What I learned reporting in cities that take belongings from homeless people
propublica.org
propublica.org
The big difference between now and the turn of the 20th century is that back then, the law had little to no tolerance for public vagrancy. Jack Black describes dodging sheriffs, being locked up for the crimes of vagrancy and burglary, spending long stretches of time in prison and emerging completely unreformed, immediately returning to his life of encampment and crime. Even though ultimately his behavior didn't change, the law made him spend significant lengths of time removed from society.
I don't know what the lesson is here, if there is one. While a century ago their approach also didn't solve the problem, it did result in more livable cities for everyone else in the meantime. Perhaps one takeaway here is that it the problem isn't truly "solvable" given how we have structured our markets-based society.
[1] https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/jack-black/you-cant-win
Voters very much want a compassionate and effective solution. They just aren’t being offered one.
> Unfortunately most of it goes to well meaning, but ineffectual do-gooders rather than actually solving any problems.
It sounds like the generic arguments of certain political parties, using terms like 'do-gooders' and calling them 'ineffectual', etc. Is there evidence behind it, in your locale?
The main issue I've seen is that public services are underfunded.
How do you explain Vancouver or Stockholm’s homeless populations? Those famously underfunded Swedish and Canadian welfare states?
Some people just can’t wait to spend other people’s money and aren’t too picky about whether or not it’ll accomplish anything.
I don't ever see homeless people in tents or anything similar.
If you’ve cleared it all up since then, kudos. But I don’t think it’s because public services were underfunded back then.
I really don't think you saw "plenty" of homeless on the streets here, not now and not a decade ago. Panhandlers, beggars, etc. do exist but they aren't homeless.
I do not trust your anecdotal experience, not saying the issue doesn't exist but it's not even close to a problem and orders of magnitude less than anything I've experienced traveling in the USA, around the Bay Area, Texas (Austin/Dallas), New York, Portland, Chicago, Detroit, Boston, and a few other places had a very acute and visible issue with homelessness that's incomparable with Stockholm.
So yes, public services being properly funded help a lot.
What value does that have? You must have something valuable to contribute.
This says CA averages spending 42k per year per homeless person, going off the 2022-2021 state budget.
https://abc7news.com/sf-homeless-plan-housing-all-san-franci...
This says SF is looking to spend 70k per homeless person per year in the next few years (in addition to state spending?). I've seen other pieces that mention SF spending anywhere from 250 mil to over a billion per year on homelessness. I have multiple friends that make less than 70k per year, in CA, and somehow make do. Lack of money doesn't seem to be the issue here.
That's a pretty crazy qualification: Either be go along with and be accepted by the majority or you are subject to sanctions. That is the opposite of freedom and universal rights.
That's pretty much criminal law in a nutshell. There are expectations if you want others to tolerate your oddities, one of which is you don't get to impose on them.
It's the opposite. Others liking you or not is irrelevant.
> There are expectations if you want others to tolerate your oddities, one of which is you don't get to impose on them.
You absolutely do get to 'impose' them. You can't cause harm to others, but their subjective distaste or apprehension or whatever is not harm. That's what freedom is about.
> You can't cause harm to others, but their subjective distaste or apprehension or whatever is not harm.
You know there's a reason that there's never been a successful hyperlibertarian society, right? Some people are assholes.
The Declaration of Independence centers on the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Core to the Constitution is the Bill of Rights. Liberty and justice for all; Marines fight for freedom; land of the free, Statue of Liberty, etc.
If freedom is only doing things other people like, it's meaningless. Causing harm is one thing. People may not like you - maybe I don't like you. Can I pass a law to jail you?
Nothing inherent about tent cities harms neighbors. They could be badly located but so can lots of things. They suck as housing, but the residents wouldn't be there if they had better options.
> It’s a bit meme-ish
Whatever this means, who cares? We're talking about shelter and human rights, not memes.
> sidewalk poop is actually a quality of life issue
Yes, that could be an actual health risk, but I think people are searching for a justification. I'm dubious it's really a big problem, or one that requires taking away anyone's freedom. How about providing a bathroom?
If it's ok to take away people's freedom, why don't you give up yours? We could force you to walk down a different sidewalk.
> pretty reliable correlation
I have yet to see that correlation. To my eye, there is a correlation between some things and a lack of housing. For example, access to bathrooms.
But the obsession with poop is becoming childish; poop - gross! In all my time in cities, I don't know that I've ever seen it. I don't know that it's a common problem, but just a dramatic example that advocates like to pull out.
> That's less about intentional cruelty and more about saving the ship.
First, people here are openly embracing cruelty. Second, 'unintentional cruely' would be a highly immature, irresponsible concept.
