How can cities end homelessness? 

Fuck, what happened after that? Did you talk to him about it?

@Inspect Her Gadget OP please don’t mention it to your coworker, they’re more embarrassed than you were

@@heatherswanson1664 I meant in the sense of perhaps offering a little help.

Squidward is that you?

The narrative of being a failure in America should be change, people sometimes could be in need beyond their efforts to succeed in life, you never know sometimes you could be high and other times just fall into the same situation and middle class in America are living to the edge of poverty every day paycheck to paycheck unable to afford a medical emergency just instead criticize others for their unfortunate situation be grateful with God and try to help a least in small way

Wait till you're middle aged, and your parents pass away. You'll find out how expensive it is to stay in a "cheap" motel.

@@ThatsMrPencilneck2U like I said I lived in my car. I couldn't even afford a motel lol. It was just me and my old station wagon. That was back in my mid 20s.

@@Wolf_Mama That was when you were young, and relatively strong. Your joints were wearing out in your 20's, or that "chronic pain" from an injury? Injury is likely. I was boarded out of the Army, when I was 21, after fracturing my legs. Good times! No sarcasm here!

@@ThatsMrPencilneck2U I was born with Sickle Cell Disease, a genetic blood disorder that causes chronic pain and degeneration of the joints, heart attacks, stroke, and other things. But I'm not trying to say your struggles are greater or mine are; I'm saying neither of us should have had to deal with it.

I hope everything is going well for you currently. Thank you for sharing your experience here with us. It's is truly helpful and informative go learn from someone who has gone through such an ordeal.

No wonder homelessness is a problem in Ireland. Our government spent over a million euro on a printer for the Dáil!

@@Daniel-vj9oq they're honestly clowns they've never done anything for us hopefully with what is happening with Leo means fine gael can go

Wait isn't it 3 parties that are in power right now? (I apologise if I'm wrong)

Trump says get three or four jobs

@@NicholasLittlejohn here we go I'm independent and I know everything bad didn't start with Trump

Move somewhere where rent matches one's productivity?

@@michaelgray1803 Completely fair, its capitalisms fault.

Then you move to an area that is more affordable. It is amazing how many people do not want to travel over 30 minutes for work. I have at various times traveled 90 minutes. There are options such as cutting out expenses. The average person that goes to Starbucks spends $5 or more per trip. How many times a week?

Please explain how you became homeless in the first place? In hindsight, what initially led you to use? From your POV, how could have this been prevented? Thanks in advance for the honesty.

​@@shotelco Well, that is a complicated issue that I will try to sum up... I had a long issue with substance abuse beginning in my early teens. Throughout my 20s I used different substances addictively but was able to hold down a job and start a family; wife and two kids. By about 30 years old I could no longer continue to balance life and drug abuse and drugs took over completely. I lost jobs and destroyed all of the relationships in my life. No longer able to pay for housing and no longer welcomed at any friends or family's homes, I hit the streets and my drug use increased and life continued to go down hill for about 15 months. I finally had enough of it and someone helped me get into a county founded treatment center. I lived in the rehab for 6 months and then got into a sober living house, got a job and attended outpatient services for another year. Today, I am substance free and been able to repair all of my relationships, live in stable housing and have a steady job. My time being homeless was at the height of homelessness in Salt Lake City. In my experience, all of the hundreds of homeless people I met were addicted and/or had mental health issues. And some did not want to get clean or help or even off the streets. That's not to say that there aren't people who are homeless that aren't addicted, I just never met one myself.

Can't imagine how difficult it must have been. Really.. us with stable roofs and families have no idea how fortunate we are. You are really brave for having shared your struggles here. Wherever you are, I hope things are better and you still get to have the best of days ahead.

@@GregBennett Again, thanks for the honesty here. Your first-hand experience is educational to all. May I ask what was the trigger that drove you to use as a teenager? (the problem origination point) And looking back, could this trigger have been avoided, and if so how?

