4 ms·

Building housing isn't going to "solve homelessness". The majority of "visible homeless" that you see on the streets, etc. have mental health and addiction iss

Building housing isn't going to "solve homelessness". The majority of "visible homeless" that you see on the streets, etc. have mental health and addiction issues. Also, most housing, especially those catering to those "on the streets" have rules. More than a few living on the street don't want to have rules and structure. So, building housing isn't going to a total solution. Mental health issues need wrap around services and the ability to restrict their actions - which years of legislation and rulings (many will blame the ACLU) doesn't allow for such in nearly all cases. Addicts, for them, they need to WANT to get better. Even then it is still a long road. Hitting bottom may not even happen for some.

khuey 5y ago
> So, building housing isn't going to a total solution. It's not a total solution but it's a prerequisite to any solution. You will never be able to get the homeless into permanent housing when that permanent housing costs 2.5k/month.
- blitzar 5y ago
  Lets pretend for a minute that you got housing down from 2.5k/month to 1k/month. How many homeless, jobless people would that take off the streets? Hint: zero.
  - Red_Leaves_Flyy 5y ago
    Because the essential jobs that support the techies lavish lives don’t pay the $50k+ Needed to afford a $1k apartment. Get that rent down to 30% average median, with a healthy supply of housing at said cost, net income and then you’ll see that people do in fact want to work and provide for themselves. When that ability is robbed of then you’ll see all kinds of horrific antisocial behaviors. This is basic stuff. Many, and I’ll argue all, houseless people are put in impossible situations by the apathy, capriciousness, and greed of American society from the local level to thin air of the highest offices. Not every one can be a highly paid techie with a fancy pad and delivery services for everything. Geniuses are stuck working menial jobs all around the world because they’re necessary. To whom much is given, much is required. If the United States is to solve the houseless crisis then we must first get the highly compensated and wealthy to face the fact that their lives of privilege and excess come directly from the exploitation of billions of people and then accept the necessary concessions to allow everyone to live a dignified life. We can provide a clean and safe home, food, healthcare, and mass entertainment for everyone. We can’t provide sprawling estates and yachts for everyone. I’m in favor of getting rid of the yachts over a genocide of those unlucky enough to be born into privilege.
    - kcplate 5y ago
      > If the United States is to solve the houseless crisis then we must first get the highly compensated and wealthy to face the fact that their lives of privilege and excess come directly from the exploitation of billions of people and then accept the necessary concessions to allow everyone to live a dignified life. We can provide a clean and safe home, food, healthcare, and mass entertainment for everyone. When people stop risking their lives and the lives of their children to leave counties with marxist governments, I’ll consider your argument. Until then I am just going to assume that the Marxism brochures were really good at taking the pictures from the right angles.
      - Red_Leaves_Flyy 5y ago
        Care to be more specific about the countries you’re thinking of so I can pull up the relevant documents detailing the USA funded terrorism campaigns there?
  - thephyber 5y ago
    Your statement is blatantly factually false. I’m trying to decide if you meant it to be literal or hyperbole. People already work low paying jobs in SF. They are likely living with multiple roommates or commuting from far away. Given a large influx of cheap housing would absolutely put downward pressure on housing insecurity. Also, your perception of homeless is probably limited to the visible population that is chronically homeless perhaps in tents. Most homelessness is acute and occurs when rental prices increase, temporary unemployment, during bankruptcy, or when the renter/owner kicks out a roommate. These homeless tend to live out of their car or try to couch surf often. Acute homeless tend to have much better odds of finding housing again (maybe not in SF and maybe not during the worst of economic downturns). Lowering rent costs by 60% absolutely would help reduce acute homelessness.
