4 ms·

The city isn't spending $837K to house one homeless person, they've spent that on housing the first homeless person in that unit. Unless they're planning on the

The city isn't spending $837K to house one homeless person, they've spent that on housing the first homeless person in that unit. Unless they're planning on these people never improving their situation to the point of moving out and for the unit to be destroyed in the process, the units can be reused. We'll see if the paper writes a story on how the cost of housing a homeless person has been cut in half after the units turn over to new tenants after the old ones move into their self-sufficient lives.

Rebelgecko 5y ago
A large part of the cost is ongoing things like 24/7 security, sharps disposal, maintenance, etc. The costs per placement will hopefully go down over time but I don't think they will scale linearly
1024core 5y ago
> Unless they're planning on these people never improving their situation to the point of moving out and for the unit to be destroyed in the process, the units can be reused. You'd be surprised to learn how little planning is done for the next step. Authorities (at least here in SF) are myopically focused on moving people into housing; there is no step 2 after that. That's why we have to keep building more housing, as people are not graduating out of the housing to make room for others.
- rhizome 5y ago
  No, I wouldn't be surprised, that's why I used the word "planning" instead of "assuming" or "leaving them to..." As the saying goes, "Failing to plan is planning to fail." In SF you have to account for the fact that the city is de facto prohibited from spending money on anything other than piecemeal programs, not to mention the upkeep and staffing to alleviate the deterioration of existing housing options. Every few years somebody manages to convince enough Supervisors that they've found a silver bullet and to give them some money for a meager pilot program to help a hard problem that requires actual money, experts, and priority. Oh, but there's pushback from $300K/yr techbros who have lived in SF for over two years and are sure it's all gone out of control ever since they had to step over a needle once. There are lots of knowledgeable and motivated people working in homeless and drug outreach along with related organizations that have like zero dollars. I'm not one of these experts and experienced people, but I'm pretty sure they should be funded and integrated more into an overall program. In Sacramento they're preparing to kick people out of their hotel program, but the Sheriff is waiting with bated breath right outside the door: https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article258051333.html https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article258051333.html I half expect them to describe putting the homeless in jail as a savings.
seanmcdirmid 5y ago
> The city isn't spending $837K to house one homeless person, they've spent that on housing the first homeless person in that unit. Unless they are housing functioning tenants (the easier homeless cases that don't involve mental illness or substance abuse, the ones that can get back on their feet with some help), those units are likely to get damaged quickly and require extensive refurbishment within a year or two. Hopefully they are using discretion in who gets that housing, or it will wind up costing them another $100k every couple of years to keep the unit inhabitable.
- rhizome 5y ago
  An effective homeless program probably has to include rehab, occupational therapy, and related services, yes.
  - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
    There is a fallacy here: it is not just "one homogenous group of homeless" that you can help with the same turnkey solution. No, there are easy cases (people living out of their cars, still capable of holding down jobs, they just need help) and there are hard cases (people who lost their jobs and housing because they got addicted to drugs or couldn't stop drinking, or fell into mental illness), and probably many cases in between. We should throw lots of resources at easy cases: get them housing, make sure they can continue working or get them work, subsidize their rent but don't just give them a place (because people will value what they have to pay for vs. what they are given). Hard cases...I'm not sure if many of them are ever going to be normal again. Many people with fentanyl addictions are just really messed up, and there isn't much we can do to solve their addictions. Same to a lesser extent for alcoholism, and mental health problems. Housing first also doesn't work well for them, because their addictions are so strong that they trash housing given to them, sell what they can, and wind up on the streets again because it is the best way to support their addiction. I think because hard cases are so hard to solve, we should devote almost all of our resources on (a) kids (so they can avoid this fate) and (b) easy homeless cases so we can prevent them from becoming hard cases. Many homeless advocates seem to want it both ways: that not every homeless is an addict (true), but that we should throw the exact same resources at addicts as we do at people who just couldn't pay rent (false). I don't understand why they do this, it doesn't help their cause (and they don't make progress because their solutions are not well matched to the problems they are solving).
asdff 5y ago
Uhh, but isn't this how every build is calculated per unit? Its still expensive per unit, which is the whole point. Every unit can be used gain, apartments are never disposable.

