There are difficulties: there are different homeless population types characterized by Mental health, substance abuse, cost of living, unemployment, etc.
Also because of a reaction to heavy handed policies of the past, it’s difficult to institutionalize those who need mental health intervention.
That said we could at least tackle the easier population whose issue is an economic one.
I have no solid ideas of what “we need to do” but I know that in the European cities I frequent, it’s not like this. Other comments in this discussion touch on the social infrastructure that we’ve forsaken... the things that cost money, require continuity and depth in the community, and which... in other cultures, seem reasonable and required for their humans.
That said, I wonder about what the infrastructure looks like that helps people months before they hit the homeless force functions. There’s a funnel in the descent of resources... the homelessness activists can’t fix the infrastructure of social support and the economic cliff son many people teeter on.
I just spent a couple of months traveling, living in quarters not my own. Had a very minor health issue that was difficult to treat outside of my home base. It was inconvenient, then challenging, then debilitating, and ultimately pretty deflating. I had the resources to fix things, but if I had been financially constrained, my confidence and autonomy and self-esteem could have plummeted to hard-to-recover levels. I could feel how vulnerable other people probably would have been. And I know my friends in other countries would’ve shaken their head and muttered something about our system here in the US.
The reason there aren't less fancy, affordable apartments is people weren't allowed to build new apartments 20 years ago, which would have aged into affordable housing this decade.
Though the above does touch on what I think is really missing - a social safety net. I can see how high cost of living could lead to homelessness when you're trying to cling on after losing a job and can't find something to replace it right away. I fully believe we should help such folks, give them a safety net, just -not- in SF. There's tons of inland cities that are begging for people, let's solve two things at once. After they are back on their feet, if they want to move back - so be it.
Edit to add - I don't think the situation of 'keep moving' is realistic. Of all the thousands of cities in the US, only a handful have really had a price explosion, and the reasons are obvious - coastal, nice weather, and limited space. I can't see that ever happening in say, Olathe, or Tuscaloosa, etc. Austin for example has had an explosion, but generally has the room to grow outwards in a reasonable way in my opinion.
But guess what, it works the other way too.
I grew up poor. Lucky to have a roof over my head. In a town where the local pasttime is hanging out in the Walmart parking lot and doing heroin.
Then I got a job at a big tech company. I had to beg and borrow just to move out here because it's so expensive to relocate. If I didn't have a friend out here, I would have had to sleep in the office until my first pay check (yeah it's fucked up).
Now my life and family are in a massively better place.
So what's the solution to homelessness? Relocate and/or retrain. It takes a lot of effort, but it's the only thing that works in a capitalistic country.
Not that I have the answers... Rent control would be interesting, but well, this isn't socialism, it's cut-throat capitalism, and landlords are out to make maximum profits, your homeless ass be damned!
The bay area isn't close to capacity. Even SF has 10,000 fewer people per square mile than NYC.
At the end of the day, the homelessness problem in SF and other west coast cities is the result of the government looking the other way (i.e. not enforcing the law) combined with the fact that you can live outside most of the year.
SF doesn't have to be a city just for the top 1%. But that is what it is becoming, directly because of restrictions on building too much housing.
I would be a lot happier paying taxes if the spending ratios were reversed.
I suspect that this is because the 'place to stay' usually comes with various strings attached. I doubt there are many homeless people who would choose to sleep under a bridge rather than in a bed (though not doubt there are a minority who would).
You aren't suggesting that providing housing to the homeless will lead to more violence than when the homeless live on the streets, are you?
Chronically homeless folks make up only ~25% of the homeless population and of them less than half have mental illness or addiction issues. So, most chronically homeless people can be helped with housing and other measures.
My point is just that the crazy yelling homeless guy you see on the street in SF is a minority when it comes to the homeless population. You are just much more likely to see him because he is yelling on the street in SF. However, for every crazy homeless guy yelling, there are >5 people living in their cars who just need some temporary help to get back on their feet.
So the options are to cut social programs, leave them as they are now, or expand them. Which option would you guess has the best chances of helping more people?
Economics (and math) is only useful to life insofar as its axioms model reality well.
If you put a value on human life and model flux across borders, the metrics look different than purely $ spent for # of homeless present.
See Also: where most public school funding goes.
lol - it can't even be fixed at local levels where there is very close and local pressure and you expect it to be fixed at the totally remote and abstracted federal level?
Want to fix homelessness and many other problems? Let go of this "two party" BS and stop voting people back in who change nothing or allow problems to continually worsen.
It's really that simple. Until politicians are going to be held accountable and know that just because they have a D or R behind their name they can't take your vote for granted, why should they worry or care about opinions expressed in threads like this one?
People might actually have to pay attention to what's going on around them, though. People currently not in "the game" might have to get out of their comfort zone and get involved. Perish the thought.
Insanity - doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result. As the old comic strip Pogo once opined: "We have met the enemy and He is Us".
Enough blaming other people or expecting some other fair godmother in the sky (ie. "federal level") to wave a magic wand and solve all our problems. It isn't going to happen and to expect otherwise is truly irrational.