7 ms·

When people make this point they usually refer to Vancouver, Seattle, Portland (OR) or San Francisco. What they do--and waht all politicians do--is completely i

by jmyeet 3y ago

When people make this point they usually refer to Vancouver, Seattle, Portland (OR) or San Francisco. What they do--and waht all politicians do--is completely ignore the root problem: unaffordable housing. Lack of affordable housing is the number one cause of homelessness and it's not even close (eg [1]). California, in particular, votes in measures to fund housing the homeless but it doesn't really get spent. Why? Because residents, developers and politicians do everything they can to resist building anything to house the homeless in any capacity. We have decades of long-term incarceration for minor drug possession to show this is not an effective strategy. That's what led to drug decriminzation after the crime panic of the 1980s and 1990s. Decriminalizing drug use is good. If people don't want to see it (which I get), maybe they should do something to house such people, particularly because homelessness itself is a major cause of drug abuse as such people turn to self-medication. [1]: https://caplinnews.fiu.edu/lack-of-affordable-housing-a-leading-cause-of-homelessness-in-new-york-and-miami/ https://caplinnews.fiu.edu/lack-of-affordable-housing-a-lead...

colechristensen 3y ago
I’m really in favor of the opposite: zone for fewer jobs. Set limits on headcount per sq ft. Limit zoning of anything that provides jobs to be no more than local housing. If the locals want to keep their residential density, fine, no more commercial development.
- klyrs 3y ago
  This is such a bad idea, I nearly spit out my coffee, which I drank several hours ago. You want to build a building? Sorry, there's too many jobs in this area already, so you can't hire people to do that. Seriously, please draft a law to enact this policy. It sounds hilarious.
stufffer 3y ago
>Lack of affordable housing is the number one cause of homelessness Homelessness isn't a monolith. Treating someone who gets evicted after job loss the same as mentally ill drug addicts is making the problem worse. Homeless assistant programs are successful at helping people who accept the help. The drug addicts you see on the streets are engaging in destructive antisocial behavior. Sadly the only effective remedy for this behavior is to be roughed up by police and thrown in jail.
- DoreenMichele 3y ago
  No, homelessness is not a monolith. But lack of affordable housing is still the number one cause. We only claim someone's problems are entirely due to drug use when they hit skid row. We don't predict homelessness for millionaire rock stars who go to rehab repeatedly. Drug use doesn't cause homelessness. Lack of housing causes homelessness. The real solution is: We need to fix the housing crisis.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    Lack of affordable housing is the reason people might fall into despair and then drugs, but the people who get into drugs are basically a lost caused compared to the ones that don’t. The drug addicts…you can throw millions at just one case and make no progress in getting them back in their feet, the non-drug addict just needs housing. At that point, isn’t a moral judgement, just an effective use of limited resources (do we burn money trying to treat drug addicts who try to cook meth in the housing you give them, or do we spend $2k/month getting that non addict an apartment so they can get a job).
    - DoreenMichele 3y ago
      A. I think that's a vast oversimplification. B. I would like to address the housing crisis per se as a first line of defense rather than wait until people are homeless and then try to decide who merits help and what the cost-benefit ratio is and etc. For many people, if there was enough affordable housing, this whole argument about their merits and defects and etc wouldn't happen at all. There would, no doubt, be other arguments but my research indicates lack of affordable housing is the primary issue here.
      - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
