3 ms·

American investors who swing liberal try very hard to deal with the cognitive dissonance of "I'm a good person who cares about homeless people" and "I want my p

by pydry 5y ago

American investors who swing liberal try very hard to deal with the cognitive dissonance of "I'm a good person who cares about homeless people" and "I want my portfolio to really excel". The two are not compatible, though. This is very much reflected in American investor owned media (all media, pretty much). This is, realistically, why Americans perceive the cause and effect of homelessness and poor mental health to be reversed. The reality is seen in Finland where homelessness was completely solved just by adopting a "house people first" policy. This policy is at the same time going to keep a lid on house prices, rental income and REITS in your portfolio. Hence why it's politically impossible in America and why we strangely keep hearing from Very Smart Talking Heads on TV that 200% rent increases actually have very little to do with those homeless camps.

aerostable_slug 5y ago
San Francisco's Housing First program has been an expensive failure. The only real beneficiaries were and are the owners of the SROs. My research indicates similar outcomes in some European locales, while Finland appears to be an outlier with markedly better success than, say, Scotland. Providing no-strings-attached housing in the United States appears to do little but get rain off people's heads. That is not really solving the problem — having lived near some of these projects, the street people continue being street people (substance abuse, crime, etc.) but now they can go inside when it rains or the SF Sheriffs show up to recover fugitives. They largely do not progress after getting the keys to the SRO room. That does not strike me as a 'win'.
- pydry 5y ago
  Apparently SF housing first program spent between $4-$14 million to spend on temporarily renting out cheap motels. That's supposed to be expensive? That's pathetic. It'll provide temporary accomodation for a handful of people at most. I understand the political imperative to declare it a failure though. House prices uber alles.
  - aerostable_slug 5y ago
    You don't get it — I'm not motivated by property values. I'm motivated by 1.) the massive waste of taxpayer dollars that could go elsewhere, and 2.) my compassion for people who really need help, not just a room. San Francisco spends over $100,000 per homeless individual, per year. It is ridiculous that I kept seeing the same faces doing the same things for years, and of course their population has grown and continues to grow. Throwing money at the problem doesn't work in the United States. The continued advocacy for these programs seems to be rooted in either progressive wishful thinking or simple graft (there's a lot of money changing hands).
    - nate_meurer 5y ago
      Have you read anything about Denver's housing-first program? I haven't taken the time to read up on it, but the popular narrative around here is that it's been successful enough to be worth expanding.
      - aerostable_slug 5y ago
        I haven't seen enough data yet, at least not from sources that aren't obviously predisposed to bias one outcome or another. That said, I imagine there would be some significant differences simply due to the weather. Also, the metrics for "success" sometimes seem questionable. Example: percentage of residents still in the same residence a year later. Aren't we trying to help them progress out of the lot they're in and towards returning to a productive member of society? Stagnating in a room just means they're dying slower, not becoming better. What I've seen firsthand is 'street people' moving from a tent or the like into an SRO, but continuing with their addictions, criminal behavior (often to sustain said addictions), etc. I've even seen people whom I know have a room in an SRO on 6th street (SF) produce bodily waste in an alley because they didn't feel like going back inside. I would think a better metric would be the percentage who move from a housing-first program into transitional housing, or rehab, or find employment, or some other indicia we're doing something other than giving them a roof and calling it a day.
    - FooBarBizBazz 5y ago
thatguy0900 5y ago
You see the same with a lot of rich conservatives and Jesus' statements on whether rich people can go to heaven. A lot of mental gymnastics. Rich people want to feel like good people, even if it's nearly impossible to actually square that circle.

by pydry 5y ago

aerostable_slug 5y ago

San Francisco's Housing First program has been an expensive failure. The only real beneficiaries were and are the owners of the SROs. My research indicates similar outcomes in some European locales, while Finland appears to be an outlier with markedly better success than, say, Scotland. Providing no-strings-attached housing in the United States appears to do little but get rain off people's heads. That is not really solving the problem — having lived near some of these projects, the street people continue being street people (substance abuse, crime, etc.) but now they can go inside when it rains or the SF Sheriffs show up to recover fugitives. They largely do not progress after getting the keys to the SRO room. That does not strike me as a 'win'.

pydry 5y ago
Apparently SF housing first program spent between $4-$14 million to spend on temporarily renting out cheap motels. That's supposed to be expensive? That's pathetic. It'll provide temporary accomodation for a handful of people at most. I understand the political imperative to declare it a failure though. House prices uber alles.
- aerostable_slug 5y ago
  You don't get it — I'm not motivated by property values. I'm motivated by 1.) the massive waste of taxpayer dollars that could go elsewhere, and 2.) my compassion for people who really need help, not just a room. San Francisco spends over $100,000 per homeless individual, per year. It is ridiculous that I kept seeing the same faces doing the same things for years, and of course their population has grown and continues to grow. Throwing money at the problem doesn't work in the United States. The continued advocacy for these programs seems to be rooted in either progressive wishful thinking or simple graft (there's a lot of money changing hands).
  - nate_meurer 5y ago
    Have you read anything about Denver's housing-first program? I haven't taken the time to read up on it, but the popular narrative around here is that it's been successful enough to be worth expanding.
    - aerostable_slug 5y ago
      I haven't seen enough data yet, at least not from sources that aren't obviously predisposed to bias one outcome or another. That said, I imagine there would be some significant differences simply due to the weather. Also, the metrics for "success" sometimes seem questionable. Example: percentage of residents still in the same residence a year later. Aren't we trying to help them progress out of the lot they're in and towards returning to a productive member of society? Stagnating in a room just means they're dying slower, not becoming better. What I've seen firsthand is 'street people' moving from a tent or the like into an SRO, but continuing with their addictions, criminal behavior (often to sustain said addictions), etc. I've even seen people whom I know have a room in an SRO on 6th street (SF) produce bodily waste in an alley because they didn't feel like going back inside. I would think a better metric would be the percentage who move from a housing-first program into transitional housing, or rehab, or find employment, or some other indicia we're doing something other than giving them a roof and calling it a day.
  - FooBarBizBazz 5y ago

thatguy0900 5y ago

You see the same with a lot of rich conservatives and Jesus' statements on whether rich people can go to heaven. A lot of mental gymnastics. Rich people want to feel like good people, even if it's nearly impossible to actually square that circle.