How California Homelessness Became a Crisis(npr.org)
npr.org
How California Homelessness Became a Crisis
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2021/06/08/1003982733/squalor-behind-the-golden-gate-confronting-californias-homelessness-crisis
93 comments
A thing I haven't heard addressed: housing is more than walls. Building houses also requires more utilities, more schools, and above all more roads. San Francisco currently has the 7th worst traffic in the US. If you build more walls for people to live in, will the rest of the city's resources be able to keep up?
I realize that we're talking about a situation where people are already living there and putting strains on those resources even if they don't have walls around them. And we do want them to have those walls, to keep them safe and make the city more livable for everybody.
But San Francisco especially is simply limited in where you can build more roads (and schools and playgrounds and other things). Even if we could create new housing with the snap of a finger, wouldn't the city still have enormous resource problems?
I'd expect a city that wants to build new housing would demand a charge to help cover those costs. That's going to make the housing more expensive. So would it actually end up solving any of the problems of homelessness?
(I do apologize that "just asking questions" often looks insincere. I don't live in SF and I'm not an expert on housing or homelessness. You seem to know what you're talking about and I'd be interested in filling in these gaps.)
I realize that we're talking about a situation where people are already living there and putting strains on those resources even if they don't have walls around them. And we do want them to have those walls, to keep them safe and make the city more livable for everybody.
But San Francisco especially is simply limited in where you can build more roads (and schools and playgrounds and other things). Even if we could create new housing with the snap of a finger, wouldn't the city still have enormous resource problems?
I'd expect a city that wants to build new housing would demand a charge to help cover those costs. That's going to make the housing more expensive. So would it actually end up solving any of the problems of homelessness?
(I do apologize that "just asking questions" often looks insincere. I don't live in SF and I'm not an expert on housing or homelessness. You seem to know what you're talking about and I'd be interested in filling in these gaps.)
SF being the tech capital of the world is going to have a very high amount of workers who are now remote. This creates a unique opportunity to build more housing that can use the existing now less utilized infrastructure. The then higher ratio of workers paying taxes to infrastructure should allow additional improvements to that infrastructure.
Most homeless people can build their own houses/shelters. But cities should provide access points for water, electricity and other utilities. And it should be illegal to bulldoze structure where somebody lives!
> it should be illegal to bulldoze structure where somebody lives!
This seems pretty obviously like a bad idea to me. What's to stop someone from erecting a large structure inside a public park, stealing the right to use that land from the public and taking it for themselves?
Having lived in Seattle until very recently, I can attest first hand that the answer to that question is: nothing. So your assertion here seems like it would lead to a state where the first person to create a structure on public land and live in it effectively converts that land into their own private property. To be frank, that is absurd.
This seems pretty obviously like a bad idea to me. What's to stop someone from erecting a large structure inside a public park, stealing the right to use that land from the public and taking it for themselves?
Having lived in Seattle until very recently, I can attest first hand that the answer to that question is: nothing. So your assertion here seems like it would lead to a state where the first person to create a structure on public land and live in it effectively converts that land into their own private property. To be frank, that is absurd.
No, they would not live there indefinitely. California has eviction process for tenants.
> it should be illegal to bulldoze structure where somebody lives!
If you buy an empty lot as an investment, and then the city grows and you want to sell that lot so that a developer can build a high-rise, you want to stop them? I mean unless you want to ban ownership of land then you are in a tricky resource. What if someone builds a lean-to in your hedge?
If anything, maybe we need to zone areas for improvised housing. Would make it easier to police for violence and to provide access to community resources.
If you buy an empty lot as an investment, and then the city grows and you want to sell that lot so that a developer can build a high-rise, you want to stop them? I mean unless you want to ban ownership of land then you are in a tricky resource. What if someone builds a lean-to in your hedge?
If anything, maybe we need to zone areas for improvised housing. Would make it easier to police for violence and to provide access to community resources.
New development already has to follow rules to prevent gentrification.
I don't buy the "just build more" approach. More market rate housing isn't guaranteed to make it affordable, and there is even evidence to suggest otherwise. The principle of induced demand seems to occur here. One way that supply and demand helps the problem is that some move elsewhere for better opportunity.
If the population of California were to grow by 35% in the next 30 years but only 5% more housing units were built - do you posit the housing prices would get more expensive or less?
That is pretty much what has happened. It is clear building more lowers the average. Keep in mind that homeless people may not have even been in "affordable housing" five years ago! Imagine how much better financial situation someone who lost their job last year would be in this year if they had been paying $1000 rent instead of $1400 for five years. Sure they would have spent slightly more in other areas - but they also would have saved more on average and have more fallback.
That is pretty much what has happened. It is clear building more lowers the average. Keep in mind that homeless people may not have even been in "affordable housing" five years ago! Imagine how much better financial situation someone who lost their job last year would be in this year if they had been paying $1000 rent instead of $1400 for five years. Sure they would have spent slightly more in other areas - but they also would have saved more on average and have more fallback.
The marginal economic model of housing is much easier to explain. If I were to bulldoze a million houses, what would happen to the price of houses?
Now what happens if I build a million houses?
Now what happens if I build a million houses?
100% agree.
I understand induced demand can exist but this is a second order effect that is clearly far less impactful than the first order effect of supply and demand.
I understand induced demand can exist but this is a second order effect that is clearly far less impactful than the first order effect of supply and demand.
Another thing that will reduce prices is to reduce desirability. Growing the population by another 30% might be good for bar crowd, but will degrade the value of the bay area's natural areas for many. The increased traffic in the bay area has also reduced livability. Living is SF and commuting to Apple by bus is only sustainable if we get many more people to commute by bus (not just FAANG employees). I see almost nothing being done to solve congestion problems and this is intimately tied to housing and population growth. Unfortunately we are squandering resources on HSR.
