Hacker News Reader

Comment by randomsearch | Hacker News Reader

Aside: having a little first and close secondhand experience of homelessness and hostel provision, it seems to me that many people think drugs and mental health issues are the key causes. This is untrue. I'd say there is a "core problem" of those issues, which would be very difficult to solve, but it is a minority. I also wonder how much those problems are secondary symptoms rather than causes. Live on the street long enough and you'll be wanting an escape, for example.

In London my experience was that a large number (majority?) sleeping on the streets were there because of benefit sanctions, i.e. they simply could not afford to live in a house as the government had removed their social welfare. Some people were waiting to be housed etc.

It only takes a moment's thought to notice (a) the difference in prevalence of homelessness between countries, (b) the difference in prevalence over short time periods within the same country, to see that it is government policy that large determines the extent of homelessness. When governments don't provide good welfare nets, social housing, and social services to help people, homelessness is higher.

View on HN

> (a) the difference in prevalence of homelessness between countries,

This is not repeated as often as it should. I live in an Eastern European country, not a poor one but definitely not a rich one, and only recently I have learned about LA's Skid Row. Because I was curious I went on Google StreetView and what I saw there [1] literally shocked me, I didn't honestly think scenes like that were possible in a developed country. We certainly don't have them here in my country, we do have our share of people living rough [2] and the like but not on the same scale as I saw in those photos.

This is a failure for the US society as a whole, I am really surprised it's not a bigger discussion topic in the US mainstream media (at least I wasn't able to see it).

[1] https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0437952,-118.2431811,3a,48.9...

[2] https://www.scena9.ro/article/segregare-romi-pata-rat-cluj

Romania has its plethora of (mainly Roma) shantytowns across the country, like Pata Rât which you link. But reasons why no one resorts to tents on a sidewalk are e.g. 1) weather in Romania is more or less the same across the country, unlike California which draws homeless from across the country for its clement weather, and 2) the Romanian authorities are more hands-off with enforcing building codes in Roma settlements, so you can erect actual buildings.

Also, perhaps emigration to Western Europe has served as a safety valve for homelessness. Some down-and-out Romanians can move to Italy or Spain and immediately improve their prospects. Down-and-out Americans, on the other hand, have nowhere to go so easily.

Actually only a small minority of California's homeless come from another state.

"L.A.H.S.A.’s 2019 homeless count found that 64 percent of the 58,936 Los Angeles County residents experiencing homelessness had lived in the city for more than 10 years. Less than a fifth (18 percent) said they had lived out of state before becoming homeless."

http://homelessperspective.com/2019/11/08/where-does-califor...

Those studies are always without any proof. Just because someone says they were “living” there doesn’t mean it’s true or in what capacity. I live next to a cop and believe me we are getting homeless druggies from all over because other states would rather send us their problems and those druggies would rather be here where we have loose and permissive laws. Our DAs regularly refuse to prosecute people who have dozens or even hundreds of felonies.

We built this hell.

Saying “I live next to a cop” doesn’t provide much proof either.

I think a big issue is that in the US people aren’t willing to acknowledge how blatantly corrupt ALL politicians are. People are really caught up in the tribalism of the two party system.

I think the two party tribalism is a bit of a tangent but I agree. We need more options than red or blue.

It’s not necessarily corruption. There’s plenty of voters who vote against making housing more affordable. The entire state of CA has built this mess with their zoning laws

Zoning is the big problem in the US. It is illegal in most cities to build a tiny house, or a decent shelter to sleep in, even if you follow all the safety codes. Zoning says you must have a minimum of 1000+ square feet (100+ square meters), a kitchen, a bathroom, a minimum lot size, minimum setbacks, minimum parking in some areas, etc. A sheriff with a gun will show up eventually to evict you. You either can afford city rent, or you are kind of screwed.

It's a shame that most places won't even allow these people anywhere to pitch a tent, somewhere with bathrooms and access to a bus stop.

> Zoning says you must have a minimum of 1000+ square feet

Minimum lot and habitable space rules vary by state and locality, not only is 1,000 sq. ft. usually above the minimum for habitable space, its often above the minimim for lot size by a wide margin.

Is that common or an exception, particularly in cities where the jobs are?

