Solving and who will pay for homelessness

[David777]

Was amazed to read the following in urban news media. Very much points the finger to where this person has been doing so for years on news comments. Maybe enough others have read those comments over years that it is spreading? Real estate corps, banks that loan them money to do so, REITs, home construction corps, and a wide range of Wall Street corporations that benefit from increasing real estate values are the real bad guys. Their controlled media puppets and politicians regularly point fingers at other targets like "not enough housing being built", blah blah blah or praise increasing real estate prices as a good thing for ordinary folks. No no and NO. Yeah this piece gets it right.


Make this group of people pay for California homelessness relief

https://www.sfgate.com/politics-op-...cost-16659771.php?IPID=SFGate-HP-CP-Spotlight

snippet:

Real estate speculators have capitalized on this reality, worsening the problem. Many of these “investors” aren’t based in the United States. These investors include Chinese housing speculators, who are among the fastest growing owners of California real estate. Unlike working class families, many of these foreign real estate speculators buy in cash. According to the real estate data firm ATTOM Data Solutions, in 2006, roughly 10% of California single-family homes were purchased in all-cash transactions. In 2016, it rose to nearly 25%. If we are going to fund a solution, the bill ought to be tacked onto the urban real estate speculators who profit from the soaring property values that undergird the homelessness crisis.

 

[Aunt Bea]

I’m not sure that there are any bad guys.

IMO we have two homeless populations.

The hardcore that have some underlying problems that prevent them from functioning in main stream society. Even with great programs to deal with substance abuse, mental illness, etc... there will still be a population that can’t be helped.

The second group is more fluid and temporary. People that will eventually be able to use their skills to get back on their feet. Those folks could use some assistance to make that transition. Job training, small relocation grants, temporary rent subsidies, etc...

 

[Irwin]

I've been saying for years that we need to stop real estate speculation — that as well as home flippers. They're all driving up the cost of housing and making it hard for first time buyers to get into a house. Housing is not a luxury item and shouldn't be treated as one. It's a necessity, like food, transportation, and utilities, (unless, of course, you include vacation homes, pleasure trips, etc...) And these real estate sites like Zillow don't just exist for people to sell their houses. From what I understand, they're speculators; they buy and sell homes for profit.

But nothing will be done. In this day and age when even a pandemic is politicized, the government no longer works for the people; it exists solely for corporate interests and for the rich to get richer.

 

[Paco Dennis]

I have been watching this progression of small buisnesses being taken over by bigger private companies since the 80's. They have gobbled up the middle class. Especially the ability to have inventive, better, creative means to live our lives' There are now basically 10 private companies that have control over our choices, and most of the choices they offer are far inferior to what could be. Sometimes, and even often, these companies are actually harming us, and they don't care one iota.

 

[Don M.]

Our economy is increasingly all about increasing the wealth of the very rich. Most of that "trend" begins in Washington, where more and more policy is geared to satisfy the desires of the biggest campaign donors. When you have major multibillion dollar corporations and individuals who pay a smaller share of their income/profits than the average middle class wage earner, its obvious where the "priorities" of our politicians really lie. Corporations such as Apple and Amazon, and their ultra rich owners, seem to be all that matters to our politicians.

 

[Irwin]

Our economy is increasingly all about increasing the wealth of the very rich. Most of that "trend" begins in Washington, where more and more policy is geared to satisfy the desires of the biggest campaign donors. When you have major multibillion dollar corporations and individuals who pay a smaller share of their income/profits than the average middle class wage earner, its obvious where the "priorities" of our politicians really lie. Corporations such as Apple and Amazon, and their ultra rich owners, seem to be all that matters to our politicians.

Yep, too many politicians are beholden to their biggest donors instead of working for the people. One solution is to have publicly funded elections, but that ain't gonna happen any time soon. Another solution is for people to become more informed about the politicians they're voting for, but that ain't gonna happen any time soon, either.

 

[dseag2]

Yes, I'm aware of these REITs. They are also the reason young, first-time homebuyers can't buy homes. They are buying entire neighborhoods of new homes and holding onto them as they appreciate. They will rent them, but not sell.

 

[Warrigal]

Was amazed to read the following in urban news media. Very much points the finger to where this person has been doing so for years on news comments. Maybe enough others have read those comments over years that it is spreading? Real estate corps, banks that loan them money to do so, REITs, home construction corps, and a wide range of Wall Street corporations that benefit from increasing real estate values are the real bad guys. Their controlled media puppets and politicians regularly point fingers at other targets like "not enough housing being built", blah blah blah or praise increasing real estate prices as a good thing for ordinary folks. No no and NO. Yeah this piece gets it right.


