6 ms·

A few months back, the author of "Homelessness is a Housing Problem" gave a talk where I live and it's quite worth watching if you don't have time to read the b

by davidw 2y ago

A few months back, the author of "Homelessness is a Housing Problem" gave a talk where I live and it's quite worth watching if you don't have time to read the book: https://youtu.be/W4rBe1fGPZU?si=xV2Ai789WXZ548nG&t=442 https://youtu.be/W4rBe1fGPZU?si=xV2Ai789WXZ548nG&t=442 (linked to where he's about to start talking to skip all the intros and thanks and so on) There's this article, also, with the main points: https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/everything-you-think-you-know-about https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/everything-you-think-you-know-... We need to build a lot more housing - of all shapes and sizes - in the places where people want to live.

seanmcdirmid 2y ago
This article isn’t really useful. If we are dumping almost 100% of our homeless resources on drug addiction then the fact that this is only 20-40% of the population is more of a travesty than a “so what”. You can’t solve their homelessness problems without figuring out a way to stabilize them (or they just burn down the housing you give them), and the fact that this minority overwhelms our support systems (and it’s immoral to prioritize non-substance abuse cases), means that we are stuck in a rut of throwing tons of resources at cases ($10k+/month/person helped) that go way beyond just subsidizing or covering their rent. If it were just a housing problem, it could be solved with more housing. But we’ve conflated it with drug addiction (at least here in Seattle) and it has become much less solvable as a result.
- rcpt 2y ago
  The article is useful and the author specifically goes into the case of why drugs are not the reason.
  - Der_Einzige 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - Avicebron 2y ago
      I'm pretty sure the social safety were gutted when the US slipped right into company profiteering at all costs, busting domestic infrastructure and commerce and leaving people looking around with their hat in their hands wondering why no one can afford anything including houses. It's a capitol/labor split, but I don't love having to use that language.
      - davidw 2y ago
        The housing crisis is a bit more complicated than that particular situation you're describing though. Some very 'progressive' places are full of raging NIMBYism that prevents anything like enough housing from being built.
        Der_Einzige 2y ago
        The entirety of the state of California. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13
        rcpt 2y ago
        The only thing holding back California from having an economy larger than the rest of the United States combined
        Avicebron 2y ago
        I agree it's more complicated, but I don't see NIMBYism as inherently 'progressive'/'not-progressive', I don't think it's as simple as "just build more housing, it needs to be something like, build more housing where it makes sense". Like if we turned Mill Valley into Kowloon City tomorrow, sure we would have more "housing", but no one benefits". That's extreme, but I think blaming NIMBYism completely doesn't cover the logical progression.
        davidw 2y ago
        Lots of people would benefit if they had housing to live in. There's no need for it to be some extreme thing like your example. NIMBYism is to blame for the lack of hundreds of homes here in the small city I live in, in Oregon, since I started tracking these things. It's not the only factor, but things like interest rates are something our city councils and state legislatures can't control. Saying 'yes' to a new apartment building is very much something they can control.
- davidw 2y ago
