Unfortunately as we've seen with Project Roomkey (and like you alluded to) the problem is a lot more complicated than just routing unhoused people to empty beds. The LA Times[1] actually did an interesting series of articles a couple years back, chronicling what happens the city basically moved an entire encampment into a block of apartments.

People are homeless for different reasons. If someone just happens to be down on their luck or having financial trouble after fleeing an abusive family situation, housing seems to work fairly well. However for people with untreated mental illness and addiction, there can be problems. Especially since many of those people would actually turn down a free place to stay (as we saw recently in Echo Park). Maybe we can make more inclusive housing for the homeless that allows large pets and drug use, but the rent you see on those empty apartments is predicated on assumptions on a tenant's risk. Employees people who care about their credit score are going to have a much different risk profile than the homeless.

[1]: Called The Streets Within, part 1 here: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-08-15/the-stre...

There was a recent proposition in Californa to house mentally ill homeless people without first insisting they get mental health / drug rehabilitation treatment.

Of course, it was strongly opposed by essentially all groups with any actual experience in helping homeless people, and of course, because the idea sounds good until you think about it for a few minutes, the ballot proposition passed.

This sounds, well, extremely California. Do you remember which proposition it was? I'd like to check it out in more detail, see if anything's actually happened.

No; it passed in 2020, I think. Maybe 2019.

There was no such proposition in 2020, at least.

Has anyone tried/considered/researched work-camps for the homeless? Like a mini-city with metaphorical padding built-in everywhere, until they're "rehabilitated" back into being able to (and wanting to) survive in the normal world. That includes giving them a salary, shelter, "banking facilities", shops to buy things in, medical facilities and training, etc.

We spend so much on housing criminals in essentially adult daycare to "rehabilitate" them, so why can't we come up with similar elaborate institutions to care for the homeless that have problems functioning in the society we've built around them?

Most European prisons are similar to what you describe (though the focus is on education and training, not working to earn money).

They have much lower recidivism rates than the US (unlike the US prison system, which is optimized to punish and profit, those systems are optimized to reduce crime).

What was the offer for the people staying in Echo Park?

3 meals a day and a guaranteed hotel room for 6 months, and the city would make a best effort attempt to house everyone in a more permanent situation by September.

However the hotel rooms have really strict rules. For example there's a curfew for a dumb reason[1], and people who get back to the hotel too late have to wait until the next day to return to their rooms. There's also limitations on how much stuff they can bring with them into the hotels (no more than 2 suitcases or shopping carts full of stuff) which if you've seen many encampments you know will be a dealbreaker for some.

[1]: The city has designated COVID screeners during the day, but when they go home it's just security guards at the hotels. However the COVID screening is just a thermometer check so they could totally just teach the security guards how to use thermometers.

> (no more than 2 suitcases or shopping carts full of stuff) which if you've seen many encampments you know will be a dealbreaker for some.

I know a lot of people, myself included, who were fully employed and have rented rooms or even apartments where 2 shopping carts full of stuff would not have fitted.

Absolutely. For many homeless people, having to move into a hotel room would require some serious downsizing (here's one of the more extreme examples in LA- https://i.redd.it/arq8wlg5qfk61.jpg)

Large pets and drug use in multi-family houses built from cardboard (OSB) ? That's one sure way to increase number of mental health issues among those occupying said multi-family houses

OSB is made of strands of wood fiber and adhesive, not cardboard

Cardboard is made of wood fibers and adhesive

Let's say those people on the street moved into the luxury apartment. What do you think the outcome would be? would they suddenly get their life together?

1) Many times, yes. If we want to analyze things logically, oftentimes people just need a safe place to stay so that things are stolen from them/they can avoid drugs/they can tell an employer that they live somewhere in order to have a more stable life.

2) Even if they don't suddenly get their life together, that is looking at things too logically in my opinion. In my opinion, it is the moral thing to help out the needy, and that means providing housing. America's big enough to do it.

> 1) Many times, yes. If we want to analyze things logically, oftentimes people just need a safe place to stay so that things are stolen from them/they can avoid drugs/they can tell an employer that they live somewhere in order to have a more stable life.

This ignores the obvious - that people who have start off with a safe place to stay end up on drugs and homeless.

When I consider what I have observed about trauma - I do basically agree that a safe place is part of the solution, but you are also looking at half a decade or more of support and recovery time in addition.

Did you miss the part where the op said those who suggest simple solutions are lying/wrong?

For simplicity sake, my ideal[1] is:

1. Give all the help possible to these people to get them back into being productive members of society. Those that stay, see next step.

2. Offer a relocation program to live, free, out in the woods. This assumes there are some people who don't want to "work", they don't see value in modern society. I think that's valid, but they can't leech off of society either.

3. Finally those that refuse to live "free", and yet still stay in crime and disease filled pools.. well, i don't trust that they are healthy, capable individuals. They need forced mental health treatment and hopeful rehabilitation, because not only is that not a healthy state of being but it's also not a cost society deserves to pay, imo.

Step 3 scares the hell out of me. So i don't like it, to be clear, because it's not really that different than incarceration. However, keep in mind this is my "ideal", and before forced rehabilitation there is very very significant help and options. #1 includes job programs, housing, food, etcetc - very heavy government program. #2 includes alternate lifestyles, allowing people to break free from the confines of modern society if that is what they're trying to achieve.

