3 ms·
That was not the logic of my comment, and it seems like you didn't try very hard to consider what I meant. For example: the "interesting and thoughtful" article
by shuckles 2y ago
That was not the logic of my comment, and it seems like you didn't try very hard to consider what I meant. For example: the "interesting and thoughtful" article linked describes Finland's "Housing First" model adopted in 2008. Guess what: Housing First was first introduced as a policy idea in San Francisco in 1994, adopted as de facto city policy about ten years after that, and set as statewide policy in California ten years later. Ten years later, the problem is worse than ever!
Perhaps Finland and California are different enough that looking to Finland as a policy playground is a waste of time. This isn't physics; it's political economy.
- doctorpangloss 2y agoThe bad faith reasoning in your original comment is what you wrote. You are welcome to write interesting stuff in your comments, you should.
- shuckles 2y agoThere was no bad faith reasoning in my original comment. I, pretty evidently, understand the history of Housing First better than you do and am still convinced policy outcomes in Finland aren't very informative to San Francisco because the societies and challenges are very different.
- Log_out_ 2y agoUs is deeply anti social at the heart. The original reason it got away with it was the American dream aka upward mobility. That is dead for two generations now, and it has developed a corresponding "anti-system" movement the society refused to acknowledge and deal with beyond declaring them "deplorables". The day the leader dies, such movements are up for grabs and can spin on the proverbial ideological dime. Maga will go sendero, but there was just nothing to be done.
- shuckles 2y agoI don't really buy this doomerism. The USA passed the biggest COVID safety net, in absolute and relative terms. It's still one of the best countries to get ahead. Most of its problems are not framed through grand narratives about decline. They're more pedestrian issues related to mechanisms like common law, a dysfunctional Senate and two party system, and replacement of state capacity with nonprofits (as this article poorly discusses).
- resolutebat 2y agoAdopting policies is one thing, but is SF actually giving housing first to the homeless? Because my rough understanding is that the answer to that is "no".
- shuckles 2y agoDepends what you mean. All the subsidized housing available is operated under the housing first model with no sobriety requirement. Is there sufficient housing on offer? Clearly not. But SF expanded subsidized housing inventory substantially during the pandemic and has more such inventory than basically any other west coast city. For political reasons having to do with the NPIC, the city does not invest much in shelter beds. So it’s a $750k-$1m apartment or bust.
- blamestross 2y agoCalifornia also gets at least one countries worth of homeless shipped to it BECAUSE of the resources it provides (And political spite). This is the bad Nash Equilibrium in action, being punished for improving the situation.