Comment by takinola | Hacker News Reader

Comment by takinola | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I’ve been closely involved with one of the largest shelter providers in the Pacific Northwest for the last couple of years and I can say this is not true for the vast majority of people we serve. The primary causes of homelessness for those people are getting evicted because of a temporary financial crunch (health issue, lost a job, etc), domestic issues (leaving a domestic violence situation) or legal issues (refugees, etc). I had a similar belief (that substance and mental instability) prior to working with this organization because the visibly homeless people I saw seemed to fall into that category so I fell into this bias. However, what people miss are the tons of people living in their cars, wearing regular clothes, not panhandling and showing up to work best they can.

In addition, the causality is sometime backwards. The substance abuse and mental issues come after homelessness as people try to cope with the incredible stress of life on the streets. This, of course, makes it even harder to pull out of the downward spiral.

It’s tough but I encourage everyone to find a way to support/volunteer reputable organizations in their areas

> However, what people miss are the tons of people living in their cars, wearing regular clothes, not panhandling and showing up to work best they can.

Sure, this is what I'm talking about when I say there is a gradient. But for argument sake/illustrative purposes though - what would housing have to cost to end homeless? And bonus question - what would zoning laws have to look like to get to this price?

I imagine the answer would have to be "free" but we know for a fact that wouldn't end homelessness because homeless shelters exist that cost $0 and homelessness still exists (yes, even where there isn't overcrowding).

And sure yes, I'm sure there are people that are hanging on by their finger nails - if rent goes up $100/m they'd have to live in their cars but I'm skeptical that zoning law reform is the thing that's going to save them (or end homelessness as the OP suggests)

At the extreme end, with absolutely zero zoning restrictions, you could build capsule hotels for people to live in, driving the price for a tiny tiny room to, say $300/month. With a minimum wage of $15, you'd need to only work 20 hours a month to afford that. Double it to account for taxes. Figure they have EBT for food. Assume they're able to use a platform like Reflex to pick up retail shifts (like driving for Uber but for retail).

With zero zoning, there's no telling how bad the capsule to bathroom ratio would be, which would make them unlivable, but as a thought experiment, it says that there is some price point where it's possible, so the real question is to find what's practical. If the choice is between a plastic tent exposed to the elements with no water, sewage or heating/AC, electricity, and an uncomfortably small hotel room with a shared bathroom, I'd rather the hotel room.

In practice, these hotels become full of mentally ill, drug-dependent, and sometimes violent people, to the point where most people actually do feel safer in a tent.

You can police things, but it’s not an easy problem. Where do you draw the line? Zero tolerance? As soon as someone has an angry outburst, or is caught with drugs, they’re back on the streets? Then you get back where you started pretty quickly.

College dorms seem to be able to solve this problem, so it should be doable for adults as well.

College dorms aren't full of mentally ill drug addicts. The population that lives on the streets has very little in common with students living in college dorms.

Law enforcement gaps are a different issue altogether

Having a roof above one's head should be a right, not a privilege. It becomes even more of a privilege when people view real estate as investment. They want to profit. For example, in Toronto, there are lots of apartments that are 'unrentable' because they were so badly designed that it's awful. They were built for investors to sell. Think of a studio costing 600k. Who wants to pay 600k for a studio? Like, where would someone be in life that they can spend 600k? I'd assume the majority would be married. They won't want a studio. Values are reversed. It's profit over welfare, unfortunately.

Lots of people that went to shelters prefer the streets because of several issues with people in the shelter. Violence, substance abuse, theft, etc. It's not like they prefer to be on the streets but sometimes that's the best option.

I'm not saying that this is the case for everyone on the streets; I'm saying that it is a fact that it happens and some people prefer the streets over shelters because of that.

It's one thing to just say something nice ought to be a right, and it's another to put it into a rigorous law that will last us indefinitely and have sprawling effects on a lot of different areas while we make sure it doesn't ruin or break anything.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com