[Commander666]

Why does everyone assume a begging bum is homeless? For decades there was a black dude in a wheelchair with two dogs that begged for decades at Flamingo and I-15. Poor guy, he lived next door to Gladys Knight in equestrian estates.

[airics]

Originally Posted by Commander666

Why does everyone assume a begging bum is homeless? For decades there was a black dude in a wheelchair with two dogs that begged for decades at Flamingo and I-15. Poor guy, he lived next door to Gladys Knight in equestrian estates.

And don’t forget the one at Sahara and Jones who made the news getting in a super nice car

[Commander666]

Originally Posted by airics

And don’t forget the one at Sahara and Jones who made the news getting in a super nice car

Yeah, point is, and I kkow it's hard to believe, "liberals" are being duped once again.

[RationalExpectations]

Originally Posted by Katie the heartbreaker

There is more to it than that Airics. Housing has surged and wages have not kept up with it. Because of this, I am going to have to move back in with my parents at 42 years old. I am putting it off as long as possible as I don't want to go back to Utah, but I do not have a choice. Others do not have this option, and that is why you keep hearing about surging homeless populations.

I suspect the link between homelessness and panhandling is less obvious than many think.

There 4 cases:

1. Homeless people who do panhandle
2. Homeless people who do not panhandle
3. People who have permanent housing who do panhandle
4. People who have permanent housing who do not panhandle

The above suggests a simple 2x2 matrix - but the issue is a bit more complex and a bit more difficult to measure.

One theme in the academic literature is that historically - several decades ago - there was more shame on the part of the homeless, which seemed to have an impact on the fraction who engaged in panhandling. Yet another theme is that historically - several decades ago - there was more shame on the part of panhandlers, regardless of their housing situation. Of course, such things are difficult to measure.

The question is, given a certain amount of normalization of panhandling (that is, those who engage in it feel less shame than similarly situated people of many decades past), is there really an increase in panhandling going on, and if so, is it being performed by those who are homeless, by those who have permanent housing, or both?

[RationalExpectations]

Originally Posted by Svoboda

Indiana is as red of a state as they come and they have a homeless problem, too. The homeless population and problem isn't partisan.

While the homeless problem may not be partisan, it is most definitely political. The shortage of housing is a result of actions such as zoning (Industrial, Retail, SFR, MF, etc), setbacks, height restrictions, parcel size, unit density, form and scale of a building, or even shape of parcel subdivision... plus things such as EIR. Developers are faced with the threat of ongoing litigation and discretionary approval delays that can lead to situations with no path forward.

I'm not a developer - so I'll defer to any actual developer who can chime in.

At the end of the day, the regulatory (political) environment results in a chronic shortage of low-income housing.

And, as you point out, it isn't partisan - but it is very much political.

The solution, in my not so humble opinion, is fairly straightforward (although difficult). Just pass a constitutional amendment that says no elected official anywhere in the state can run for elected office (or re-election) if the homeless rate exceeds X%. That would focus the politicians at all level on actually fixing the problem.

[lvmensch]

Originally Posted by RationalExpectations

While the homeless problem may not be partisan, it is most definitely political. The shortage of housing is a result of actions such as zoning (Industrial, Retail, SFR, MF, etc), setbacks, height restrictions, parcel size, unit density, form and scale of a building, or even shape of parcel subdivision... plus things such as EIR. Developers are faced with the threat of ongoing litigation and discretionary approval delays that can lead to situations with no path forward.

I'm not a developer - so I'll defer to any actual developer who can chime in.

At the end of the day, the regulatory (political) environment results in a chronic shortage of low-income housing.

And, as you point out, it isn't partisan - but it is very much political.

The solution, in my not so humble opinion, is fairly straightforward (although difficult). Just pass a constitutional amendment that says no elected official anywhere in the state can run for elected office (or re-election) if the homeless rate exceeds X%. That would focus the politicians at all level on actually fixing the problem.

