5 ms·

> The homelessness crisis is real, and doing nothing while watching it grow worse is the worst option. California isn't doing nothing. They keep spending even

> The homelessness crisis is real, and doing nothing while watching it grow worse is the worst option. California isn't doing nothing. They keep spending even more money and wondering why it's not working. If it was a problem that could be solved by giving people money, they'd have solved it already.

appreciatorBus 1y ago
Everything except ending the ban on homeowners & landowners building market housing. (ofc they are taking bites out of this apple, especially very recently, but every step is fought tooth & nail by homeowners who prefer the status quo just fine)
Spivak 1y ago
I'm fully in the camp of just give people dollars and let them decide how to spend it rather than navigate a bureaucratic nanny state system like SNAP. But if you're only doing that well no shit it doesn't help. You have to actually put them in a stable house/apartment and get them set up with work. Or if they're homeless due to mental illness get them admitted.
- MontyCarloHall 1y ago
  >Or if they're homeless due to mental illness get them admitted. Therein lies the problem. A large proportion of homeless fall into this category [*], and it's very hard to institutionalize people against their will. We like to think that most homeless are functional people who are simply down on their luck, and thus putting them in stable housing and getting them set up to work would solve their problems. But this is sadly not the case. [*] This study [0] found that 80% of homeless people have some kind of mental illness, with 30% having severe mental illness. This is compounded by the fact that >50% have substance abuse problems. [0] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8423293/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8423293/
  - HankStallone 1y ago
    Right. As I touched on elsewhere in the thread, our local jailers know all the homeless people in town because they show up regularly when their mental illnesses and/or substance abuse get them into trouble. The ordinary guy who wound up homeless due to a string of bad luck and just needs a place to sleep and a new job to get back on his feet is more a movie trope than reality. These are people with real problems who in many cases need regular supervision in something like a group home, if not outright institutionalization. And as you said, the latter is very hard to do now.
- onlyrealcuzzo 1y ago
  SF tried, didn't work. The homeless population increased, not offset by the people who got housed.
  - mothballed 1y ago
    That seems like an unfair metric. Any program that helps homeless people significantly more than anywhere else in the USA is going to become the new capital of homeless people and their population will explode. It doesn't mean the people helped are worse off.
    - nradov 1y ago
      Right, but the taxpayers in that city are worse off. That's why any solutions need to be driven at least at the county level and preferably at the state level. Leaving it to individual cities creates all sorts of perverse incentives. (SF is somewhat unique in that they are their own county so for that area specifically, shifting programs from the city to county level wouldn't change anything.)
      - mothballed 1y ago
        Taxpayers are pretty much always going to be worse off helping the homeless. Only a small fraction of the chronically homeless will become tax positive citizens in their lifetime. Either you start off with the first principle that it's OK for wealth-transfer schemes to make tax payers 'worse off' via compelled charity, or I don't think you can get to the point of supporting generalized homeless relief programs. Maybe programs targeted at short-duration stuff to get people into jobs that are capable of doing them and a housing contract might work, but it'd have to be extremely well thought out and wouldn't benefit most chronic homeless.
        nradov 1y ago
        My point is that it's a lot easier to share the tax burden at the state level rather than in individual cities.
mothballed 1y ago
Then there's also the Williston / North Dakota oil boom model. I met tons of homeless people out there (I was one of them), many of which whom solved it through "one neat trick" of doing something like hitchiking to the oil fields, or to Seattle where literally anyone can get hired to work on a fish processing boat or facility and they give you "free" room and board and then ~$10k to go home with.
- onlyrealcuzzo 1y ago
  That model clearly isn't working in SF where they spend >$100k per homeless person per year. So, sure, maybe it works if people sign up for it and show they actually want to do something. But it clearly doesn't work if you just hand it out and hope for the best.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - SolarNet 1y ago
    > But it clearly doesn't work if you just hand it out and hope for the best. I actually think if they did just give 100k to homeless people a year that it would actually solve itself. The problem is they give 100k to grifters who say they'll do something about it.
    - brewdad 1y ago
      The causes of homelessness are plentiful. Some, perhaps a majority I don't know any exact figures, would be helped by simply giving them money. Others are suffering from mental health crises and/or drug addictions that must be dealt with first before they can have any hope of taking care of themselves when given the money to support themselves. This is where good faith opinions can differ. Do these folks still deserve freedom/autonomy or can we force them into rehab or mental heath treatments? If the only crime they have committed is not having a bed to sleep in, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with taking away their freedoms. I'm closer than I was five years ago but I'm not universally there yet.
    - 1y ago

appreciatorBus 1y ago

Everything except ending the ban on homeowners & landowners building market housing. (ofc they are taking bites out of this apple, especially very recently, but every step is fought tooth & nail by homeowners who prefer the status quo just fine)

