Homelessness is an issue that has me baffled.

By one account... or as Fox News would say... "some say"... that the mentally ill are at least an identifiable segment of the homeless. And there are stories of the working poor who can't earn enough to get into housing. And, of course, I suppose there are just plain ol' "bums" (for lack of a better term) who "choose" not to be encumbered by the effort to conform enough to earn one's way toward housing. So, for discussion sake, let's consider these categories, mentally ill, working poor, "bums," and any others anyone wants to add, as distinct groups. There is of course overlap, but let's keep it simple to start.

So what should we as a society do about homelessness for any of these groups? Does it even make sense to distinguish different homeless groups?

Massive housing projects of the 60's failed. So that's not a good solution. Currently we have housing subsidies, I think. Do they work, to the extent that they reach people "in need?" They seem to help, particularly the elderly poor. Are those subsidies just feel-good liberalism that should be ended without regard to who ends up on the streets?

Do we do nothing and let the market resolve it?

Do we provide a mix of housing, subsidies, etc., but fund it so that fewer than all the homeless are served so there's incentive to stay out of that system? We even have a city-sanctioned homeless "camp," but it's full now too.

In the range between doing absolutely nothing and providing everyone with a nice apartment, it seems that there could be a mix of things to do.

What works, what doesn't, and what should be tried?

Homelessness is an issue that has me baffled.

By one account... or as Fox News would say... "some say"... that the mentally ill are at least an identifiable segment of the homeless. And there are stories of the working poor who can't earn enough to get into housing. And, of course, I suppose there are just plain ol' "bums" (for lack of a better term) who "choose" not to be encumbered by the effort to conform enough to earn one's way toward housing. So, for discussion sake, let's consider these categories, mentally ill, working poor, "bums," and any others anyone wants to add, as distinct groups. There is of course overlap, but let's keep it simple to start.

So what should we as a society do about homelessness for any of these groups? Does it even make sense to distinguish different homeless groups?

Massive housing projects of the 60's failed. So that's not a good solution. Currently we have housing subsidies, I think. Do they work, to the extent that they reach people "in need?" They seem to help, particularly the elderly poor. Are those subsidies just feel-good liberalism that should be ended without regard to who ends up on the streets?

Do we do nothing and let the market resolve it?

Do we provide a mix of housing, subsidies, etc., but fund it so that fewer than all the homeless are served so there's incentive to stay out of that system? We even have a city-sanctioned homeless "camp," but it's full now too.

In the range between doing absolutely nothing and providing everyone with a nice apartment, it seems that there could be a mix of things to do.

What works, what doesn't, and what should be tried?
How about this:

Make it so that any American corporation has to pay all of its employees at least the federal standard minimum wage -- regardless of what country the factory is located in. Wanna offshore. Fine, but you still have to pay your offshore workers the same wage that you'd need to pay them if they were here. Oh, and reverse the tax incentives so that it pays companies to keep the labor pool here. Wanna spin off a foriegn company just to beat the law? Fine, we'll nail you with a tarriff so high you'll wish you hadn't.

This should solve some of the unemployment issues -- to which much of the homeless problem is related to. No subsidies. No welfare. No free rides. Unless there is a labor shortage (zero unemployment across the board) you work or you get nothing. Period.

How about this:

Make it so that any American corporation has to pay all of its employees at least the federal standard minimum wage -- regardless of what country the factory is located in. Wanna offshore. Fine, but you still have to pay your offshore workers the same wage that you'd need to pay them if they were here. Oh, and reverse the tax incentives so that it pays companies to keep the labor pool here. Wanna spin off a foriegn company just to beat the law? Fine, we'll nail you with a tarriff so high you'll wish you hadn't.

This should solve some of the unemployment issues -- to which much of the homeless problem is related to. No subsidies. No welfare. No free rides. Unless there is a labor shortage (zero unemployment across the board) you work or you get nothing. Period.
What's to stop the corporation from moving to another country altogether?