And does that change the point I was making, that zoning is a bigger impediment to more/cheaper housing than codes? It isn't safety codes that says I can't put six locked insulated sheds in my back yard for six homeless people to sleep in and a port potty, it's zoning, right?

> And does that change the point I was making, that zoning is a bigger impediment to more/cheaper housing than codes?

Zoning is codes, and safety is one of the overt purposes of such codes. And, conversely, state building/safety/hability codes can have zoning-like exclusionary purposes as well as their overt purposes. You can’t really cleanly divide them as unrelated orthogonal rules.

> It isn't safety codes that says I can't put six locked insulated sheds in my back yard for six homeless people to sleep in and a port potty, it's zoning, right?

No, in most cases using sheds and not having in-unit bathrooms would violate safety/hability codes at the state level, not just local zoning ordinances.

Now, building an otherwise legal multiunit apartment complex on your single-family-zoned lot would also be a zoning violation, true.

I appreciate the clarification on codes versus zoning.

However I did some digging and found that there's a big difference between what the commonly used international residential codes allow, and what zoning commonly allows.

From an article on tiny houses [0]:

> Most of the country’s local building codes have been adopted from the International Residential Code (IRC) for one- and two-family dwellings, which contains size specifications like rooms (except bathrooms and kitchens) must be at least 70 square feet, while ceiling height must be at least 7 feet.

> Zoning regulations are based off more local factors, and determine the size requirements of your home based on what zone it’s located in. You will need to call your local zoning or planning department to find that info. Many cities and counties, however, have a minimum size requirement of 1,000 square feet or more for construction of a new home on its own land, according to Tiny House Community.

And from a separate linked article on minimum dwelling size to satisfy codes [1]:

> I find no requirement that the sleeping area or kitchen must be in separate rooms, and instead could be combined in a studio arrangement. So I believe it could be legitimately argued that a minimum legal area by 2015 IRC standards could be as small as one habitable room of 70 sq. ft. with sleeping area and kitchen, plus a bathroom as small as 18 sq. ft. while meeting minimum spacing requirements.

So it does kind of look like zoning is still the big cost multiplier, since codes say 88 square feet minimum (separate bathroom), while zoning in most cities/counties in the US mandate 1000 square feet minimum. Quite a difference. And that's before getting into minimum lot size.

[0] https://archive.curbed.com/2016/9/22/13002832/tiny-house-zon...

[1] https://americantinyhouseassociation.org/minimum-size-for-a-...

Your article seems to misrepresent the minimum room size in the IRC for the minimum total house area:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/minimum-hou...

“The IRC codes require that all homes must be built on a minimum of 320 square feet. The minimum square footage for a house is 120 square feet, and at least one room must be habitable. Habitable rooms meet other regulations, such as needing a closet and at least one window. Other rooms, not meant for sleeping, must be at least 70 square feet.”

It also weasel words (and apparently succeeds in tricking you with it) about what zoning requires; what you interpret as “most” is actually described inbthe article you cite with the far weaker “many”:

> Many cities and counties, however, have a minimum size requirement of 1,000 square feet or more for construction of a new home on its own land

Not “most”.

Have I been tricked, or are you being pedantic? Based on my experience looking at a variety of specific city, town, and county zoning regulations I hardly see any that allows a primary dwelling anything close to as small as 120 square feet. 750 square feet? Sure, there's a bunch of those. 400 square feet? Some. Less than 400 square feet? Hardly any. Even places that allow accessory dwelling units are rare/uncommon.

The places where an overwhelming majority of people live (where the jobs are) have zoning regulations that do not allow 120 square foot houses, or anything close to that small. There's a lot of people who want a tiny house and can't find a place to legally put one. It still looks like zoning defines minimums for the most part, not safety codes, and there is a big difference, which was my original point.

Do you really think I'm that far off on this?

That is what I tell Americans all the time—go to any poor country in Europe and it never looks as bad as even the richer parts of San Francisco or LA. In California we simply have given up on the homeless.

We squander hundreds of millions and billions into completely untracked and unaccountable programs where executives skim off the top. We spend money on giving drug addicts more needles (but not to diabetics!) and blankets and $5000 tent camps or other useless or less than useless solutions. It’s pathetic that in the richest state and with so much wealth, we allow this inhumane situation to continue. COVID gave local mayors an excuse to do even less. Now there are city streets covered in filth, rats, feces, lawlessness, drugs, prostitution, etc are all on the street in broad daylight.

