
Homelessness: The Problem That Even Silicon Valley Can’t Seem to Solve - MindGods
https://computerhistory.org/blog/homelessness-the-problem-that-even-silicon-valley-cant-seem-to-solve/
======
pavel_lishin
Why "even"? Why are we still pretending that Silicon Valley has the answers to
everything, that tech in general is an all-purpose panacea?

~~~
ggregoire
Also, Silicon Valley is all about making money. How do you make money solving
homelessness?

~~~
fortran77
There's money in homelessness, just like there's money in for-profit prisons.
A great many people are employed in San Francisco working for publicly funded
homeless programs.

> Between 2011 and 2012, SF spent $157 million on homeless services. By the
> 2015-2016 fiscal year, it was up to $242 million. In the most recent
> 2019-2020 budget proposals, the figure hit more than $364 million. But the
> consensus remains that more is needed.

(Source: [https://sf.curbed.com/2019/12/19/21027974/san-francisco-
home...](https://sf.curbed.com/2019/12/19/21027974/san-francisco-homeless-
decade-2010s-kositsky-navigation-center-friedenbach) )

That money's not going to the homeless people. It's going to the people who
run the services to support them. You think they'd want to see homelessness
end?

And, indirectly, the Police make money from homelessness because they can use
it to get their budgets increased.

~~~
flashdance
> That money's not going to the homeless people. It's going to the people who
> run the services to support them. You think they'd want to see homelessness
> end?

Yes, I think those people want to see homelessness end. Why else would you
want a career in that field?

Climate scientists also want action to be taken to fight climate change, even
if it might put them out of a job. Folks who work for the UN to tackle world
hunger want world hunger to end, even if it puts them out of a job.

I don't think rank-and-file workers are psychopaths.

~~~
conanbatt
There's an estimate of 10.000 homeless people in SF. And the budget is in 400
million.

At 40k a year per homeless person..how are they homeless. Answer: they aren't
getting 40k of benefits.

~~~
mikeyouse
A huge portion of that $400M is spent getting people off the streets - they
aren't spending $400M on 10,000 homeless people. They're spending 400M on tens
of thousands of housing insecure people and after all of the rent support,
healthcare, and mental health expense, there are still 10,000 people that they
haven't been able to get off the streets.

~~~
conanbatt
This is the SF housing project's self-defense argument. But the budget has
doubled and homelessness has increased. It's also a sorry defense of the city
gov to say that such a small city actually has much higher homelessness
numbers that are masked by ludicrous spending.

~~~
mikeyouse
I mean.. have you seen what has happened to rents at the same time? The core
problem is that housing costs way too much here. Obviously more people are
going to become homeless when rent prices increase by 20% per year, and
obviously it is going to cost more to service homeless people when the
prevailing rent has increased as much as it has. None of these things are
mysteries.

~~~
bifrost
The cost of housing isn't the problem, this has been proven over and over
again in SF. Yes, housing helps, but its not a cure. During the CV outbreak SF
has had a hard time getting people to go into hotels when offered, because
people had to abstain from drinking/drugs and to take their medication.

There's a really interesting character from SF who posts on twitter
(@MyTwolffamily) about his personal experience of being a homeless drug
addict, it might be enlightening to read some of his posts.

------
vr46
Homeless is an outcome, not a thing that looks the same from every angle. It’s
a feature not a bug and the steps that lead to it need to be addressed for a
meaningful fix. Money and commitment needs a plan and a clue. The idea that
you can just add more physical buildings and hey presto is bunk. I have spent
two decades of my life volunteering to help and I too started thinking about
buildings and homes, but that isn’t the real problem.

~~~
raverbashing
Correct, it is a multifaceted problem. It's an affordability issue, but it is
also a mental health issue (pre-homelessness) and/or drug usage issue for a
lot of people.

And here's the tricky part, if one city puts more money on the problem, the
problem will only get bigger, because it will attract homeless people from
other cities (though I can't blame them).

This is not an issue that's solvable only from the criminality/police side but
not exclusively from the social side neither.

~~~
hypewatch
This is not true and a toxic stereotype. Most homeless people are homeless for
financial reasons. Income inequality is the biggest driver of homelessness.

Therefore the most effective solutions are economic and perhaps anti-trust.

~~~
bifrost
SF has recently proven OP's postulation as fact.

Even the extremely "progresive" mayor pointed it out.

SF's homelessness is not about any of the things you've noted.

~~~
hypewatch
Hey, I’m sorry. I disagree with you and looks like you disagree with a couple
other folks on this thread, but I don’t think this conversation is going to
help anyone.