The problem is actually more complicated. Houston for instance which has very light zoning regulations Had a very big problem with homelessness 10 years ago. But they have basically cut it in half. How? Coordinated activity and spending a lot of money. Started out with a program to help a 100 vets in a 100 days and went on to house over 3,000 vets. In the process they doubled the money they got from HUD to reduce homelessness. They actually built almost nothing.

The housing thing is political in the global sense. People do not like high density low cost housing and will fight off any attempt to implement it virtually every where. And a lot of the current trend to restore neighborhoods often end up with the low end being done away with. Common in lots of places like NY, LA or SF. the fact is no one is going to get elected who will allow high density low cost housing.

And we have lots of land in Clark County and could easily find a place for a high density development. But after you pay the cost of utilities and services it is no longer low cost. Water can be particularly troublesome. Easy to get to $15,000 or $20,000 or more to get a house connected. And that is where the mains are already in the street. May double that if you have to bring in the water any distance.

And I would think homelessness will tend to always be a sun belt problem. The cold in Minneapolis or Milwaukee makes homelessness tough. But southern CA is almost ideal. I expect if Santa Monica was able to fix all its homelessness just wait a year...they will be back again. If I were homeless I would think Santa Monica almost ideal.

[Katie the heartbreaker]

Originally Posted by RationalExpectations

There is another interpretation which, respectfully, I request you consider.

An increase in panhandling as anecdotally described in the link you posted is an indication that the economy is exceptionally strong. Yes - STRONG.

Panhandling, as a strategy, relies on a economically STRONG consumer who is the target of the panhandling request -- a consumer with money in her pocket that she then can allocate among an unlimited set of competing desires such as paying rent or a mortgage, saving for college for kids or for her own retirement, buying clothing & food, and yes, handing money out to panhandlers.

If people - the targets of panhandling requests - were economically struggling, they would have no money to give away for free. Panhandlers would discover they were unsuccessful - sort of like fishing in a lake where there are no fish - and would stop panhandling.

You are thinking with a rational mind, and the theory of what you are posting should be correct. The problem is the people who you think gives money to panhandler's, whether they are homeless or not, isn't who you expect. The people who usually give to panhandler's are people who cannot afford to, but do it anyways. One of my former roommates is a good example. He was even worse off than me as he could not even afford a car. He always gave money to people who asked for help on the street. The people who are successful and have money are always the ones who do not give them anything. There have been multiple threads on the issue, and the posters who have who have large incomes and net worth's always say they refuse to give money to panhandlers. This is a fact. The thread starter on the panhandling thread I posted yesterday has said before that he is very successful financially. Look at what he said in the thread regarding his policy on giving money to anyone on the street.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/...ryId=129068241

I can see it where I work and the mindset of these people. I was given a company vehicle for 3 years by my boss. Then out of the blue, my boss calls me and said that the owner of the company said it is costing him too much money and I had to return it. Not only that, I would not be compensated in any way. It was in effect a very large pay cut that hurt me. The owner of the company is a multi-millionaire. I found his facebook account with pictures of his exotic cars and huge house. I also found out on there he is a huge Trump supporter, what a surprise! My first thread I ever made on this forum is turning out to be more and more true as time goes on. It is below.

//www.city-data.com/forum/polit...ch-people.html

I looked and the article has disappeared off of Las Vegas Review Journal. I found it again. My boss hits on number 1,4 and 5 in the article.

1. Lack of empathy

4. Lack of remorse

5. Selfishness

https://www.businessinsider.com/here...hopaths-2015-3

[Woody01]

Originally Posted by Commander666

Based on the lefty "news" media promoting a recession. Trump haters are going so far as to try and promote a bad economy, when in fact the economy has never been better.

This ^^^^
No recession.....

[Cold Warrior]

And I would think homelessness will tend to always be a sun belt problem.

Except for SF/bay area, Portland, Seattle and that is just the left coast.

[Tek_Freek]

Originally Posted by Woody01

This ^^^^
No recession.....

I hope your loin is girded.

My apologies because I know you have no idea what I'm saying.