        You would discover two very different problems between those where housing costs too much but were functional otherwise, and the other problem of completely non-functioning people where even cheap housing is too expensive since they can’t hold even a minimum wage job. The only debate right now is whether the first category mostly leads to the second category (and vice versa if the second mostly comes from the first). That is should we just treat the categories the same or not, then more affordable housing would help if most people in category two are coming from one. If the assumption is wrong, we will still see people on the streets even if housing is affordable. The other part of the debate is whether these problems are local or national, which has implications in how homeless programs are funded and where the affordable housing should be built. If all of the country’s homeless decides to move to SF, Seattle, LA for their affordable housing, the program will obviously fail.
sp527 3y ago
Arguing that a random homeless drug addict with negative net social utility is entitled to housing on some of the most expensive land in the world is completely bonkers.
- sapphicsnail 3y ago
  All human life is valuable. Measuring people's worth through "social utility" is such a fucked way to look at the world.
  - jlawson 3y ago
    And yet you do it every day when you decide who to associate with and invite into your life and home. Why can't the community do the same thing you do personally?
    - vineyardmike 3y ago
      Should we kick out our children from our home who misbehave? Or do we try to teach them, and help them and let them grow. Many (most?) of the homeless you see around you are your community. They don't need to be invited into the city because it's their home too. I live in SF and I know homeless people who have lived on the same street corner longer than some of my coworkers have lived in the city (or even the country). Many of the people who experience such misfortunes - even drug addicts who behave poorly - are long-time residents who once helped make the city the place it is. Sure their behave causes issues, and society needs to do something, but implying they don't have a claim to be helped in their own city is unfair.
      - vasco 3y ago
        > Should we kick out our children from our home who misbehave? Or do we try to teach them, and help them and let them grow. The second one. Over and over again. And when they are adults and we've given them a few more chances, we should then cut our losses. Many families go through the heartbreak which is trying again and again and failing. I don't judge those families, and know a few of those personally. And this is people's blood relatives. Extrapolate from that what you will.
matrix87 3y ago
Who would've thought that a lack of available housing implies fewer people in housing? maybe the people downvoting you have some kind of skin in the game and are benefiting from the housing shortage
anon291 3y ago
Portland is substantially cheaper than all the other areas and has a worse drug problem, so it doesn't seem correlated at all.
- jmyeet 3y ago
  Portland was ranked #21 in the most expensive places to live [1]. [1]: https://realestate.usnews.com/places/rankings/best-places-to-live?category=most-expensive-places-to-live&sort=overall&high_to_low=true https://realestate.usnews.com/places/rankings/best-places-to...
  - anon291 3y ago
    Yeah, but compared to SF, Seattle, and Vancouver?
seattle_spring 3y ago
Not just unaffordable housing, but homelessness and addiction is a nationwide problem. Only a few cities try to do anything at all, while the rest of the country just pushes them toward those cities. No matter how much money a city throws at the problem, there’s no way it can ever deal with it at the volume necessary.
- spxneo 3y ago
  what comments like GP ignore is that there has been housing provisions for homeless/drug addicted population in the past and each time it did not alleviate any of its residence from their afflictions, instead these free housing units became just another bazaar, a place to do business.
blindriver 3y ago
98% of homeless people are addicts or mentally ill people. They can't hold a home no matter how cheap it is. Affordable housing won't stop homelessness, because drug addicts and mentally ill people will consume themselves and in the process lose everything including their housing.
- foldr 3y ago
  I’d be mentally ill too if I had to live on the street.