@@shotelco That's a question I've been asked and have asked myself many times. I don't have a great answer. I came from a single mother who moved me around the country many times. No substance abuse or other abuse in the house with me. When smoking pot was first presented to me I used it as a way to fit in and to identify with a group of people. I smoked pot addictively all through high school and it was at the center of my world. As I got older it was natural to switch to alcohol and other harder drugs. I never felt comfortable going to my mom or any other adults in my life about it because I wanted to avoid getting in trouble and learned to lie about everything in my life. Until I get clean in 2016 at 32 years old, I always lived a double life and was never honest with the people around me. If I could have been open about how much I liked smoking pot and doing other party drugs at a young age, maybe that would have helped. Maybe not.

Pls provide a source for rich people not getting housing

Someone 234 When a small crappy apartment costs 1.2 mil you gotta be pretty damn rich to afford one

@CAL HOLMAN high density housing is definitely key, but every community wants to maintain an airy, suburb home feeling... even if they are in the middle of a hugely populated city. Living the Inland Empire of Southern California, new construction apartments still refuse to go above 2-3 stories... come on folks, put in an elevator and a subterranean parking garage and get on with things.

I guess the amount of homes being burned down in fires doesn't help either. I know (and you probably knoe as well) of one RU-vidr whose house was burnt down and even years after it hasn't been rebuilt. Maybe there's some relation between that.

Yeah it's a big problem that the views of actual residents are a secondary concern, to those who want to be residents. Call that NIMBY all you want, I call it abiding by the wishes of a community. Too big of a problem is that housing is a form of investment, from the developers who build it and get rich off it, to the majority of people who buy it and use as a source of income because the "market rate" makes it very profitable. Roughly every other household in California is a rental, sure the knee jerk is "well who can afford" the reality is someone is affording whether it's some fund manager who buys apartment buildings as part of the portfolio, to foreign people with lots of wealth buying up houses along the California coast as investments.

For me my solution is number 1 housing 2treat mental illness etc.3 educate them basic things 4 trained them about skills 5 help them finding jobs.

The rate of Homelessness in NYC was pretty high back then. It was just that people were staying in abandoned buildings.

@@robertm3951 You're right, that's something else I had forgotten about. Riding northbound trains out of Grand Central thru Harlem and the Bronx, I used to see so many bombed out and burnt out buildings that it looked like German cities after World War II. Perfect for squatters. Of course I might have been looking at the results of "urban renewal" as well. It's always easier to destroy things that it is to rebuild and replace them.

@@Bruh_69_ you are some. Some is you.

Well said and you are correct.

ReadyRedRed people need money to live their lives and they can’t be wasting it all on too much taxes for drug addicts. Sure there are homeless who aren’t on drugs and they need immediate help but we need to incarcerate all those on drugs before we can get the help to them. Otherwise it’s just supporting a drug habit through taxes

Thanks!

He really is

Great comment, bro!!! Made me smile 😃

lots of good points but I dont believe in Housing first....There is something called Sober living homes for drug addicts. Once they prove themselves then housing. When in rehab they have housing. Otherwise you mask the issue and drugs continue. You have drug addicts in housing.....Problem not solved. just masked. Looks good on Paper statistially but drugs continue crime continues and people living and destroying housing.

@@mikesrandomvideos If I understood this video correctly, more people are able to afford their own housing after becoming homeless in areas with housing first policies vs therapy first.

He presented the estabishment view, ofcourse he wount shy away form suporting the status quo.

LOL i never saw him say a single controversial thing

Homelessness ist only a controversial thing in the US. The best way to lower homelessness is to offer homes. The best way to lower poverty is to give money. If you tell people they should first solve the problems caused by homelessness/money before you give them homes/money, it will always have worse results. Which should not be surprising, but meh... religious beliefs *shrug*

Why are you so hard on yourself.😢

What city do u live in and what is the gov doing to help?

