What is your solution to the growing homeless problem?

What is your take on the problem? Are there homeless where you live? How is the situation being handled over there? Do tell.

Build houses.

3-D printed houses.

@mattbbpl: Wish it was that easy. Lumber prices are high, finding the right land that suits the city, building temp. houses, blah blah blah. There is the issue of time.

@warmblur: Thanks, warmblur.

Bring manufacturing back to America and close off the borders to illegal immigration.

Manufacturing and production brought back would provide more jobs and assist in ensuring that whatever is being produced here wouldn't be a supply chain concern any longer. I'd recommend processors and various other computer parts given that China will more than likely take over Taiwan and cut off western cultures from much needed parts entirely.

Then we need to end the current administration's never ending handouts. It's made Americans lazy, entitled and weak. Once they have to get back to work in order to make a living, jobs can be filled.

I bring illegal immigration into the fold of this topic because if we can't even help our own, we can't help others with any form of efficiency. Let's fix us first, then help others. Having people flood in doesn't help anything. There's basically no border at the south with the current administration.

@Telekill: Many of those jobs are automated now.

@LJS9502_basic: It still needs to be brought back to America regardless.

Californian here. There is no solution with Democrats in charge. The bum/junkie problem isn't going to get better.

@DEVILinIRON: It kind of is that easy. Or, at least, that's the first step, and it's a big one. That brings prices down.

I'd like to go the Singapore route in an ideal world, but that's mostly because it's a cost effective way of increasing supply and getting people in that supply. That would be 70 percent of the battle.

I love the canned "throw more money at it" responses. Yeah, let's throw trillions more at another war on poverty, because the last one worked so well. Meanwhile the taxes to fund it raise the living costs, pushing more people over that limit into poverty. Smart. Besides, this is largely a California problem and they proved last week that they're okay with the status quo.

Eat the rich and turn their mansions into shelters.

Just when I thought the responses couldn't get more ridiculous....

round them up and deport them.

dirty leeches

But the war on poverty was wildly successful!

I've been asking because of the town I live in. There are many campers and RVs, along with people who have tents or nothing at all. But I can tell you that the overwhelming majority is white. There aren't really very many Mexicans where I live.

@eoten: Californians are leaving, so it is becoming a problem with other states. I live in Washington and there are many Californians looking for a place to stay. Typically the ones I've encountered have money.

In sweden around 34 thousand are homeless. How to solve it?

In short.

End the suburban experiment.

Longer list

• Universal ban on single family zoning
• Phase out the car. Cars will never truly go away, and I wouldn't suggest banning them. But incentivize public transportation, bike and walking. This should result in a much lower need for parking lots, parking spaces in shopping areas, and open up more room for either public amenities or more residential spaces. Build a dozen extra apartment blocks. Open the city back up to pedestrians, treat cars as guests, rather than make htem the priority.
• Super Blocks (see Barcelona) can be built to provide high density residential areas as well as commercial areas. While taking up very little space. relatively speaking. Have been demonstrated

Ultimately what needs to be done is smarter urban design, rather than individual policies. And quite frankly, we are doubling down on our biggest mistakes. Gavin Newsom did at least move in the right direction, but I dont think it is enough, at least for now. While it is tempting to simply say... build more houses, this does not adress the issue in that building cities and suburbs in a way that they have to spend more than an hour to get to and from work is a very bad idea.

Many of the things I listed, have a multitude of benefits, beyond merely more living space. As it will result in less expenditures (much less energy needed for heating for one, especially given how cold sweden can be during winters), more exercise, more socialization and reduced atomization.

People are saying build them housing. Don't we already have something along those lines when it comes to government housing? The issue goes well beyond mere housing. You put them in housing and the problem is fixed? Surely no one would expect them to be held responsible for such housing because as you put it, more money will be thrown at it. Their lack of hosing is just one of the symptoms of the bigger issue(s).

It's a problem neither party can solve.

There is no incentive for political parties nor corporations to address the issue. The people making up the society has to decide it's worth addressing. Same for healthcare.

Housing is only one part of the issue. Sexual abuse, drug and alcohol addiction, various other mental issues...these things need to be addressed as well not just housing.

