
L.A. to declare 'state of emergency' on homelessness - flannery
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-homeless-funding-proposals-los-angeles-20150921-story.html
======
EnderMB
I remember reading something about how one of the biggest hurdles of tackling
homelessness is dealing with those who were made homeless through a history of
mental illness. If someone suffers homelessness due to mental illness, I'm
sure that chucking them in with a bunch of other homeless people in a shared
home isn't going to fix the problem, so it'll be interesting to see how these
people will be treated.

$100m isn't really a lot, but if that money can be offered to help people that
need more than money and a roof over their head, it could do some genuine
good.

~~~
DanBC
Rates of mental illness are higher in the homeless population than the general
population. But it's important to recognise that most homeless or vulnerably
housed people do not have a mental illness; and that sometimes it's the
homelessness that has caused the mental health problem.

I totally agree that the solution is not "just build more homes", but needs to
include better access to debt management; better access to drug and alcohol
rehab; better access to work; and better access to MH treatment.

[http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/Mental_Illness.pd...](http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/Mental_Illness.pdf)

> According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,
> 20 to 25% of the homeless population in the United States suffers from some
> form of severe mental illness. In comparison, only 6% of Americans are
> severely mentally ill (National Institute of Mental Health, 2009). In a 2008
> survey performed by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, 25 cities were asked for
> the three largest causes of homelessness in their communities. Mental
> illness was the third largest cause of homelessness for single adults
> (mentioned by 48% of cities). For homeless families, mental illness was
> mentioned by 12% of cities as one of the top 3 causes of homelessness

~~~
akshatpradhan
>But it's important to recognise that most homeless or vulnerably housed
people do not have a mental illness

This can't be right. A previous HN discussed how "almost half of homeless men
had traumatic brain injury in their lifetime"

Source:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7648933](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7648933)

~~~
DanBC
Brain injury is not mental illness. It's brain injury.

(It might lead to intellectual disability but there's nothing in your linked
document that talks about the severity of the TBI.)

------
Omniusaspirer
These cities create the homeless problem by enabling the lifestyle. It's a
taboo thing to say but spend enough time in different locations and you learn
very quickly that the homeless are shameless opportunists who go wherever they
can most leech off society. My entire childhood growing up I never saw a
single homeless person despite growing up in an impoverished rural area. It
was viciously cold outside in the winter and people were very quick to take
advantage of local services and get themselves back to a position where they
could afford shelter.

These days I live in Ann Arbor and we have a fairly serious homeless problem
(I get harassed on the street nearly every time I walk downtown). The city
itself offers excellent resources for the homeless to both survive and "get
back on their feet", a situation that has not gone unnoticed by surrounding
districts which have literally loaded up vans with homeless people and driven
them 40 miles to dump them in Ann Arbor.

[http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-
arbor/index.ssf/2014/11/ann_ar...](http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-
arbor/index.ssf/2014/11/ann_arbor_homeless_shelter_rep.html#incart_river)

The homeless are absolutely a problem, but you're naive if you think anything
done to address the problem on a per city basis is going to fix anything. This
is a national issue that calls for expanded mental services, more
rehabilitation, _and_ strict policing. Anything done on a smaller level will
just encourage migration of homeless to take advantage.

EDIT: I'm fine with downvoting, but I do ask that you give me solid factual
and evidence based arguments for why my point is wrong. Implying I lack
compassion is neither accurate or a useful discussion of how to address this
problem, and that's where my interest lies when I make a comment like this.

~~~
aidos
You'd do very well not to try not to hold this opinion in your mind:

    
    
        "the homeless are shameless opportunists who go wherever they can most leech off society"
    

You've basically tarred a whole class of (often vulnerable) humans with your
predisposed judgements. It's a dangerous thing to do.

I'm in a privileged position, and in all honesty, I don't know enough about
homelessness to make particularly informed comments on the subject. You need
to start with compassion and an attempt at understanding otherwise you won't
get anywhere.

Look at the situation in Europe right now, there are literally millions of
refugees that will become part of the homeless class. "shameless
opportunists"? I think not.

What about the kids born into it?

~~~
humanrebar
> I don't know enough about homelessness to make particularly informed
> comments on the subject.

But you know enough to say omniusaspirer is wrong?

> What about the kids born into it?

What about the children? Should we debate about their place in society instead
of fixing the system that created homeless kids? That same question can be
used to accuse the hug-away-homelessness types of perpetuating perverse
incentives.

I'm pretty sure I don't know how to help the homeless as a group, but you
can't eat melodrama. Give a grumpy person half the leeway you'd give a
panhandler, please.