We should be embarrassed but most people just shrug it off (or downvote for bringing it up). Whatever we are doing is clearly not working and it’s a policy failure we should look into.

Then we have morons like the DA in San Francisco, Chesa Boudin, who have effectively stopped the police from enforcing the rule of law which is attracting more of the homeless who just want to do meth and steal bikes and break them down for parts. Every freeway overpass is covered in trash and homeless creeps are all over. I’m taking my wife and kid and moving out of California soon, this is just a disgusting way to live for the astronomical cost of living.

I don’t think it’s a question of money. The main constraints are:

1) No one wants homeless shelters, supportive housing, mental institutions, day program facilities, etc. in their neighborhoods.

2) Well meaning but naive people constrain the solution space.

For example, there’s been a movement to reduce arrests for various things. An unintended consequence or that is that homeless people that victimize other homeless people (including theft and assault) are less frequently arrested and so homeless shelters become less attractive to the homeless.

>> This is a failure for the US society as a whole, I am really surprised it's not a bigger discussion topic in the US mainstream media (at least I wasn't able to see it).

It's not a failure of the US society. In some parts of the world, which include the US, if you're out on the streets on your ass it's your fault. In other parts of the world, if you're out on the streets on your ass it doesn't matter whose fault it is, we'll take you in. Usually "we" is the family, sometimes "we" is the state.

But it's a feature, not a bug. Some parts of the world are so individualistic that everyone is on their own, for good or bad.

The article is talking about Toronto. You're talking about London. Both of these cities have the distinction of making various lists with titles like "The 11 most expensive cities to live in around the world in 2020" [0].

So while I don't disagree that that far tail of people probably do need some welfare to get a house, I do want to state that if someone is going to get welfare so that they can live in a house, it should not be a house in London. It should be a house somewhere somewhat cheaper than London.

If someone honest to goodness can't keep a roof over their heads, they deserve help but really shouldn't be trying to make it work in one of the worlds most expensive cities.

[0] https://www.insider.com/most-expensive-cities-to-live-in-202...

The article is talking about tiny temporary shelters, not giving away houses, or expensive flats.

I live in one of the cities listed and if I were allowed to build my own shelter in the middle of one of it's public parks, I too would jump at the opportunity.

This is some of the worlds most desirable real estate here. This isn't even a case of bad government policy, which I would usually arc up about. The article is homeless people taking over public land for private use without doing anything to justify that privilege. That isn't fair, if it is up for grabs I want it and I'd be behind a long queue of other people who want it. The right to use that land is worth a fortune. Being homeless, while sad, is not actually something that should be rewarded with free space in the centre of a metropolis. If we are going to support them, we can support them to live somewhere less desirable.

Consider that often these situations are temporary.

And consider that cities are where support services are.

And consider that if you can’t afford a home you probably can’t afford a car.

I just don’t think anybody is homeless in Toronto or London or any other city for the same reasons that rich people make them expensive cities.

I’m pretty sure many homeless, if offered a home in the countryside, would happily oblige.

Well, most of them would be foolish to accept - they'd be trading a chance at getting the services they need for better immediate shelter, but be trapped in an economic dead end with no social services, no health care, lousy education and no way out. And then someone would whine that we shouldn't give handouts to people who live in rural areas, they should eat some bootstraps and move somewhere with opportunities......

> if you can’t afford a home you probably can’t afford a car

That’s simply untrue. Owning a car is vastly less expensive than renting a dwelling in most cities. I’ve known people that went homeless, and it’s pretty common for them to...live in their car.

Those cars and vans quickly become non functional, however, at least where I live. The tires deflate and they become a hard temporary shelter that occupies on street parking rather than space for a tent in a park.

The rich and homeless should be equally forbidden to build small shelters in the park? That sounds like it's been said before.

> The rich and homeless should be equally forbidden to build small shelters in the park? That sounds like it's been said before.

You're probably thinking of this Anatole France[0] quote:

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”

[0] https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Anatole_France

Yes.

What are your thoughts about squatting?

There's always fallow private lands, easements, empty parking lots, abandoned warehouses, etc.

In most large cities squatting cannot be a longer term solution, as it often doesnt take long to be explused from a place (in paris for example squats stay around from 2 to 6 months on average if you are lucky enough to manage to secure the place for the first week or so). Also depending on who runs and occupies the building, it might actually not always be a safe/sane housing option neither.

