4 ms·

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 th

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...
- tracker1 2y ago
  A lot of homeless won't go into shelters for multiple reasons, including the fact that many are less safe than staying with somewhat known communities outside the shelters. The other is not being able to keep their drugs. I've seen many homeless that refuse to seek appropriate medical care for open wounds (including gun shots) because they don't feel they can stay clean through the care they need. The level of addiction is crazy. I think a lot of people should volunteer a few times with a feed the homeless or similar charity and actually talk to some of these people before suggesting definitive answers. Most solutions simply won't work with the strings often attached.
  - scruple 2y ago
    One of my BILs is frequently homeless and refuses shelters because they have rules, curfews, etc., that, when he's manic, he won't abide by. I've been around tent cities and encampments in SoCal pretty often over the last ~16 years, but not as much these last few years since we had children. My anecdotes are that they're overwhelmingly filled with people just like him.
    - tracker1 2y ago
      That's largely been my observance as well. My SO has done a lot of feed the homeless work, and my best friend runs a medic/first-aid program to treat homeless. I haven't gone much, because it frankly breaks my heart to see. It's tough to even write about. I don't think shipping people all over the country is a good solution... I do think that building a lot of cheap housing (the projected costs someone mentioned, like $1.4m per dwelling seems insane). Modular construction designs should be possible to deliver 1br or studio homes with a 3/4 bath and kitchenette for under $150k each relatively easily, including transport and final assembly. It is really hard for me to understand that level of addiction or dissociation, but I've definitely seen it.
      - frumper 2y ago
        My city took 4 years after approval and 2 grants totaling $1.5M to build four 500 sq ft tiny homes for temporary housing. One of the biggest roadblocks was where to build them. From a local article, the residents selected for these homes will be required to pay rent and keep the units in a livable condition. So for a local government that had the money in hand, it has built 4 highly contested tiny homes after 4 years that the people moving in will have to pay rent on. This, proclaimed by the mayor, will really help get people off the streets in our city. It feels like la la land.
tracker1 2y ago
The problem is, the most prudent action for most cities is to make it someone else's problem and give the homeless bus tickets out of the area. Without some level of mandate, that's what you will often see. The flip side is, a significant majority of the issue comes down to drug addiction, from which any prescribed solution is likely to fail. I'm not sure what the best answer is... but even relatively low cost studio apartments may be an answer. Something between a dorm and an apartment. Even then, the costs are extremely high, and in areas of excess NIMBYism and legislation regarding any construction both of which are heavy in California, it's harder still.
- fragmede 2y ago
  SROs are basically dorms, and there are just under ~20k (rooms) in SF, which is near enough to house everybody. There's a waiting list a mile long and though they're not supposed to be long term housing, many people treat them that way. There's a pilot program by DignityMoves consisting of pre-fabbed tiny homes, but it has only a handful of units.

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...

tracker1 2y ago
A lot of homeless won't go into shelters for multiple reasons, including the fact that many are less safe than staying with somewhat known communities outside the shelters. The other is not being able to keep their drugs. I've seen many homeless that refuse to seek appropriate medical care for open wounds (including gun shots) because they don't feel they can stay clean through the care they need. The level of addiction is crazy. I think a lot of people should volunteer a few times with a feed the homeless or similar charity and actually talk to some of these people before suggesting definitive answers. Most solutions simply won't work with the strings often attached.
- scruple 2y ago
  One of my BILs is frequently homeless and refuses shelters because they have rules, curfews, etc., that, when he's manic, he won't abide by. I've been around tent cities and encampments in SoCal pretty often over the last ~16 years, but not as much these last few years since we had children. My anecdotes are that they're overwhelmingly filled with people just like him.
  - tracker1 2y ago
    That's largely been my observance as well. My SO has done a lot of feed the homeless work, and my best friend runs a medic/first-aid program to treat homeless. I haven't gone much, because it frankly breaks my heart to see. It's tough to even write about. I don't think shipping people all over the country is a good solution... I do think that building a lot of cheap housing (the projected costs someone mentioned, like $1.4m per dwelling seems insane). Modular construction designs should be possible to deliver 1br or studio homes with a 3/4 bath and kitchenette for under $150k each relatively easily, including transport and final assembly. It is really hard for me to understand that level of addiction or dissociation, but I've definitely seen it.
    - frumper 2y ago
      My city took 4 years after approval and 2 grants totaling $1.5M to build four 500 sq ft tiny homes for temporary housing. One of the biggest roadblocks was where to build them. From a local article, the residents selected for these homes will be required to pay rent and keep the units in a livable condition. So for a local government that had the money in hand, it has built 4 highly contested tiny homes after 4 years that the people moving in will have to pay rent on. This, proclaimed by the mayor, will really help get people off the streets in our city. It feels like la la land.

tracker1 2y ago

The problem is, the most prudent action for most cities is to make it someone else's problem and give the homeless bus tickets out of the area. Without some level of mandate, that's what you will often see. The flip side is, a significant majority of the issue comes down to drug addiction, from which any prescribed solution is likely to fail. I'm not sure what the best answer is... but even relatively low cost studio apartments may be an answer. Something between a dorm and an apartment. Even then, the costs are extremely high, and in areas of excess NIMBYism and legislation regarding any construction both of which are heavy in California, it's harder still.

fragmede 2y ago
SROs are basically dorms, and there are just under ~20k (rooms) in SF, which is near enough to house everybody. There's a waiting list a mile long and though they're not supposed to be long term housing, many people treat them that way. There's a pilot program by DignityMoves consisting of pre-fabbed tiny homes, but it has only a handful of units.