How Bad is the Homeless Problem in Your City & Is Anything Being Done to Solve It?

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by ue

The situation in Edmonton isn't that bad compared to BC or California, which seem to be their respective country's dumping grounds for homeless.

Probably the weather mainly. Where else in Canada can you live outdoors year around? Certainly not Edmonton.

The US sunbelt, generally, works but much of it is politically more conservative and harsh on the homeless than the Pacific coast. In Texas, Florida, Arizona they just don't tolerate what we tolerate.

Anyway, today after posting what I posted above, I went out and, again, to a fast food joint for a large diet drink (I seem to be constantly thirsty) and a place to sit and read the Sunday paper. I was sitting at a counter and a homeless guy comes in (I have to assume he was homeless--he had a beat up wheeled suitcase bulging with his personal stuff), sets up a boom box taking up the remaining counter space, pushes past me to plug it all into the only customer-accessible outlet in sight, and begins to chill (purchasing nothing). Restaurant staff says nothing to which he might take offense, all clearly intimidated. I moved to another isolated table in the back of the store.

This sort of behavior, so common, is not that of people who simply lack a home. It is the behavior of people with a seething anger toward everyone who does have one and probably many others who don't, and a middle digit raised to the world attitude. It can easily become dangerous.

Meanwhile, have we addressed the second part of the thread title: What is being done about it? The following is a year old but not that much has changed:

S.F. spends record $241 million on homeless, can’t track results
By Heather Knight and Kevin Fagan
February 5, 2016 Updated: February 6, 2016 7:20pm

Visitors may wonder why one of the wealthiest cities in the world can’t cough up enough money to alleviate homelessness, but, in fact, San Francisco spends tremendous amounts of money on the problem. The city is allocating a record $241 million this fiscal year on homeless services, $84 million more than when Mayor Ed Lee took office in January 2011.

But the city struggles to track exactly how all that money is being spent and whether it’s producing results. Eight city departments oversee at least 400 contracts to 76 private organizations, most of them nonprofits, that deal with homelessness.

No single system tracks street people as they bounce among that galaxy of agencies looking for help.

That’s a major systemic weakness that’s been noted before: Fourteen years ago — a lifetime in politics — the city controller called for a single information network to ensure better tracking of homeless people as they seek services and better tracking of money spent to help them. There’s still no network and still no plan for one.

That’s a mistake, said Dr. Josh Bamberger, a UCSF professor who for many years has helped craft homeless policy in San Francisco and for President Obama.

He said few things are more crucial to tackling homelessness than having a system that tracks people through every aspect of service and that such a system has helped New Orleans, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, Phoenix and the state of Virginia make great progress.

“You have to treat the sickest homeless people first, because they use the most resources, and the only way to do that is to know exactly who and where they are and what has worked or hasn’t in each case,” Bamberger said. “Once those people are housed, you can concentrate on the rest of the population and snowball to ending homelessness” . . . .

Last month, Supervisor Aaron Peskin (who, through anti-development and excessively tolerant social polices may be responsible for some of the problem--Pedestrian) called 911 because a homeless man, naked from the waist down and his legs smeared in feces, was standing on the Filbert Steps on Telegraph Hill, screaming obscenities and blocking the path of passersby.

Currently, there’s no way for the police officer who responded or a doctor at San Francisco General Hospital to easily learn much about the man’s service profile, such as stints in rehab, which city-funded nonprofits might have tried to help him, if he receives food and shelter, or if he gets government benefits.

“There’s no question it has gotten exponentially worse,” Peskin said of homelessness in San Francisco. “How the city spends a quarter of a billion a year, I have not figured out. It’s not working” . . . .

(Near one sidewalk homeless tent city) on a recent night, in a two-hour period, one man was beaten and robbed, three fights broke out, and two men smoking methamphetamine stormed up and down the traffic median, screaming at each other and traffic for more than an hour. At least 250 people cycle in and out of the camp . . . .