Please show me that evidence, because I have seen otherwise, and a basic understanding of supply and demand leads to the default assumption that increased supply will lower costs.
The ONLY way to make housing affordable to make market rate housing affordable. That means you need to build enough that they are forced to lower prices. Couple this with a vacancy tax to prevent manipulative property management tactics, and there is no logical reason why increased supply would not lower prices.
Here is a paper addressing many concerns of "supply skeptics" : https://furmancenter.org/files/Supply_Skepticism_-_Final.pdf
The ONLY way to make housing affordable to make market rate housing affordable. That means you need to build enough that they are forced to lower prices. Couple this with a vacancy tax to prevent manipulative property management tactics, and there is no logical reason why increased supply would not lower prices.
Here is a paper addressing many concerns of "supply skeptics" : https://furmancenter.org/files/Supply_Skepticism_-_Final.pdf
And yet we also have a massive under-occupancy in some areas of LA cough Venice Beach cough Mar Vista cough where a lot of homes are owned by corporations for occasional use by traveling employees, people in other countries parking finances here, or people who AirBnB them for 180 days/year.
In one block where I was working in Mar Vista, four older homes have been knocked down to build McMansions in the past year. All four are owned by LLCs, and all four are vacant.
As for homelessness, we could solve a significant chunk of the problem by having decent healthcare/insurance available to people. I know two people - who had insurance - who ended up losing their houses due to healthcare expenses.
Of course, the above personal experience should be tagged as "anecdotal" not "evidential."
In one block where I was working in Mar Vista, four older homes have been knocked down to build McMansions in the past year. All four are owned by LLCs, and all four are vacant.
As for homelessness, we could solve a significant chunk of the problem by having decent healthcare/insurance available to people. I know two people - who had insurance - who ended up losing their houses due to healthcare expenses.
Of course, the above personal experience should be tagged as "anecdotal" not "evidential."
There is not widespread vacancy. Aggregate vacancy rates are at all-time lows statewide. There may be small jurisdictions with exceptional vacancy rates but if you are going to claim them please bring some hard evidence so we can evaluate the claims.
In my city NIMBYs are always making shit up about vacant buildings but it never turns out to be objectively true. One of their favorite targets that they always point to as "vacant luxury towers" is in reality 97% occupied. So, please don't throw out vacancy trutherism unless you are prepared to back it up.
In my city NIMBYs are always making shit up about vacant buildings but it never turns out to be objectively true. One of their favorite targets that they always point to as "vacant luxury towers" is in reality 97% occupied. So, please don't throw out vacancy trutherism unless you are prepared to back it up.
Like I said, this is anecdotal. I'm anything but a NIMBY, though. I want them to build homeless shelters in my neighborhood. We desperately need affordable housing.
The vacancy-rate statistics do not back this up. Compare the residential vacancy rates for California vs the US as a whole: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CARVAC and https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/USRVAC . Every city has some vacant properties, due to turnover and renovations and other factors.
I wish they weren't zoning more single family homes but the true vacancy is not a few empty houses but the fact that the houses are not apartment complexes.
The vertical space is the true vacancy. When people say the LA vacancy rate is higher than the homeless rate this implies A) apartments empty because they are switching leases or getting renovated are usable (they aren't) and B) also implies that everyone who wants their own housing has it (not true - plenty of young people are living at home and plenty of people are crammed into apartments with strangers they don't want to be).
Until you build enough housing for everyone who wants a house there isn't enough housing.
The vertical space is the true vacancy. When people say the LA vacancy rate is higher than the homeless rate this implies A) apartments empty because they are switching leases or getting renovated are usable (they aren't) and B) also implies that everyone who wants their own housing has it (not true - plenty of young people are living at home and plenty of people are crammed into apartments with strangers they don't want to be).
Until you build enough housing for everyone who wants a house there isn't enough housing.
> before someone mentions "mental illness" and "drugs"
they should also consider that the Nordic countries also have those problems but much fewer homeless. We don't have resources to treat all people with mental illness.
The main difference to Denmark is that the city must find housing for homeless people (by law) and they get enough money to not descend into a hole they cannot get out of.
they should also consider that the Nordic countries also have those problems but much fewer homeless. We don't have resources to treat all people with mental illness.
The main difference to Denmark is that the city must find housing for homeless people (by law) and they get enough money to not descend into a hole they cannot get out of.
Denmark is small and they have enforceable borders.
Calif can’t tell someone from Nevada or New Mexico, don’t come here. Regardless of origin, Calif is saddled with dealing with the homeless. Denmark can contain the issue.
Calif can’t tell someone from Nevada or New Mexico, don’t come here. Regardless of origin, Calif is saddled with dealing with the homeless. Denmark can contain the issue.
Size is irrelevant (less people = less resources to take care of less homeless) and Denmark is part of the Schengen area.
I find it offensive when people bring up mental illness and drugs as the cause of homelessness in areas where housing is so expensive. Like - are we expecting people who have been on the streets for a year to be able to get off drugs and instantly walk into a job making 45k a year?
Trailer parks get made fun of but they often cost only a few hundred dollars a month so a person can be in and out of work there to either save or as a stop-gap if they are running out of money. There is no option in California for those with no savings and whose problems have caused them to be out of work for awhile - other than rely on the generosity of others and the state.
Trailer parks get made fun of but they often cost only a few hundred dollars a month so a person can be in and out of work there to either save or as a stop-gap if they are running out of money. There is no option in California for those with no savings and whose problems have caused them to be out of work for awhile - other than rely on the generosity of others and the state.
The real issue is conversations that talk about a single cause or single solution. There are lots of causes that need to be addressed and solved separately.
