I have a simple solution. If we build more housing supply will increase and then prices will decrease.
I agree that it is bigger than one town can handle.
I’d like to believe that a metro area as big a the San Francisco Bay Area (7 million) could handle their problem, but it shouldn’t be up to the city of San Francisco.
Oops, I intended to respond to you and somehow tagged Rastiln instead.
Yep, I get your point about not being forced to provide housing. They can simply accept people camping on public property.
I don’t know if we have a nationwide housing problem. We have a situation where housing in desirable locations is expensive. Rich people want to live there and they are able to out bid not-rich people. With a growing population and limited land area in desirable locations, prices will go up the most there.
I have a 20 year old relative who rents a one bedroom apartment in Cedar Rapids Iowa for $500/mo. It’s smaller than the one bedrooms I lived in after I was married, but it is in a “safe neighborhood” and all the utilities and appliances seem to be working.
But, not many people say “After I get my BA, I’d love to live in Cedar Rapids Iowa.”
3 Likes
Part of the homelessness issue is cost. But some people have such chaotic lives that free housing with rules for safety is too restrictive for them. How does building more housing fix that?
The root of long term homelessness is more of a mental health/substance abuse problem
Mental health issues have been around since the beginning of time. They already tried the extremes (mental institutions, sterilization, lobotomies)
The sad reality is while you can move the bums off the streets and into mental health facilities against their will, 99% they will never be cured and return to the outside world as normal functioning humans
There is definitely a mental illness component in homelessness and there is a segment of the homeless population that simply is going to have difficulty functioning in what most of us deem a “normal society”, but it’s not the only segment of the population that is homeless. Though it might be the most visible and easiest to spot.
1 Like
I think the issue here is with people living in tents on sidewalks and public parks
If you are homeless and living on a couch, in a shelter, in your car and out of sight - I think this is not the type of homelessness that is considered a blight to their community
I’m curious who you are describing that has difficulty functioning in a normal society (mentally handicapped is what first came to mind, but I’m curious if there is a population/s I am overlooking)
The NYT has a story about Grants Pass.
Yes, people have moved into popular parks " A muddy section of a marquee park has become known as Tent City."
This “boiled over” way back in 2013. That’s when the city increased its enforcement of no camping laws.
One doctor says “This community has not wanted to build shelters, urban campgrounds, any facility,”.
This was interesting: “David Dapper, 59, who lives down the street from a park, said homeless people camping there often wander by his front yard. He recounted the boisterous noise one night in June 2021, shortly after he and his wife had moved from California.” That involved him shooting a “warning shot”.
This part caught my attention “June 2021, shortly after he and his wife had moved from California.” I think that’s part of the problem.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/20/us/supreme-court-homelessness-oregon.html
I don’t know, I’m not an expert but it seems some of the drivers in no particular order are -
1 Poverty, often as a result of recent job loss or medical emergency.
2 addiction issues
3 mental health issues
4 physical health issues
5 Domestic violence abuse victims
I’m sure there are more issues but like I said, not an expert in the field.
1 Like
I’m going to say that people who can never live in the outside world as normal functioning humans probably should be in institutions.
“Institutions are horrible”. They don’t need to be. I have a grandson who spent half his time between sixth and twelfth grade in residential treatment. The places weren’t palaces. His mom visited regularly (I’ve been in each of them). She thought he was getting effective care.
2 Likes
I agree with you
I think most people who disagree with the idea have never had to deal with a bipolar/schizo friend or family member (someone truly crazed)
You love em to death but eventually it dawns on you that they can change at any moment and become a totally different person and a danger to themselves/society. They need 24/7 professional supervision that most family/friends are unable to provide 365 days a year
2 Likes
Perhaps the USA could benefit by looking at how other societies solve the problem.
In Finland, the number of homeless people has fallen sharply. The reason: The country applies the “Housing First” concept. Those affected by homelessness receive a small apartment and counselling – without any preconditions. 4 out of 5 people affected thus make their way back into a stable life. And: All this is cheaper than accepting homelessness.
First housing then treatment. Get them a stable housing situation, and the success rate on treatments improve significantly.
But the US is still stuck in the Victorian Era. Only help “the deserving poor”. Gotta make them into white ladies and gentlemen first, then they deserve a place. Pretty stupid policy.
Just fix the god damn problem, and lay off the moralizing.
3 Likes
It is possible societal mores are different in the US to the extent that such a program would be taken advantage of by people who didn’t need it, if such existed.
1 Like
Ah the old better that 10 should suffer than 1 undeserving benefit model.
1 Like
If you think you’ve got a solution that is uneploitable, lay it on me.
The foundational principle of US capitalism is exploitation ( meaning in the game theory version of the term). Like the 20% carried interest. Or bankruptcy laws. Or free speech. Or…
1 Like
I think the ratio would be different from 10:1
I don’t know about y’all but when I give charity I prefer it go to people that need it and if the chances are high some of it will go to people who don’t, I look for some other way to spend it.
20% carried interest is a scam and should be removed
Bankruptcy is not a scam, it’s a way for people to start over while still being penalized (they have that mark for 7 years, lose any current assets other than a limited amount, can’t declare bankruptcy if there’s evidence they are defrauding by planning to declare it then borrowing more, etc.)
Free speech is not exploitation. Are you trying to quote from George Orwell or something?
Capitalism is not exploitation, it’s the recognition that people work best when their self-interest guides them. And the US doesn’t have unbridled capitalism, there are lots of laws in place to prevent exploitation, such as consumer protection and antitrust laws.
You are not very familiar with bankruptcy law. The sole reason for bankruptcy remote SPVs is to exploit the system. Look no further than DJT to see how the same guy can go bankrupt multiple times, yet not have to pay the creditors.
1 Like
There are always people who try to exploit laws that are in place for good reason, but that doesn’t mean the purpose of bankruptcy law is to be exploited and to exploit others.
If DJT exploited a loophole that should be closed.
Seems like he is being prosecuted for fraud so the laws seem to be working okay.