Spivak 1y ago

I'm fully in the camp of just give people dollars and let them decide how to spend it rather than navigate a bureaucratic nanny state system like SNAP. But if you're only doing that well no shit it doesn't help. You have to actually put them in a stable house/apartment and get them set up with work. Or if they're homeless due to mental illness get them admitted.

MontyCarloHall 1y ago
>Or if they're homeless due to mental illness get them admitted. Therein lies the problem. A large proportion of homeless fall into this category [*], and it's very hard to institutionalize people against their will. We like to think that most homeless are functional people who are simply down on their luck, and thus putting them in stable housing and getting them set up to work would solve their problems. But this is sadly not the case. [*] This study [0] found that 80% of homeless people have some kind of mental illness, with 30% having severe mental illness. This is compounded by the fact that >50% have substance abuse problems. [0] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8423293/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8423293/
- HankStallone 1y ago
  Right. As I touched on elsewhere in the thread, our local jailers know all the homeless people in town because they show up regularly when their mental illnesses and/or substance abuse get them into trouble. The ordinary guy who wound up homeless due to a string of bad luck and just needs a place to sleep and a new job to get back on his feet is more a movie trope than reality. These are people with real problems who in many cases need regular supervision in something like a group home, if not outright institutionalization. And as you said, the latter is very hard to do now.
onlyrealcuzzo 1y ago
SF tried, didn't work. The homeless population increased, not offset by the people who got housed.
- mothballed 1y ago
  That seems like an unfair metric. Any program that helps homeless people significantly more than anywhere else in the USA is going to become the new capital of homeless people and their population will explode. It doesn't mean the people helped are worse off.
  - nradov 1y ago
    Right, but the taxpayers in that city are worse off. That's why any solutions need to be driven at least at the county level and preferably at the state level. Leaving it to individual cities creates all sorts of perverse incentives. (SF is somewhat unique in that they are their own county so for that area specifically, shifting programs from the city to county level wouldn't change anything.)
    - mothballed 1y ago
      Taxpayers are pretty much always going to be worse off helping the homeless. Only a small fraction of the chronically homeless will become tax positive citizens in their lifetime. Either you start off with the first principle that it's OK for wealth-transfer schemes to make tax payers 'worse off' via compelled charity, or I don't think you can get to the point of supporting generalized homeless relief programs. Maybe programs targeted at short-duration stuff to get people into jobs that are capable of doing them and a housing contract might work, but it'd have to be extremely well thought out and wouldn't benefit most chronic homeless.
      - nradov 1y ago
        My point is that it's a lot easier to share the tax burden at the state level rather than in individual cities.

mothballed 1y ago

Then there's also the Williston / North Dakota oil boom model. I met tons of homeless people out there (I was one of them), many of which whom solved it through "one neat trick" of doing something like hitchiking to the oil fields, or to Seattle where literally anyone can get hired to work on a fish processing boat or facility and they give you "free" room and board and then ~$10k to go home with.

onlyrealcuzzo 1y ago
That model clearly isn't working in SF where they spend >$100k per homeless person per year. So, sure, maybe it works if people sign up for it and show they actually want to do something. But it clearly doesn't work if you just hand it out and hope for the best.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- SolarNet 1y ago
  > But it clearly doesn't work if you just hand it out and hope for the best. I actually think if they did just give 100k to homeless people a year that it would actually solve itself. The problem is they give 100k to grifters who say they'll do something about it.
  - brewdad 1y ago
    The causes of homelessness are plentiful. Some, perhaps a majority I don't know any exact figures, would be helped by simply giving them money. Others are suffering from mental health crises and/or drug addictions that must be dealt with first before they can have any hope of taking care of themselves when given the money to support themselves. This is where good faith opinions can differ. Do these folks still deserve freedom/autonomy or can we force them into rehab or mental heath treatments? If the only crime they have committed is not having a bed to sleep in, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with taking away their freedoms. I'm closer than I was five years ago but I'm not universally there yet.
  - 1y ago