Agree with all.

My open question wrt to squatting is the potential to incentivize keeping real estate in active use. If "use it or lose it" is official policy, it might help mitigate hoarding.

A bit like some cities are now penalizing unoccupied condos, where investors buy up condos and then don't even rent them out.

A couple of things to consider:

This is a marginal case of private use of public lands. These are shelters, rather than homes. The size (2' by 6') and construction offers little more than physical security while sleeping.

There are reasons why some homeless people prefer parks. For example: parks tend to be closer to social services and other means of support. There are also homeless people who find other places to squat.

> If we are going to support them, we can support them to live somewhere less desirable.

Unfortunately, there are also people who believe that type of support means forced relocation. There are many reasons to oppose force relocation. In the mildest of terms, it is never intended to solve the root problem of poverty.

There is a line to be drawn on what people can do in public parks. At the extremes:

* It is totally reasonable that people sit in them and enjoy the sun.

* It is totally unreasonable for a billionaire to wall a section off and build a mansion in it.

Now we can debate where that line is drawn, but a professionally built plywood structure with door locks and smoke detectors is a lot closer to the unacceptable end than the alternative. That is starting to build up a permanent dwelling in a public space.

I don't know how to solve homelessness, and I'll admit to not trying very hard. But if we can just hive off public spaces for people to live on, then there is no way the homeless are getting first pick. I know people who had to leave a major city due to housing costs and move to the country. If the topic of debate is repurposing public land for longer-term dwellings, they should get priority access to it over these homeless people.

Maybe we need to dedicate lots where self-policing groups of homeless people can put their temporary shelters, provide them with a porta potty, somewhere near a bus stop so they can get to work. This would be such a boon for so many struggling people.

Most people have little choice in where they live. It doesn't matter if the city you live in is expensive: When you are poor, you can't move. Some people might like to move: Others would not.

Forcing folks to move can easily mean forcing folks to leave behind what family and friends they have, and seems cruel. Some of the folks will have jobs that don't pay enough to live in the city they work in, and I don't think we should punish people by making them have hours of commuting either.

"You are too poor to live here" is also "you are too poor to afford to take this basic job" as well as "you are too poor to stay around anyone you know".

People move all the time when they get a job.

Why should people who have lost a job and are about to be homeless not be required to move to a lower cost area in order to get free housing?

If need be transportation can be provided.

I take it you've not been in this situation.

I’ve gotten jobs and moved. I’ve lost jobs and moved.

What’s your point?

Sure. Poor people don't do this all the time, though. Moving requires things like deposits and first months' rent. If you change utility companies? More deposits.

I've had to turn down jobs because I couldn't afford the startup costs. One was just red shirts, and I couldn't afford one.

A time or two, the reason I was able to move was because I could stay with family.

Transportation isn't enough. People should be able to live near work: Being poor shouldn't mean spending 4 hours a day on commutes. Being poor shouldn't mean moving away from people you know just to have shelter, a basic need. And so on.

Did you even read my comment before replying?

How does

> free housing

> transportation

NOT solve any issues with deposits or rents?

> People should be able to live near work

Sure, there are lots of things that should be, but aren't.

Not everybody can live near work, especially not in the nation's most expensive areas. Being able to live near work is not a basic right, nor should it be.

> Being poor shouldn't mean spending 4 hours a day on commutes.

Ideally not, but if that's all you can get then at least it should be an option.

That being said, the best way to level the field is to have the aforementioned subsidized means of leaving for a low cost of living area.

> Being poor shouldn't mean moving away from people you know just to have shelter

Why not?

If you cannot afford to live in a high cost area, why should somebody else pay for your right to live there?

If you cannot pay your way, what right do you have to occupy a space that somebody else needs and can pay for it? Merely being there first should not confer any special privilege.

Having shelter is a basic need. Living near people you know is not.

> Most people have little choice in where they live. It doesn't matter if the city you live in is expensive: When you are poor, you can't move. Some people might like to move: Others would not.

That is only true if someone has roots: a job and/or family. If you are single and don’t have many possessions, let alone a job or anyone to look after or be looked after, you are incredibly mobile. Prisons on egress will even ay for your bus ticket to go wherever, if you are without any roots to return to (because they never existed or were long burned away), that literally can be anywhere.