How is it that you have a degree in civil engineering and can't get a job?

Do you have substance abuse issues? Any mental illness? Most homeless do. Maybe that’s why it’s so hard for you. If you do seek help.

@@ravigopinathan2835 The government got out of the business of helping people decades ago, but it's always been in the business of throwing deadbeats off the land owner's premises.

Whenever I see people advocating against poor and/or homeless people, I remember that the average person is much more likely to be homeless than filthy rich, and that they have much more in common with the person asking for spare change than the billionaires they try to emulate.

Do the money addicted gentrifiers have a time frame for when rents will be ten to twenty grand a month? And even that wont be enough to satisfy their addiction to money. Have they sought treatment for their addiction?

@@PIndyJones Both liberals and conservatives ruin everything. Perfection does not exist.

LA's homelessness problem is caused by a Democratic party government who is unwilling to get more homes built at a faster rate while spending tax payer money on "fixing" the homelessness issue which only makes things worse and then when someone comes along and tries to fix the homelessness issue for a much smaller cost, it gets shut down and people are forced to move back onto skid row. source: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-n6h7fL22WCE.html - ReasonTV

@@PIndyJones It is the business-over-morality Republicans that allow companies to buy land and houses and allow them to leave them vacant. Also, safety-net programs like SNAP and Medicaid help people to not get evicted, and Republicans have been after those programs for years.

@James Davis Use it or lose it.

PIndyJones I’m sorry, i know you see the word ‘California’ and instantly go into a Pavlovian fugue, but if you think LESS regulation is going to fix this mess, you’re smoking something stronger than what’s legal in this state (plus, there’s the whole ‘Ronald Regan shutting down the mental hospitals’ thing)

That is actually what happened. In 1967 dozens of homeless people froze to death on the streets of Helsinki within a few weeks. As a consequence local radical youths found a movement called November Movement which strived to raise awareness of the issue and their efforts eventually led to adoption of new local and government policies. Before that the solution was to sweep the problem under the rug and sentence people to (paid) forced labor for vagrancy if they were a nuisance.

You just have to look at Alaska. Homeless people do move to areas with a lot of jobs and were it is warm (California)

@@taekatanahu635 ok.

You wouldn't want to come up to Anchorage, Alaska and see the issue we got up here

Why did they shut it down? What was the opposition's argument

@@theflaggedyoutuberii4311 shortly - it was a really bad place, where drugs and violence were a usual thing. But government gave homeless housing checks to in the hotels nearby.

@@spqr1945 Make Sense

All it really did was spread out the homeless population. Nothing has been fixed, just not such an eye sore for the city to see in one place.

@@spqr1945 Of course, Chris Wyllie presents this story with limited information, to suggested that the bad, evil big government did this awful thing, "right before winter". Boo hoo. You have to dig deeper to "news" stories like this to really get the truth, not some lefty or righty exaggeration, constructed to generate anger and controversy.

I don't get it either.

👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

True!

Brilliant! 🤣👏🏼👏🏼

Don’t hate the player hate the game

And that Wall Street let them short sale large corp stocks....

The UK also has a housing crisis

Mm hmm, I'm Irish and i was homeless not up to 2 years ago for a couple months. Is really bad and we're still struggling to hold onto the house we have

Everywhere there is a commodified and privitized housing market, there is a housing crisis

@@comradesillyotter1537 It's almost as if a market for a commodity means that some people may not be able to afford that commodity.

@@Quintinohthree Bingo bango bongo

That's really high. In the Netherlands it's about 33k for 17 million.

@@rogerwilco2 Really, that's actually higher than the US... Surprising. Maybe it's just that they have less noticeable homelessness. Probably better shelters. The UK is serious. It's probably because everyone wants to live in London and it's crazy expensive. I guess nobody is perfect.

@@MatthewGraham027 10 years of a conservative government for you.