I think 'saving the ship' is greatly exaggerating the risks in order to justify the abuse. It's a very serious thing to take away someone's inherent, inalienable freedom.
My reading of the comment is that homelessness was not solved but ruthless enforcement made the issues related to homelessness less bad for everyone else who wasn't homeless.
System 1 (permissiveness): Bad for a small percentage of people and sorta bad for everyone else.
System 2 (strict enforcement): Really bad for a small percentage of people, neutral bad for everyone else.
System 3 (theoretical): Everything works pretty well for everyone.
Obviously system 3 is the best option, but it doesn't exist currently in any society anywhere on earth (maybe Japan?) System 2 seems to be the next best option to use while we keep trying to find a workable system 3.
People love advertising their embrace of dictatorship and oppression, as if it's clever or smart. It's really a failure of responsibility and duty.
Its currently against the law to litter, shoplift, vandalize, defecate in public, be visibly intoxicated in public, and store private property in public spaces. I think we should enforce those laws.
Should some of those laws be rewritten or abandoned? Maybe! But simply ignoring active laws is the definition of lawlessness and I don't want to live in a lawless community.
There is quite a lot of space in between "I think having laws is good, actually" and "embrace of dictatorship and oppression" but I guess this wouldn't be an internet board discussion without hyperbolic statements.
That's an old rationalization of oppression. The reality is that we don't want all the laws enforced on themselves or their friends, and the laws are never enforced in toto on anyone, except the politically vulnerable.
Thus the correct response is not to talk about killing, which is something both the rich and poor have an interest in doing as well as sharing capability, and are often caught doing, but rather:
The law in its majestic equality forbids rich and poor alike from insider trading, or dumping hazardous materials into downstream waters from their factories.
This, rhetorically speaking, would seem to counter the original quote nicely, in showing that the law of course prevents Rich and poor alike in doing things that they have interests in doing, but no poor person is insider trading or dumping hazardous materials from their factories, because the definition of poor includes that they cannot be doing these things.
The thing of course is that the poor may have an interest in insider trading but lack the capacity, whereas everybody has the capacity to sleep under bridges but only the poor really seem to have an interest in it, and really they only have that interest because they are poor.
Which leads me to the following conclusion:
The interests of the poor are forbidden. The capacities of the rich are regulated.
Not one of the "new laws" bieng enforced or ignored is therfor valid.
Questions of legitamcy and precident are ridiculous.
Enforcing the first page of the constitution, fixes everything.
The other possibility, is decaring a total government shutdown, martial law, and a mandatory partisipation is drafting a new constitution, with a maximum of 10 pages.
Constitution, then enforcement procedure, but no more "laws", and laws, and laws, and laws, thinking of pi here, infinitly non repeating but with a sense of horror, rather than wonder
One time I was walking with a friend, and a homeless guy asked me for some change and I gave it to him (most of the time I wouldn't because I wasn't exactly rich myself, but at just that time I felt like it), then I turned to cross the street before I had gotten 3 feet from giving the guy the spare change two cops swooped out from seemingly nowhere, accosted me and my friend, and started asking "what did he ask you? did you give him money", this was also quite aggressive the tone of voice of these cops.
Now I'm not the quickest guy on the uptake in these kinds of situations but luckily I was firing on all cylinders that day and so I said "no I didn't give me any money, he asked me what time it was leave me alone" loud enough that the homeless guy who was being detained by a third cop could hear me.
So after a bit more harassment they let us and the homeless guy go.
So first off a lot of laws are quite clearly unconstitutional, and it is an abrogation of freedom of speech that a homeless guy isn't allowed to ask me for money, no matter how uncomfortable it might make me.
My interpretation of rights is that any law which would actually itself be against the laws of the land does not need to be followed at all, but I have noticed that some people who hold your views believe that there are processes whereby illegitimate laws get nullified and until those processes are followed the law should be followed. Do you hold to this view?
Furthermore I would ask are there any laws that you would consider illegitimate? If so what are you doing personally to overturn those? I have encountered the viewpoint, generally in Americans, that the laws that are illegitimate should be followed until overturned and the duty of overturning those unjust laws fall only on the people who care about and are affected by those laws - is this also your viewpoint or do you think it falls on every citizen to oppose the unjust laws to their utmost?
Given the necessity to uphold the law that you believe in (meaning you believe in the necessity above other things) was I under an obligation to tell the police that the homeless guy asked me for money, and that I gave it to him?
Yeah sorta, my point was more about enforcement than compliance. I don't necessarily think unjust laws should be followed but it certainly should not be up to each individual police officer to decide which laws gets enforced on which people.
