5 ms·

I feel like the outcome of this is unilaterally bad. Most homeless are elderly and mentally Ill. The solutions are institutionalization and retirement housing

I feel like the outcome of this is unilaterally bad. Most homeless are elderly and mentally Ill. The solutions are institutionalization and retirement housing/pensions but no state did this after Reagan and instead made homelessness an issue to ignore. Faced with the ability to legally incarcerate nearly 600,000 people, states likely won't hesitate to do just that without a second thought. For a country that prides itself on freedom and liberty, having the largest prison population in the world is surely a damning indictment of the conviction.

speeralbert 2y ago
Re: "Most homeless are elderly and mentally ill." Mentally ill, yes. Elderly, no.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
canada_dry 2y ago
> states likely won't hesitate to do just that Especially those that have for-profit prison system - which in some cases have state legislators as investors/stakeholders.
- dantheman 2y ago
  You do realize that real problem is the prison guard union and public prisons right? Private prisons represent 8% of all prisoners...
legitster 2y ago
> Faced with the ability to legally incarcerate nearly 600,000 people, states likely won't hesitate to do just that without a second thought. Prisoners cost ~ $40k a year annually in taxes. It's actually cheaper to house them - so I don't think states are going to be gung-ho about doing either.
- crooked-v 2y ago
  There's plenty of political support across the US to imprison people, no matter how much it costs. There's almost none to build people housing, even if it's cheap. People are illogical like that.
  - namaria 2y ago
    Incarceration being expensive is a feature. The drive comes from a profit motive in private prison concerns. Sending the poor to use expensive military kit on vulnerable foreign populations and arresting the non compliant is much more profitable than just providing every one of them with shelter and job opportunities. Society doesn't optimize globally for good will, it optimizes locally for profit.
- jjav 2y ago
  > Prisoners cost ~ $40k a year annually in taxes. The racket is that many prisions are private for-profit companies. So this is a way to funnel taxpayer money into those corporations. Who in turn are friends and campaign contributors of the politicians who push for more people into prisions. So it all feeds itself and the cost doesn't matter. The more cost, the better (to them).
  - edmundsauto 2y ago
    What is the relevant population of prisoners who could be in a profit system? I have seen that only a small single digit percentage of prisons are for profit. It would be great to estimate the scale of those so I understand if this is a base case or edge.
    - dantheman 2y ago
      8%
    - namaria 2y ago
      There's much more profit in incarceration in general than just running private prisons. The whole system, much like the industrial military complex, is geared towards spending tax money on expensive contracts. There are no private wars out there (yet), it doesn't make defense any less profitable.
pseudalopex 2y ago
> Most homeless are elderly and mentally Ill. The solutions are institutionalization and retirement housing/pensions but no state did this after Reagan and instead made homelessness an issue to ignore. Most homeless people are working age and homeless under a year. Costs of living are the strongest correlates of homelessness rates.
- SkyPuncher 2y ago
  I suspect there’s a bimodal distribution between shorter and chronic homelessness
- diogenescynic 2y ago
  >Costs of living are the strongest correlates of homelessness rates. I suspect this is strongly skewed by half of all homeless living in California where they seem to be mostly from out of state and coming here for the weather, lenient drug laws, and many social benefits. You can just ask them and they will tell you--most of them are from red states where they'd be locked up for what they do here. As such, they came to California because they can get away with it and it's the easiest place to survive on the bottom as a drug user since you have temperate weather and lots of social programs giving you money, clothes, tends, and food. Why be homeless in California rather than move somewhere you can actually afford? It's the drug laws like Prop 47 that decriminalized hard drugs and theft up to $950 per incident (not even per day).
  - sn9 2y ago
    Recent research shows this largely isn't the case: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/07/california-homelessness-housing-crisis/674737/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/07/california...
  - moshun 2y ago
    You seem to be under an assumption that unhoused people are making detailed plans to travel cross-country to do drugs in California. As opposed to the reality that most unhoused Americans migrate here because our laws and weather are a bit less cruel. Seems fairly obvious that outlawing sleeping on the streets will make homelessness itself a defacto crime, which will ultimately benefit the prison industrial complex by providing a whole new stream of nearly free labor, thanks to the 13th Amendment. Tack on the housing swiftly becoming unaffordable almost anywhere in the country (major metropolitan areas especially) and you’ve got a recipe for dystopian profits.
toast0 2y ago
I don't think it's a good plan, but if you incarcerate the homeless, you're housing them and meeting their basic needs. At least until the prisons become overcrowded. There's lots of reasons why it's not a good solution, but having encampments in public parks isn't a good solution either. But I think this ruling allows governments to disrupt encampments without providing shelter or incarceration. Forcing people to disperse from an encampment with nowhere in particular to disperse to, is probably a worse result for the people in the camps, and is likely not to be effective for the communities impacted by the camps; the camps may move around more often, but they'll likely start up again with the same few places in rotation.
- manchmalscott 2y ago
  But you’re not _just_ housing them, are you? They also end up with criminal records making it harder to get secure jobs and housing in the future. Investing in building more affordable high density housing would be better for the people while costing less money for the taxpayer.
floxy 2y ago
>The solutions are institutionalization Isn't there a lot of rose-colored glasses around institutionalization of the mentally ill? The reason we got rid of it is because it is essentially imprisonment, with all sorts of abuses and not some sort of all-inclusive luxury resort.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- corinroyal 2y ago
  They were absolutely torture palaces for society's undesirables, but that's not why Reagan got rid of them. He just didn't care. The psych ward is perhaps more oppressive than prison. At least in prison, you have an idea when you might get out, forced drugging is minimal, and no one pretends they're doing it for your own good. To hear today's tech workers talk, most would be happy to bring back the torture palaces if it made their commute more comfortable.
- HDThoreaun 2y ago
  No one wants to return to titicut follies, but why cant we have properly funded and regulated mental institutions?
diogenescynic 2y ago
>I feel like the outcome of this is unilaterally bad. As a resident of California, I wholeheartedly disagree. The status quo could not continue. We need law and order. We can't have people just sleeping and camping wherever they want like California has been allowing. Many many public parks and open spaces are now taken over by open drug scenes (homeless camps) where crime thrives.
- vasilipupkin 2y ago
  Agree, and I feel like when people say “sleeping” it sounds innocuous. But what do these people do if they need to go number 2 in the middle of the night? There is a reason we have campsites, sanitation and just basic limits on insane behavior. “Where should they go” is something I hear often. Well, guess what, if we create significant disincentives to just doing whatever you feel like just because, at least some fraction of these people will find somewhere to go, a family member, a shelter, somewhere. And we can build more shelters, sure, but this has gotten out of control.
matrix87 2y ago
I don't think they're going to hunt them down like the gestapo If the homeless just kept to themselves and weren't actively causing public disturbances in places like SF, this wouldn't be an issue And it's an issue that affects some municipalities more than others. If a horde of homeless just show up in SF one day and strain infrastructure, I don't think it's unreasonable for SF to be able to do something about that
- rolph 2y ago
  herein alaska they're not "going to hunt them down like the gestapo" they already do. troopers,and "social serviceworkers act on reports of homeless camps in the woods search for them and make a census of the occupants. shortly after the camp is broken up and warrants served.
  - SauciestGNU 2y ago
    Same here in my part of Michigan. Authorities operate a very proactive search and destroy program for encampments of homeless people.
    - diogenescynic 2y ago
      I wish that was a thing in California.
      - matrix87 2y ago
        It probably will be after this ruling Local municipalities couldn't get away with it because there's a very vocal and litigious activist crowd Considering how obsessed people are with property values out here, this is probably going to trigger a bunch of changes
      - caustic-view 2y ago
        > First they came for the homeless, and I actively celebrated it.