Uk: *CHOP CHOP*

How to solve homelessness?. A Soylent Green factory will be opening near you.

He does this to all his topic. He is city planner and phd student at the time.

🙄 Yeah, liberals are both the ones that want to end homelessness but they also overregulate.

Jesus taught simple greed

In Sweden, there are many laws and regulations that must be followed so it is almost impossible to build cheap housing. A lot is being built but everything is more expensive accommodation for the upper middle class and upwards. The cheap housing that exists is being renovated to a much higher standard because it is favorable for the property owner. The only people who can afford to move into the newly renovated are refugees because it is the authorities that pay the housing. Cheap accommodation is available in small towns (less than 10000) but there are no jobs and the entertainment is poor. Therefore, all young people move away. Once you have introduced rent control, it is very difficult to get rid of it without creating huge problems. The rent control has its pros and cons and then you have to have other solutions to take care of the disadvantages.

Yes, and by the same vein, free permanent housing won't work long term.

A better method of restraint on trade (after removing zoning limits and deed restrictions that stop affordable housing) would be a progressive property tax such that a landlord owning multiple properties pays a higher percentage of each house’s value in tax than someone who only owns one home. This means that landlords now have an incentive to sell to their tenants (getting a constant rent in the form of interest on a permanent mortgage) in order to reduce the overall tax burden.

Why not move

@@supermanprime1281 that’s easier said than done

Yea I have no sympathy for people who are homeless by choice tho

Jeremy Saldaña As a fellow SA resident I agree with you about the Haven, at the same time we’re facing a population boom and if we don’t address the lower housing and middle housing issues we’ve got in the the city we’re going to run into the same problems that Austin has. I feel like planning wise people wanna lean too hard on programs like the Haven as the solution to homelessness and then just stop there. There needs to be more housing solutions in general and we’re currently falling for the same luxury housing trap with new units being built that jacked up California. We need more housing options for all incomes. Like co-housing, infill housing and honestly housing first and more mental health housing solutions.

He did mention affordable housing (around 6:30 ish) but yeah

Foyoon I was talking about in regards to San Antonio

An org can be doing some helpful things and still not be getting to the root of the problem.

Do the money addicted gentrifiers have a time frame for when rents will be ten to twenty grand a month?and even that wont be enough to satisfy their addiction to money.

Didn't expect help from conservative party. With labour you can still hope.

@@paxundpeace9970 Depending on who the next leader is, yes.

@@pr0wnageify When you speak about the chronic homeless, it is a drug problem, and a mental health problem. Many of the chronic homeless won't even accept help, they want to continue their lifestyle. Problem is, it's THOSE people who cause headaches for everyone. The regular person, down on their luck and sleeping in their car is an easy problem to solve. Those folks happily accept the assistance options offered to them.

@@peterbelanger4094 The mental health and drug problems should be separated as well. The solutions are totally different. Tough love does not work at all for mental health

Vancouver is the same. The tent cities look like zombie refugee camps. To think heroin users will pick themselves up cause you gave them a one time grant to find a rental. We know exactly where that money will go. Many of them come here from cheaper cities with higher wages anyway because Van rarely freezes. So it's not just being down on luck in an expensive city. Why does California have more homelessness than States that don't try all the expensive solutions?

Bannicus it’s not rocket science to figure out that a large portion of California’s homeless migrated there after becoming homeless elsewhere for the climate.

Daniel Daniels where's the train of migration into Florida, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona etc? The warm states closer to the country's population centre? Must be some climate in California...

Under $4000 a month is wildly affordable in the US

Affordable is defined by the locale, as in what the cost of living is, wage, and hours needed to afford housing usually. Affordable housing usually counts as housing that has been set so the lower classes of an area can still realistically attain it instead of being evicted and in danger of becoming homeless. (not finding anything else affordable in the area)

There's a correlation between economic activity and price for land. You could define affordable rent as 30 percent of the median wage for the place or industry. A computer engineer in SF will find a 3000$ apartment affordable while a teacher in Sacramento would not.

