Do you think the homeless situation in west coast cities will ever get better?

[edale]

Originally Posted by The North One

You and Crawford seem to be obsessed with minimizing the homeless crisis in this country and I'm not totally sure why. Are you that much of a shill for the establishment system? You're flat out attacking residents of Los Angeles for speaking about the issue.

It's not exaggerated, it's horrific and it's getting worse. It's not just people who are mentally ill or addicted to drugs, it's moms and families who lost their jobs, can't afford basic housing and are now out on the streets. I know it feels nice to pretend we've all divorced from the possibility of being homeless but the truth is we're not and that especially seems so in California. I mean how many more tent cities and people sleeping in the streets do you have to see?

Gaslighting people to believe it's not a problem is honestly kind of a shitty thing to do on your part.

Agreed 100%, and I have noticed this is something this forumer in particular has an issue with. I mean, look at the his first post in this thread

If you have nothing to say, or know nothing about the situation (which is obviously the case with him) just keep it moving.

[edale]

Originally Posted by pj3000

People who live in an area where they willingly pay extremely obscene and totally unnecessary amounts of money in rent or mortgage are a part of the homeless problem.

Can you explain this? I don't understand what you're saying here. People who pay the sometimes insane rents asked of them in order to live in a city where they work, have family and friends, etc...those people are the problem?

[mhays]

Without question a lack of affordable housing is a huge part of the problem. I'm surprised that anyone thinks this is debatable. Nobody close to the issue thinks this.

Yes most homeless have other problems. But a big chunk are homeless purely due to money (bad decisions, luck, stupidity, unemployablility, whatever). Another big chunk have drug and/or mental issues but would have homes in some cities/societies. Many are tied to an expensive city for a reason, like family or services, and can't just leave, as if another city would want them.

Some cities have plenty of housing, and plenty of undesirable areas, so there's always cheap housing. SROs used to be common, but in my city (and others) most got torn down for safety reasons. Those used to be the only way a high-demand city could have cheap housing in the private, non-subsidized sphere.

Land use and building codes have generally discouraged or forbidden SROs and micro housing for generations. Now they've come back a little (micros with bathrooms and kitchens and no parking mostly), but while they're cheaper than other new housing, they haven't gotten old and truly cheap yet. Micros should be the saving grace of the top cities gradually as we keep building them.

So what can we do that helps today?

For one, we can allow market-rate housing in high densities. Upzone enough land and land costs can be much more reasonable per unit. Streamline the process and everything from land holding costs to architect fees can be in check. With lower production costs, developers will stream into the market, and they'll compete with each other on price. This will affect the entire existing market in the same competition. No city has really tried this, and even their attempts have often come with offsetting fees, like the massive ones my city has added with its recent upzones.

Two, we can encourage micros, including true SROs. People should be able to rent a bedroom for $600 in an expensive city, with kitchen and bathroom down the hall. SROs are the only way that's possible. (It's odd that some people are aghast at this idea, as if people who can't afford large units should be forced into the gutter instead.) Basically we should have a college dorm option for grownups.

Three, we can build subsidized housing for the bottom end. West Coast metros I believe all do this. Some of our mechanisms are helpful. Others are debatable at best...my city taxes new housing to pay for subsidized housing, resetting "market rate" much higher for everybody except the few who benefit from the program. We also have a levy (more fair) of around $40 million per year. These measures are a drop in the bucket for affordability in general. They can be very effective if devoted more narrowly to the true homeless, if you don't mind ignoring households earning $30k a year who also need housing.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Crawford

SF doesn't have a homeless problem because it's expensive. I don't think there's any causal relationship.

SF has a homeless problem because great weather + great benefits + govt. doesn't use punitive measures. If SF were as cheap as Cleveland there would be no reduction in homeless. There might, even long-term, be an increase, because the billions spent annually on supportive housing would probably evaporate with the tax base.

Lack of affordable housing is absolutely a component to the problem of homelessness. That is an established fact in the US. This is not hypothesis of mine. There are many components to the problem, but it is one of them.

This component to the problem is exacerbated in very expensive west coast cities where affordability is an issue for even above average earners.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I agree with this. Every time these threads come up it sounds extremely exaggerated and insular. Yes, there are tent cities on the West Coast, but no it's not substantially worse in L.A. or S.F. than in cities elsewhere of similar caliber.

Even the Tenderloin doesn't seem that bad to me. Yes, it's sketchy relative to the rest of SF, but I have walked through it plenty of times (during the day) and not felt bothered. Skid Row in L.A. is a bit more sketchy to me, and it's not a place I'd make a habit of walking around alone, but you can live an entire lifetime in L.A. without ever having to set foot in that part of the city.

