Hacker News Reader

Comment by weeksie | Hacker News Reader

Build. More. Homeless. Shelters. California is so damned NIMBY'd up that they refuse to build shelters and act surprised when homeless people sleep outside. Then they throw their hands up in the air like "uh, it must be the weather"

It's stupid. In New York we have more homeless per capita and in absolute numbers but we have nothing like the street issues that west coast cities have. It's because we actually house the damned homeless. And for fuck's sake, it's not the weather. Our parks aren't by any means pristine but we don't suddenly sprout tent cities every summer.

The whole CA homeless crisis is a self-inflicted wound. For reference, an article in SF Gate: "67 percent of Bay Area homeless are unsheltered. In New York, it's 5%"

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Bay-Area-homeless-uns...

View on HN

> In New York we have more homeless per capita...

At least based on latest 2018 numbers I found for both cities, that's not true.

NYC 78676 homeless with 8398748 residents.

SF 9784 homeless with 870877 residents.

106 residents per homeless individual in NYC.

Only 89 residents per homeless individual in SF.

> And for fuck's sake, it's not the weather. Our parks aren't by any means pristine but we don't suddenly sprout tent cities every summer.

I'm certainly not blaming it on the weather either. But this statement kind of misses the point on how exceptional our weather is. Our tent cities get to grow year round without interruption because it's mostly warm enough in the winter and cool enough in the summer to live outside full time.

The rest of your points stand without caveat. We don't build enough housing at all and we're incompetent at building shelters (at least ones that the homeless are willing and able to use)

Can you cite the source? The data often uses differing definitions so you'll might be comparing apples to oranges.

My bad, I was quoting from memory, you are correct about the numbers. That said, they're pretty close.

As for the weather I stand by my statement. While year around nice weather does make an encampment more hospitable, the reason why it's cruel to just bulldoze those settlements is because the people have nowhere to go. Still, I acknowledge your point, weather is surely a factor, I just don't believe it carries as much weight as it's frequently given credit for.

I’m listening to a collection of Malcolm Gladwell essays and was somewhat blown over by one about power-law distribution of homelessness[1]. Basically a small, stubborn minority of the homeless population are financially worth housing (by far). “That is what is so perplexing about power-law homeless policy. From an economic perspective the approach makes perfect sense. But from a moral perspective it doesn’t seem fair.” [1] http://dpbh.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/A%20MillionDollarMurray.pdf

That's an interesting stat. From visits to SF, it seems that a sizable % of the homeless in SF are really just vagrants, whereas in NYC they largely seem to destitute/mentally ill homeless.

It's not quite that simple. The West Coast has seen a huge influx of homeless people (ex. [1] - 12% YoY increase in LA) while the nation overall has seen a drop [2]. If your homeless population is steady or falling it's easier to build enough services for them than if thousands more arrive every year. Also, I agree that more shelters and services need to be built, but it would be nice if the Federal government pitched in since it's pretty obvious we're just absorbing the homeless problems from other states.

[1] https://la.curbed.com/2019/6/4/18652755/2019-homeless-count-...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_Sta...

California's also exporting their homeless problems.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/dec/...

Correction: we're sending a lot of the homeless back to the cities they came from.

(Texas used to brag about shipping their homeless problem to LA.)

California has a big net-influx of homeless because of both relatively generous legal environment and state services (even if there is a shelter crisis) and favorable weather.

Yes, California is trying to send some of the homeless back to where they come from, to little avail.

I'd be surprised if any states didn't do that. Anyone shouldering the cost providing for you is typically thrilled to buy you a one way ticket anywhere you'd like to go.

It's the other way round.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/dec/...

CA is trying to send some people back and that's being spun as "exporting".

Crazy.

Other places send homeless to California. California sends them back.

Not many advantages to being homeless, but maybe cost of travel isn't one of them.

> The West Coast has seen a huge influx of homeless people

Your source shows an INCREASE of homeless people, but not necessarily an INFLUX, i.e. it's not clear whether the newly homeless are in fact "arriving" (from out of state) or have been prior residents who lost their shelter.

Anecdotally, I don't think I've ever met somebody who had a PLAN to move to California to be homeless there. But I've met a number of people who moved to California with limited financial resources and precarious employment prospects, and subsequently became homeless.

Actually, rehab's are importing the homeless into California. John Oliver did a show on it.

https://www.ocregister.com/2017/12/17/are-drug-rehab-centers...

