
Homeless, living in a tent and employed: The changing face of homelessness - dankohn1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2019/03/22/feature/this-is-not-me/
======
dgzl
I'm from a small town in Oregon that sees a lot of nomadic traveling folk,
either homeless or lifestyle (the PCT comes through the area, for instance),
and the town is generally pretty receptive of these people. Growing up I would
hang out and spend time with them, just chatting and playing music and
enjoying the area. I carried that to adulthood and I now live in Portland,
where the homeless problem is quite severe.

Last weekend, looking at food carts downtown, a man who looked quite
disheveled and in shock starts trying to talk with me. He tells me he just got
off the bus from the hospital, and that morning he had been attacked with a
knife by a homeless woman with gang affiliation. He showed me his wounds and
hospital bracelet, and I decided to spend some time with him and try calming
him down.

Before long he tells me that he's only been homeless a few months, and before
that he was collecting enough SSI to sustain himself. He says a while back he
had spent time in jail and been released, but the jail never put that in the
manifest. Apparently (someone) looked into his record and it looked like he
had escaped, causing him grief that suspended his SSI payments, in turn
putting him on the street. He was expecting payments to continue soon.

We talked about things like honor, culture, respect, family. Eventually I let
slip that I was a software engineer and he started telling me that he used to
really be into Linux, and his old work had him using BSD and Unix, and we
eventually started talking about physics which he was much more knowledgeable
than I. After I thought his shock was gone and feeling a little better, I
bought him some food to help him through the evening.

That same night I had conversation with a different homeless man, who was more
rude and rather creepy. He talked a lot about how the homeless are being fed
human meat, and how addictive it is.

\---

A friend who's from a wealthy Asian-dominated town in California tells me
there's a service where people will drive around and pick up homeless people
and give them a free ride to the neighboring town. The first gentleman in my
story above told me a similar thing: Las Vegas was apparently giving free bus
tickets to the homeless to come to Oregon, because our homeless services are
top-tier.

~~~
joebadmo
Portlander here, I used to work right by the food carts downtown on 10th and
Alder. The hospital bracelet guy is one of regulars, he's been running that
schtick for literally years. There's a cast off characters like him who are
fixtures there. I'm not against compassion for the homeless, but after running
into a few of these repeatedly, I tend to refrain from supporting them
directly and give to local charities instead. I'm not even arguing that you
made a bad decision, just sharing my own experience.

~~~
dgzl
I wouldn't be surprised if this was a scam, but I'm not convinced. Between my
own experiences interacting with the homeless and scammers, seeing his fresh
physical wounds (including staples in his head), and the weird amount of
knowledge he had about physics and obscure computer operating systems, I just
don't see it. If anything, he deserves my help just for being so thorough.

~~~
lotsofpulp
Why would society want to reward people who go to great lengths to defraud
others?

~~~
gscott
Someone needs to tell the homeless guy that with the right doctored up resume
he'd be perfect for a Fortune 500 CEO position. The skills are the same.

~~~
crumpets
I don’t think you understand what the role of a CEO of a company is. Despite
your flippant implication, being an incredible liar isn’t even close to
qualifying you for CEO of an F500.

------
i_am_proteus
These are my personal observations:

When I first moved to the SF Bay area, I was surprised by the amount of
visible homelessness and by the number of service economy workers who drove
nearly two hours to and from work.

I also had my first experiences with the "campuses" of major technology
companies, where money was made hand-over-fist. I think the recent widening
income gap is a natural consequence of the technology we have invented. A
relatively small number of people are able to generate a relatively large
amount of profit; this is the nature of the software industry.

But that relatively small number is still enough to dominate the economy of a
major metropolitan area, and so it has, and the demand for labor routinely
outstrips the supply of housing for those laborers (artificially constricted,
but also geographically constrained), and so those who work in software and
electrical engineering and cetera can afford to live in the area. Those who do
not, can not.

I look at the cities where this is an issue and I see similar threads:
industries where money from _everywhere_ flows to a relative few. Technology
skims off the top in San Francisco. Finance skims off the top in New York.
Government skims off the top in Washington, DC.

So the rise in visible homelessness is perhaps the expected result. Cities are
economic systems, and it is easy and myopic to cater only to the demands of
the prime mover. But the prime mover has auxiliaries it needs to function,
without which the system will collapse.

And my experience with collapses is that they are not gradual, but rather,
they are sudden.

Last night, a fire raged through abandoned vehicles parked under Interstate
280. Black smoke poured out from under the freeway and choked Portrero Hill. I
watched fire crews advance on the flames and extinguish them. What will happen
when the people we rely on to extinguish our flames cannot afford to live in
our cities?

