
For Homeless Advocates, a Discouraging Lesson in L.A.: Money Is Not Enough - Mz
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/29/us/homeless-housing-los-angeles.html
======
jdavis703
Are there any online tools that YIMBYs can use to see and alert when a new
development is planned for their neighborhood? I'd love to know when I need to
go the local council and tell them to just build some damn housing.

~~~
pfarnsworth
It's not housing that's the issue. It's mental health. Most homeless people
are suffering from mental health so giving them a place to stay won't solve
anything.

~~~
cbhl
I've spent a few nights in the psych ward at Zuckerberg General. There were
quite a few homeless people. There were people that faked being crazy to get a
bed and a hot meal, and the psychiatrist had to kick them back out onto the
street.

Mental health services are ineffective if a person's basic needs aren't met.
Giving homeless people a home is far from enough, but you can't expect a
homeless person to get better if they are stuck out on the streets.

~~~
cal5k
In Toronto many people who were formerly institutionalized are now living on
the streets. I walk through an area with a high concentration of shelters on a
daily basis, and I can tell you that most of these people suffer from some
kind of mental health disorder ranging from mild to severe. It's certainly not
helped by addiction, but I can't help but feel like homeless shelters or the
streets are not the right place for these people. Nor could most of them be
expected to look after their own needs if they were given enough money - we
already have a reasonably generous welfare system in Canada.

------
pfarnsworth
Obviously money is not enough. SF spends more than $300 million on homeless
per year, and SF is still a disaster. The money is not being spent usefully,
but there is zero accountability and tracking. It's a complete disaster and
yet no one is doing anything about it. The politicians who are making SF
residents pay for this should be held accountable and a real solution should
be made. You could build a mental hospital and fund it with the $300 million
that SF spends for these homeless people. It's a disgrace.

[http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Despite-money-
and...](http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Despite-money-and-work-
homelessness-in-SF-as-bad-11242946.php)

------
sologoub
> _Lorena Plaza, which would cost about $23 million, would qualify for the
> funds._

49 units at $23 million or $469k/unit. Is it me or is this an insanely high
number? Remember, it's not even a house.

~~~
jseliger
_49 units at $23 million or $469k /unit. Is it me or is this an insanely high
number? Remember, it's not even a house._

It is not just you, and I've worked for many LA nonprofit and public agencies,
including some involved in homelessness and mental health services. It's not
surprising to me that the city can't keep enough homelessness services, for
reasons I write about in "L.A. digs a hole more slowly than economics fills it
back in: The Proposition HHH Facilities Program RFP"
[http://seliger.com/2017/08/30/l-digs-hole-slowly-
economics-f...](http://seliger.com/2017/08/30/l-digs-hole-slowly-economics-
fills-back-proposition-hhh-facilities-program) .

Oddly, one of the better descriptions I've read about why LA costs so much
comes from Reddit:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/6lvwh4/im_an_ar...](https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/6lvwh4/im_an_architect_in_la_specializing_in_multifamily)

~~~
sologoub
There are ways around many of these things, including variance/non-conformity
applications. But I’m sure you know that given your blog post.

Boyle Heights is not a wealthy/expensive neighborhood and there is a large
amount of housing stock that could be rehabbed/rebuilt for this project for
far less. Even multifamily buildings.

------
eridius
> _“A majority of people who live around the project were opposed to it. The
> people who are in favor of it live someplace else.”_

This is the very definition of NIMBY. Where exactly do these people think
projects like this should go, given that NIMBYs exist everywhere?

~~~
jdavis703
In somebody else's backyard. That's why you have concentrated areas of
poverty. The government used to enforce this through "red lining" but since
that has now fallen out of favor the language used to oppose these projects is
now based around environmental impacts (the schools are full, the traffic is
bad, it's a potentially toxic site, etc).

~~~
vkou
You forgot 'it'll ruin the character of the neighbourhood.'

~~~
masterleep
What if those things are all true?

~~~
kqr2
It's probably true, however, what is the correct point to "freeze" all
development?

Most of silicon valley before the tech boom was orchards. Before the orchards,
it was undeveloped land.

An argument could be made that development should have been frozen when it was
orchards since it provided food, farming jobs, and bucolic scenery.

Environmentalists perhaps would prefer that even the orchards shouldn't have
built and that the land was best kept as natural habitat.

------
tomjen3
Why should the homeless in LA be housed in LA? Wouldn't the city be able to
house many more homeless people by building the housing in a less expensive
place?

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Because you don't want to just house them. You want to get them to a place
where they no longer need assistance. That means they need jobs. Housing them
in Newberry Springs or some such place doesn't give them any opportunity.

~~~
ghostbrainalpha
Good point.