  It is a housing problem though. That is what the data show. That's why homelessness correlates so much with high housing costs. That's why places with serious drug problems like Ohio or West Virginia don't have such high rates of homelessness. None of which is to say that drugs are not a problem, or to say that someone with a drug problem isn't more likely to become homeless. All of that is explained in the article which you responded to without reading it, judging by the timestamp on your comment. Let alone the video, which goes into more depth and talks extensively about drugs.
  - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
    Places like Mississippi don’t have high homeless problems because they lack services and good weather, so drug addicts who have burned their family/friend networks, at least, hop on a bus to somewhere they can survive (usually a west coast city with mild weather and a progressive voter base that is willing to throw lots of money at the problem). That segment of the problem is 100% mobile, and even self reporting surveys show cause (like 60% of king counties homeless population saying they had previous housing in pioneer square). If you can’t afford housing anywhere, you just won’t survive very long in lots of places, so survival bias starts to show up.
    - davidw 2y ago
      This is a great narrative, but it turns out that it's not true. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/07/california-homelessness-housing-crisis/674737/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/07/california... > The overwhelming majority of homeless people surveyed were locals, not migrants from far away: 90 percent lost their last housing in California, and 75 percent lost it in the same county where they were experiencing homelessness. Of the 10 percent who came from elsewhere, 30 percent were born in California. Most of the others had familial or employment ties, or had previously lived in the state.
      - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
        Again, those are self reported surveys with biased surveyors (who want to push the narrative you believe in) with very weird results. They are basically trying to convince us that the unhoused population is more local than the housed population, sometimes by an order of magnitude, and it really isn’t statistically possible. Something like 75% of the general population are transplants but only 25% of the unhoused population are?
- in-pursuit 2y ago
  There are really two distinct homelessness problems: 1. The “temporarily unhoused”. These are people who have fallen on hard times and need temporary assistance to get back on their feet. These people live out of their cars and are largely invisible. 2. The chronically homeless. These are drug users who infest public spaces and are highly visible and disruptive. When laypeople talk about “homelessness”, they typically mean 2 as it’s more visible and disruptive to them.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    > There are really two distinct homelessness problems: > 1. The “temporarily unhoused”. These are people who have fallen on hard times and need temporary assistance to get back on their feet. These people live out of their cars and are largely invisible. > 2. The chronically homeless. These are drug users who infest public spaces and are highly visible and disruptive. What is that based on? Do you have any data to support these categories as something real? It sounds a lot like, '1) people I like; and 2) people I hate.' It's wrong to discuss human beings like animals, and as if they exist to please or displease you, and as if they can be treated like animals. They are people with their own experiences, like you, sensations and emotions and lives, who matter just as much as you do and belong in public spaces just as much. I've spent lots of time in major cities; chronically homeless people are among the least disruptive, and I've talked to many and know a few people in that situation; people on opioids are in their own worlds, often in a dream.
    - in-pursuit 2y ago
      I'd recommend a quick Google search for "types of homelessness" or "chronic homelessness" before proffering any personal attacks.
      - mmooss 2y ago
        If you are making the claim, it's up to you to support it. I'm not doing your research.
        2y ago