~~~
trimbo
> But that relatively small number is still enough to dominate the economy of
> a major metropolitan area... So the rise in visible homelessness is perhaps
> the expected result

I'd imagine the expected result is that prices increase to support higher
wages for service workers... which they actually have. Just one example: a
take-out salad for lunch now costs $15 in San Francisco. The place I'm
thinking of has huge line at lunch, so business seems extremely good.

Regional economic prosperity being a _cause_ of homelessness makes no sense to
me, unless that economic prosperity for the few took away every business
opportunity for everyone around them (e.g.: robot manufacturer replaces all
jobs in all industries). The people making money are going to have to spend
money.

So I wonder if it has more to do with other societal/economic changes going on
that have changed how money is spent:

* Could it have something to do with Amazon/Home Depot/big box stores impacting local retailers?

* Could it have something to do with local manufacturing jobs going overseas?

* Could it have something to do with the 1099 gig economy work making it infeasible for companies to employ people full time (in that type of gig work), and driving down income for those jobs?

* Could it have something to do with the massive increase in drug use[1]?

Or all of the above? Or more reasons?

Also, the fact that it's happening in a period of very low unemployment does
not bode well.

ps - Firefighters get down-payment assistance in San Francisco. I personally
know a couple who live near me, thanks to this.
[https://sfmohcd.org/resources-first-
responders](https://sfmohcd.org/resources-first-responders)

[1] - [https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Number-of-people-
shoo...](https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Number-of-people-shooting-up-
drugs-in-SF-rises-50-13333141.php)

~~~
CydeWeys
One major factor is simply that housing is too expensive. Yes, an employee at
the $15 salad place is probably making more than minimum wage, but it's still
not enough to comfortably afford the high rents in the city.

SF has, and has had for awhile, some of the most restrictive construction and
zoning laws in the country, and as a result demand has far outstripped supply.
A decent number of people in SF become homeless for the most obvious reason
that they just can't afford housing.

~~~
robocat
And the question is:

Does the demand outstrip the supply in large part _because_ of the zoning
laws.

What other cities had a similar population and vibe to SF 40 years ago, but
followed the path of rampant housing growth?

------
cronix
KOMO TV in Seattle recently (last Sunday) did a big report on this called
"Seattle is Dying." Down south in Portland, it's the same thing. Down in San
Francisco...same thing. Down further, same thing. This is spreading quite
quickly, all over in the big cities.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b53uiRFq4Ds](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b53uiRFq4Ds)

~~~
egypturnash
FWIW KOMO is now owned by Sinclair, and is increasingly rabidly right-wing.
What to do about the homeless situation in Seattle is a big topic of
discussion currently; we had an attempt to tax big companies to get some money
to deal with this get shouted down by all the folks in Amazon's pockets.

~~~
Fellshard
The solutions proposed by the Seattle City Council are to aid and abet
addictive habits, and to pursue 'more of the same' for every policy that put
things where they are today. No amount of tax money they would receive would
fix the problem, because they have shown they cannot spend it competently.

~~~
grogenaut
Care to elaborate and point to specific policies? Are you referring to safe
injection sites or something else?

~~~
Fellshard
That's the primary example, yes. This in addition to curbing police
enforcement of actual drug use and possession, from what I've heard in
reporting and from officers themselves.

One anecdote I've heard through my brother, who has been in law enforcement
and monitors things in our old home region. He told me an officer he knew left
the force because those types of restrictions were becoming untenable to deal
with. Secondhand, so take this, too, with a grain of salt.

~~~
chillwaves
What is the advantage in cycling addicts in and out of prison?

~~~
trashcan
Did you watch the video? Removing access to drugs and providing them with I
assume subsidized medication that is used to treat addiction.

~~~
m_ke
Do you honestly believe that throwing mentally ill and addicted people in jail
is the right solution to this problem?

~~~
trashcan
I do believe that when someone is slowly dying of addiction on the streets,
that it might be more compassionate to help them cure that addiction, even if
it is against their will (not like you normally get to decide you don't want
to go to jail when you've comitted a crime anyway).