[1]: Ideal as in, is not be realistic for a variety of reasons. Getting budgets passed alone for Step1 would be a nightmare of political bikeshedding.

edit: To the downvote, please explain? It feels reactionary to be honest, because i don't think i've said anything controversial when you really think about it. Well, i suppose it's controversial to pro-homeless, if anyone is that..?

SF has navigation centers to do step 1. They are really successful for the folks that go through it. https://www.sfpublicworks.org/navigationcenter

On my phone, so can’t find the link easily, but I seem to remember reading that yes, it seems to work that way. Obviously not with 100% success. But yes. Giving someone a home, shower, etc to call their own does in fact help people get on the right track in a way that very little else seems to do.

Simply giving someone a permanent address allows them to access tons of social services that are completely locked away when you're homeless. Food stamps, unemployment, disability, child care assistance, are some of the very important social programs which require a permanent, non-PO Box, non-General Delivery mailing address before you can access them.

that one link that will save the world

I'm sure a lot of property owners would be happy to let homeless people stay in their apartments for free or very cheap while there are a ton of market vacancies during the pandemic. However, squatter rights basically make it incredibly risky. The cost of this risk gets passed down from the landlords to lower-income renters, so it makes it even more difficult to escape homelessness. This is why you should never make political decisions based on empathy alone.

No landlord would intentionally open their doors to a bunch of addicts so that they can destroy the property. Just not gonna happen.

> This is why you should never make political decisions based on empathy alone.

Is the following a fair way to re-frame your statement? "This is why political decisions based on empathy should consider the long-term wellbeing of everyone involved."

Yeah. I suppose that's a more constructive way to frame my point.

FWIW, I didn't see anything wrong with your original wording.

But I think sometimes conservative-like ideas are unfairly labelled as incompassionate. When in reality they're intended to be more compassionate in the long run.

the situation with housing operates like an astable multivibrator, as the social bodies charismatic features express fully and demand real change from civic leaders and an end to homeless camps in the form of housing, building to a fever-pitch of bonds passed, reforms enacted, and funding applied.

This all works well until the inevitable transition to action. These once noble creatures then cry foul and refuse the building of any potential settlements as it would decrease their property value. Since the enactment of proposition 13 transformed millions of californians into landed gentry and gilded elite, they are ardently opposed to any change that may in any way impact the hegemony of scarcity, rental profits, and the white dragon of property-as-investment.

Exhausted and vanquished, political leaders coffer the bonds toward rehab progams, expensive rental payments to the landed gentry, and motel rooms to temporarily transfer homeless from street tent to temporary edifice. once funds are depleated, the cycle begins anew.

Unfortunately there are no puzzle pieces to be put together. That’s the system working exactly how it’s supposed to.

What good is money if you can’t use it to convince other people to do things for you?

>What good is money if you can’t use it to convince other people to do things for you?

Yes that's literally the point of money: a store of value and a medium of exchange.

Money should be more of a carrot and not a stick.

If you put the puzzle pieces together, it spells s-o-c-i-a-l-i-s-m /s In other developed nations the government subsidizes housing for the disadvantaged- and more often than not this investment will pay back in the future.

It does, but even in places in the US where that's actually been recognized[1] the political will to maintain it doesn't always stick around.

1: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-homelessness-housing-...

There are enormous subsidies for the homeless in San Francisco to the tune of hundreds of millions a year. Due to incompetent governance, those subsidies are actually making the problem worse.

Homelessness is often seen as a situation, rather than a consequence or an outcome of certain events. Giving people housing isn't always an answer. A lot of homeless people ended up being homeless because of addictions, psychological problems,and some unfortunate circumstances. Unless those things are addressed first and foremost,while also placing people in some sort of housing, whether it's a temporary hostel,or longer term social housing, there won't be any improvements in this situation.

I actually think there are tons and tons of "homeless" people who are completely invisible because they're otherwise normal people who just happen to be living in their car or a tent for an extended period. The people I've met who have been in that situation were not dealing with addiction or psychological problems. They were simply victims of circumstance. In at least one case I'm aware of the person was kicked out by her husband with no job and no address and was totally unable to access any social services. Her getting housing enabled her to get a job and access services she didn't have access to when she was homeless.

I think giving people housing is a huge part of getting them off the streets, and I think you underestimate the number of people who are homeless because you're not seeing the countless homeless people who are keeping their lives together in spite of not having a permanent address.

I'm very well familiar with homelessness, probably much better than an average person on this forum. I do agree that a lot of people are victims of circumstances, as I mentioned in my previous comment, and you are right that they often tend to be invisible to the wider society. For this category, getting housing usually solves majority of issues and they can take it from there. The other categories, whether it's mental problems or addiction or anything else, require much wider and more complex approach.

That makes sense to me. I'm used to people not understanding that getting an address solves a lot of problems for a lot of homeless people. And since we're on the same page about that I understand now that you're wanting to focus elsewhere.

> In other developed nations the government subsidizes housing for the disadvantaged- and more often than not this investment will pay back in the future.

It depends on who you consider disadvantaged. In Berlin, 20-25% (~776k in 2018) qualify for subsidized housing. The state owns about 320k apartments, though they're mixed and provide subsidized and market-rates (mostly to finance the subsidies).