If you place a chronically homeless, bi-polar, heroin addict into an apartment they will not get better, they will continue their previous life until they’ve broken their lease and are evicted; none of the “housing first” programs aimed at the “visibly homeless” we’re talking about do this, they provide housing along with a robust support system to get these people medical and mental healthcare as well as addiction recovery. It is a good model but I’ve too frequently seen them mischaracterized as just providing free rent, that isn’t what they do and that would fail. They are essentially just a reimagined mental health institute with far more freedom for the patients.
The quick google definitions: "a lack of incentive to guard against risk where one is protected from its consequences"
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard
If I'm interpreting the ops statement correctly, this is more analogous to a system where post-tax income decreases with rising income instead.
A renter can do risky things (like lose their job) because they are protected from the consequences of not being able to pay the rent. They get housed anyway.
I think you should seriously reconsider your position.
There is a chronic inebriate apartment building downtown Seattle that makes no moral judgements about "stopping drinking" etc that LOWERS COSTS (with studies to back it up) for the community.
People with problems get a permanent address. Ambulance and police calls drop as they aren't chasing these guys all over town.
Think again.
MAYBE your position is more about being judgemental about their moral state then actually whats good for them and the rest of us.
EDIT -
Just to be clear. If someone is too far gone (and many of these guys are) then we need to start funding involutanry commitment beds.
6 months after moving in, after having multiple bad experiences with tenants, I realized I moved in to a “subsidized housing” apartment. There was lots of parking available because 90% of the tenants weren’t allowed to drive.
It hurts to work all day to pay for stuff, only to come home to half your neighbors lazing about drunk and stoned getting a free ride. It fucking sucks, I could never escape the thought that I could just quit my job and smoke weed all day and live pretty much the same as I was.
If I wanted to live in a condo, which doesn’t have subsidized housing, I’d have to pay rents upwards of $2,200. So I moved back in with my folks until I can buy something.
I hear this all the time - yet I don't see many people particularly keen on dropping out, and getting onto the free ride bus.
One of the problems with that free ride bus is that it doesn't go to great places. It didn't sound like you were looking forward to the prospect of living in subsidized housing for the rest of your life very much.
I don't see many people particularly
keen on dropping out, and getting
onto the free ride bus.
I don't either - but maybe those people just don't hang out on Hacker News.Just open your eyes. Look around Seattle, or San Francisco, or Los Angeles, or San Diego or any other city with mild weather, lenient law enforcement, and generous welfare benefits. The number of homeless and housed "drop outs" is astonishing.
We have more of an epidemic of rich people squatting in hundreds of miles of waterfront property and ruining shoreline access for the public.
Alameda County, 43% increase in homeless population in two years.
San Francisco, 17% increase.
Orange County, 42% increase.
Kern County, 50% increase.
In Seattle/King County, 28% increase in the chronically homeless population from 2017 to 2018.
I have a feeling that you'll change your tune pretty quick after that. You'll quickly realize how dehumanizing it is to be in that position.
This isn't a plan of action that someone is likely going to advertise.
I know people who work back breaking low-income jobs and get very angry seeing people on government assistance sitting around all day getting high with their friends.
I think the position of the homeless activists: of giving people with no life skills and no discipline, and who habitually abuse drugs, no-strings-attached taxpayer aid, is totally immoral and irresponsible. It's the worse example of short-sighted unthinking compassion and/or virtue-signalling.
At the very least, drug addicts who've lost the ability to support themselves should be committed to a drug rehab center. In the past the lost souls were also enrolled in work houses. Those on public aid doing some work should be another minimum requirement for any welfare system. The nature of the work can be targeted to their intellectual and physical capabilities, but they should be required to do some kind of work if they're going to receive public support.
Anyway, demanding accountability from welfare recipients is not going to win you any elections - people would rather elect someone with compassion and a terrible plan for governance than elect someone with a logically coherent governance plan who might not have compassion - so the problem will just get worse.
Absent a desire to quit, rehab can't work. At that point, it's just a private prison with wallpaper.
Also, some people may decide to quit once they've been forced to stop doing drugs for a few months, because it results in lessened chemical dependency, and some time for the parts of their brain damaged from the drug-use to recover, which helps increase self-control.
We forcibly prevent children from engaging in self-destructive behaviour, because sometimes they need someone who knows better to control them, until they mature and do know better. Just because someone turns 18, doesn't always mean this stops applying. In the case of someone habitually using hard drugs, I think a strong argument can be made that it still applies because they lack the maturity and self-control to make these decisions for themselves.
The same drug courts and facilities exist on the west coast, but they are underutilized because there is no incentive. No criminal or civil justice funnel. People are just set loose.
Intervention helps those who are beyond helping themselves. A free place with no strings attached does not do nearly as much to help those who truly need help.
> highlighting that even sympathetic coverage thinks the approach is a mixed bag in practice.
You mean "how a statistically non-significant number of cases lead to the usual results in our modern outrage culture"? You will always have cases where it doesn't work. That's why statistics are important. But statistics don't sell, what sells is "SEE, WE GAVE THIS GUY FREE HOUSING AND HE DID THIS HORRIBLE THING"
I think there are two types of homeless - those who are sane and normal but down on their luck - once they get a job and support they can be contributing members of society. These individuals need all the support we can give them.
The second type of homeless, sometimes referred to as homeless by choice, those individuals who are drug addicted or mentally unstable to the point they can't even keep it together to get a government check need to be handled differently. I think we should have some form of long term holds for these people until they truly show they can survive and flourish without it.
Cities are becoming overrun with the second type of homeless. These people are generally filthy, spread disease, commit various crimes of opportunity even including assault and murder and rape, and abuse drugs and alcohol until they die.