I know it's not a one size fits all solution by any means, and has the
potential for tons of liberty infringing issues, but it sounds better than
doing nothing.

~~~
grogenaut
The goal of Safe injection sites are specifically aimed at getting people care
while letting them deal with their addictions, under monitoring. Whether
they'll work here in the us or if we'll let them is a different question. They
worked where the idea came from.

That's what gp didn't like. What do you think since you seem to want a better
option. Is that better than jail as a default?

It's supposed to do what you want without prison.

~~~
Fellshard
Do you have evidence they worked, short or long-term? Are there any
substantive differences between the two programs?

~~~
grogenaut
I'm not a policy wonk. Research them and make your own opinion. Portugal and
another country have tried them. Portugal to amazing success. Turns out many
people wanted off the drugs and just needed help is the summary I saw there.

I think we do have data on how well the current system works.

The two programs being what? I know Seattle is having a lot of troubles even
implementing them well due to stigmas so I don't know if we even have
finished.

I do anecdotally know one of my hyper liberal teacher friends was against them
on the east side as she associated heroin use with only downtown Seattle
homeless. When I pointed out they were more likely to use the center downtown
instead of a 2 hr bus ride and the ones on the east side were for all the
people you hear about being hooked on oxygen... She actually started thinking
about it instead of just reacting. It's a hard sell with a lot of stigma and
fud around it.

It's not my goal to argue you one way or another in a post like this. It's my
goal that you actually make an informed decision instead of an uninformed one
off of anecdotal data.

------
davidw
If you want to get involved with housing politics in that area, these are some
good places to start:

* [https://www.sfyimby.org/](https://www.sfyimby.org/)

* [https://cayimby.org/](https://cayimby.org/)

Look at the crazy tweet quoted by a Palo Alto city councilor for instance:

[https://twitter.com/benedictevans/status/1109500565971763202](https://twitter.com/benedictevans/status/1109500565971763202)

"Why there's a housing crisis, exhibit #29393911". People who don't believe in
supply and demand.

------
sidesentists
This sort of thing is why I've started to wonder if employment rate is really
all that meaningful as a general socioeconomic index. It is what it is, of
course, but I'm not sure it's use as a proxy for well-being is really
justified.

~~~
NTDF9
> This sort of thing is why I've started to wonder if employment rate is
> really all that meaningful as a general socioeconomic index. It is what it
> is, of course, but I'm not sure it's use as a proxy for well-being is really
> justified.

Great point. Look at how paradoxical it is.

Every time unemployment is high, they pump in more money (raising asset
values). But unemployment is not high because of "lack" of money.

The real problem is unequal distribution of money pumped into the system.
Unemployment is a joke. It's not like the world has run out of things to do. I
can think of so many more jobs that need people (like more Boeing testers,
more street cleaners, more infrastructure repairers, more artists, mores
school teachers, more nurses etc.) None of that is happening because of lack
of money. No, its happening because money is being sucked by the few at the
cost of the society.

~~~
neffy
Actually - no they don't. Changing interest rates doesn't change the money
supply. But you're right, the real problem is the uneven distribution of money
- the precise causes are a little more complex though.

~~~
NTDF9
> Changing interest rates doesn't change the money supply.

It does by discouraging creation of new money by way of loans.

The uneven distribution of money is because of an unbalanced wealth creation
system. Money trickles down from the Fed into assets (owned by banks and
wealthy) who then loan that money out to others.

Some of that money goes into business activities such as procuring goods and
services, thus creating demand. The rest of that money goes into speculation
and buying up more "assets" that will pay out in future.

Notice how labor is not important in any of this at all. Labor is almost a
side-effect of this economic system of assets vs assets.

Unfortunately, no human is born with assets. Most humans still make money from
labor. If money printing goes into assets but humans make money from labor,
it's obvious that this will throw most humans out of the system.

This is like a video game where some people got the cheat code while others
didn't.

