5 ms·

I wonder what is going to happen to all the actual people. Sure, the authorities can force all the people off their "campsites" and send all their belongings t

I wonder what is going to happen to all the actual people. Sure, the authorities can force all the people off their "campsites" and send all their belongings to the dump. But you've still obviously got the homeless person there, in a more vulnerable position than they were before.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> wonder what is going to happen to all the actual people Most will hopefully wind up in shelters.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Does California have enough shelter space foe that? I would have assumed there wouldn't be a serious encampment problem if good shelters were available and empty.
  - nytesky 2y ago
    Shelters have reduced privacy than your own tent, don’t allow drugs or alcohol. I’m unsure about how ‘relations’ work for unmarried people. It’s not like they get their own little studio apartment, and even then most would forbid illicit drugs. Given that many homeless are also dealing with addiction, there may be sufficient shelter space yet still they choose the freedom of a tent or street life. That all said, I would be surprised if there is enough capacity, but that is a solvable problem, probably not cheap.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - tracker1 2y ago
      Can't speak for other areas, but the Phoenix area's homeless definitely way too large for current shelter availability, not to mention the aversion most have for all the reasons stated. With most of California and a few other states seeing far worse numbers combined with illegal migrants it's reaching an impossible point. It'd be possible to build tiny/modular complexes, which would be very expensive (but CA spend tens of billions with nothing to show), that could stem some of the tide with a bit of effort. But it needs to be located close to reasonable public transportation to other areas where work can be found if/when people are ready to get off the drugs or otherwise get life together. That doesn't even begin to cover psychological and police needs. The amount of assault, rape and theft in homeless communities is massively disproportionate to the general public. There's also the medical needs, which are significant.
      - nytesky 2y ago
        There are probably vacant homes all around places like the Rust belt — as a nation we have probably sufficient housing for at least group homes. We need national funding, to get people housed and rehabilitated. Jobs are a nice idea, but having many relatives on disability, when your life has gone that far off course it just may not be feasible — but everyone benefits from them not living on the streets.
        tracker1 2y ago
        So shipping people across the country, forcing them to move... Hasn't this country done that before? I don't think that's a good idea at all.
        nytesky 2y ago
        Well we are heading to criminalizing homelessness, so it’s better than prison. I welcome alternatives but letting people setup encampments needs to be fixed.
        paulmd 2y ago
        > So shipping people across the country, forcing them to move... Hasn't this country done that before? I mean yes, a lot of those people were literally shipped there from the rust belt or southern states. Famously Texas and company paying to bus or fly people to California and Massachusetts. I believe several of them were major press events etc - not a secret either. You are correct.
  - legitster 2y ago
    This cannot be stated enough - homeless or otherwise people do not like staying in shelters. They are small, you cannot keep stuff there, and you have to follow rules. Camping represents the middle class of homelessness and is seen as a step up. It fulfills the desire for autonomy and is often the most comfortable long-term situation for people engaging in it.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Camping represents the middle class of homelessness and is seen as a step up. It fulfills the desire for autonomy and is often the most comfortable long-term situation for people engaging in it It also has negative externalities which cannot be ignored.
    - seadan83 2y ago
      I think you undersell the "do not like staying in shelters" part. > you cannot keep stuff there If you are already low on belongings, having the rest of your stuff be stolen is not worth sleeping in a shelter Pets often cannot be kept in shelters. This is huge, give up your dog just to stay in a shelter for one night? > homeless or otherwise people do not like staying in shelters They are unpleasant and often unsafe. Theft & violence are common. Many have really gnarly intake processes where you wait in line for hours to only find out after nightfall if you are going to have space or not.
