3 ms·

> Advocates for the homeless, meanwhile, worry that the tiny shelter boom will divert funds that could otherwise go to new permanent housing, preventing people

> Advocates for the homeless, meanwhile, worry that the tiny shelter boom will divert funds that could otherwise go to new permanent housing, preventing people from moving into a real home for even longer. The rush of private industry into the space also gives advocates pause, and they worry that cities will buy bare-bones, cheaper models, place them in remote parts of town, and criminalize those who refuse to go. There needs to be a circle of hell for those who screw over other people when they insist that "perfect" gets in the way of "good enough to be a first step." If people are sleeping on the streets because the problem isn't getting fixed your way, you're part of the problem. It's Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs here. Step one: get people out of tent encampments and doorways. Step two: get them help to get back on their feet.

kanja 3y ago
These advocates are paid in proportion to how bad the problem is. They're advocating in this way to ensure their income isn't interrupted by solving the problem they're being paid to fix.
- morelisp 3y ago
  As opposed to Dignity Moves, which has no financial interest in this situation?
kjkjadksj 3y ago
The issue is that these projects by and large are from tiny home companies fleecing larger public agencies out of public funds. There’s so much corruption at the local government level in California, these municipalities should really not be granted access to so much funding with such a nonspecific mandate tied to it. Apparently when you factor in operating costs and the cost to install these sites, its like $3300 a month you are paying to subsidize living in a small shack on the side of a highway (1). That would get you a 2 bedroom market rate apartment anywhere in the area. Maybe even 3 bedroom. 1. https://www.curbed.com/2021/04/tiny-home-village-homeless-los-angeles.html https://www.curbed.com/2021/04/tiny-home-village-homeless-lo...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
morelisp 3y ago
But the tiny house landlord explicitly says abusing this is something they will help the city do.
notaustinpowers 3y ago
The issue isn't that the private companies providing solutions aren't good enough. Offloading these social services to for-profit companies incentivizes an abuse of the system for profitability quarter after quarter. They aren't incentivized to end homelessness. They're incentivized to charge local and state governments more money for less service. They're incentivized to place roadblocks for other solutions to be implemented. I can't speak for other cities, but in my city, our government is putting $90,000,000 towards tearing down one of the largest forests in our area to build a fake city to train police. All while our homeless population explodes & the only shelters available are volunteer-run and rely on donations. That $90,000,000 could house every homeless person in our city for 23 months, even at our current market rents. That would be more than ample time to provide employment services, therapy/mental health services, and time to build employment history, savings, and rental history to secure future private housing. Imagine what could be done with lower rental rates.
- stevenicr 3y ago
  I've seen a few news stories about that project, or skimmed headlines. Assuming this is the one in GA - and a quick DDG search tells me that another entire town down there, toomsboro is for sale for 2 mill.. I wonder what the thinking is.. and I am assuming it goes something like, this city spends a couple mill per year for training.. and this center will bring others here to train so there will be money brought in from outside the city - to the tune of 2 mill a year in tax / travel / etc.. So are they looking at this as an investment to get returns, like how they pitch fball stadiums? That would be a different calculation than just, an expense for 90 mill - when they could spend X here for this or that.. Not saying any of all that is right or wrong, just saying the issue may need to be framed differently. I had heard of study in Florida where the cost of homeless on the hospitals and other emergency services were calculated pretty high and if an investment was made for X per year for just housing it would of saved the city or state X power of 10 in money from healthcare spending.. Of course there would be forces opposed to saving money from going into the hospital coffers and what not - but that's a bigger story. My point is the need for advocates to speak in terms of investment and money saved is money earned, with real dollars and numbers. I am assuming this 'training city' was proposed in such a fashion, and not as en expense.
1letterunixname 3y ago
This is one of America's fundamental ideological and moral turpitudes. There is a lack of integrated, holistic social services that treat people as human beings, with respect, and with genuine concern without first assessing how much money they have or what their needs are. Virtually no social workers go out and ask unhoused people if they're OK or if they need anything. In general, the American attitude blames the individual, divides people, encourages anomie and alienation, abolishes solidarity, frowns on the greater good and commonwealth, and sets lower classes against each other with a cynical, dismissive sentiment like: "If you're poor, then you're trash and don't deserve help because you should help yourself with imaginary bootstraps. So get a job, you lazy, freeloading slob. And don't even complain about being disabled, not having healthcare, mental healthcare, prescription coverage, eyeglass coverage, or dental coverage that most of us wage slaves have to pay for. If you get fired for not having shoes, that's your problem that you should've solved yourself with money and access you don't have." Disclaimer: I was homeless for 9 years. I also worked MAANGs and major universities off and on.
- ncr100 3y ago
  > There is a lack of integrated, holistic social services that treat people as human beings, with respect, and with genuine concern without first assessing how much money they have or what their needs are. Yep. There are people who DO believe and do enact this level of caring, and as a whole our social systems don't. Trickle down economics is as close as I've seen in my short life to all sides being "for", and that's horrifically insignificant.. justifying to oneself they do in fact care, and they don't need to do anything beyond make money while being in the USA. Close to our overt slavery economy, of hundreds of years ago, IMO.
darth_avocado 3y ago
Part of the problem is that the "advocates", mostly non profits and people in the government, are incentivized to not solve the problem. If homelessness is solved effectively, they all lose their jobs. Think about it, if you manage to house everyone permanently, you don't need city departments that deal with the homeless, and nor do you need non profits that provide services to the homeless or advocate for them.
- SOLAR_FIELDS 3y ago
  As someone with a spouse that works in homeless services, I can assure you that government agencies and everyone employed in them would love it if they could declare an immediate flawless victory where homelessness is entirely eradicated forever. There is no grand “homeless support” complex where people fear losing their jobs if the problem is resolved. These people would be working on the myriad of other social service problems we have instead after the homeless problem is resolved.
bsder 3y ago
> There needs to be a circle of hell for those who screw over other people when they insist that "perfect" gets in the way of "good enough to be a first step." "Tiny homes" do not solve the particular strain of homelessness that is most visible and are likely to make people angry about funding any real solution in the future. In addition, if you solve the most visible homeless, you reduce pressure on the homeless support systems, and the invisible homeless have a much easier time of it. Almost 3/4 of the homeless have fairly significant medical issues. You need a free medical facility for them--nothing short of that is going to help. A medical facility for the homeless is expensive, or it devolves into a dystopian nightmare. The reality is that we know what a lot of the homeless need. We know it is expensive. We choose not to fund or create it because the status quo is so much cheaper.

