The Los Angeles Homeless Containment Thread (San Francisco: extended stay, contractor, trendy)

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

The problem is that only 24% of the poor can get subsidized housing of any type. In most areas there is a 4-6 year wait for a section 8 voucher. Social service agencies usually put the most severely mentally ill into supportive housing leaving thousands of others who still need assistance on the streets.

Do you agree that many of the current Section 8 voucher recipients who currently are in subsidized housing could now make it on their own? Do you agree that many have been living in subsidized housing for a very long time? That it is now a way-of-life for them? That they are taking spots that should be used for even less fortunate?

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Rising rents lead to increases in the number of people who become homeless because they can no longer afford rent.

How many, do you know what the number is? I've heard this claim but never read any data that backs up that point.

Most "normal" people who get tired of paying high rent move somewhere else. They don't pay to the bitter end until they are fiscally destitute and then move behind the dumpster behind Albertson's.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by jm1982

There is a radio show in L.A on KFI 640 .. the John and Ken show and they talk about the homeless issue a lot .

I’ve heard them talk about this theory . They’ve said if you see the cost of living is so high in an area why not move to an area that has lower rents .

Many lower income and middle income people have done this which is why so many are moving from CA to TX for example .

Even if someone has a rent increase coming they have notice of it. Especially in L.A

Rent hasn’t been affordable in L.A for years or even decades .

Who wouldn’t choose an affordable city to move to instead of becoming homeless ?

Why not just move to an affordable city and then move back to L.A when in a better financial position ?

It’s the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over expecting different results .

Seems a bunch of people are waiting for affordable housing promises from the politicians and believing their lies .. better to move to an affordable area . Aka not L.A , SF NYC

These false promises are just doing people a disservice .

Beat me to it.

It's like "Man, this rent is so high, well I'll just keep paying it until I go homeless." No, that doesn't seem logical. People just move and pay cheaper rent elsewhere. It's a major reason why "domestic out-migration" in California is higher than "domestic in-migration". People are moving out due to high rents and housing prices.

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

The truth is, California's homeless population is growing, and much faster than it is nationally.

California's homeless rate rose by 14% from 2016 to 2017. Nationally during the same period, it rose only 1%.

According to HUD, California has the third highest rate nationally with 34 in every 10,000 people in the state experiencing homelessness. Only New York and Hawaii are worse off.

Guess who the 3 biggest spenders on homeless programs are by gross allocated dollars for 2018BY?

You guessed it.

Throwing more money at the problem using "leftist/progressive" lead and designed programs doesn't seem to be solving the problem at all, it seems to be making it worse.

It all depends how you define the problem. I'll define the problem differently and show that the current system is actually working.

Statement of the Problem:

How can we employ more hard-core progressives on the public sector payroll, who will in turn award contracts to more hard-core progressive consultants and contractors, who in turn will donate to the re-election of hard-core progressive elected officials and support litmus-test hardcore progressive initiatives and bond measures, and who will support the hardcore progressive Orthodoxy?

It looks to me that if we frame the problem correctly, the spending pattern of the public sector is quite rational and successful.

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

This stuff is not as simple as it looks.

Why, then, do we continue to reward public sector employees with a job, a gold-plated pension, and Cadillac health care insurance when they so miserably fail to achieve measurable results?

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

It all depends how you define the problem. I'll define the problem differently and show that the current system is actually working.

Statement of the Problem:

How can we employ more hard-core progressives on the public sector payroll, who will in turn award contracts to more hard-core progressive consultants and contractors, who in turn will donate to the re-election of hard-core progressive elected officials and support litmus-test hardcore progressive initiatives and bond measures, and who will support the hardcore progressive Orthodoxy?

It looks to me that if we frame the problem correctly, the spending pattern of the public sector is quite rational and successful.

That is ... frightening, but fits.

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

For once we agree on something. and it's not just LA, it's statewide. I ran across a young couple living in their car with a four year old while I was out for a walk. I've stayed in touch with them and taken them food a few times and I've been making phone calls all over trying to find shelter for them. There are very, few family shelters and every assistance program seems to be run by a different non profit and there doesn't seem to be any coordination of services.

Why then do we continue to give money to the plethora of non-profits who in turn mostly use that money to pay the salary of their own employees -- including generous 6-figure salaries for their executive directors?

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Rising rents lead to increases in the number of people who become homeless because they can no longer afford rent.

Yes and no.

Rising rent may lead Person "A" to vacate a rental unit to live in a car, but that housing unit does not remain unrented. Person "B" is willing to move in and pay the higher rent. If Person "B" was homeless, she now has a roof over her head. If Person "B" used to live elsewhere, that unit is now open for a new tenant -- which might be Person "A" or Person "C". Person "C" might have been homeless, and she now has a roof over her head... and so on and so on and so on.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

Do you agree that many of the current Section 8 voucher recipients who currently are in subsidized housing could now make it on their own? Do you agree that many have been living in subsidized housing for a very long time? That it is now a way-of-life for them? That they are taking spots that should be used for even less fortunate?

No, I don't agree with that because you have to recertify for section 8 every year, if they don't qualify they lose their voucher

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

Why then do we continue to give money to the plethora of non-profits who in turn mostly use that money to pay the salary of their own employees -- including generous 6-figure salaries for their executive directors?

Why are you asking me that? I already said the system is screwed up, it has been for years. At one point San Francisco was distributing money for homeless shelters to dozens of agencies and there was no coordination, if a person signed up for transitional housing they had to do so with each individual agency, if they got housing with one agency their names remained on the waiting list for all the others- that's just bat crap crazy.