I suggest we categorize the second type of homeless by issue involved and severity and have mandatory facilities to either help them recover or simply hold them long term. Categories could include various levels of drug addiction rehab, mental health, etc.
I would like to dispute that. This WaPo [1] article paints a far less rosy picture.
Addiction is a symptom of mental illness (and in all likelihood may be genetic). Look at the rates of smoking among people with schizophrenia [2], they're much higher than the general population, and the usual purported causes fall flat.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-housed-t...
[2] https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/01/11/schizophrenia-no-smoki...
> A dose-dependent relationship was found between smoking and protection from schizophrenia. This is really interesting.
The study found smoking protects against schizophrenia. The blog author skewers later science for completely misrepresenting this study in their review.
Nicotine is sort of similar to niacin/niacinamide (vitamin b3), which is probably why it protects against schizophrenia. I recommended niacinamide to a young woman who’d just quit smoking, “again”. She says the vitamin is great, is still taking it 1.5 years later and recommends it to all her coworkers who want to quit smoking.
And it calmed down some of her “personalities”.
It makes zero sense to set dollars on fire by housing people in one of the highest cost of living markets in the world.
This will probably not happen any time soon because it's politically incorrect to effectively admit homeless people don't deserve to live in high cost of living areas, but it would certainly be more effective in helping people materially. Not to mention, people in lower cost, yet populated, areas probably don't want them there either and will fight to prevent this from happening (NIMBY).
I get your point: it seems like a moral good in America for people to have some inalienable (i.e. "not required to pay for") right to have some control over where they live. But it makes zero sense to have a black and white rule that everyone has a right to live anywhere they want. Do I have a right to take up residence inside your living room? Your home? Your porch? A public school's playground? The middle of an interstate? A public park? I think the reasonable answers to all of those are "no".
The US is geographically sorting itself by wealth. You used to have pricy neighborhoods but any given city generally had some amount of property available across a range of income levels. With the transition to a service economy, this is less true over time. Now entire cities are becoming uniformly expensive.
The reality is that I no longer think it's tenable to say that someone has a right to live in Manhattan regardless of their income level. The way things are going, it's probably going to be the case that the entire city limits of SF, Seattle, and NYC will go that way.
Does it suck? Yes. Can it be solved at the city level? I don't think so.
But the general housing crisis reflects a reality in which basic housing needs for a large portion of the population are either entirely unmet, or are intrinsically perilous, with risk of housing loss at any time high.
Your colourful hypo entirely fails to address that point.
I recommend again On the Media's excellent series on housing, "Scarlet E":
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/scarlet-e-unmasking...
I don't think OP would challenge any of that, but he's addressing a much more specific point: if we're to provide housing to people who cannot house themselves, and in particular, the growing number of people with apparent mental or addiction issues living on the streets of downtown city centers, is there an obligation to give them housing in that city center, or even in the city limits?
I think this can be problematic for several reasons:
It feels like just pushing the problem to other places/other people. If there's the right commitments and programs in place, maybe it can work. But where in the bay area is going to be happy to host a SF sponsored housing for homeless facility? And will it be less expensive enough to justify?
If people have some connections to service providers or family or social connections, moving them far enough away to save costs is going to make it really hard to keep those up.
Obligation? No. A good idea? Yes. Support services are in cities, especially centers. Half of this comment page is full with "housing alone doesn't help, we need support structures for the people" - doesn't mix well with the "hey, let's just put all the undesirables on a bus and give them housing in the middle of nowhere".
The reality is that many of the visible homeless living in the city center are addicts, and they congregate in city centers, in part, because of cheap and easy access to drugs and like-minded people. In places like the Tenderloin in San Francisco, open drug use is everywhere you look now, and the city turns a blind eye to it.
Claiming that people need to remain in this environment to recover is extremely misguided.
Lower cost? That doesn't seem likely in a city like San Francisco, where the cost of real-estate, construction, labor is sky high and the housing supply is extremely limited.
Helping more people? In that sense, efficiency is meaningless if it's not efficacious. And all evidence suggests that social services in places like San Francisco and Seattle are not working well, despite the hundreds of millions of dollars spend each year.
As we've also seen, housing addicts in neighborhoods where open drug use and drug dealing is tolerated is not efficient. Yet that's exactly what happens in the Tenderloin today.
It's almost too stupid to be believed.
There's no way around this save by exclusion zones and forced concentration camps or prisons, each of which have their own exhorbitant externalities.
How about for one year, we all put our incomes into a pot and split it 1/population of america. Just for funsies.
Presumably because the end-product (and some intermediates) are ephemeral and can be transmitted losslessly long distances in little time at low cost?
Perversely: that's just what leads to greater rather than less concentration in industries. Especially where there's a great deal ofhumam interaction and collaboration required.
Since the end-products are ephemeral, they can be distributed to any point on Earth. But clustering of creation activities, returns to scale, even a small component of ancillary support services and infrastructure, and even small gains to round-trip interaction rates, reliability, or flexibility, favour concentration over decentralisation and mean that any one locale which gains an edge over others sees path-dependencies and positive feedback encouraging yet higher growth. Only when frictions develop (say: high costs of housing), or regional differentiators (language, cultural, regulatory regimes, say), do you see a formation of alternate hubs.
Zipf's law / power functions still strongly favour the formation of small numbers of such hubs.
Film, banking, and publishing have very similar tendencies.
I would hope that intellectually honest people can see there is large design space for the role of government. Choosing from these options — what is better and worse — depends on individual values and collective responsibilities.
I'm not a strong proponent of the Housing First model, but the reality is that it's generally cheaper to house people than to pick up the tab for medical care et al for homeless individuals. Medical bills for the homeless population tend to cost far more than just covering their rent.
Two supporting articles found via a quick google:
https://www.governing.com/topics/health-human-services/gov-h...
https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/hospitals-invest-...