But what happens is one person says “build more housing” and another person says “the park near me is full of people who intentionally live on the street!” And you just end up with these intractable conversations where everyone talks past each other.
Humans are bad at nuance
But what happens is one person says “build more housing” and another person says “the park near me is full of people who intentionally live on the street!” And you just end up with these intractable conversations where everyone talks past each other.
Humans are bad at nuance
Exactly. To be fair, though, people working on homelessness are fully aware of the complexity, it's just everyday conversations that are not nuanced at all.
I'm cool with that as long as its greater than 20 miles from my house, says everyone.
I think 2008 had a massive impact on California that hasn't really been accounted for. Add to that, and the article points this out, wages aren't tracking with the price of goods and I think this has an oversized impact in a state like California that has such a high out-of-state and out-of-country interest in living here.
I'm also concerned that Newsom is planning spend $12 billion but barely make a dent in the problem itself; particularly when HUD puts the cost at solving homelessness in the United States as a whole at $20 billion. This is another "consultant giveaway" that Newsom and the state of California are particularly good at.
Meanwhile, the street that our company is on is literally _filled_ back to back with RVs, litter, crime and literal human waste running down the gutters. It's beyond frustrating.
I'm also concerned that Newsom is planning spend $12 billion but barely make a dent in the problem itself; particularly when HUD puts the cost at solving homelessness in the United States as a whole at $20 billion. This is another "consultant giveaway" that Newsom and the state of California are particularly good at.
Meanwhile, the street that our company is on is literally _filled_ back to back with RVs, litter, crime and literal human waste running down the gutters. It's beyond frustrating.
[deleted]
There are three kinds of people experiencing homelessness in SF:
Drug addicts, who settle in the Bay Area because it is Paradise On Earth for drug addiction. Drugs are cheap and plentiful. Dealers transact unmolested in broad daylight in front of apathetic cops. Needles are provided by the government free of charge. Tents can be pitched on just about any sidewalk. Drug use does not even need to be discreet -- anyone who walks in SF for more than a few hours will run across someone injecting or freebasing. It's not just the Tenderloin either.
The mentally ill, who cannot take advantage of services that exist to help them. There are individuals who are so out of it, so schizophrenic etc., that the only way they will ever be helped is if someone physically forces them into an institution. And can you imagine the response of SF constituents if such a policy was enacted? Totally impossible. One cell phone video of a capture gone wrong and it's over.
And lastly, there are tons of people who are 100% content with living on the streets by choice. There have always been transients in society who adopt this lifestyle, in every era of history. It's basically urban camping! No job, no responsibilities. It's a beautiful place with amazing weather. If all of Earth could easily navigate to the Bay Area, you could fill this city to the brim with people who'd "hobo" it by choice.
There MUST be a fourth type. The person who is on the street due to financial misfortune, who had horrible luck and found themselves in a spot they couldn't get out of. Statistically this has to exist. And we need to make sure those people get a ladder somehow to climb themselves out. Absolutely.
But to pretend that this fourth type is all that exists? Or that it's the majority?
Not even close.
Drug addicts, who settle in the Bay Area because it is Paradise On Earth for drug addiction. Drugs are cheap and plentiful. Dealers transact unmolested in broad daylight in front of apathetic cops. Needles are provided by the government free of charge. Tents can be pitched on just about any sidewalk. Drug use does not even need to be discreet -- anyone who walks in SF for more than a few hours will run across someone injecting or freebasing. It's not just the Tenderloin either.
The mentally ill, who cannot take advantage of services that exist to help them. There are individuals who are so out of it, so schizophrenic etc., that the only way they will ever be helped is if someone physically forces them into an institution. And can you imagine the response of SF constituents if such a policy was enacted? Totally impossible. One cell phone video of a capture gone wrong and it's over.
And lastly, there are tons of people who are 100% content with living on the streets by choice. There have always been transients in society who adopt this lifestyle, in every era of history. It's basically urban camping! No job, no responsibilities. It's a beautiful place with amazing weather. If all of Earth could easily navigate to the Bay Area, you could fill this city to the brim with people who'd "hobo" it by choice.
There MUST be a fourth type. The person who is on the street due to financial misfortune, who had horrible luck and found themselves in a spot they couldn't get out of. Statistically this has to exist. And we need to make sure those people get a ladder somehow to climb themselves out. Absolutely.
But to pretend that this fourth type is all that exists? Or that it's the majority?
Not even close.
I live in the Bay Area and I have multiple friends that are homeless so let me comment here. A lot of the homeless are on disability due to some physical issue that prevents working , or are seniors. The social security checks do not pay the bills and you need an under the table side hustle in the bay to afford a room and be on social security checks. The section 8 waitlist is years long and you have to “scam” yourself in by saying you are a drug addict when you aren’t. There’s another large category of working class people in the bay that have a job but can’t afford to rent a room in a house . Or they had a job, lost it, and didn’t immediately find a new job. This comment above is extremely ignorant to the situation. Did you know that a lot of these tent camps have a months long waitlist ?
> A lot of the homeless are on disability due to some physical issue that prevents working , or are seniors. The social security checks do not pay the bills and you need an under the table side hustle in the bay to afford a room and be on social security checks.
Naive follow-up question: why does such a person need to live in the bay area? If you're living off disability, why would you try to do it in the most expensive place in the country? Is community that important?
Naive follow-up question: why does such a person need to live in the bay area? If you're living off disability, why would you try to do it in the most expensive place in the country? Is community that important?
The explanation I got was that you can't live outside in many other locales and that the cheaper places cut the social security low enough that it's hard to live there too. The social services and weather situation here is such that from a healthcare and social security check perspective it works out better and is less risky to the tenuously housed.
If you're homeless, what else do you have?