kanja 3y ago

These advocates are paid in proportion to how bad the problem is. They're advocating in this way to ensure their income isn't interrupted by solving the problem they're being paid to fix.

morelisp 3y ago
As opposed to Dignity Moves, which has no financial interest in this situation?

kjkjadksj 3y ago

The issue is that these projects by and large are from tiny home companies fleecing larger public agencies out of public funds. There’s so much corruption at the local government level in California, these municipalities should really not be granted access to so much funding with such a nonspecific mandate tied to it. Apparently when you factor in operating costs and the cost to install these sites, its like $3300 a month you are paying to subsidize living in a small shack on the side of a highway (1). That would get you a 2 bedroom market rate apartment anywhere in the area. Maybe even 3 bedroom. 1. https://www.curbed.com/2021/04/tiny-home-village-homeless-los-angeles.html https://www.curbed.com/2021/04/tiny-home-village-homeless-lo...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

morelisp 3y ago

But the tiny house landlord explicitly says abusing this is something they will help the city do.

notaustinpowers 3y ago

The issue isn't that the private companies providing solutions aren't good enough. Offloading these social services to for-profit companies incentivizes an abuse of the system for profitability quarter after quarter. They aren't incentivized to end homelessness. They're incentivized to charge local and state governments more money for less service. They're incentivized to place roadblocks for other solutions to be implemented. I can't speak for other cities, but in my city, our government is putting $90,000,000 towards tearing down one of the largest forests in our area to build a fake city to train police. All while our homeless population explodes & the only shelters available are volunteer-run and rely on donations. That $90,000,000 could house every homeless person in our city for 23 months, even at our current market rents. That would be more than ample time to provide employment services, therapy/mental health services, and time to build employment history, savings, and rental history to secure future private housing. Imagine what could be done with lower rental rates.