Thank you! That is a relative term. To many, two to five grand a month ( and climbing) is affordable. Do the money addicted gentrifiers have a time frame for when rents will be ten to twenty grand a month? And even that wont be enough.

@@NicholasLittlejohn wow.

What he won't mention is that the highest homeless population are in liberal cities. Not a coincidence.

As a formerly homeless person, most ( though not all) homelessness is caused by addiction and mental health issues.

A lot of recently legislation in the US is anti-LGBT. Here is the problem. Imagine a family not accepting you and you can't move out because it is expensive to rent an appartment. You will end up homeless. Getting a job as an LGBT person is hard. A lot of us are underpaid, if not gifted to work in software development. I see that the restaurants in the US are now struggling for workers. But they have also abused their staff.

@@Canleaf08 which was my point exactly. LGBTIQ have the same/similar issues here in Australia, where I live. BUT our government MANDATES a minimum wage that IS affordable - here a Macca's (McDonald's)

Sorry -carry on from above. Macca's pays $20/hour. That's the ballpark figure of our minimum wage. Re being LGBTIQ. Representation is super important - I'm agender & one of my grandchildren has now come out as being non-binary. For the record I'm also bi & poly friendly and live with 3 chronic health conditions that require spoons to manage. I'm also the carer for an adult disabled son. I've had to learn when, where & with whom to be open about my identity. Sometimes you're better off NOT mentioning it as it can be counter productive. Here in Australia our pension system (aged, disabled, carer) is double what you pay such people/month. We don't give out food stamps so I have no idea how much they add to your bottom line - but I get per fortnight what you get per month! I'm lucky - my payments are pegged to the Poverty Line measure we use. But the remainder get 1/2 what I get - it's not liveable & there is pressure to increase the rate. By all means make the argument that you don't earn enough. But keep the argument to that - introducing sex & gender into the argument is extraneous. If you get enough people focusing on the amount - you'll get change in the long term. At least that's my stance - live your life, be who you are BUT have that group who do accept you for who you are so that you can fit the norms in places where they WILL hold you accountable for who you are. The more you try to change someone's opinion they more you force them to defend that opinion. And in the process of defending that opinion, that opinion gets reinforced. Things then become trench warfare, which NOBODY WANTS OR NEEDS. The best (& simultaneously worst - cool, huh) thing you can do to such people is to succeed & have a good life IN SPITE (or despite) them.

The problem is due to the commodification of housing, not the supply. There are multiple times more empty houses than homeless people

@@comradesillyotter1537 Yeah and they're technically still owned by someone. And that also depends where you are. Detroit vs NYC for example.

@Revolutionary Communist Mmm... maybe on a small scale sure. And for those living in them have it be temporary, as subsidized housing was intended to be; a stepping stone to helping you get back on your feet instead of how it is now, where people living in those units are multigenerational now.

@Revolutionary Communist Agreed mostly. But when do we draw the line on what the income cut off should be? It's not fair to have someone making $35,000 a year living in those places when someone who's underemployed making $12,000 can't move in cause the first guy is taking his potential spot. Or like I said it becoming multigenerational, where the families living in them could be considered upper middle class due to a lack of expenses and a higher amount of income from more people living in them at once. And no the profitability of a home owner renting their property should not have theirs be to the likes of a hotel, but it's still their property and people have a right to make money off them. Maybe if municipal governments didn't always overestimate the property value of properties as a way to garner higher property taxes rents also wouldn't be so outrageous. Cause I'm willing to bet that homeowners charge what they do as a way to offset their property taxes.

haha, thanks for noticing!