Make it so that any American corporation has to pay all of its employees at least the federal standard minimum wage -- regardless of what country the factory is located in. Wanna offshore. Fine, but you still have to pay your offshore workers the same wage that you'd need to pay them if they were here. Oh, and reverse the tax incentives so that it pays companies to keep the labor pool here. Wanna spin off a foriegn company just to beat the law? Fine, we'll nail you with a tarriff so high you'll wish you hadn't.

Federal minum wage is $5.15/hour, which comes out to gross income (40hrs/week) of just over $10,000/year. Single adults can get by at that, if they room together & get full-time work. I don't see how a single parent could do it that way. I'm not sure homelessness can be beat on the back of the paltry minumum wage.

Not to mention, the free traders and the WTO would destroy the tariff part of the scheme.

I like the sentiment... full employment... but minimum wage jobs are probably how the working poor end up living in their cars.

We need another scheme, I think.

Here in Fresno, which is certainly not a wealthy area, with all the farm labor and immigrants, low income housing credits and units go unclaimed. It's bizarre. Some figures show a need for 10,000 units, yet when units or subsidies are offered they don't get filled. Doesn't make sense.

I think a big part of the problem is plain old ignorance (not necessarily stupidity, but lack of knowledge). People don't know what's available or how to get it. Some don't know how to live decently enough to remain and not get kicked out (like immigrants thinking it's ok to bbq a dog on your living room floor -- right *on* the floor -- yes, it happens).

Some have such poor credit and housing history that no one will accept them. After several evictions, who's going to rent to them, even if it's a 100% subsidized unit?

From my observations, anyone with an IQ of 80 and ability to live somewhere without destroying the unit or annoying all the other neighbors can find a place to live. That's not necessarily that low a threshold, though.

As you mention, there is a vast grey area of people's mental states between insane and competent. You can't lock them up, but they can't or won't manage on their own. I'd bet that's a fair amount of the homeless.

I never realized the cost of living in Fresno was less than Boulder. I always assumed it was similar to places like San Francisco. According to a website it's a few percent less.

Federal minum wage is $5.15/hour, which comes out to gross income (40hrs/week) of just over $10,000/year. Single adults can get by at that, if they room together & get full-time work. I don't see how a single parent could do it that way. I'm not sure homelessness can be beat on the back of the paltry minumum wage.

Someone making $10k a year would pay no taxes, and would receive over $20k of subsidies of various kinds if they would apply for them. They could receive, for example, the balance of rent money (section 8) to rent a $600 a month apartment around here, which isn't necessarily a dump. Their contribution might be only $50 a month.

One problem with minimum wages is that the higher the wage, potentially the fewer the jobs are available. Would you rather see 10 people working at $5.15 per hour, or 9 people employed at $5.72. The money has to come from somewhere, and if receipts are flat, and other expenses fixed, then people get fired if there isn't enough money. You can't necessarily pass on the cost increase -- and, worse yet, doing so may be inflationary, making everything the poor buy cost more. They what?

I never realized the cost of living in Fresno was less than Boulder. I always assumed it was similar to places like San Francisco. According to a website it's a few percent less.

Property values have gone up a lot in Fresno since the dotcom crash, with all the Bay Area people moving here and buying cheaper housing. Recently, the median price of a new home in San Jose, still cheaper than SF, was around $550k, and in Fresno under $200k. SF is way above that, and you get far less.

I got my house dirt cheap in 1998, and it's doubled in value since then. Still, the same house in Los Angeles or San Jose would be well into the millions. That's how I afford bike stuff ;-)

Someone making $10k a year would pay no taxes, and would receive over $20k of subsidies of various kinds if they would apply for them. They could receive, for example, the balance of rent money (section 8) to rent a $600 a month apartment around here, which isn't necessarily a dump. Their contribution might be only $50 a month.

My point was that I didn't see how a family could get by on $10k/yr. Low-end rents around here are commonly in the 700-800 range - if someone can meet the first/last/deposit requirement. I didn't know about the extent of available subsidies. I need to find out what section 8 coverage around here is.

