California has spent billions to fight homelessness. The problem has gotten worse

[Belsnickel]

(07-12-2023, 02:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Anyone who's dealt with the homeless population knows that this is not an affordable housing issue.  It's not even close.  I'll post a link to a story that some will think actually works against this point.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-07-11/new-book-links-homelessness-city-prosperity

You'll notice that of the top eight, four are in CA, with only one not being on the west coast.  The article notes that the average per capita homeless rate is 2.5.  You'll then notice that the big drivers skewing these numbers upwards are the top four.  All of the top four are deep blue, heavily liberal areas with tons of free programs for the homeless.  This article uses these top four, which all have high housing costs, and uses them to posit that affordable housing is the culprit.  This is a shoddy analysis.  The top two counties have amazing weather, coupled with lots of free services.  Portland and Seattle don't have the nice weather, but, if even possible, have even more free services.  Consequently, these four counties will attract homeless people from across the nation.

In fact, many municipalities literally put homeless people on buses to these areas.  The homeless people are only too happy to go, for the reasons stated above.  I can't tell you how many homeless people I've dealt with that are not native to CA, and were homeless before they came here.  You'll notice FL appears on this list twice, both well under the per capita average.  Florida has nice weather as well, and Miami-Dade is an expensive county to live in.  So why not similar numbers to LA and Santa Clara?  Because FL does not incentivize homelessness and is an increasingly red state.

All of the above adds up to a heavily skewed data set that, in this case, is used to make it look like a affordable housing issue.  It is not.

I am curious about this "incentivization" of homelessness. Do these policies not have a limited timeframe or any sort of requirements such as requiring job hunting, etc.?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-12-2023, 02:36 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I am curious about this "incentivization" of homelessness. Do these policies not have a limited timeframe or any sort of requirements such as requiring job hunting, etc.?

I am not an expert in every single program offered to the homeless, it's not my department.  But many, if not most, programs for the homeless have no time frame or other requirements.  You can find a shelter and free meals every day.  Hell, during covid they were literally supplying people with free motel rooms and bringing them weed and booze.  This article only mentions SF County, but it happened here as well.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/05/13/fact-check-san-francisco-project-room-key-provides-alcohol-tobacco/3111155001/

Also, the scale and amount being mentioned is not truthful, not even close.

[Belsnickel]

(07-12-2023, 02:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I am not an expert in every single program offered to the homeless, it's not my department.  But many, if not most, programs for the homeless have no time frame or other requirements.  You can find a shelter and free meals every day.  Hell, during covid they were literally supplying people with free motel rooms and bringing them weed and booze.  This article only mentions SF County, but it happened here as well.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/05/13/fact-check-san-francisco-project-room-key-provides-alcohol-tobacco/3111155001/

Also, the scale and amount being mentioned is not truthful, not even close.

I am curious, now. If I had a little time I might look for some program assessments for these. I don't know if I will but I am really curious about this. As you may suspect, this isn't my policy wheelhouse but looking at the data on the effectiveness of this is something that would be interesting.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-12-2023, 03:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I am curious, now. If I had a little time I might look for some program assessments for these. I don't know if I will but I am really curious about this. As you may suspect, this isn't my policy wheelhouse but looking at the data on the effectiveness of this is something that would be interesting.

I'd be interested in hearing about what you find.  


You have some odd ways to spend your free time.

[Belsnickel]

(07-12-2023, 03:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'd be interested in hearing about what you find.  


You have some odd ways to spend your free time.

If I had free time I would spend it doing this sort of research. As it is, between everything I have going on I am lucky to find time for some of my responses on here. Honestly, I just enjoy this sort of stuff because it can really impact people. I know you recognize this as a civil servant, but working in government or non-profit isn't about the money for sure. I could make three times my salary with my experience and knowledge in the private sector, but I enjoy what I do. When I finish my masters I am either going to get into a doctoral program or I am going to work in the non-profit sector. I just really dig this stuff.

That being said, while I can apply my skillset to most policy areas, my preferred segment is around conservation and outdoor recreation, especially getting youth into the outdoors. I just have to research all sorts of things for my coursework and also some of the consulting I do.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-12-2023, 07:25 AM)pally Wrote: So what’s the solution?