by davidw 2y ago

seanmcdirmid 2y ago

This article isn’t really useful. If we are dumping almost 100% of our homeless resources on drug addiction then the fact that this is only 20-40% of the population is more of a travesty than a “so what”. You can’t solve their homelessness problems without figuring out a way to stabilize them (or they just burn down the housing you give them), and the fact that this minority overwhelms our support systems (and it’s immoral to prioritize non-substance abuse cases), means that we are stuck in a rut of throwing tons of resources at cases ($10k+/month/person helped) that go way beyond just subsidizing or covering their rent. If it were just a housing problem, it could be solved with more housing. But we’ve conflated it with drug addiction (at least here in Seattle) and it has become much less solvable as a result.

rcpt 2y ago
The article is useful and the author specifically goes into the case of why drugs are not the reason.
- Der_Einzige 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - Avicebron 2y ago
    I'm pretty sure the social safety were gutted when the US slipped right into company profiteering at all costs, busting domestic infrastructure and commerce and leaving people looking around with their hat in their hands wondering why no one can afford anything including houses. It's a capitol/labor split, but I don't love having to use that language.
    - davidw 2y ago
      The housing crisis is a bit more complicated than that particular situation you're describing though. Some very 'progressive' places are full of raging NIMBYism that prevents anything like enough housing from being built.
      - Der_Einzige 2y ago
        The entirety of the state of California. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13
        rcpt 2y ago
        The only thing holding back California from having an economy larger than the rest of the United States combined
      - Avicebron 2y ago
        I agree it's more complicated, but I don't see NIMBYism as inherently 'progressive'/'not-progressive', I don't think it's as simple as "just build more housing, it needs to be something like, build more housing where it makes sense". Like if we turned Mill Valley into Kowloon City tomorrow, sure we would have more "housing", but no one benefits". That's extreme, but I think blaming NIMBYism completely doesn't cover the logical progression.
        davidw 2y ago
        Lots of people would benefit if they had housing to live in. There's no need for it to be some extreme thing like your example. NIMBYism is to blame for the lack of hundreds of homes here in the small city I live in, in Oregon, since I started tracking these things. It's not the only factor, but things like interest rates are something our city councils and state legislatures can't control. Saying 'yes' to a new apartment building is very much something they can control.
davidw 2y ago
It is a housing problem though. That is what the data show. That's why homelessness correlates so much with high housing costs. That's why places with serious drug problems like Ohio or West Virginia don't have such high rates of homelessness. None of which is to say that drugs are not a problem, or to say that someone with a drug problem isn't more likely to become homeless. All of that is explained in the article which you responded to without reading it, judging by the timestamp on your comment. Let alone the video, which goes into more depth and talks extensively about drugs.
- seanmcdirmid 2y ago
  Places like Mississippi don’t have high homeless problems because they lack services and good weather, so drug addicts who have burned their family/friend networks, at least, hop on a bus to somewhere they can survive (usually a west coast city with mild weather and a progressive voter base that is willing to throw lots of money at the problem). That segment of the problem is 100% mobile, and even self reporting surveys show cause (like 60% of king counties homeless population saying they had previous housing in pioneer square). If you can’t afford housing anywhere, you just won’t survive very long in lots of places, so survival bias starts to show up.
  - davidw 2y ago
    This is a great narrative, but it turns out that it's not true. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/07/california-homelessness-housing-crisis/674737/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/07/california... > The overwhelming majority of homeless people surveyed were locals, not migrants from far away: 90 percent lost their last housing in California, and 75 percent lost it in the same county where they were experiencing homelessness. Of the 10 percent who came from elsewhere, 30 percent were born in California. Most of the others had familial or employment ties, or had previously lived in the state.
    - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
      Again, those are self reported surveys with biased surveyors (who want to push the narrative you believe in) with very weird results. They are basically trying to convince us that the unhoused population is more local than the housed population, sometimes by an order of magnitude, and it really isn’t statistically possible. Something like 75% of the general population are transplants but only 25% of the unhoused population are?
in-pursuit 2y ago
There are really two distinct homelessness problems: 1. The “temporarily unhoused”. These are people who have fallen on hard times and need temporary assistance to get back on their feet. These people live out of their cars and are largely invisible. 2. The chronically homeless. These are drug users who infest public spaces and are highly visible and disruptive. When laypeople talk about “homelessness”, they typically mean 2 as it’s more visible and disruptive to them.
- mmooss 2y ago
  > There are really two distinct homelessness problems: > 1. The “temporarily unhoused”. These are people who have fallen on hard times and need temporary assistance to get back on their feet. These people live out of their cars and are largely invisible. > 2. The chronically homeless. These are drug users who infest public spaces and are highly visible and disruptive. What is that based on? Do you have any data to support these categories as something real? It sounds a lot like, '1) people I like; and 2) people I hate.' It's wrong to discuss human beings like animals, and as if they exist to please or displease you, and as if they can be treated like animals. They are people with their own experiences, like you, sensations and emotions and lives, who matter just as much as you do and belong in public spaces just as much. I've spent lots of time in major cities; chronically homeless people are among the least disruptive, and I've talked to many and know a few people in that situation; people on opioids are in their own worlds, often in a dream.
  - in-pursuit 2y ago
    I'd recommend a quick Google search for "types of homelessness" or "chronic homelessness" before proffering any personal attacks.
    - mmooss 2y ago
      If you are making the claim, it's up to you to support it. I'm not doing your research.
      - 2y ago