The $241 million is about equivalent to the annual budget for the Public Works Department, which cleans all the city’s streets, repairs its sidewalks, cleans up illegal dumping, maintains its trees, removes graffiti and more. That much money would pay for San Francisco’s entire library system for two years.

In truth, the figure is even higher. It doesn’t include emergency services from police or the Fire Department when they respond to homeless people in crisis, because spending by those departments isn’t broken out that way.

The number is likely to grow this year. Lee is pushing a June ballot measure that would dedicate $20 million to modernize homeless shelters and build more sites like the Navigation Center in the Mission District, which temporarily houses entire camps of homeless people and tries to steer them into services . . . .

Almost half of the $241 million — $112 million — is spent on supportive housing for the formerly homeless. Nationally, permanent supportive housing that includes social workers and other care is considered the best way to end homelessness. It’s also less expensive than caring for people on the streets — $17,353 a year per person, compared with $87,480 a year for each of the 278 homeless “high users” of the city’s public medical system, Howard said.

But, as the city builds more supportive housing, it must continue to pay the cost for all those new residents. Few of the formerly homeless are ever able to find jobs, afford market-rate apartments and shrug off city support . . . .

Since January 2004, the city has moved 21,742 people off the streets. Of those, 9,286 people left with a bus ticket from Homeward Bound, at an average cost of $185 per person. The rest were housed through a variety of city programs . . . .

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/a...ss-6808319.php

[James Bond Agent 007]

This is the exact same topic you started last year:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=225190

[giallo]

Shanghai's homeless population is cute.

Vancouver's is bad considering the city its in, but the large homeless groups are contained to the downtown eastside and parts of Surrey.

LA was shocking, I'm not going to lie. It's evident that downtown is improving massively, and I'd probably want to live DT in a few years if I was ever given the opportunity to work in LA, but the social problems that plague that area are insane.

I was staying downtown, across from Pershing Square last year, and it's basically a shit show past Los Angeles St. My wife, who's from Taiwan, and has traveled to the US before (but never LA) said downtown reminded her of Manila. During the day, it's ok, but past 8pm, it's full-on down there. Thousands of mentally ill people on whatever drugs they can get their hands on. It's felt like an open-aired asylum. It's bark is clearly worse than its bite, but it's still a pretty wild scene in the day, and especially at night.

I love LA. I'm just at a loss as to what the city can do at this point. I've never seen so many homeless people before.

[pdxtex]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

This is the exact same topic you started last year:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=225190

as the topic is transients, those who live a temporal life in one place, its relevant to revisit it again. things change from year to year. also as far as i can tell, throngs of nutty people are a west coast phenomenon. detroit had career hobos and old winos, maybe some crackheads shuffling around the cass cooridor not that long ago, but its nothing there like it is here....people on the west coast also tolerate such behavior. it unreal to me. im no prude either. i was in the detroit rave scene for a decade so i saw plenty of debauchery. opiates and meth are a freakshow however. i have no tolerance for junkies.....

[James Bond Agent 007]

The last comment in the other thread was a mere 7 months ago, so I doubt anything has changed in that time.

[photoLith]

Pittsburgh doesn't have that many, only see about 20 or so whenever you walk around downtown. Theres only one tent city and its usually only around 30 people that pops up somewhere in the city every summer. Pittsburgh has the least amount of homeless people out of any city Ive lived in. Houston had loads of homeless and New Orleans was homeless central.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by photoLith

Pittsburgh doesn't have that many, only see about 20 or so whenever you walk around downtown. Theres only one tent city and its usually only around 30 people that pops up somewhere in the city every summer. Pittsburgh has the least amount of homeless people out of any city Ive lived in. Houston had loads of homeless and New Orleans was homeless central.

It takes some effort to be homeless in a cold winter city. So, most (logically) gravitate to the milder weather places, at least in winter. LA, SD, SF, Houston, "The Big Easy" NO, Miami etc.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

The last comment in the other thread was a mere 7 months ago, so I doubt anything has changed in that time.

