5 ms·

What happens when the homeless from other cities start making their way to Medicine Hat? I'd like for this to work out long-term, but it strikes me as unrealis

by philh 11y ago

What happens when the homeless from other cities start making their way to Medicine Hat? I'd like for this to work out long-term, but it strikes me as unrealistic. Here's hoping I'm wrong.

minikites 11y ago
Homeless people aren't as mobile as you think. When someone is homeless they depend on a very specific set of municipal services and it's a huge risk to move somewhere else and not have a way into those services or even a way to find out about them. To put it another way, why are there any homeless people in Canada or the northern USA at all when they could just move to Florida where it's warm?
- mpdehaan2 11y ago
  While I like the concept of this article, I think there's enough mobility that this may occur. However, I'd much rather someone get a house than move to another city just to live in the street, so ultimately I'd hope more areas adopt something similar if they see this as effective. San Francisco and Portland both SEEM to have a problem with destination homelessness, in particular, Portland was known to have strong city services and may have led to that. Given, the job industry there is recovering from a major source of industry, so I could be massively wrong, but it seems like the case. Ultimately SF and the Bay Area seem to have enough wealthy corporations that, if someone were able to support it, it could totally work. Though I recently remember reading an article from the Slack CEO, where he justified taking a large investment round he didn't need because the VCs were not going to spend it on homelessness. Unfortunately we still incentize the wrong things in seeking profits. Obviously, we can't call a single case out, but in the end, there's enough funding here to completely fix it if people rallied together and the Medicine Town thing could probably be done at SF or Portland level scale. It would be crazy expensive, yes, but would also greatly improve those cities.
  - notahacker 11y ago
    > Ultimately SF and the Bay Area seem to have enough wealthy corporations that, if someone were able to support it, it could totally work. Isn't central SF - presumably the location that homeless people for various reasons prefer to be located in - so expensive that even software developers employed by these companies on salaries north of $100k per annum feel they're being priced out of it?
    - wbl 11y ago
      There is a unique area known as the Tenderloin which only has SROs, and is much cheaper.
      - fredkbloggs 11y ago
        The TL does not have only SROs, and SROs do exist elsewhere. SROs are also not especially cheap; for example, the Adrian Hotel rents SROs for $700 a week (http://sfhomeless.wikia.com/wiki/Adrian_Hotel http://sfhomeless.wikia.com/wiki/Adrian_Hotel). Of course many SRO residents also receive subsidies of various kinds.
      - fragmede 11y ago
        A Craigslist housing search limited to the TL shows only 2 listings for under $1500/month. Most are closer to $2000/month. The TL's cheaper, sure, but still rather expensive. http://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/sfc/apa?nh=156&maxAsk=1500 http://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/sfc/apa?nh=156&maxAsk=150...
    - mpdehaan2 11y ago
      I'm kind of positing something that won't happen. Like someone like Ellison or Page or Musk builds a big tower or buys up several blocks, maybe it's not even downtown. OTOH, people would also want to live there with other people and other root cause problems would have to be addressed for many. So you might need many of these scattered around, and would need to figure out NIMBY factors. But yeah, the idea is someone else would need to front that bill.
- Raphmedia 11y ago
  I know homeless people that migrate from Québec to BC every summer to work in the fields. There are also a lot of homeless people that moves north from Montréal. They are quite mobile but only if there is a reason to. Good housing is a big reason and I'm sure many of them will consider moving there.
  - pjonesdotca 11y ago
    I seriously doubt there will be any significant migration to Medicine Hat just for the free housing.
zo1 11y ago
Or when more well off people move to that city, and then magically... become homeless. Just so they could get free housing or whatever. There will always be people trying to game things, even for marginal benefit.
- pjonesdotca 11y ago
  I find the people that think this way are themselves the ones who look to game systems
  - zo1 11y ago
    As if the observation matters, or says anything about the topic being discussed. Essentially boiling down to some sort of cheap ad-hominem. However, in the overall hierarchy of how much I value people, I place the well-being of the people I love, and myself, above all the rest. And I'm not afraid to admit that.
learnstats2 11y ago
Thanks for asking this question, it helped me to reach an understanding. If (although it's quite a big if) homeless people from other cities move to Medicine Hat, that means the problem of homelessness in other cities is reduced. Is that a bad thing? I claim: not in any way. Other cities should easily recognise the benefits, in that case. The federal government should be happy to pay for this and similar projects in other cities.
- philh 11y ago
  > Is that a bad thing? I claim: not in any way. It seems like a bad thing for Medicine Hat, which makes it a bad thing for the future of initiatives like this. (However, another possible scenario: some homeless people move to Medicine Hat, and Medicine Hat is still better off than it was before because it's better to have the greater numbers in houses, than the smaller number on the streets.)
bayesianhorse 11y ago
Considering that they have to almost force them into these houses, there's a pretty good chance this won't happen in any significant amount...

