Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Helpful-Substance685 t1_iumbnfb wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in Homeless People in Lancaster CA Are Being Forced to Live in the Desert by xCeladon

How the people who live in it feel about the issue is complicated not the solutions. The solutions you presented are simple and straight forward but they are not being implemented and my neighborhood is still functioning like hell on earth.

I vote and I am voting for any and every candidate who says they will fix this issue but when I see shit like this article about how Los Angeles is spending $1,000,000.00 (per fucking unit!) to build low income housing then my patience in those easy, straight forward solutions starts to dry up.

I'm living in it and if you aren't then you don't understand how your feelings about homelessness can become complicated.

Edited: Last paragraph because it wasn't a fair argument to make.

26

IamHere-4U t1_iumza68 wrote

If I am not mistaken, hasn't housing first basically saved money that would be spent on ambulances, hospital visits, shelters, jail visits, etc. that would be spent on homeless people?

I know in Seattle, for example, housing first ultimately cost taxpayers less money. It also saved money in North Carolina. I can try to look into more studies from the United States on cost reduction as it relates to housing first interventions, but it has certainly saved money in other nations it has been piloted in. I can continue doing research on this if you want exact figures, but it seems that a lot of the data is still being interpreted in many pilots.

> article about how Los Angeles is spending $1,000,000.00 (per fucking unit!)

I am not going to make a case for housing in this particular instance, or weigh in on if $1,000,000 is worth it, because, frankly, I am not equipped to discuss what the reasonable cost for a housing unit should be in LA.

However, what I do find in a lot of these discussions is that the money spent on an intervention is discussed in isolation. Articles will always emphasize how much money is spent in a given intervention, and not how much is spent otherwise, and in turn, saved via the intervention. This is why I am EXTREMELY skeptical when people push back against housing first.

7

jschubart t1_iun1zr7 wrote

My county has bought up hotels to house homeless. They own seven or so which can host over 700 people. While great, it is still only a fairly small chunk of our roughly 40k homeless.

People are fairly sick of seeing so much homelessness and think a shelter bed fixes the problem and if a homeless person rejects that bed, they simply want to be homeless. A shelter bed is a very temporary solution. Shelters are often run by religious organizations that can have pretty strict requirements (be in line at a specific time to get a bed and be out at a certain time) and can be hostile to some group's lifestyles (can't be with your partner, hostility to the LGBTQ community, etc). They also are not super secure for your stuff and can be violent. It is not too surprising that only a little over half get a shelter bed after a sweep (although it is never stated whether the beds are rejected or there just is not capacity).

It sucks. Often one city will offer some small amount of services and then homeless sweeps by nearby cities drive the homeless to the city offering services. We also get people sent here from other states via one way bus tickets.

6

The_Yarichin_Bitch t1_iunvy0q wrote

They are also worse abuse situations than living on the streets most, if not all, times.

0

The_Yarichin_Bitch t1_iunvrq6 wrote

That is less money than building structures to deter the homeless, cleanup, and arrests/ambulances.....

1

[deleted] t1_iumq75r wrote

[removed]

0

Helpful-Substance685 t1_iumtoym wrote

Agree on most of your points but it's not a million per building. It's a million per (1) unit in that building. So a 30 unit building is 30 million.

30 mil to house 30-120 people is corruption. It's flagrant misuse of tax funding. BUT to your point, if funded and implemented properly then yes these are the solutions long term.

I think what you miss here is that everyone living in these areas knows what the answer is but nothing is being done while LA spends a million per unit to SLOWLY build as little housing and mental health infrastructure as possible. I am tired of living like this while my votes and tax dollars are screaming for solutions. You come live like this for 2+ years and then tell me how much time you're willing to spend in the muck and mire while those vaporous "solutions" are being pitched by people who are not affected by it.

7