I don't see how the state can manage a problem better than a city.
> Over 150,000 persons have experienced homelessness in California
That comes out to about $16k in extra funding per person who experienced homelessness.
San Fransisco spends ~364 million to tackle the problem, and has between 8k - 17k homeless, meaning they spend between $21 and $45k per homeless [0]. Maybe it would be a lot worse if they hadn't spent that money, but throwing more money at it and moving up the governance to a higher level likely won't make a dent. I'd imagine local, on the ground officials would have a better shot at it as opposed to state officials.
If you look at the programs closely, examine who is on the committees overseeing these, and such, you will find what effectively is a friends and family jobs program.
here in Atlanta they just hire each other between city and county. So county leaders get on Atlanta committees and vica versa. People don't understand how ingrained the idea of padding paychecks of themselves, friends, and family, that politicians have turned the system into. government has more than enough money to solve problems but the problem they set about solving was how to enrich themselves, their friends, their supporters, and other party members.
In Georgia tax commissioners have in law the right to sell their services to cities on top of what they are providing by their job title!
The number of political appointment if not elected jobs that pay over 100k is ridiculous and many pay a quarter a million or more per year. Worse this all factors into their public pensions and many can take them before 50.
It's not just Georgia. The fact is, this is the norm to all forms of gov, all across the world, since the beginning of any form of ruling body. There are pockets where it's better or worse, but what you described is part of the norm, no matter the political party.
While that sounds super debbie downer, I think the reason it's this way is the open secretiveness of politics. Everything is out in the open, but no one cares. If the general public applied the same amount of passion and reseach for celebrities, the latest Star Wars/Marvel show or games to the local, state or fed gov affairs, the amount of gov ineptitude and corruption would be a fraction of what it is today. Even more so, representative gov is supposed to make that a whole hell of a lot easier for the public. Hold the few experts accountable that can better trudge through everyday politics. But... that's all wishful thinking and ranting.
The state can, arguably, address the problem more systemically than a city focussed on the local aspects.
Whether or not it will actually achieve that...? I don't know. And not for "government is incompetent" reasons, but because it's a hard problem with root causes that are difficult to address.
I agree that its a difficult problem, one that money won't solve.
I think the more local the action the more effective. For instance, a neighbor can help out one person most effectively. That person may need shelter, food, mental health services, mentorship or something else. When you expand that out to a city, it makes it more difficult since the organization has less knowledge about the individual. And as you expand it to larger and more disconnected entities, the results become worse.
One argument could be that corruption and general incompetence may be lower on the state level as opposed to local, since state level is a more competitive political climate. In other words, I think governors are more likely to get voted out as local officials, many of whom are unelected, but I could be wrong. The other argument is that state has more shared resources and more experience that would overcome the fact that they're more disconnected from the subjects they're trying to help.
But the trade-off exists and I believe that the most effective way organizations are small local organizations as opposed to large top down state-level organizations. And since local organizations have failed, my impression is that higher level, more bureaucratic organizations will similarly fail. I think we should focus on re-thinking about how we handle the problem and not just throw money at it, because the moneyed interests may even be hindering the effort.
One of the most effective solutions to homelessness is...housing. However, many individual cities are either unwilling or unable to actually build and designate housing for the unhoused.
The fact that San Francisco spends so much and is largely ineffective at solving this issue might imply that cities are not, in fact, suitably equipped to tackle this issue (even if well funded and motivated), and that instead a group which can centralize planning, concentrate resources and expertise, and deploy them where they are currently needed would do better.
> I don't see how the state can manage a problem better than a city.
This is the core argument of economic conservatism. One level up is “CA knows CA better than the Feds”. One level down is “I know my family better than my town”.
>> I don't see how the state can manage a problem better than a city.
> This is the core argument of economic conservatism. One level up is “CA knows CA better than the Feds”. One level down is “I know my family better than my town”.
And one argument against it is that the lower level that "knows better" may not actually have the resources or capabilities to actually address the problem with that knowledge. That's pretty easy to see when you get down to the “I know my family better than my town [does]” level, when the only individual-level solution is some improbable pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps fantasy.