If a law is unjust enough and enough people choose to disobey it and the legal system is forced to get involved constantly then I believe we would see a lot more change in the law than with our current system of writing laws then letting cops selectively enforce them.
>Furthermore I would ask are there any laws that you would consider illegitimate? If so what are you doing personally to overturn those?
Yes, just about any restriction on abortion. What am I doing? Not much other than voting, occasionally donating money, and choosing to never live in a state that writes those laws. Would what I do change if there were, say, a national abortion ban? Probably, but I certainly won't count on the police joining in on whatever form of protest I see fit.
I don't think the laws around shoplifting, public intoxication, vandalism, etc. are bad and I am doing nothing to overturn them.
> Given the necessity to uphold the law that you believe in (meaning you believe in the necessity above other things) was I under an obligation to tell the police that the homeless guy asked me for money, and that I gave it to him?
No, but the cops who saw you do it were obliged to follow whatever procedure was written into the law. Does SLC still have this law? Having been involved in the enforcement of this law, were you more aware that the law existed and you wanted it changed?
The laws are written democratically, then enforced dictatorially by the whim of a few individuals with a gun. I think this is bad.
System 1/2 are both extremely awful, but in different ways.
System 3 would be highly affordable and available housing, coupled with out-of-sight permissiveness but strict enforcement once certain indicative lines are crossed.
The single parent who is trying to make life work, who loses her job for some reason, and becomes homeless? Compassion.
The drug addicted thief who has no interest in being a part of society, who basically wants to live that way? I don't think compassion is the right answer. If you show compassion to that type, you will just be taken advantage of.
It shouldn't be a crime to be homeless. It should be a crime to do criminal things.
You do you. I try not to hate anyone, although I grant myself some leniency when considering child molesters, serial killers, and other people I find despicable.
> Should they be locked up?
100% of the people I strongly dislike have done things that should earn them jail time. I don't know what your thresholds are.
That seems a bit too convenient and perfect. But people were talking about using police on homeless people, who aren't child molesters and serial killers.
> other people I find despicable
That's the problem - your personal feelings aren't relevant.
It's hard for people to address any other problems in their life unless they have a roof over their head, if for no other reason that the homeless are chronically severely under-slept.
I've never regretted compassion.
I believe that the greater majority fall into the homeless not by choice but I’ve befriended several homeless by choice people. They take advantage of all the services and often have no incentive or intention to participate in society in any meaningful way. They tend to dislike authority and value personal freedom above all else. They are often friendly and very intelligent but they love to piss people off too.
It’s easier to spot these people in times of housing abundance so we should solve the shortage first IMO.
But of course for those who bought a house for financial investment purposes (retirement plan, rent seeking, flipping) solving the housing problem is not a benefit.
It doesn't help with all the layoffs that subsequently caused people not to be able afford previous living conditions- which means having to have had to relocate far- far away from family.
A lot of former IT colleagues of mine have degraded their way of living to sleeping on friends couches or leaving the industry altogether for manageable pay.
Personally, I've always had the paranoia of getting axed for being sick 'at a bad time' for one of my previous employers. My current company seems to be mostly sympathetic, which has left me in a awkwardly distrustful/appreciative state. But with things winding down right now- I'm not sure where my future lies come the turn of the year.
If only all homeless people were like this. As someone who lives in an epicenter of this stuff, I don't think that encampments / people living in tents on the street are inherently a problem - its the small number of homeless people who aggressively spread trash and human waste everywhere that are making the neighborhood unlivable for everyone. Probably these people are dealing with mental health crises, maybe they are just dicks, but either way we have to get them off the street and I'm pretty sure the only way for that to happen is through oppressive policies.
We keep trying to signal out people without housing as different, but it's never true. It's just the house that's missing.
> we have to get them off the street and I'm pretty sure the only way for that to happen is through oppressive policies.
Who cares if you think something is an eyesore? Maybe you're an eyesore to me; can I arrest you? Your words are much more obnoxious and dangerous than the unhoused person you describe; can we jail you? Only oppressive policies will work.
You'd better start standing up for human rights and freedom before it's too late. Oppression is a crime against the rule of law and human rights, not a policy.
I'm not saying that the homeless people are worse people or something, but the massive negative externalities they are causing are a result of them being homeless. Giving them housing would obviously be one solution! I'm not very optimistic about that happening in the USA, though, unless you consider prison to be housing.
Where is this wonderful neighborhood? :)
> pick through the piles of trash and shit every time I leave my home
There are piles of trash and shit? Wow. Why don't you use your freedom and move?
> massive negative externalities they are causing are a result of them being homeless.
Words like "piles" and "massive" don't increase the evidence or reason; they aren't an argument.
