Comment by subsubzero | Hacker News Reader

Comment by subsubzero | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> "get tough on homelessness" attitude would be vilified by our political climate, so it won't ever be up to me.

You and me both, the solution is really straightforward. I feel like homeless in general falls into 4 camps:

camp 1 - drug addiction, this one would be to get people off the streets, Open rehab clinics, get them clean, and back into a functioning society.

camp 2 - mental illness, This one would be opening mental institutions(Reagan closed these in the 70's which led to our current culture of homelessness in alot of large california cities). Money would go towards either medication to get people in a functioning state or full time commitment based on severity.

camp 3 - Those down on their luck, this one would be the easiest as job skills could be taught along with temporary free housing and counselors to ease the individual back into a job, once a job is found a stipend towards rent can be given until the person is fully independent again.

camp 4 - Those that want to stay homeless. This is the most difficult group to deal with, and having them escorted out of the city would most likely be the only solution.

I met a guy walking home in the TL, he had hitchhiked from a trailer park in North Carolina to SF. His neighbor in the trailer park made amateur porn websites, so he pretty much learned web development purely in the context of pornography. He was addicted to meth and came to SF looking for a job and the free methodone treatment. His laptop got stolen so I gave him an old Macbook I had lying around and told him to check out Codecademy.

I was hoping to get a feel-good story out of it after reading about Leo (https://www.businessinsider.com/leo-the-homeless-coder-2015-...), but the truth of the situation is he simply wasn't skilled or educated enough to actually learn computer science or even get past a phone interview (meth really ruins one's ability to maintain a train of thought). Somebody told him the legends of high-paying tech jobs in SF, and reality was a harsh teacher like it is to many people everywhere. He lived in shelters and on the streets for a while until he lost his phone, which was my only way of connecting with him. Haven't seen him on the streets for years and no idea what ended up happening with him.

My point being that people have really complex reasons for being homeless in SF and it's hard to put everyone into distinct groups, but for the most part your camps describe at least 90% of homeless people I've seen.

I am currently a web developer earning 6 figures in the Seattle area. I learned the skill in the Front End development course in Noisebridge—a hacker space in the Mission. They provided a free course, every Tuesday (or was it Monday) evening. I was living in a van at the time (what many people consider homeless). I know I might have learned the craft without this resource but I feel like this course made things significantly easier for me. And I definitely owe a dept of gratitude to the Noisebridge community (and Jeffrey in particular) for providing this to me.

Now just to be clear I’m not saying that any homeless person can learn how to code and get a job. I’m just saying that in my case I was what many people consider homeless, learned how to code, moved away from the city to Northern Europe, and then happened to get a job in the industry.

This is such a wonderful story, thank you for sharing it! I have plenty of stories of how Noisebridge has affected many people, it’s a truly wonderful place.

You forgot to include the ones who have 2 jobs and live in their car and bathe at an YMCA. They’re also homeless, maybe not as visible as the other categories and need help too!

I met a guy who fit all of the above. Did some drugs, had some mental issues (but not to the point of being insane), was down on his luck. He didn't exactly want to stay homeless, but he preferred it to his other alternatives (which included job skill program with free housing). After a while his luck turned and he found a job that suited him and a place to stay. He probably still has some mental issues and does some drugs.

Idk where I'm going with this except to say it's complicated.

It’s not so simple.

1 and 2 are either your largest groups or at least very large groups.

Getting addicts ‘clean’ is a sub problem at least almost as hard as the general, and it’s somewhere between hard and impossible to keep someone in a rehab or a mental facility against their will, and I doubt Reagan is to blame for that.

Basically, a large proportion of 1 and 2 are effectively in camp 4.

Reagan is to "blame" for it, but the unbelievable condition of homes for the involuntarily committed didn't make it a hard decision to make for him.

I wonder what the distribution is between these four camps? My hunch is solving for the first three camps as you've described would lead to a much higher quality of living for the average city dweller.

1,2,4 have a lot of overlap or are the same group (you need to be mentally ill to want to be homeless and drug addiction is a symptom of trauma that’s basically untreated mental illness).

Need to find ways to help the mentally ill, and shovelling pills won’t cut it, we need comprehensive programs.

For groups 1 and 2, who gets to decide if a homeless person is to be committed? This seems like a non-trivial question, or am I missing something?

A person's social worker can make that decision. It is based on documented observations, interactions, interviews with neighbors, police reports, and hospitalization reports. Local and national laws provide a legal basis and rules for it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com