Make this group of people pay for California homelessness relief

https://www.sfgate.com/politics-op-...cost-16659771.php?IPID=SFGate-HP-CP-Spotlight

snippet:

Real estate speculators have capitalized on this reality, worsening the problem. Many of these “investors” aren’t based in the United States. These investors include Chinese housing speculators, who are among the fastest growing owners of California real estate. Unlike working class families, many of these foreign real estate speculators buy in cash. According to the real estate data firm ATTOM Data Solutions, in 2006, roughly 10% of California single-family homes were purchased in all-cash transactions. In 2016, it rose to nearly 25%. If we are going to fund a solution, the bill ought to be tacked onto the urban real estate speculators who profit from the soaring property values that undergird the homelessness crisis.

Same story where I live - New South Wales, Australia

 

[WheatenLover]

Malcolm Gladwell on homelessness. https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5223068

He explained what he thinks we should do first in one of his books, in a lot more detail. Trouble is, I can't recall the title.

 

[Remy]

I've been saying for years that we need to stop real estate speculation — that as well as home flippers. They're all driving up the cost of housing and making it hard for first time buyers to get into a house. Housing is not a luxury item and shouldn't be treated as one. It's a necessity, like food, transportation, and utilities, (unless, of course, you include vacation homes, pleasure trips, etc...) And these real estate sites like Zillow don't just exist for people to sell their houses. From what I understand, they're speculators; they buy and sell homes for profit.

But nothing will be done. In this day and age when even a pandemic is politicized, the government no longer works for the people; it exists solely for corporate interests and for the rich to get richer.

I can't even tell you how much I agree with your post!!! You nailed it. Living in California and area with fires and large home loss, I've seen the prices go up. I don't know, it's a free market right? But, look what it does.

I was at WINCO foods, this was a couple of years ago, I heard two employees talking about their co-worker, he was moving and had transferred to another store because his landlord was selling the house after the fire that made prices to up and he couldn't find another place to take his dog.

I agree with you on the flippers also. I like HGTV but these shows make people think they can't be happy unless they upgrade a perfectly functional kitchen and bathroom. It's nuts if people fall for that.

 

[Don M.]

Yep, too many politicians are beholden to their biggest donors instead of working for the people. One solution is to have publicly funded elections, but that ain't gonna happen any time soon. Another solution is for people to become more informed about the politicians they're voting for, but that ain't gonna happen any time soon, either.

I would sincerely like to see public funding for politicians....X amount of dollars....and NO Private donations. I would also like to see Term Limits for All politicians....not just the Presidency. It seems that the longer they stay in office, the more corrupted they become. The ONLY time they seem to pay attention to the voters is during their campaigns. when the fill the TV channels with their BS.

I would urge people to visit web sites such as "Opensecrets.org" to investigate where these politicians get their money.

 

[Irwin]

Malcolm Gladwell on homelessness. https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5223068

He explained what he thinks we should do first in one of his books, in a lot more detail. Trouble is, I can't recall the title.

He says we should give the homeless apartments.

So the homeless get a free apartment, but people with crappy jobs have to pay for those same apartments. That provides incentive to become homeless, plus the people who are working and paying rent are going to resent the people getting free apartments — especially if the formerly homeless aren't clean or considerate of their neighbors. And then there would be enormous political fallout from doing that — the whole "welfare queen" scenario that would influence elections and put people in power who don't want to do anything to help the homeless.

There's got to be a better way.

 

[Don M.]

He says we should give the homeless apartments. There's got to be a better way.

The more money the politicians throw at "welfare" the less incentives many people have to get a job.....IMO. I can understand supporting the disabled, and offering "temporary" assistance to those who need it...but those who chose to live off the labor of others indefinitely are nothing but "parasites", IMO.

 

[Irwin]

I would sincerely like to see public funding for politicians....X amount of dollars....and NO Private donations. I would also like to see Term Limits for All politicians....not just the Presidency. It seems that the longer they stay in office, the more corrupted they become. The ONLY time they seem to pay attention to the voters is during their campaigns. when the fill the TV channels with their BS.

I would urge people to visit web sites such as "Opensecrets.org" to investigate where these politicians get their money.

I'm not so sure about the correlation between politicians in office for a long time and corruption. Some of the worst, most corrupt people in Congress are newly elected and some of the best have been in office a long time. And look at how corrupt some of our presidents have been. That alone shows that term limits don't have an effect on corruption.

The problem is the people who vote for corrupt politicians.

 

[Aunt Bea]

I have no problem with welfare and other social programs.

The thing that seems to be missing from these programs is a work and or education requirement for able bodied people.

I have no problem with giving people a job and a paycheck so they can get a foot on the ladder and begin to move up.