Your argument is that you can't think of a solution, so you'll just abuse these people. Then your preferences are creating a massive externality. The people without homes aren't causing you to be arrested.
Have you ever actually lived in a city?
> There are piles of trash and shit? Wow. Why don't you use your freedom and move?
I'm doing just that, moving to another neighborhood on Feb 1.
> Your argument is that you can't think of a solution, so you'll just abuse these people.
Like I said elsewhere in this thread: I think the need of the thousands of residents of the neighborhood to have livable streets outweigh whatever concern you might have about the well being of a few destructive individuals.
> the need of the thousands of residents of the neighborhood to have livable streets outweigh whatever concern you might have about the well being of a few destructive individuals.
It's their rights and freedom, and that applies to everyone. Other people can't outweigh them - rights are not subject to majority rules, that is the point of having rights.
'Liveable' is too loose a standard. Actual harm would be meaningful.
Having had my car prowled by homeless several times, and any yard decoration pillaged over the years, the objects in homeless camps are 90% stolen and 9% donated, and 1% actual belongings of a person
I've been through the experience of being homeless. I have some opinions about the degree to which the police cared about my problems too.
I once stole a tarp out of a yard in the face of an incoming blizzard I was hoping to survive. My sympathies are never going to be with the yard guardians here.
Framing the problem as such is a self-deluding and dishonest application of exceptional circumstances to the whole.
Also, there’s probably at least a little room for reflection about how you wound up in the situation where your very survival depended upon stealing from others, why you chose not to knock on the door and ask, and the choices you made to get out of such life circumstances.
Can you explain how to visually determine the ownership of a given item? What visual distinction is there between something that is rightfully theirs, something that was stolen, and something that was picked out of the trash?
I think it is callous to comment about how homeless people happen to be in possession of their belongings without at least reading the article. It is a fair comment, however, to ask if examples are cherrypicked to tug at the readers' heart strings, with an agenda in mind.
I do think this article uses numerous tricks to promote this agenda.
- Referring to residents as "housed residents", as if homeless people should be considered "residents" in neighborhoods they have no business being in, in the first place.
- Saying that people are _usually_ forced to move without any connections to housing or support, but then following up with the qualification "sometimes" in the next sentence.
- Citing an example of a lady whose daughter's picture was taken away, as well as her tent, during a cold winter, while not presenting the viewpoint of people who are affected by homelessness in their midst (people such as you). What about _their_ humanity?
Well, why not? Are they residents of anywhere? If not, do you see how easily that slides into not needing to provide services for them? Not considering them deserving of anything, in fact?
> while not presenting the viewpoint of people who are affected by homelessness in their midst
We mostly get this, in most articles and conversations on this subject. Read nearly any article about it and count quotes by homeless people vs anyone else. Try it in this comment section.
>And anyway what about their humanity?
When I see a homeless person I think god what has been done to them. Not look what they are doing to me.
They are not residents, period. They are vagrants, or transients. I do not agree that vagrants and transients lose property rights summarily, but the idea of calling them some type of "resident" is ridiculous.
Homeless people are not for the most part rootless drifters. They have family, churches, regular AA groups, doctors, in some cases jobs even. They are part of your community and as such how you relate to and treat them and yes even describe them reflects on you.
The homeless ruining my city and many other major and mid size cities are literally drug addicts from all over the country and even world who sort of just shuffle around from one city to the next between jail visits
Their reporting did no such thing. Neither the article itself nor the linked guide have any case study naming a single city trying something else and having it work.
It’s an attempt to create a fact recursively.
6 cities that have made substantial inroads on their homelessness problems. The way to do it seems to be to offer homeless people homes.
The article seems to answer the question of: where is it easiest to live on the street, as it mentions Berkeley and San Diego having good weather, therefore, being easier to live outside.
The only success story seems to be Houston which famously has a low cost of living. I’m not sure this qualifies as a solution to the problem.
Salt Lake City and Utah in general are the poster city/state for the program.
That said, I do feel it is cheaper to subsidize housing directly than to fund the grift heavy homeless industrial complex that we find in cities like SF or Portland or Seattle, where lots of money is spent with no results.
https://www.usich.gov/sites/default/files/document/19%20Stra...
Most of the other suggestions are banal, and self-evident qualitative improvements (assuming you agree with the authors that homeless are people to be helped, and not a problem to be solved, which I wouldn't take for granted on HN). eg. maybe cops and sanitation workers aren't equipped to help people, so why are we sending them? Maybe housing costs are too high and we should build affordable housing? and other points which ChatGPT could probably summarize.
As with most other social issues. If you want this compassion find a way to pay for it yourself. The city is already operating on the input of its citizens and would love for you to take the issue off their hands.