This is the same concern i have when i hear politicians only talk about housing. And everything you said is true. Mostly because, i think, it's a logistical nightmare to properly house the homeless because of the myriad of ways a person becomes homeless. Comprehensive facilities that offer all services are very expensive. Cultivating partnerships with employment agencies, counseling and education programs, rehab centers... it's a lot and all are important.. and expensive.

Perhaps a two pronged approach would be better at preventing the reasons you might evict someone. Housing first, alongside mental health and addiction services for those individuals that would be considered chronically homeless. Although, taking information from the video, these cases would still be a minority. And while I understand your concerns, I don’t know how anyone can expect an individual to reinsert themselves with the rest of society (job, stability, security) without having a home. It’s certainly possible, but it’s such a hurdle for people already fighting an uphill battle that it can’t be expected of everyone.

JohnS Corey I always think of issues as, if a solution could help some people, then it’s worth it to be implemented

@@ShaudaySmith on the other hand, a constant police presence, legal consequences and jails, which are the consequences of not housing folks, are even more expensive than housing people

JohnS Corey You’re letting your specific experience cloud your judgement of the overall picture. The people most likely to be your clients aren’t a snapshot of the entire homeless population. About half of chronically homeless people don’t struggle with addiction.

@Eric T. Meeks I agree. I've always felt there were at least three populations of homeless people, each needing their own solutions. Damaged people who need to be cared for, poor people who need a helping hand, and people who have opted out of the system - who are, by definition, on their own.

@Eric T. Meeks The thing about the San Antonio model is like the video said: it often doesn't solve the problem it just puts the homeless people in one area out of sight out of mind. If that's the end goal, then fine, but that simply isn't good enough if you want to solve the homelessness issue. Housing first solutions are usually paired with permanent supportive housing, which is housing that has supportive services (like case management and mental health treatment) offered in conjunction. This approach is very effective at tackling the homeless issues cost effectively.

@Eric T. Meeks It makes me about the actual situation in BC. Is the issue one of homelessness persistence in that once people become homeless they remain so for a long time despite these programs? Or is it a problem of persistently high homeless volumes in that despite the programs helping many people successfully transition back to a stable situation, the rates haven't dropped because the supply of new homeless people is so great? If it's the latter, I wouldn't call the program unsuccessful since that would mean it was doing exactly as intended by transitioning many people to housing. In that case, the high cost would be unavoidable because the program would be serving many more people than one would normally expect in a single city of that size. The only way to address that would be to seek federal and provincial funds to help with a problem that really is of national scale. It's only if the issue was the former that I would call it ineffective.

I think if they are managed well and tied to services, they can help!

@Revolutionary Communist Can you please rewrite that last sentence? It is incoherent.

@@CityBeautiful see Community First in Austin, first 3D tiny houses too 👏🏼

💯

But plenty people want to turn said temporary state into a permanent personality trait.

Moving to a less expensive state is the answer not living in his car or street

Judy Elmayan while I do think that is a solution for some people it is only really a possibility if you have the money to travel to a new state. On top of that, it can very difficult to get a secure job in a place you have never been to before and more challenging with the added fact that you would be leaving behind the complete network of people in your life and would have to build a new support network of colleagues and friends. The housing prices are rising in almost every city in the US too, so even if California has the highest prices many other desirable places aren’t too far behind.

Why don't they move to New Mexico or Kansas or some other low cost place?

@@NicNac723 You are making lots of excuses. Is this how you conduct your own life? No. You solve your problems yourself. Are ALL of the homeless orphans? Do they have NO family to help? Are their families sick of them, too?

Betican! Get your friend some emergency SNAP benefits ASAP. It's not a lot but careful management can really make a difference on the grocery bill. It is a PITA to apply but at least now you can do it online (though, to get them fastest, probably best to go in and plead your case)

Agreed. They have the infrastructure already there. Would only have to modify the wash rooms to have showers.