------
throwaway713
A little bit unrelated, but does anyone else get severe anxiety reading
articles like this? I’m currently employed in a well-paying tech job, but it
always seems like I’m just one giant disaster away from this kind of thing.
Granted, I have a family “safety net” to fall back on in a worst case
scenario, which I realize a lot of people don’t have, but it’s always in the
back of my mind that the economy could crash, that my skills are suddenly not
in demand, or some weird health insurance disaster wipes out my retirement
savings. I constantly feel like I need to save up as much money as possible to
reach financial independence as quickly as I can so that I’m prepared for some
kind of unforeseen catastrophe.

~~~
f34
I was wiped out back in 2017. I was a web developer living in Dallas and
making 90K a year. My manager and I didn't get along and I eventually ended up
on a PIP. After 30 days I realized I wasn't going to meet the PIP goals and
resigned before being fired. I wasn't worried, I had about 50K in cash and 20K
in credit, and I surly could find a job before it ran out. I was wrong. I got
very few interviews and when I did, they were more fit than technology
focused. I might as well have picked a number between 1 and 100 to decide the
interview.

There comes a point when you go into emergency mode and start planning for the
worst. We made it to tax season and got our return. we bought a used car and
moved to Tulsa, Ok for the cheaper rent. I had also spent 20 years there when
I was younger and felt confident I could find a development or any job. It
didn't go as planned. I got plenty of interviews, but none panned out. Many
employers questioned my time without a job and I think that and my rusting
skills keep me unemployed. Hell, I can't even get a blue-collar job. And it
didn't help that the used car broke down and I had to walk and ride public
buses every where. Now my wife works for $8.50 an hour at a diner and that's
what we make it on. I'm in a worse position than before I went to college and
it makes me bitter about life, people, hiring practices, and that so much
depends on luck and timing.

So yeah, you never know what's coming. Save all you can and keep working
towards financial independence, which is the only real guarantee.

~~~
driverdan
How are you applying for jobs? Are you spraying and praying or are you going
to meetups and such to network and get recommendations? Cold resumes won't get
nearly as far as a recommendation. Have you applied to remote jobs? Contract
jobs? Looked for freelance work?

~~~
thatoneuser
I'll be real, it sounds like you're giving the generic "I just Googled how to
get a job" advice and in my personal experience - this kind of advice rarely
accomplishes anything and leaves you more distraught than before.

~~~
dabockster
>I just Googled how to get a job

It’s worse than that. It reads like something a LinkedIn “influencer” who
hasn’t had to actively look for a job in 30 years would write.

Here’s some insights from my current job search:

>Meetups I live 45 minutes away from Seattle. On a good day, it’s a 1.5 hour
round trip commute. With Seattle traffic factored in, it can balloon to 3-4
hours round trip. The last two meetups I did go to were full of boot camp
students and very few actual employed devs. (Side note, only one of the five
boot camps that were there had the WA state technical school accdredidation.)
The Meetup talks were glorified sales pitches for B2B AI analytics products
(with one company admitting that its AI was actually third world upwork
contractors in an news interview a week later).

>Remote work Not in a position to negotiate that unless you mean 1099
freelance work. 1099 is a hardship since I’d have to basically set up my own
business at that point. (I will never do a sole proprietorship since the
personal risk is too high if the business fails or I get sued for something.)

>contact and freelance jobs Did you read what I just said?

Anyways, I’m logging off HN again and working on my blog. I really need to
block this site since all I see here anymore are innane comments like these.

~~~
driverdan
Sorry if I came of condescending, that wasn't my intention. I was trying
understand the situation in case there was something I could do to help.

>Remote work Not in a position to negotiate that

There are many remote jobs available now. Check out
[https://github.com/lukasz-madon/awesome-remote-job#job-
board...](https://github.com/lukasz-madon/awesome-remote-job#job-boards) for a
list of boards that show remote jobs. Remote work isn't for everyone but it
opens up a much wider selection if you're having trouble finding something
local.

~~~
thatoneuser
Didn't mean to be hard on you! It's just frustrating as someone who's sought
those avenues before only to fine people who want to underlay, sketchiness,
people who just wanna feel the waters or even people who are trying to catfish
for recruiting. It just came off as tho you had never tried to do those things
before because they're so generic and rarely produce results. But thanks for
that link I'll be looking through it later!

------
angel_j
The US has an annualized growth rate [0] of ~.7%, or ~2M/yr, and this an
historically low rate (probably b/c of economic problems)

Annualized "new housing starts" is 1.28M/yr [1]

And we already have a housing deficit, proven not only in homelessness, but in
adults sharing rentals, the high cost of rent, new grads completely besides
themselves in lack-of-prospects, student debt, etc... In other words, it's
getting worse.

Clearly, the only answer is building more housing, and the market is not
answering that call. Or give me 40 acres and a mule...

[0]: [https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/population-
growth...](https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/population-growth-
annual-percent-wb-data.html) [1]: [https://tradingeconomics.com/united-
states/housing-starts](https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/housing-
starts)

~~~
davidw
The market is constrained by rampant, rabid NIMBYism, among other things.

