Can't get over how incredibly clean and bum-free Dallas is

[eschaton]

It's worth noting that New York state has been under court order to provide shelter beds for the homeless and it has done so successfully. Something like 95% of the homeless population stays in shelters overnight. This compares very unfavorably to California, where only 38% of homeless are sheltered.

So it's absolutely untrue that you can't just solve the issue through additional funding - if it's funded enough, the vast majority of the homeless will not camp on the street. Given the climactic differences, I don't think California would ever be able to get to 95%, but I think 80%+ is possible.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by craigs

Regarding the smaller cities--it's all about law enforcement. I have heard a Los Angeles County sheriff working in Santa Clarita flat-out admit that they detain the homeless and order them to leave town.

[twinpeaks]

In San Francisco - there are mainly two political groups, the Pragmatic Liberals and Socialist Progressive. The progressives are more like "regressive", they don't like any progress at all. They have more sympathy to criminals than victims, give needles to drug users, supports bums on the streets, and blocks all sorts of housing unless it's free. Tenderloin district is their showcase and what we end up with so called "progressive" policies. I'm at a point where my safety, qualify of life and health is getting affected by them. Thank goodness, the city voted more moderate liberals in the Board of Supervisors, hopefully, real "progress" happens in making this city more safe and prosperous.

[mhays]

San Francisco, Seattle, and others have rebelled against progressivism in recent elections. That's helping the streets quite a bit, at least in key areas.

But "the vast majority of the homeless will not camp on the street" if offered alternatives? Without a stick, no. Seattle's camp sweeps come with offers of temporary shelters and/or permanent housing (we've been building or buying thousands of units), and large percentages don't take any of it -- in 2023, only 16% took the offer! Sometimes it's lifestyle freedom. Sometimes it's sobriety requirements or a dog or lack of parking for the RV they're living in. Or the danger of living in a shelter.

So we need to enforce behavior at minimum. No camps, no litter, no inebriation, pick up after your dog, etc. (I don't know about outlawing sleeping by itself, as normal people might doze off in a park, and it seems like a useful last resort if your bus shows up at 3:00 am or something.) We'll see how the lifestyle choice goes when you have to follow the rules.

[38 Geary]

Originally Posted by mhays

But "the vast majority of the homeless will not camp on the street" if offered alternatives? Without a stick, no. Seattle's camp sweeps come with offers of temporary shelters and/or permanent housing (we've been building or buying thousands of units), and large percentages don't take any of it -- in 2023, only 16% took the offer! Sometimes it's lifestyle freedom. Sometimes it's sobriety requirements or a dog or lack of parking for the RV they're living in. Or the danger of living in a shelter.

Agreed. That statement sounds like it came from someone who's never interacted with homeless people before.

[edale]

Originally Posted by eschaton

It's worth noting that New York state has been under court order to provide shelter beds for the homeless and it has done so successfully. Something like 95% of the homeless population stays in shelters overnight. This compares very unfavorably to California, where only 38% of homeless are sheltered.

So it's absolutely untrue that you can't just solve the issue through additional funding - if it's funded enough, the vast majority of the homeless will not camp on the street. Given the climactic differences, I don't think California would ever be able to get to 95%, but I think 80%+ is possible.

San Francisco spends $1.1 billion a year on homelessness. LA spends $1.3 billion, and the County spends another half billion a year on the homeless. How much more should these cities spend? This post really does come off as delusional.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by homebucket

Agreed. That statement sounds like it came from someone who's never interacted with homeless people before.

To me, it sounds more like it came from someone from the north who doesn't fully appreciate how relatively easy it is to permanently live outside in a tent, forever, in coastal California compared to a city like NYC.

[iheartthed]

There's a difference between people sleeping on the street as the least bad option, and people preferring to sleep on the street. Nobody would voluntarily sleep on the street if given a choice. Sleeping on the street is clearly the least bad option for these people. So if you want to get rid of tent cities on the west coast give them better options.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by edale

San Francisco spends $1.1 billion a year on homelessness. LA spends $1.3 billion, and the County spends another half billion a year on the homeless. How much more should these cities spend? This post really does come off as delusional.