But trains *do exist* in Southern California. MetroLink has seven lines and 62 stations operating on 534 miles of rail network serving Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties, as well as to Oceanside in San Diego. In L.A., there is the metro rail. I'm a staunch supporter of publicly funded mass transit. But there are larger, geographic, cultural and societal issues at play. Most U.S. cities were not planned around public transportation, they were un-planned around personal auto transportation. Moreover, just review many of the comments here on this topic. A very large percentage of Americans have zero sympathy for their less fortunate, or less privileged fellow citizens. This has to do with how the culture evolved around rugged individualism, cut-throat competition, personal and social validation by gross consumption, fear, ignorance, etc. Trains do not address the fundamental flaws in the society. I wish it were that simple.

California doesn't sound like it should be able to sustain large populations. Earthquakes are frequent, so building up is far more expensive. Housing cannot be as dense without skyscrapers, so I would think urban sprawl is just a natural consequence for the region. Basically, housing in California should be expensive because it is limited, desirable, and difficult to build on. If housing in California is unaffordable, then don't live in California.

shotelco - LA is too dependent on the car. This is creating an affordable housing crisis. The two options, build up or out. Since up is extremely difficult, I choose to recommend an out that would be more reasonable. I agree with your societal problem. I see smaller communities as a way to limit the worse in society.

@@KurtJohn3 "up" isn't extremely difficult -- at least from an engineering standpoint -- it's politically difficult. Zoning laws limit where residential and high-density (skyscrapers) can be built.

Jay Lee It's slightly more complex than that, I live in California, if we just build more housing the most it might do is bring more people that might be considered wealthy. I think the key is to create high density housing for people that might be considered low income. Increasing housing would help reduce rent costs, but we also need to direct some housing to low income, (i.e. Housing first as he states in the video). Also, due to how our cities are spaced out, and how 60s suburban style culture basically complicated the housing cost issue, we don't have enough space to make more houses, (we are restricted geographically as well), plus demand here skyrocketed because of the internet boom. Also, this internet boom has created demand for people of low income, (i.e. janitors, cooks, etc.) So having a large amount of housing reserved for people of low income or people that might have made some bad turns in their life would actually help so much.

@@KrishnaDasLessons What you are describing sounds a lot like the public housing projects that turned out to be a disaster and fell out of favor. The problem is that there was never an adequate replacement

The inhumanity of saying that you don't deserve to have shelter if you use drugs is so astounding to me. If there's anything more encompassing of America than its racism, it's this type of cruel callous attitude towards other people.

​@@moosesandmeese969 you've clearly never dealt with a drug addict. here's an idea lets build build a homeless shelter full of drug addicts in YOUR NEIGBORHOOD and see how you like it and the guy didn't even say they didn't deserve homes but some people are beyond helping.

Yes, UK will definitely be short money what with not having to give money to the EU.

I'd vote for him!

Please get this big.

Is he from Sacramento?

@@LTay12 yes

I was looking for this comment, fuck yeah

It would be funny to see a massive housing complex built in the middle of a Walmart parking lot (and potentially on top of the big box stores). This is exactly the kind of thing we need

How else would Wall Street eat babies?

Having a Sanctioned Space, to let people put up tents. Access to WiFi and electricity. Then figure out what made them homeless in the first place. Then address the actual issue. (The last time I was in a shelter, they tried to falsify documents saying I wasn't disabled.) (But I was.) (Not to mention the drama, drinking, noise, and no place to rest your mind.) -Most of the advice I was given was just: "Get a job. Any job. Even if it doesn't pay for anything."

@James Davis decommodify housing

@James Davis I'm not asking to take away anyone's personal property rights. TOPA and rent stabilization have been held as constitutional across dozens of court cases over decades. More market rate supply is needed for middle class people in many cities, yes, but will never affordably serve the bottom 30% of income earning people.