stevenicr 3y ago
I've seen a few news stories about that project, or skimmed headlines. Assuming this is the one in GA - and a quick DDG search tells me that another entire town down there, toomsboro is for sale for 2 mill.. I wonder what the thinking is.. and I am assuming it goes something like, this city spends a couple mill per year for training.. and this center will bring others here to train so there will be money brought in from outside the city - to the tune of 2 mill a year in tax / travel / etc.. So are they looking at this as an investment to get returns, like how they pitch fball stadiums? That would be a different calculation than just, an expense for 90 mill - when they could spend X here for this or that.. Not saying any of all that is right or wrong, just saying the issue may need to be framed differently. I had heard of study in Florida where the cost of homeless on the hospitals and other emergency services were calculated pretty high and if an investment was made for X per year for just housing it would of saved the city or state X power of 10 in money from healthcare spending.. Of course there would be forces opposed to saving money from going into the hospital coffers and what not - but that's a bigger story. My point is the need for advocates to speak in terms of investment and money saved is money earned, with real dollars and numbers. I am assuming this 'training city' was proposed in such a fashion, and not as en expense.

1letterunixname 3y ago

This is one of America's fundamental ideological and moral turpitudes. There is a lack of integrated, holistic social services that treat people as human beings, with respect, and with genuine concern without first assessing how much money they have or what their needs are. Virtually no social workers go out and ask unhoused people if they're OK or if they need anything. In general, the American attitude blames the individual, divides people, encourages anomie and alienation, abolishes solidarity, frowns on the greater good and commonwealth, and sets lower classes against each other with a cynical, dismissive sentiment like: "If you're poor, then you're trash and don't deserve help because you should help yourself with imaginary bootstraps. So get a job, you lazy, freeloading slob. And don't even complain about being disabled, not having healthcare, mental healthcare, prescription coverage, eyeglass coverage, or dental coverage that most of us wage slaves have to pay for. If you get fired for not having shoes, that's your problem that you should've solved yourself with money and access you don't have." Disclaimer: I was homeless for 9 years. I also worked MAANGs and major universities off and on.

ncr100 3y ago
> There is a lack of integrated, holistic social services that treat people as human beings, with respect, and with genuine concern without first assessing how much money they have or what their needs are. Yep. There are people who DO believe and do enact this level of caring, and as a whole our social systems don't. Trickle down economics is as close as I've seen in my short life to all sides being "for", and that's horrifically insignificant.. justifying to oneself they do in fact care, and they don't need to do anything beyond make money while being in the USA. Close to our overt slavery economy, of hundreds of years ago, IMO.

darth_avocado 3y ago

Part of the problem is that the "advocates", mostly non profits and people in the government, are incentivized to not solve the problem. If homelessness is solved effectively, they all lose their jobs. Think about it, if you manage to house everyone permanently, you don't need city departments that deal with the homeless, and nor do you need non profits that provide services to the homeless or advocate for them.

SOLAR_FIELDS 3y ago
As someone with a spouse that works in homeless services, I can assure you that government agencies and everyone employed in them would love it if they could declare an immediate flawless victory where homelessness is entirely eradicated forever. There is no grand “homeless support” complex where people fear losing their jobs if the problem is resolved. These people would be working on the myriad of other social service problems we have instead after the homeless problem is resolved.

bsder 3y ago

> There needs to be a circle of hell for those who screw over other people when they insist that "perfect" gets in the way of "good enough to be a first step." "Tiny homes" do not solve the particular strain of homelessness that is most visible and are likely to make people angry about funding any real solution in the future. In addition, if you solve the most visible homeless, you reduce pressure on the homeless support systems, and the invisible homeless have a much easier time of it. Almost 3/4 of the homeless have fairly significant medical issues. You need a free medical facility for them--nothing short of that is going to help. A medical facility for the homeless is expensive, or it devolves into a dystopian nightmare. The reality is that we know what a lot of the homeless need. We know it is expensive. We choose not to fund or create it because the status quo is so much cheaper.