~~~
aidos
I think you've taken my comments in a pretty uncharitable way.

I don't need to know anything _at all_ about homelessness to know that looking
down on _any_ group in society as a whole unit is wrong (and unproductive).

I'm not using a flawed "what about the children" argument here, in case you
misunderstood. It's pretty straightforward; there are people literally born
into a situation that they have no control over, so you can't make any
judgements about their character due to the life they've "chosen".

Of course that's a single extreme example to prove a point. You don't need to
do much research to see that this isn't a class of people who have chosen to
take an easy path to leach of society.

[http://england.shelter.org.uk/campaigns/why_we_campaign/tack...](http://england.shelter.org.uk/campaigns/why_we_campaign/tackling_homelessness/What_causes_homelessness)

~~~
ebfe
>there are people literally born into a situation that they have no control
over

And similarly, Omniusaspirer (along with every other person) was literally
born into a situation that he had no control over. So you can't make any
judgements about his character, right?

~~~
aidos
I think this is all just getting a little pedantic and picky (if you see my
other comment to Omniusaspirer you'll see I'm trying to be more productive).

But in response to your question – I fail to see where I'm making a judgements
based on a stereotype. All I was saying is that it's dangerous to form a
narrative based on stereotypes.

------
6t6t6
Is there any way a person with a mental illness get a proper treatment in US?

I mean, for some one who is unable to work because he has, for instance,
schizophrenia, clinical depression or alcoholism, is there any option apart
from indigence?

~~~
sandworm101
Jail and/or prison. That is where many of them end up. Some judges would
rather see someone get "treatment" in custody than get nothing on the street.

~~~
anon4
Jail is different from prison how?

~~~
sandworm101
Jail is for pre-trial sentencing and sentences under one year. So many of the
people have not been convicted. Jails spend most of their energies sorting
people into various risk categories. There are few if any 'treatment' programs
in jails.

Prisons are where people actually serve meaningful time. Everyone is in for at
least a year and everyone is an actually convicted criminal, not just someone
awaiting trial.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Jail is for pre-trial sentencing and sentences under one year.

In _California_ , specifically, since the recent prison realignment adopted to
address Federal court orders with regard to California's overcrowded state
prisons, that is substantially less true than it used to be; many non-serious,
non-violent, non-sex offenders sentenced to more than one year are now sent to
county jails, and population pressure resulting from that has reduced pre-
trial detention in many county jails, as well.

~~~
sandworm101
There is some wiggle room. The one-year thing is more to do with how much time
one is expected to serve, rather than the sentence. Time already served can
also alter the math. So someone spending 6-months in jail pre-trial and then
sentenced to 14 months would normally be sent back to jail as they only have 8
months remaining. And to your point, where it is very unlikely that someone
will server their entire sentence prior to parol, they will normally do that
time in a jail.

This isn't always a bad thing. Some convicts would rather not be moved to a
new facility. Jails are normally closer to the place of arrest (usually near
home) and by the point sentencing happens families have already developed some
sort of routine for visitation. Sending them out of town, even if to a better
facility, is not always in the inmate's best interest.

------
Axsuul
I'm really glad to see this issue on the front page. I live in downtown LA and
I'm on the front lines of this epidemic. It does seem like the situation is
getting worse. I wonder if technology can somehow play a role here. I would
gladly fund some of the "regulars" around here via some type of Watsi-esque
solution.

~~~
icebraining
_I wonder if technology can somehow play a role here. I would gladly fund some
of the "regulars" around here via some type of Watsi-esque solution._

That's what HandUp ([https://handup.org/](https://handup.org/)) is doing.

~~~
vjoshi
I think it can. I think if we are absolutely fine with sponsoring animals and
finding them new homes etc .. why not apply a similar model for homeless
people? An organisation can tailor a plan best fit to each individual and
crowd funding can help get them on their feet .. states sponsorships/grants
etc can surely be utilised here also for training schemes etc. So now it's not
just about giving someone a roof over their head but a life back. Well, this
is off the top of my head, could use some input obvs but allow the talking.
Let's get started :)

------
yurylifshits
San Francisco should do something too.