I think the literal answer is that if you move somewhere else, you can have a home? There's something about the circular logic of "I don't have a home, but I have friends" --> "I can never leave this place with friends" --> "I don't have a home ..." that requires the person to either lack any kind of long-term planning or place a really high weight on their current friend circle. Or maybe I'm just clueless about how hard it is to save social security/disability income in that situation.
I realize this line of inquiry sounds callous ("why can't they just save some money?"), but I genuinely don't follow why somebody with a regular income who's not tied to the bay area by a) drug addiction, or b) a job would put up with homelessness to stay there.
I realize this line of inquiry sounds callous ("why can't they just save some money?"), but I genuinely don't follow why somebody with a regular income who's not tied to the bay area by a) drug addiction, or b) a job would put up with homelessness to stay there.
The interesting thing about your comment is it doesn't actually contradict what I said unless you are claiming your friends represent the majority of those experiencing homelessness. Is that what you're claiming?
It actually does in several respects. You didn't capture the homeless working class, the homeless social security / retirees, and the folks with physical disabilities (you only brought up mental illness). The comment you have made in my opinion vastly overstates the drugs and mental illness aspects and vastly understates the number of people that (1) work at regular jobs and are still homeless, (2) the number of seniors that are homeless, and (3) The folks with physical disabilities, for example chronic physical conditions.
> The social security checks do not pay the bills and you need an under the table side hustle in the bay to afford a room and be on social security checks.
I find this confusing because you seem to imply that having an income makes you ineligible for social security retirement benefits. But as long as you are 65, you're eligible without income caps. There's no requirement that you're not working.
Social security disability checks do require that you're not working. Is that what you're talking about?
I find this confusing because you seem to imply that having an income makes you ineligible for social security retirement benefits. But as long as you are 65, you're eligible without income caps. There's no requirement that you're not working.
Social security disability checks do require that you're not working. Is that what you're talking about?
In a lot of cases they are social security disability checks and the side hustles I see most frequently are table vendors or musicians
I assume you can provide some data to back up the assertion that "it's not even close?"
What data would you look for to confirm the claim, and what data would you loom for to reject the claim?
Well, something stronger than "everyone knows this."
It's a notoriously difficult thing to study, but you can get some answers by looking at tangential studies to see correlation between housing prices and homelessness, e.g., https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ucla-anderson-forecas... or studies showing a majority of the unhoused in California worked here before becoming homeless https://www.capolicylab.org/employment-among-la-county-resid...
It's a notoriously difficult thing to study, but you can get some answers by looking at tangential studies to see correlation between housing prices and homelessness, e.g., https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ucla-anderson-forecas... or studies showing a majority of the unhoused in California worked here before becoming homeless https://www.capolicylab.org/employment-among-la-county-resid...
I wish I did. A city that is so incompetent as to let this situation arise in the first place cannot be trusted to honestly & accurately account for the root cause of the problem. I want a good source for data that doesn't come in the form of a far-left/right propaganda piece. And if I am wrong I will be HAPPY as hell to be wrong.
Gosh, your handwaving is almost as convincing as all the hard data available on the causes of homelessness in California. Such as: https://everyonehome.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2019HIRD...
There is no strong separation between 3/4 of your categories. People freely move from financial misfortune to mental illness to drug abuse. I'm sure you have the empathy to imagine the toll being homeless takes on your mental health, and in turn the difficulty with holding down stable employment when you have mental health problems. Drug addiction is of course a mental health issue, not something to be moralized - it's long past time to leave the war on drugs mindset in the past. So developing a drug addiction is a similarly high risk factor for the unhoused. Then you're really screwed. Thinking people with severe drug addictions are living in "paradise" in SF is extremely out-of-touch.
All of this is a cycle, of course. Drug addiction will lead to financial misfortune, as will mental health issues.
The solution to homelessness is to build free socialized housing, lots of it, with integrated mental health treatment.
All of this is a cycle, of course. Drug addiction will lead to financial misfortune, as will mental health issues.
The solution to homelessness is to build free socialized housing, lots of it, with integrated mental health treatment.
Saas_sam is exactly right. Why is it so unbearable to deal with this truth.
You know what's weird? I spent part of my morning thinking about "time is a flat circle" today. I swear, the serendipity sometimes in daily life is wild.
I wouldn't claim that the 4 type is the only type to exist. But I would claim 2 things. (completely unsubstantiated)
First, You can shift classification over time. An example might be drug use inducing mental illness, moving from 1 to 2.
Second, I'd claim a lot (most? almost all?) of homeless spent time in group 4. I think if I exhausted my options, or willpower, I'd probably go all in on group 1, probably develop some group 2 characteristics and resign myself to group 3.
I think there's a desire to focus on group 4, because that's the cheapest and easiest to fix. The other groups are far, far more effort. It may not be an optimal strategy, but identifying and resolving group 4 quickly seems like a big win. Slows the rate of growth of groups 1-3.
First, You can shift classification over time. An example might be drug use inducing mental illness, moving from 1 to 2.
Second, I'd claim a lot (most? almost all?) of homeless spent time in group 4. I think if I exhausted my options, or willpower, I'd probably go all in on group 1, probably develop some group 2 characteristics and resign myself to group 3.
I think there's a desire to focus on group 4, because that's the cheapest and easiest to fix. The other groups are far, far more effort. It may not be an optimal strategy, but identifying and resolving group 4 quickly seems like a big win. Slows the rate of growth of groups 1-3.
When was "experiencing homelessness" term established as the norm? what's wrong with just "homeless"?
Nothing is really “wrong” with it. However the change reframes homelessness as a temporary state a person experiences rather than a persistent identity of the individual.
Nobody thinks that homeless is something that can't be changed. The only reason to update language like this is to divide people and induce us and them behaviour.