speeralbert 2y ago

Re: "Most homeless are elderly and mentally ill." Mentally ill, yes. Elderly, no.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

canada_dry 2y ago

> states likely won't hesitate to do just that Especially those that have for-profit prison system - which in some cases have state legislators as investors/stakeholders.

dantheman 2y ago
You do realize that real problem is the prison guard union and public prisons right? Private prisons represent 8% of all prisoners...

legitster 2y ago

> Faced with the ability to legally incarcerate nearly 600,000 people, states likely won't hesitate to do just that without a second thought. Prisoners cost ~ $40k a year annually in taxes. It's actually cheaper to house them - so I don't think states are going to be gung-ho about doing either.

crooked-v 2y ago
There's plenty of political support across the US to imprison people, no matter how much it costs. There's almost none to build people housing, even if it's cheap. People are illogical like that.
- namaria 2y ago
  Incarceration being expensive is a feature. The drive comes from a profit motive in private prison concerns. Sending the poor to use expensive military kit on vulnerable foreign populations and arresting the non compliant is much more profitable than just providing every one of them with shelter and job opportunities. Society doesn't optimize globally for good will, it optimizes locally for profit.
jjav 2y ago
> Prisoners cost ~ $40k a year annually in taxes. The racket is that many prisions are private for-profit companies. So this is a way to funnel taxpayer money into those corporations. Who in turn are friends and campaign contributors of the politicians who push for more people into prisions. So it all feeds itself and the cost doesn't matter. The more cost, the better (to them).
- edmundsauto 2y ago
  What is the relevant population of prisoners who could be in a profit system? I have seen that only a small single digit percentage of prisons are for profit. It would be great to estimate the scale of those so I understand if this is a base case or edge.
  - dantheman 2y ago
    8%
  - namaria 2y ago
    There's much more profit in incarceration in general than just running private prisons. The whole system, much like the industrial military complex, is geared towards spending tax money on expensive contracts. There are no private wars out there (yet), it doesn't make defense any less profitable.

pseudalopex 2y ago

> Most homeless are elderly and mentally Ill. The solutions are institutionalization and retirement housing/pensions but no state did this after Reagan and instead made homelessness an issue to ignore. Most homeless people are working age and homeless under a year. Costs of living are the strongest correlates of homelessness rates.