But let's say 50% of those people aren't in the place to get jobs because they
are Elderly, Mentally Unstable, Substance Addicted.

Could we move those homeless people who aren't "job ready" outside the city to
a cheaper area? And then maybe move them back into affordable housing once
they are ready to transition into a job?

~~~
cag_ii
I was fairly certain that forced relocation was generally not tolerated in the
US anymore until I read your comment and the sibling comment suggesting the
same thing.

These are human beings, and suggesting they be "moved" to different areas
because of their socioeconomic status or being "Elderly, Mentally Unstable,
Substance Addicted" is completely unacceptable to me.

~~~
fern12
Meet Travis. He's a notorious vagrant who likes to terrorize businesses in the
Alameda business district of San Jose.

[https://video.nest.com/clip/cc20a6ffc52d485696c62b1708ffe5d6...](https://video.nest.com/clip/cc20a6ffc52d485696c62b1708ffe5d6.mp4)

[https://video.nest.com/clip/7c5ff8b138d44bafb1ff3f44ef8154be...](https://video.nest.com/clip/7c5ff8b138d44bafb1ff3f44ef8154be.mp4)

(warning: 2nd link has profanity)

-He has been sent by the court to literally every possible program in Santa Clara County for assistance, and has left everyone of them intentionally (usually after a few days) despite being ordered by the Court to complete the program(s).

-As a result of constantly violating the Court's orders regarding these programs, he ended up spending the maximum amount of time in County jail that the Court could impose before being released.

-Travis has made it very clear that he does not want help in any form, and that he likes his lifestyle and enjoys harassing people.

-After he left jail, it did not take long for him to revert to his old bad behaviors - substance abuse, aggressive panhandling and petty theft, and harassing local businesses.

The clips above are of him harassing the owner and patrons of Hannah's Coffee
and Sweets. More recently, he emptied a trash can full of dog poop bags on the
sidewalk, and kicked them all in front of a hair salon's door on the corner of
Julian and Stockton.

What is your solution for people like Travis, who continually harass and
endanger people and businesses in San Jose?

~~~
cag_ii
You're discussing criminal behavior. California has policies and institutions
in place to deal with criminal behavior. They're not perfect, but that's an
entirely different discussion.

Suggesting that the entire homeless population are criminals is disingenuous
at best, and this kind of fear-mongering distracts from productive discussion
about how best to help.

~~~
fern12
_Suggesting that the entire homeless population are criminals is disingenuous
at best, and this kind of fear-mongering distracts from productive discussion
about how best to help._

I never said that the entire homeless population are criminals. I merely
provided a single, real-life example of someone for whom current policies and
institutions have failed, _then_ asked you as to what you think should be
done.

------
Overtonwindow
We have this problem in DC. We have a large homeless population, an extremely
liberal population, and countless cries for housing, and services for the
homeless. Yet as soon as the city decides to build a new shelter, or low-
income/free housing, it is those same people who are the first to scream: "Not
in my backyard!" Homeless integration in established communities works, and we
should not support those who want to banish the homeless, and their support
systems, to far-flung places.

------
katastic
I'm sincerely trying not to be a dick here but I thought this was obvious...

Lots of problems (most?) in many neighborhoods (and organizations in general)
and families are not a simple function of "not enough money." They are deep
rooted problems with self-sustaining feedback loops of vice.

There's true poverty unhappiness, which is simply not enough money to pay
normal bills. But science has basically settled at this point in that "after
being enough to pay the bills and have a little in savings, happiness no
longer increases with more income." And happiness is a pretty good qualifier
of general well-being.

You can't dump money into Afghanistan and have them all run around with
American flags and Mustangs.

You can't dump money into a neighborhood and expect everyone to become great
workers who love each other.

Likewise, you can't "love people" more and expect it either. You don't stop a
drug abusing family member with only hugs. You send them to therapy. _Love is
not enough_.

The best summary is in this quote from the article:

>“You cannot force a project onto a community at all costs,” said Mr. Huizar,

Even if politicans and "well meaning" people are hell bent on pushing
something through, doesn't mean it's going to actually help people. ("The road
to hell is paved with good intentions.")

People are not simple. Adults have decades of experiences that got them where
they are. And simply giving them something won't undo those experiences. They
need counselling. They need structure and jobs that rewards positive character
traits. And guess what? Plenty of people still aren't going to get better.
Why? Because you can't improve people who don't want to get better. You can't
"fix people" like solving a math problem. Both parties have to commit and
genuinely desire change.

If we actually want change--and not to just send money to feel better about
ourselves (see: Live Aid, which gave almost nothing to actual victims and may
have actually helped kill over 100,000 [1])--we can't simply "Give money." We
need actual scientists doing research (they already exist) and we need to find
and listen to them even if their recommendations don't align with our
political ideologies.