I’m going to avoid these political / non-technical threads on HN going
forward.

~~~
bifrost
I'm happy to discuss facts but I agree that HN is probably the wrong place for
politics and non-technical discussion. IMO The community doesn't like politics
and honestly I think thats one of the reason HN is such a great place.

------
rustybolt
Homelessness: The Problem That Silicon Valley Doesn't Even Want to Solve

Because you know, it isn't clear how and if solving homelessness will make you
money.

~~~
js8
Yeah, it reminds me of the Monty Python's Merchant Banker sketch:
[https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2hwql1](https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2hwql1)

------
wallflower
Solving homelessness is more a question of addressing mental illness. There is
unfortunately a strong correlation between untreated mental illness and
homelessness. One of my hospital friends has told me about homeless people who
regularly hang out near the ER entrance, hoping to be admitted for treatment.
If they are admitted, they are discharged right away. The Reagan era got rid
of the "Mental Health Systems Act of 1980" which provided funding for
community support of mental institutions. [1]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_Health_Systems_Act_of_1...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_Health_Systems_Act_of_1980)

~~~
bifrost
The Reagan canard is, well, wrong.

It has way more to do with the ACLU suing Florida and the resulting SCOTUS
decision was that it was illegal to involuntarily commit someone. Yes, that
means you can't put someone who's out of their mind into an institution until
they're actually dangerous and they commit a crime. The longest psych hold
(5150) is only about 72 hours, its not long enough to treat a serious
condition.

~~~
leereeves
I think the comment above is talking about voluntary admissions. Even people
who want help with their mental illnesses struggle to get help.

~~~
bifrost
I agree its hard to get treatment. There is absolutely no "one size fits all
govt approved treatment plan" and that makes almost every case unique.

Since POTUS44 its been mandatory to purchase commercial health insurance and
those who cannot afford it have been left with a problem.

I'll overshare a bit but my exgirlfriend was bipolar, she had great care and
she still killed herself.

Mental healthcare is a big problem for a variety of reasons and SF and the bay
area are a magnet because of how many services are available. I got to spend a
lot of time with a social worker in the bay area who dealt with this exact
problem, they basically confirmed that people came here for money and services
and the success rate was sub 25%.

This is not a problem that tech can solve.

This is not a problem that the homeless industrial complex will solve for a
variety of reasons.

This is a problem that govt has to solve, and the govt has more than enough
money to figure it out and yet they don't.

~~~
wallflower
I’m so sorry for your loss.

------
ixtli
Worth noting that the solution is simple. If you want to end homelessness, you
give the homeless houses. It turns out we have a ton of empty houses and
apartments in America. If that’s not palatable I’d be more interested in
looking at why.

~~~
twblalock
That doesn't solve the problem. If you just gave housing to most homeless
people and walked away, the majority of them would be homeless again after a
short time.

You'd need to commit to ongoing, indefinite financial support for the person
and for the maintenance of the housing.

~~~
totalZero
Your comment indicates the assumption that homeless people are homeless not
for situational factors, but because of personal characteristics. However, I
think it's more accurate to recognize that homelessness is a trap that makes
it hard for a person to attain employment and healthy living. For example, a
homeless person must invest far more energy to suit up for an interview than a
non-homeless person. I see homelessness as a poverty trap.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_trap](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_trap)

~~~
twblalock
Homelessness is not simply a money problem. A lot of homeless people have
mental illnesses, drug addictions, and other significant health problems. Many
of them are suspicious of shelters and especially of the police and other
forms of government authority because of bad past experiences.

Even for people who initially became homeless because they couldn't afford
housing, a lot of those other factors have become part of what keeps them
homeless. Just giving them housing doesn't solve any of those other problems.

~~~
totalZero
First things first, either you're conflating my response with the parent
commenter, who is a different person, or you are setting up a straw man with
your first sentence. I never said homelessness is "simply a money problem."
Poverty has social, medical, and political elements -- it is not solely an
economic problem.

I also never said it is possible to solve homelessness by just giving housing
to homeless people.

Now, to respond to your reasoning....

Your comment exhibits some willful blindness. SF housing, for example, is
crazy expensive. Research shows that expensive rental rates correlate to
higher homeless rates. If you reduce the concentration of housing demand by
letting technocrat employees work from home in remote places (Utah, Colorado,
other scenic millennial hotspots), that reduces demand for SF housing. Lowered
demand reduces price, which eases the threshold at which a homeless person is
able to cover the cost of housing.