      - tracker1 2y ago
        +1 on all of the above... Shelters as they are, are a no-go for most homeless.
      - autoexec 2y ago
        Families are also often separated in shelters. For example a mother might be told that she and her daughter can stay, but her sons must go somewhere else to a 'men's shelter'. Parents are naturally going to want to stay with their kids.
        2y ago
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Does California have enough shelter space foe that? No. In 2023, California had about 180,000 homeless people [1] and fewer than 140,000 beds [2]. [1] https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/2023-ahar-part-1.Pdf https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/2023-... [2] https://homelessstrategy.com/how-many-total-temporary-and-permanent-supportive-beds-for-homeless-persons-are-there-in-california-and-how-many-are-participating-in-the-homeless-management-information-system/ https://homelessstrategy.com/how-many-total-temporary-and-pe...
    - tracker1 2y ago
      I'd suggest the estimations for the number of homeless are low, even and that there are far more.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
mrandish 2y ago
The concern you're expressing is completely understandable. It's also the beginning the chain of reasoning that led to so many of us supporting the bold 'new thinking' experiments which California has tried over the past ten years (in many variations and iterations attempting to problem-solve prior versions). Sadly, not only did none of them work, they made things substantially worse. More troubling is that none of the variations and adaptations tried over these iterations appeared to even move any of the key metrics in a positive direction. Unfortunately, we've now learned the 'most right' (or, alternatively, 'least wrong') answer to your question of "what happens to the people" probably should be different for each locale. There are only a few places that tried some things which seemed to maybe move outcomes at least in the right direction. These usually involved unique combinations of different things which were highly localized and specific to the context of that city and determined in near-real-time by people working that locale's specific set of challenges hands-on every day. Bottom line: currently there is no set of state-wide (or even county-wide) policies that work across all locales. Persistent long-term "Homelessness" is a broad symptom with a wide variety of different possible root causes. Frankly, the best thing to do at this moment is stop trying to solve it with state-wide policies and instead empower cities and their local agencies to find the most effective approaches for their unique local causes.
- seadan83 2y ago
  My impression is the "bold new thinking" you are describing was just "hey, we don't have the funds to actually address this issue; and the police sweeps are just kicking the can down the road and make things a lot worse for those sweeped - perhaps we should pause those sweeps?" It's a "kick-the-can-down-the-road" solution either way. Can you enumerate other strategies that are part of the bold new thinking? My estimation, the real bold new thinking are things like universal housing, UBI, and/or even more basic things like expanding shelters & making those reliable and safe places to be. All of these things require funds, and seemingly West Coast Americans don't want to pay for it. And so, the can is kicked. I'm aware of a few things that were attempted in Seattle. Notably 'tiny-home-communities', which had some success. Though the rising land value where they were built displaced those communities and they were never rebuilt [1]. Which goes to my point, the real "bold" thinking was hardly ever truly attempted anywhere. Pausing sweeps is just kicking the can down the road, and I don't think many people were pretending that was an actual "bold solution." Arguably just a best of worst-options. Though, while we differ in our perceptions of what has been attempted, and how sincerely those efforts were made - we agree on solutions. The solutions require serious efforts from a very empowered local community (which would imply state funding to support those efforts). [1] https://www.fox13seattle.com/news/what-happened-to-south-lake-unions-only-tiny-home-village https://www.fox13seattle.com/news/what-happened-to-south-lak...
oldpersonintx 2y ago
[dead]