My guess is that whatever they spend, the crazy matrixed rule sets CA has dictating how these people go through the system, who is responsible for what, how services are doled out and housing is built etc...means that taxpayers are getting a very low return on investment. You're probably getting pennies on the dollar. What is the spend per unhoused person? It's probably absurd and much much higher in comparison to other jurisdictions.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

There's a difference between people sleeping on the street as the least bad option, and people preferring to sleep on the street. Nobody would voluntarily sleep on the street if given a choice. Sleeping on the street is clearly the least bad option for these people. So if you want to get rid of tent cities on the west coast give them better options.

This isn't really true. Many of these people want to be on the street because of drug use and no rules.

This isn't a CA problem. It's national. Trump has said (emphasis on said) he would take bolder action. Im not his fan, but something needs to be done at the Federal level.
It can't be the states, when some states are shipping these people around so they won't be in their red states. Nah, this is Federal.

Otherwise, CA should be able to just bus these people back to wherever they came from.

[edale]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

My guess is that whatever they spend, the crazy matrixed rule sets CA has dictating how these people go through the system, who is responsible for what, how services are doled out and housing is built etc...means that taxpayers are getting a very low return on investment. You're probably getting pennies on the dollar. What is the spend per unhoused person? It's probably absurd and much much higher in comparison to other jurisdictions.

I have no doubt you're correct. The homeless industry here in LA also acts like shelters are inhumane, and instead pushes for permanent supportive housing to be built to the tune of about $700,000 a unit rather than additional shelters. Obviously we'll never be able to build enough of those types of units to house everyone. IMO, the focus should almost soley be on providing enough shelter beds so we can require people to get off the streets. Once we've achieved that, we can shift attention to more permanent housing for people who need it. I have a feeling if people were either given the choice of being in a shelter or jail, a lot of them would clean up their acts or move somewhere else.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by LA21st

This isn't really true. Many of these people want to be on the street because of drug use and no rules.

Even if this is true, this is not incompatible with my point. If you want them off the street then house them without condition.

But I don't think this is the reason. There have been drugs and rules for decades, but the problem of tent cities on the west coast seems to have recently proliferated. So either there is a recent explosion in homeless people or past options that were available to keep people off the street are no longer available. Seems pretty straightforward to me, but tell me why else this would suddenly be a problem?

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Even if this is true, this is not incompatible with my point. If you want them off the street then house them without condition.

But I don't think this is the reason. There have been drugs and rules for decades, but the problem of tent cities on the west coast seems to have recently proliferated. So either there is a recent explosion in homeless people or past options that were available to keep people off the street are no longer available. Seems pretty straightforward to me, but tell me why else this would suddenly be a problem?

The problem is some are refusing shelter for drug use. What Ive heard Trump will do, is arrest people for street camping if they refuse shelter. That would make it illegal.

House them without condition? That wont work.

Alot of these people need to be brought to hospitals to be treated. It is what it is.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

There's a difference between people sleeping on the street as the least bad option, and people preferring to sleep on the street. Nobody would voluntarily sleep on the street if given a choice. Sleeping on the street is clearly the least bad option for these people. So if you want to get rid of tent cities on the west coast give them better options.

Read the link in my previous post. Most IN FACT choose to stay on the street, if the "stick" is just moving to another spot.

That said, we do need more options for druggies, etc. About a mile from me there's a building for permanent drunks (and probably druggies), and 20 years ago when it was built it was shown to cost way less than constant 911 calls for the same people on the street. We should have shelters too.

In the movie "Boys in the Boat" (set in 1935/1936) they showed the main character living in Seattle's "Hooverville," a shantytown south of the current stadiums. I'd love to have one or two of those again. Let the lifestyle preferrers live there, with no drug or dog rules, and kick them out of public spaces everywhere else.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by mhays

Read the link in my previous post. Most IN FACT choose to stay on the street, if the "stick" is just moving to another spot.

That said, we do need more options for druggies, etc. About a mile from me there's a building for permanent drunks (and probably druggies), and 20 years ago when it was built it was shown to cost way less than constant 911 calls for the same people on the street. We should have shelters too.

In the movie "Boys in the Boat" (set in 1935/1936) they showed the main character living in Seattle's "Hooverville," a shantytown south of the current stadiums. I'd love to have one or two of those again. Let the lifestyle preferrers live there, with no drug or dog rules, and kick them out of public spaces everywhere else.

I wonder if that's going to happen. Every city will have a Hooverville on the outskirts somewhere out of the public.
They have a choice to go there, shelter or just get arrested then.