It is an important topic and needs to be discussed. Besides, I didn't see the old thread still up. Have you been to LA, SF, SD etc. and seen the massive scope of homelessness? It has changed--it has gotten much worse. Sooner or later, the Calcutta-like squalor will have an impact on the desirability of living and working downtown and on downtown development, so it matters. The problem cries for solutions. Until affordable housing is built, clean & safe campgrounds and shelters are needed. Until the 1940s, most cities had "car parks" where people could park their cars and camp for free or for a small fee. Until recently, most interstate highways had rest stops for overnight campers. These are being phased out in California because so many homeless with cars use them. Of course, in the 1930s there were shantytowns called "Hoovervilles". It will take some money from the government (which means taxpayers of course) plus money from charitable sources and wealthy philanthropists. Until then, the homeless will be all around us. Any of us could be homeless if we lost our money and jobs.

[pdxtex]

solving homelessness is impossible. for every person that gets treated and re ingrained back into society, somebody else will come and take their place. as cities reurbanize and small towns dry up, large successful places will be magnets for the gainful and woeful. thats just kind of how it is. if you want to physically remove that element, than your city and voters are going to have to have a uncomfortable discussion with one another. do you become a compassionate city or a stern city? city government should not be responsible for an individual's substance abuse problems however. thats far too complex and unwieldly. cities that attract vagrants from afar clearly have a reputation for easy down and out living so its up to the residents to change that image. the nail that sticks, shall be hammered down....

[mhays]

We could solve 3/4 of the insanity problem by re-establishing involuntary commitment, including for people who could theoretically take their medicines but don't.

We could solve 3/4% of the camping problem by outlawing camping. Though I wouldn't want to make sleeping in public illegal, and we have to account for the random tourist who finds no hotel available.

We could solve much of the toilet problem by having public toilets, including an attendant for the larger ones.

Public behavior could be cracked down on.

And we need to fund transitional housing. Some cities do this and some try to foist their problems off on everybody else.

[pdxtex]

im all for strong arm policy but are west coast voters? even "nice" Portlanders are getting fed up with all the b.s. around here. I think a voluntary option should be given to folks on the street. provide a task they can do with some oversight and a safe place to sleep. transitional housing is necessary and maybe some longer term commitments. urban hoarders wasted on smack are another issue and im not sure what too. but I think we can clearly admit legalizing public camping was ludicrous. street junkies are not capable of normal conduct and clearly half of the people living in tents in the nw are addicts. lots of those people probably came to our cities with their problems so can we send them back???

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by photoLith

Pittsburgh doesn't have that many, only see about 20 or so whenever you walk around downtown. Theres only one tent city and its usually only around 30 people that pops up somewhere in the city every summer. Pittsburgh has the least amount of homeless people out of any city Ive lived in. Houston had loads of homeless and New Orleans was homeless central.

I live in Santa Cruz, where its not uncommon to see 20 homeless staked out on a single block.

Both excited and sad to be moving soon.

[pdxtex]

santa carla? I mean santa cruz. any vampires around? isn't vagrancy in the town charter anyway? i can kind of understand gutter punks tramping around. thats their gig. but when they decide to stay and start trashing sh!t, then they need to go. where are you moving too?

[mrnyc]

much worse lately around nyc.

i saw the most depressing thing last friday. w28st in front of chelsea park. plenty of homeless people in the park as usual, but also about a dozen or so scattered along the sidewalk -- next to the parkside, next to the curb and in the middle of the sidewalk. all passed out. addicts. and all their stuff scattered around all over. but what really awful was along with that sight there were like three groups of schoolkids weaving around the human minefield. they were in their 'avenues' school uniforms, one of the most expensive private schools you could imagine. the wide gulf of disparity in that scene was just jaw dropping.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

It is an important topic and needs to be discussed. Besides, I didn't see the old thread still up.

There's nothing wrong with bumping up an old thread, especially if it's the exact same topic.