~~~
angel_j
They all want to own a rental too, since it only costs a down payment to
possess the property iff somebody else pays the bank.

But it's more than NIMBYS. There's foreign capital holding land and property,
dog-eat-world construction developers operating nationally and globally, and
infestations of anonymous YUPPIES who are basically living in w/e city like
it's an extended career commute, and have no incentive to gaf about local
problems, but want their sensibilities and stuff to be safe and protected by
police—it's these people's tax dollars city politicians clamor about needing
to attract in order to fix local problems and ofc pay expensively to police.

------
mlinksva
Surely life in a tent or on the street is far more dangerous than life in
shoddy but formal housing, like the complex the protagonists of this story
were living in before it was condemned for being unsafe.

Of course such a moral quandary shouldn't be necessary: allow and subsidize
the cheapest possible permanent and safe housing everywhere.

~~~
Fellshard
Do you have evidence that such houses are actually used when made? I've heard
- and this is hearsay at the moment - that when those have been built in
Seattle, they were unused.

~~~
djakjxnanjak
Are you saying that somebody build a home in Seattle and put it up for rent or
sale, and nobody was willing to move in, at any price? I would find that hard
to believe. I can more easily imagine a poorly-administered housing subsidy
program that failed to utilize some housing.

~~~
Fellshard
Looks like it was a women's only experimental camp, 'low-barrier'.
[https://komonews.com/news/local/seattle-to-close-
controversi...](https://komonews.com/news/local/seattle-to-close-
controversial-low-barrier-homeless-camp-in-march)

------
anongraddebt
Here is one database on homelessness in the U.S.:

[https://www.usich.gov/tools-for-action/map/](https://www.usich.gov/tools-for-
action/map/)

At least with this database, homelessness appears to have decreased over the
last ten years.

\----

Posting this because it isn't clear whether the "changing face of
homelessness" is such that current methods for calculating homelessness are
problematic or not.

~~~
kevinpet
It's unfortunate for this family, but as long as there are some desperately
poor, you'll be able to find stories like this. If the changing face of
homelessness is not actually going hungry that often, being given notice when
the police are coming through to clean out the encampment, this might be an
improvement over recent historical trends.

I'm disappointed with the lack of data and style reporting on homelessness as
a whole. Inconsistent statistics or lack of any context makes it hard to form
an opinion. The site you linked which should be a good source of data makes it
hard to see data over time and inexplicably colors the map by total
population, rather than fraction of population
([https://xkcd.com/1138/](https://xkcd.com/1138/)).

From
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_Sta...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_States#/media/File:US_yearly_timeline_of_people_experiencing_homelessness.gif)
it appears it has fallen over the past 12 years without much correlation to
the economy.

~~~
anongraddebt
Yeah, the lack of high-quality, public databases for certain issues is
unfortunate.

A couple years ago I sat in on a talk by a guy in D.C. who had led a small
beltway coalition for over a decade to get data processes standardized across
the largest departments within the federal government. Things they achieved,
that made one think the U.S. was simply moving from being stuck in the 70's to
being stuck in the 80's ,were quite clearly exciting wins for him.

------
pndd90
Having come to the US with a few dollars behind me, I totally understand the
circumstances of being poor. having said that, there is no way you need to be
homeless in the US. There is more social help here than in a lot of places in
the world. subsidized living support is real, food stamps and church support,
among other things. I cannot judge the people in the article, I dont know them
but I think when two people work, are not disabled, they do not have to live
on the streets in the US, unless they have some kind of a psychological
disorder. yes, life is tough, but there is no way it is tougher than in a lot
of other places where people in worse conditions monetarily make do. if they
are not on social security or not in subsidized housing, then they make enough
to not be on it. homelessness in the US is a very odd state of affairs to
anyone to was truly poor before.

------
n00bdude
I've lived on the streets of NYC since 2017 & been employed (min-wage job) but
only do so in order to afford more free time to creative write.