We have a city-sanctioned homeless camp, and various homeless squatter sites scattered around the area... under freeway bridges, in industrial areas, etc. which suggested to me that there is a lack of low-income housing... Maybe there is already adequate support to prevent homelessness, and folks around here are just ignorant of the options. I just can't tell.

So from your example there ought not to be any working poor homelessness, at least in Fresno & areas with available low-income housing capacity. And maybe that would cover the mentally ill, too... But that raises the issue of de-institutionalization and provision of mental health services in communities.

Local housing support:

Local housing authority has 3900 units of "affordable" housing (most at below market rates, some rents based on income), 2300 units of public housing in which rents are approximately 30% of the household's monthly adjusted income, and section 8 support that assists 6400 families so they pay "to pay 30% to 70% of it's income toward the monthly rent."

So that's about 12,000 households in an area of about 1 million people. My impression is that these facilities are fully subscribed.

So at a full-time minimum wage job could do OK paying 30% AGI toward rent. A half-time minimum wage job would be tight, but maybe there's other aid like food stmaps, or is that time limited now?

So is the homelessness that is so visible here just a lifestyle choice? Or are more housing units/housing support needed? Or is a certain amount of homelessness in the US just fine?

From my observations, anyone with an IQ of 80 and ability to live somewhere without destroying the unit or annoying all the other neighbors can find a place to live. That's not necessarily that low a threshold, though.

As you mention, there is a vast grey area of people's mental states between insane and competent. You can't lock them up, but they can't or won't manage on their own. I'd bet that's a fair amount of the homeless.

I work in this field, and have observed there is plenty of housing for women and women with children (guys gotta sleep down at the shelter).'

If someone is REALLY homeless, they either-

a) spent their rent money elsewhere for several months and received a UD (if they were receiving a subsidy)- keeping in mind their portion of rent was maybe a third of the total cost- and 100% of THAT was coming from the gov in one form or another... meaning they did not have to work for it.

b) drugs- meth lab in the apt... selling crack in public housing, etc...

c) boyfriend gone crazy- too many domestics or boyfriend doing the drug thing (see number 2 above)

d) fraud (this one is really common- and it really annoys the housing people)- usually sub-letting their free apt for money on the side... of letting your sister and her six kids move in to the two BR apt... you get the idea.

I work in this field, and have observed there is plenty of housing for women and women with children (guys gotta sleep down at the shelter).'

If someone is REALLY homeless, they either-

a) spent their rent money elsewhere for several months and received a UD (if they were receiving a subsidy)- keeping in mind their portion of rent was maybe a third of the total cost- and 100% of THAT was coming from the gov in one form or another... meaning they did not have to work for it.

b) drugs- meth lab in the apt... selling crack in public housing, etc...

c) boyfriend gone crazy- too many domestics or boyfriend doing the drug thing (see number 2 above)

d) fraud (this one is really common- and it really annoys the housing people)- usually sub-letting their free apt for money on the side... of letting your sister and her six kids move in to the two BR apt... you get the idea.

Thanks for the summary. It sounds like the resources are in place to prevent homelessness for those who aren't drug-involved, criminal or profoundly irresponsible (probably drugs or crime in there somewhere). Is that right?

And as for the men... is it drugs, crime that keeps them out of housing too?

Although I advocate corporate responsibility, you seem to imply that people are homeless because of corporations. What will your policies do to help the mentally ill or the urban campers?

Sorry, hard to resist.

I interviewed at Fresno State around the time you bought your home, and was amazed at the housing prices. It was like the 90's never happened. It was one of the few places in CA that I could work and afford a home, and with the mountains so close I would have liked being there. Of course budget cuts led to the job turning from tenure track to 1 year contract, so I went elsewhere, and I am pretty happy with how things worked out.

I am actually suprised that people are fleeing to Fresno, and that it has had that much of an effect on the market. I had not heard that, and NEVER would have predicted it.

I've come to believe that the situation has no absolute solution. We will always have a certain amount of abject poverty no matter how many well meaning programs are established. For most, the problem doesn't appear to be a monetary issue, but rather an issue of personal responsibility.

Sorry, hard to resist.

