How would YOU resolve LA's homeless problem? (Los Angeles, Hemet: sex offenders, houses)

[Derpistan]

Originally Posted by Leisesturm

The solution to L.A.'s (or NYC's, PDX's, or anywhere else) homeless problem is a top tax rate of 90%, and no cap. No FICA cap, and an increase in the Capital Gains rate of 10%. Solved.

That is going to help about as much as the suggestion of arming all citizens with 9mm's. Just throwing money at the problem is not going to solve the cause.

[Derpistan]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Did you ever consider the cost of long term care in a mental hospital? This is 4 year old data, and I think it's safe to say that health care costs have gone up since then but it will give you some idea of what your solution would cost.

The average cost to deliver care was highest for Medicare and lowest for the uninsured: schizophrenia treatment, $8,509 for 11.1 days and $5,707 for 7.4 days, respectively; bipolar disorder treatment, $7,593 for 9.4 days and $4,356 for 5.5 days; depression treatment, $6,990 for 8.4 days and $3,616 for 4.4 days; drug use disorder treatment, $4,591 for 5.2 days and $3,422 for 3.7 days; and alcohol use disorder treatment, $5,908 for 6.2 days and $4,147 for 3.8 days.


So yeah, your idea is just wonderful, let's "5150 with teeth". so let's just pick a disorder, how about bi-polar, hospitalization would run around $24,000 a month - or $288,000 a year. That's a crap load of money when you multiply it times several thousand homeless people, most of whom would not meet the criteria for even a temporary 5150 hold.

It's not quite as exciting as rounding up all the homeless and giving them involuntary commitments to mental hospitals but I bet it would be a heck of a lot cheaper for the City or County to buy some SRO's or old motels, rehab them into decent but modest studio apartments offer them to the homeless and require them to pay some rent if they get SSI or a retirement and deliver mental and physical health services right to the residents. It's not even an untried solution, Salt Lake City has been doing just that for a decade and they've been able to get 94% of their homeless off the streets.

Just saying, but the costs in the study you listed are for Inpatient Hospitalization at a community hospital. It would be less at a mental institution.

[Leisesturm]

Originally Posted by Derpistan

That is going to help about as much as the suggestion of arming all citizens with 9mm's.

Nope. It would work. That much money could not possibly be mishandled badly enough not to be able to do lots of good on its way to wherever money goes after the economy... excretes it.

[Derpistan]

Originally Posted by Leisesturm

Nope. It would work. That much money could not possibly be mishandled badly enough not to be able to do lots of good on its way to wherever money goes after the economy... excretes it.

If you say so.

[highlanderfil]

Originally Posted by Leisesturm

Nope. It would work. That much money could not possibly be mishandled badly enough not to be able to do lots of good on its way to wherever money goes after the economy... excretes it.

You can have all the money at the world thrown at the problem but if you don't have a way to cleverly spend it, it will just be wasted.

[NyWriterdude]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Don't you think there should be some criteria that is required to confine a person against their will? At least in criminal law we require a conviction. According to studies only about 20-25% of the homeless are mentally ill so unless you change the definition of mental illness and claim that being homeless is prima facie evidence of mental illness how would institutionalizing them solve the problem?

When mental hospitals were closed and there was no alternative offered for the mentally ill, that certainly exacerbated the problem, but there were other things happening at the same time, there were fewer jobs for the unskilled or semi-skilled, landlords began doing background checks and started turning down more and more people who otherwise would have been able to rent, i.e. felons. In urban areas SRO's and low rent apartments were razed or turned into high rent units leaving thousands of people with no where to go. I have worked with the poor for years and I am the first to admit that some are so obnoxious, or so disturbed that they make your skin crawl, but there are also people who are just like us, and they are only homeless because they just plain ran out out of options and money.

We need programs like the one you mentioned in Savannah all over the US, and not just for homeless veterans.

Also the no tolerance for drug laws created many more felons than the US had previously, so you had many more people who could not get employment or housing.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Derpistan

That is going to help about as much as the suggestion of arming all citizens with 9mm's. Just throwing money at the problem is not going to solve the cause.

True: no point in just throwing money around without an understanding of how to be effective. But I am curious at your use of the word "cause" in the singular. A number of your posts I have read in various topics places you in my mind as someone who thinks pretty well through many issues. Surely you know there is no singular cause for homelessness?

That said, the best, most successful program for dealing with homelessness so far anywhere is "Housing First" programs. Which, oddly, save 25% - 50% over budgets typically spent otherwise in failure.

Go figure. Haters hate the idea of just paying to house the homeless where their problems don't have to be tripped over daily. Because they don't earn it! Why should they just get a roof over head?! (Uh, to get them out of everyone's way? ... when nothing else works?)

[Derpistan]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

True: no point in just throwing money around without an understanding of how to be effective. But I am curious at your use of the word "cause" in the singular. A number of your posts I have read in various topics places you in my mind as someone who thinks pretty well through many issues. Surely you know there is no singular cause for homelessness?

That said, the best, most successful program for dealing with homelessness so far anywhere is "Housing First" programs. Which, oddly, save 25% - 50% over budgets typically spent otherwise in failure.

Go figure. Haters hate the idea of just paying to house the homeless where their problems don't have to be tripped over daily. Because they don't earn it! Why should they just get a roof over head?! (Uh, to get them out of everyone's way? ... when nothing else works?)

Sure, there are many factors that lead towards homelessness. And while this is not necessarily why I typed "cause" in the singular, if I were given a bucket of money, I would try and determine what the PRIMARY cause of homelessness is and allocate 100% of the funds towards fixing it.

I.e. if hypothetically homelessness is determined to be caused by situations

A: 35%
B: 20%
C: 15%
D: 10%
E: 10%

Then I would allocate 100% of my efforts to stop whichever factor would have alternative that would have the highest estimated success rate (as opposed to splitting it up pro rata or equally among the 5 options). Imo it's best to tackle one problem first and really make a dent in it than spread resources too thin and fail to make any substantive changes.

It's been awhile I've taken courses in public policy analysis but from what I remember it always come down to a balance of weighing the E's.

Effectiveness
Efficiency
Equity
Ethical
(pretty sure there were some more, but I don't remember them)

[CaliforniaGal]

Let's help the people who REALLY want the help first and foremost. Get them off the streets. My sister-in-law lives in Santa Barbara and oddly enough - many are homeless up there. Lost their jobs-living in cars. Many lost their homes... I believe it is these folks we need to help first then deal with the severely mentally ill folks.

Jail is not the answer-and nursing homes? My gawd they cost a heck of a lot of money. My cousin was in one when he died after being on the streets.

I hate to say "TAX the rich - feed the poor" (Ten Years After song) but today they should probably pay a little more. Again, my husband and I are not rich by any means but we would pay more in taxes for the Mentally ill for sure. We know there is a terrible problem out there and I think all families have been affected by a loved one who is dealing with severe mental illness and may be out on the streets. Our VETS really need help!

[CaliforniaGal]

Los Angeles County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas (2nd District) which is our district by the way...

Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas | A Crisis of Homelessness

I feel Thomas is NOT addressing the long term problem where many need round the clock care-help with their meds etc etc. Short term only - Yes, he wants housing but not all who are homeless will adapt after being on the streets for years.