Tenderloin is more visible because locals and visitors are more likely to come across it where as you kinda have to go out of your way to Skid Row. I've been to LA numerous times and drove by Skid Row once. I've only been to SF once and walked through the Tenderloin area a few times on that one trip even though Google maps steered us away from that area (lol) because SF is so pedestrian friendly and LA you need a car for most things.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by edale

Can you explain this? I don't understand what you're saying here. People who pay the sometimes insane rents asked of them in order to live in a city where they work, have family and friends, etc...those people are the problem?

People who are buying into the economic system which helps to create and continue the utter lack of affordability in housing are purchasing their share of the problem. So, people should own it.

People in cities everywhere in which the laws of supply and demand rule are part of it. Yet it only becomes a recognizable problem when the lack of affordability reaches such extreme levels that it significantly contributes to the situations you find in cities like LA.

It comes with the territory, so to speak. What matters is how it is dealt with.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by JManc

Tenderloin is more visible because locals and visitors are more likely to come across it where as you kinda have to go out of your way to Skid Row. I've been to LA numerous times and drove by Skid Row once. I've only been to SF once and walked through the Tenderloin area a few times on that one trip even though Google maps steered us away from that area (lol) because SF is so pedestrian friendly and LA you need a car for most things.

I don't know why anyone would have a need to see skid row, unless it's just curiosity.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by LA21st

I don't know why anyone would have a need to see skid row, unless it's just curiosity.

For us, we just happened upon it. I was wandering around in the car looking for vantage point to take photos and drove by. Did not stop.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by edale

Agreed 100%, and I have noticed this is something this forumer in particular has an issue with. I mean, look at the his first post in this thread

If you have nothing to say, or no nothing about the situation (which is obviously the case with him) just keep it moving.

Yes, I do find it annoying when people complain about being burdened with other people's poverty.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Lack of affordable housing is absolutely a component to the problem of homelessness. That is an established fact in the US.

Are we talking street people? Visible homeless? No, I don't think there's any evidence of this.

Again, I don't think there's any causal link between home prices and homelessness. None.

Originally Posted by pj3000

This component to the problem is exacerbated in very expensive west coast cities where affordability is an issue for even above average earners.

Then why is the homeless problem just as bad (or worse) in cheaper West Coast cities? Portland has much rose homelessness than San Jose but homes cost 1/3 as much.

The East Coast city with the worst homeless/panhandling problem, by far, is Philly. You can't walk anywhere in Center City without stepping over derelicts, getting hit on for change, etc. How do you explain this? Philly has much cheaper housing than NYC, Boston and DC, but has much worse homeless problem.

[pj3000]

^ like I said above, it’s how it is dealt with.

[plinko]

Originally Posted by LA21st

You said half of downtown was tents. You lied.
You exgerrated. I don't even know why you're posting about something you clearly know nothing about.

Maybe I should say half of Detroit is abandoned .

Yes, but you are also being highly defensive in way that glosses over something that is indeed a huge problem. I was downtown last Friday. The situation along the 101 from Hollywood all the way into downtown is visually jarring. Huge camps under multiple overpasses, trash everywhere, and tent cities on top of numerous overpasses.

To say that it's really only a problem over in Skid Row is quite disingenuous.

That being said, NO, 1/2 of downtown LA is not covered in encampments. I walked from the Music Center through the financial district, South Park, and over along Broadway and it's relatively clean in comparison to the areas between the Civic Center and Chinatown and particularly to Skid Row.

Even my wife, who grew up in the Bronx in the 80s, was pretty shocked at how bad it was, though she isn't down there nearly as much as I am.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Again, I don't think there's any causal link between home prices and homelessness. None.

Pretty much every reputable study on homelessness would disagree with you.

[iheartthed]

According to Statista, this is the list of top 10 homelessness rate per metro area (only first 14): https://www.statista.com/statistics/...metro-area-us/

(#s per 10,000 residents)
1. NYC - 89
2. L.A. - 54
3. Seattle - 53
4. Boston - 50
5. SF Bay Area - 36
6. Philadelphia - 36
7. Atlanta - 34
8. Las Vegas - 29
9. San Diego - 27
10. D.C - 20
11. Denver - 18
12. Phoenix - 13
13. Chicago - 12
14. Houston - 7

I don't have an account, so I could only see the top 14. But, bottom line, the West Coast doesn't have a unique problem with homelessness. A city from every region in the country makes the top 14. The northeast corridor has just as many cities in the top 10 as the West Coast, and the average on the East Coast is actually higher than the West Coast.

[edale]

Originally Posted by plinko

Yes, but you are also being highly defensive in way that glosses over something that is indeed a huge problem. I was downtown last Friday. The situation along the 101 from Hollywood all the way into downtown is visually jarring. Huge camps under multiple overpasses, trash everywhere, and tent cities on top of numerous overpasses.

To say that it's really only a problem over in Skid Row is quite disingenuous.

That being said, NO, 1/2 of downtown LA is not covered in encampments. I walked from the Music Center through the financial district, South Park, and over along Broadway and it's relatively clean in comparison to the areas between the Civic Center and Chinatown and particularly to Skid Row.