I'd love pay an extra tax to fund solutions to this massive problem.

~~~
jakeogh
I donate to people, but is forcing (violently if necessary) other people to do
the same ethical? Aren't there better ways?

~~~
vacri
No. This libertarian idea that people would give more if they weren't taxed is
utter bullshit. As is the idea that every human is an island. We're all in
this together.

The charities people give to? For the most part, it's acute and visible
charities. Very few people give to the same charity again and again, over the
course of decades. People also give to attractive charities - kids with
terminal diseases is a much easier charity to raise money for than mental
health in young adults. Same with animals - people care about cruelty to dogs,
but they don't care about cruelty to voles. And while you haven't said it,
another libertarian refrain is that people would donate _more_ than they get
taxed, which is obvious nonsense, because nothing is stopping them from
disposing of that extra money.

Anyway, if you don't want "violent" (stupid bloody redefining, that) taxes,
then move to Vanuatu. It has good weather, happy people, a small government,
and the army is so small it's also the police force (fewer than a thousand
people). There's no income tax. Of course, there's little comparable in the
way of infrastructure or services, but you'll get to live the libertarian
dream of hiring your own garbage collector instead of having one violently
forced on you by the incompetant apparatus of the overbearing state.

~~~
winter_blue
> This libertarian idea that people would give more if they weren't taxed is
> utter bullshit.

This. Libertarians live in some sort of idealistic fantasy, _where most humans
are intrinsically good_ , and inclined to do good, like help the poor and
needy around them. _That_ is emphatically not the nature of the average human.
We absolutely need to force and coerce people to do good, under the threat of
violence (for non-payment of taxes).

~~~
dchest
Who are "we, the good people, who force others" then?

If democracy is the rule of majority and the majority of people are "not
good", then you're ruled by people who are "not good".

If government enforced people to do "good" (not smoke marijuana, preventing
gay people from reproducing, allowed building with asbestos), and then the
changed their mind (allowed to smoke marijuana, allowed gay people are to
reproduce, banned asbestos), did they enforce the "good"?

------
thangalin
[http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/22/home-
free](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/22/home-free)

Technology to expedite housing construction would be helpful.

------
vjoshi
To add, seems things are going in the right direction after all:
[http://refhubuk.wix.com/refhub](http://refhubuk.wix.com/refhub)

------
ilaksh
[http://runvnc.github.io/tinyvillage/](http://runvnc.github.io/tinyvillage/)

------
happyscrappy
In the US you cannot forcibly put someone in a homeless shelter, if they
refuse to go there is nothing you can do about it. People die on the streets
in Boston every year because of this but it would be impossible to pass a law
forcing them.

------
elcct
Why exactly homelessness is a problem?

~~~
onion2k
There are two sorts of wealth - private wealth and public wealth. Private
wealth is your nice house, your fancy car, your money in the bank. Having lots
of private wealth is great and it means you lead a comfortable life. Public
wealth is the society you live in. It's the quality of the roads you drive on,
the cleanliness of the streets, the safety you feel walking around a city.

To be happy you need both kinds of wealth. If you live in a big, expensive
house and you drive a Ferrari, but there are parts of the city you live in
where you don't want to go, then you aren't living a rich, full life. There'll
be a constant reminder of how there are people worse off than you, and that
will make you feel awful.

People who are homeless effectively make _everyone_ worse off. Helping to fix
their problems makes your own life better.

~~~
elcct
You still have not explained why homelessness is a problem.

There is plenty of places on earth I wouldn't go to, for example Northern
Canada it doesn't mean I am not living a full life. Should I be on the quest
of speeding up global warming to be able to see palm trees growing there and
finally make it suitable for me to go? Nonsense.

------
chvid
Funny how leaders rather would declare "state of emergency" than alter the
city planning that causes too little housing to be built.

~~~
XorNot
That's not really how homelessness tends to work though.

------
cbeach
House prices rise because an area is prospering. Those with no investment in
the area are forced to move to an area they can afford. Such is life for all
of us.

~~~
zyxley
> are forced to move to an area they can afford

And what about the people who can't afford to move in the first place?

~~~
vjoshi
zyxley, you took the words right out of my mouth .. Relative poverty is just
not considered important enough in this world by some to do something about ..
but then when that very person who could have been helped earlier on isn't,
the media cry a river over their worsened condition and misfortune.