The "housing-first" approach has a few critical flaws: 1. It's incredibly expensive. The cost has a direct correlation with the population of the area that they are trying to address this in. His claim that it's less expensive than allowing the person to be homeless due to the cost of those other programs is a flawed argument for a few reasons. a. Those other programs don't actually do anything to prevent or resolve the issue. They are simply relief/aid programs. It's not an apples to apples comparison. b. Even a cursory thinking through of this shows how ridiculous the claim is. What would you think is more expensive? Trying to rent out an old motel with 80 rooms that can be shared amongst 2-3 people each (how shelters typically work)? Or trying to provide a proper home/apartment for each of those ~200ish people ("housing-first")? The math doesn't check out. c. This will tie into point 2, which I'm about to lay out, but anyone who has been a long-term drug user/abuser/dependent--or known one--can tell you how practical it is to expect them to uphold basic responsibilities with regard to earning an income, paying bills, maintaining their living space, etc. Short answer: it isn't. The idea that these housing-first programs can be successful for someone who isn't either clean or at least undergoing rehab/counseling/therapy in tandem with such a housing program is just preposterous. 2. The lack of stipulations and codes of conduct in some of these examples may look good on paper, but ask any landlord with 10+ years of experience what tenants are like. Ask them what the difference between high income and low income tenants is like. Since they aren't here for you to do that, I'll sum it up with a quote from Robert Heinlein, "Something given has no value." You can fully expect tenants in these housing-first locations to trash the place, destroy the walls/furniture/fixtures/appliances etc., and there's no accountability. 3. These social programs often tend to just be money pits for tax payers that often have poor or negative results. You might argue that if you're going to wield the arm of the government to combat homelessness, you might be better off putting caps on rents and lowering taxes so people can use the money they earn to afford to live. You have to appreciate the irony that the high taxes someone pays to fund programs to fight homelessness might contribute to their inability to pay rent, causing them to become homeless. The state is aware of this, of course, because the people in power are not benevolent agents. They do it for money, power, control, prestige, etc. They know that if their policies grow homelessness, they then get to put in more policies to "combat" it, and secure a dependent voter base in the process--one that would fear these people's political rivals revoking these support programs should they get elected. I know people like to meme on the "socialism is bad" concept, but in truth these kinds of problems are often caused and "addressed" by the same people--the "empathic" social democrats. This really is an area where fiscal conservatism (not capitalism in particular) wins out. Lower taxes. Lower rents. Look for ways to deflate the currency rather than inflating it. Speaking of obvious problems, this video is from an idealistic college student. He's correct to point out the differences in efficacy between different approaches, but he fails to adequately cover all the ground necessary to really lay out the pros and cons of each side. I suspect this is because he aims to persuade people a certain way rather than to be objective in his research and reporting. Lastly, the timing on this video couldn't have been worse. He's bragging about the decline of homelessness in Feb of 2020--right before the mass lockdowns went into effect. I doubt I need to explain this point. We've all felt it in varying forms and degrees.

@@AlbinosaurusR3X "COMMUNISM IS THE FUTURE!" "ALL WILL BE SAVED!"

CA throws money at it and the homeless charities get rich.

More people = more productivity

Just for reference, Finland's GDP expenditure on defense is 44% that of US GDP defense spending. So maybe 66% of that greater productivity could be used more productively? Call me crazy, but 40,000 homeless veterans doesn't sound like a great defense strategy.

I saw this first hand when I worked as a Bird scooter recharger. I'd see the same 20 or so people begging for money, then their drug dealer would come around and sell them drugs. Twice a day, at 10 am and at 2 pm, regularly as can be. 100% of the panhandlers are drug and alcoholic addicts, but I can also see that most homeless aren't, and they fairly quickly get back on their feet.

I'd love to see Dr. Pinsky's citations for his claim about the character of the homeless population. I'm using federal homelessness statistics. Where's his data from?

@@CityBeautiful The government's own website has 2/3 of homeless with a history of drug usage. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4833089/ However, does taking a few drinks in the past six months really qualify as drug abuse?