In my community 30% of the people, excluding SS and Medicare, receive some form of government assistance.

IMO the current situation is unsustainable.

 

[Irwin]

I have no problem with welfare and other social programs.

The thing that seems to be missing from these programs is a work and or education requirement for able bodied people.

I have no problem with giving people a job and a paycheck so they can get a foot on the ladder and begin to move up.

In my community 30% of the people, excluding SS and Medicare, receive some form of government assistance.

IMO the current situation is unsustainable.

The problem is, even with a full time job, in many areas, people still can't afford an apartment and there is no working your way up like people used to do. The system is broken for people without a four year degree.

 

[Aunt Bea]

The problem is, even with a full time job, in many areas, people still can't afford an apartment and there is no working your way up like people used to do. The system is broken for people without a four year degree.

I don’t have a four year degree and I managed to live comfortably.

There are many places in this country where I can’t afford to live too.

If an area like SanFrancisco becomes gentrified the increased property tax revenue should allow the city to redefine low income housing in an effort to attract teachers, firemen, etc...

IMO when you try to remove all of the risk and struggle from life you also remove many of the rewards.

I still believe that giving people a hand up is better than giving them a handout.

 

[WheatenLover]

He says we should give the homeless apartments.

So the homeless get a free apartment, but people with crappy jobs have to pay for those same apartments. That provides incentive to become homeless, plus the people who are working and paying rent are going to resent the people getting free apartments — especially if the formerly homeless aren't clean or considerate of their neighbors. And then there would be enormous political fallout from doing that — the whole "welfare queen" scenario that would influence elections and put people in power who don't want to do anything to help the homeless.

There's got to be a better way.

I wish I could figure out which book it was - your scenario is not what he envisioned. He was focused on the ones that are old, sick, feeble, etc. The permanent homeless population, which is some rather small percentage of the total homeless population. The cost of medical care for these folks, who use emergency rooms frequently, is enormous. Housing them, he said, would save cities like SF money. He didn't advocate sprinkling them around the city; IIRC, he advocated building housing for the homeless.

I've got to figure out which book it was in, so I can be more clear. Perhaps the same people who think nothing of spending trillions of dollars on pointless wars would be interested in helping people instead.

What is a better way? Euthanize them, or leave things as they are?

 

[David777]

A facet of the issue is many homeless gravitate to large cities the only places where significant free services are provided and there are other homeless like them. Thus those cities unfairly bear a much larger share of the cost than the rest of those states. Accordingly, state governments ought be the source of funding not cities. Likewise some states like California that have generous programs become a magnet, so this is likewise a national issue that to a fair extent ought bear the cost. Another facet is to distroy the world of real estate speculation, a major factor pushing otherwise good, unfortunate people into homelessness.

It is impossible for large urban cities to prevent illegal drug use and increasing mental deterioration among homeless in those environments but it would be far less so if they were forced into prison like drug and mental illness treatment and training compounds outside urban areas by simply preventing distribution of any food within cities. For those trained with work permits, they could provide free daily to/from transportation to work areas including cities. The state would work with potential employers to transition such people into normal society. For those criminals like drug dealers and thieves that thrive within homeless populations... lock them up in unpleasantly warm places where they can be re-educated where upon release will not want to return to. Harsh but effective.

Here in California there has always been a large need for agricultural workers in our vast seas of farm land. The system for doing so has always been insane that encourages illegal immigration, that many in the government over decades have chosen to look the other way about. Americans, especially young, used to do many of those jobs when I grew up. Wall Street corporations are the main bad guys keeping the status quo so for world market competition reason low labor costs.

 

[Jeni]

in at least a few major cities the pandemic has spotlighted many issues with the chronic homeless.
THROWING money at it does not work.
A nearby city bought a small hotel/ motel to house people and to isolate covid positive.................... but in short order the whole place is condemned.
So grateful for a warm safe place to live they broke sinks toilets and damaged beyond repair walls / doors etc.

This city being so inclined bought bus tickets to ship these folks off to where ever they may have kin to care for them .....
but some folks use that as a travel agency saying "hey i have family here, send me there" some used this "help " 4-5 times.

Their family does not want many at home knowing they cannot be trusted or will steal for drugs / alcohol and MANY cities know this but hope they stay in another city using their social programs and causing issues elsewhere. Not in my backyard syndrome.

One item i see is people react by their own interaction with homeless ...
Yes there are many displaced and simply unable to afford a decent place on a small income....
The average person may see are the people that are mentally disturbed or addicted.
The type people who make it unsafe to walk in certain areas or feel on guard all the time.