"Making language clearer doesn't hurt"
Well, it does in this case, since it gives people the false belief that those who didn't update their language actually believes that homeless people can't be helped. That phenomena can then be studied by social scientists, creating articles about how some group views homelessness as a permanent state and that is the reason for all the problems...
"Making language clearer doesn't hurt"
Well, it does in this case, since it gives people the false belief that those who didn't update their language actually believes that homeless people can't be helped. That phenomena can then be studied by social scientists, creating articles about how some group views homelessness as a permanent state and that is the reason for all the problems...
I disagree with these kinds of reframing attempts for a couple of reasons but most of all i dislike this trend of constantly convoluting everything with "identity". Being homeless describes the state a person is in, not who they are, even though some people chose to be homeless.
My guess is the phrasing is meant to de-emphasize the permanency of homelessness - a lot of working class people drift in and out of homelessness. In order to better the situation you need to have it properly understood and analyzed.
I think the term "unhoused" had a similar goal but avoided the immediacy of "homeless" and was thus ineffective.
I think the term "unhoused" had a similar goal but avoided the immediacy of "homeless" and was thus ineffective.
Doesn't that put a label on temporarily homeless people, like people with experience in homelessness, which they can't get rid off. Being homeless ends the second you're not homeless anymore.
the term "unhoused" suffers from the same thing, it's just not precise.
the term "unhoused" suffers from the same thing, it's just not precise.
I don’t think this phrasing is the worst progressive “improvement” in language (that award goes to “Latinx”, seriously please stop using this), but it is kind of awkward and the standard is not applied evenly. We don’t say someone is “experiencing hunger”, we say they’re hungry, despite hunger typically being a temporary condition.
Edit: your point about the need to understand the background level of housing instability in less well off population is completely valid. I don’t think people understand the extent to which large portions of the working poor continually cycle through housing crises.
Edit 2: My broader point is that if you do consider educating people about the true facts/nature of homelessness in US cities, you should seriously question how much using the preferred progressive phrasing actually accomplishes that goal vs just making you sound elitist. Even under the most generous interpretation, there is nothing in the plain language of the phrase “experiencing X” as compared to the adjective form of X that even attempts confer any information as to whether X is a temporary or permanent condition. This is an an attempt to use language as a form of persuasion that does not even try to engage with the basic reality of how people are going to respond to that language. There are already predefined ways in English to denote temporary vs permanent, “chronic “ and “acute” would be appropriate in a scholarly context, “short-term”/“temporary” and “long-term”/“permanent” work perfectly fine in casual conversation.
Edit: your point about the need to understand the background level of housing instability in less well off population is completely valid. I don’t think people understand the extent to which large portions of the working poor continually cycle through housing crises.
Edit 2: My broader point is that if you do consider educating people about the true facts/nature of homelessness in US cities, you should seriously question how much using the preferred progressive phrasing actually accomplishes that goal vs just making you sound elitist. Even under the most generous interpretation, there is nothing in the plain language of the phrase “experiencing X” as compared to the adjective form of X that even attempts confer any information as to whether X is a temporary or permanent condition. This is an an attempt to use language as a form of persuasion that does not even try to engage with the basic reality of how people are going to respond to that language. There are already predefined ways in English to denote temporary vs permanent, “chronic “ and “acute” would be appropriate in a scholarly context, “short-term”/“temporary” and “long-term”/“permanent” work perfectly fine in casual conversation.
In some romance languages "having hunger" is literally how one expresses that someone is hungry...
German too: "Ich habe hunger."
You could say "Ich bin hungrig." (I'm being hungry) but nobody does that.
You could say "Ich bin hungrig." (I'm being hungry) but nobody does that.
Yes, for example “tengo hambre" in Spanish. But the point is how are we using English to convey these things
Because the lack of housing should not be an identity that we assign to the women, men and children who happen to be going through a rough time in life. They are—first and foremost—human beings. Losing sight of that can lead to dehumanization which can then exacerbate the issue.
To say someone is homeless is not assigning an identity, it's just describing the state they're in.
I'm overweight. To describe me as overweight is accurate, and I wouldn't think you were saying that it's my identity. To describe me as "experiencing obesity" just sounds silly and changes absolutely nothing.
I'm overweight. To describe me as overweight is accurate, and I wouldn't think you were saying that it's my identity. To describe me as "experiencing obesity" just sounds silly and changes absolutely nothing.
The English copula is frankly a mess that does among other things, assign identity and class membership. It's completely ok to use a verb which specifically indicates class membership in an unambiguous way.
In nice weather homelessness is bearable. But californian cities must provide basic sanitation facilities. And maybe some UBI for food, $1000/month should do.
No, California needs to treat it like the medical health crisis it is. If a 8 year old kid is on the streets, we don't focus on how to make it nicer to live on the street for them, we put them in long term care (foster care). It's immoral what California is doing for many of these people who either have debilitating mental illness or have fallen deep into drug use. It's time to reopen the asylums, run them properly, maybe rename them to something more politically correct.
That being said there are also people who are just down on their luck, but the solutions to their problems are very different then the long term homeless. Job programs, transition housing, actually building enough housing to meet demand, and UBI will help them.
That being said there are also people who are just down on their luck, but the solutions to their problems are very different then the long term homeless. Job programs, transition housing, actually building enough housing to meet demand, and UBI will help them.
About 3x the number of homeless individuals in New York (state) vs Florida despite roughly similar overall populations, and I don’t think it’s because of how nice or not the weather is in NY!
I was once homeless in California, strung out on drugs and alcohol, unable to quit or even think about getting treatment for that and my bipolar disorder. It is my opinion that we need to go back to locking people up and forcing them into treatment for their own good. It is inhumane to leave helpless people out on the street because of some abstract concept of personal rights. I understand the motivation of mental health advocates who argue that the government has no right to force people into treatment, but it really is counter-productive. I wish I had been locked up for my own good. I was rescued by the good people at the veterans administration.