Rebelgecko 5y ago

A large part of the cost is ongoing things like 24/7 security, sharps disposal, maintenance, etc. The costs per placement will hopefully go down over time but I don't think they will scale linearly

1024core 5y ago

> Unless they're planning on these people never improving their situation to the point of moving out and for the unit to be destroyed in the process, the units can be reused. You'd be surprised to learn how little planning is done for the next step. Authorities (at least here in SF) are myopically focused on moving people into housing; there is no step 2 after that. That's why we have to keep building more housing, as people are not graduating out of the housing to make room for others.

rhizome 5y ago
No, I wouldn't be surprised, that's why I used the word "planning" instead of "assuming" or "leaving them to..." As the saying goes, "Failing to plan is planning to fail." In SF you have to account for the fact that the city is de facto prohibited from spending money on anything other than piecemeal programs, not to mention the upkeep and staffing to alleviate the deterioration of existing housing options. Every few years somebody manages to convince enough Supervisors that they've found a silver bullet and to give them some money for a meager pilot program to help a hard problem that requires actual money, experts, and priority. Oh, but there's pushback from $300K/yr techbros who have lived in SF for over two years and are sure it's all gone out of control ever since they had to step over a needle once. There are lots of knowledgeable and motivated people working in homeless and drug outreach along with related organizations that have like zero dollars. I'm not one of these experts and experienced people, but I'm pretty sure they should be funded and integrated more into an overall program. In Sacramento they're preparing to kick people out of their hotel program, but the Sheriff is waiting with bated breath right outside the door: https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article258051333.html https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article258051333.html I half expect them to describe putting the homeless in jail as a savings.

seanmcdirmid 5y ago

> The city isn't spending $837K to house one homeless person, they've spent that on housing the first homeless person in that unit. Unless they are housing functioning tenants (the easier homeless cases that don't involve mental illness or substance abuse, the ones that can get back on their feet with some help), those units are likely to get damaged quickly and require extensive refurbishment within a year or two. Hopefully they are using discretion in who gets that housing, or it will wind up costing them another $100k every couple of years to keep the unit inhabitable.

rhizome 5y ago
An effective homeless program probably has to include rehab, occupational therapy, and related services, yes.
- seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  There is a fallacy here: it is not just "one homogenous group of homeless" that you can help with the same turnkey solution. No, there are easy cases (people living out of their cars, still capable of holding down jobs, they just need help) and there are hard cases (people who lost their jobs and housing because they got addicted to drugs or couldn't stop drinking, or fell into mental illness), and probably many cases in between. We should throw lots of resources at easy cases: get them housing, make sure they can continue working or get them work, subsidize their rent but don't just give them a place (because people will value what they have to pay for vs. what they are given). Hard cases...I'm not sure if many of them are ever going to be normal again. Many people with fentanyl addictions are just really messed up, and there isn't much we can do to solve their addictions. Same to a lesser extent for alcoholism, and mental health problems. Housing first also doesn't work well for them, because their addictions are so strong that they trash housing given to them, sell what they can, and wind up on the streets again because it is the best way to support their addiction. I think because hard cases are so hard to solve, we should devote almost all of our resources on (a) kids (so they can avoid this fate) and (b) easy homeless cases so we can prevent them from becoming hard cases. Many homeless advocates seem to want it both ways: that not every homeless is an addict (true), but that we should throw the exact same resources at addicts as we do at people who just couldn't pay rent (false). I don't understand why they do this, it doesn't help their cause (and they don't make progress because their solutions are not well matched to the problems they are solving).

asdff 5y ago

Uhh, but isn't this how every build is calculated per unit? Its still expensive per unit, which is the whole point. Every unit can be used gain, apartments are never disposable.