@Maroxad: Building more houses (housing) doesn't mean add to sprawl. Build more housing is a flexible statement.

Increase housing and provide better social services that combat addiction and mental health. A large portion of homeless people are ill in some way, and not some 'lazy' cohort of socialists that republicans want you to believe.

We need poverty bounties. Offer cash rewards for normal citizens rounding up the homeless!

...you came in and remedied the issue.

Of course, I assume your solution on how to build more houses would also mean building houses in a more compact way, rather than a sprawling one. But I have seen people (most notably NIMBYs), try to argue that the solution is more sprawl. Forgetting the very real limits of transporation time and other logistical nightmares.

Sweden has a lot of NIMBYs, at least where I live.

@mattbbpl: How are they going to afford them?

Don't worry, after a few years of all those Californians influencing elections across your state, voting for the same crap that created the problems they're fleeing, you'll have a massive homeless problem too, and then they'll leave to find a new state.

No response for solving the homeless issue is to attack and cannibalize the people actually creating jobs. That's exactly how you create a bigger poverty issue. Show me anywhere in the world where the government "ate the rich" and seized their property that actually turned out to be anything but catastrophic for the people.

@thenation: Afford what, the housing?

@eoten

No, they proved the arent by rejecting that lunatic Elder.

No response for solving the homeless issue is to attack and cannibalize the people actually creating jobs.

Nobody is cannibalizing the rich. You really think the rich care about you?

That's exactly how you create a bigger poverty issue.

Well since nobody is doing that and the issue is raising taxes on the rich and thats it. Stop gatekeeping for those who hate you.

Show me anywhere in the world where the government "ate the rich" and seized their property that actually turned out to be anything but catastrophic for the people.

Don't have to because nobody here is doing that. You are fearmongering to make it look like somebody is.

Make better policies dealing with mental health. Also, deflate home prices.

Buying hotels and turning then into cheap apartments is good, rent caps and spreading housing out do its not so condensed. That and nimby can gtfo

Just brainstorming, but I think we have the infrastructure to help a lot of people, we just need to become more active in doing so. I'm a big believer in turning non-existent tax sources into existent ones or whatever, so let's turn these homeless folks into revenue. welfare and social programs.

*waits for declarations of "Communist!" and "socialist!" to die down*

• Many homeless suffer from mental health issues, so for starters I'd say providing free and/or affordable mental healthcare is a good start. Incentivize that any shrink that works with homeless people get's, I don't know, a tax rebate worth 1.5x their standard rate or something. Just brainstorming here.
• Medicate the people that need medication. Generally I'm not in favor of just throwing pills at all our emotional problems, but a lot of homeless people have severe problems that frankly only medication can fix (schizophrenia, severe PTSD, depression, etc.).
• Any residential building that is empty (looking at you, LA!) for more than X amount of months is open to homeless people. Buildings owners will be compensated for their trouble (including damages), and there will be a filter to who can live in the building; single mothers, children, etc get priority then people who are actively looking for work, etc.
• Enforcement. Make sure people are seeing their shrinks, taking their pills, and so on. Not saying we need to get cops rounding them up and forcing pills down their throat, but maybe establish a new agency to encourage this.
• Create more public works and employ these people. Not anything crazy, but if you want shelter and food and a bit of money, then you have to work 20 hours/week cleaning the roads, helping your fellow homeless people, etc..

Again, I think the biggest issue is mental health. We had homeless people before Reagan, don't get me wrong, but we didn't have a crisis like we do now until after Reagan essentially cancelled all public welfare and shut down state hospitals and such.

Also, and this is just a personal theory of mine, but I feel a lot of these people are just a certain segment of society that prefers the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. They don't want to work, they don't want to live inside a building...they just want to roam around and "forage" what they can. I don't know what we can do about these types. Maybe train them in survival and send them all to Alaska? :P

Cheaper to pay for their living space than having them on the street I believe.

@eoten: Do you have a solution that increases the supply of housing, without using money?

And there you go asking a pre loaded question on the premise that the solution MUST include them being supplied with housing. This is why you people keep electing the same dipshits like Newsome as the problem just continues to snowball, you can't even comprehend the existence of a solution that doesn't include government taking large sums of money from one group and throwing it at either another group or another destined-to-fail community project.