~~~
mxstbr
That is fascinating, can you share more of your experience? How does living on
the streets work, how did you end up in this situation?

~~~
n00bdude
It started w/ an Aladdin story & dream-chasing .. but to cut to it, @ present,
I basically operate in / out of a storage unit.

The routine basically goes: Wake up, run / shower @ gym (some days, meditate
in tanning booth), go to cafe & write for ~3-4 hours, Citi Bike to day-job,
work it & once finished, go to sleep on soho-streets @ night.

I ended up in this situation because I put myself into it so as to be in New
York City (publishing house Mecca)

I am from CA but going for it ;)

~~~
thrden
do you have any public writing? I'd be interested in reading what you've
written.

~~~
n00bdude
Wow, that'd be 100% awesome ..

If you visit my site, [https://blondyn.com](https://blondyn.com) , you will
find Episode 1 of my Aladdin adaptation ( _Aladdin Exponential_ ) for which I
moved to the city.

Also, I recently self-published an NYC short story compilation ( _Lit Art:
Vol.1 - LOL POP_ ), which right now is free to read if you've Amazon Prime.

If you're interested in a fun & light read, I'd recommend the short stories.

 _Aladdin Exponential_ is a novel - a spin on Aladdin ~ the premise ~ instead
of a Genie coming out of the Lamp, the Aladdin character gets pulled inside to
discover a Whole New World .. adventure ensues.

------
neonate
[https://outline.com/gJ6Ux7](https://outline.com/gJ6Ux7)

~~~
ng12
Thanks. There's something funny about a publication subtitled "democracy dies
in darkness" fading to black.

------
kuroguro
Getting a 404. Did they take it down or is this one of the new EU block
things?

~~~
massivecali
It's up, but behind one of those garbage begwalls.

------
throwawaysea
I echo others' sentiments here, that these problems will not be fixed unless
people from all sides stop trying to 'win' on ideological grounds, stop trying
to gaslight each other, stop trying to demonize, and simply evaluate the
situation for what it really is. This requires making hard decisions,
selecting the right incentives/disincentives, accepting that no solution is
perfect, and instituting transparent well-audited policies that serve the
interests of local constituents.

Here are some of my thoughts regarding this topic:

\- No one is entitled to live wherever they want, doing whatever job they
want, at whatever pay they are able to demand. Different places carry
different degrees of desirability, and the resulting demand for locations
means that prices will be different for different locales. People need to show
some personal responsibility and choose locations, jobs, etc. that are
feasible. Choosing to move to a location in a line of work that is not
compensated enough is going against the incentive structure built into our
market dynamics - namely that a reduced supply of labor for some job will
result in wages for that job increasing.

\- Long-time residents of an area may find it unfair that they are being
displaced by newcomers or a sudden boom or other changes that push prices
upward and beyond their reach. Those cities could consider establishing
policies for subsidized rent for those long-time residents below some income
level. That is, not rent control that impacts individual landlords but
subsidizing the cost of housing for long-time residents (e.g. 5+ years) across
the entire city's tax base. I keep saying "long-time" residents because there
has to be a disincentive for someone moving to expensive locales and using the
safety net/goodwill of the public as a means to enable an otherwise
irresponsible move. For example, those moving to Seattle or SF in the 2010s
have no excuse for expecting anything other than an expensive life, and need
to carefully evaluate if they can make it there.

\- Cities could assist residents in finding viable jobs and locations to live
in if they can't make it locally. They could even help pay for it. For
example, it is possible there are people that are homeless in some expensive
city and could make it elsewhere, but don't have the funds necessary to get
over the hump of moving. Cities could pay for them to move and get settled. In
the Seattle area, we spend over $1B a year on homelessness
([https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2017/11/16/price-
of...](https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2017/11/16/price-of-
homelessness-seattle-king-county-costs.html)), which comes out to
$83K/year/homeless person (since there are 12000 homeless persons in the
area). For $25K we could move someone to a more affordable middle-America
location, pay for a year of their housing, and potentially even their
food/utility costs during that time. Perhaps we could go a step further and
match them to jobs. The flip side is that those people need to accept that
they may not do a job they want to do. Sometimes you need to suck it up and do
something you might consider menial or unmatched to your skills or unmatched
to your passions - but that's just life and everyone has to make tradeoffs.
And as with my other idea, such services have to only be available to long-
time residents so as to not induce free-riders.

\- Not all homeless people are 'bad'. Some are well-meaning people down on
their luck job-wise. Some are long-time residents who have been priced out or
displaced from their locale. Some may have encountered some one-off hardship.
Either way, we need cities to meaningfully identify these various cohorts
precisely, so taxpayers can selectively provide support to those who deserve
it. The mechanisms used for such identification need to be trustworthy. As an
example of an untrustworthy process, in Seattle the city uses self-reported
answers from homeless people to claim that most are from here. But most video
interviews you see on TV (or anecdotally, when I've spoke to homeless people
myself) indicate they are not actually from here. Those point-in-time surveys
are facilitated by homeless activists, who are likely coaching people towards
certain answers, which is why the only viable answer is to rely on positive
identification for claims about local residency.

\- Homeless folks need to accept services. Refusing services (whether by way
of housing or for addiction treatment) is a non-starter. The law-abiding tax-
paying residents who support a city don't have an obligation to forfeit their
public spaces to transients, permanent nomads, or addicts.

\- Cities need to enforce laws. They can't look the other way when property
crime is committed, or when littering takes place, and so on. Or worse, they
can't selectively apply laws differently to different people (see
[http://mynorthwest.com/1046331/construction-worker-rv-
ticket...](http://mynorthwest.com/1046331/construction-worker-rv-ticket/) for
an example). People pay taxes and elect local governments to serve their
interests and support their quality of life. The trend of urban transient
campers usurping public spaces is unacceptable - people work hard to make it
in expensive places to enjoy those amenities, after all.

These are just some off the cuff ideas - I'm sure there is room for improving
them and I'm sure there are other good ideas as well. But I do think the
current direction of many of these cities - which is basically spend more and
show no result for it - is the wrong answer.