by jmyeet 3y ago

colechristensen 3y ago

I’m really in favor of the opposite: zone for fewer jobs. Set limits on headcount per sq ft. Limit zoning of anything that provides jobs to be no more than local housing. If the locals want to keep their residential density, fine, no more commercial development.

klyrs 3y ago
This is such a bad idea, I nearly spit out my coffee, which I drank several hours ago. You want to build a building? Sorry, there's too many jobs in this area already, so you can't hire people to do that. Seriously, please draft a law to enact this policy. It sounds hilarious.

stufffer 3y ago

>Lack of affordable housing is the number one cause of homelessness Homelessness isn't a monolith. Treating someone who gets evicted after job loss the same as mentally ill drug addicts is making the problem worse. Homeless assistant programs are successful at helping people who accept the help. The drug addicts you see on the streets are engaging in destructive antisocial behavior. Sadly the only effective remedy for this behavior is to be roughed up by police and thrown in jail.

DoreenMichele 3y ago
No, homelessness is not a monolith. But lack of affordable housing is still the number one cause. We only claim someone's problems are entirely due to drug use when they hit skid row. We don't predict homelessness for millionaire rock stars who go to rehab repeatedly. Drug use doesn't cause homelessness. Lack of housing causes homelessness. The real solution is: We need to fix the housing crisis.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  Lack of affordable housing is the reason people might fall into despair and then drugs, but the people who get into drugs are basically a lost caused compared to the ones that don’t. The drug addicts…you can throw millions at just one case and make no progress in getting them back in their feet, the non-drug addict just needs housing. At that point, isn’t a moral judgement, just an effective use of limited resources (do we burn money trying to treat drug addicts who try to cook meth in the housing you give them, or do we spend $2k/month getting that non addict an apartment so they can get a job).
  - DoreenMichele 3y ago
    A. I think that's a vast oversimplification. B. I would like to address the housing crisis per se as a first line of defense rather than wait until people are homeless and then try to decide who merits help and what the cost-benefit ratio is and etc. For many people, if there was enough affordable housing, this whole argument about their merits and defects and etc wouldn't happen at all. There would, no doubt, be other arguments but my research indicates lack of affordable housing is the primary issue here.
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      You would discover two very different problems between those where housing costs too much but were functional otherwise, and the other problem of completely non-functioning people where even cheap housing is too expensive since they can’t hold even a minimum wage job. The only debate right now is whether the first category mostly leads to the second category (and vice versa if the second mostly comes from the first). That is should we just treat the categories the same or not, then more affordable housing would help if most people in category two are coming from one. If the assumption is wrong, we will still see people on the streets even if housing is affordable. The other part of the debate is whether these problems are local or national, which has implications in how homeless programs are funded and where the affordable housing should be built. If all of the country’s homeless decides to move to SF, Seattle, LA for their affordable housing, the program will obviously fail.

sp527 3y ago

Arguing that a random homeless drug addict with negative net social utility is entitled to housing on some of the most expensive land in the world is completely bonkers.

sapphicsnail 3y ago
All human life is valuable. Measuring people's worth through "social utility" is such a fucked way to look at the world.
- jlawson 3y ago
  And yet you do it every day when you decide who to associate with and invite into your life and home. Why can't the community do the same thing you do personally?
  - vineyardmike 3y ago
    Should we kick out our children from our home who misbehave? Or do we try to teach them, and help them and let them grow. Many (most?) of the homeless you see around you are your community. They don't need to be invited into the city because it's their home too. I live in SF and I know homeless people who have lived on the same street corner longer than some of my coworkers have lived in the city (or even the country). Many of the people who experience such misfortunes - even drug addicts who behave poorly - are long-time residents who once helped make the city the place it is. Sure their behave causes issues, and society needs to do something, but implying they don't have a claim to be helped in their own city is unfair.
    - vasco 3y ago
      > Should we kick out our children from our home who misbehave? Or do we try to teach them, and help them and let them grow. The second one. Over and over again. And when they are adults and we've given them a few more chances, we should then cut our losses. Many families go through the heartbreak which is trying again and again and failing. I don't judge those families, and know a few of those personally. And this is people's blood relatives. Extrapolate from that what you will.

matrix87 3y ago

Who would've thought that a lack of available housing implies fewer people in housing? maybe the people downvoting you have some kind of skin in the game and are benefiting from the housing shortage

anon291 3y ago

Portland is substantially cheaper than all the other areas and has a worse drug problem, so it doesn't seem correlated at all.

jmyeet 3y ago
Portland was ranked #21 in the most expensive places to live [1]. [1]: https://realestate.usnews.com/places/rankings/best-places-to-live?category=most-expensive-places-to-live&sort=overall&high_to_low=true https://realestate.usnews.com/places/rankings/best-places-to...
- anon291 3y ago
  Yeah, but compared to SF, Seattle, and Vancouver?

seattle_spring 3y ago

Not just unaffordable housing, but homelessness and addiction is a nationwide problem. Only a few cities try to do anything at all, while the rest of the country just pushes them toward those cities. No matter how much money a city throws at the problem, there’s no way it can ever deal with it at the volume necessary.

spxneo 3y ago
what comments like GP ignore is that there has been housing provisions for homeless/drug addicted population in the past and each time it did not alleviate any of its residence from their afflictions, instead these free housing units became just another bazaar, a place to do business.

blindriver 3y ago

98% of homeless people are addicts or mentally ill people. They can't hold a home no matter how cheap it is. Affordable housing won't stop homelessness, because drug addicts and mentally ill people will consume themselves and in the process lose everything including their housing.

foldr 3y ago
I’d be mentally ill too if I had to live on the street.