Finally, if you need help to survive and live in a place like Great Falls MT, you aren’t going to get anything there unless you family or some other roots to rely on. You’ll probably wind up in Spokane and then Seattle. If you weren’t mobile, you probably did get help or weren’t helpless in the first place.

I guess there is some confusion between poor and homeless. I totally agree that poor people should be given help to keep living in their own communities, but not necessarily to move into a higher priced community. People without any housing at all are a different story all together. There is no reason why they should be housed in higher priced cities if they don’t have jobs to commute to in the first place.

Homelessness exists in cities because it's possible to be homeless in cities. It's not possible to be homeless (without a vehicle) outside cities. Ergo, cities cultivate homelessness. If you make living as a homeless person impossible in cities, homelessness would disappear.

the sim city way.

By what mechanism would homelessness disappear? What would happen to the existing and newly homeless? Because it sounds like the answer is "starvation to death".

Most people would regard that as pretty inhumane.

You assume that none of the homeless can lift themselves up from homelessness. I've read some interviews with them, and it seems that a portion of them just prefers homelessness to hard physical work for meager pay (which is an only option available for them). With the support systems provided by cities and states, homelessness can be seen as a favorable option by people who have an extreme aversion for labor (not to mention that without having to show up for work every morning they can freely pursue their drinking habit). I don't see that angle discussed here.

I don't propose a mechanism. Just pointing out the reasoning.

Rural homeless isn't just possible; it exists.[0]

[0]: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/07/04/7362403...

Fayette County Kentucky is the location of downtown Lexington, the second largest city in the state. It's not rural.

The article is much longer than the first few paragraphs about Lexington.

A lot of homeless people have jobs. Jobs are in the city. Are you suggesting all the homeless need to do is rent a parking space downtown for their Bentley and they can commute from a nice tent in a farmer's field outside of town?

For goodness sakes, a shack on a lake north of Toronto goes for millions of dollars these days [0].

A few years ago a conservative government in Alberta tried to solve their homeless problem by giving free one-way tickets to Vancouver to the homeless instead of welfare cheques. Dumping your problem on someone else converts a cost into an economic externality but is sure to get you hated.

[0] http://muskokacottagesforsale.net/real-estate-properties/

The other distinction with Toronto is the government hasn't "removed their welfare" as the other user suggests. Most of the homeless have a source of income.

Is it really surprising that drug addicts can’t afford housing in the most expensive cities in the world? In San Francisco we are constantly fed propaganda to tell us this is a housing crisis, but someone on meth or heroin can’t afford the rent regardless if it’s in SF or Des Moines. The drugs are the big issue but no one wants to address it.

> The article is talking about Toronto. You're talking about London.

Sorry, no I wasn't, my fault for not being clearer. I gave an example of London but my experience is beyond that city, that's just where I happened to talk directly with a lot of homeless people about why they were on the streets.

My observations generalise to the rest of my experience, for sure, including in very poor towns with low rents in the UK.

Maybe it depends on the country. But after working with homeless people in the Netherlands I completely agree with you.

I helped homeless people who had a job but could not afford a house anymore for different reasons. Most were helped with housing after some time. But if that time is long the temptation to take more alcohol than you should is right around the corner.

The Netherlands has a pretty effective social housing program. Not flawless but millions of people have a roof over their head thanks to government assistance.

The effectiveness unfortunately has eroded over the past years. There's a huge supply gap in almost all major cities. Moving people to the other side of the country for a house might not always be a bad things (it could help them break away from a toxic social circle) but it also tears them away from family, their job and their support system.

With the forecast being that the housing crisis will last until 2030 I'm not sure how much longer it will be effective.

Recently published [1]: the waiting time for social housing has risen to over 7 years in large parts of the country.

when applying for social housing in Apeldoorn, there's on average 123 applicants for each home

[1] https://nos.nl/op3/artikel/2377995-sociale-huurwoning-in-zek...

Possibly depends on the country and region. But I worked very closely with the homeless population in Seattle from 2001-2010 and the key issues prevalent in almost every case was chronic alcoholism, drug addiction, and mental illness.

I left Seattle in 2010 and went back a couple years ago to visit and it looked like the homeless population had doubled in the time since. Seattle has an enormous problem that they have no idea how to solve.