~~~
benatkin
The thrust of your argument seems to be "lots of homeless people don't belong
here, and if we figure out who belongs here and who doesn't, and help them
accordingly, we can improve the situation dramatically". Not a great opinion
to have if you want to work with homeless people. They aren't bad people, and
they aren't stupid people either, and will see the condescension from a mile
away. So even if your solutions are pragmatic, I don't see how a city
government could implement them without a backlash that would make their
efforts ineffective.

~~~
Fellshard
I think you're demonizing, just like GP observed people are doing.

It is unwise to assume that 'homeless people' are a single group that have
identical traits. There are many subcategories, each with its own causing
problems, attitudes, and required solution if they are to escape homelessness.
Lumping them all into one category of 'not bad, not stupid, avoiding
condescension' is itself condescending and reductive.

If we're to make any headway addressing the real human cost incurred by this
problem, we have to have some nuance in identifying these subcategories and
the individual people who occupy them.

~~~
benatkin
I didn't say that they have identical traits. I just wanted to take GGP's post
_Not all homeless people are 'bad'_ one step further, and I don't think it's
inaccurate to say that _homeless people aren 't bad people_.

BTW GGP put _bad_ in quotes and that makes sense (though an editor would
probably strike the quotes). I think calling someone _bad_ is reductive, as
you say.

As far as _demonizing_ , the only thing in this article's discussion I'd
demonize is KOMO's video, which I concur with Real Change [1] is a _hit
piece_. I don't know enough about any commenter to judge them like that, nor
do I think it's my place. So if it came off this way to GGP (I don't think I
did), mea culpa.

1: [https://www.realchangenews.org/2019/03/20/komo-asserts-
seatt...](https://www.realchangenews.org/2019/03/20/komo-asserts-seattle-
dying-misery-porn)

~~~
Fellshard
It's not a hit piece, having lived there and witnessed this on a daily basis.

~~~
Fellshard
(Past edit point)

Fair enough, you were targeting a single point specifically. Bad assumption on
my part.

------
jorblumesea
As someone who deals with this every day in Seattle, the core issue is that
the US doesn't have a cheap and effective healthcare system that can deal with
addiction and mental healthcare issues.

So cities are forced to try and patch holes where they can. But the reality is
that without coordination at the federal level there's little chance of
success.

It's a national problem that requires a national solution, but our response is
only at local levels.

------
jammygit
Is there a win win business model that helps these homeless people while not
being a charity?

There are so many issues: drug addiction, mental health, a changing economy.
It doesn't feel impossible though.

------
RickJWagner
It's awesome she can keep her dignity, and have hope and the means to advance.
I admire her gumption.

------
jlangenauer
If, in the Soviet Union, people had to live in tents while working, most
sensible people would blame the economic system in place.

Yet in capitalist America...?

~~~
yonran
> Yet in capitalist America...?

Restrictive zoning _is_ the prohibition of creating housing capital, so it’s
ironic and incorrect to blame capitalism for the housing shortages in
restrictive metros such as the Bay Area. Landlordism or rentierism might be
better words for the capital repression.