... Until affordable housing is built ...

The problem of homelessness has little or nothing to do with affordable housing. Here in Kansas City we've got plenty of cheap housing but you still see homeless people all over the place. The problem of homelessness is mostly about mental illness and drug/alcohol problems. Until we find a cure for mental illness and drug/alcohol addition we're going to have homeless people. If it's worse in some cities than others only means that some cities, for various reasons (largely climate) are more desirable if you happen to be homeless. Nothing anyone can do about that.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by mhays

We could solve 3/4 of the insanity problem by re-establishing involuntary commitment, including for people who could theoretically take their medicines but don't.

We could solve 3/4% of the camping problem by outlawing camping. Though I wouldn't want to make sleeping in public illegal, and we have to account for the random tourist who finds no hotel available.

We could solve much of the toilet problem by having public toilets, including an attendant for the larger ones.

Public behavior could be cracked down on.

And we need to fund transitional housing. Some cities do this and some try to foist their problems off on everybody else.

Sadly, I think you are pretty much on target with your assessment. Probably the majority of the visible homeless living in our cities (and by the way Texas has no shortage of year round homeless living in the streets, parks, and illegal camp grounds) are either mentally ill and/or hopelessly addicted to street drugs. They would not be capable of mustering the requisite social skills needed to survive in an unregulated or unsupervised housing situation. It is probably a small minority of mentally competent and non-addicted homeless who are forced to live in the streets because of a lack of affordable housing resources. Those people could probably be helped more easily were it not for the fact that homeless agencies and medical facilities are so overwhelmed providing services to the larger population of mentally ill and drug addicted. Involuntary institutionalization produces a host of problems and raises all kinds of issues regarding civil rights and civil liberties, but there is no denying that prior to the late 1960s and early 1970s (Not to burst anybody's bubble, but a visible homeless population started piling up in US cities in the late 60's after advent of modern psychiatric drugs produced court rulings that set deinstitutionalization of mental patients into motion. It was not the fault of anything done by the Reagan administration, although Reagan and Co. never tried to address the problem and cut funding for outpatient services for mentally ill), there was very little visible homeless population in most US cities. Sure every city had it's version of skid row where a fairly small population of winos and addicts congregated, but for the most part the problem that we face today in many US cities did not exist. Generally speaking, the legal criteria for involuntary commitment is whether or not the subject person is " a danger to self or others". I think it is time to revisit that criteria and come up with a legally workable solution that would allow cities to reclaim the streets for the general population.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

much worse lately around nyc.

i saw the most depressing thing last friday. w28st in front of chelsea park. plenty of homeless people in the park as usual, but also about a dozen or so scattered along the sidewalk -- next to the parkside, next to the curb and in the middle of the sidewalk. all passed out. addicts. and all their stuff scattered around all over. but what really awful was along with that sight there were like three groups of schoolkids weaving around the human minefield. they were in their 'avenues' school uniforms, one of the most expensive private schools you could imagine. the wide gulf of disparity in that scene was just jaw dropping.

Village Voice Billboard Lower East Side


So I suppose now we know the answer.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

There's nothing wrong with bumping up an old thread, especially if it's the exact same topic.


The problem of homelessness has little or nothing to do with affordable housing. Here in Kansas City we've got plenty of cheap housing but you still see homeless people all over the place.

Totally agree. Most of the people who can afford housing as long as it's fairly cheap (and aren't addicted or mentally ill) usually move out of expensive cities and go where they can afford. They can do so because they have low skill/low wage jobs of the sort that exist everywhere. The people who can't leave certain high-priced cities because their jobs don't exist elsewhere are mostly well-paid.

If it's worse in some cities than others only means that some cities, for various reasons (largely climate) are more desirable if you happen to be homeless. Nothing anyone can do about that.