The LA homeless survey does track where people lived when they became homeless. In 2019, the number who became homeless outside of CA is 20% [1]. AFAIK, they don't release raw data so we can segment by newly homeless, but in 2018, this same figure was 14% [2].

Seattle / King County's survey asks a similar question and it's just 5% [3]. Conservative media up here likes to claim that homeless immigration is a significant problem (it isn't), but it seems like LA is facing a different challenge.

1 - https://www.lahsa.org/documents?id=3437-2019-greater-los-ang...

2 - https://www.lahsa.org/documents?id=2059-2018-greater-los-ang...

3 - http://allhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Updated-7.11...

The Seattle king county survey also found out that 80% of those homeless lived in pioneer square before becoming homeless. Definitely fishy if you know the city.

AFAIK, the Seattle / King County survey did not ask which neighborhood or zip code they lived in. The questions are listed on the survey PDF I linked earlier.

Do you have a source? Closest I can find is from 2016, and it's 25% of in-county zip codes equalling Pioneer Square, not 80% of all:

"The records show that more than 8,000 clients [of any homeless/housing services tracked by All Home] listed their last ZIP code as 98104, which covers Pioneer Square and downtown. That’s about 25 percent of all clients who gave King County ZIP codes. Putnam says clients sometimes list ZIP codes for the shelters where they last stayed or the neighborhood where they’d been seeking services."

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/king-coun...

The west coast has always been a popular destination for people with big dreams but perhaps without much means. It isn’t really weird that homeless are just as likely to be transplants as non homeless residents.

I know I’ve read how Las Vegas and places in Texas were giving their homeless one way tickets to cities in California.

NYC is getting worse. We have something like 60,000 beds available, but those are filled beyond capacity every night. The actual homeless population is certain to be higher than reported.

We're starting to see semi-permanent encampments, human feces on the sidewalks and used needles in the gutters. (haven't seen discarded needles since the mid 90s). Storefronts are vacant all over. Anywhere there's a sidewalk shed -- and there are plenty -- there will be people sleeping (and defecating) under it. The cops are completely demoralized and our useless mayor is campaigning for president with 0.08% support.

People are openly wishing for a long, cold winter to keep the sidewalks clean.

New York City is required by law to provide a bed for every person who requests one. When the city runs out of space in standard shelters, they literally rent out hotels [0].

It's kind of nuts, but it makes me very proud of my city. (And, for better or worse, much less sympathetic for the people who still choose to sleep on the sidewalk or in subways.)

---

[0] https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?stor... (This is a transcript of an NPR podcast. I recommend listening to the audio if you have the ability, it's worth your time...)

> we have nothing like the street issues that west coast cities have

Maybe not as bad west coast cities, but since January 1, 2014 things have gotten significantly, noticeably worse. In subway stations and cars, in the streets, in the parks, in Penn Station -- all over. And as you point out we have enough shelter beds for everyone.

NYC 2019 is not what good looks like.

God, I miss Bloomberg.

I feel like a lot of cities in America are suffering from applying national politics to their local elections. Electing a Republican or conservative/centrist Democrat every now and then wouldn't be a bad thing, Democrats do not have a monopoly on solving local issues in a compassionate yet effective manner, in fact I'd claim that the increasing ease with which the Democrat candidate wins elections in major American cities contributes to the lack of urgency and a sense of complacency with the status quo. It limits the range of possible solutions to a local minima. I expect the problems to get worse before they get better.

> . Electing a Republican or conservative/centrist Democrat every now and then wouldn't be a bad thing, Democrats do not have a monopoly on solving local issues in a compassionate yet effective manner, in fact I'd claim that the increasing ease with which the Democrat candidate wins elections in major American cities contributes to the lack of urgency and a sense of complacency with the status quo.

In California cities there is no one “Democratic candidate”; mayor's offices are nonpartisan elections and in a city like San Francisco there will be multiple competitive cabdidates, who might all notionally be Demcorats, some of whom will have a local government approach that is indistinguishable from what one might, based on party alignment on similar national issues, expect from a Republican.

> Our parks aren't by any means pristine but we don't suddenly sprout tent cities every summer.

Come for a walk with me. There are tents and makeshift shelters in the north end of Central Park (west side, north of 96th) and in the parks along both rivers if you know where to look.

Well, I'm guessing the shelters don't let you shoot up, so...tent cities form.

I think this is accurate, having lived all over CA and the Northeast. Northeastern cities build shelters because otherwise homeless people would freeze to death in the winter, though. Sometimes the shelters are only available during the freezing months.