It’s easy to criticize something but I haven’t seen any alternatives being offered by Republicans.

How do you know what alternatives have been offered by the Republicans in CA? They don’t have a say. Not even a whisper.


“The Assembly consists of 62 Democrats and 18 Republicans, while the Senate is composed of 32 Democrats and 8 Republicans”

Sorry but your beloved party is going to have to take the hit on this one. I know. It’s like the first time you realize your parents aren’t perfect.

[*michaelsean*]

I really want to have a single-minded focus on getting people into permanent housing and I think that is the root of how we end homelessness.

Genius! It’s been right there the whole time.

[samhain]

I have no idea how much of the homeless population it accounts for, but my outside perception of the issue in California is that it's largely due to drug tourism/migration. Every community has some form of drug presence, but from what I've seen, particularly in the Central Valley, it's another case of hard drug decriminalization gone wrong. The camps in the major cities seem similar. I would be shocked if junkies and tweakers aren't moving in from around the country to live in a place where they can freely exist to get high.

I'm heavily pro marijuana legalization for medicinal and recreational purposes. I would also prefer that people that choose to partake do so in their own domiciles. I just never envisioned a world where people could do meth in public without fear of repercussion. That shit is too cheap and easy to produce to be allowed to run rampant in any community.

Some ideas, ie decriminalization of hard drugs, seem like nice concepts until they are seen in practice. Drug addiction doesn't exist in a vacuum. It creates an environment that perpetuates any number of other crimes. It also makes people really reluctant to visit and do business in areas where it's openly occurring.

[Luvnit2]

SF is a sanctuary city and has become a drug haven supplied by dealers from Honduras, Mexico and China. I saw video this week of homeless smoking crack cocaine on the streets right in front of the police. The dealers love it because if they are arrested, they back out next day and rarely go to prison.

The lack of the city of SF to prosecute drug dealers and drug users has turned the city into a crappy city. They literally crap on the streets which is also legal.

SF is an embarrassment to California and the governor has done nothing to improve living conditions in his state. in fact it is declining under his leadership.

Pelosi has down nothing to help her own city prosper and be safe.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-13-2023, 12:09 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: SF is a sanctuary city and has become a drug haven supplied by dealers from Honduras, Mexico and China. I saw video this week of homeless smoking crack cocaine on the streets right in front of the police. The dealers love it because if they are arrested, they back out next day and rarely go to prison.

The lack of the city of SF to prosecute drug dealers and drug users has turned the city into a crappy city. They literally crap on the streets which is also legal.

SF is an embarrassment to California and the governor has done nothing to improve living conditions in his state. in fact it is declining under his leadership.

Pelosi has down nothing to help her own city prosper and be safe.

It's such a cool city too.  Someone needs to figure it out there.  

[BFritz21]

(07-12-2023, 07:25 AM)pally Wrote: So what’s the solution?

It’s easy to criticize something but I haven’t seen any alternatives being offered by Republicans.

Because a high majority (all?) of these hellhole cities are run by Demrocats, who who accuse Republicans of being racist, homophobic, and every other slur in the book, so why would they want or need help from Republicans?

This is what Democrats want: the freedom to do whatever with no consequences.

[*pally*]

(07-13-2023, 04:57 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Because a high majority (all?) of these hellhole cities are run by Demrocats, who who accuse Republicans of being racist, homophobic, and every other slur in the book, so why would they want or need help from Republicans?

This is what Democrats want: the freedom to do whatever with no consequences.

Maybe if those people would provide some actual solutions instead of ranting, raving, and exploiting the problem for political purposes they would be listened to


Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-13-2023, 05:11 PM)pally Wrote: Maybe if those people would provide some actual solutions instead of ranting, raving, and exploiting the problem for political purposes they would be listened to


Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Pardon me, but what do you know about California politics that I don't?  As what you just described is not what is happening on the GOP side of the aisle here.  Just making things up for fun today?

[basballguy]

(07-13-2023, 05:11 PM)pally Wrote: Maybe if those people would provide some actual solutions instead of ranting, raving, and exploiting the problem for political purposes they would be listened to


Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

I guess you missed those comments on this thread. I’ll be happy to rehash them for ya if you got the time!