I'm not going to pretend I know a solution to this, but wasn't part of the reason it became hard to involuntarily commit people because it was being abused? Like, fathers were getting their daughters committed for being "too promiscuous"?
If that's a serious risk, I don't know that the "solution" to this problem by committing people is worth it.
That said, it's a hard problem. I know it's extremely hard for people without a yuppie income to get mental health treatment in the United States. I know before I got a high-paying desk job, I realized I had some form of manic depression, wanted treatment, but also could not afford to see a therapist because my health plan did not cover mental healthcare and my job didn't pay particularly well. It became this chicken-egg problem: it was hard to find a better job because of the depressive episodes, but I couldn't treat them without getting a better job. I can only imagine that stuff like schizophrenia and drug addiction (which I luckily have not suffered from) is exponentially more difficult to deal with.
If that's a serious risk, I don't know that the "solution" to this problem by committing people is worth it.
That said, it's a hard problem. I know it's extremely hard for people without a yuppie income to get mental health treatment in the United States. I know before I got a high-paying desk job, I realized I had some form of manic depression, wanted treatment, but also could not afford to see a therapist because my health plan did not cover mental healthcare and my job didn't pay particularly well. It became this chicken-egg problem: it was hard to find a better job because of the depressive episodes, but I couldn't treat them without getting a better job. I can only imagine that stuff like schizophrenia and drug addiction (which I luckily have not suffered from) is exponentially more difficult to deal with.
Is mental health treatment not covered in a lot of health plans?
I'm not a fan of involuntarily committing people. But I do want to make it as easy (and as cheap) as possible to get good mental treatment if they need it. I've seen the results of good therapists, and it is no less impactful than a good surgeon.
I'm not a fan of involuntarily committing people. But I do want to make it as easy (and as cheap) as possible to get good mental treatment if they need it. I've seen the results of good therapists, and it is no less impactful than a good surgeon.
In a sister reply apparently it's not hard to get mental health treatment in California, so I won't speak to that. Where I lived (and currently live) in NYC, it was hard for me to find cheap therapy, as it does not appear they require mental health plans in the insurance (though I'm not a lawyer, so maybe there's more recent legislation).
There are free clinics for it, and of course those are good things and the doctors there are doing the lord's work, but they're extremely backed up. I looked to make an appointment at the time, and the soonest one was four months away. Compare this to the two-day wait I had when I finally did manage to get better insurance.
There are free clinics for it, and of course those are good things and the doctors there are doing the lord's work, but they're extremely backed up. I looked to make an appointment at the time, and the soonest one was four months away. Compare this to the two-day wait I had when I finally did manage to get better insurance.
> there's more recent legislation
California decided it liked Obamacare and the idea of Medicare for all, so I think that's when they made Covered California available for people who couldn't otherwise afford it. It might actually save money because there are less emergency room visits.
California decided it liked Obamacare and the idea of Medicare for all, so I think that's when they made Covered California available for people who couldn't otherwise afford it. It might actually save money because there are less emergency room visits.
> Like, fathers were getting their daughters committed for being "too promiscuous"?
That's a really old-fashioned concern. It used to happen in the 50's and 60's, but patient rights have come a long way since then. The most anyone can do in CA is 5150 a relative, which is a 72 hour hold. That's not done more often because in 3 days and they're out on the street again, refusing to take meds. Mental health pros need to be able to hold someone longer and force a 30 day injection of psych meds. Paranoid schizophrenics usually won't take their meds because they don't trust the system naturally. They are unable to make a rational choice (obviously) So we just abandon them and ignore them.
> extremely hard for people without a yuppie income to get mental health treatment in the United States
Not in California. Impoverished people have access to basic free health care with Covered California. The mental health people I talked to at the local hospital were very well qualified. Too bad I was too screwed up to listen to them.
That's a really old-fashioned concern. It used to happen in the 50's and 60's, but patient rights have come a long way since then. The most anyone can do in CA is 5150 a relative, which is a 72 hour hold. That's not done more often because in 3 days and they're out on the street again, refusing to take meds. Mental health pros need to be able to hold someone longer and force a 30 day injection of psych meds. Paranoid schizophrenics usually won't take their meds because they don't trust the system naturally. They are unable to make a rational choice (obviously) So we just abandon them and ignore them.
> extremely hard for people without a yuppie income to get mental health treatment in the United States
Not in California. Impoverished people have access to basic free health care with Covered California. The mental health people I talked to at the local hospital were very well qualified. Too bad I was too screwed up to listen to them.
My gf has Covered California insurance and it is terrible. In particular, 1) very few doctors are in network, so she can't see the specialist she needs and 2) the customer service is a joke; when she calls she spends an hour on hold, and the reps never have any idea what's going on. Would not recommend (she is self-employed, so her options are limited).
I'm not from the States and that's probably why I have this impression that the States talk a lot about respecting their veterans yet do very little to actually support them. I mean, stuff beyond thoughts and prayers.
I think the VA does a good job. There are veterans who are on the street and there are veterans who commit suicide everyday. People look at that and think we don't do enough for veterans. There is another explanation and that is sadly, some veterans can't be helped, like a friend of mine who shot a kid in Iraq and couldn't get over it. He was on a suicide mission with drugs and alcohol. He didn't stay in treatment with me and I lost track of him.
Appreciate your speaking up with an unpopular opinion; I fear coerced treatments because individuals vary more than medical practice allows for.
For example, there's people for whom opioids do not provide any pain relief; but try getting a doctor to understand that you're one of those people. You'll get the opiate pills prescribed anyway, and noted as a foolish drug seeker to boot.