I interviewed at Fresno State around the time you bought your home, and was amazed at the housing prices. It was like the 90's never happened. It was one of the few places in CA that I could work and afford a home, and with the mountains so close I would have liked being there. Of course budget cuts led to the job turning from tenure track to 1 year contract, so I went elsewhere, and I am pretty happy with how things worked out.

I am actually suprised that people are fleeing to Fresno, and that it has had that much of an effect on the market. I had not heard that, and NEVER would have predicted it.
So if it's in such a desirable location, why is the cost of living so low compared to places like San Fran? Is there a lot of crime? Too far away from corporations and industries to compete?

3 months of 100+ degree temps, high crime (often on the list of most car thefts, for example), far from the coast, relatively little in the way of food/nightlife compared to other places, stagnant economy for a long time (boom on the coast, but not central valley), close to the mountains, but not IN them.

I am sure Doug can give a lot more info on it.

Then again, sane people aren't obsessed with Celeste Blue, don't add a 105 gruppo reference to their callsign, and don't change a shyte-hot/wicked cool avatar FROM Bruce Lee.

My $.00000000000002 (spoken/written like the infantile San Diego snob that I am).
Scott

Then again, sane people aren't obsessed with Celeste Blue, don't add a 105 gruppo reference to their callsign, and don't change a shyte-hot/wicked cool avatar FROM Bruce Lee.

My $.00000000000002 (spoken/written like the infantile San Diego snob that I am).
Scott
OK...you got Bruce back.

Then again, sane people aren't obsessed with Celeste Blue, don't add a 105 gruppo reference to their callsign, and don't change a shyte-hot/wicked cool avatar FROM Bruce Lee.

My $.00000000000002 (spoken/written like the infantile San Diego snob that I am).
Scott


they dont fly 40 year old dc-9 taxis either.

As a cold hearted conservative I tend to think that many of the homeless are such because they choose to be. At work I come into contact with a large amount of homelss people. Some are in those situations due to mental disorders, most are there from alcohol or drug dependence.

When I've contacted these people they are pretty upfront with the fact that they like being independant and if that means being on the streets, so be it. Many don't go to shelters because the shelters have rules which many find conflicting with their lifestyles.

There are plenty of homelss services (at least in this area) that are designed to help these people back on their feet and into the work force, unfortunitly many decide not to participate. About the only service I've seen that almost all use is the mail services which is where they receive their goverment checks.

.....

Evidently, there are people who can't or won't live within our society's approved set of lifestyles. What to do?

Even if their plight is 100% the result of their own choices, when the only option is urban homelessness it becomes a community issue. Residents and business and property owners in urban neighborhoods are forced to deal with trespassing, sanitation and safety issues. Cities are forced to pay for policing and cleaning up after transients.

As a matter or pure practicality I think it is necessary to carve out a niche for people who don't want to work, don't want to take their meds (or want to take meds they shouldn't) or just live outside of the system. The goal would be to provide an outlet that maintained a minimum of public health and safety. This may mean "facilitating" behaviors and lifestyles that we don't approve of in exchange for cooperation. But attempts to guide them into the mainstream have failed (though not as dismally as finger-wagging and back-turning).

Thanks for the summary. It sounds like the resources are in place to prevent homelessness for those who aren't drug-involved, criminal or profoundly irresponsible (probably drugs or crime in there somewhere). Is that right?

And as for the men... is it drugs, crime that keeps them out of housing too?

For men, usually. Culturally, we usually do not look at men as "victims" of homelessness. Men are not considered as vulnerable as women/children- so they can handle living in a barracks style shelter. The county will even put up families with children in hotels from time to time- but single men without a disability of any kind are simply SOL. If they have a disability, and sorry, but CD issues do not count, there are usually alternative resources available (ranging from group homes to a hotel room)... the disability usually makes them vulnerable by definition, hence the extra services.

Something else to consider- most people have to burn an incredible number of bridges, or have shat on so many friends and relatives to not have any couches to crash on. These are usually not nice people... or they are incredibly stupid: they relocated across the country without a pot to piss in- no money saved, no job, no connections, no housing set up... it is doubly stupid if they dragged kids along.