SkyPuncher 2y ago
I suspect there’s a bimodal distribution between shorter and chronic homelessness
diogenescynic 2y ago
>Costs of living are the strongest correlates of homelessness rates. I suspect this is strongly skewed by half of all homeless living in California where they seem to be mostly from out of state and coming here for the weather, lenient drug laws, and many social benefits. You can just ask them and they will tell you--most of them are from red states where they'd be locked up for what they do here. As such, they came to California because they can get away with it and it's the easiest place to survive on the bottom as a drug user since you have temperate weather and lots of social programs giving you money, clothes, tends, and food. Why be homeless in California rather than move somewhere you can actually afford? It's the drug laws like Prop 47 that decriminalized hard drugs and theft up to $950 per incident (not even per day).
- sn9 2y ago
  Recent research shows this largely isn't the case: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/07/california-homelessness-housing-crisis/674737/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/07/california...
- moshun 2y ago
  You seem to be under an assumption that unhoused people are making detailed plans to travel cross-country to do drugs in California. As opposed to the reality that most unhoused Americans migrate here because our laws and weather are a bit less cruel. Seems fairly obvious that outlawing sleeping on the streets will make homelessness itself a defacto crime, which will ultimately benefit the prison industrial complex by providing a whole new stream of nearly free labor, thanks to the 13th Amendment. Tack on the housing swiftly becoming unaffordable almost anywhere in the country (major metropolitan areas especially) and you’ve got a recipe for dystopian profits.

toast0 2y ago

I don't think it's a good plan, but if you incarcerate the homeless, you're housing them and meeting their basic needs. At least until the prisons become overcrowded. There's lots of reasons why it's not a good solution, but having encampments in public parks isn't a good solution either. But I think this ruling allows governments to disrupt encampments without providing shelter or incarceration. Forcing people to disperse from an encampment with nowhere in particular to disperse to, is probably a worse result for the people in the camps, and is likely not to be effective for the communities impacted by the camps; the camps may move around more often, but they'll likely start up again with the same few places in rotation.

manchmalscott 2y ago
But you’re not _just_ housing them, are you? They also end up with criminal records making it harder to get secure jobs and housing in the future. Investing in building more affordable high density housing would be better for the people while costing less money for the taxpayer.

floxy 2y ago

>The solutions are institutionalization Isn't there a lot of rose-colored glasses around institutionalization of the mentally ill? The reason we got rid of it is because it is essentially imprisonment, with all sorts of abuses and not some sort of all-inclusive luxury resort.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
corinroyal 2y ago
They were absolutely torture palaces for society's undesirables, but that's not why Reagan got rid of them. He just didn't care. The psych ward is perhaps more oppressive than prison. At least in prison, you have an idea when you might get out, forced drugging is minimal, and no one pretends they're doing it for your own good. To hear today's tech workers talk, most would be happy to bring back the torture palaces if it made their commute more comfortable.
HDThoreaun 2y ago
No one wants to return to titicut follies, but why cant we have properly funded and regulated mental institutions?

diogenescynic 2y ago

>I feel like the outcome of this is unilaterally bad. As a resident of California, I wholeheartedly disagree. The status quo could not continue. We need law and order. We can't have people just sleeping and camping wherever they want like California has been allowing. Many many public parks and open spaces are now taken over by open drug scenes (homeless camps) where crime thrives.

vasilipupkin 2y ago
Agree, and I feel like when people say “sleeping” it sounds innocuous. But what do these people do if they need to go number 2 in the middle of the night? There is a reason we have campsites, sanitation and just basic limits on insane behavior. “Where should they go” is something I hear often. Well, guess what, if we create significant disincentives to just doing whatever you feel like just because, at least some fraction of these people will find somewhere to go, a family member, a shelter, somewhere. And we can build more shelters, sure, but this has gotten out of control.

matrix87 2y ago

I don't think they're going to hunt them down like the gestapo If the homeless just kept to themselves and weren't actively causing public disturbances in places like SF, this wouldn't be an issue And it's an issue that affects some municipalities more than others. If a horde of homeless just show up in SF one day and strain infrastructure, I don't think it's unreasonable for SF to be able to do something about that

rolph 2y ago
herein alaska they're not "going to hunt them down like the gestapo" they already do. troopers,and "social serviceworkers act on reports of homeless camps in the woods search for them and make a census of the occupants. shortly after the camp is broken up and warrants served.
- SauciestGNU 2y ago
  Same here in my part of Michigan. Authorities operate a very proactive search and destroy program for encampments of homeless people.
  - diogenescynic 2y ago
    I wish that was a thing in California.
    - matrix87 2y ago
      It probably will be after this ruling Local municipalities couldn't get away with it because there's a very vocal and litigious activist crowd Considering how obsessed people are with property values out here, this is probably going to trigger a bunch of changes
    - caustic-view 2y ago
      > First they came for the homeless, and I actively celebrated it.