• conditional_soup@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    There’s a number of other studies that show that, overall, letting people go unhoused is far, far more costly than just fucking housing them. It’s not just paying for the cops and demo teams to chase them around, you’re also paying for excess use of medical services that wouldn’t be taking place otherwise, lost revenue because of people wanting to avoid the homeless, and a bunch of other things that all just pile up. It doesn’t help that some startups have entered this space and you’ve got cities like San Francisco paying them something like 40 or 80 thousand a year to keep the homeless in a fenced off area in a tent grid. It doesn’t really fix anything, it’s just another shitty, expensive band-aid whose funding could have gone to fixing the problem but didn’t.

    • stabby_cicada@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      San Francisco infuriates me. There are activist groups that are made of actual literal unhoused people telling the city what they need and what they want. And the city could just give people the money they need for a fraction of the administrative costs it spins on its non-profits and its government agencies.

      But the city says homeless people are drug addicts and criminals and can’t be trusted to use money responsibly.

      So they funnel millions of dollars to corrupt non-profits and government agencies who promise to use the money responsibly for the benefit of the homeless and they fucking don’t. There was a $350K program run by the Salvation Army in partnership with the local public transit agency. One homeless person used their services.. One.

      At least government agencies are, at some remove, responsible to the taxpayers and the voters. Non-profits dedicated to “helping” the homeless have a very strong incentive to make the problem worse. Because the worse the homelessness crisis becomes, the more money goes to the nonprofits. So they take government money, give it to their employees, make some sort of pathetic token effort to help unhoused people, and as the crisis worsens they go back to the government and say “the crisis is worse, we need more money”.

      And civilians look at the amount of money being poured into assistance to unhoused people, and look at the crisis getting worse, and say “more money and services won’t help these people, we need to criminalize them”. And fucking Newsom is all over that because he’s angling for the Presidency and military style crackdowns impress the fascists in red states.

      There’s a homelessness crisis because of government corruption and incompetence. And the majority of Americans think the solution is to give the government more military power, more police power, and let those same corrupt agencies brutalize the homeless more. It’s sickening.

      • LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        I actually kind of went to a major fancy pants conference in Portland last year for homelessness issues.

        Yes, it was extremely dystopian to drink wine and wear jewelry and fancy dresses while seeing presentations on homelessness. The whole thing was depressing. The other people who were there to genuinely resolve the issue were also depressed. Everyone got drunk. We talked a bit.

        The problem is that it’s all a gridlock and all controversial and these people don’t face any real discomfort from that gridlock or from prolonging the situation. They still get paid. As much as they wince and say how it’s bad and they can’t figure out how to work with NIMBY’s and all the stigma and regulations etc- they still get paid. And they get to brag to all their friends about how kind and amazing they are for being the head of the Sad Pathetic Homeless People NonProfit Fund for the last 8 years.

        It’s like they sympathy jerk off. They are just edging to the suffering in a different way. If they were effective, then they wouldn’t look so amazing and charitable because the homeless wouldn’t be an issue. They couldn’t keep jerking off to their own saintly ego.

    • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yes. They should do it like NYC, where it’s basically illegal to live on the street. The city is required by law to offer free housing at a certain quality level for anyone who needs it. It’s not amazing but you get a door that locks and a security team, plus a bathroom.

      If you don’t want to sleep inside, you literally have to leave the city. It’s not cheap but it works much better than letting people live in tents.

      • Soup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Why the illegal part, though? People don’t really need an incentive to have shelter. It just punishes people who are struggling with even deeper issues.

        • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          People don’t really need an incentive to have shelter

          Not necessarily true. For example if the place has “no alcohol and no being drunk” policy, some of them will rather stay out.

          • Soup@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Right but that’s a choice the shelter can make and not a point against the idea that people, ultimately, won’t really refuse a place to sleep. It’s a more complex issue that takes more time than an evening so rules like “no being drunk” which sound fine don’t really help anyone.

            • Zorque@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              I’d imagine it’d help make the unhoused who don’t want to have to deal with drunk people feel a lot safer about using them.

              • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                and if you want to use public money on it, then the goal has to be to help them get back to society, to which dealing with problematic behavioral patterns, like substance abuse, is a necessity…

        • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Technically it’s not illegal to sleep on the street, but there are sanitation rules regarding it. NYC has 8 million people. Any problem you can think of is magnified. It’s literally a sanitary issue if you allow thousands of people to camp outside.

          https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/26/nyregion/nyc-homeless-camp-bill-of-rights.html

          In New York City, there are many rules on the books that have been used to restrict sleeping rough.

          One is a piece of sanitation code that makes it unlawful to leave “any box, barrel, bale or merchandise or other movable property” or to erect “any shed, building or other obstruction” on “any public place.”

          In city parks, it is illegal to “engage in camping, or erect or maintain a tent, shelter or camp” without a permit, or to be in a park at all between 1 a.m. and 6 a.m. unless posted rules state otherwise.

          And on the property of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, both underground and in outdoor elevated subway stations, it is a form of banned disorderly conduct to “sleep or doze” in any manner that “may interfere” with the comfort of passengers. Nor may subway riders “lie down or place feet on the seat of a train, bus or platform bench or occupy more than one seat” or “place bags or personal items on seats” in ways that “impede the comfort of other passengers.”

          Note that these rules also restrict people who have homes too. No one can have a party in the park after hours or take up a ton of space on the subway. Note also that you can sleep outside if you don’t get in the way.

          someone who did not violate any of those rules — say, someone who set a sleeping bag in an out-of-the-way spot under a highway overpass and did not put up any kind of shelter — was legally in the clear, at least in theory.

          • LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Note that these rules also restrict people who have homes too. No one can have a party in the park after hours or take up a ton of space on the subway. Note also that you can sleep outside if you don’t get in the way.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      you’ve got cities like San Francisco paying them something like 40 or 80 thousand a year to keep the homeless in a fenced off area in a tent grid

      Star Trek DS9 predicting the future yet again