3 ms·

> California was ground zero for some of the more supposedly 'enlightened' approaches to the homelessness problem with both substantial, sustained funding and

> California was ground zero for some of the more supposedly 'enlightened' approaches to the homelessness problem with both substantial, sustained funding and strong local political support for non-enforcement. After nearly a decade of such experiments, the evidence they've made the situation dramatically worse is obvious and undeniable, even to those who were open-minded and supportive of trying these approaches. Can you give references/citations and/or examples of these programs? Particularly the ones that received sustained funding and how much funding that was per person? I'm aware of small anecdotal examples, but the funding was always just minimal. My understanding is it requires at least around $10k/person/year, a couple hundred per person does not move the needle. My 2 cents, I feel like the West Coast could solve the problem if there were appetite to raise & spend the money. A 1% wealth tax on the value of cars over 100k and homes over 10M likely would solve the problem overnight - but is there political appetite to do that? No.

tracker1 2y ago
They spent over 10B a couple years ago with nothing to show for it. Having to follow "da rules" along with NIMBY for housing efforts both work against working solutions.
- seadan83 2y ago
  Interesting. I was not aware of that level of spend from CA. There are a number of resources that get into, this one [1] from 'calmatters.org' agrees with you by saying essentially housing is too expensive (and goes a bit further to say that the housing that was built was also expensive itself). That resource gives 3 main resources, bad tracking of money spent & (2) and (3) are again really saying it's just too expensive to live in CA. The 10B number is even low! It appears that CA spent 20B over the last 5 years [2], $42,000 per homeless person. [1] The part I find really interesting, is the per-capita spend amount. California has a population of 39M, and spent 20B per five years, that is a $1000 per capita (per year) amount. In contrast, that number in Seattle is a meager $148, and across the lake from Seattle, in Bellevue that drops to $21 [3] I'm really shocked at the per-capita spend difference. My impression was that in Seattle the policies don't work because there is no money behind it and an inadequate and broken shelter system. The data from CA - shows that money alone is not enough. My takeaway, actual housing first, a well functioning shelter system do still seem to me to be biggest key to the problem. Clearly though, throwing money at the issue is not sufficient. [1] https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/07/something-clearly-off-homelessness-spending/ https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/07/something-clearly-... [2] https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-04-09/state-audit-california-fails-to-track-homeless-spending-billions-dollars https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-04-09/state-au... [3] https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/homeless/does-seattle-bear-the-burden-of-king-countys-homelessness-kinda/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/homeless/does-seat...
xenospn 2y ago
They’ve spent tens of billions over the years. If the homeless population of California were a country, it would have a budget larger than some African nations.
- seadan83 2y ago
  Interesting, thank you for the response. I agree with what you say. (Though, I would caution to avoid using "they" like this though, it creates a false "us" vs "them" & is ambiguous)

tracker1 2y ago

They spent over 10B a couple years ago with nothing to show for it. Having to follow "da rules" along with NIMBY for housing efforts both work against working solutions.

seadan83 2y ago
Interesting. I was not aware of that level of spend from CA. There are a number of resources that get into, this one [1] from 'calmatters.org' agrees with you by saying essentially housing is too expensive (and goes a bit further to say that the housing that was built was also expensive itself). That resource gives 3 main resources, bad tracking of money spent & (2) and (3) are again really saying it's just too expensive to live in CA. The 10B number is even low! It appears that CA spent 20B over the last 5 years [2], $42,000 per homeless person. [1] The part I find really interesting, is the per-capita spend amount. California has a population of 39M, and spent 20B per five years, that is a $1000 per capita (per year) amount. In contrast, that number in Seattle is a meager $148, and across the lake from Seattle, in Bellevue that drops to $21 [3] I'm really shocked at the per-capita spend difference. My impression was that in Seattle the policies don't work because there is no money behind it and an inadequate and broken shelter system. The data from CA - shows that money alone is not enough. My takeaway, actual housing first, a well functioning shelter system do still seem to me to be biggest key to the problem. Clearly though, throwing money at the issue is not sufficient. [1] https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/07/something-clearly-off-homelessness-spending/ https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/07/something-clearly-... [2] https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-04-09/state-audit-california-fails-to-track-homeless-spending-billions-dollars https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-04-09/state-au... [3] https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/homeless/does-seattle-bear-the-burden-of-king-countys-homelessness-kinda/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/homeless/does-seat...

xenospn 2y ago

They’ve spent tens of billions over the years. If the homeless population of California were a country, it would have a budget larger than some African nations.

seadan83 2y ago
Interesting, thank you for the response. I agree with what you say. (Though, I would caution to avoid using "they" like this though, it creates a false "us" vs "them" & is ambiguous)