Well there ARE things you can do. San Francisco is a magnet for several reasons, among them being a mild climate and tolerant people. But the City/County does offer among (if not THE) highest "General Assistance" (the sort of welfare benefit healthy single adult men can get in CA) benefits in the state and has been found to overlook people collecting benefits in more than one county such as both Alameda and San Francisco. We COULD do something about both--crack down on cheats and cut the generosity of the benefit--if there was a will to do so. There probably isn't.

[pdxtex]

do you suppose the tenancy split has anything to do with it? 65% of SF households are renters, if it were flipped and say 75% were owner occupied, don't you suppose the nimby torches would be lit and they'd be storming Frankenstein castle?? that's kind of happening in Portland. portland is half owner occupied. three neighborhood associations and the city chamber of commerce actually attempted to sue the previous mayor over his choice to lift the camping ban. and while the mayor was sailing his yacht (rly) to California to sell it, another group of citizens showed up on his front lawn to protest the giant hobo camp along one of the popular bike trails....sh!ts gone loco up here....

[ue]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Probably the weather mainly. Where else in Canada can you live outdoors year around? Certainly not Edmonton.

The US sunbelt, generally, works but much of it is politically more conservative and harsh on the homeless than the Pacific coast. In Texas, Florida, Arizona they just don't tolerate what we tolerate.

Anyway, today after posting what I posted above, I went out and, again, to a fast food joint for a large diet drink (I seem to be constantly thirsty) and a place to sit and read the Sunday paper. I was sitting at a counter and a homeless guy comes in (I have to assume he was homeless--he had a beat up wheeled suitcase bulging with his personal stuff), sets up a boom box taking up the remaining counter space, pushes past me to plug it all into the only customer-accessible outlet in sight, and begins to chill (purchasing nothing). Restaurant staff says nothing to which he might take offense, all clearly intimidated. I moved to another isolated table in the back of the store.

This sort of behavior, so common, is not that of people who simply lack a home. It is the behavior of people with a seething anger toward everyone who does have one and probably many others who don't, and a middle digit raised to the world attitude. It can easily become dangerous.

Meanwhile, have we addressed the second part of the thread title: What is being done about it? The following is a year old but not that much has changed:


http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/a...ss-6808319.php

Yes, California and British Columbia are the easiest places in their countries to be homeless, due to the mild climate. I'd assume placed like Phoenix and Las Vegas wouldn't have much homelessness not due to politics (though I'm not surprised) but due to how hot it gets in the summer, which can be unbearable, not unlike Northern winters.

Anyways, you're right, Edmonton isn't an easy place for homeless. That isn't to say we haven't had our share. A decade ago, the population was close to 3,000 and now it's around 1,700, I believe. The aggressiveness of the homeless, as previously mentioned, is also way down.

Originally Posted by giallo

Shanghai's homeless population is cute.

Vancouver's is bad considering the city its in, but the large homeless groups are contained to the downtown eastside and parts of Surrey.

LA was shocking, I'm not going to lie. It's evident that downtown is improving massively, and I'd probably want to live DT in a few years if I was ever given the opportunity to work in LA, but the social problems that plague that area are insane.

I was staying downtown, across from Pershing Square last year, and it's basically a shit show past Los Angeles St. My wife, who's from Taiwan, and has traveled to the US before (but never LA) said downtown reminded her of Manila. During the day, it's ok, but past 8pm, it's full-on down there. Thousands of mentally ill people on whatever drugs they can get their hands on. It's felt like an open-aired asylum. It's bark is clearly worse than its bite, but it's still a pretty wild scene in the day, and especially at night.

I love LA. I'm just at a loss as to what the city can do at this point. I've never seen so many homeless people before.

Yeah, like, Vancouver can be pretty bad, but Los Angeles was eye opening. There were homeless just everywhere, even in affluent areas. Just mind-boggling. I haven't been to San Francisco, but I've heard stories, and this thread seems to confirm it has similar issues as well. I didn't find Seattle to be that bad compared to Vancouver, but I may have been numbed to it by that point. Portland too. I mean, they definitely had more homeless than Edmonton, but I'm not sure if they had more than Vancouver.