Cost of housing is but one of many situational factors. That said, it would be
somewhat ignorant to look at homelessness as a non-economic problem.

For many homeless people, the issue may not be intrinsic to their mental
state, but rather the result of situational factors. One simple proof of this
is the fact that many people come out of homelessness after a while. Instead
of blaming the person, we should evaluate the situational factors. Often, one
of those factors is money. However, other situational factors can reinforce
poverty as well.

All people experience shocks at certain points in their lives. If such a shock
comes at a time of housing insecurity, it may result in homelessness. Illness
is one such shock.

Poor and disadvantaged people must often be more sophisticated than their
more-well-off counterparts to accomplish the same tasks. Imagine, if you will,
a person without credit who needs to borrow a few thousand dollars to buy a
car to get to work. That person may have to go to friends or family. If he
qualifies for a bank loan, the rate will be higher than what would be offered
to a different person with superior credit. And the loan amount may be less.
Thus, he may have to buy a used, possibly problematic vehicle. The debt
service of the loan, plus maintenance cost of the vehicle, will be elevated
versus a new car at a fair interest rate. If the neighborhood is insecure,
insurance will be more expensive.

Those are not solely money problems. However, they work in concert to bleed
funds from the individual, preventing him from saving money. That's one
example of a poverty trap.

------
joefourier
Sure the big tech companies have no direct financial interest in simply
reducing homelessness, but one way to accomplish that would be to lower the
cost of housing in San Francisco.

How is it in the interest of tech companies to have skyrocketing real estate
prices and as a result, the need to pay huge salaries to their employees so
they can afford the cost of living in SF? Surely it would be in the interest
of Google, Facebook et al. to be able to pay their employees less and have the
cost of their own commercial real estate fall?

Do they not have enough political influence? Or is it not in their interests
somehow?

~~~
conanbatt
I think this is why Facebook wants to build their own complexes.

If they buy the land themselves, they could achieve increasing housing units
on one hand, and also provide housing as a benefit which means going around
the 50% tax bracket for their employees.

~~~
toast0
Disclosure: I worked at Facebook.

You do not want your landlord and your employer to be the same. (Unless you're
a live in manager of the property, then it's more likely to make sense). For
one thing, it makes looking for another job much harder, because you'll
presumably have to move as well. For another, because an employee that lives
at the employer's housing may never interact with people who aren't employees,
and end up even more disconnected from the community at large.

It may make sense for Facebook (or others) to put their money to work
increasing housing supply by building denser housing, or by financing such
building, but they need to divest as soon as practical. If the issue is
employees can't live near work, because housing is too expensive, increasing
the supply near work should help with that, even if you don't restrict the new
units to employees.

------
daenz
>Besides showing great concern about homelessness, the poll indicated that
while Silicon Valley residents are anxious to help alleviate the problem, they
are less enthusiastic when the solutions include providing homeless shelters
and housing in their own neighborhoods.

I think that says most of it right there. We've cultivated an environment
where paying lip service towards a cause is more important than actually doing
anything about it. Real solutions are too easy to attack, so the only safe
position is speaking platitudes.

~~~
qaq
I am not in SV but is there a reason housing for homeless needs to be located
on pretty much the most expansive land in the world?

~~~
aerostable_slug
No, but there's a persistent sense of entitlement where people honestly
believe they have the Right to live in San Francisco.

It's mind-boggling, like commuting is some special Hell only they experience.
Nobody bats an eye when Manhattan schoolteachers are in the bridge & tunnel
crowd, but if you listen to some folks they will assure you that San
Francisco's children deserve teachers who live near their schools, and
anything else would be a travesty. Think of the children!

~~~
neilparikh
There’s also a sense of entitlement from homeowners who believe they should be
able to stop any and all changes to their neighborhoods, while paying property
tax rates from 1980s (and thus having all their services paid for by the
income tax of those “commuters”, who won’t even be able to use the services
they pay for).

------
wiseleo
I always wonder why owners of those RVs are considered part of the problem.
They are not on the streets. Most of them do not pollute the streets either.
Those who are should be contacted for appropriate enforcement. They likely can
afford to pay for a traditional housing unit far away but choose to be closer
to their work. Spending 2-4 hours in traffic daily just to go to bed makes no
sense as a single person.

I choose to not pay rent since 2015. I make enough money to at least split an
apartment with someone, but I see no benefit in doing so. All my stuff is
either sold or in storage. I only need a parking spot where to park my
vehicle. My minivan converts into a 8x4x4' bedroom and many people walk past
it without giving it a second look.

If a city wants to provide a secure parking lot, that is great and I'd
certainly park there, but otherwise I have no need for their help. The
challenge with this is that whenever such things are mentioned, the city wants
to add arbitrary rules. Opponents then at times label secure parking zones as
concentration camps.

We need to get people without a tent off the street. They are definitely in
danger. Those in tents can be remarkably comfortable with the right gear, but
they need land to set them up and the right gear is expensive. They likely
don't have it. Sidewalks are not the right land for that, so they need special
attention.

Those of us in vehicles are comfortable enough to not be concerned with. If we
are able to maintain a registered insured vehicle, that suggests we do not
have mental problems.

------
neilparikh
> But there is only so much developable land, which keeps supply low.

Repeating this line is a horrible idea. It gives ammunition to those pushing
the idea that Silicon Valley homelessness is the “natural order” rather than
the direct result of bad policies by those living here.

There’s more than enough land to solve the issue, it’s just that it would mean
people who already own homes would have to make some minor sacrifices that’s
they’re not willing to make.

------
dyeje
Homelessness seems easy enough to solve. Build a bunch of free housing, but
giving away housing doesn't jive with our society so nobody is motivated to do
it. Least of all Silicon Valley.