    - kcplate 5y ago
      You missed the word “jobless” in the comment. The jobless, especially when the person is in essence unemployable due to mental illness is not going to be successful at self maintaining housing at $2.5k, $1k, or even $100/mo.
      - thephyber 5y ago
        You are applying a boolean data type, when the facts on the ground are more complicated. The fact is that “mental illness” is super common, has many aspects (some are significant hurdles to employment and others are less significant. “Unemployable” changes over time as employers look at the cost trade offs and the hiring market. And Section 8 vouchers (one of the largest programs to increase housing stability) already pay $x00/mo, so there is absolutely some dollar about above $100/mo where additional rental supply does start to reduce the homeless population.
        kcplate 5y ago
        If you are homeless, unemployed and unable to be employed due to mental health issues, anything more than “free” is too much for you to afford. Those were the people I’m speaking about, those are people that many of us see daily, and those are a large portion of the homeless wrecking havoc.
  - malermeister 5y ago
    What if you got it down to 0/month? I think you're thinking too small.
- augustuspolius 5y ago
  What do you mean by getting the homeless into permanent housing? The state will give the homeless apartments free of charge for the rest of their lives? For a limited period of time? Any homeless person who relocates to California? How long does the person need to be homeless for before getting free permanent housing?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - thephyber 5y ago
    I interpreted your parent as discussing an outcome of a policy change which involves reducing cost / increasing supply of housing in which “permanent housing” is a permanent structure/dwelling (eg. Not a tent/car) that more people would have access to (including existing Section 8 housing subsidies). You seem to have interpreted that phrase as the new policy itself.
hindsightbias 5y ago
They could all afford an SRO ten years back. Then something happened…
jseliger 5y ago
Mental health and addiction problems are substantially ameliorated by inexpensive housing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29193206 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29193206 and it is easier to maintain housing that is inexpensive than housing that is expensive. The extent to which people ignore the obvious point that homelessness is exploding in the most expensive cities, like SF, but not in less expensive cities, I find mind boggling.
- jakear 5y ago
  The obvious explanation would be that expensive cities are more desirable to live in and thus see both higher property values and more homeless. Having spoken to a number of homeless folks, a common pattern is that they really aren’t interested in housing. If you have no dependents, would you rather spend your life a slave to the capitalist corporation/mortgage/property-tax/landlord complex, or just camp out in an area with nice weather year-round, in a community of like-minded people, doing whatever suits your fancy?
  - giraffe_lady 5y ago
    I was homeless for years, not by choice. My relationships with homeless people did and still do go a lot farther than "spoken to a number of them" and I don't think this is accurate at all. I can't speak for anyone but myself but this was never my attitude and I doubt anyone I know now would endorse it. I don't know what dynamics were at play when you asked this question or what you specifically asked, but those things can affect the answers quite a lot. It's generally not "they really aren’t interested in housing" but "they aren't willing to accept the terms on which that housing is offered."
    - jakear 5y ago
      Were you living in year-round gorgeous weather areas alike I mentioned? (Coastal Southern California) > It's generally not "they really aren’t interested in housing" but "they aren't willing to accept the terms on which that housing is offered." What’s the difference? Being “interested” in something means being willing to pay its price it in order to reap its benefits. There exist plenty of folks who aren’t willing to pay the price of “work all day and live in a less desirable area” to reap the benefits of “have an address” when they can pay the price of “live as a vagabond” to reap “do as they please 24/7 in some of the most desirable regions on earth”.

