Democrats can't solve the issue of Homelessness

Post Reply New Topic

Maybe we should be looking for new solutions and experimentations rather than a one-size fits all solution to homelessness and the housing crisis. The Democrats are not willing to experiment and try new things, maybe we should HUD funds to states to find their own solutions to the problems. Portland, San Francisco, LA, and Seattle, even Austin, are getting worse every day.

I know the feeling. It's either be rich or be homeless in those places.

Exactly, they should be embarrassed of the wealth inequality in big liberal cities.

But increasing taxes just chases away the big earners who pay most of the city's services anyways, leaving behind a smaller pool of people to tax, and more homeless to take care of.

Neither can the republicans as far as I know.

It's fundamentally a mistake to make this a "liberal" or a "Democrat" thing. The issue is NIMBYs, who cut across political lines. Of course, in cities they're going to be disproportionately Democrat - every city is disproportionately Democrat.

Phil Hardberger, who the video credits for the second idea, is a Democrat. And the woman in the second case study is photographed with Beto O'Rourke. There are many Democrats who recognise the problem and want to reform zoning laws accordingly.

Ironically your proposal to withhold HUD funds from certain states (while one I could theoretically support, although I suspect it is unconstitutional) seems to go against the point of Reason's video, which is that the government needs to "do" less, especially when it comes to regulating construction.

I don't want to withhold HUD funds, I want to let states use it how they deem fit to find their own solutions to the homeless problem. I think that would invite more experimentation which is what I'd like to see happen.

I think Phil sounds more like a conservative democrat. I wanted to title this thread "progressives can't solve the issue of homelessness" but a lot of people who post on here are not from the United States and don't know what that is.

It is definitely a Democrat problem, most of whom are progressive, in urban areas such as the LA, Seattle, San Francisco, and Portland metropolitans. There is plenty of land to build on around these metropolitans but they have strict urban growth boundaries that don't allow for it. Washington, California, and Oregon is mostly empty, but progressives don't want to increase the size of the suburbs because it's not "environmentally-friendly." Homelessness has been an issue in these big cities for the past 40+ decades and yet it has never been fixed.

I think they don't want to fix this issue. For political reasons.

OK, I think reducing some restrictions on how states or cities spend their HUD funds could work.

Progressives are not something which only exist in the US - in fact most other democratic countries have richer political landscapes than the US.

Suburbs shouldn't be growing hugely, they're a disaster that require huge government subsidies to maintain and led to sedentary, car-dependant lifestyles. As the video says, we should be focusing on dense, walkable, mixed-use communities and LOTS of housing. Building houses in the middle of nowhere where everyone needs to own a car does much less to solve homelessness than building a tower block of flats above a cafe or convenience shop. Build up, not out.

Let me tell you, from living in the south of England, that conservatives are no less NIMBY than progressives. In fact unless someone is explicitly YIMBY then you can't be sure they won't be a NIMBY. There is no non-YIMBY political ideology that is immune to NIMBYism.

Its because Democrats aren't real communists, a lot of it is just about the rich and wealthy. Silicon valley, big tech etc is what California is, they don't care about the plebs. Large corporations sending loads of money to both the left and right wings.

Maybe suburbs are a disaster in south of England, but they've been a huge success in the US. They're just as productive as the urban core (big cities), if not more. Silicon valley is entirely suburban with the exception of San Jose, which itself grew out of a suburb. It is in the suburbs where many corporate parks reside home to many fortune 500 companies, from Boeing to Nike. Even many large corporations who are based in the big cities have staff that mostly work in the suburbs.

This "progressive" idea of only promoting development focused on dense walkable neighborhoods is driving up the cost of living by creating an artificial boundary around metropolitans and not allowing for expansion beyond it. The problem isn't building up in the urban areas, it's this "progressive" mindset that you can't "build out."

It is not about "building out in the middle of nowhere," it is about building new suburbs beyond and creating new metropolitans along highway systems and letting them expand as the population grows.

