Comment by cranberryturkey
11 hours ago
Gavin Newsom did this when he was Mayor of San Francisco and the city got flooded with homeless from all over the country
11 hours ago
Gavin Newsom did this when he was Mayor of San Francisco and the city got flooded with homeless from all over the country
This kind of happened in the UK already. For instance, Bournmouth, a town on the South Coast, attracted homeless people for the obvious reason that the climate is typically warmer than most other places. I assume SF held a similar initial attraction?
In response to this small influx, local authorities encouraged charities to set up shop offering help to these people with drink/drug/social problems with a view to getting them back into regular housing.
Some years later, the problems have become much worse although the number of charities operating in the area has grown exponentially.
Speaking as someone who has experienced homelessness, for a short while, I believe the only practical solution is to give people housing at the outset before the desire/need to move elsewhere takes root.
The obvious response is that it is not that easy and would be unaffordable but my retort is that the current situation is likely costing a lot more while, at the same time, not fixing anything - other than creating multiple charity jobs.
> Speaking as someone who has experienced homelessness, for a short while, I believe the only practical solution is to give people housing at the outset before the desire/need to move elsewhere takes root.
Also national support not local. While there are some local issues with homelessness I feel lots of the problems are going to be the same across the country. If it was the same provision everywhere there wouldn't be the same draw towards certain locations.
love this idea in principle but can you name one successful program being ran at the national level? at local level, with the right people in place and adequate funding - shit can get done. at the national level I think no chance in America, whatever one Administration does and funds, regardless of which “side” it is, the next one will do everything in their power to dismantle
There should be a rule whereby charities are required to have a large percentage of their jobs given to the class they're trying to help.
This could help make the size and number of said charities to be self-regulating with the problem they're trying to solve. They will grow in number whilst the problem is large, but as it subsides they naturally go down. All at the same time giving those people who are in need, money that would be otherwise given to people who don't necessarily need it from that source.
No there shouldn’t, because then e.g. charities providing help to seriously ill cancer patients won’t be able to employ anyone.
Edit: I’m not against charities doing this where it makes sense. I wouldn’t want it to be more red tape they had to struggle with though.
Have you worked for a charity? You want the government to regulate them in a nonsense way so that they close up shop? Sure, there might be a few people that can be employed to help but to pick an arbitrary percentage picked by a prepresentative body whose never talked to them ? you dont’ employ the blind to lead the blind, you hire an eye doctor
I think you have this reversed. The city was already giving out money to homeless and it led to a bunch of problems. Newsom proposed the opposite a “Care not cash” initiative where instead of receiving cash, homeless would receive services.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Proposition_N_...
Honestly by the time you hear these stories the people these stories are about have traveled vast distances through the phases of their homeless experience and you hearing this tale is well past all the results of said attempt to curtail the issue such that it is no longer in present moment a possible solution having run its course. Frankly people who have mismanaged their lives to the point their day to day choices no longer resemble rational thinking cannot be expected to put hard cash to best use at the moment. Eventually there are habits that enevitably become adopted whereby seeking immediate relief by any means that can be had becomes more of a priority than anything else. To someone who sees no end in sight to the nightmare this and only this makes life bareable anymore.
I've never understood how a homeless person with no resources would move across the country for better handouts. Like I'd buy some anecdotal cases but most homeless I see aren't saving enough for a bus ticket.
Sometimes it's pushed by programs interested in changing the statistics in the most direct way possible - giving people a bus ticket. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/dec/... also "greyhound therapy" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_homeless_relocation_pr...
I've read an interview with a man who panhandled for a period of his life, and his hourly income was higher than that of an average waiter.
Although I don't have official sources, when I observe panhandlers in my city, it seems plausible (even evident) to me that with enough persistence, a homeless person can earn more than a waiter.
Of course, I presume that such money is readily wasted, but I wouldn't dismiss a homeless' income as nonexistent.
Youd be shocked to know the amounts of money possible from merely standing holding a sign in the right place. That legendary number however isnt expected and isnt the primary motivating factor. Many areas even for those who would prefer to work are devoid of jobs, especially where other groups not necessarily US born have snatched up all opportunity in whatever skilled labor the person might possess. Also most homeless have no vehicle either. Try getting a labor job without one. The reason for standing with the sign is simple. Severely limited options. And the man is hungry.
get on a train… 1/2/3 stations later they check your ticket, you ain’t got one, you get kicked off… wait for the next train, 1/2/3 stations later they check your ticket, you ain’t got one, you get kicked off. week or two or three later you made it from Augusta Maine to San Diego :)
Sounds good. Been thought of , tried, fixed. They call cops on the first train.
1 reply →
I would think that it might be easier for them to relocate as they'll have limited possessions to transport. I'd guess they'd either hitch a lift with friends or strangers or they might have a vehicle themselves (e.g. a van that they live in).
Cities that don't want them ship them to cities that "want" them
There’s a massive number of “functioning homeless” - living in cars, couch surfing, etc. They might have low-pay jobs. Or once had white collar jobs but lost almost everything due to medical problems. These are the ones who might be capable of moving.
But yeah, the stereotypical crazy junkie, probably not. But that’s just a stereotype.
Board a train. That's it. What can they do to you for having no ticket? Literally nothing.
i have a friend who helps the local homeless population out (around 5-10) and they are all on government subsidies. like disability or whatever.
The overwhelming majority of homeless people in CA are homeless near where they were last housed. The program you're remembering was called Care NOT Cash. Nothing you said was true. Why not?
Maybe if it's done on a national level, and cash will only be distributed to the homeless who can prove they are citizens, that won't be an issue. Moreover they might move to areas with lower cost of living if payments do not depend on the place (a homeless does not have a fixed address by definition), thus becoming less of an issue.
Homelessness creates society issues regardless of citizenship. Also, obtaining any reliable ID for many homeless is a non-trivial and costly task on its own. It seems like you're interested in something more limited than simply helping with the homelessness issue.