3 months of 100+ degree temps, high crime (often on the list of most car thefts, for example), far from the coast, relatively little in the way of food/nightlife compared to other places, stagnant economy for a long time (boom on the coast, but not central valley), close to the mountains, but not IN them.

I am sure Doug can give a lot more info on it.

No, Fresno is no San Diego, Santa Barbara, or San Francisco. Lots of wusses want to live there because they can't handle the heat. So, demand goes up there, and there ain't no more land. Prices skyrocket when that happens.

Fresno has tons of land, and since it's fairly fungible (all the same), prices are pretty low. We lose a little ag land every time a new subdivision goes in, but there is still miles and miles of unimproved land, so no real loss. Things just move a little. When the supply is that great, in rapidly increasing demand doesn't affect it much.

The Bay Area had a somewhat artificial and temporary swell in demand in the 90's due to the computer hardware/software boom. That exaggerated prices there, ridiculously, since lots of people moved there. At the same time, it actually depressed prices here (people moved, so demand lessened). Some smart people bought at the trough of the depressed market here ;-) Now, the tide has turned, and without jobs, people cannot afford to live in the Bay Area, so they move here; however, the supply is still nowhere near it's limits here, so prices aren't quite tracking the increased demand. It's still cheap.

From Fresno, I can be on the coast in about 2 hours, or in the mountains in 30 minutes. San Francisco is 3 hours, and LA is 3 1/2 hours. I can leave from home and ride my bike to 9,200 feet elevation and back in one day (have done so many times) (Fresno is 390 feet elevation). This City is about 410,000 people, plus some additional suburbs and towns closeby. The county is about a million people.

The town itself is flat and featureless. It's pretty boring, almost like a large, small town. However, it has a decent college and sports programs, an opera and symphony, a very nice zoo, nice parks, and some areas have really good schools. But, again, other attractions are reasonably close, like Yosemite National Park, only 60 miles away.

The weather is very hot in the summer. I think the average high must be close to 100. That's with about 15% humidity, and about 65 degrees at night. It almost never rains from May to October, and most days the sky is cloudless. I can go on a bike ride nearly every day of the year and not be interfered by weather. The winters can be foggy and in the 40's, but rarely freezing. Never snows any measureable amount, yet you can find snow 45 minutes away in the mountains all winter, with ski slopes about an hour away.

I just love being able to take off on my bike and ride into the mountains from home. I live at he northeast edge of town, so I don't even have but a couple of stop signs before I'm on open road. I can ride up into the cool, clean air of the mountain pine trees in the morning before it even gets warm in the valley. On the return, it's hot, but mostly down hill, too (which is not quite the same pleasure on a fixed gear).

The economy is largely ag based, so it's very stable. As long as there is snow in winter in the mountains, the ag business is good. There is other industry, like oil production, manufacturing, etc., in the valley, but all seem to be fairly stable, unlike high tech industry or tourism.

I feel like it's a great place to live, but I really don't care if other people don't know it. Just as soon keep the demand and prices down.

Oh, I despise big city traffic. I'd die of a stroke if I had to put up with LA or SF traffic very often, much less every day. I enjoy a 10 minute, at most, pleasant drive to work, being able to pop home for lunch to see the kids. You couln't pay me enough to live in one of the big coastal cities, despite the cooler weather and things to do.

The "solution" has been to patrol nice parts of cities, driving the homeless and derelict into areas that have long since vanished from the police patrol. Subtle efforts, like installing arm rests for each slot on a bench, have shifted the homeless to other parts.

I'm sounding sort of like a liberal here, but I agree with your stance on the issue.

Evidently, there are people who can't or won't live within our society's approved set of lifestyles. What to do?

Even if their plight is 100% the result of their own choices, when the only option is urban homelessness it becomes a community issue. Residents and business and property owners in urban neighborhoods are forced to deal with trespassing, sanitation and safety issues. Cities are forced to pay for policing and cleaning up after transients.

