> The city’s solution: more of the same, but waste even more money. Instead of addressing the rotting SRO buildings, the administration is on a real-estate buying spree.
The whole thing is a scheme for local politicians to enrich their friends and family in the construction and real estate businesses. They buy new buildings using public funds, let junkies trash the buildings, then use that as an excuse to buy even more new buildings.
San Francisco's government is effectively a single-party system (ostensibly the elections for city government are non-partisan, but let's be real.) Politicians face virtually no accountability, and who's fault is this? It's the electorate who keeps voting to put the same failures back in charge. This is what the people of San Francisco vote for, and how does anybody propose to fix that?
Portland does the same thing. Every time they spend big money on a building for a shelter, it goes nowhere but the commission for the sale just happens to go to an agent related to a council member who made the decision. And yet we keep doing it…
However I think what Shellenberger is saying makes a lot of sense: you shouldn't give free housing to people without asking for something in return like getting off of drugs or taking antipsychotic meds. Shelters, yes, apartments, no. Addicts go into these places, overdose, and die, because there is no one around to help them when they overdose. It is also just a huge waste resource-wise and might even make the problem worse, because you are enabling people to live these lifestyles that they need to get out of.
these people are addicted. quitting takes a lot of time and a lot of support and many of them won't make it to sobriety even in the best of conditions. saying they need to quit before the can be housed is the same as saying they should stay on the street.
I'm curious about this -- is there data comparing the outcomes of Housing First vs. Shelter First solutions? My understanding is that Shelters are also major sites of violence, abuse, and overdose/drug use.
San Francisco is the perfect example of what happens when you house addicts - they don't improve, continue the bad behavior, they destroy the housing and are often kicked out of it. We've got several examples a week of people making meth in their housing and creating a severely hazardous situation.
If you check out @bettersoma on twitter he's got a looooot of info about this.
I am definitely not an expert, don't know about the data around shelters. My understanding of shelters is that they make it a lot harder to do drugs and that is why a lot of the homeless prefer camps. My understanding is that abuse, violence and drug use are reduced at shelters and that is the main advantage of them.
> Put people who were living outside or who are at risk of becoming homeless inside four walls. Then, voilà, you’ve solved the problem of homelessness
No, that has never, ever been the plan for housing first homelessness solutions. Its to put them in housing first. Then, surround them with case workers, medical care, social services, etc to get them the help they need.
By all means, criticize your local implementation, but that isn't housing first.
> How can the places that the city has deemed appropriate for the economically distressed be so bad? It’s not because of a lack of funds. San Francisco has an eye-popping $1.1 billion homeless budget, much of it spent on such supportive housing.
How much do you want to spend on this? Everything you listed out costs money, and it seems like SF spends on all of those services without much measurable success.
Money isn't the problem, there is plenty of money. The problem is the corrupt politicians who siphon that money off for their friends and family instead of using the money for the intended purpose. And the root of that problem is the electorate who tolerate this BS from their politicians.
The nuanced answer is critically examining where the money goes and making value judgments based on how effective the programs are relative to their expenses. Then possibly funding alternative programs instead of the ones that aren't cost effective. "Cost effective" sounds awfully inhumane but it's a very real and valid concern because there's only so much money to go around.
Housing unskilled labor in one of the most expensive areas of the US for real estate is as far from "cost effective" as it gets. I think there's a real case to be made that if you want to spend $1B on these disadvantaged persons that offering them housing along with free trade school in Alabama or something could be better for everyone. It's not like after they get back on their feet it's going to do them any favors to be stuck breaking into one of the most brutal housing areas of the US on whatever entry-level salary they'll be on. Of course if they want to stay in SF living on the street, they ought not be forced to leave -- it's a free country.
Note: I've been homeless twice. Both times I wanted to get out of it my step A has literally been "find lowest cost of living place in the country with low unemployment and work in day-labor agencies until I have enough for rent." It's worked both times, and relatively straightforward. It would not have worked in SF.
> I think there's a real case to be made that if you want to spend $1B on these disadvantaged persons that offering them housing along with free trade school in Alabama or something could be better for everyone
You could get a lot of the (arguable) benefits with less transportation costs and a whole lot fewer political/legal problems by doing it in, say, Merced County.
This would require Alabama to offer those services or housing though, it's not so simple to just relocate people to other states.
SF does have a program that will help you travel back to Family in other states/cities, but I don't think they can just ship people to a lower cost location
I imagine there is some law that prevents SF from spending tax money in Alabama in that manner, but I don't see fundamentally why it wouldn't work. SF sets up satellite company in Alabama that administers the program, accepts the $1B minus whatever the bureaucrats normally shave off for their own corruption, and then administer the jobs training and housing along with industry partners except the money goes 2x or 3x as far.