I don't see how your comment is a response to what you're quoting.
Most of the homeless in California live in the cities with the highest cost of living. Are you suggesting the state transport the homeless to low cost areas and rent them apartments?
Homeless congregate in cities because density improves economies of scale. More shelters per square mile which is important if they fill up fast, more foot traffic for pan handling, more industrial/business areas where they are less likely to be harassed by police, more nooks and cranies to hide from the elements, more homeless people to group up with for safety, and so on.
The vast majority of reasons that homeless people stay in urban areas is the failure of the surrounding areas in providing for their basic survival.
This is where a state level approach might be more effective (though I don't think renting them housing is the way) because cities are focussed on their own local factors and don't have the authority and perhaps not the perspective needed to see & act on the bigger picture.
I completely agree with you, transporting homeless people around is hygienestic policy and inhumane. Unfortunately in the US, it's already a thing [0] to ferry homeless people around...
The state could absolutely offer free- or low-cost subsidized apartments in cheap areas like the central valley or the inland empire. I imagine they'd have a quite a few takers.
I know Utah has had great success with a housing-first model that gets people off the street first and then helps them work on other issues like addition and mental health problems.
Even if you leave aside the abysmal track record of the state of California in managing your taxes (most of it is basically wasted), this will do nothing but arm.
Thomas Sowell [1] has spent his entire life on this topic.
15 to 18 million per month. To house 2,200 people. Do the math and then ask yourself if your tax dollars are going to be accounted for. I’m personally ashamed on behalf of San Francisco.
Your conclusion should be reworded to say “A conservative against spending money on failed policies that don’t actually help the homeless? Color me shocked.”
The whole nation is failing the homeless population. No state or city can address large public welfare issues without it becoming a budget problem due to ability for taxpayers to move out and benefit recipients to move in.
Same as healthcare. Secondary problem is multiple Supreme Court rules from 70s making it almost impossible to involuntarily commit someone to a mental institution.
I was addressing the claim that “CA is failing the homeless”.
There are a multitude of factors that affect the results of various states’ responses to the homeless crisis, and surely some are better than others.
But I wouldn’t be able to put blame on an individual state (or city). CA has some unique issues that exacerbate it compared to others, although there is room for improvement.
But by and large, this is a problem requiring a federal solution, and the pressure should be on them to fix it. Local officials are just fighting a losing fight until they get the assistance.
I don’t understand this bit: [..] AB 71 would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to create a comprehensive, statewide homelessness solutions program. In addition, AB 71 would create the Bring California Home Fund in the State Treasury for the purpose of providing at least $2,400,000 annually to fund a comprehensive, statewide homeless solutions program upon appropriation by the Legislature. And, AB 71 would require the Bring California Home Fund to contain revenues derived from specified changes to the Personal Income Tax Law or the Corporation Tax Law that are enacted on or after the effective of the date of this bill.[..]
Why are they collecting 2.4 Billion and setting aside just 2.4 Million for the homelessness solution.
I am sure I am misreading something or perhaps not understanding?
I can't speak directly the US situation but in the UK homelessness services funding is important but it's treating the symptom not the cause. It sounds really obvious but the main problem experienced by homeless people is the lack of long term accommodation caused by their not being able to afford long term accommodation.
In the medium and long term people develop severe substance abuse habits and lose their ability to get and hold down a job (sometimes called economic scarring).
You can use additional money to do basically do poverty relief programs on the medium and long term homeless and from a humanity point of view that's really important - but I don't know of any programs that have consistently shown reintegrated of these populations. That is, they are working other than in services aimed at the homeless population.
It needs to be partnered with stopping putting people on the front of the belt (the short term homeless) which is only really achievable through bringing down the cost of long term accommodation. I only know of one way to do that which is to build more homes.
> You can use additional money to do basically do poverty relief programs on the medium and long term homeless and from a humanity point of view that's really important - but I don't know of any programs that have consistently shown reintegrated of these populations. That is, they are working other than in services aimed at the homeless population.