LA can put them in some industrial/warehouse place and relocate those businesses elsewhere.

[mhays]

The potential Hooverville neighbors would throw a fit. Anything sanctioned would run into all sorts of political (and legal, and liability?) issues. But simply don't enforce nuisance laws for a given area, and let a nonprofit locate a clusters of port-a-potties and mobile showers there as more homeless show up...

In any West Coast city there's also the issue of where to locate any major Hooverville. I'm thinking 1,000-person places. Any multi-acre empty site probably has a development coming. So maybe the key is to do 5-10 smaller sites. Even then, who wants to live, work, or play next to 200 people who won't follow shelter rules?

Some non-profits are already doing "tiny house villages" that have staffing and rules and aren't very big (making them politically palatable). They tend to be on small, temporary sites like church parking lots or pending development sites. We need more of these, but we also need something for the people they won't take.

PS, the Hooverville south of the stadiums was nine acres and housed up to 1,200 people from 1931 to 1941. These were common nationwide. Most residents probably wanted to work and simply couldn't earn enough, an important difference vs. letting drug addicts run wild (counter to my idea)...

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by mhays

The potential Hooverville neighbors would throw a fit. Anything sanctioned would run into all sorts of political (and legal, and liability?) issues. But simply don't enforce nuisance laws for a given area, and let a nonprofit locate a clusters of port-a-potties and mobile showers there as more homeless show up...

In any West Coast city there's also the issue of where to locate any major Hooverville. I'm thinking 1,000-person places. Any multi-acre empty site probably has a development coming. So maybe the key is to do 5-10 smaller sites. Even then, who wants to live, work, or play next to 200 people who won't follow shelter rules?

Some non-profits are already doing "tiny house villages" that have staffing and rules and aren't very big (making them politically palatable). They tend to be on small, temporary sites like church parking lots or pending development sites. We need more of these, but we also need something for the people they won't take.

PS, the Hooverville south of the stadiums was nine acres and housed up to 1,200 people from 1931 to 1941. These were common nationwide. Most residents probably wanted to work and simply couldn't earn enough, an important difference vs. letting drug addicts run wild (counter to my idea)...

Warehouse/lightindustrial areas are perfect. Away from neighborhoods. Nobody would complain.

Something like this. Do eminent domain (using Federal funds) and relocate the business elsewhere

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0005134,..._ep=EgoyMDI0MTIwOS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

If the druggies are unhappy being removed from regular neighborhoods, they can use that for motivation to give up their addictions.
Makes sense to me.

[mhays]

The industrial users would ABSOLUTELY complain. This is proven many times over in my city and I'm sure every city. Theft, safety, and staff recruitment/retainage are probably the biggest reasons (including the related insurance rates).

And by making it an official location, you're subjecting the owner (whichever government) to liability.

[edale]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Warehouse/lightindustrial areas are perfect. Away from neighborhoods. Nobody would complain.

Something like this. Do eminent domain (using Federal funds) and relocate the business elsewhere

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0005134,..._ep=EgoyMDI0MTIwOS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

If the druggies are unhappy being removed from regular neighborhoods, they can use that for motivation to give up their addictions.
Makes sense to me.

I mean isn't this essentially what we have in Skid Row?

[craigs]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Nobody would voluntarily sleep on the street if given a choice.

That is obviously untrue. As in Seattle, a huge percentage of street campers in California refuse shelter offers for the reasons spelled out previously.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Even if this is true, this is not incompatible with my point. If you want them off the street then house them without condition.

But I don't think this is the reason. There have been drugs and rules for decades, but the problem of tent cities on the west coast seems to have recently proliferated. So either there is a recent explosion in homeless people or past options that were available to keep people off the street are no longer available. Seems pretty straightforward to me, but tell me why else this would suddenly be a problem?

I'm sure homelessness has grown, but there were always lots of unhoused people on the streets of San Francisco and Los Angeles. The tents, however, are the biggest difference. Unhoused people used to sleep rough, took up less room on the sidewalk, and were less visible overall. Now they have elaborate, sprawling encampments. I saw that evolution in my old SF neighborhood. When I first moved into the area in the mid-1990s, the homeless slept in sleeping bags in doorways or against walls. A few would have a small tarp and shopping cart setup. By the time I moved out of the area in 2020, the common setup was several family-sized tents connected by tarps, taking up the entire sidewalk as well as parking spaces in the adjacent roadway.