Were they addicted or mentally ill before they became homeless?

My wife is a welfare case worker and freely shares her experience with this sort of thing at the end of her day.

It is her observation that mental illness tends to precede everything. It tends to be what leads to addiction, though self-medication. It tends to lead to homelessness through a lack of cooperation with the housing providers, with the welfare providers who would pay for housing, or with the ability to live in a closed space. Even if your rent is paid by the state the landlord will kick you out for destroying property. When the leprechaun tells you to burn things, don't light a fire on your bed.

There are the generationally poor, the people whose luck took a turn for the worse, and refugees from violence but those populations don't usually end up living rough unless they also develop mental illness.

People aren't worried about homelessness per se, they are worried about the impact on their own quality of life, which is primarily from people with drug and mental health issues.

I am not sure why it's relevant to point this out. Actually I think it's rather heartless. Don't you have some ideals to strive for?

Coming from Berlin (which has sizable population of homeless) it was shocking to see many people sleeping on the street in Belfast. There's a lot of homeless in Berlin but I guess they can go to shelter at night. Not so in Belfast.

> I am not sure why it's relevant to point this out. Actually I think it's rather heartless. Don't you have some ideals to strive for?

It seems you're talking past the parent comment.

The fact that some people are down on their luck does not cause crime and insecurity per se. However, mental illness and drug abuse does have a considerable link with safety problems.

Let's put it this way: if you grant housing to someone who suffers from drug addiction or mental illness, those person's problems and the negative impact they have on society won't go magically away.

In fact, think about it for a minute: why are homeless shelters and drug clinics notorious hotspots of insecurity?

A lot of them will magically go away, is the thing. Even more of them will magically go away if you give them actual healthcare and social workers along with the housing.

> A lot of them will magically go away, is the thing.

No, they really don't.

Someone's schizophrenia doesn't magically vanish if you get your own two-bedroom apartment, nor does your heroin addiction magically vanish if you get a fancy studio apartment with the nicest view. It's outright insulting to every single person who ever struggled with mental illness or drug addiction to even suggest that real estate is a magical cure to problems.

From where I'm standing, this looks an awful lot like correlation being passed off as causality. You see happy families in the suburbs, with their nice house and nice life, and then you see people struggling with mental health and drug addiction, and all you see is that one's have a house while others don't. Well, guess what needs to be in place in your life before you can even be in a position to buy a house.

This isn't hypothetical and it isn't some silly correlation, there are plenty of successful programs doing exactly this, commonly called "housing first". Real estate magically reduces your need for whatever substance you can find to feel relaxed enough to sleep on concrete. Being in the same place every day magically cures your ability to have your medication available every morning. Living in a house magically stops you from needing to wear the same wet socks until your feet peel off. Sleeping in a bed, staying warm and fed and hydrated - all of these make a huge difference to physical and mental health. Do they fix everything? No, that's why I mentioned the supports that need to be added. But they're significant improvements anyway.

>In fact, think about it for a minute: why are homeless shelters and drug clinics notorious hotspots of insecurity?

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=what%27s+it+like+to+live+in+a+home...

https://invisiblepeople.tv/what-is-it-like-to-stay-in-a-home...

>Wendi’s Experience

>This is what Wendi from Houston, TX had to say about her shelter experience:

>“The largest homeless shelter in Houston is the Salvation Army, or “Sally House” as it is commonly called. It has been shut down three times in the last two years due to bedbug infestation, abruptly forcing folks who were trying to get their lives together to abandon most of their belongings and head back to the streets. But this is just the tip of the iceberg.

>Staying at Sally House means having a 5pm curfew, and being awakened at 4:30am to be ready for 5am church, in order to get a breakfast of cold cereal and sent on your way for the day. These hours are totally unrealistic for getting a job in the real world; thus the system forces you to stay in these conditions.

>On top of all of this, you aren’t allowed to have any of your belongings. They are placed in a closet for ‘safekeeping,’ which is usually anything but safe. But more on that later. Instead of your sleeping bag or bedroll, you are given a thin hospital quality blanket, no pillow – and either a cot (if you are lucky) or a thin foam mat on the floor (like a yoga mat). This is where you will sleep, 6 inches from a stranger, after attending the 6pm church service in order to get a sack lunch for dinner. Showers and laundry are allowed once per week.