I feel like you've created your own definition of "homeless" and are using that to say that schemes to prevent homelessness are not working.
When you look at official definitions (eg, "statutory homeless") you see much greater "churn" in the homeless population. Many people become homeless, are helped, and stop being homeless. There are a smaller number of people who are trapped in vulnerable housing or in hostels or rough sleeping.
I'm not suggesting the support is good though. There are many problems in England. For example, the way that people are forced to be evicted before councils provide help, or the use of very expensive and very low quality B&B accommodation.
We in the UK also don't much like shifting homeless people to low-cost-of-living areas - after all, it cuts them off from what little social support they had, like parents helping with childcare.
So if someone is homeless in London, we pour £££ of taxpayer money into private landlords' pockets.
Also most society is not capable of helping. Just asking for low wage jobs when you're on a thin line will increase rejection rate. Your stress may push away people. Asking for less pushes away people. Quick vicious circle.
Completely tone deaf proposal in the context of 1) Recent election where every single tax measure was defeated in the ballot box, and even left measures such as anti-Prop 22 and rent control was defeated (read the room ?) 2) CA government just had a $15bn surplus in a recession year and 3) Context of COVID and migration. This bill is going nowhere
Can't have your cake and eat it too. If you insist on making not-Democrats extinct at the State, County and Municipal level, you should expect follow-through.
YOU voted in single party rule in CA. Frankly I'm amazed at how little they have exercised their monopoly...they have the votes to pass stuff like this by the hour.
California budget bills must be balanced (prop 58) and taxes increases can only pass via supermajority vote (and prop 25 expanded the definition of taxes).
It takes a monopoly just to get basic things done in this state.
Generally speaking “tax x to fund y” proposals are the mark of bad policy, with the exception of highly specific use case based taxes like using the gas tax to fund roads.
The tendency is that neither the tax nor the proposed program has been thought through in such cases.
It’s all political pandering. When a government implements a new tax to pay for schools, they’re just offsetting other tax revenue they would have used had they not implemented the new tax.
I consider anything paid to government (or infrastructure like tolls) to be going into the same pot, and any claims that it will be used for specific purposes to be bullshit.
California thinks extra tax is the solution to homelessness problem. How cute.
Now let's spend 1.8b of that money on administrative overhead, and bring $ per homeless from 50k/homeless to 100k/homeless, to the same level as newgrad base salary.
I'm sure you can think of more effective ways to deploy $2.4 BILLION than requiring "at least $2.4 MILLION" to go towards the homeless problem (straight out of the law's text). In this case, it probably would be better to just give out $2.4m in grants with an overhead of $240K to distribute the checks.
Saying that this particular "thing" is the wrong thing is not the same as saying nothing should be done. Every solution has both a benefit and a cost. The balance of those two is part of deciding whether a given solution is reasonable or not. The fact that something should be done does not mean that every "something" is a reasonable thing to do.
California is incompetent in deploying anything that requires operations. For vaccinations, we had a whole year to prepare, and yet we are lagging compared to everywhere else.
We have homeless problem, and numbers i read mentions money spent is about 50k/homeless, and we odn't have the problem fixed yet.
If you think extra tax will solve it, go on, feel free to donate to government.
Why this article hasn't been updated I cannot say; but I have doubts about the motives of the author given the "pedigree" of this news agency.
"The California Globe, founded by an associate of Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, describes itself as “pro-growth and pro-business, non-partisan and objective” — but serves up a steady diet of conservative news and opinion." - https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-aler...
Non-partisan doesn't mean it doesn't have a viewpoint, it means it isn't a mouthpiece for a political party. That description basically says they're a conservative outlet that doesn't toe the Republican line.
California's homelessness problem is not caused by a lack of welfare. It's caused by deep structural problems. You can't solve it with money. You can probably make it worse by pretending that you are doing something though.
There needs to be a cultural shift away from sprawl and single family housing to modest 3 story apartments. Once you have enough vacant housing you can consider giving it away.
You should also have low nuisance commercial business like supermarkets mixed into your residential neighborhoods. Reducing car dependence would help people who cannot afford a car or maintain a used one.