For example, there's people for whom opioids do not provide any pain relief; but try getting a doctor to understand that you're one of those people. You'll get the opiate pills prescribed anyway, and noted as a foolish drug seeker to boot.
There's always going to be issues like this. They can be solved. We shouldn't let smaller issues cloud our judgement about the larger issue, which is that woman screaming at the trees was someone's daughter. That man sprawled out naked and drunk in the bushes was once someone with friends and family, all gone now because no one can help him. The state needs to step in and take care of these people, against their will at least until they are well enough to decide for themselves.
And what we have now is a perverse setup where you get locked up after you commit some crime, but get locked up in a prison where little help is provided.
"California homeless are crazy" narrative is tiring and excuse. They are still people and need basic life necessities: toilet, shower and food. Periodic showers improve mental health, there are studies to prove it! After that is solved, we can focus on other issues. And frankly California invented drug culture, it glorifies drugs, why shame homeless?
If Jordan can accept 3 million people, so can California.
If Jordan can accept 3 million people, so can California.
The functional people who become homeless usually don't stay homeless because they are able to take advantage of services. There are some new methods being tried by providing temporary tent cities for these people with showers and such. A strict no drugs or alcohol policy in the tent city. When people speak of "The homeless problem" it's usually in regards to the chronically homeless who are addicted and/or mentally ill who won't stay in these regulated tent cities.
"functional people"? What sort of language is this? Far right BS!
People are people. It is illegal to scan people for drugs on job interview. Taking dump and shower should not require drug scan.
People are people. It is illegal to scan people for drugs on job interview. Taking dump and shower should not require drug scan.
I think one can be generous here and assume the treatment centers mentioned in their comment would have running water, and access to e.g. food.
[deleted]
Whether rent is $1500/ month or $500/ month, I just can't imagine the guy screaming at nobody in particular and swinging a drain pipe at tourists is going to pay for either one of them. This whole attempt to blame raising housing prices for homelessness is absurd.
Housing prices _are_ raising, and homelessness is getting worse, but I think the assertion that it's the primary cause (instead of mental health and substance abuse) is disingenuous.
Housing prices _are_ raising, and homelessness is getting worse, but I think the assertion that it's the primary cause (instead of mental health and substance abuse) is disingenuous.
"a Frankenstein's monster created by mating civil libertarianism with austerity."
— UC San Diego sociologist Neil Gong
They manage to name the two contingents that are out of power and have nothing to do with the crisis, libertarians and advocates of austerity, while leaving aside those who created the situation: progressives.
— UC San Diego sociologist Neil Gong
They manage to name the two contingents that are out of power and have nothing to do with the crisis, libertarians and advocates of austerity, while leaving aside those who created the situation: progressives.
The issue with any paid approach is that surrounding area will begin dumping the local homeless there. Thats where they can "get the help they need" without the locality they are from paying for it. This is a hard problem that looks like it needs a federal solution.
It's crazy to me how expensive it is to live in LA compared with how little i see new construction. The magnitude of the issue really crystalized in my mind when i was talking to a friend who lived in Tokyo, and he mentioned he was paying $900 a month for his flat. It's 40% of what I pay. Housing can't cost this much in cities that people are expected to occupy.
I visited SF ~5 years ago and, coming from Dallas at the time, was shocked at how little construction there was. I think through that whole week I probably saw one sub-skyscraper sized building under construction. Someone from there was like "what are you talking about, haven't you seen downtown?", and I realized how warped their expectations were.
I once toured a homeless shelter in downtown Los Angeles, the guy that ran it said, "see all those people that are sleeping under the awning outside, we're trying to get them to come in and get help, but most of them don't want to come in. Because most of them are addicts and you have to be clean inside here." He said, "I'm on the front lines and I'm telling you right now, 90 percent of the homeless problem is because of drugs and alcohol"
I volunteered at one of the homeless organizations in downtown LA for a while. It's a safety consideration that most shelters require residents to be clean (although some of the shelters are more militant about that than others).
However, just saying "gotta be clean to be in this shelter" doesn't solve the problem. There need to be adequate treatment programs available for drug and alcohol rehab. Those programs have been cut, and private centers cost far more than most unhoused people can afford.
Furthermore, there's a positive feedback loop that needs breaking. The experience of being unhoused can lead to people escaping into drug use, just as excessive drug use can lead to homelessness.
However, just saying "gotta be clean to be in this shelter" doesn't solve the problem. There need to be adequate treatment programs available for drug and alcohol rehab. Those programs have been cut, and private centers cost far more than most unhoused people can afford.
Furthermore, there's a positive feedback loop that needs breaking. The experience of being unhoused can lead to people escaping into drug use, just as excessive drug use can lead to homelessness.
There is a basic accounting truth at the heart of this: If land and housing are good investments -- that is, they return any amount greater than wage growth -- then at some point in the future, wage income workers will not be able to afford housing.
There is no getting around this truth. If housing and real estate are a good investment, eventually all wage income workers will be homeless, or will be forced to leave a region. So we need to make sure as a society that housing and real estate are _not_ good investments.
Prior to the 1980s, real estate was not a very good investment. There might be areas that were great investments, but there was no generalized appreciation in land and housing.
In particular, it's an obvious sign of a broken market when structure prices are appreciating. In a functioning market, structure prices should largely decrease in value over time, with the only exceptions being actual improvements to the property.
All of this is the same point as the article, that the basic issue is supply and demand of housing, and that supply problems are exacerbated by homeowners that have a large financial interest in restricting supply, and lots of tools at their disposal to prevent new housing.
Another important point is that while individuals might be responsible for improvements to structures which increase their utility, aesthetics, or value, in almost every case _land_ value increases are the result of large-scale societal factors, and nothing at all to do with any individual actions.