khuey 5y ago

> So, building housing isn't going to a total solution. It's not a total solution but it's a prerequisite to any solution. You will never be able to get the homeless into permanent housing when that permanent housing costs 2.5k/month.

blitzar 5y ago
Lets pretend for a minute that you got housing down from 2.5k/month to 1k/month. How many homeless, jobless people would that take off the streets? Hint: zero.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 5y ago
  Because the essential jobs that support the techies lavish lives don’t pay the $50k+ Needed to afford a $1k apartment. Get that rent down to 30% average median, with a healthy supply of housing at said cost, net income and then you’ll see that people do in fact want to work and provide for themselves. When that ability is robbed of then you’ll see all kinds of horrific antisocial behaviors. This is basic stuff. Many, and I’ll argue all, houseless people are put in impossible situations by the apathy, capriciousness, and greed of American society from the local level to thin air of the highest offices. Not every one can be a highly paid techie with a fancy pad and delivery services for everything. Geniuses are stuck working menial jobs all around the world because they’re necessary. To whom much is given, much is required. If the United States is to solve the houseless crisis then we must first get the highly compensated and wealthy to face the fact that their lives of privilege and excess come directly from the exploitation of billions of people and then accept the necessary concessions to allow everyone to live a dignified life. We can provide a clean and safe home, food, healthcare, and mass entertainment for everyone. We can’t provide sprawling estates and yachts for everyone. I’m in favor of getting rid of the yachts over a genocide of those unlucky enough to be born into privilege.
  - kcplate 5y ago
    > If the United States is to solve the houseless crisis then we must first get the highly compensated and wealthy to face the fact that their lives of privilege and excess come directly from the exploitation of billions of people and then accept the necessary concessions to allow everyone to live a dignified life. We can provide a clean and safe home, food, healthcare, and mass entertainment for everyone. When people stop risking their lives and the lives of their children to leave counties with marxist governments, I’ll consider your argument. Until then I am just going to assume that the Marxism brochures were really good at taking the pictures from the right angles.
    - Red_Leaves_Flyy 5y ago
      Care to be more specific about the countries you’re thinking of so I can pull up the relevant documents detailing the USA funded terrorism campaigns there?
- thephyber 5y ago
  Your statement is blatantly factually false. I’m trying to decide if you meant it to be literal or hyperbole. People already work low paying jobs in SF. They are likely living with multiple roommates or commuting from far away. Given a large influx of cheap housing would absolutely put downward pressure on housing insecurity. Also, your perception of homeless is probably limited to the visible population that is chronically homeless perhaps in tents. Most homelessness is acute and occurs when rental prices increase, temporary unemployment, during bankruptcy, or when the renter/owner kicks out a roommate. These homeless tend to live out of their car or try to couch surf often. Acute homeless tend to have much better odds of finding housing again (maybe not in SF and maybe not during the worst of economic downturns). Lowering rent costs by 60% absolutely would help reduce acute homelessness.
  - kcplate 5y ago
    You missed the word “jobless” in the comment. The jobless, especially when the person is in essence unemployable due to mental illness is not going to be successful at self maintaining housing at $2.5k, $1k, or even $100/mo.
    - thephyber 5y ago
      You are applying a boolean data type, when the facts on the ground are more complicated. The fact is that “mental illness” is super common, has many aspects (some are significant hurdles to employment and others are less significant. “Unemployable” changes over time as employers look at the cost trade offs and the hiring market. And Section 8 vouchers (one of the largest programs to increase housing stability) already pay $x00/mo, so there is absolutely some dollar about above $100/mo where additional rental supply does start to reduce the homeless population.
      - kcplate 5y ago
        If you are homeless, unemployed and unable to be employed due to mental health issues, anything more than “free” is too much for you to afford. Those were the people I’m speaking about, those are people that many of us see daily, and those are a large portion of the homeless wrecking havoc.
- malermeister 5y ago
  What if you got it down to 0/month? I think you're thinking too small.
augustuspolius 5y ago
What do you mean by getting the homeless into permanent housing? The state will give the homeless apartments free of charge for the rest of their lives? For a limited period of time? Any homeless person who relocates to California? How long does the person need to be homeless for before getting free permanent housing?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- thephyber 5y ago
  I interpreted your parent as discussing an outcome of a policy change which involves reducing cost / increasing supply of housing in which “permanent housing” is a permanent structure/dwelling (eg. Not a tent/car) that more people would have access to (including existing Section 8 housing subsidies). You seem to have interpreted that phrase as the new policy itself.

hindsightbias 5y ago

They could all afford an SRO ten years back. Then something happened…

jseliger 5y ago

Mental health and addiction problems are substantially ameliorated by inexpensive housing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29193206 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29193206 and it is easier to maintain housing that is inexpensive than housing that is expensive. The extent to which people ignore the obvious point that homelessness is exploding in the most expensive cities, like SF, but not in less expensive cities, I find mind boggling.

jakear 5y ago
The obvious explanation would be that expensive cities are more desirable to live in and thus see both higher property values and more homeless. Having spoken to a number of homeless folks, a common pattern is that they really aren’t interested in housing. If you have no dependents, would you rather spend your life a slave to the capitalist corporation/mortgage/property-tax/landlord complex, or just camp out in an area with nice weather year-round, in a community of like-minded people, doing whatever suits your fancy?
- giraffe_lady 5y ago
  I was homeless for years, not by choice. My relationships with homeless people did and still do go a lot farther than "spoken to a number of them" and I don't think this is accurate at all. I can't speak for anyone but myself but this was never my attitude and I doubt anyone I know now would endorse it. I don't know what dynamics were at play when you asked this question or what you specifically asked, but those things can affect the answers quite a lot. It's generally not "they really aren’t interested in housing" but "they aren't willing to accept the terms on which that housing is offered."
  - jakear 5y ago
    Were you living in year-round gorgeous weather areas alike I mentioned? (Coastal Southern California) > It's generally not "they really aren’t interested in housing" but "they aren't willing to accept the terms on which that housing is offered." What’s the difference? Being “interested” in something means being willing to pay its price it in order to reap its benefits. There exist plenty of folks who aren’t willing to pay the price of “work all day and live in a less desirable area” to reap the benefits of “have an address” when they can pay the price of “live as a vagabond” to reap “do as they please 24/7 in some of the most desirable regions on earth”.