This is a natural consequence of Capitalism. Also, San Jose did not grow out of a suburb, it was a farming town dozens of miles away from Stanford; I can remember when there were still orchards there in the very late 20th century, not much more than twenty years ago.

Oh I didn't know that, my dad grew up there when it was more of a suburb. I think a lot of suburbs got their start as farm towns.

My point is that silicon valley has been mostly a suburban success.

This is more of a High/Low income issue than a Left/Right political issue.  People (like me) who have struggled to achieve financial independence do not want to live near lower-income people, especially homeless people.  The reasons are varied, but many come down to a deep-seated distrust of drug users, parolees, and the mentally unstable.  We would like to enjoy life in our homes, yards, and neighborhoods without fear of being robbed, assaulted, or even killed by some deranged or desperate person looking for spare change or cheap thrills.

(FYI: I was homeless for about 17 months due to trusting the wrong people, including my now ex-wife, so I personally know the kinds of people I am posting about.)

Then there is also the general idea that lower-income people also tend to have little or no formal education after high school.  I know this is crass snobbery on my part, but I would rather have an intelligent conversation over the back fence with someone who understands the issues that face all of us than to yell at some homeless, drug-using schizophrenic to stop crapping on my lawn, pull his trousers up, and get the hell away from my home.

In my opinion, while not all homeless people are dangerous, the general homeless population poses a threat to the health, safety, and security of the rest of the population.

That said, however, I have contributed to homeless shelters and similar services on many occasions.

Actually, American suburbs are the worst in the world - far worse than anything in the UK, and only really comparable to Canada. In this country, suburbs are the outer fringes of cities, but in the US they’re practically cities in their own right, just without the things that make cities good.

Dense communities generate much more economic output for much less public spending.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI

I mean, don’t you see the contradiction here? You’re criticising “progressive cities” for their high rates of homelessness… then turning around and praising them as huge successes. San Francisco, San Jose, Fremont, Oakland - they’re all part of the same urban sprawl. It’s legal to build out, but zoning makes it impossible to build up. It’s literally illegal to build a productive community in the Bay Area.

Los Angeles metro area has a population density of 552 per square mile. For comparison, metro Paris is 1,800. If Los Angeles was as dense as Paris, it would be home to three times as many people, or take up a third as much space. Those sprawling suburbs are actively contributing to homelessness because of the opportunity cost.

And this is just the social and economic consequences of suburbs. California is in a never ending drought. Suburban houses with big lawns and outdoor swimming pools require much more water per resident than apartment buildings. It isn’t radical leftism to say that it is unsustainable.

It's also silly to blame West Coast governments for large amounts of homelessness when the homeless populations all along the West Coast are from all over the country. Homeless people migrate West until they reach places they can survive the Winter outdoors vs. freeze to death. Same thing here in Canada - we have a high homeless population here in BC, but they're not all locals. People come here because of our survivable Winters.

everybody is dancing around exactly what to do to help the homeless not be homeless, but some righties in seattle [who produced a tv agitprop thing called "seattle is dying"] proposed concentration camps for them on some island on a lake south of seattle.

People are homeless because they have no homes.  Provide (affordable) homes, and they will not be homeless anymore.

When I was homeless, I was willing to settle for a room at the YMCA, except they were full up.  48 to 50 square feet floor space with a bathroom down the hall would have been great.  All I needed was a safe, secure place to sleep, store my clothes, send and receive mail, and maybe make/take a few phone calls.  Nothing elaborate, and certainly no palace.

Something similar is being tried, but the usual political NIMBY-ites want no part of it (and I do not blame them).  Wherever the homeless are, there you will find drugs, prostitution, and other criminal activity.  You will also find people with mental problems who have little or no access to proper medical care.

Shall we house the homeless near schools?  How about parks and playgrounds?  Old office buildings near newer office buildings?  Unused hotel/motel rooms?  Anywhere they are housed poses risks (real or imagined) to the people who pay to live and work nearby.

The "Homeless Issue" is multi-faceted, and cannot easily be solved.