We didn't used to build shelters. There was an entire riot in the 80s when the cops removed a homeless encampment that had entirely taken over Tomkins Sq Park in the East Village.

I don't know when we started building them (I'm a transplant, circa 2008) but I know there was a qualitative difference from when I'd been to the city in the early 00s versus when I moved so I assume Bloomberg was responsible for building more.

There was a Federal lawsuit and consent decree that forced NYC to house homeless people.

It had a lot of negative impact on poor people in general. Mentally ill homeless people skipped the line for subsidized housing and had an outsized impact on crime and quality of life issues in public housing.

Recent policies to guarantee housing has made NYC something of a magnet. If you live upstate, you may need to wait a year (or more) for a Section 8 voucher, or you can show up in NYC and have interim housing in 48 hours.

Most of the visible homeless related issues are a result of the elimination of involuntary commitment. Without supervision, people won’t take the medications they need because the side effects suck. It’s an impossible problem with no solution.

> It had a lot of negative impact on poor people in general. Mentally ill homeless people skipped the line for subsidized housing and had an outsized impact on crime and quality of life issues in public housing.

I don't know much about this but there's got to be more to that story. Personally, I'm more than okay with policies that attract some additional homeless people to our city if it means that (1) those people get to sleep in a bed each night and (2) there are fewer people sleeping on NYC streets in general.

What I legitimately don't understand is why there are still so many people sleeping on the street...

Depends. Short-term homeless are economic tragedies (lost work, divorce, etc).

Long-term homeless usually have significant health and other issues. Stuff like serious mental health issues, chronic alcoholism, drug issues, etc.

I’m not an expert in the subject, just pointing out that you can die or lose your toes sleeping outside in the North, which changes things a bit.

We need involuntary commitment and drug treatment. Mental illness and drug use are the backbones of this, and essentially homeless people need to be treated period, regardless of their objections. Maybe even long term.

Trying to build more shelters does nothing; the core is problem homeless who cannot function in society. Shelters only work as a temporary measure to allow people to get back on their feet, but if they have no feet to get back on...

New York State has a constitutional right to shelter. Perhaps that helps.

Why not deal with homelessness closer to the root of the problem, of which there are many?

In the current political climate (really the last 20+ years, but more so lately), politicians do not solve problems, they create them.

And, the problem of homelessness can't be solved in SF or NY or LA, because I've read of cities putting their homeless on buses to SF (or elsewhere).

This is a national problem and needs to be addressed nationally and at root causes. Everything else we do is papering over the problem.

Could the Andrew Yang 2020 "Freedom Dividend" solve the homeless issue? Yes.

Extra $1,000 a month allows these homeless people to move to smaller/rural areas and get cheap permanent housing.

We can even create a program where if you help a homeless person on the street get into an apartment, you get a $250-500 referral reward from their dividend.

Many ways to incentivize people to help the homeless. This solution sounds better than increasing congestion/traffic with more high density buildings to house the homeless in SF,LA,SD city limits.

This is just anecdotal data but...

I've found East coast/southern police to be way more inclined to the use of force, even excessive force, when dealing with the homeless.

Personally, I 'feel' this difference. On the East coast, when a homeless man approaches me, I feel they fear a negative reaction. There are also way more police. The situation is the opposite on the West coast.

Now, I'm not saying this is what SHOULD be. I really am against police brutality. But I always like to pay attention to unspoken rules, they help me adapt.

> Build. More. Homeless. Shelters.

Making the existing ones safe enough that the homeless don't actively avoid them should probably come first.

People are being turned away from the shelters.

What do you do for people who refuse to go to a shelter for any number of reasons and just want to continue doing what they’ve been doing for years now?

Not trying to put you on the spot with a “if you don’t have a solution...” trope, it’s just something I’ve always wondered.

> What do you do for people who refuse to go to a shelter for any number of reasons and just want to continue doing what they’ve been doing for years now?

How about you start with the part where there aren't enough shelter spaces right now? Once you get to have only people who don't want to stay outside shelters, you can start asking them why they don't shelter.

NYC has ~95% sheltering rates, Bay Area is at 33%, GP literally quoted that in their comment. Bay Area homeless folks are not so different than NYC's that they'd magically be 3 times less likely to get into a shelter. Hell, you click the link, you know that Chicago's at 74% sheltering, Denver's 84 and DC's 85.