~~~
throwaway2048
Its still an economic system in place, whatever you wish to call it that
causes these issues.

~~~
imtringued
If this was caused by the economic system you would see it in every city not
just the wealthiest.

------
hultner
Article is paywalled for me, does anyone know if this was in the paper
version? And if so what issue?

------
rambojazz
Is there a non-paywalled mirror of this article?

------
mnm1
What is the problem with people living in tents? Why are they forced to
dismantle and kicked out by cops? It makes no sense. How can Americans be so
cruel to the most vulnerable, most helpless people in our society that they
won't even let them live in tents and insist on disrupting their lives
constantly? What kind of sick society does this? Is it just so rich assholes
don't have to look at them and be reminded that this is one consequences to
them being rich? It's utterly disgusting and indefensible. These are real
people just like everyone else, with emotions and feelings and hopes and
dreams. Are Americans really that callous that they are impervious to the
suffering of so many? Are they really that entitled and naive as to think that
only people who can afford insane costs of living deserve to be treated with
dignity and respect? The homeless don't hurt anyone just by living in tents.
They are just trying to get by like everyone else. What is wrong with that?

~~~
newnewpdro
It's not just rich assholes, a surprising majority of the population want all
evidence of poverty out of sight in their lives.

Santa Cruz made it illegal just to _sleep_ visibly in public in an attempt to
criminalize homelessness so they could hide the problem.

~~~
diogenescynic
It's not about criminalizing poverty. It's about trespassing and having
campers at your house 24/7/365 who are criminals. It's an awful drain to your
quality of life.

Stop demonizing people for not thinking it's "progressive" to let people crap
on the streets and shoot up in public. I voted for Bernie, but I live in SF
and I see how much money we waste by not addressing the problem directly and
in more common sense ways. Just allowing criminals to take over the city and
make everyone else feel unsafe is just not fair.

~~~
newnewpdro
San Francisco is neglecting to enforce existing laws regularly broken in the
open by folks largely overlapping with the homeless population.

I've mentioned this before on this forum. At one point when I worked in the
mission we watched daily a homeless encampment operate a bicycle chop shop in
broad daylight from our second-floor lunch room. The police did absolutely
nothing until it had been operating for well over a month. They would drive by
occasionally, doing nothing more than slowing down, while a pile of stolen
bicycles and bicycle parts sat next to the tents covered by nothing more than
a tarp. We saw a constant flow of people coming with newly stolen bicycles and
leaving with rebuilt permutations presumably to be sold on craigslist. They
didn't even try to hide it.

Apparently the police stopped bothering to arrest people for petty crimes
because nothing would come of it. The criminals would be immediately released
back on the streets.

That has nothing to do with tolerating homelessness and some people living on
the streets. We don't need to make homelessness illegal to arrest people
operating a bicycle chop shop in broad daylight.

Sometimes I wonder if the city is deliberately neglecting to police crimes
being committed in broad daylight independent of homelessness to further an
agenda interested in criminalizing homelessness. If they can let things get so
bad that everyone conflates homelessness with rampant uncrontrolled crime and
destruction of the city, then it becomes much easier to garner support for
such laws in a panic.

The police should do their jobs in at least enforcing the existing laws and we
should be punishing criminals.

You could clean up the homeless problem in San Francisco pretty easily by
simply enforcing laws and incarcerating criminals who happen to also be
homeless. It's exceptionally easy when they're operating out in the oppen
without even a roof and walls to hide behind.

~~~
diogenescynic
Oh I see the chop shops too. There’s one guy downtown with one of those huge
flat shopping carts from Costco that has an electric angle grinder. He has
literally cut the locks off dozens of bikes on Market street and the cops do
absolutely nothing. It’s surreal. No other city this rich is living in
conditions like this. Something is broken in our society that is allowing this
level of apathy. No one bats an eye at most of this stuff anymore, but it’s
absolutely not something I am willing to tolerate as “normal” and that we
can’t do better...

The police don’t enforce the law because there’s no point and the chief of
police tell them no to unless they are a risk to others or themselves. Then
there’s no penalty to not pay the fines and even if they don’t show up to
court they never get jail time, DAs rarely prosecute (unless violence occurs),
juries rarely convict, and even when they do the judges here make it so the
consequences are meaningless. I really don’t think it’s the cops who are the
problem. Their hands are tied by the incompetent politicians we send to City
Hall. Although I really don’t understand why cops don’t walk a beat or do any
kind of foot patrols in the worst areas... there’s no excuse for that.

I agree, we need to enforce the law. I’d even go so far as paying another jail
in a cheaper area to hold all of the criminals so that they aren’t here where
it’s prhobitively expensive. Good luck finding a city that would want to deal
with our criminals though.

