Hacker News Reader

Comment by TheRealPomax | Hacker News Reader

Generally you don't solve homelessness with affordable housing. We might call it "homelessness" but that's just the bullshit word we use based on the symptom, it's actually destitution, and the help they need extends so far beyond just getting them their own place that that part is actually the easiest problem to solve compared to all the other parts that also need solving.

The fact that Toronto and Vancouver haven't even set up container apartments in several places around the city is all the proof you need that folks don't care, which means they shouldn't be given a choice on whether or not to solve the problem. This should get mandated with fines for the city itself if it doesn't help the people who can't help themselves because the system's been designed to prevent them from getting help.

View on HN

I disagree that the root problem is "destitution" rather than affordable housing.

I haven't seen much good research on the best way to solve homelessness, but most cross-city analyses suggest that high rent (and low housing density) is the main determinant of homelessness rates: https://sci-hub.ee/10.1111/1467-9906.00168

Note that "extreme poverty," "low-wage jobs," and welfare recipients were not significant factors.

A second study claims the "the availability of low income housing and of mental health care are the strongest predictors. Relatively modest investments in improving availability of these services would provide considerable payoff in reducing homelessness": https://sci-hub.ee/10.2307/800641

A third study I can't find now concluded that 25th-percentile-rent (rather than median rent) was the most significant factor (ie, availability of affordable housing).

That sounds like confusing the cause for the solution: there's a very big difference between "why someone became homeless" (i.e. no affordable housing) and helping "who they are now that they've been living on the street". You don't magically get those folks back on their feet purely by getting them housing, even if getting them housing is a critical step. There are so many more steps that are now necessary.

It's more cost-efficient and effective long-term to prevent people from falling into homelessness. And affordable housing is widely viewed as a major root cause. [1]

Yes, people on the streets should be helped. But if 4 people fall into homelessness for every 1 person place in permanent supportive housing (this is the ratio in SF [2]), we will never "solve homelessness."

[1] https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-sector/our-insigh...

[2] https://hsh.sfgov.org/about/research-and-reports/pit-hic/#20...

> Generally you don't solve homelessness with affordable housing.

I think in some part, you do. I think a significant portion of homeless became that way through the stress and despair of affording $2k+ rents on a meager income, dealing with the lack of hope by turning to alcohol and possible other drugs, leading to a downward spiral where they end up on the street, abusing drugs for years, and eventually turning into the destitution you see.

you don't solve what homelessness actually is just with (almost always temporary) housing, you just get people off the street, which is a necessary step one in a multi step process, because just getting them off the street and then going "k, now make it work yourself" would be about as effective as not getting them off the street.

Though technically container apparments would be "affordable housing" -- which I think might be one part of the solution.

> This should get mandated with fines for the city itself if it doesn't help the people who can't help themselves because the system's been designed to prevent them from getting help.

The problem is that "help" means different things to different people.

For years, the general view was that addicts in Canada got help via safe injection sites, first responders trained in administering naxolone, free housing available, and no real consequences for petty crime. Keeping them out of jail and making sure they had housing and clean drugs was seen as helping them.

It's only been in the past ~2 years, now that it's spiraled out of control during COVID, that some are redefining "help" to mean forced rehabilitation and/or institutionalization and keeping them off the streets if they commit crime. But there's no consensus on this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com