[kelnos]

> I wondered a lot why California seems to be failing at the homeless problem.

My take on it (after living in SF for many years):

1. Many homeless people do have mental illnesses and/or drug addiction problems (for some, this is the result of their homelessness, for others it's in part the cause). California is very much against involuntarily putting people in psychiatric hospitals or drug treatment programs. This is largely due to backlash over abuses from decades ago, where people were put into horrible conditions in mental institutions.

2. I think a housing-first program would absolutely work, but it's politically infeasible. Most people would seemingly prefer to have homeless people all over the streets and sidewalks when the alternative is to give them free housing, because it's "not fair" to the people who've worked to pay for their own housing.

3. The option of busing/flying homeless people out of a high-cost city like SF and into a lower-cost region where their needs can be met is also politically fraught. There are (voluntary) programs that help homeless people travel to a place where they have family who can help them, though I don't think it's used as a solution as often as it could be. But the idea of forcibly moving homeless people to a random place or places where they have no connection or support network is considered inhumane and a violation of rights.

I think #2 would be more acceptable to people if #3 could be used more, since presumably people could be housed in a location where housing is much cheaper. As much as I'm not super comfortable with the idea of just forcibly moving people to a different location, I think it overall can be better for the people involved, if it's done well. But that's the trick: can we actually ensure that the people relocated elsewhere will have their needs met, and will end up in clean, well-maintained housing?

Beyond that, I think we need to get over our aversion toward requiring people to go into (and stay in) psychiatric care or drug rehab. This shouldn't be a requirement for receiving housing; it should happen concurrently with being housed, though a live-in rehab program is probably appropriate for many people, at least to start. But I think refusing treatment should just not be an option.

And as a public health issue, and just an issue of keeping our spaces a nice, clean, safe place for everyone to live, ultimately I think we should make homelessness illegal, as long as we can provide a good alternative for every single person in that situation.

[dbcurtis]

> Many homeless people do have mental illnesses and/or drug addiction problems (for some, this is the result of their homelessness, for others it's in part the cause). California is very much against involuntarily putting people in psychiatric hospitals or drug treatment programs. This largely due to backlash over abuses from decades ago, where people were put into horrible conditions in mental institutions.

This. I am old enough to remember those bad old days. We have simply replaced one form of inhumanity with another. There are people who need our compassion and help. We should give it to them. We also need to protect against abuse of and/or by the system. Why is this so hard to accomplish?

[mytake]

I would assume it is because providing compassion would win over protecting taxpayer from abuse everytime. Providing compassion is taxpayer money. Preventing abuse is self motivated. Also If giver is 100% compassionate no one would dare complain even if they are against it. If 1 abuser is denied due to abuse the whole govt will get blamed for not being compassionate enough without rock solid lawyer/political level proof

[0xB31B1B]

RE #2, the main political issue in SF at the moment is that the homeless advocacy non profits want permanent supportive housing as the only solution, they advocate against shelters temporary group and sober housing, and they also advocate against any compulsory programs. To them, the housing provided must be good enough that the meth addicts willingly chose housing over street life. This isn’t workable.

[jackson1442]

I think #3 could possibly work _if_ it was in conjunction with being housing-first. If SF had an agreement with another city with available housing, I think busing people there _if and only if they have a home ready_ could be a really reasonable solution.

No need to deal with the high housing prices of the bay area, and you're ensuring the person has a place to live when they get to where they're going. Definitely don't do this involuntarily, but I imagine many people (once such a program proves itself) would voluntarily sign up.

--

Random miscellaneous comment- I found it really challenging to get a part time job around where I lived without a car. One of the interview questions was typically "how will you get to work" and I could see a change in the interviewer's demeanor when I responded that I would walk or have someone drive me. I can't imagine how difficult it would be to get a job without a permanent address on top of that.

[bombcar]

You’d basically have to build a new city for it because otherwise the residents of said city are going to be quite unhappy.

Maybe you could revitalize and absolutely dying city somewhere by hiring everyone who lives there to support the incoming population.

[j2bax]

I wonder if there are areas/towns that could use additional sources of revenue/jobs that larger cities could help subsidize with homeless relocation services and funding.