>Rarely does a ‘client’ get assigned shower and laundry on the same day, so both pretty much defeat the purpose. You either have to bathe and put dirty clothes back on, or do laundry and put your clean outfit on a dirty body. You can be kicked out if you are caught taking a sponge bath or rinsing out your undergarments in the restroom sink.

>Please don’t think I am just picking on Sally House. These are the rules at every shelter in Houston. Times may vary a bit, but the main points are the same. Star of Hope is commonly referred to as Star of Dope because most of their staff is ‘former’ addicts who are not only still using but actively dealing. Restoration Hope Ministries forces its clients to panhandle all day and then confiscates the money. The list goes on and on. This is why many of us choose not to go to shelters.

>When personal property is put in a closet, unless you are the first one there in the morning you risk things being stolen (if the staff hasn’t done so already). When the stranger bunked next to you (and the staff) are high as a kite on every substance known to man, you risk being assaulted, raped, or killed. Sleep doesn’t come easy when you have to live with these facts.

>I sleep better on a sidewalk with my homeless ‘family’ around me than I ever could in a shelter.”

Huh? Walk under any bridge around Zoo and you may invert that statement...

I’ve seen more people sleeping rough in Berlin than any other city I’ve lived in, but I guess everyone perceives things differently..

I think it's because on the other side of the station there's the "bahnhofsmission" branch of berliner-stadtmission. https://g.page/bamizoo?share

Homeless are there because that's where they need to go, not because they like Bahnhof Zoo all that much.

If talking in absolutes, Berlin is most populous city in European Union (talking population within city limits proper - Paris and Madrid are larger if you take urban agglomeration in account.) Sure you will see larger absolute numbers than in any other city.

Curious: what do you think Madrid is doing differently, if you think they have less visible population of homeless?

It's not heartless to point out that most people don't care about the actual problem of being homeless except for the way it affects them, and it's relevant to point it out because it's an important part of understanding why the existing solutions have been chosen.

Slews of people with mental health and drug addiction issues aren't homeless, and few worry about them if they are keeping to themselves. And slews of homeless folks don't do drugs nor start out with mental health issues. After all, job loss is a thing and drugs are expensive.

People could just house others, which is cheaper and more humane than our current actions, and they could go back to pretending mental health issues and drug addiction do not exist.

oh wow what an insight - this is why people focus on that part. It had never occurred to me before, thanks! So the quiet majority of homeless people don't get discussed because they don't bother rich people... that makes so much sense.

>When governments don't provide good welfare nets, social housing, and social services to help people, homelessness is higher.

It's not just about what they provide, but also how they provide it. If the bureaucracy to take advantage of these housing benefits is too thick, then the people that need it the most won't be able to get them.

This is one thing where individuals trying to help are likely going to do better. An individual isn't going to have a bureaucratic mess that you need to navigate to get help. The government might have such a mess though.

Precisely. Due to the pandemic we now know two things in the UK. First that there are 9 times as many homeless as stats claim and second that all people can be housed. This is due to the fact that this was accomplished during the first lockdown. There just has to be political will.

It's housing costs entertwined with mental problems and drug use.

In many countries you can afford a shack with US equivalent of $100 a month. In rich countries such shacks are illegal and all the regulation and land cost raises minimum rent far above that.

At least 2/3 of homeless are addicted or mentally ill. The fraction that isn't typically doesn't live on the streets for more than a few months.

In my experience you don't see many homeless in poorer countries because housing is cheap relatively speaking.

> In my experience you don't see many homeless in poorer countries because housing is cheap relatively speaking.

I also wonder how much more likely certain countries are to quietly move mental health cases into clinics. This implies a whole lot of things about freedoms and due process.

> In my experience you don't see many homeless in poorer countries because housing is cheap relatively speaking.

India has well over a million homeless people, including (by some accounts) over 100,000 in the capital Delhi. I personally remember seeing quite a few people who appeared homeless in Delhi, including families squatting in historical sites (the Old Fort).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_India

Big cities in places like India and China are an exception. In these places average salary can be 10X higher than rural areas of the same province. Because the big cities are much father along towards being developed country than outskirts. So housing here is expensive and has the same result.