You failed to understand what he said. Typical.

• Homeless people can stop migrating to some of the worst places to develop.
• Stop giving homeless people money.
• Investigate some of the corrupt relief programs. For example NYC taxpayers spend $4000 per month per homeless person so they can live in a place like this:

Has nothing to do with the fact that Cuomo knows the dude who runs the charity and donated handsomely to his campaign /s

@vl4d_l3nin said:

• Homeless people can stop migrating to some of the worst places to develop.
• Stop giving homeless people money.
• Investigate some of the corrupt relief programs. For example NYC taxpayers spend $4000 per month per homeless person so they can live in a place like this:

Has nothing to do with the fact that Cuomo knows the dude who runs the charity and donated handsomely to his campaign /s

$4,000 a month for that? Where does the rest of it go?

Nope, I understood it perfectly clear. You people have a one track mind with an EXTREMELY narrow scope of reality that prevents you from realizing your ridiculous policies of eat the rich and throw money at every problem is exactly why states like California are so bad off with these problems. If you cannot even comprehend for a moment that spending or taxing isn't the solution to every problem, then there's no sense wasting my breath.

You answered entirely wrong. So I doubt you understood. If you did then you just trolled him.

Delude yourself all you want, but people like you who choose to be ignorant of reality just so you can say "more taxes" whenever a problem exists and pretend you're helping the situation are why the mess has gotten out of hand. California spends one of the highest per capita on welfare spending, and has one of the highest per capita of homeless population. Clearly it's not an issue you can throw money at, now is it?

@LJS9502_basic: @eoten: Relax guys, I wasn't trying to start a fight. Though I do admit it was an intentionally loaded question. Sorry.

I said we need more houses, I don't care who builds them. Lack of affordable housing isn't the only cause of homelessness in California, but it is a big factor. Something I think Eoten and I can probably agree on is we need to pair down our zoning laws, allowing more homes to be built on smaller plots. A lot of the richer areas in the Bay Area require each plot be at least an acre in an effort keep property values high. That's nuts.

**** YES!

It's really common in CA right now to see a proposal for multi unit luxury housing, and someone who is supposedly a YIMBY bats it down, saying, "it's not affordable housing!"

And I just think:

"SO WHAT?!"

Build more luxury housing and the downscale properties drop in price because there are fewer people fighting over them. And those that remain are less affluent, meaning they have a lower housing budget.

Would it be better if the housing being built was affordable? Sure, probably. But CA needs housing period, and we shouldn't be turning down more units because they're not of our preferred type. Not when there's a housing shortage

Zoning Laws is probably the biggest issue right now facing housing. Intelligent housing plans are illegal, due to a lot of dumb regulations. Which arguably are rooted in racism, after racial discrimination in housing was illegal after 1968, they found race neutral ways to bar minorities from living in the suburbs.

And I am not sure they are what people want either. Old Suburbs, tend to sell for a lot more than modern suburbs do, and that is because they were built before a lot a lot of these regulations were put in place. I think we could find a lot of bipartisan support on this too.

The left from my knowledge, HATES modern suburbia, calls it a wasteland. And the Right hates regulation and government intervention. So maybe we might just be able to find common ground here :)

So we should pass legislation to do what? Force people to live in small town houses? Duplexes? Maybe apartments? It doesn't matter how many houses you have, homeless people tend to not be able to afford any of them, even the shoebox apartments. The first thing you need to do is understand some of them cannot be helped, and many more won't allow people to help them. Many more have reached a point of normalcy where they feel they're just fine where they are in life. California is also one of the highest states in welfare funding. Help is available to those who actually want it. They're not homeless because aid doesn't exist.

Drugs are and alcohol are a HUGE part of it. Mental health is in there as well. These are not issues you can fix with housing, or throwing money at them. But, with many resources to aid them, why should they bother? They get fed for free at homeless shelters and soup kitchens. They're comfortable living in a tent. They earn $15-$30 a day in north CA on average which is more than enough to fuel their other habits. What incentive do they have for finding honest work for the privilege of having to spend it all on food and shelter?