.
michaelmrose 5y ago
So let's talk about a hypothetical. You lose your job and within 30 days you are out on your rear and don't have anywhere to crash. At that point do you start living in fear of being caught while you try to get your life on track? When you finally get caught and go to the homeless concentration camp if they find marijuana in your pee are you now stuck with paying for drug treatment for your imaginary addiction. Maybe we can force homeless to do labor to earn their keep without paying them beyond room and board. Then we can partner with local business who can acquire cheap labor while teaching homeless valuable skills! I'm sure it won't turn into permeant disease ridden hellholes of exploitation that effectively transfer the people's wealth to whomever runs or owns the gaol. When your plan starts with if only we could do away with thpse inconvenient constitutional rights and build a wall to keep out those pesky ACLU lawyers it might be a good indicator that you are starting off on the wrong foot and may want to take the time to rethink your strategy.
DemocracyFTW 5y ago
This is the kind of solution the NSDAP will approve of. Effectively, just jail and kill everybody.

redis_mlc 5y ago

Gee, imagine if there was a state with nice weather and a policy not to arrest the homeless - what a magnet that would be! Even better, LA and now SF are constructing waterfront apartment buildings for homeless people. Best views in town.

paxys 5y ago

While I agree the numbers are high, just saying "California spends more than other states/countries on [xyz]" is pointless by itself. California spends more on everything. It's an expensive state. If San Francisco is spending 2x more per capita on housing, social services etc. than Harrison, Arkansas, that is still a lot less than it should be given how much everything costs in the city.

narrator 5y ago

Same situation with healthcare. America spends double on it as a percent of GDP vs all other developed countries, yet with worse outcomes. The primary solution proposed by progressives to the health care problem is to spend more money. The same thing with homelessness. At some point there's a point of diminishing marginal returns on the effort expended as it becomes more about the people running the system than the people they're helping.