by philh 11y ago

What happens when the homeless from other cities start making their way to Medicine Hat? I'd like for this to work out long-term, but it strikes me as unrealistic. Here's hoping I'm wrong.

minikites 11y ago

Homeless people aren't as mobile as you think. When someone is homeless they depend on a very specific set of municipal services and it's a huge risk to move somewhere else and not have a way into those services or even a way to find out about them. To put it another way, why are there any homeless people in Canada or the northern USA at all when they could just move to Florida where it's warm?

mpdehaan2 11y ago
While I like the concept of this article, I think there's enough mobility that this may occur. However, I'd much rather someone get a house than move to another city just to live in the street, so ultimately I'd hope more areas adopt something similar if they see this as effective. San Francisco and Portland both SEEM to have a problem with destination homelessness, in particular, Portland was known to have strong city services and may have led to that. Given, the job industry there is recovering from a major source of industry, so I could be massively wrong, but it seems like the case. Ultimately SF and the Bay Area seem to have enough wealthy corporations that, if someone were able to support it, it could totally work. Though I recently remember reading an article from the Slack CEO, where he justified taking a large investment round he didn't need because the VCs were not going to spend it on homelessness. Unfortunately we still incentize the wrong things in seeking profits. Obviously, we can't call a single case out, but in the end, there's enough funding here to completely fix it if people rallied together and the Medicine Town thing could probably be done at SF or Portland level scale. It would be crazy expensive, yes, but would also greatly improve those cities.
- notahacker 11y ago
  > Ultimately SF and the Bay Area seem to have enough wealthy corporations that, if someone were able to support it, it could totally work. Isn't central SF - presumably the location that homeless people for various reasons prefer to be located in - so expensive that even software developers employed by these companies on salaries north of $100k per annum feel they're being priced out of it?
  - wbl 11y ago
    There is a unique area known as the Tenderloin which only has SROs, and is much cheaper.
    - fredkbloggs 11y ago
      The TL does not have only SROs, and SROs do exist elsewhere. SROs are also not especially cheap; for example, the Adrian Hotel rents SROs for $700 a week (http://sfhomeless.wikia.com/wiki/Adrian_Hotel http://sfhomeless.wikia.com/wiki/Adrian_Hotel). Of course many SRO residents also receive subsidies of various kinds.
    - fragmede 11y ago
      A Craigslist housing search limited to the TL shows only 2 listings for under $1500/month. Most are closer to $2000/month. The TL's cheaper, sure, but still rather expensive. http://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/sfc/apa?nh=156&maxAsk=1500 http://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/sfc/apa?nh=156&maxAsk=150...
  - mpdehaan2 11y ago
    I'm kind of positing something that won't happen. Like someone like Ellison or Page or Musk builds a big tower or buys up several blocks, maybe it's not even downtown. OTOH, people would also want to live there with other people and other root cause problems would have to be addressed for many. So you might need many of these scattered around, and would need to figure out NIMBY factors. But yeah, the idea is someone else would need to front that bill.
Raphmedia 11y ago
I know homeless people that migrate from Québec to BC every summer to work in the fields. There are also a lot of homeless people that moves north from Montréal. They are quite mobile but only if there is a reason to. Good housing is a big reason and I'm sure many of them will consider moving there.
- pjonesdotca 11y ago
  I seriously doubt there will be any significant migration to Medicine Hat just for the free housing.

zo1 11y ago

Or when more well off people move to that city, and then magically... become homeless. Just so they could get free housing or whatever. There will always be people trying to game things, even for marginal benefit.

pjonesdotca 11y ago
I find the people that think this way are themselves the ones who look to game systems
- zo1 11y ago
  As if the observation matters, or says anything about the topic being discussed. Essentially boiling down to some sort of cheap ad-hominem. However, in the overall hierarchy of how much I value people, I place the well-being of the people I love, and myself, above all the rest. And I'm not afraid to admit that.

learnstats2 11y ago

Thanks for asking this question, it helped me to reach an understanding. If (although it's quite a big if) homeless people from other cities move to Medicine Hat, that means the problem of homelessness in other cities is reduced. Is that a bad thing? I claim: not in any way. Other cities should easily recognise the benefits, in that case. The federal government should be happy to pay for this and similar projects in other cities.

philh 11y ago
> Is that a bad thing? I claim: not in any way. It seems like a bad thing for Medicine Hat, which makes it a bad thing for the future of initiatives like this. (However, another possible scenario: some homeless people move to Medicine Hat, and Medicine Hat is still better off than it was before because it's better to have the greater numbers in houses, than the smaller number on the streets.)

bayesianhorse 11y ago

Considering that they have to almost force them into these houses, there's a pretty good chance this won't happen in any significant amount...