Meanwhile LA's sitting pretty at a good looking 25% sheltering rate.

I've never stayed in a shelter but I know people that have. A lot of homeless will sleep in a makeshift shelter in the winter rather than a shelter because shelters are ass in every way.

Build more period. I will rejoice the day the state just revokes planning from local communities. I hate to say that because it feels horrible, but local communities in California run zoning in the most incompetent and self serving way.

It's terrible everywhere but seems especially bad in California. We're hardly immune. Our boro president was celebrating a lawsuit blocking a new 5000(!) unit development as if it was a victory for housing justice.

That said, the YIMBY message seems to be making headway. I hear a lot more pro-housing chatter than I did ten years ago, so at least that's something.

What logic could that person possibly be following? It's just mind boggling.

In any case, that's why I want to see local planning just abolished. These people are so clueless or self-serving (not sure which, don't care) that I don't see any reasoning with them or even talking to them. Just fire them all and abolish their offices.

Easy: people require infrastructure and many land developers ignore it. More lanes on roads being a big one. In my former neck of the woods, a developer is putting in 1 or 2 thousands homes. They will connect right onto the two lane highway, miles from the freeway that already has too much traffic causing chaos in the rush hours. The developers will make a bundle if they don't go bankrupt first, and the community will be worse off.

The proposed 5000 unit development which has just been killed by NIMBYs is within blocks of two different subway stations. Few if any any of the residents would have owned cars. Roads are not an issue here.

It's pure against-all-change conservatism. It's fine to have that personality type, but the vast, overwhelming majority of the country is filled with landscapes that change slowly if at all. Can't the small island of Manhattan be set aside for change and growth?

My cynical take is that we just have to wait out the boomers. We changed and grew in every way until they took over and everything stopped. I think it will restart when they retire.

> My cynical take is that we just have to wait out the boomers...

Not to double down on cynicism but what makes you think that oligarchs of the following generations will be any less self serving?

I don't think the people leading the charge down in the LES are disproportionately rich, at least unless you count the implicit value of a rent regulated apartment, what they are is disproportionately older. And I get it--change can be disorienting, construction is noisy, and so on. But this is literally Manhattan we are talking about. If not here, where?

The NIMBYs in California are mostly older and middle class. The oligarchs happen to mostly be on the right side at least on this particular issue.

I really think a big elephant in the room on this issue is racism. Restricting housing supply to hold prices high to exclude all but the already economically established is how liberals implement red lining without admitting their real motives even to themselves. They can pretend its about community, the environment (despite the fact that NIMBY policies encourage sprawl), etc.

That's a failure of urban planning too. Either better infrastructure is needed or density needs to be located closer to good infrastructure. NIMBY planners in California are opposed to both. They block construction near high capacity transportation and they oppose the extension of that transportation to new places.

The whole state seems to be run as a giant housing supply restriction cartel for the purpose of enriching existing property owners and speculators at the expense of newcomers, the young, the working class, and the poor.

It's common to a lot of "blue states" but California has the worst case. It's rank hypocrisy and everyone involved should be ashamed.

I came up with a way to show the hypocrisy: point out that "red" states like Texas and Arizona are more liberal than California because in those states a working class person can afford a place to live.

Seriously... what kind of brain damage allows someone to advocate us being a "sanctuary state" for immigrants while simultaneously opposing any housing or infrastructure expansion? Where are these people supposed to live? Are they utterly incapable of rational thought?

We don't even prioritize homes for taxpaying citizens. There's an off-putting mentality that having a roof over your head is some kind of "flex" in California. In San Francisco, there's even a strange pride people have that homeless are on the streets ("look at us, we don't hide them away, aren't we great?!").

Although the weather does play a role, in the sense that if we had bad weather and homeless were freezing to death on the streets, I think sufficient shelters would go up immediately.

I keep pushing for us to follow Utah's lead on this issue: https://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-chroni...

>We don't even prioritize homes for taxpaying citizens.

There's way too much oppression against simple or niche home designs. The government backlash against Tiny Homes, for instance. And of course taxing homes to death also probably isn't a good thing. Tax bad stuff like gasoline. Don't tax things we need more of.

Property taxes are capped at 1%, and assessment appreciation is tied to inflation. Lowering taxes isn't the answer here.

Now if you want to talk about impact fees you might be on to something...

That's true, but that is just traditional property taxes on homes in California. As you noted, there are other taxes and even regulatory capture that drives up costs of new home ownership.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com