Added bonus, those who are capable of getting back on their feet can actually afford to live there afterwards instead of endlessly cycling through welfare cliffs.
Yes, Scott Wiener made a law that basically made it illegal for SF to do business with almost every state in the US. Often using incorrect methods of determination for why.
One has to consider both sides. If it takes the net of a 1 person around the clock for life to support another person, you're at about break even because it cost you one life to 'save' the other life. Any more than that and the alternative of "let the homeless person live life on their terms however they're able to survive" starts to look more attractive. You wouldn't sacrifice two lives to save one.
There are much fewer homeless people than productive ones. Even if it costs the production of a whole person to support a homeless one to have a chance in life, isn't it worth it?
So go devote the rest of your life and all your money to saving some homeless person, no one is stopping you. It's your life to live as you choose. I'm just asking that at some point of spending a certain amount of resources without successfully getting a person of their feet, it become an option for someone like you to volunteer to fix the problem rather than a tax forced at gunpoint.
Remember there is finite money and there are hard decisions about whether to spend some money on say a homeless adult person that has been given many chances vs a young child who may be even more influenceable with the same amount of money. In many case these taxes are coming from families who no longer have the choice to spend that money on their young child or own family members.
Given infinite resources it may be worth it, but at the cost of robbing say a young child of these resources or multiple life-times of labor it may not.
Homeless people aren't helpless animals in need of coddling. They are human beings with intelligence, perfectly capable of exploiting incentives and your kindness.
They terrorize eachother, and those who interact with them.
It only takes attempting to help a homeless person 2-3 times in person to see and understand that.
Needle exchanges, supervised injection sites, and cash stipends to addicts are going to be looked back on as hideously poor policy, and their supporters have blood on their hands.
It's extremely relevant that housing first is the cheaper option. The status quo of making tiered shelters that denies homeless people costs MORE than just giving them housing.
>“Supportive housing? There is no support. DPH could give a rat’s ass about health. If you’re a woman, your life will be a living hell. No one cares. High functioning people regress. Some want to stay sober, but they can’t. Eventually they pick up a pipe again because almost everyone around them is using.”
In LA, they have spent $5B on the approach since 2016, and are now entertaining a proposal to spend $837K per unit. They are building about 200 units a year, and there are over 40,000 homeless people in LA.
Housing First on the West Coast (in addition to Harm Reduction and Support Services) needs to be coupled with a massive expansion of housing and construction so that prices can be brought down to a manageable level.
Why is the choice always to do one thing poorly, or nothing? “Housing first” shouldn’t mean housing without other services. Why do I get the sense that the reaction will eventually be to stop funding the housing because it’s not working, instead of having a complement of housing/drug treatment/mental health treatment?
As a nation, we seemingly don’t have the will to spend money on these kinds of wraparound services except in the context of our prisons, which are a very poor substitute for housing and healthcare while costing way more.
We could get so much more done per dollar with housing + actual supportive care, institutionalization for those unable to live in that kind of environment without harming others, and finally, reserve prison for those who society must actually be protected from.
For a counterpoint on Housing First --- the principle that at a minimum all people need to be assured a self and sufficient place to live --- I strongly recommend this edition of the Ideas Roadshow podcast, with Juha Kaakinen:
The idea is that welfare programs don't help homeless people that much - because without some base of stability (a place to stay) - they are permanently uprooted and can't connect in any meaningful way with civilization.
i.e. try to 'get a job', if you're homeless. Even if you could - how do you get a bank account? A cell phone? Literally just 'take a shower' and 'brush your hair'?
If you have a 'home base' - then you can get a 'footing' into the system.
It works quite well when the other layers of social assistance are there, this approach was validated in Finland.
If you just give a drug addict a home and walk away, then it will not work.
These programs, though, aren't for the people who want to fix their lives and want services -- there are resources out there for people who are willing to, for example, not do drugs or destroy the place or do violence.
If you are homeless because you lost your job and have no money and got evicted (which basically doesn't happen in San Francisco anyway with the eviction moratorium), you can get help. You can find a shelter and food and basic services to give you the stability required to start rebuilding.
Those resources rarely fill up, because most of the homeless people still on the street aren't willing to obey the rules of those places.
The "Housing First" places are specifically housing that doesn't require you to care about putting down the drugs or stopping destroying stuff or caring about having a better future.
The whole thing is a scheme for local politicians to enrich their friends and family in the construction and real estate businesses. They buy new buildings using public funds, let junkies trash the buildings, then use that as an excuse to buy even more new buildings.
San Francisco's government is effectively a single-party system (ostensibly the elections for city government are non-partisan, but let's be real.) Politicians face virtually no accountability, and who's fault is this? It's the electorate who keeps voting to put the same failures back in charge. This is what the people of San Francisco vote for, and how does anybody propose to fix that?