Hacker News Reader

Comment by charlesju | Hacker News Reader

This is a national problem (ie. anyone in the US can be homeless anywhere), and yet it's trying to be solved at a city level.

Logistically that is impossible and makes no sense.

As for why there are so many young people homeless in SF, it's probably because SF is one of the most willing cities trying to solve a national problem by itself. We also have great weather (not too hot in the summer, not too cold in the winter). And probably a lot of generous people walking the streets.

It's really horrible what our national government has allowed to happen in our country and it's impractical for our city to hold the burden to solve this nation's problems.

View on HN

I do think mental health is a national problem, but if the homeless people are san franciscans, its definitely a city level issue.

Its not a poor city that needs national help: it spends 10 billion dollars a year for a shitty bus and a poop patrol.

only defense, interstate commerce, international relations, and the like are national problems.

the state is the canonical unit for a problem like homelessness, and each state is free to delegate to local jurisdictions or to coordinate with other states on solutions.

by the way, san francisco has about 8000 homeless folks, and LA has ~55,000 (~40% of the 130,000 homeless in the state). if we wanted to build new housing for all of these folks, we'd need about $50B (state budget is about $200B/year). LA, for instance, spent $0.6B on homelessness last year, or about 3% of what is needed just in LA.

we either continuously pay for homelessness indirectly (and ineffectively), through police, crime, social services, drugs, non-profits, governmental programs, emergency services, etc. or actually tackle the problem directly by raising and allocating that $50B.

(obviously talking about first-order effects here. this is not an in-depth policy paper.)

Given that the federal government weasels its way into things by claiming "interstate commerce" in questionable circumstances, or threatening withholding things like federal highway funds if states don't comply, your argument doesn't hold much water with me.

Hell, the REAL ID act is technically illegal, but the feds can use the "we won't let you board a flight without one" stick to force compliance.

The federal government gets its paws into whatever it wants to. It simply doesn't care about homeless issues.

I do agree that, on its face, homelessness seems like a textbook local/state problem. However, any city/state that tries to solve the problem with money and services will be a magnet for homeless people from outside the area, which can easily overwhelm the services provided. How do you fix that?

States and cities can build a wall and introduce a visa system? I don't understand how any problem that would require effective border control to solve at a local level (because otherwise it turns into a global problem) can be considered a textbook state problem?

I'd say this is a textbook border-controlling-entity-level problem...

Yeah, you know, Brexit is going really great for Britain: we should definitely try dissolving the union and see if that helps.

My preference (and argument) falls closer to global planetary government than to village-state actually...

Not workable; freedom of movement among the states has been recognized as a constitutional right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_Unit...

> "Given that the federal government weasels its way into things [anyway]... your argument doesn't hold much water with me."

that's such a non-sequitur. so is the gist that we just accept the federal government overstepping its bounds? that's sounds so defeatist. instead, let's put even more pressure on (all of) our representatives to contain the overstepping.

> "...magnet for homeless people from outside the area, which can easily overwhelm the services provided. How do you fix that?"

that's worth keeping in mind, but there's no compelling evidence that that's going to be a problem. an optimist might posit that it's just as likely that micro-economies develop that allow the former homeless to lift others out of homelessness without further intervention. it depends on how things are implemented of course. let's take a step forward and (continually) assess.

> and each state is free to... or to coordinate with other states on solutions.

This can't be solved without coordination, ie. federal government.

Would it really cost about 400 thousand dollars per homeless person? That's what 50 bil / 130,000 gets you.

yes, from what i've read, it costs roughly $400K per unit ($440K is actually the number thrown about) in the metro areas of california (whether it's affordable housing or not). that apparently includes the direct building & overhead costs, land, building code compliance, regulatory costs, and the costs of legal and bureaucratic delays.

Maybe housing the homeless in the most expensive places in the country to live is a bad idea.

What makes you think it can be solved at the national level when it can't even be solved at the city level?

I mean the person just argued that it has to be solved at the national level. I think willingness of homeless people to stay in small to medium sized towns with bad winters depends on accessibility of student and tourist populations, but those balance of factors means they sleep in the snow to get their support, but the small town doesn't want to build a shelter and provide extra incentive to stay.

My guess is you agree that is has to be solved at the national level? The federal government has spent over $20 trillion to fight the war on poverty since 1965. You really thinking throwing more money at the problem will solve homelessness?

Just money? No. Money doesn't ever solve problems. The effective use of said money does. You can't find effective uses for money without trying to see what works. Most cities have homeless if some sort. My small city has a homeless population and it took my church guaranteeing to donating time just to keep people alive in the winter. The mayor here routinely destroys places where the homeless live and takes all their resources in the middle of winter. Does our effort help? It keeps a lot of them stay alive over the winter. We also have a community meal on Saturdays to give people community and companionship. No government here helping, but it does require a lot of time and money.

Cities don’t have border gates. As the article states, the number of homeless people is increasing at a higher rate than other population growth factor. SF is taking on the burden of a full state and some of the country.

SF is willingly taking on that burden. All of SF's policies have only made homelessness worse, not better.

Generally speaking spending more money on something will get you more of it. Why would homelessness be any different?

I don’t debate that. My answer was to the original question.

Is your belief falsifiable?

What would you have to see before you might start to think San Francisco's policies might be part of the problem?

It is extremely difficult to clean up and heal surrounded by the problems of the city (drugs, violence, lack of entry level jobs & housing) but services are concentrated in city...

The drug problems in rural America are worse than in urban areas, fueled by the additional joblessness, lack of mental health services and general boredom.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com