[hifreq]

Available shelter space, housing vacancies:

https://www.kqed.org/news/11668623/why-do-thousands-of-l-a-s...

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/san-f...

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/top-stories/story/2020-...

> wages are the lowest they have been in decades

This is an endless argument. Why can't a person with 0 skills rent an apartment in San Francisco? Some wages are very low. If you can't afford rent in one of the most expensive cities on the planet, move to a cheaper place, don't become homeless in SF.

Do you want me to solve this for you? Here you go:

- Find a job in Wallmart in Fresno (if you insist on staying in CA): https://careers.walmart.com/us/jobs/0619201885FE-cashier-fro... (Cashier, $16-$26 an hour)

- Find a cheap rental in Fresno: e.g. this studio is $800 https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/719-W-Hammond-Ave-Fresno-...

- Sign up for free health insurance: https://www.coveredca.com/

[losteric]

You're acting like people aren't emotionally attached to their home cities.

Most people are born and raised in the same city or area their whole lives. The adult illiteracy rate is 20% and less than 40% get any kind of 4 year degree. Options are limited. People will cling to hope and the life (and community!) they know, until they're broke and lost their job... and at that point, they straight up can't move to Fresno and start that Walmart job. Walmart wouldn't hire them without a local place to live, and cheap Fresno landlords wouldn't rent to someone without a local job. Neither Walmart nor the landlord has an incentive to change, they're doing just fine exploiting the local Fresno populace.

Low-skill/low-pay life situations are a completely different reality than what well-off knowledge workers know.

[hifreq]

> You're acting like people aren't emotionally attached to their home cities.

Respectfully, you misplace the responsibility. When people go through a rough breakup, we don't call for the person experiencing attachment anxiety to be housed with their ex just because it would make things easier for one party at least temporarily. Life is full of hard moments and challenging choices. The fact that something is hard doesn't mean giving up is the healthiest path that the society should encourage.

Talk to people who work in social services. The fact is, visibly homeless (street homeless, most often addicted people) are in this situation not because they have tried everything else and have no choices. They don't seek employment and often refuse help. They are not part of a community (unless you consider other homeless people they randomly ended up living close to their true community).

As usual, the discussion about homeless is kind of pointless without clarifying which segment we are talking about. Homeless families with children, disabled non-addicts, etc are not someone I include in this discussion, and I never see them living on the street.

[losteric]

With all due respect, I was responding to your original highly reductionistic take

> Do you want me to solve this for you? Here you go:

As if your list was anything close to a viable solution for someone already homeless and addicted.

With this post, you're right - it is absolutely more complex. There are absolutely families on the street, they're just more likely in cars or squatting rather than assaulting people.

Beds can be located in places that lock people out of employment or introduce them to toxic elements... and becoming unhoused by itself causes mental health issues in a society which does nothing but stigmatize that from birth to adulthood.

Even within treatment, skilled help is chronically burned out and mediocre help is worse than a rubber duck.

There's a need for structural reform, from policing through sentencing and voluntary/mandatory rehabilitation, as well as public education. Not to mention real estate bottlenecks that drive up prices for everone from low-income odd-job workers, to the city police force, to building new institutional facilities, to staffing social services.

[hifreq]

Agree with all your points. We just need the people in power to recognize and act on that, instead of pandering to the extreme vocal minority and throwing money at an industry that has no incentive to make itself more efficient and effective.

[massysett]

Cashier at Walmart is not a zero-skilled job. The incumbent needs to:

* show up

* not be high or drunk when showing up

* adhere to a schedule

* read

* follow instructions

* not cuss out his boss or customers

* count money

* not steal money

* operate a computerized cash register

A large number of homeless probably could not do these things.

[1letterunixname]

This is an unpopular but more tenable solution. The federal government should step in should anyone be homeless and find them better living conditions and comprehensive services especially in under-utilized, lower cost areas where it is cheaper to deliver services. The federal government level is necessary because it amortizes the financial risks more fairly than dumping the costs on specific municipalities.

[SamoyedFurFluff]

I dunno, I would rather be homeless in a city I know then to be homeless in a city I don’t.

[hifreq]

Up to you mate. Just don't blame the society for your choices.

[notfed]

The articles you've cited don't show a problem with "vacancies", but with mismanagement, lack of funding, and lack of sanitization/maintenance.

To add an independent voice, here's ChatGPT responding to "summarize this article in one paragraph", for each article you linked to:

> https://www.kqed.org/news/11668623/why-do-thousands-of-l-a-s...

The article discusses the significant problem of empty beds in Los Angeles County's homeless shelters, despite a large homeless population. Investigations reveal safety and sanitation issues in many shelters, such as bedbugs, rats, foul odors, and lax medical care. Half of the LAHSA shelters had 78 percent utilization. Homeless individuals cite issues like theft, harassment, and violence within shelters, prompting some to prefer living on the streets. There's no unified oversight system, and the is much room for improvement to ensure humane conditions in shelters.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/san-f...

Approximately 7,800 homeless people in San Francisco, 2,100 have been approved for subsidized housing, yet challenges persist in moving them indoors. The city cites issues such as a shortage of case managers, complicated paperwork, and resistance from the homeless to certain unit conditions. Although efforts have been made to address the problem, including a $62 million investment in case managers, the average wait time has increased to five months, a significant delay considering the program's annual budget of $356 million. The article calls for an in-depth audit of the permanent supportive housing program and urgent action to house homeless individuals promptly.

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/top-stories/story/2020-...

The article discusses California's Project Roomkey initiative, launched by Governor Gavin Newsom in April 2020 to lease 15,000 hotel rooms for homeless individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the program's progress has been slow, with only about half of the rooms occupied over a month into its implementation. Challenges include delays in preparing rooms for occupancy, a shortage of service providers, and difficulties in transitioning residents into permanent housing. While some counties, like Sacramento, have seen relative success, others, such as San Diego and Orange County, struggle to fill leased rooms. The initiative, funded by FEMA, targets homeless individuals aged 65 or older and those with health conditions susceptible to COVID-19, but the article raises concerns about the overall effectiveness and limited coverage of the program in addressing the state's homelessness crisis.

[hifreq]

Thanks for the summary. All of that confirms that the shelters are not full, they are underutilized. I am opposed to the idea that we just need to pump more money into this issue, which then gets distributed among "case managers".

E.g. we have invested $62M in case managers to handle 2100 approved cases? With the program's annual budget being $365M? This shows a ridiculous level of bloat and corruption. Do we need to spend $30K per case, considering that this doesn't cover the shelter expense?

I am not opposed helping people in need, I am opposed the idea that we just need to spend more money. And then next year a little bit more. More taxes, more case managers, more street cleaning teams, more safe injection sites. None of that is solving homelessness, all of that is contributing to making the homeless industry bigger.