[1]
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/jun/24/g8.debtrelief](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/jun/24/g8.debtrelief)

~~~
Mz
I largely agree with you, except for the subtext that homeless people are all
fucked up losers who aren't really trying/can't really be helped.

There is a huge deficit of affordable housing in the US. This significantly
contributes to people who have various problems being unable to keep a roof
over their head.

I actually think "homes for the homeless" is an oxymoron. We need basic,
decent housing for people who are living at the fringe of society because they
are elderly, handicapped, single moms, etc. We need homes for a certain
demographic for whom the standard 3 bedroom, 2 bath house in the 'burbs simply
does not work, in part because it is just too much money (in part because it
is just too much space -- it is nigh impossible to find a small place in the
US).

I think two things need to happen:

1) We need to develop programs aimed at empowering homeless people to solve it
themselves.

2) We need more affordable housing -- nationwide.

I would actually prefer to see more _market based_ affordable housing. We tore
down most of that in the 60s and 70s, largely because the Baby Boomers who
were coming of age didn't need a small, cheap place. But, they were a
demographic anomaly, and we haven't rebuilt what we tore down. We are seeing
the consequences of that.

~~~
zanny
> We need more affordable housing -- nationwide.

Problem is job growth is incredibly centralized into a few urban cores. While
property values on the west coast and the Boston -> DC strip bloat out of
control entire counties worth of homes are being abandoned in the Rust Belt
and midwest as the recession killed the last sparks of industry and never
brought any jobs back there.

That is why housing prices are out of control. We should realize that the
centralization of work should come with the centralization of living, where we
build much denser housing to accommodate, but we don't do that because of
NIMBY city councils and obtuse zoning laws.

Affordable housing is _profitable_ if you let it be built. It isn't a matter
of needing the government to throw money at _building_ affordable housing. 50
stories of condos in almost any major metro area at 400-800 sq ft could sell
at tens of thousands rather than millions of dollars and still be profitable
for the materials and labor that went into building them, even at the current
inflated land values. It is simply the case that _nobody can build anything
like that_ because every city in the country staunchly opposes such
construction for both private NIMBY interests and the desires of businesses
operating to attract the rich to the cities and not the poor, even when the
jobs they want to fill they only offer poor wages for.

~~~
Mz
_Problem is job growth is incredibly centralized into a few urban cores.

That is why housing prices are out of control. We should realize that the
centralization of work should come with the centralization of living, where we
build much denser housing to accommodate, but we don't do that because of
NIMBY city councils and obtuse zoning laws._

I just got myself off the street earlier this month after 5 years, 8 months
and 1 week. I did it by 1) developing a portable online income and 2) moving
out of California to a small town.

So, I beg to differ. I think this can be solved.

We have the technology. We can rebuild it. We can make it better. ;-)

~~~
ttonkytonk
I first became homeless about four months after you, and have been homeless
off and on ever since. Now I stay in a tent and am fairly satisfied except
that it's always possible my spot will be compromised.

I wish they would simply normalize campsites for living. I've heard people
live in tents in India. Seems more humane than pretending we don't need that
here when in reality we're denying people the right to be ANYWHERE.

~~~
Mz
At some point while homeless, I talked to someone who traveled. They observed
that in some South American country they visited, homelessness did not exist
because slums were tolerated. So, people had housing, even though a lot of it
was substandard by US standards.

American zoning, minimum house sizes, do contribute to the problem. We have
created a situation where the Haves live in ever larger houses and can afford
two or more places and the Have Nots are increasingly out on the street.

I don't know the answer here. I think certain minimum standards for housing
matter. But, we should definitely tweak something. Setting the bar for minimum
housing standards so high that large numbers of people can't attain housing at
all is messed up.

------
CodeWriter23
Lots of thoughtful discussion here. But none of them address the truth of this
situation. Boyle Heights is the next target for gentrification and LA’s City
Council has demonstrated strong support for property developers (not to
mention Mayor Garcetti’s riches sourcing from property development). I’m sure
the NIMBY component in this case is contrived as most of the soon-to-be-
displaced residents of Boyle Heights are low income and are too busy working
multiple jobs to stay afloat in one of the city’s poorest neighborhoods.

Anyway, what’s going to happen in this case is this organization is going to
be starved out until some developer steps in to buy the property to put in a
new strip mall or stack and pack development as the gentrification plan plays
out.

------
diogenescynic
Isn't it the same thing in San Francisco? Most of the homeless services in the
Tenderloin are funded by people who don't live in the area...

Same thing with section 8 vouchers--almost always grouped in one area. By
grouping the poor and homeless in one area, it actually keeps them from ever
recovering. If you spread them out, they are far more likely to succeed.