[Luvnit2]

(07-13-2023, 04:16 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It's It was such a cool city too.  Someone needs to figure it out there.  

Corrected it for you.

[Millhouse]

Maybe someone should look at some common denominators between California cities and Seattle up in Washington state. Seattle has the 3rd highest homeless population in the country, quite a ways back from L.A. and NYC. San Fran & Oakland area combined has just a few thousand more, but California has 6 of the top 10 cities with the most homeless per article linked below. I think this could be a good place to start looking if they havent already since Seattle is in a different state obviously, but also has a major problem there that borders Canada instead of Mexico like Cali does.


https://usafacts.org/articles/which-cities-in-the-us-have-the-most-homelessness/

[Dill]

(07-13-2023, 10:16 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Maybe someone should look at some common denominators between California cities and Seattle up in Washington state. Seattle has the 3rd highest homeless population in the country, quite a ways back from L.A. and NYC. San Fran & Oakland area combined has just a few thousand more, but California has 6 of the top 10 cities with the most homeless per article linked below. I think this could be a good place to start looking if they havent already since Seattle is in a different state obviously, but also has a major problem there that borders Canada instead of Mexico like Cali does.

https://usafacts.org/articles/which-cities-in-the-us-have-the-most-homelessness/

I think people have been looking at the problem of homelessness for some time now. 

SSF just provided a link to an article discussing a book, whose primary thesis appears to be that the correlation of homelessness to high housing costs indicates one important, perhaps primary, driver of homelessness.

The GAO, in its July 202 Report on Homelessness, found a similar correlation between housing costs and homelessness, and in data gathered nationwide. In addition to census data, they looked at "Communities of Care" in many different states, including Colorado, Texas, Illinois, and New York--not just CA. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-20-433.pdf

No one considers housing costs to be the main factor, but it appears to be an important one. 

I think it a good thing Newsome is trying to address at least one of those factors by creating additional and cheaper housing, but it appears that runs against the interests of people who profit from high housing costs and/or don't want cheap housing built near them.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-14-2023, 02:49 PM)Dill Wrote: No one considers housing costs to be the main factor, but it appears to be an important one.

"No one" does?  From the LA Times article I linked;

 “Pretty soon it became very clear that rental costs and vacancy rates were by far the biggest predictor of rates of homelessness in a community,” Colburn said. 

 

Quote:I think it a good thing Newsome is trying to address at least one of those factors by creating additional and cheaper housing, but it appears that runs against the interests of people who profit from high housing costs and/or don't want cheap housing built near them.

Yeah, no one wants cheap housing built near them.  Why would they?  You know who especially doesn't want it, the people who vote to eliminate single family zoning so it can be built.  Every politician who voted for this type of thing should be required to have an affordable housing complex within a block of their home.  Watch that issue disappear overnight.

[Dill]

(07-14-2023, 03:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: "No one" does?  From the LA Times article I linked;

 “Pretty soon it became very clear that rental costs and vacancy rates were by far the biggest predictor of rates of homelessness in a community,” Colburn said. 

 


Yeah, no one wants cheap housing built near them.  Why would they?  You know who especially doesn't want it, the people who vote to eliminate single family zoning so it can be built.  Every politician who voted for this type of thing should be required to have an affordable housing complex within a block of their home.  Watch that issue disappear overnight.

Ok. "Someone" says rental costs and vacancy rates are "by far the biggest predictor of rates of homelessness." 

Maybe a consensus is building on that, or maybe is already there among those generating Newsome's homeless policy.

Likely a consensus is already forming on "liberal hypocrisy" along side that one. 

The larger narrative is ready to fit that in, at least.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-15-2023, 12:39 PM)Dill Wrote: Ok. "Someone" says rental costs and vacancy rates are "by far the biggest predictor of rates of homelessness." 

Maybe a consensus is building on that, or maybe is already there among those generating Newsome's homeless policy.

I just found it odd that you would cite the article I linked and then completely miss the main point of said article.

Quote:Likely a consensus is already forming on "liberal hypocrisy" along side that one. 

The larger narrative is ready to fit that in, at least.

No consensus is needed, this is well established.