[DoreenMichele]

We don't really need to worry about those people. Let's just build enough housing for those who want housing. That at least shrinks the problem.

Let's do what reasonably can be done and follow the 80/20 rule and take care of the majority of the problem that is relatively easily resolved, thereby freeing up more resources for the short list of really, really hard cases.

[LyndsySimon]

> We don't really need to worry about those people. Let's just build enough housing for those who want housing. That at least shrinks the problem.

I’m not sure it does shrink the problem, though.

LA is a city, and people come to cities for opportunity. That extends to the indigent as well, and public spaces have a capacity in the same way that traditional housing has a capacity.

Logistics aside, if you were to successfully move 80% of the homeless population of Skid Row into permanent or semi-permanent housing is there are reason to believe that more homeless people wouldn’t simply move in to fill the void?

To be clear, I’m not arguing against charity or even against providing state resources for these people (at least, not in this post). I’m narrowly challenging the implicit argument that doing so is an effective way to reduce the number of homeless people on the streets in a defined area.

If the problem you’re trying to solve is “help those who need and desire help”, the solution is straightforward. If the problem is “change the fact that a large number of homeless people are living on publicly-accessible land in a major city”... I’m honestly not sure there is a viable solution. The options seem to range from accepting the situation and ignoring it to forcibly removing people from those areas and continuing to use to force to prevent them from returning.

[DoreenMichele]

I’m narrowly challenging the implicit argument that doing so is an effective way to reduce the number of homeless people on the streets in a defined area.

And you are more or less cherry picking which comments of mine can be misinterpreted to mean "just build more housing in LA in specific and this solves homelessness in LA in specific." I stated elsewhere that we have been under building housing nationwide for decades. Obviously, we need more housing generally to make headway here.

It won't solve the problem entirely. But it is a crucial step that needs to happen to have any hope of solving the problem. We need more housing generally so we can stop having insane housing prices and stop pushing people out into the streets to begin with because homeless prevention is vastly more effective, cheaper and better in most cases than "helping the homeless."

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23304857

[polalavik]

But we do need to worry about those people when those people may be a large percentage of the people on the streets. These people are deep into the throws of mental illness, addiction, or both. What do you do to help people who don’t want to help themselves? It’s a very difficult problem and I don’t know if there is an easy solution that doesn’t infringe on people’s rights. You can’t make being homeless illegal and state conservatorship seems dystopian.

[DoreenMichele]

There is a clear connection between housing costs and rate of homelessness.

https://streetlifesolutions.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-clear-c...

This country has an inadequate supply of housing nationwide. We have generally been under building housing for decades, then we act like our homeless population is just a bunch of "junkies and crazies."

When I say "we don't need to worry about them," I mean the existence of people who are homeless by choice should not be an excuse to keep not building adequate housing and justify punishing those who do want housing on the excuse that "some of y'all losers don't even want housing."

I spent nearly six years homeless. I've studied this problem space. I am actively developing information resources and best practices.

"Build more housing -- especially stuff like Missing Middle Housing" is the short answer to a large part of this.

Healthcare availability is another factor that makes a difference and help connecting to earned income that works for them in spite of handicaps and so forth. Earning money online is part of how I made progress on my issues and got myself back into housing.

[thebradbain]

Those who need more support than just housing (and I’d assume that could be many!) should be able to have it provided for them — I am sure the lines get murky if someone claims to not want to get helped, but I am also sure there is a way to still provide it humanely — anything is a step forward from the present conditions of homelessness and/or incarceration, at this point

[LyndsySimon]

For what it’s worth, I don’t think anyone is arguing that the present state of things is optimal.

The approach I’ve taken in the past to these issues is to simply treat people as people worthy of fair treatment, do what I can personally to help, and provide what resources I’m able to provide to support organizations that I believe to be effective in helping people.

The parable of the starfish seems to apply: if you walk down a beach covered with starfish dying in the sun, you have no means available to save all of them. You can only put the ones you encounter back into the sea. It doesn’t solve the problem as a whole, but it makes a difference to the ones you’re able to save.

Or, from a Judeo-Christian perspective; “If among you, one of your brothers should become poor, in any of your towns within your land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother, but you shall open your hand to him and lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be … For the poor you will always have with you in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.” (Deuteronomy 15:7-11)

I take this to mean that helping those who need help is the responsibility of every individual, within that individual’s means. I also take it to mean that it is a problem where one should not expect a neat resolution; no matter how much you give or how many people give alongside you, there will always be more that can (and should) be done. The purpose of the commandment to help the poor is not to eliminate poverty, but to provide an ongoing means of spiritually enriching all parties involved.

I know that the things I’ve done for others have lead to personal growth in both myself and the people I’ve come to know through those actions.

I’m still trying to integrate the apparent contradiction that some of the smallest sacrifices I’ve made have had some of the largest impacts. Several times my wife and I have given substantial monetary gifts to individuals and organizations - they’re important and I in no way mean to dissuade someone from doing that, but at the end of the day it feels like the phrase “it’s just money” seems to apply. On the other hand, the single most impactful thing I’ve ever done was to pick someone up who was walking down the highway in my small town. I had some time that day and ended up not only taking them where they was going (home), but spending about two hours afterward taking them to run a handful of errands that would have taken them at least a full day to accomplish without a vehicle - to the DMV for a replacement license, to a staffing agency to sign up, and to the grocery store to pick up a few essentials. In that case I wasn’t even able to help them pay for groceries due to my own financial situation... but months later, that same person flagged me down and told me - with tears in their eyes - that the fact that I took the time to help them was a major factor in their deciding not to attempt suicide and to seek help. That was a bit over two years ago, and while that person is still dealing with their personal demons, they are no longer regularly using hard drugs, have reconciled with their family, and are living with an elder relative to help care for them.