 

[Irwin]

Here in Denver, where homelessness is a huge problem, fast food restaurants are paying $15.00 an hour and are having trouble filling those jobs. That's $15.00 for low skill work, where you can learn everything you need to do your job in probably less than an hour. Sure, housing is expensive. What can you get a dumpy apartment for? I'm going to look...

Yeah, they're expensive. You can get a decent 1 bedroom for around $1,000 a month. So, at $15.00 an hour, that's about 30k a year, which is about $2,500 a month, so that would leave maybe $1,500 a month for bills after you paid your rent. You could get by on that — especially if you were able to use public transportation and didn't own a car.

A lot of the sob-stories you hear are about single moms with three or even more children. Yeah, they're not going to fare well in the world without skills or a degree.

In summary, I don't know what the hell's going on with society these days. Maybe it just seems worse than it really is because of all the press it gets.

 

[Jeni]

Here in Denver, where homelessness is a huge problem, fast food restaurants are paying $15.00 an hour and are having trouble filling those jobs. That's $15.00 for low skill work, where you can learn everything you need to do your job in probably less than an hour. Sure, housing is expensive. What can you get a dumpy apartment for? I'm going to look...

Yeah, they're expensive. You can get a decent 1 bedroom for around $1,000 a month. So, at $15.00 an hour, that's about 30k a year, which is about $2,500 a month, so that would leave maybe $1,500 a month for bills after you paid your rent. You could get by on that — especially if you were able to use public transportation and didn't own a car.

A lot of the sob-stories you hear are about single moms with three or even more children. Yeah, they're not going to fare well in the world without skills or a degree.

In summary, I don't know what the hell's going on with society these days. Maybe it just seems worse than it really is because of all the press it gets.

Media pushes and frames conversation to an extreme. any problem + media spin it twice as bad.

 

[Aunt Bea]

Here in Denver, where homelessness is a huge problem, fast food restaurants are paying $15.00 an hour and are having trouble filling those jobs. That's $15.00 for low skill work, where you can learn everything you need to do your job in probably less than an hour. Sure, housing is expensive. What can you get a dumpy apartment for? I'm going to look...

Yeah, they're expensive. You can get a decent 1 bedroom for around $1,000 a month. So, at $15.00 an hour, that's about 30k a year, which is about $2,500 a month, so that would leave maybe $1,500 a month for bills after you paid your rent. You could get by on that — especially if you were able to use public transportation and didn't own a car.

A lot of the sob-stories you hear are about single moms with three or even more children. Yeah, they're not going to fare well in the world without skills or a degree.

In summary, I don't know what the hell's going on with society these days. Maybe it just seems worse than it really is because of all the press it gets.

Being a single mom with three kids has never been easy and these days being poor in America can be like having a second job.

Today we are fortunate to have federal child care credits of $3,000 - $3,600/child, SNAP, WIC, Section 8 housing vouchers, children’s Medicaid and healthcare plus, free school breakfast and lunch, etc...

It would be so much easier and cheaper if the patchwork of benefits could be consolidated into one comprehensive plan, but once a government bureaucracy is created it fights to stay alive.

The system will never be perfect, but IMO it’s much better now than it was when my mother was raising my sister and me on a modest income.

 

[Jeni]

Being a single mom with three kids has never been easy and these days being poor in America can be like having a second job.

Today we are fortunate to have federal child care credits of $3,000 - $3,600/child, SNAP, WIC, Section 8 housing vouchers, children’s Medicaid and healthcare plus, free school breakfast and lunch, etc...

It would be so much easier and cheaper if the patchwork of benefits could be consolidated into one comprehensive plan, but once a government bureaucracy is created it fights to stay alive.

exactly a program is never revamped or combined or made efficient because there are government workers reliant on the program staying the same but growing

 

[fuzzybuddy]

I’m not sure that there are any bad guys.

IMO we have two homeless populations.

The hardcore that have some underlying problems that prevent them from functioning in main stream society. Even with great programs to deal with substance abuse, mental illness, etc... there will still be a population that can’t be helped.

The second group is more fluid and temporary. People that will eventually be able to use their skills to get back on their feet. Those folks could use some assistance to make that transition. Job training, small relocation grants, temporary rent subsidies, etc...

I agree with Aunt Bee about having two homeless populations. One is mainly people with mental disorders, who cannot function as a memeber of society. The other is composed by people, whose circumstances have caused them to become homeless. But I don't believe this is a temporary situation. If one is too poor to pay the prevailing rents, you will be homeless. Upgrading to a better job helps, but if there's increased competition for too few rentable units, you are most probably going to be homeless again., as rents will be out of your range. And when huge segments of the population are homeless, funding for re- training is inadequate, at best.