The question becomes, why as a society should we allow land value increases to be captured by individuals? The land has gained value because of societal changes.
If a new light rail line is developed by local government, land values soar within 4 blocks of the new rail line. Why do we allow that value to be captured by individuals?
If a region has great public universities, and high-paying companies flock to the area to hire those workers, land values soar. Why should individuals capture that value?
Rather than taxing property, we should tax land. Taxing structures creates a perverse incentive against improving structures. And land is the thing that is actually scarce. Taxing land would naturally encourage landowners to build higher densities where land values and demand are high.
And when land is sold, we should tax a very large amount of the appreciation in that land value, perhaps 90%. Society is what earned those gains, and society should reap the reward. Individuals can capture the value of increases on improvements to structures, but there's no reason they should earn a windfall from the societal actions that increased the value of the land.
There is no getting around this truth. If housing and real estate are a good investment, eventually all wage income workers will be homeless, or will be forced to leave a region. So we need to make sure as a society that housing and real estate are _not_ good investments.
Prior to the 1980s, real estate was not a very good investment. There might be areas that were great investments, but there was no generalized appreciation in land and housing.
In particular, it's an obvious sign of a broken market when structure prices are appreciating. In a functioning market, structure prices should largely decrease in value over time, with the only exceptions being actual improvements to the property.
All of this is the same point as the article, that the basic issue is supply and demand of housing, and that supply problems are exacerbated by homeowners that have a large financial interest in restricting supply, and lots of tools at their disposal to prevent new housing.
Another important point is that while individuals might be responsible for improvements to structures which increase their utility, aesthetics, or value, in almost every case _land_ value increases are the result of large-scale societal factors, and nothing at all to do with any individual actions.
The question becomes, why as a society should we allow land value increases to be captured by individuals? The land has gained value because of societal changes.
If a new light rail line is developed by local government, land values soar within 4 blocks of the new rail line. Why do we allow that value to be captured by individuals?
If a region has great public universities, and high-paying companies flock to the area to hire those workers, land values soar. Why should individuals capture that value?
Rather than taxing property, we should tax land. Taxing structures creates a perverse incentive against improving structures. And land is the thing that is actually scarce. Taxing land would naturally encourage landowners to build higher densities where land values and demand are high.
And when land is sold, we should tax a very large amount of the appreciation in that land value, perhaps 90%. Society is what earned those gains, and society should reap the reward. Individuals can capture the value of increases on improvements to structures, but there's no reason they should earn a windfall from the societal actions that increased the value of the land.
In general I agree with you. IMHO there's a big disconnect on how we approach housing based normal market dynamics with the reality where land is a resource that not only is scarce but also keeps getting more scarce over time when you account for population growth and immigration dynamics.
It's crazy how we normalized just sitting on a empty land downtown as a way to accumulate wealth. And not just that, we encourage it as this could very easily outrun any gain you would have by doing constructions on that plot of land. And the cherry on top is that this "investment strategy" is good not just for the owners of the plot of land, but also for all the neighbors that also own land around the area, which make their NIMBY argument a very conflicted one. So I agree that making sure there's no money to capture on this situation is really important.
Another thing that's important to understand is that the use of land also should be adjusted according to the population growth expected. It's ok if you could have a single family home downtown with a huge backyard 50 years ago, it's not ok to have it now while people on the top 1% income struggle to find a place to live with a commute time lower than 60 minutes. If you do want to maintain it you should probably have to pay the difference on taxes based on whatever could be built on that area. You want to have a small house on a place where a 40 apartment building could be built? Fine, pay a property tax for 40 apartments and you're good to go.
Overall I think we approach home ownership as something that should never change after you built it but the very simple fact that lots of these plots of lands we know live on were one day just farms tell you how this is simply not true.
It's crazy how we normalized just sitting on a empty land downtown as a way to accumulate wealth. And not just that, we encourage it as this could very easily outrun any gain you would have by doing constructions on that plot of land. And the cherry on top is that this "investment strategy" is good not just for the owners of the plot of land, but also for all the neighbors that also own land around the area, which make their NIMBY argument a very conflicted one. So I agree that making sure there's no money to capture on this situation is really important.
Another thing that's important to understand is that the use of land also should be adjusted according to the population growth expected. It's ok if you could have a single family home downtown with a huge backyard 50 years ago, it's not ok to have it now while people on the top 1% income struggle to find a place to live with a commute time lower than 60 minutes. If you do want to maintain it you should probably have to pay the difference on taxes based on whatever could be built on that area. You want to have a small house on a place where a 40 apartment building could be built? Fine, pay a property tax for 40 apartments and you're good to go.
Overall I think we approach home ownership as something that should never change after you built it but the very simple fact that lots of these plots of lands we know live on were one day just farms tell you how this is simply not true.
It’s interesting to see numerous comments here advocating for mental asylums. Detaining anyone non-dangerous in the US is unconstitutional - the Supreme Court’s ruling in O'Connor v. Donaldson dates back to 1975. That’s why all those places shut down.
I've worked on Prop HHH and other proposals designed to reduce homelessness in California: https://seliger.com/2017/08/30/l-digs-hole-slowly-economics-..., but none of them work, or can work, without making housing easier to build.
Edit to add: before someone mentions "mental illness" and "drugs" and other contributors to homelessness, yes those are real factors: that said, the lower the cost of housing, the easier it is for someone on the margin of being housed or being homeless to stay housed. The lower the cost, the easier it is for family, SSDI, Section 8, and other income supports to keep a person housed. As the cost of housing goes up, the number of people who fall from the margins of "housed" to "homeless" goes up with it. So yes, mental illness and drug abuse are factors, but they're factors exacerbated by housing costs. They're really red herrings relative to overall housing costs.