Hacker News Reader

Comment by ProfessorLayton | Hacker News Reader

I can't help but wonder if 275M would be better spent by the city if they created a facility somewhere - anywhere - that is cheaper than the SF Bay.

I'm not saying ship the poor away and make them someone else's problem. I mean caring for people in a more cost-effective manner, and in a way that isn't just treating the symptoms.

There are 6,686 homeless people in SF [1]. With a budget in the hundreds of millions, it is conceivable that all of these people can be housed and treated in an inland community in perpetuity. Many homeless suffer from mental disorders that require treatment, not just housing and food.

[1]http://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/default/files/2015%20San%20Franc...

View on HN

Just a minor nitpick - your numbers appear to be several years out of date, as of January 2017 it's 7,499.

[1]http://sfist.com/2017/06/26/2017_san_francisco_homeless_cens...

Wow. The city has allocated over $36,000 per homeless person to deal with this and it hasn't improved at all? That's actually amazing.

> I can't help but wonder if 275M would be better spent by the city if they created a facility somewhere - anywhere - that is cheaper than the SF Bay.

Probably not.

> I'm not saying ship the poor away and make them someone else's problem.

But you are saying “ship the poor away”. Which is problematic, historically, to implement even locally, which is why much of that money is spent reaching then in the community.

> I mean caring for people in a more cost-effective manner, and in a way that isn't just treating the symptoms.

If you want to treat more than symptoms of poverty, you need to restructure the economy and society, not move the victims.

> There are 6,686 homeless people in SF [1]. With a budget in the hundreds of millions, it is conceivable that all of these people can be housed and treated in an inland community in perpetuity.

The number (and, even moreso, the identity of the individuals that are homeless) isn't static. Though forced relocation without any clear plan for improving the ability of people to escape homelessness will probably make the condition stickier.

I'll concede that it does indeed sound like "shipping the poor away". Historically, it meant making it someone else's problem (1-way ticket to SF) which I agree is indeed problematic, and is not what I'm advocating for.

I do want to treat more than just the symptoms, but I don't think handwaving for socioeconomic restructures is a realistic way get anything done. I'm advocating for a way to make the ~30K/person go farther by not being in one of the most expensive areas of the country.

Many of these people need long term mental healthcare, and is the main reason they are homeless. Our current system is not well suited at helping people with mental disorders.

Perhaps I'm ill-informed and I don't pretend to have the answer, but evidenced by the fact that homelessness is a growing problem despite throwing more and more money at it. I do think we need to try another approach.

> Historically, it meant making it someone else's problem (1-way ticket to SF) which I agree is indeed problematic

No, even local relocation (like forcing people into shelters for services) has been problematic historically.

> Many of these people need long term mental healthcare, and is the main reason they are homeless.

Yes, a minority do, and institutionalization (which, generally, might as well be outside of SF) may help a fraction of that minority.

Forced dislocation would also probably aggravate mental health problems for some others in (and out) of that that minority.

> Our current system is not well suited at helping people with mental disorders.

Sure, but “ship people elsewhere”, even if the responsibility doesn't shift, isn't a solution to that.

A cursory google search reveals that 1 in 4 of those in homeless shelters have a severe mental disorder. Nearly 1 in 2 have severe mental disorders and substance abuse problems.

These numbers do not paint a small minority that could benefit from institutionalization or other forms or long-term care, and our current system is poorly setup to handle these issues.

> A cursory google search reveals that 1 in 4 of those in homeless shelters have a severe mental disorder.

The number I'm familiar with is 35%, but either is a minority.

> These numbers do not paint a small minority

Which is probably why I never qualified “minority” with “small”.

I got my numbers from here:

https://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Mental-Health-By-the-Numbers

> ...may help a fraction of that minority. > Which is probably why I never qualified “minority” with “small”.

I believe we're now arguing about semantics, so lets agree to disagree.

I'm with you in thinking that at least a trial of something similar would be worth it, given the amounts being spent. e.g., create a community/farm in a regional area with easy tasks for those who didn't want to idle, and various drug and mental-health support services. Give people a chance to trial it and then return if they didn't like it. Allow them to trial it in groups so they weren't leaving behind friends.

Completely optional but hopefully a better life for those who tried and liked it. If their peers were there and the weather wasn't problematic, surely something could be superior to a life on the streets.

If other states were shipping people in to take advantage of it, pool resources.

There is nothing wrong with seeking cost effective solutions to problems.

It is worth noting that many homeless people in SF did not become homeless in SF.

They became homeless elsewhere, then moved to SF because circumstances there favor homeless living.

I see this opinion brought up a lot but what would the logistics be? You can't just cut or move the full 275M immediately because surely some of those funds are absolutely crucial, i.e. keeping the lights on at shelters or funding hospitals who otherwise would foot large bills.

I don't think the logistics should be too hard, once you have some idea of how to do this in an ethical manner; start with a pilot program that addresses maybe 100 homeless individuals, see if it works, and if so, slowly increase the number of participants, while decreasing the scope of the current measures. In the end, even if providing services at another location is effective, you need to provide some services directly in the community anyway; and I don't think the proportion is predictable, you would need to try and see what works.

You idea is something that Marshall Brain wrote about in "Manna"... http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

Reply on news.ycombinator.com