~~~
flaque
I don't know why this is being down voted. Building housing and giving it to
homeless folks would, by definition, make those folks not-homeless.

Though I'd believe that the folks in Silicon Valley are more likely to propose
and implement this sort of solution than many other parts of the country.

~~~
bifrost
Its probably because its supposition disproven by facts.

You can give someone who's homeless a home, but that gives them zero tools to
keep it. There's an assumption that the person doesn't need supplimental
support to have a productive path forward, and thats just wrong.

SF presumed that putting more public toilets on the street would keep people
from defecating on the street, that was disproven in several areas, people
would just relieve themselves wherever they felt like. I unfortunately would
routinely see someone drop a #2 on the street less than 100 feet away from the
very well maintained public bathroom.

~~~
asdff
Would you rather pee in the open air, knowing you won't get cited, or in an
unventilated public restroom that doesn't ever get cleaned? I'd pee on the
street, too. Capital improvements always need maintenance and service, and
homes for homeless, addicted, and/or mentally unwell people are no exception.

~~~
bifrost
I take it that you haven't seen SF's "pitstop" system. They're incredibly
clean/hygenic and ventilated.

Yet people still befoul the streets.

The unfortunate "why" is that they DGAF, I wish I was making that up.

------
totalZero
Work-from-home will reduce centralization of residence demand, eventually
thinning out the population in urban areas and permitting technocrats to live
in high-appeal remote areas. That will reduce rental demand and thus bring
about a reduction in prices for renters and buyers.

------
hypewatch
This is one reason why the “making the world a better place” rhetoric from big
tech companies comes off so tone-deaf.

Fundamentally, tech companies have been a major driver in increasing income
inequality. For all the productivity gains we get from automation, low-income
jobs are lost - at least in the short term.

A popular solution is UBI, but I fear that it’s overly-simplistic and could
have unintended negative consequences.

------
adamnemecek
OK maybe SV are bad for this. The govt needs to solve this by building low
income housing but lol building low income housing in the US.

Finland figured it out [https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jun/03/its-a-
miracle...](https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jun/03/its-a-miracle-
helsinkis-radical-solution-to-homelessness)

~~~
bifrost
Finnish society is extremely different, their solutions are non-transplantable
to the US.

------
fizixer
In a related story: Koko-the-Economist-Gorilla flings poo at Human-the-
technologist and asks "If you so smart how come I can fling at you the mess I
created?"

------
angel_j
Where are the A.I. designed self-erecting superstructures? Too radical "even"
for old tech money.

------
proc0
You get what you Fn deserve, Bay Area. Many cities there, especially San
Francisco have chosen homeless people over hardworking, tax paying citizens.
These leaders literally chose to keep people on the street over the rent-
payers. While they get free needles, normal people are forced to move again
and again because of the disgusting streets, unbearable noise, and unfair law
enforcement. All while paying extremely high taxes and rent.

Homeless people have been around forever, what's happening now is a failure to
send the message out to everyone that living outside IS NOT OK. Can you not
afford San Francisco, THEN MOVE. If you are not paying rent it should be even
easier, but instead it's the rent paying people that have to spend money they
can't really afford just to get away from all the madness.

You wanted to be nice to these people who are obviously taking advantage of
the system? Well enjoy your post-apocalyptic shithole.

~~~
loco5niner
You're being downvoted, but you're right. (It would have been nice for you to
have said it a little less crassly though)

