If you read that article it talks about how some of that money is spent on prevention so it's a bit unfair to just use existing homeless as the denominator- it's still an obscene amount of money per person. So saying it's "totally incorrect" is a bit of a stretch.
San Francisco absolutely has a Homeless industrial complex that isn't trying to solve the problem but just keep their cash flowing.
You’re linking to an article from mid 2018, before SF passed the largest tax in the city’s history: 2018 Prop C, a gross receipts tax for homeless services expected to raise another $300M. Several other additional tax measures were also passed since then to raise funds for homeless services.
I remember an article from somewhere in the valley that they considered to support families in need with some money for housing. Family in need was defined as yearly household income below $250,000.
Individual cities can’t solve national problems. Due to migration there are no great solutions at the individual city level, other than being “blessed” with an inhospitable area.
I live in SoCal so I thought you would even see more homeless migrants because of the weather. However, from speaking with homeless I would say in my experience most have lived in the area for a long time, with only one beach bum guy I spoke with who actually was "fresh off the bus". Until I saw the statistics though I was also under this misconception.
It’s a complex topic, first homeless is often a temporary condition where people cycle through homelessness. Second only 37% of American homeless population is unsheltered. So, the people who moved a long distance while homeless is a small percentage of the overall population, but also a much harder population to serve.
Anyway, hospitality isn’t really a question of weather as Alaska for example has relatively high rate of homelessness and NYC one of the highest. Mississippi on the other hand has the lowest rate despite mild winters and significant poverty.
Alaskan "homelessness" is very different in practice.
The institutional definition of homelessness is very self serving. Nomadic peoples are considered homeless under this fiefdom.
The stigmatization and criminalization of not paying taxes to lease a deed of property is a big problem, this planet as a whole belongs to all forms of life inhabiting it, not just the primates that choose to play that game.
There is pretty powerful statistical evidence that when Regan moved homeless services from the federal level to a state responsibility it cratered the numbers of beds (especially in small towns) and created an unsolvable situation in that when you're struggling in your small town who has zero homeless support, you make a move to some place else, somewhere where being homeless is not has bad weather wise and has a bit of infrastructure. So now you have all of the struggling people from "Mainstreet usa" moving toward the main cities all at once (over a couple decades) an essentially a burden on them to deal with EVERYONES homeless problem instead of historically their own.
This problem was working much better in the 70s and 80s when their was a national framework for it. While SF and LA's government is flawed, this blame state/city is like blaming the individual ushers when the fans run on the field after a football upset. It was more of a structural failure than a local.
States like Montana receive far more in federal tax dollars than states like California. If you think Montanans are going to be subsidized Californians and not the way around, I have a bridge in Montana I've got to sell you.
This will need a number to back that up. I've seen claims in both directions here on HN. It's also a number that's easy to distort to say whatever you want. Are people employed by the IRS being "subsidized"? Civilian logistics coordinators working for the DOD? Are you talking per capita, per square mile, or gross?
The numbers are actually pretty straightforward. "Expenditures is a broad category and covers a variety of things, including direct payments to people like Social Security, contracts for local governments, wages for federal workers and sub-contracting work."
From an accounting standpoint, gross money in be money out is what matters. Per capita makes sense to compare relative benefit, but realistically Montana is small potatoes on the Federal Balance sheet. Measuring per sq mile seems like some ludicrous ploy by Alaska’s senator to screw over New Jersey.
Not for rural sates. Farm subsidies, military spending, and rural healthcare initiatives etc, move a lot of money to such areas. Social Security disability is also used by poor states to get people off their welfare rolls.
Infrastructure costs are U shaped where extreme density is expensive, but so very low density. Mail delivery is a clear example where ultra low density just makes things more expensive.
That’s just the city’s spending. Once you consider other sources, including private ones (nonprofits), it is much higher. The Seattle area was spending $1B a year on homelessness as of a few years ago, which is nearly $100K/year per homeless person (https://www.city-journal.org/seattle-homelessness).
If the majority of them weren't addicted to hardcore drugs and could make intelligent, rational decisions, I might agree that giving them money directly could be a good thing. Drug addicts tend to not make good monetary choices.
See this recent documentary by KOMO News in Seattle about their problems, which are pretty similar to Portland's, SF's, LA's and a lot of other major cities with larger homeless populations. Crime is soaring. Most are homeless due to drug addiction. Until that part is solved and they can think clearly and rationalize normally again, giving them cash will likely only fuel the problem and keep them right where they're at. And with everyone walking around with $50k cash in their pocket, because they don't have bank accounts, crime would be even more rampant as they steal it from each other.
I think it's pretty obvious nobody is proposing giving homeless people 50k in cash, all at once..
I don't really buy that money would fuel the problem, is there any study that indicates that? They'd still be drug addicts, but they'd be more comfortable, well fed drug addicts which makes things better for everyone.
If anything I think money for a place, clean clothes, and food would make it much easier to get off drugs.
Yeah, and they shouldn't allow it. Not sure what this has to do with my comment though.
Anyway, saying it's a mental health problem is really reductive. Plenty of people with the same problems aren't homeless; some of these people can potentially dig themselves out if given a chance, most importantly a place to live.