As a matter or pure practicality I think it is necessary to carve out a niche for people who don't want to work, don't want to take their meds (or want to take meds they shouldn't) or just live outside of the system. The goal would be to provide an outlet that maintained a minimum of public health and safety. This may mean "facilitating" behaviors and lifestyles that we don't approve of in exchange for cooperation. But attempts to guide them into the mainstream have failed (though not as dismally as finger-wagging and back-turning).

Come up what a workable solution and you'll probably win a Nobel prize. Assuming you aren't going to force people to do something they don't want to do, any solution requires their cooperation. I think that's a big impediment. Maybe there are enticements we could offer, but I'd guess most people would not approve of what it would take.

Most people do not approve of the current situation either.

Obviously, it will require compromises. And frankly, I think that social puritanism and plain old mean-spiritedness are a bigger impediment to developing more workable solutions than un-cooperative homeless.

Most people do not approve of the current situation either.

Obviously, it will require compromises. And frankly, I think that social puritanism and plain old mean-spiritedness are a bigger impediment to developing more workable solutions than un-cooperative homeless.

So, propose something. Maybe the biggest impediment is lack of workable ideas.

When programs like needle exchanges, free condoms, rational drug laws, support for single mothers etc. are routinely resisted because they promote "bad" behaviors its clear to me what the impediments are. There is a large segment of our population that would rather see people blighted by illness and poverty than see them live a lifestyle that they do not approve of.

What's to stop the corporation from moving to another country altogether?
Nothing at all, I guess. But then again, what's stopping them now?

Federal minum wage is $5.15/hour, which comes out to gross income (40hrs/week) of just over $10,000/year. Single adults can get by at that, if they room together & get full-time work. I don't see how a single parent could do it that way. I'm not sure homelessness can be beat on the back of the paltry minumum wage.
I think a pretty large dent can be made. Single parent, low-income families are a bad thing. Purely from an economic prespective -- I have no moral issues with it -- it's not good. There's no easy solution. I think education plays a significant role.


Not to mention, the free traders and the WTO would destroy the tariff part of the scheme.
I'd rather destroy the WTO and free traders. Free trade is another bad idea.


I like the sentiment... full employment... but minimum wage jobs are probably how the working poor end up living in their cars.

We need another scheme, I think.
I think my idea has long term benefits outside the narrow scope of homelessness. Obviously, it would only work as part of a larger, grander plan.

still waiting

I believe that all of these programs would reduce the number of people who simply give up on society. The would also reduce the impact of the problems they address on the rest of us.

Although I advocate corporate responsibility, you seem to imply that people are homeless because of corporations. What will your policies do to help the mentally ill or the urban campers?
While I don't mean to imply that at all, I think that most corporations could care less about it.

Case in point: I recently opened a new branch office for my corporation. The location was selected for many reasons, one of which included availability of cheap, skilled labor (about $9/hr). The area is depressed. Many factory closings due to off-shoring has put a lot of the population there out of work. It has almost devestated the local economy. A big problem is that the unemployment stats are starting to look better when they're not -- some of these people have been out of work so long that they're no longer on the books. It's a sad situation. I could have used any vendors I wanted to but opted in all but one case (there was no alternative) to use local vendors even when doing so was more expensive. I did this because it was the right thing to do. It helped the local economy which is good for business. 99.99% of the corporations out there wouldn't do what I did. They're too short-sighted, bottom line oriented and greedy.

Social services would probably improve for the mentally ill and those truly unable to provide for themselves. With more people working, the tax base increases. Services, and their budgets, would remain in place. And, I think that if unemployment was much closer to zero the population on a whole would be much more supportive of those who were unable to care for themselves.

I believe that all of these programs would reduce the number of people who simply give up on society. The would also reduce the impact of the problems they address on the rest of us.

So, "needle exchanges, free condoms, rational drug laws, support for single mothers" are programs to solve the homeless problem? Ok.

. . .to read the post you are responding to.

http://www.melvilletrust.org/

This should lead you some information and links from people trying do something about homelessness. What are they doing that works? Can those programs be expanded?

I have not looked into it, but came across this and thought people might like to poke around a bit.