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> wonder what is going to happen to all the actual people Most will hopefully wind up in shelters.

_heimdall 2y ago
Does California have enough shelter space foe that? I would have assumed there wouldn't be a serious encampment problem if good shelters were available and empty.
- nytesky 2y ago
  Shelters have reduced privacy than your own tent, don’t allow drugs or alcohol. I’m unsure about how ‘relations’ work for unmarried people. It’s not like they get their own little studio apartment, and even then most would forbid illicit drugs. Given that many homeless are also dealing with addiction, there may be sufficient shelter space yet still they choose the freedom of a tent or street life. That all said, I would be surprised if there is enough capacity, but that is a solvable problem, probably not cheap.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - tracker1 2y ago
    Can't speak for other areas, but the Phoenix area's homeless definitely way too large for current shelter availability, not to mention the aversion most have for all the reasons stated. With most of California and a few other states seeing far worse numbers combined with illegal migrants it's reaching an impossible point. It'd be possible to build tiny/modular complexes, which would be very expensive (but CA spend tens of billions with nothing to show), that could stem some of the tide with a bit of effort. But it needs to be located close to reasonable public transportation to other areas where work can be found if/when people are ready to get off the drugs or otherwise get life together. That doesn't even begin to cover psychological and police needs. The amount of assault, rape and theft in homeless communities is massively disproportionate to the general public. There's also the medical needs, which are significant.
    - nytesky 2y ago
      There are probably vacant homes all around places like the Rust belt — as a nation we have probably sufficient housing for at least group homes. We need national funding, to get people housed and rehabilitated. Jobs are a nice idea, but having many relatives on disability, when your life has gone that far off course it just may not be feasible — but everyone benefits from them not living on the streets.
      - tracker1 2y ago
        So shipping people across the country, forcing them to move... Hasn't this country done that before? I don't think that's a good idea at all.
        nytesky 2y ago
        Well we are heading to criminalizing homelessness, so it’s better than prison. I welcome alternatives but letting people setup encampments needs to be fixed.
        paulmd 2y ago
        > So shipping people across the country, forcing them to move... Hasn't this country done that before? I mean yes, a lot of those people were literally shipped there from the rust belt or southern states. Famously Texas and company paying to bus or fly people to California and Massachusetts. I believe several of them were major press events etc - not a secret either. You are correct.
- legitster 2y ago
  This cannot be stated enough - homeless or otherwise people do not like staying in shelters. They are small, you cannot keep stuff there, and you have to follow rules. Camping represents the middle class of homelessness and is seen as a step up. It fulfills the desire for autonomy and is often the most comfortable long-term situation for people engaging in it.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Camping represents the middle class of homelessness and is seen as a step up. It fulfills the desire for autonomy and is often the most comfortable long-term situation for people engaging in it It also has negative externalities which cannot be ignored.
  - seadan83 2y ago
    I think you undersell the "do not like staying in shelters" part. > you cannot keep stuff there If you are already low on belongings, having the rest of your stuff be stolen is not worth sleeping in a shelter Pets often cannot be kept in shelters. This is huge, give up your dog just to stay in a shelter for one night? > homeless or otherwise people do not like staying in shelters They are unpleasant and often unsafe. Theft & violence are common. Many have really gnarly intake processes where you wait in line for hours to only find out after nightfall if you are going to have space or not.
    - tracker1 2y ago
      +1 on all of the above... Shelters as they are, are a no-go for most homeless.
    - autoexec 2y ago
      Families are also often separated in shelters. For example a mother might be told that she and her daughter can stay, but her sons must go somewhere else to a 'men's shelter'. Parents are naturally going to want to stay with their kids.
      - 2y ago
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Does California have enough shelter space foe that? No. In 2023, California had about 180,000 homeless people [1] and fewer than 140,000 beds [2]. [1] https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/2023-ahar-part-1.Pdf https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/2023-... [2] https://homelessstrategy.com/how-many-total-temporary-and-permanent-supportive-beds-for-homeless-persons-are-there-in-california-and-how-many-are-participating-in-the-homeless-management-information-system/ https://homelessstrategy.com/how-many-total-temporary-and-pe...
  - tracker1 2y ago
    I'd suggest the estimations for the number of homeless are low, even and that there are far more.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

mrandish 2y ago

The concern you're expressing is completely understandable. It's also the beginning the chain of reasoning that led to so many of us supporting the bold 'new thinking' experiments which California has tried over the past ten years (in many variations and iterations attempting to problem-solve prior versions). Sadly, not only did none of them work, they made things substantially worse. More troubling is that none of the variations and adaptations tried over these iterations appeared to even move any of the key metrics in a positive direction. Unfortunately, we've now learned the 'most right' (or, alternatively, 'least wrong') answer to your question of "what happens to the people" probably should be different for each locale. There are only a few places that tried some things which seemed to maybe move outcomes at least in the right direction. These usually involved unique combinations of different things which were highly localized and specific to the context of that city and determined in near-real-time by people working that locale's specific set of challenges hands-on every day. Bottom line: currently there is no set of state-wide (or even county-wide) policies that work across all locales. Persistent long-term "Homelessness" is a broad symptom with a wide variety of different possible root causes. Frankly, the best thing to do at this moment is stop trying to solve it with state-wide policies and instead empower cities and their local agencies to find the most effective approaches for their unique local causes.

seadan83 2y ago
My impression is the "bold new thinking" you are describing was just "hey, we don't have the funds to actually address this issue; and the police sweeps are just kicking the can down the road and make things a lot worse for those sweeped - perhaps we should pause those sweeps?" It's a "kick-the-can-down-the-road" solution either way. Can you enumerate other strategies that are part of the bold new thinking? My estimation, the real bold new thinking are things like universal housing, UBI, and/or even more basic things like expanding shelters & making those reliable and safe places to be. All of these things require funds, and seemingly West Coast Americans don't want to pay for it. And so, the can is kicked. I'm aware of a few things that were attempted in Seattle. Notably 'tiny-home-communities', which had some success. Though the rising land value where they were built displaced those communities and they were never rebuilt [1]. Which goes to my point, the real "bold" thinking was hardly ever truly attempted anywhere. Pausing sweeps is just kicking the can down the road, and I don't think many people were pretending that was an actual "bold solution." Arguably just a best of worst-options. Though, while we differ in our perceptions of what has been attempted, and how sincerely those efforts were made - we agree on solutions. The solutions require serious efforts from a very empowered local community (which would imply state funding to support those efforts). [1] https://www.fox13seattle.com/news/what-happened-to-south-lake-unions-only-tiny-home-village https://www.fox13seattle.com/news/what-happened-to-south-lak...

oldpersonintx 2y ago

[dead]