There are people making $2000 a year living in heated somewhat comfortable homes. Homeless in the US make more than that just in welfare benefits but they live in tents on the streets

> In many countries you can afford a shack with US equivalent of $100 a month.

Not in Western Europe, which shows that it is a problem with the US.

In my city in the states, easy homelessness cases are easy to treat so they get treated, and plucked from the pool of visible homeless rather quickly as they obtain and maintain transitional housing. That leaves behind a lot of chronic cases that aren’t easy to just throw some resources at, the ones where drugs and mental illness are involved.

Also, the more successful anyone city treats its problem, the worse it becomes if the larger context it exists in doesn’t treat it as well. For example, I read a story about an ex-con who is released from a prison in Texas, is given a bus ticket to go anywhere, and picks Seattle (not having ever been there) because they hear that is the place to be right now (they might have picked LA before). So the problem is influenced by regional and National governments as well, one city or even metro can’t work alone its way out of the problem.

I imagine it’s similar in the UK, just maybe on a smaller case (our problem over here has exploded in the last decade).

There are a lot more crazy people on US streets. Crazy as in stereotypical ranting at strangers.

(b) the difference in prevalence over short time periods within the same country, to see that it is government policy that large determines the extent of homelessness.

In NYC that difference in policy was not anything to do with social welfare payments. It was a reduction in arrests for quality of life crimes. Fewer people in jail, more on the streets. At least in the medium term—-in the decades’ long view the larger change was closing the big mental institutions in favor of “community treatment”.

It’s worth noting that NYC is legally obligated to provide a bed for everyone. The people on the street don’t want to use the shelter system for a mixture of reasons.

> When governments don't provide good welfare nets, social housing, and social services to help people, homelessness is higher.

Such social services are, themselves, often chains that bind people down. The requirements to receive them often lead people away from incremental work that would allow them to dip their toes in and potentially get back on their feet. Minimum wage laws increase the barriers further for the down and out.

Additionally, there is a kind of depression that hits when you are not providing for yourself. Especially for men.

It's my opinion it's the barriers we build that's the root cause of the cost minimums. The tight and restrictive zoning laws are more to blame for homelessness. Restrictive zoning cause the minimum income level to get housing to be quite elevated, and if you find yourself below that level - you are homeless. Minimum wage barriers to work stem from pricing caused by the zoning. If a society is able to lower that minimum income level significantly, then there will be a lot fewer on the streets.

I always fancied allowing for parking lots that let people live out of their cars, or a tent if you can't manage a car. The lots could charge for rent and provide basic amenities such as bathrooms, wifi, communal kitchen, and maybe power for a heated blanket. Then pretty much any down and out commercial property could be turned into such a lot without much work.

Here the minimum rent is about $1000/mo, if you're willing to be a roommate you can get that down to about $500/mo. A car-turned-home-lot at local real estate prices could support rents as low as $75-100/mo per slot and be quite profitable for the lot owner. If done as a non-profit it could be $40-50/mo at current interest rates. An order of magnitude lower.

Such options give people the dignity and self respect of caring for themselves. And accomplish it at a much much lower cost point. Remove the minimum wage barrier and an individual with no skills but a willingness to work could support himself in a reasonably healthy lifestyle at $4/hr. This would, IMHO, go much further to solving these issues.

It sounds like you’re advocating for a $4 minimum wage and a living situation that requires a vehicle, while only providing anecdata and opinion in attempt to contradict the very qualitative and well-studied benefits of social programs. Is that accurate?

I think it’s fair to say that quality of life can reach far and beyond the kind of conditions you’re describing, especially given the surplus of wealth that goes towards other government services. As a taxpayer with representation, I would prefer to see more of my dollars go toward raising the lowest standard, not rationalizing poverty for the sake of an impressive military.

It is something that could be dealt with, if a country chose to do so. In Switzerland I don’t think I ever saw someone living in the street.

AIUI this is because every citizen has the right to housing - and because the state is compassionate/efficient/wealthy enough this is what happens.

I lived in Lausanne and used the youth hostel when I first moved there. There was a homeless drunk guy that the police would put in the hostel every night, he smelled horrible. It wasn’t a great experience for me but at least he wasn’t sleeping on the street. Lausanne also had a lot of squatters, mostly young foreigners, but that was a completely different subculture. I never figured out why the police didn’t come down hard on them, they did on everything else.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com