Even my wife, who grew up in the Bronx in the 80s, was pretty shocked at how bad it was, though she isn't down there nearly as much as I am.

Yeah, defensiveness and denial aren't very effective strategies for dealing with issues. Is literally half of downtown Los Angeles covered in tents? No, of course not. Are there encampments and large clusters of tents, trash etc. scattered throughout many different areas of DTLA? Yes, there are.

You go out to Westlake and Macarthur Park and it's awful there. Random residential streets in Koreatown have had the sidewalks taken over by tents. Echo Park...the park itself...has all but been taken over by tents and homeless. It's actually quite jarring to see. There was always a presence of some tents and homeless at the edge of the park, but now it is a complete free for all. In fact, cruising around much of the eastern side of the city (I rarely go west of La Brea, so idk the situation west of there, or the valley), you'll see encampments scattered about pretty frequently.

Of course, I know this issue is less prevalent in wealthier neighborhoods, which I think is why some of the usual suspects are reacting the way they are. They don't have to deal with walking past needles and shit on the sidewalk while walking to work or taking the dog around the block, because that shit isn't tolerated in wealthier neighborhoods. The reaction against the tent cities and trash piling up everywhere isn't a result of being bothered by people's poverty. It's a rejection of antisocial behavior and standing up, not just for the middle and working class neighborhoods who have this stuff dumped in them, but also for the homeless themselves. A tent and a sidewalk latrine does not extend dignity to anyone. It's not compassionate. There are better solutions available, and I bet if the issues plaguing Koreatown, Westlake, HiFi, South LA, Boyle Heights...suddenly relocated to Brentwood and and Beverly Hills and Westwood, we'd see some pretty immediate action. But nah, fuck the middle and working class, and let's criticize them for daring to assert that they don't deserve to have to live in filthy, unsafe neighborhoods.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Pretty much every reputable study on homelessness would disagree with you.

My mom was a therapist and often dealt with this population throughout her career and many of these people could find places to live if they wanted but simply chose not to because it meant having to adhere to society's norms, like working a 9-5 job, paying bills and following rules. Another significant chunk are the severely mentally ill who should be but can't be institutionalized. Then you have others who simply fell on hard times and lost everything and wound up on the streets. Throw in drugs and it's a downward spiral...

[photoLith]

Originally Posted by LA21st

You said half of downtown was tents. You lied.
You exgerrated. I don't even know why you're posting about something you clearly know nothing about.

Maybe I should say half of Detroit is abandoned .

Technically, more than half of detroit is abandoned or just grass lots that used to be houses that were torn down due to massive depopulation.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by plinko

Yes, but you are also being highly defensive in way that glosses over something that is indeed a huge problem. I was downtown last Friday. The situation along the 101 from Hollywood all the way into downtown is visually jarring. Huge camps under multiple overpasses, trash everywhere, and tent cities on top of numerous overpasses.

To say that it's really only a problem over in Skid Row is quite disingenuous.

That being said, NO, 1/2 of downtown LA is not covered in encampments. I walked from the Music Center through the financial district, South Park, and over along Broadway and it's relatively clean in comparison to the areas between the Civic Center and Chinatown and particularly to Skid Row.

Even my wife, who grew up in the Bronx in the 80s, was pretty shocked at how bad it was, though she isn't down there nearly as much as I am.

No, I was annoyed by North ones comments.
He has a history of bashing California.

I never said tents don't exist, but downtown in general isn't as bad as some want to project. I was just there.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

According to Statista, this is the list of top 10 homelessness rate per metro area (only first 14): https://www.statista.com/statistics/...metro-area-us/

(#s per 10,000 residents)
1. NYC - 89
2. L.A. - 54
3. Seattle - 53
4. Boston - 50
5. SF Bay Area - 36
6. Philadelphia - 36
7. Atlanta - 34
8. Las Vegas - 29
9. San Diego - 27
10. D.C - 20
11. Denver - 18
12. Phoenix - 13
13. Chicago - 12
14. Houston - 7

I don't have an account, so I could only see the top 14. But, bottom line, the West Coast doesn't have a unique problem with homelessness. A city from every region in the country makes the top 14. The northeast corridor has just as many cities in the top 10 as the West Coast, and the average on the East Coast is actually higher than the West Coast.

Surprised Austin isn't on there. Its always mentioned on social media for the same problems.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Pretty much every reputable study on homelessness would disagree with you.

I'd like to see such a study.

If true, my guess is that they're defining homelessness as a household lacking a home, which is not what we're discussing. We're talking about street people, who may or may not lack a home.

The guy begging for change or publicly injecting drugs in the Tenderloin probably has a home. The Tenderloin is basically all SROs for "bums". The tripled-up household in a public housing unit would qualify as homeless, but not what we're discussing. They aren't visible. They have nothing to do with skid row. This thread isn't about couch-surfing transience.