Drug addicts need safe places where they get clean drugs and where the dosage is controlled by a trained doctor. The idea is that the doctor slowly tapers off the dosage. Recovery is possible if you give them the minimum necessary dosage to fend off withdrawal effects but not enough to cause a high. It also keeps needles off the street.
A lot of crimes are committed by desperate addicts who cannot fund their addiction. Some of them do prostitution, others steal. If you give them what they really want they don't have to engage in destructive behavior.
how will building more and building dense solve homelessness? they still have drug addiction issues or cant afford to pay their rent or cant work etc. you can build all you want..but unless there are homes to give away for free to those who cant afford to take care of themselves, building more is a futile effort to resolve homelessness.
we have plenty of money and plenty of land in california. but we cant house all of the homeless in bay area.
Cool, posting a far right propaganda website as a reasonable source that the government should just do nothing for the homeless and the homeless will pull themselves up by their bootstraps, because after all, they're only homeless because they're lazy or something, right?
Just look into who owns this website and read some of their other articles, such as under the LGBT tag.
Please don't. Ideological flamewar is against the site guidelines and we ban accounts that do it.
Also, these generalizations are entirely in the eye of the beholder. They're a creation of your own passions, based on whatever data sample happened to activate them. This explains why the people with opposite passions to yours see HN in exactly the opposite way: it's a big enough place to encounter a data sample that will activate any pre-existing perception. I've written about this many times:
If we're to have a community that doesn't suck, at some point we all need to understand these mechanisms well enough to avoid repeating them uncritically.
Sorry bro, I forgot that it is verboten to point out the rampant right-wing / libertarian philosophy which took over HN as the YC bros got wealthier and wealthier.
Yes massah, we have a really nice pseudo-intellectual, crypto-fascist bulletin board here massah!
11th commandment: Though shall not suggest that a bunch of upper middle-class white American tech bros cannot solve all the world's problems with greed.
Well that was a little unexpected! I happened to write a long response to a similar comment yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25922311. I don't suppose it will convince you but a guy can dream.
The short version is that what you've posted here is actually the same, even though it seems opposite on the surface, as how people with one ideological bit flipped call HN a "leftist SJW and socialist haven", "always politically left", "they don't like conservative opinions here", "a liberal echo chamber", "the HN crowd is mostly woke", "heavily leaning to the left", "HN has a very anti-libertarian echo chamber", "HN has a heavy socialist lean, you are not allowed to have a differing perspective", "dang is an SJW cunt", and "any thought that differs from SV, left-leaning orthodoxy, is instantly flagged, downvoted, or deleted".
Quote quality 100% guaranteed—links available on request!
>Paying a bit more tax to make sure people don;t die in the streets? sounds fine by me.
Perfectly reasonable stance, except that what will happen is that you will pay more taxes and people will continue dying in the streets, most probably in even greater numbers over time.
These programs create dependence and never tackle root causes.
> These programs create dependence and never tackle root causes.
I don't think that argument is entirely valid. I do see the concern. This is about implementation.
There are about 60k people who are homeless in LA, of which 48% are sleeping in the streets. so around 29k
Compare that to london where something like 10k, but the population is double that of LA. That figure has tripled in ten years, because we have cut back on programmes to treat the causes of homelessness.
So it is perfectly possible to tackle homelessness and stop people dying on the streets.
In rich countries, especially those with the "all lives matter" mindset, It is reprehensible that we are letting people live in the open on the streets.
> Over 150,000 persons have experienced homelessness in California
That comes out to about $16k in extra funding per person who experienced homelessness.
San Fransisco spends ~364 million to tackle the problem, and has between 8k - 17k homeless, meaning they spend between $21 and $45k per homeless [0]. Maybe it would be a lot worse if they hadn't spent that money, but throwing more money at it and moving up the governance to a higher level likely won't make a dent. I'd imagine local, on the ground officials would have a better shot at it as opposed to state officials.
[0] https://sf.curbed.com/2019/12/19/21027974/san-francisco-home...